Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 324 posts

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#191

Post by wongarsu »

jcpst wrote: post #97

Where I live in the US, people simply do not stop at pedestrian crosswalks. It doesn’t matter that there’s a large fluorescent sign, and bold white stripes on the road, and a person waiting to cross. I’ve even had a police officer drive straight through while I was waiting to cross. But it seems like they’re respected if you install large flashing lights that the pedestrian can activate.

> But it seems like they’re respected if you install large flashing lights that the pedestrian can activate.

What's the point of that? At that point just turn it into a proper traffic light that's always green (or off) and when activated turns red for cars and green for pedestrians.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#192

Post by scubbo »

ljm wrote: post #86
scubbo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. When I first moved from the UK to the USA, I assumed that "jaywalking" was a made-up thing that you warned tourists about, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear . How could crossing the road be _inherently_ illegal, even if done in a safe manner!?

Roads in the US aren't as safe to cross - you wouldn't take a shortcut across a dual-carriageway in the UK and that's just 2 lanes in each direction. Walking is just an afterthought really, until you get into certain areas like South Beach in Miami.

> Roads in the US aren't as safe to cross

This is true on average, but not a justification for jay-walking being a crime on roads which _are_ safe to cross.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#193

Post by tpmoney »

digital-cygnet wrote: post #147
trothamel wrote: post #79

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadwa…

I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as places for cars to drive. In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking regime remains: road users w…

In any shared transportation space, you need rules for right of way. When two modes of transport want to occupy the same exact space, someone has to be given a priority for the space at any given time. Almost all right of way rules require that the smaller and/or more maneuverable vehicle gives right of way to larger less maneuverable vehicles. Examples of this: Trains have right of way, always. On water, jet skis must give way to boats which must give way to larger boats which must give way to ships. Every rule I've seen on cycling requires pedestrians to give right of way to bicycles.

And more generally they almost always require the vehicle most able to prevent a collision to yield right of way to all other vehicles. Cars turning across or into traffic must yield to oncoming traffic. Cars making U-turns must yield to cars turning into traffic (to my understanding because a U turn crosses 2 directions of traffic, where a turning into traffic crosses 1). A car making a turn at a stop must yield to pedestrians already in or entering the road, because a stopped car merely needs to stay stopped to avoid a collision while a moving pedestrian must stop moving and clear the way first.

Designated crosswalks by their very existence imply "this is an area you should be especially aware of pedestrians", which by nature makes it easier for a driver to avoid causing a collisions. If cross walks have been provided, it only makes sense to require pedestrians to use them if they want prioritized right of way.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#194

Post by frob »

tmnvix wrote: post #186

You should be thankful it was just jaywalking. In Kaplan, Louisiana they've now made the simple act of walking after 11pm illegal. https://www.klfy.com/local/vermilion-parish/kaplan-starts-pe...

Holy crap! That article is full of low-level facistic quotes:

> “I was approached by a couple of citizens asking if there was anything we could do about certain people walking around at night riding their bicycles,”

"Certain people"

> “The curfew would more or less be at the officer’s discretion,”

Cool, so you're explicitly giving cops a legal reason to harass people if the cop thinks they looks suspicious. I can't see how any subconscious or overt bigotry could come into play here.

> “The chief noticed a big influx of bicycle traffic during the night and people walking around, [...] It’s not usually a good thing when that happens."

> "Louisiana is a stop-and-identify state, so that ordinance is not really to hurt anybody it’s just to stop these people walking that have no reason to be walking,”

Yup! Sure doesn't hurt you at all for your existence to be criminalized and your mere presence on the street to be probable cause for the cops to harass you.

> "There’s a fraction of people that believe that is infringing on people’s rights, but at the same time, I think people can sit back and put a little perspective on the situation and agree that the good simply has to pay for the bad right now,”

Something, something, possibly apocryphal quite about trading freedom for security and deserving neither.

> "that ordinance is not really to hurt anybody it’s just to stop these people walking that have no reason to be walking,”

Sir! Step back and lie on the ground! Your feet are a threat to the State of Louisiana! I'm going to need to confiscate them and you along with them.

Fuck these fascists and the spineless politicians who enable them.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#195

Post by tmnvix »

robocat wrote: post #159
jcpst wrote: post #97

Where I live in the US, people simply do not stop at pedestrian crosswalks. It doesn’t matter that there’s a large fluorescent sign, and bold white stripes on the road, and a person waiting to cross. I’ve even had a police officer drive straight through while I was waiting to cross. But it seems like they’re respected if you install large flashing lights that the pedestrian can activate.

New Zealand: At zebra crossings with no traffic island, stop and give way to people walking on any part of the crossing or who are waiting to cross. From: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersect... NZ also has courtesy crossings: Courtesy crossings are usually made of bricks or paving or raised above the level of the road. A courtesy crossing is not an official pedestrian crossing, but to be poli…

> The justice system is definitely very unforgiving towards anyone that actually hits a pedestrian.

I have to disagree. Where I live in NZ a local elderly couple were run down by an impatient driver turning into a quiet side street. One died, the other was critically injured. The same driver had recently accepted fault for hitting and injuring a motorcyclist.

The sentence? 250 hours community work, $15,000 to the family as an emotional harm repayment, attend a defensive driving course, and disqualification from driving for nine months.

I might add that the driver was a very wealthy businessman (so the monetary amount is likely insignificant).

Nine months is ridiculous in my opinion.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/wellington/132178677/driver...

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#196

Post by callalex »

Fricken wrote: post #172
zelon88 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting this to be some kind of David v Goliath story, but this is the real world. Cars don't stop as fast as feet. Everybody is a pedestrian sometimes but not everyone is a driver. You can say accountability belongs to one or the other but one is gonna walk away and one isn't. Personal responsibility should take precedent over right of way. You cannot regulate or control others, but…

An estimated $597 per U.S.household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair. That's a $597 donation from every non-driving household to every driving household, annually. https://pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Who-Pays-for-Roa...

