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

281–290 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#281

Post by xefer »

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...

That's interesting, because Cambridge, MA made a big deal about lowering the limit to 25 MPH in 2016 - which is still way too fast for most neighborhoods. I'd much rather see it taken down to 20 and even 15 for side streets. The funny thing though is, I haven't noticed one iota of difference in the speed that cars are actually traveling.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#282

Post by chc »

a-priori wrote: post #123
meri_dian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not understanding the situation. The nature of all parties involved means that what we have now is the optimal compromise. Given the inertia of cars, starting and stopping frequently takes tremendous energy. Cars having to avoid pedestrians would waste tremendous amount of energy. Also when you're driving you're focused on what's in front of you. People darting to and fro on the street is almost impossible to…

Oh hi, it's alternative-universe-you here with a rebuttal. Optimal for whom? Why should I as a pedestrian have to wait or take an alternate route (e.g. a cross-walk) just to save you a bit of time and energy? Why is your time more important than mine, just because you're driving a car? Why is a pedestrian's safety less important than a bit of energy? These are people we're talking about! If there are limits or ineffi…

You seem to be attacking a straw man argument along the lines of "Drivers should hit pedestrians whenever possible." The actual question here is whether pedestrians should be limited in their use of roads (e.g. having to use crosswalks), which is not answered by points like "Why is a pedestrian's safety less important than a bit of energy?" and "If I were to run on foot through the streets, tackling anyone who got in my way…".

Obviously cars should not hit pedestrians, but IMO it doesn't make sense to have the slow group getting in the fast group's way all the time. The time and energy needed for me to go 15 miles without a car is much, much greater than the time and energy it takes for me to wait at crosswalks when I'm walking places. You could weigh pedestrians' time and energy twice as heavily as drivers' and you still end up with it being better to have many (not all, but many) roads be primarily car-places.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#283

Post by rootusrootus »

mieseratte wrote: post #220
gknoy wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I might have exaggerated / misspoken in saying that, but at the same time it hinges on you trusting that the manufacturer is A) telling the truth and B) that device has not been compromised. It is fair to say that it is always listening. Also possible, is that a device positioned in the kitchen helping being used to lookup a recipe could overhear a sensitive conversation in an adjacent room.

I would bet that the Echo and devices like it are amongst the most monitored consumer devices in existence. Plenty of people either already have enough network monitoring to catch it misbehaving, or will install that monitoring just for the sake of catching it. In a weird sense it's like open source software in that regard. I haven't read all the code myself, I really on group knowledge to reassure me. Same for Echo. As a practical matter the Echo and other similar devices are difficult to turn into full-time listen-and-record devices unnoticed.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#284

Post by freehunter »

jopsen wrote: post #272
jackcarter wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes. If the car hits you because you stepped out in front of it and the car did not have time to stop while going the speed limit with a driver paying attention to the road, the pedestrian is at fault and can be ticketed. If you don't survive the encounter, at the very least the driver doesn't receive a ticket.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#285

Post by rootusrootus »

frabbit wrote: post #209
landryraccoon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Except that one of the big upsides of autocars is this demographic of people. And many (most) places in the US are not conveniently served by public transit. Heck, I live in one of the better places (Portland Oregon) and even in the core of the city it's going to be easily 2x as long to take PT anywhere vs a private car. IMO the big promise of autocars is the potential for eliminating mass transit along with all it's annoyances.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#286

Post by freehunter »

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…

Granted I don't live in LA, but I've visited many times and I'm surprised by this comment because it doesn't match my experience. I"m much more familiar with Chicago, where a taxi cab will jump a curb just for the chance to run down a pedestrian. Meanwhile every time I've tried to cross a road in LA, the minute I lift one foot off the ground while standing at a crosswalk, traffic in both directions comes screeching to a halt with drivers waving me on against the light. I've found drivers in LA to be far more lenient to the random whims of others (pedestrians and drivers alike) than most cities I've visited.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#287

Post by zolthrowaway »

klibertp wrote: post #121
eloisant wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, do you need to hold a steering wheel when you take the bus?

Motion sickness comes from the conflict between your eyes and the part of your ear which tells you which way is up and lets you stay in balance. It is way less of a problem in big vehicles where you have a lot of things and people to look at, which experience the same forces as you and so move the way your brain expects. Being in control of these forces is another way of aligning what you perceive and what your brain…

Could a windowless vehicle help this? If the car is in control, there's really not any need for windows. I know we are a very long way from that level of autonomous cars, but I don't think motion sickness is the biggest hurdle we will need to overcome. There is room for a lot of creative solutions.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#288

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

nitrogen wrote: post #278
coolaliasbro wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Would a private locker at a station, do?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#289

Post by rootusrootus »

sf_rob wrote: post #243
randomdrake wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

If they actually start issuing tens of thousands of speeding tickets as a result, someone is going to successfully use Oregon's initiative system to ban those cameras altogether.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#290

Post by raverbashing »

Joe-Z wrote: post #14
raverbashing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At current city density scales? It wouldn't work New technologies require new ways of organizing things, in the same way nothing is expected to take precedence from a train in a shared crossing. It is technologically infeasible Did the automakers invent 'crossing a red light' as well? Did they invent the parking meter?

>New technologies require new ways of organizing things... I think it's pretty clear by now that organizing whole cities around the automobile was a huge step in the wrong direction and the sooner we begin to correct it the better. Just look at Copenhagen as a shining example of a city that began re-focusing its traffic on actual people (and not f *ing metal boxes taking up way too much space) decades ago.

Yes, I've been to Copenhagen and they still have traffic lights and pedestrian lights

The fact that you're not prioritizing the car doesn't mean you can leave pedestrians and cars to self-organize

Post reply on HN