How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking” • Hacker News Board

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#261

Post by justincormack » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

In the UK jaywalking doesn't exist; technically people still have right of way on roads, but try telling that to a car. In the 1930s, when the first footbridge over a road, Western Avenue in London was built, there were protests:

The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain

In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic".

On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level".

In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it".

In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins".

The war brought and end to the protests, and for a few years the traffic.

(from Leadville: A Biography of the A40 by Edward Platt)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#262

Post by geofft » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #221

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…

> After all, these beacons not mandatory - they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. If you don't, you can drive your car like any real (read: non-poor) American, or use a taxi or bus. You just wrote two things: 1) Pedestrians and bike riders should wear beacons or aren't "real Americans". 2) Poor Americans aren't "real Americans". Are those what you meant to write?

Yes, that's what I meant to write. Note that those are not my personal opinions (as a pedestrian, cyclist, and non-car-owner, I'd like to think I'm as real an American as anyone else), but I do think they are common opinions in America.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#263

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #245

gamblor956 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Any insurer which raises rates to pay for this would quickly lose most of its business unless they're (a) the only insurer in the state or (b) convince the rest of the insurers in-state to collude on pricing. The first isn't the case of any state with respect to auto insurance, and the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate.

And that's assuming they can get away with the rate increases in the first place. States like CA have insurance commissioners empowered to review and reject rate increases.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#264

Post by geofft » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

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…

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

Sorry - my reading was that it was in reply to "Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road," and so I thought you meant "beacons that are mandatory if you're near a road and don't want to be hit." If you mean "beacons that are mandatory just to be a human in America at all," then sure, I think that's going to be a much harder sell, but I'd also argue that the post you were responding to doesn't require such beacons.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#265

Post by BoorishBears » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

justincormack wrote: post #261

In the UK jaywalking doesn't exist; technically people still have right of way on roads, but try telling that to a car. In the 1930s, when the first footbridge over a road, Western Avenue in London was built, there were protests: The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". Th…

In my state (Connecticut), pedestrians have the right of way, but Jaywalking is a crime.

It makes sense, having the right of way won’t save you if you decide to dart out in front of a car without warning

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#266

Post by robocat » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

btrettel wrote: post #182

dragonshed wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is in the need for a shower and change of clothes afterwards.

Transportation cyclist in Texas here. The need for showering is overstated, I think. Even with the summers here I only know one cyclist who would take a shower after cycling, and they only do so for their training, not their commute as far as I know. If you ride at a comfortable pace and are in good shape, I find that a quick 5 minutes in the bathroom to freshen up is plenty, if it's even necessary. I usually wipe sw…

By your description, your "5 minute freshen up" isn't included in your travel time...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#267

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:16 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #132

logfromblammo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Elevated walkways? Half my city doesn't even have traditional sidewalks today, who's going to agree to pay to elevate them? Around my area, people don't walk for pleasure, mostly, they walk because they're too poor for a car and the public transit system is terrible. Forcing them to climb stairs (assuming they're even physically able; a fair number of pedestrians near here are in wheelchairs) to get out of the way of…

You only need to grade-separate the crossings. There are plenty of examples of pedestrian overpasses for busy streets. You can get around a big area in lot of major cities without ever crossing a street at surface-level, but as already mentioned, it is expensive.

(Though I can't imagine people being happy about going up and down stairs, escalators, or elevators every time they want to cross a street.)

The necessity arises from the car-drivers, so you charge them for the pedestrian safety measures, just like you charge them for the creation and maintenance of limited-access highways.

Without crosswalks, there is no pedestrian-crossing phase needed in the traffic signals, so separating the two types of traffic simultaneously makes cars faster and pedestrians safer. The question really is how much drivers would be willing to pay to shave that last minute off their commute.

If you look at projects like Boston's "Big Dig", the answer is that they are willing to spend quite a lot [of other people's money].

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#268

Post by robocat » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:20 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #202

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

An exception is motorways, where pedestrians would get fined ( bicycles, mopeds and horses are not allowed either).

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#269

Post by jopsen » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #206

jdhopeunique wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I guess flame throwers are somehow cooler than installing bullet proof glass :)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#270

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #259

clairity wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

put the cars underground, not the pedestrians. let the cars go fast and let the people stroll in the sunshine.

Digging out extensive underground road infrastructure is very expensive. Ask Boston residents if they'd like to do a second Big Dig on a much larger scale to bury the streets. Elevated walkways would be vastly cheaper, but still infeasible on any current budget. You would end up having to rebuild the lobby of most buildings to be on the second floor, and probably turn the first floor into parking. It feels like one o…

On the other hand, the downtown area of Chicago was raised up from natural ground level in the 1850s.

Seattle was raised in the 1880s.

A portion of Atlanta was raised in the 1920s. They actually did rebuild new lobbies on the upper floors, and a lot of the old storefronts are still intact down below.