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

How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#111

Post by adrianN »

clairity wrote: post #103
mlinksva wrote: post #27

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

let's make walking and biking cool, but not at the expense of fast personal transport (cars). the best solution isn't to try to slow down the cars but rather to make mixed-use urban areas the default so that walking and biking become the norm. you also get all kinds of other benefits with that (less traffic, healthier air, more fit people, etc) i agree that driving qualifications should be more strict, but probably i…

I the city cars are already not much faster than bikes. For distances below 10km or so there is hardly any difference. During rush hours bikes are much faster.

I'd wager that you can reduce the top speed cars are allowed to travel significantly before the effective speed goes down by much, especially if you can improve traffic flow by e.g. vehicle-vehicle communication.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#112

Post by pkulak »

clairity wrote: post #103
mlinksva wrote: post #27

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

let's make walking and biking cool, but not at the expense of fast personal transport (cars). the best solution isn't to try to slow down the cars but rather to make mixed-use urban areas the default so that walking and biking become the norm. you also get all kinds of other benefits with that (less traffic, healthier air, more fit people, etc) i agree that driving qualifications should be more strict, but probably i…

We'll always keep roads with high speed limits just for cars (highways). But this expectation that you should be able to drive within your neighborhood at 50 mph is not sustainable.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#113

Post by whatshisface »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #96
jdhopeunique wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make autom…

Absolutely. I see this here on hacker news with people excited about the notion of doing away with stop lights so that AI traffic can flow easily. People are completely ignoring the existence of pedestrians and cyclists. It would not be surprising to see a new crime of "hindering an autonomous automobile" be lobbied for.

It's only a matter of time before some stupid kids start jumping in the way of self-driving cars to make them brake hard. That's when we'll see the anti-pedestrian regulations appear, by my estimation.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#114

Post by Steltek »

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #37
dahart wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Streets are for cars and sidewalks are for people! That didn't used to be true. I'm fascinated by ideas that become so canonized, so ingrained that you can't even imagine the alternatives. > This article tries to make this seem like a pedestrian dystopia compared to the good ole days when kids could frolic in the streets. Well said, we do live in a pedestrian dystopia now. I love that many urban areas in the US and…

I have found, in NYC at least, bicyclists are a much greater hazard to pedestrians than cars. Bicyclists don't follow traffic rules, veer centimeters away from you while speeding through painted crosswalks, ignore both car and bike-specific traffic lights. I have been nearly hit by bicyclists several times in the last year, and never had any problems with cars. And, in at least two cases, the bicyclists yelled at me…

A cyclist would have to try very hard or be negligent/unlucky to kill a pedestrian. When it does happen, as in Central Park, it makes national news because the average occurrence across the entire US is less than once a year. Meanwhile, thousands of pedestrians die annually from drivers texting/drinking/road-raging. It's hard to see how bikes are the greater hazard.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#115

Post by Spivak »

a-priori wrote: post #36
meri_dian wrote: post #24

This is silly. >"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history" The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation. No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the roa…

Okay that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion to have. But it's just one way things can work. Another way, is to give pedestrians priority and expect drivers to exercise due caution to not hit them the same way they do other cars or trains or ambulances or whatever. In an alternate universe where the laws had ended up with pedestrian-priority being the norm, then you'd be coming in here saying "Cars shouldn't dri…

(In my state) Pedestrians already have absolute priority. Whether their move is legal or not if you're in a vehicle you must always stop for a pedestrian in the road.

> now you're proposing we vacate them for the convenience of drivers

This argument already happened and would probably go the same way if it happened again. The value proposition for vehicles is too strong. I agree that's it decreases pedestrian liberty to an extent but our current system allows for cars to reach their destination much faster and doesn't meaningfully impact walk times.

I will agree that having walk-only city centers is a good idea. Just so long as there is ample parking on the border.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#116

Post by jrowley »

mieseratte wrote: post #79
DiThi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment. Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. S…

I cannot imagine mandatory tracking devices, anonymous or not, ever being mandatory in the United States. That would never fly.

Maybe not mandatory but otherwise you’re liable so your insurance company requires it.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#117

Post by maxxxxx »

whatshisface wrote: post #113
Tiktaalik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I see this here on hacker news with people excited about the notion of doing away with stop lights so that AI traffic can flow easily. People are completely ignoring the existence of pedestrians and cyclists. It would not be surprising to see a new crime of "hindering an autonomous automobile" be lobbied for.

It's only a matter of time before some stupid kids start jumping in the way of self-driving cars to make them brake hard. That's when we'll see the anti-pedestrian regulations appear, by my estimation.

That's a good point. I can totally see how as a kid I would have tried to mess with self driving cars.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#118

Post by closeparen »

Symbiote wrote: post #105
closeparen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?

What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road? I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield? [1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...

That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate?

Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out.

Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#119

Post by rainbowmverse »

logfromblammo wrote: post #89
mlinksva wrote: post #27

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

I think the answer to pedestrians versus cars is the same as for cars versus trains: grade separation. Turn the sidewalks into elevated walkways. Or use pedestrian tunnels underneath the road surface. Pedestrian crosswalks are a money-saving measure, ignoring one of the many externalities involved in automobile manufacture. Cars simply should not be driving on pedestrian walkways, and pedestrians should not be walkin…

Underground tunnels have a mythos of danger surrounding them. Somehow a tunnel as long as the width of the road is supposed to be a hiding spot for a mugger.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#120

Post by Steltek »

logfromblammo wrote: post #89
mlinksva wrote: post #27

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

I think the answer to pedestrians versus cars is the same as for cars versus trains: grade separation. Turn the sidewalks into elevated walkways. Or use pedestrian tunnels underneath the road surface. Pedestrian crosswalks are a money-saving measure, ignoring one of the many externalities involved in automobile manufacture. Cars simply should not be driving on pedestrian walkways, and pedestrians should not be walkin…

Umm, sidewalks are a separate right of way with significant barriers (parked cars)? Most train crossings are at-grade and use simple traffic lights. In congested areas, they install gates that prevent cars from barreling into trains.
Post reply on HN