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

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

virginiamercury.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 459 posts

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#171

Post by bluecalm »

umvi wrote: post #21

Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart. These aren't…

The idea is that you should make it easier and more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists at the cost of cars because cars in the city make our lives miserable, especially cars driving fast. The fewer and slower travelling cars there are the better city life is. Better as in healthier, more comfortable, pleasant to be outside and safer.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#172

Post by pavon »

chrisseaton wrote: post #69
umvi wrote: post #21

Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart. These aren't…

Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car? Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path? Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path? Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance.

Because if cars are being driven at a speed where they are actually useful, then basic physics dictates that it is not safe to mix cars and pedestrians. The car can only stop so quickly, and you must also factor in that both the pedestrians and drivers are humans and will make mistakes in gauging distance, speed, visibility, and will not always have ideal response times. The legal "right of way" cannot ignore reality. To avoid deaths it is far better to designate areas where cars have right of way and where pedestrians have right of way and clearly mark them.

I agree that the US infrastructure doesn't do enough to support pedestrian and bicycle transport. Expecting people cross only at intersections that are a half-mile apart is unrealistic. Expecting people to cross at a cross-walk that is 5 yards away is not. Crossing just beyond an intersection is the most dangerous possible place to cross due to inherently poor visibility, and all the competing demands for attention that drivers and pedestrians encounter around an intersection. This isn't a matter of rights or relative importance, its a matter of physics and human ability.

Wishing away all the cars is not practical solution, which is what your post essentially amounts to.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#173

Post by mamon »

maccard wrote: post #135
vorpalhex wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. I was making a right turn on a 40mph road on a green light. There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road. And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, cove…

> You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. You're being ridiculous here. Nobody is asking for that, they're asking for sensible road design and sensible rules. > because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT W…

>> You're being ridiculous here. Nobody is asking for that, they're asking for sensible road design and sensible rules.

Oh, you'd be surprised what "city activists" can devise in their stupid heads in my country. Their recent idea is: driver hiting pederastian should always be at fault, even if a drunk pederastian is suddenly jumping in front of their car, from behind the parked car or other obstacle.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#174

Post by putnambr »

pdonis wrote: post #142
rwhitman wrote: post #125

This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

> if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault

I'd be wary of this. A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle. Say someone gets hit and is thrown twenty feet when crossing at an unmarked intersection (which in most municipalities is still a valid crosswalk). It's hard to reconstruct the scene to prove that the ped was in the crosswalk when hit. A safer perspective would to err on the side that the driver is at fault in any instance. You could also argue that the driver has assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make before getting behind the wheel.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#175

Post by 1MachineElf »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #80
maxmorlocke wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.

Is it possible that "people of color" account for 90% of the total people who jaywalked in NYC in 2019? Unless all data and all variables in the argument are made available for inspection, it is difficult to derive any meaningful conclusions.

In the case of Baltimore, it certainly seems that way.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#176

Post by ericmcer »

woodruffw wrote: post #100

We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. The criminalization of jaywalking is one major aspect, but also consider: 1. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (dis…

Car free cities are super obtainable but seem like a total impossibility. We will never trade safety, health and solitude for convenience.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#177

Post by bluntfang »

Leherenn wrote: post #124
jawns wrote: post #52

My first year of college, I was cited for jaywalking. I was walking across a barren street in our small college town on my way to class, and there was a town cop standing against a wall of a nearby building waiting for an easy catch. I had fully crossed the street and was walking to a nearby building when I heard someone yell "Hey" behind me. I contemplated not even turning around, because I wanted to get to class on…

Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.

related, in Seattle it's generally only illegal to not wear a bike helmet if you're homeless

https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#178

Post by pdonis »

putnambr wrote: post #174
pdonis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

> if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault I'd be wary of this. A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle. Say someone gets hit and is thrown twenty feet when crossing at an unmarked…

> A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle.

This is true today, so how do such cases get handled today in jurisdictions where jaywalking is illegal?

Note that I am not proposing changing the current presumptions of guilt if there has been an accident, only the rule about what cops are allowed to write a ticket for if there hasn't been an accident.

> You could also argue that the driver has assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make before getting behind the wheel.

And you could argue that pedestrians have assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make when they choose to walk on public sidewalks and cross public roads. I don't see that this helps either way.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#179

Post by sonotmyname »

ericmcer wrote: post #176
woodruffw wrote: post #100

We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. The criminalization of jaywalking is one major aspect, but also consider: 1. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (dis…

Car free cities are super obtainable but seem like a total impossibility. We will never trade safety, health and solitude for convenience.

> safety, health and solitude

Funny, those are 3 of the main reasons I live way out in the nearly-rural suburbs instead of in downtown San Francisco.

It seems like some of us have made that trade, just not in the direction you're hoping for.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#180

Post by bluecalm »

hmottestad wrote: post #65
msla wrote: post #26

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. There was a fair bit of discussion a few years ago about how someone jogging in the dark would dart across a zebra and then drivers had to slam on the brakes not to hit them. As a driver though, most roads to my right have the right of way. So if there is a road to the right where the view is blocked by some bushes or a house ... I will slow down just in case a c…

Genuine question: don't pedestrians have the right of way on crosswalks/zebras everywhere? I thought it's the very idea of having the crossing in the first place.
Post reply on HN