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

201–210 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#201

Post by CaptainZapp »

sharpercoder wrote: post #133
clairity wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The concept of jaywalking is great for busy roads with high speed traffic. 30MPH+ (50KMPH+) roads should become much better and faster by reducing the amount of pedestrian crossing significantly. Slower roads (max 20MPH/30KMPH) should be bicycle and pedestrian-first. Cars there should be "guests" catering to the slower non-motorized traffic. This way we have the best of both worlds: nice & livable urban roads and fas…

That probably won't endear me to the general commentariat, but...

  Slower roads (max 20MPH/30KMPH) should be bicycle and pedestrian-first.
Spot on! 100 points!

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#202

Post by pmyteh »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #180
pmyteh wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. So I don't think that's true.

If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is there a statute under which they could be fined? The "jaywalking law" in my state is that you have to use a crosswalk if it's within 300ft. In practice this means that you either use a crosswalk, or cross the street in a reasonable manner at a reasonable time. It's like speeding. If you behave reasonably you have nothing to worry about. The US…

> If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is there a statute under which they could be fined?

No.

There is semi-binding guidance called the Highway Code, which includes sections for pedestrians (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes...) but there are no criminal or administrative penalties for not complying, except for Rule 34 (railway level crossings) which carry a criminal fine.

Crossing the road in a dangerous way is discouraged by education ("The Green Cross Code") and by the obvious downsides of getting hit by a car. If you do something stupid you may well get a bollocking from any passing police officer, but no fine.

edit: The Highway Code is actually a very good example of (kinda) law which is sensible, well-expressed, easy to read and well-illustrated. Well worth a look.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#203

Post by mieseratte »

geofft wrote: post #164
mieseratte wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice, where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes, and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just c…

I'm going to assume this is a good-faith argument and not a "bury them in BS" reply:

> This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice.

Sure, that's a very reasonable counter-point, however not everyone does.

> where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes

Plenty of folks find asking a wiretap for pancake recipes fine, and there are plenty that balk at the thought. This Christmas my sister bought everyone Amazon's cute little NSA Listening Post™ - was fun how quickly the look of disgust crossed their face when I explained that every conversation would be recorded and store in Amazon's data centers... and probably a few three-letter agencies.

> and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world.

There is an insanely large leap between having an ID for a few specific purposes and being mandated to carry a homing beacon.

> they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist.

The post I replied to did not state "to use the roads" - it stated general use of mandatory beacons. You're moving the goalposts.

> And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation?

If the AppleMobile hits me because I don't carry an iPhone, you can best believe they will be sued into oblivion. Remember, this is litigious America!

The Evangelical community would surely denounce a mandatory tracking device as the work of the Antichrist, and I would love to watch politicians shit on that high-turnout demographic.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#204

Post by jdhopeunique »

adrianN wrote: post #184
whatshisface wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Self driving cars are not magic and judging their braking distance is not much easier than with a human driver. I think kids trying that will quickly find out that it's not too hard to make an autocar hit a human. In other words, I think the problem would quickly solve itself.

In bad neighborhoods, the carjackers(might not want a autonomous car though) or robbers might just roll a beach ball into the street to stop the car or maybe just a cheap open umbrella. I can imagine those people who practice "rolling coal" doing the same thing to rich autonomous car riders or just throwing a beach ball out the window on an interstate. Lots of possibilities that security researchers will need to consider.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#205

Post by donatj »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #170
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 truly cringe at the thought of a ban on human drivers. There's a considerable amount of freedom in that ability to get in the car, and drive. Otherwise you're beholden to a machine, a corporation, and likely, a government. Trapped and unable to go anywhere unless they authorize it. Aside, you might find this short-fiction story from Vice interesting: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xygzvz/one-star

This is a huge deal to me that keeps me up at night.

I already see this with public transit. Public transport is a method of population control. You can keep classes of people confined to their neighborhoods simply based on how and where you choose to route buses/trains.

I can get in my car and go anywhere. That to me is the true spirit of America.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#206

Post by adrianN »

jdhopeunique wrote: post #204
adrianN wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars are not magic and judging their braking distance is not much easier than with a human driver. I think kids trying that will quickly find out that it's not too hard to make an autocar hit a human. In other words, I think the problem would quickly solve itself.

In bad neighborhoods, the carjackers(might not want a autonomous car though) or robbers might just roll a beach ball into the street to stop the car or maybe just a cheap open umbrella. I can imagine those people who practice "rolling coal" doing the same thing to rich autonomous car riders or just throwing a beach ball out the window on an interstate. Lots of possibilities that security researchers will need to cons…

Rolling a ball on the street is probably enough to stop human drivers as well. Is carjacking that much of a problem where you live? I've never heard of anybody being carjacked here. I guess you could equip your car with one of these devices if you're concerned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#207

Post by gknoy »

mieseratte wrote: post #203
geofft wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice, where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes, and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just c…

I'm going to assume this is a good-faith argument and not a "bury them in BS" reply: > This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice. Sure, that's a very reasonable counter-point, however not everyone does. > where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes Plenty of folks find asking a wiretap for pancake recipes fine, and th…

> every conversation would be recorded and store in Amazon's data centers

I agree with everything else you wrote (I think?), but I thought that the Echo only transmitted things it recognized directly following the activation phrase?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#208

Post by BearGoesChirp »

vijayr wrote: post #39

Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the pedestrians! In what world is this ethical? What is next? Sending overdose…

> In what world is this ethical?

How many people would be willing to let someone else do their job for them when the cost is adding a little extra bias, something that isn't even a big deal in a single case (but which adds up over time)? It feels like ethics will quickly take a back seat for some small boon.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#209

Post by frabbit »

landryraccoon wrote: post #189
adrianN wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bikes aren’t faster than cars for the elderly, the vision impaired, handicapped people or small children. I’m all for more bikes and more bike routes, but cars offer more independence for a lot of movement restricted people.

The vision impaired and small children should not be driving anyway. And depending on the "handicap" and the age-related abilities they may also be detrimental to safe piloting of a vehicle. The solution is public transport. (Or tandem bicycles).

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#210

Post by revelation »

landryraccoon wrote: post #189
adrianN wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bikes aren’t faster than cars for the elderly, the vision impaired, handicapped people or small children. I’m all for more bikes and more bike routes, but cars offer more independence for a lot of movement restricted people.

I hope the vision impaired and small children aren't driving cars. And all of these groups would be helped much much more by not designing cities around cars, in the 95% of hours in the day where they are not in cars and need to navigate every day life.

A $60k retrofitted transporter van isn't exactly the definition of "independence".

Post reply on HN