Presumably all those people have their food delivered from the farm to their house on foot? If they ever have a heart attack they will call EMTs to run to them with a stretcher and walk them to the hospital? And they built their home and furniture with trees felled on the lot they live on?

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#197

Post by jeffbee »

willsmith72 wrote: post #146
jcpst wrote: post #97

Where I live in the US, people simply do not stop at pedestrian crosswalks. It doesn’t matter that there’s a large fluorescent sign, and bold white stripes on the road, and a person waiting to cross. I’ve even had a police officer drive straight through while I was waiting to cross. But it seems like they’re respected if you install large flashing lights that the pedestrian can activate.

I like to act like I'm about to start crossing and only stop at the last possible moment in these cases. That way at least 50% of the time they or someone else in the car freaks out. I hope it teaches them. Even if you can't see anyone, if there's a pedestrian crossing, especially in an urban area, just slow down in case.

If I see someone who definitely saw me, and definitely decided to not stop, then I take a big step right out in front of them.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#198

Post by tim333 »

giantg2 wrote: post #62
tim333 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has no jaywalking laws (apart from full motorways) and about 1/3 the pedestrian deaths of the US ( https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/10/exactly-how-far-u-s-s... ). There are other ways to do things.

Might I point out that driver testing is more stringent in most of those countries. This can also partially explain lower vehicle fatalities as well, even on higher speed roads like the autobahn. Road design and other technical factors can help, but at the end of the day, ignorant or stupid people will still make stupid choices. Edit: why disagree? We should be focusing on education and testing for the best improveme…

Having driven in the various countries I would say road design is probably the biggest thing. Testing is probably way down the list.

Kind of https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w1300-q80/upload/58/85/6f/shutt... vs https://mobycon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/IMG_20190725_... - that's not quite a fair comparison but that kind of thing.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#199

Post by lelanthran »

munk-a wrote: post #174
lelanthran wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B. That's a very simplistic view - it was never questionable and no one was "given preference". It was simply a practical decision in order to allow cars to use the road. The car took a few seconds to stop from even a pedestrians walking speed. The pedestr…

> It's a no-brainer that the party to yield should be the one who can yield. Alternative no-brainer - the new entrant to street traffic that doesn't have the handling or control to safely co-habitate the street with existing users shouldn't be allowed onto streets. They should instead be restricted to specific and limited long distance routes that actually take advantage of their ability to travel many miles an hour…

>In short, walk or take a tram to your parked car if you need to drive it to the next town.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Without allowing vehicles on roads (and the jaywalking laws that came with it), deliveries to the high-density places where people live , or to city centers, would be limited to what can be drawn on a horse and carriage.

Those laws specifically benefited those people who live without cars.

The high-density car-free life you dream of would never have been possible had your "no-brainer" alternative been adopted - you can't transport that much goods, that quickly, and that often, and that reliably with horses alone.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#200

Post by jodrellblank »

chrisco255 wrote: post #184
digital-cygnet wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as places for cars to drive. In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking regime remains: road users w…

Of course not, but the same right-of-way concept applied to horse and buggies sharing the same street and streetcars on rails, not to mention railroads, which certainly zoomed by pedestrians in many urban areas. If you want it back to the old way of chaos on the streets, then you'll have to admit that horses would regularly shit all over the street and pedestrians would have to be far more careful in another sense as…

> "pedestrians would have to be far more careful in another sense as they crossed busy roads of buggies, streetcars and early autos zipping around with no lanes or traffic lights."

In the old days if an early auto hit you and killed you, it would be the driver's fault. Pedestrians were pushing back on cars because they were so deadly; from the article: "The November 23, 1924, cover of the New York Times shows a common representation of cars during the era — as killing machines. (New York Times)". It was automakers who deliberately propagandised and lobbied to shift public perception of blame from the person in control of the heavy machinery in a public place, to victim blame the pedestrian.

> "The modern system evolved because it made sense"

No, it evolved because it was profitable (to the automakers) and beneficial to the rich (more likely car owners) and powerful (white / preferred a country residence and a drive into town, but didn't like a streetcar letting poor black people out to the suburbs). Automakers colluded to tear up Los Angeles' electric streetcar network - the largest on the planet - and scrap it. They were found guilty in court and fined ... $1. That's not because it made sense, that's to make people more dependent on their products.

> "Cars have to follow rules, too, and have to stop at intersections, yield at crosswalks, obey speed limits, etc."

Yet they still put out fumes which affect the residents of the area they drive through, while not affecting the driver inside the car. These fumes kill a 9/11 equivalent of people every 9 months in the UK[1]. They put out noise pollution which worsens the education and health of those around and the noise pollution effects kills someone in Denmark every day or two[2], but the driver is insulated from it. They could have had to be routed around pedestrian areas, living areas, and yield to pedestrians at all times, mandatory park and ride on the edge of urban areas with bus and tram and metro transit in the pedestrianised centers - which would have made sense in various ways and been beneficial for the majority, but inconvenient for the wealthier minority of car drivers. Cars don't obey speed limits in a lot of situations; people drive some combination of the speed others are driving, what they think they can get away with, or what feels safe for the design style of the road.

The USA is up to a 9/11 of car accident deaths every two weeks.[3] Compare the response to that, to the nationwide implementation of the TSA and changes to air travel after 9/11.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116

[2] https://www.brainfacts.org/Thinking-Sensing-and-Behaving/Die...

[2] https://forcetechnology.com/en/articles/traffic-noise-danger...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Post reply on HN