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

321–330 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#321

Post by ChiliConKanye »

clairity wrote: post #257
CaptainZapp wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That probably won't endear me to the general commentariat, but... Slower roads (max 20MPH/30KMPH) should be bicycle and pedestrian-first. Spot on! 100 points!

i think that would be ok too, but the solution i prefer is to narrow residential street lanes (and on other urban streets as well). all roads, but even residential streets, in car-centric cities like LA seem to be built wide enough to accommodate 747's with ease. my proposal: rather than 12-15 foot widths, make urban residential street lanes 9 feet wide (cars are typically 6-7 feet wide, delivery trucks, 8 feet wide)…

So your solution to dangerous streets is to make streets more dangerous. Innovative.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#322

Post by Noos »

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…

That's called "being wealthy." Being wealthy enables you to escape a lot of the problems that not having a car involves, because you can just throw money at the problem to overcome it. A lot of people are not wealthy and cannot do this.

There's also a bit of good fortune involved. I was young, single, and healthy. But I'm older now, and there are times when I simply cannot afford to use public transit or walk. If you get the flu, you don't even have the choice; walking fifteen minutes to get medicine or food is agony. And you always have to walk fifteen minutes, just to get to the transit spot. You feel the weather a lot more as you age; a brisk rain shower is rougher on you at 40 than at 20.

And come on, what can be more totalitarian than restricting the ability of people to move beyond a tiny radius apart from communal vehicles that can be shut down on a whim?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#323

Post by jrwiegand »

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…

I agree that not owning a car would be better than owning. But simply saying "you should move to a better place" is not only a privileged statement but also a callous one. You assume people are not in a place for important reasons like staying close to family, working for a company they like, simply loving where they live or not being able to afford living to an urban environment. These are all valid and if not owning a car is too prohibitive to basic life needs than a person should own a car.

Also, the Americans or Australians comment is a bit of a broad stoke, no?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#324

Post by Noos »

meri_dian wrote: post #69
a-priori wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion to have. But it's just one way things can work. Another way, is to give pedestrians priority and expect drivers to exercise due caution to not hit them the same way they do other cars or trains or ambulances or whatever. In an alternate universe where the laws had ended up with pedestrian-priority being the norm, then you'd be coming in here saying "Cars shouldn't dri…

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…

The reason for it I feel is that the laws are designed to ensure pedestrians use crosswalks and use them responsibility, to promote safety. Its easier and safer for pedestrians to cross the roads at certain spots, with their own unique signal to stop traffic, rather than have them dart out at their own leisure and force the driver to react quickly.

The jaywalking idea was to add teeth to this; you want to train pedestrians to use crosswalks and signals. Its better all around.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#325

Post by contingencies »

Noos wrote: post #322
contingencies wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's called "being wealthy." Being wealthy enables you to escape a lot of the problems that not having a car involves, because you can just throw money at the problem to overcome it. A lot of people are not wealthy and cannot do this. There's also a bit of good fortune involved. I was young, single, and healthy. But I'm older now, and there are times when I simply cannot afford to use public transit or walk. If you…

I think you are evaluating many things from an American context and you reveal that you are older. IMHO the problem with American environments are that they're often semi-explicitly designed around the car. If you are used to a car, not having one is probably a horrible prospect. However, as you explicitly discussed aging, you can't put your head in the sand - obviously eventually you won't be able to drive a car, so you'd better get ready for it. Most of the US likely won't change quickly enough to lessen that challenge for you, but perhaps with younger generations behind change one day that issue won't be faced by others.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#326

Post by Cryptid »

Noos wrote: post #322
contingencies wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's called "being wealthy." Being wealthy enables you to escape a lot of the problems that not having a car involves, because you can just throw money at the problem to overcome it. A lot of people are not wealthy and cannot do this. There's also a bit of good fortune involved. I was young, single, and healthy. But I'm older now, and there are times when I simply cannot afford to use public transit or walk. If you…

> And you always have to walk fifteen minutes, just to get to the transit spot.

I know a lot of broke people who live within less than a two minute walk of a bus stop and could not possibly afford a car. You might want to consider how the built environment has dictated your choices.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#327

Post by odammit »

silveira wrote: post #255
odammit wrote: post #75

99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back that’s a pretty good listen. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...

I came here to post this episode. It's one of the greatest from 99pi.

It was one of the first I listened to, then I went back and listened to them all. :D

coin check

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#328

Post by forinti »

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.

I think we should limit the mass of urban cars, so that they would not be heavier than a golf cart. This way, most accidents would be of no consequence (I remember an out-of-control cart in a football stadium that hit several people and none were hurt), and we could let even younger people drive.

It really makes no sense for an 80Kg person to go around in a 1000kg vehicle.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#329

Post by kelnos »

adrianN wrote: post #184
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.

Self driving cars are not magic and judging their braking distance is not much easier than with a human driver. I think kids trying that will quickly find out that it's not too hard to make an autocar hit a human. In other words, I think the problem would quickly solve itself.

Not to mention all autonomous cars will undoubtedly have video evidence of what happened. The kids won't have a chance of proving their case if they get hit.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#330

Post by lurr »

freehunter wrote: post #284
jopsen wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

which is completely fair and reasonable.

I expect HN to disagree, because cars are a blight on the world or something.

Post reply on HN