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

291–300 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#291

Post by rootusrootus »

intrasight wrote: post #143
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.

Probably not to zero - accidents will still happen. But I agree with all your points. I'll elaborate with: a) during transition, human-driven cars must be instrumented. Automatic moving violation for speeding. b) automatic moving violation for driving a non-instrumented vehicle in a zone where they are mandatory.

I would be stunned to see this happen in the US. Culturally we are a long way from accepting such draconian ideas and I don't see that we're getting closer. And even as liberal as I am, I'm glad.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#292

Post by Symbiote »

closeparen wrote: post #118
Symbiote wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road? I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield? [1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...

That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out. Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?

> That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate?

No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless.

It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary.

> "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1]

The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#293

Post by 111_1_111 »

Fricken wrote: post #107
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…

Why do we grant special entitlements to people who opted to use two tons of steel to move one person? That sounds to me like a reason to place heavy restrictions on their behavior. There's an implicit assumption somehow being in a car makes you more important than someone who isn't. And any argument that presumes a pedestrian is wasting energy over someone who has chosen to drive in a car is absurd.

We didn't grant any special entitlements. Cars can't drive on the sidewalk, and pedestrians can't walk in the street. Hopefully, it should be obvious why we have this separation.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#294

Post by rootusrootus »

konschubert wrote: post #71
kozak wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to get less motion sickness when they are in control of the motion (i.e. drivers are not as susceptible to motion sickness as their passengers). So in this future world you might still be allowed to hold the steering wheel (if you paid for the option of having one in the car at all), but the car will take control from you immediately as soon as it decides that someone might be in danger (just like some pr…

People take busses and trams and trains with no issues. There aren't any steering wheels for all passengers to hold.

I try to be careful in where I sit on the train so that I can keep my pain to just a mild headache and maybe a little sweating. Just because I don't vomit on you nor complain out loud about the suffering doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#295

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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?

Yeah. Something like that would solve so many problems.

We could really hide the rails underground and at last free the roads again for people to use, like the article says it was in the 1920's. We could reduce automotive accidents to a bare minimum, which btw is the main selling point of self-driving cars, far as I can tell. We could reduce pollution by a factor of 10, probably, which is the much bigger problem that the industry isn't try to sell a solution for - because more cars are not exactly what you'd call a solution to it. We could make our cities places for humans, rather than noisy, dirty, polluting, often deadly machines. But, no. We gotta have more cars. Because you can't stop the march of progress.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#296

Post by maxerickson »

whatshisface wrote: post #113
Tiktaalik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Abruptly stepping in front of a vehicle is basically already illegal in the US. So no need to pass laws, except maybe to clarify the use of recordings from the vehicles as evidence.

Of course that won't stop the behavior completely but it won't be a free for all either.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#297

Post by rootusrootus »

ocschwar wrote: post #226
Overtonwindow wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A freedom you can only exercise with a license.

Nothing stopping you from driving without a license. Sure, there are consequences to getting caught, but people drive all the time without a license. It's a bit different than not being able to catch the train or bus because the nearest stop is miles away.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#298

Post by Sharlin »

pwaai wrote: post #250
dionidium wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Personal cars are already banned in the centers of many cities. Or if not forthright banned, heavy congestion tolls levied. As it should be. It's about your freedom to drive vs. my freedom to not suffer from the negative externalities your driving causes.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#300

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

nkoren wrote: post #234
neves wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of crimes and AI drivers I always think of people using drugs or making sex in driverless taxis.

And then you remember that as part of the passenger safety case for driverless taxis, there will necessarily be cameras and microphones and the ability to lock the doors and redirect the taxi to the nearest hospital or police station, right? When we were building the Heathrow Pod[1] -- which is effectively an autonomous taxi system -- this was an objection that people raised all the time. In practice, it took approxi…

So it will be illegal to have sex at the back of an autonomously driven car?
Post reply on HN