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

271–280 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#271

Post by clairity »

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…

i lived in boston during (the tail end of) the big dig and remember the excess costs were largely due to corruption and maybe some incompetence. look at how much nicer it is there because of it. i'd vote for it again in a heartbeat (with some better processes and oversight of course).

but yes, underground infrastructure is expensive (maybe the boring company will help drive equipment costs down), but we're a rich nation and we want nice things. i think we can do it if we want to. plus, it creates working class jobs and that makes the economy go 'round.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#272

Post by jopsen »

jackcarter wrote: post #174
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.

In Chicago, at least, that would be implicitly legal, unless the car actually hits you: 9-60-060 Pedestrian crossing. [...] (b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/o...

Well, if the car doesn't hit you, then clearly there was enough time for the driver to yield :)

So you get get punished if it hits you? Or how does this work...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#273

Post by pmyteh »

robocat wrote: post #268
pmyteh wrote: post #202

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? 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).

Yes; motorways (and other 'special roads') are restricted. It's not a matter of crossing them, though - just being at the roadside is an offence.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#274

Post by mieseratte »

geofft wrote: post #264
mieseratte wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "beac…

I suppose this all hinges on what "near roads" means.

To me, that includes pedestrians walking on a city sidewalk who might jaywalk as the TFA that started this whole conversation is talking about. Now the only way you can ensure folks have that device is to mandate for everyone. Of course in the US it isn't nearly as common, but I know plenty of city-dwellers without cars. IANAL but I'm having a hard time believing a mandatory beacon would pass Constitutional muster, let alone public support.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#275

Post by Johnny555 »

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.

You can have it both ways -- add a new light state (or just use flashing red all the time) that self-driving cars can ignore.

All other road users have to stop and the light cycles normally. (and during this specially triggered light cycle, even self-driving cars need to stop)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#276

Post by taneliv »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #136
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…

> If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I doubt that attitude will ever catch on. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems to me that there's a healthy suspicion about AI drivers. So far at least, the attitude taken by, well, everyone , is that AI drivers are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. If AI drivers ca…

When 80-90% of car driving population have switched over to AI driven cars, the focus of Ludditism probably shifts to something more emerging technology and the great majority of people will just nod their heads in unison with those lobbying automakers.

It is not particularly difficult to imagine the general public swaying even to some opposite extreme, supported by some reasoning like "he probably did something wrong to get killed, the AI cars make very few mistakes."

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#277

Post by nitrogen »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #254
sigstoat wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carjacking vehicles with constant internet connections and GPS's doesn't strike me as an extremely profitable maneuver. the whole "car detects obstacle in an untrafficed area, stops, door is opened, passenger gets out, passenger gets back in, changes destination to a place not proximate to anywhere they've ever been before" process also sounds like the sort of thing that would justifiably raise a bit of a red flag. m…

Dump to whose cloud? I'm not sure I want my car dumping data about my travels to something not under my control.

Many cars already do, unfortunately.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#278

Post by nitrogen »

coolaliasbro wrote: post #241
Brakenshire wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Where do I find a subway that gives me a private cabin where I can leave my things, and still find them there on the trip back?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#279

Post by sundvor »

Lukeas14 wrote: post #186

Not surprising to read that Los Angeles was the starting point for jaywalking laws. Still today, it enforces them harder than most other cities. Try running across an empty street with no crosswalk for 1/4 mile in either direction in front of a cop. It's likely that you'll still receive a fine citation. I'd like to see it replaced with an "impeding traffic" law that would only apply if you're actually putting yoursel…

Wow, didn't know it was that bad. In Australia, as a ped (pedestrian) you may cross at any time when you're more than 20 metres away from a pedestrian crossing - if closer, you may get done. It's pretty darned rare for a police officer to charge you though, it'd almost have to a be a "safety blitz" or for the person to have their head down in their phone whilst doing so.

Seems much more sensible, and reasonable - basically you're technically free to cross as long as you're not immediately next to a pedestrian crossing, in which case use that.

Pedestrian crossing light control system is heavily geared towards cars, though, as pressing the button never changes the current cycle but merely says we'll consider your needs at the next check point. These intervals may be several minutes long (at least that's what they typically feel like).

I'm comparing this to Norway when pressing the button often has a rather immediate effect.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#280

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

sigstoat wrote: post #239
btbuildem wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just kids - it's a perfect way to carjack someone.

carjacking vehicles with constant internet connections and GPS's doesn't strike me as an extremely profitable maneuver. the whole "car detects obstacle in an untrafficed area, stops, door is opened, passenger gets out, passenger gets back in, changes destination to a place not proximate to anywhere they've ever been before" process also sounds like the sort of thing that would justifiably raise a bit of a red flag. m…

I think the idea is that they'd stop the car, incapacitate the driver, grab what they can and run like hell.

Besides, if we're talking about this happening in the "bad" parts of town, the car can call 911 and broadcast is position all it likes. There won't be any immediate response.

Finally, people who do this long enough will eventually figure out what to disconnect to allow themselves enough time to do what they want with the car- like today's car thieves do with modern car alarms.

Post reply on HN