Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

virginiamercury.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 459 posts

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#311

Post by dragontamer »

leetcrew wrote: post #220
dragontamer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-... "You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc." ---------- I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the sa…

> I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.

We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#312

Post by DC-3 »

ck425 wrote: post #218

Jaywalking is such ridiculous 'crime'. It's not a thing here in the UK and when an American friend first explained it at uni I thought they were winding me up. It's no wonder American cities are so unwalkable and that America has an obesity crisis

In fairness we also have an obesity crisis.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#313

Post by iso947 »

frickenhamster wrote: post #278

Fucking stupid. I used to live in a college town where no one obeyed traffic laws. I can't tell you how many car on car, car in bike, car on people accidents were caused by dumbasses walking into open traffic.

The common problem seems to be the car

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#314

Post by umvi »

anigbrowl wrote: post #189
umvi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car? a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. > Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path? So that they take responsibility for their own safety. > Why don't we instead say you…

You have more power, therefore a greater burden should fall on the pedestrian than you? Hmm.

Yes. If you disagree, jump in front of an oncoming train at the last second. After all the train has much more power than you and therefore the burden falls on the train operator to keep an eye out for you and save your life.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#315

Post by thex10 »

nomel wrote: post #274
CalRobert wrote: post #199

Criminalizing jaywalking wasn't about making it illegal to walk across the street. It was about making it legal to kill people doing so with your car. If you want to kill someone in the US it's de facto legal to do so with your car. Just be sober and say you didn't see them.

As someone that nearly hit someone that walked out from behind a bush, with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, I don't think the rules are so bad. As unpopular as the opinion appears to be here, I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road. Should we also take down the signals and barriers that prevent cars from crossing train tracks, since they have the similar goal of prevent…

> I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road

Attitudes like that are why cars are the number one killer of small children in the USA.

I think the idea is that car drivers should be able to see a human and adequately respond to avoid deadly collision (this usually means driving slowly and with more caution in areas where there are humans. this also can mean driving a lighter/smaller vehicle but that seems harder to do nowadays with cars getting beefier over time).

Trains, after operators see an obstruction on the tracks, literally cannot respond in time.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#316

Post by geggam »

ck425 wrote: post #241
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #223

Just want to point out how special interests can actually pretty insidiously change your viewpoint by making you think "that's the way things have always been". It was relatively recently that I discovered that jaywalking, as a crime, was a distinctly American phenomenon, when in an HN discussion someone mentioned that British folk think the crime of jaywalking is insane (in the UK you can cross pretty much wherever…

When an American friend explained it to me at uni I honestly thought they were trying to trick. It's just such an absurd concept, like how does anyone walk anywhere? Then I realised they don't.

Read many posts and what many folks are missing is the amount of space the US has... it takes more than 1 day of driving to get across Texas alone.

Where I live there arent even roads being improved in many areas. You just drive across the dirt

None of the countries folks are comparing have close to the amount of space to cover.

Yes bigger metro areas are dense enough to have public transit... problem is most folks dont live in that area and commute in. Example ...areas like the SF bay area has folks traveling 2 hrs 1 way on train or car to get to the office

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#317

Post by umvi »

chrisseaton wrote: post #275
umvi wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue? I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe . So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively bra…

You are the safety issue. Without you there is no safety issue. And you should drive accordingly.

It takes two to tango. Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. So jaywalkers should jaywalk accordingly.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#318

Post by thex10 »

frickenhamster wrote: post #292
standardUser wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If bike and pedestrian traffic is that dense, they should lower speed limits and install speed bumps.

There are. Pedestrians don't care and will literately walk into open traffic. I've seen the same thing in every major city.

Were the drivers impaired? Why couldn't they see the people, or drive slowly and carefully enough to not kill?

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#320

Post by geggam »

pdonis wrote: post #142
rwhitman wrote: post #125

This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

Arizona has this law.

If you get hit jaywalking its your fault.

We also have stupid motorist law where if you drive in a flooded area you have to pay the cost to rescue you

Post reply on HN