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

311–320 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#311

Post by notatoad »

clairity wrote: post #103
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.

let's make walking and biking cool, but not at the expense of fast personal transport (cars). the best solution isn't to try to slow down the cars but rather to make mixed-use urban areas the default so that walking and biking become the norm. you also get all kinds of other benefits with that (less traffic, healthier air, more fit people, etc) i agree that driving qualifications should be more strict, but probably i…

>the best solution isn't to try to slow down the cars but rather to make mixed-use urban areas the default so that walking and biking become the norm.

hopefully you're not suggesting that cars should be travelling 50km/hr in mixed-use urban areas? Because "slowing down the cars" is a synonym for mixed-use area. That's the same thing, if you continue with car-only roads there's no need to slow down the cars.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#312

Post by jacquesm »

725686 wrote: post #12
gambiting wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already true in many places, in a lot of European cities you see a sign like this when entering: https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg And it basically means that pedestrians have an absolute priority before cars, they can walk on the street as much as they like and you as a driver have to exhibit some extreme attention because if anything happens, it's 99% certain you will be found at fault.

Is that sign real? It is awful design. The meaning is complete obscure to me.

When you have many languages to contend with and limited space images attempting to illustrate a concept are still more useful than words. The EU is such a place. That sign means 'woonerf' to me in NL, in Germany it would be read as 'Wohngebiet' and so on.

The idea is that this is an area where people live, and where cars, playing children and pedestrians can be expected to mix. To drivers this is a strong indication that they need to take great care when maneuvering because just about anything can happen. Typically the sign is accompanied by an explicit speed limit of 10 or 15 km/hour, or, alternatively it is encoded in the local bylaws but that doesn't really help for visiting traffic.

The whole idea behind traffic signs is not that you can decode them if you have never seen them before (though that is a nice benefit if you can have it) but that given some basic rules and a small booklet of those signs you can learn them by heart and the basic rules will help you to distinguish in case you forgot a sign or weren't sure.

As such this one is pretty clear, all the elements on it are also present on other traffic signs and the blue rectangle tells the rest of the story. As a driver I have no problem understanding this sign in isolation without looking up its definition, the sign is also common enough around here that you can understand what it means by the context within which it is placed.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#313

Post by droopyEyelids »

Noos wrote: post #305

Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid. People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything,…

You're in a tough spot because where you live forces you to have a car. Nothing wrong with that.

But not having a car is virtuous! It takes an incredible toll on our world to enable cars. Mining is the most polluting industry of all time, followed closely by oil extraction and then refining. Then you gotta burn all that oil to actually drive the car.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#314

Post by geofft »

mieseratte wrote: post #274
geofft wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Again, it doesn't have to be mandatory from the government. It's just that the car companies guarantee they won't hit you if you have a beacon (i.e., they take on all liability), and they make no such guarantee if you don't (i.e., you or your bereaved family have to go fight them in court, have fun). They will have complicated spreadsheets internally calculating the "acceptable" level of casualties, where they can keep the public convinced that it's their fault for not carrying beacons, and not invest in improving their detection algorithms beyond that. (Engineers working for these companies will earnestly try to build the best algorithms they can, but senior management won't staff or fund these departments any more than necessary.)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#315

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #127
Fricken wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you being so reductionist? Drivers have to accept extremely tight restrictions on their behavior already. I feel like I'm talking to an alien that's never driven a car. I mean good lord you have to 6 month class to learn a subset of the rules of the road. The fact that cars are given priority because its more efficient to do so doesn't imply that people think they're more important. In a world with only bikes…

[deleted]

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#316

Post by contingencies »

Noos wrote: post #305

Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid. People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything,…

Counter point. Late 30s here, family, no car, no license. I use cabs all the time, it's great. I have a fine social life and can drink safely. I can rent houses and move about for work, then change countries without offloading assets at fire-sale prices. I choose not to live in an unpleasant climate, so snow is a non-issue for me. Have you considered the option that maybe you just don't get it?

Cars are responsible for many problems including wasted space, noise, visual and air pollution, danger, and unpleasant urban space breakdowns.

The Highway and Automobile culture are symbols of totalitarian cultures which deny people more sustainable and equitable alternatives for mobility and transport - Vandana Shiva, February 19, 2004.

The reality is that most people live in dense Asian urban environments, and this trend is increasing. More and more people rely solely on public transport, and this is a good thing for society and the environment. If everyone carried on like Americans or Australians, global warming would be insane. Let's encourage pluralism and change. Cars have had their chance - the 1950s called and wants its suburban utopia back.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#317

Post by louithethrid »

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.

Why jump in the way? All you need is a showstopper- a cheap chinese gadget that bounces back lidarlaserlight and radarwaves, ahead of time- thus creating the ilusion of a wall.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#318

Post by to3m »

chc wrote: post #282
a-priori wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The UK's roads are an unrestricted free-for-all and the amount of time you spend in your car having to wait for people walking in the road is far short of all of it.

The roads end up mainly for traffic anyway, because people aren't dumb, and they're well aware that most drivers would prefer to kill them than make the effort to press the brake pedal. But there's no need to enshrine this in law and prevent people from crossing where they please when the road is empty, the traffic light and/or slow-moving, or the mass of people large enough.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#319

Post by ChiliConKanye »

dragonwriter wrote: post #253
pwaai wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That seems unconstitutional There is no Constitutional right to bear cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#320

Post by Nition »

contingencies wrote: post #316
Noos wrote: post #305

Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid. People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything,…

Counter point. Late 30s here, family, no car, no license. I use cabs all the time, it's great. I have a fine social life and can drink safely. I can rent houses and move about for work, then change countries without offloading assets at fire-sale prices. I choose not to live in an unpleasant climate, so snow is a non-issue for me. Have you considered the option that maybe you just don't get it? Cars are responsible f…

> noise, visual and air pollution, danger,

How is calling a taxi every time you need a car any better than using a car you own in these areas? I do agree that the need for parking spaces is improved.

Post reply on HN