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

411–420 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#411

Post by ck425 »

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…

You've clearly never lived in pedestrian friendly environment. The nearest transit spot in areas with good public transport is a 5 min walk max. The nearest shop or doctors/dentist or bar/restaurant is 10-15min max and as another poster said you can easily use a taxi in cases of illness.

Also on the point of cost, cars are incredibly expensive, especially in the US where everyone seems to have massive vehicles. If you live without one, in a pedestrian friendly area you'd find the costs of using a bus or subway would be a small fraction of your car costs.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#412

Post by ck425 »

jrwiegand wrote: post #323
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…

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 ownin…

This is true, but you can also petition your local authorities for better public transport, bike lanes etc. You can campaign against urban sprawl. One of the issues at the moment is complete lack of awareness of any alternative to car centric urban planning.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#413

Post by dagw »

ck425 wrote: post #411
Noos wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've clearly never lived in pedestrian friendly environment. The nearest transit spot in areas with good public transport is a 5 min walk max. The nearest shop or doctors/dentist or bar/restaurant is 10-15min max and as another poster said you can easily use a taxi in cases of illness. Also on the point of cost, cars are incredibly expensive, especially in the US where everyone seems to have massive vehicles. If yo…

cars are incredibly expensive, especially in the US where everyone seems to have massive vehicles.

Actually cars are dirt cheap in the US compared to Europe. Taxes are low, second hand cars can be had for basically nothing, and gas is cheap.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#414

Post by ck425 »

Annatar wrote: post #407

I’ve been driving for several decades. I’m also an avid automobile enthusiast, “will talk cars with anyone” kind of a guy. But for 30 minutes every day, I’m just an ordinary pedestrian. And I follow the traffic rules and regulations which apply to pedestrians religiously: always cross at a crosswalk, never cross on Red, even if the intersection is devoid of traffic. Why do I do that? Because as a driver and as a pede…

You're presuming here that the current system is fair and reasonable. As it is, pedestrians are massively inconvenienced so that drivers can speed around in a two ton box of steel. To my mind that's not a fair trade off.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#415

Post by jablan »

mmirate wrote: post #375
saint_fiasco wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use a vehicle that is small and slow enough that it won't kill pedestrians on a collision. For example, a bicycle or a segway. There is also mass transit, which can go over rails away from pedestrians or even underground.

> a bicycle These only work if the destination isn't an event that requires attendees to be presentable and thus avoid smelling like cyclists. (And if it was close enough for a "casual-effort cycling" then it was close enough to walk, too.) > a segway These are illegal in a huge number of places, iirc.

I am cycling to work, and I don't "smell like a cyclist". It takes 20-25 minutes by bicycle, would take a bit over an hour on foot. Huge number of my colleagues do the same. Pls get your facts right.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#416

Post by raverbashing »

emj wrote: post #373
raverbashing wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Traffic lights are for organizing cars, that's the whole point of the article. Pedestrians and bycyclists are just bystanders that suffers greatly from them.

Waiting for the lights to turn green for your right of way (something that cars also have to do) is "suffering greatly" now?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#417

Post by Joe-Z »

raverbashing wrote: post #416
emj wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic lights are for organizing cars, that's the whole point of the article. Pedestrians and bycyclists are just bystanders that suffers greatly from them.

Waiting for the lights to turn green for your right of way (something that cars also have to do) is "suffering greatly" now?

As opposed to being able to just freely walk around as you please? You could say that, why not.

And if one insists on moving a 2 ton metal cage through a city going 30 mph or more, I think having to wait now and then is a reasonable trade-off. The natural habitat of the car is the highway and that's where it should stay.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#418

Post by notyourday »

gamblor956 wrote: post #263
notyourday wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly rabbit. We jack up the price without a location tracking and offer a 10k incentive to do location tracking. No location tracking = new policy price Location tracking = new policy price - 10K. New policy price = old policy price + 10k

Any insurer which raises rates to pay for this would quickly lose most of its business unless they're (a) the only insurer in the state or (b) convince the rest of the insurers in-state to collude on pricing. The first isn't the case of any state with respect to auto insurance, and the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate. And that's assu…

You do know that progressive has been doing it for a few years, right? With that little device that you can plug into your car to lower the rates?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#419

Post by Annatar »

ck425 wrote: post #414
Annatar wrote: post #407

I’ve been driving for several decades. I’m also an avid automobile enthusiast, “will talk cars with anyone” kind of a guy. But for 30 minutes every day, I’m just an ordinary pedestrian. And I follow the traffic rules and regulations which apply to pedestrians religiously: always cross at a crosswalk, never cross on Red, even if the intersection is devoid of traffic. Why do I do that? Because as a driver and as a pede…

You're presuming here that the current system is fair and reasonable. As it is, pedestrians are massively inconvenienced so that drivers can speed around in a two ton box of steel. To my mind that's not a fair trade off.

I’m not presuming. Where I live it’s more than fair and reasonable in favor of pedestrians and bicyclists, heavily skewed in their favor as far as traffic laws and infrastructure. Europe isn’t like the States in that respect.

And yet a lot of pedestrians don’t abide by traffic laws and a lot of bicyclists actively abuse and violate it. I just had a guy take my right-of-way in a rotor (roundabound) and fly right in anyway although I was already in it and about to make an exit, and when I honked my horn he just waved me down like it was nothing; If I had hit him even though he broke the law, the court would by default favor him because he was on a bicycle, never mind that when they are on one they are a vehicle like any other for the purposes of traffic laws and they have to abide by them.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#420

Post by upvotinglurker »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #300
nkoren wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably not if you own the car. Sex in public (including in buses, subways, etc.) is already illegal in many areas, and cab-company equivalents would presumably get to set their own rules as they do now.
Post reply on HN