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

301–310 of 324 posts

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#301

Post by gilbertbw »

julian_t wrote: post #295
dm319 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law in the UK has just changed to explicitly give priority to pedestrians already crossing the road, particularly in the context of a car turning off a main road and finding pedestrians crossing the road.

I'm regularly finding that people don't seem to understand the "already crossing the road" part. On several occasions I've had people start to cross a few feet in front of me when I'm indicating and have already started turning, causing me to stand on the brakes and risk a shunt from the car behind.

The Highway code states that those waiting to cross also have right of way

> At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#ru...

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#302

Post by Mawr »

tpmoney wrote: post #254
_dain_ wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how it works in the UK. There is no such thing as "right of way" on a road in the way you have described it. It does not refer to any kind of legal priority of one kind of road user over another. You will sometimes hear irate motorists complaining "you can't do that, I had the right of way!" but it doesn't mean what they think. The "right of way" simply means that the public has a right to use the way, by…

>Recent revisions of the Highway Code put about a hierarchy of road users, but opposite to the one you have put across. Smaller, slower, more vulnerable road users have priority over larger and faster vehicles. Should we take this to mean that pedestrians may enter the flow of traffic willy nilly and drivers will always be found at fault in a collision? I assume not. To me what I've been able to find sounds an awful…

With great power comes great responsibility. The responsibility for operating a dangerous vehicle lies on its operator, not on everyone else.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#303

Post by Mawr »

_dain_ wrote: post #207
tpmoney wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

This is not how it works in the UK. There is no such thing as "right of way" on a road in the way you have described it. It does not refer to any kind of legal priority of one kind of road user over another. You will sometimes hear irate motorists complaining "you can't do that, I had the right of way!" but it doesn't mean what they think. The "right of way" simply means that the public has a right to use the way, by…

Additionally, cyclists in the UK are not required to use dedicated bike paths.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#304

Post by Mawr »

giantg2 wrote: post #177
justajot wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The designs of most cities in the U.S. absolutely treat pedestrians as second class citizens compared to automobile traffic. I'm currently working on a project that demonstrates exactly this (among other things) in Dallas. It's both sad and amusing how true it is.

Is there any example? It seem a hard argument to make when pedestrians have the priority as soon as they step into the crosswalk.

The best example is that even your curious question comes with a car-minded implicit assumption that it's the pedestrian who is crossing, not the car. In a pedestrian-centric design, cars are the ones who cross. See https://youtu.be/_ByEBjf9ktY?t=690.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#305

Post by brewdad »

nthngtshr wrote: post #255
aidenn0 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also true in many parts of the US, including California.

Genuinely curious — is there some jurisdiction where the law is "if the pedestrian is in the wrong it's fine to go over them"?

I really wanted to test this idea last weekend at a crowded festival in a town center. I had been waiting for a spot since parking was basically impossible to find. As I was halfway into the spot, a woman ran up and placed herself an inch from my front bumper while calling her friend four blocks away to tell them she had a spot. I was still blocking the travel lane partially and she refused to move even when I closed that inch down to mere millimeters. I may have even tapped her slightly.

If I hadn't been 1500 miles from home I would have gladly continued moving forward at idle speed or just left my car where it was and gone on my way but any legal hassles would have been extra painful having to travel back and fight it. As it was after about 5 minutes of this, a spot opened up two spaces over and I was able to slide over and grab it.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#306

Post by aidenn0 »

brewdad wrote: post #305
nthngtshr wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious — is there some jurisdiction where the law is "if the pedestrian is in the wrong it's fine to go over them"?

I really wanted to test this idea last weekend at a crowded festival in a town center. I had been waiting for a spot since parking was basically impossible to find. As I was halfway into the spot, a woman ran up and placed herself an inch from my front bumper while calling her friend four blocks away to tell them she had a spot. I was still blocking the travel lane partially and she refused to move even when I closed…

Crosswalks near High Schools tend to be rather bad as well; the other day I saw a teenager start crossing (walking, not running) when there were 3 seconds left on the countdown. Then one of her friends called out to her from behind while she was in the middle of a travel lane that, by this point, has a green light. She stops, turns, and has a good 15s of back-and-forth conversation before completing walking across the street.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#307

Post by Mawr »

wredue wrote: post #155
maest wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cyclists don’t use them anyway This claim is so ridiculous is invalidates everything else you might be trying to argue, come on.

