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

241–250 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#241

Post by coolaliasbro »

Brakenshire wrote: post #139
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…

We could end up with roads dedicated to cars being separated from roads dedicated to pedestrians or cyclists. You could imagine if a city was designed from scratch the vehicles could move around almost in tunnel-like back-alleys, with periodic embarkation points into pedestrianized open plazas and boulevards. If Musk's reduction in cost of tunnelling is more than just a pipe-dream, then you might be able to retrofit…

> vehicles could move around almost in tunnel-like back-alleys, with periodic embarkation points into pedestrianized open plazas and boulevards.

Sounds an awful lot like a subway or lite rail system to me. I've never understood the fascination with self-driving cars and what they imply for PT--how is such a system superior to a well designed and maintained train system?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#242

Post by msla »

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…

I agree. Cyclists are a serious danger, primarily because they don't believe they're a danger, and so they take more risks around people who are following the rules.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Cyclists are not pedestrians.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#243

Post by sf_rob »

randomdrake wrote: post #70
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.

> slow down cars in urban areas This is actually happening. Portland has recently fallen in line with other cities, like Seattle, and lowered thousands of miles of streets from 25 MPH to 20 MPH. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portla...

Portland is also re-purposing in town red light cameras to issue speeding tickets.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/red-light-cameras-can-catch-yo...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#244

Post by dionidium »

pwaai wrote: post #238
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.

> 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. What about people who genuinely love t…

> What about people who genuinely love to drive cars & ride motorcycles?

I suspect we can find a place for them outside of our most densely populated urban cores. The popularity of cars isn't in itself a scandal. The scandal is that cars still enjoy undue priority in places like Midtown Manhattan, it's that urban neighborhoods were destroyed and divided by interstate highways, it's that most cities no longer function properly for the carless.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#245

Post by notyourday »

gamblor956 wrote: post #134
jrowley wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Several states already have laws preventing that requirement. In those states, location-tracking must be opt-in, and must offer an economic benefit to the policyholder.

Silly rabbit. We jack up the price without a location tracking and offer a 10k incentive to do location tracking.

No location tracking = new policy price

Location tracking = new policy price - 10K.

New policy price = old policy price + 10k

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#246

Post by macintux »

freeflight wrote: post #192
macintux wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies mandating pedestrians carry a beacon? That's even less likely.

They don't need to mandate it, at least not at first. They can just incentivize it the right way and people will willingly jump on board. "Install this app on your phone to make traffic lights recognize you when you approach them, for a timely shift to green light" "Install this app to collect pedestrian-points, exchange points for prices and discounts!" "Get a better insurance tier for installing this app which trac…

If you're relying on a smartphone to host a beacon, isn't that already a solved problem?

Smartphones are radio transceivers, I would imagine any anonymous beacon technology wouldn't be noticeably louder than what smartphones are already emitting.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#247

Post by andys627 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #137
andys627 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe from cars hitting people - but how about death from obesity and environmental degradation of suburban auto-oriented lifestyle as compared to urban walkable/transit oriented lifestyle.

There have been massive increases in quality of life as a result of cheaper, faster transportation of people and goods. Anything can be made to look like a massive net negative with the one-sided comparison that it's fashionable to apply to cars, social conservatives, and a handful of other topics around here.

Both points definitely true. I guess my argument is you can accomplish the same (probably more?) massive increase in quality of life without the suburban auto dependent monoculture. Look at quality of life (especially with regard to ease of mobility) of some bike infrastructure leaders like Copenhagen versus SF Bay Area where you pretty much have to own a car.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#248

Post by akira2501 »

mc32 wrote: post #102

Point taken. However, when new tech comes along, new laws follow in their wake. When people moved from farm to city and suddenly we had massive amounts of worker abuse, labor laws got introduced. Barnstorming aviation gave way to regulated aviation. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar in that it's a reaction to change in the operating environment. I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally…

> I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc.

It's also worthwhile to consider all that cars have added to our society. People stayed in the streets because that's as far as they could go. Vendors came to the streets because that's where their customers could get to. Travel was limited, the movement of goods was basically nonexistent compared to today and "moving for a job" was not even a possibility for the majority of Americans.

We introduced cars, then made them faster because that enabled more of what we wanted for ourselves, and sure, we made a sacrifice in that trade but I don't understand this modern trend of decrying our future for love of navel gazing through the past.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#249

Post by revelation »

Digit-Al wrote: post #237
revelation wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Actually, there are many visually impaired people who can, and do, drive. As an example, I know a woman in her sixties who is classed as visually impaired. She can see well enough to get herself about but she can't make out peoples faces until she is fairly close and has to have a magnifying glass to read even fairly large text. She has been assessed as safe to drive, but is excluded from driving at night.

Well, there is a lot of rational thought (and frankly human lives) sacrificed at the altar of the personal automobile. Limousines with 200 hp, huge trucks with bull bars but can't see the pedestrian to the right, sound systems, entertainment systems, licenses that expire never, are checked never, 20% percent of space in SF for storing huge heaps of metal for >90% of the day but "there is no space" and people can't make rent, ..

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#250

Post by pwaai »

dionidium wrote: post #244
pwaai wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What about people who genuinely love t…

> What about people who genuinely love to drive cars & ride motorcycles? I suspect we can find a place for them outside of our most densely populated urban cores. The popularity of cars isn't in itself a scandal. The scandal is that cars still enjoy undue priority in places like Midtown Manhattan, it's that urban neighborhoods were destroyed and divided by interstate highways, it's that most cities no longer function…

> I suspect we can find a place for them outside of our most densely populated urban cores.

That seems unconstitutional and a bit like North Korea where they restrict cars to specific areas and ban it in others.

Post reply on HN