My dash cam filled with video of cyclists riding in a car lane beside a protected bike lane, and otherwise ignoring signage (stop and yield signs, signs stating road exceptions where bikes must use and share the sidewalk with pedestrians instead of the road) is definitely not ridiculous. Also hilariously “why do cyclists not use the bike lanes” is a top alternative question result when searching bike lanes. Clearly t…

Okay, are you talking about protected (physical separation) or unprotected (paint on the road) bike lanes? The latter are unsafe [1][2][3][4][5] and therefore unused. It's usually safer for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane (primary position) than to use the unsafe unprotected bike lane.

> Protected bike lane implementations often congest and slow traffic, which increases idling and carbon emissions no matter how many people say they’ll bike if it was safer. They won’t get their fat ass off out of bed 40 minutes earlier. You’re kidding yourself.

As this goes against everything I've ever seen and read, I'm gonna have to request some citations. Induced demand has been well understood for decades, and yes, the more (safe!) biking infrastructure gets built, the more people bike and the fewer cars end up on the road.

> -in colder climates, they’re useless for 50% of the year and exceptionally increase carbon footprints

Mhm. https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=112

> -some cities don’t actually observe reduced injuries from protected bike lanes (often because cyclists are extremely prone to ignoring the rules of the road), and cyclists disregard their own safety and get slapped by a turning vehicle, for example. We often see the excuse that “cars should pay more attention” and they should, but also, motorcyclists have built a sentiment that you have to “ride like you’re invisible”, whereas cyclists tend to “ride like you’re the king of the road”. This is not just a car problem, but an arrogant community with a lack of self preservation problem.

No, it's an infrastructure problem. Safety must be built into the transportation system by design. Cyclists ignoring the rules of the road are irrelevant when they barely have to interact with cars in the first place (rules of the road only exist because of cars).

[1]: https://youtu.be/dO8XqqZK-XQ?t=63

[2]: https://youtu.be/dO8XqqZK-XQ?t=78

[3]: https://youtu.be/LjWbSpVnI8A?t=156

[4]: https://youtu.be/Fztvoxj_pds?t=77

[5]: https://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ?t=75

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#308

Post by Mawr »

wredue wrote: post #39
_aavaa_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they did not make the cars inherently safer. A red light does not stop a driver from driving through a pedestrian crossing when people are there. Speeding laws do little for the bikers in unsegregated bike lanes, mere inches away from an inattentive driver.

Maybe I’m just thinking outside of the box here, but how exactly do 3,000 lbs pieces of metal and glass become safer for people crossing the street in an addressable way by auto makers, when it’s the buyers demanding larger and larger vehicles? On segregated bike lanes, I’m afraid to tell you, cyclists don’t use them anyway, so why on earth should anyone focus on putting them in?

Buyers buy what's available and automakers comply with regulations. It's the regulations that need changing.

Apparently in the US, it's easier for automakers to meet the efficiency requirements by increasing the weight of their vehicles instead of actually making them more efficient.

Moreover, crash testing does not include crashes with pedestrians.

The results are predictable - the rise of big, heavy, wall-like-bumper, limited visibility pedestrian killing machines.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#309

Post by Gud »

3seashells wrote: post #276
jcynix wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I too agree with norms in general, there is such a thing as common sense. And common sense might tell you that waiting at a lone traffic light in the outskirts of a town in the early morning, sun rising, no car in sight for some hundred meters in each direction, does not add value to society?

It adds reliability, unconscious adherence to rules, a reduction of friction. I don't want people to jdrive in pedestrian only zones, just because nobody is up and about. Chaos is a mental taxation, ditracting from endavour.

There is no chaos to jaywalking because jaywalking should be the default. Only in non-pedestrian cities is jaywalking taxing.

I come from a city where people jaywalk(Stockholm). Jaywalking makes the city extremely walkable, and quite frankly I suspect it was designed with jaywalking in mind. It is obvious when someone is not from Stockholm - they wait for the signal.

I don't get the ease of jaywalking in many other large cities I've been - Zürich comes close. In the UK, even crossing at a green light feels dangerous.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#310

Post by nthngtshr »

aidenn0 wrote: post #260
nthngtshr wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious — is there some jurisdiction where the law is "if the pedestrian is in the wrong it's fine to go over them"?

I was interpreting GP as talking about "who is supposed to go first" not "Can I run them over intentionally." The latter is not allowed anywhere in the US. However, I have seen cops giving a pedestrian a ticket for crossing right next to a giant "No Crossing" sign as they were being loaded into an ambulance. At that particular section of the street the assumption was that the driver did not intentionally hit the pede…

ah, fair point
Post reply on HN