How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking” • Hacker News Board

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#61

Post by kozak » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

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.

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 present-day cars can auto-brake if they sense an impending collision).

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#62

Post by tonyedgecombe » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #37

dahart wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Streets are for cars and sidewalks are for people! That didn't used to be true. I'm fascinated by ideas that become so canonized, so ingrained that you can't even imagine the alternatives. > This article tries to make this seem like a pedestrian dystopia compared to the good ole days when kids could frolic in the streets. Well said, we do live in a pedestrian dystopia now. I love that many urban areas in the US and…

I have found, in NYC at least, bicyclists are a much greater hazard to pedestrians than cars. Bicyclists don't follow traffic rules, veer centimeters away from you while speeding through painted crosswalks, ignore both car and bike-specific traffic lights. I have been nearly hit by bicyclists several times in the last year, and never had any problems with cars. And, in at least two cases, the bicyclists yelled at me…

It was enough to make me wish I had a steel pipe to stick in their front wheel and laugh in schadenfreude as they get carted off to the hospital.

Perhaps you need to take a good look at yourself.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#63

Post by DiThi » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

jdhopeunique wrote: post #46

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.

If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make autom…

> Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers.

I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment.

Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. Smart phones may include such functionality.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#64

Post by closeparen » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

krisdol wrote: post #49

Chriky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culturally, I've noticed Germans will absolutely not cross before the green man, even if there are no cars. In the UK it is very common to cross even if the man is red. I've been in walking conversations with continental Europeans in London, then suddenly noticed they aren't at my side any more because they stopped at a crossing that was clear.

Even if they do cross, they have the right of way. Outside of maybe the autobahn, you should never be driving a car fast enough to where you cannot see a pedestrian in time to stop for them. It's pretty unlikely that the pedestrian is ever found at fault for an accident in Germany.

You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#65

Post by automobiles » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

meri_dian wrote: post #24

This is silly. >"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history" The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation. No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the roa…

> If you accept that driving is a good thing

Firstly, that's an assumption that not everyone shares — there are alternative solutions to mass transit. Secondly, even if you, say, accept that driving across medium distances — across the city, but not to the corner shop — is a "good thing", that just means that there have to be some large transit roads, intended only for cars; residential streets could still be freely used by pedestrians, either with very stringent speed limits or no car access, at all.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#66

Post by appleiigs » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #7

There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily influenced our views on littering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem; disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared responsibility.

I can't watch the vid right now, but I don't see how it's not the consumer's responsibility of where they put their trash. It's also the consumer's responsibility to demand environmentally friendly packaging.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#67

Post by pmulv » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

There's an episode of The Dollop podcast that addresses the introduction of cars to the streets of America when horse and buggie still ruled the road [0]. It is highly entertaining and informative, and it touches upon why "jaywalking" and who "Jay" is supposed to be. I recommend it and the podcast in general to anyone who is interested in peculiar history.

[0] http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#68

Post by Xylakant » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

Mo3 wrote: post #21

rb808 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is more strict esp Germany. I heard a story that if you get hit by a car they'll come to your hospital bed to give you the bill to repair the car damage, though I'm not sure how accurate that is.

That's nonsense. Jaywalking is not a crime or offence here. You cause an accident, you're paying. //Edit, I stand corrected. It's a very minor offence, costing you 10€ if there's no signal, if there's a signal 5€ if traffic is endangered and 10€ if an accident was caused. 10€ for crossing the Autobahn (or, more likely, your life)

If you’re caught as a repeat offender you may get points or even loose your license. I’ve yet to hear of a case where a pedestrian lost his license yet, though. The line of reasoning, however, is that if you’re incapable of respecting the rules and regulations, you’re not fit to operate a vehicle. This argument has been tested in court and multiple people lost their drivers license for parking tickets, an offense in the same (price) category.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#69

Post by meri_dian » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

a-priori wrote: post #36

meri_dian wrote: post #24

This is silly. >"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history" The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation. No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the roa…

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 keep track of when you're driving and focused on the road ahead.

This is not an opinion. This is fact. And so, taking these facts into account, we've decided a system that optimizes energy use and safety for everyone involved. Pedestrians have sidewalks, cars have streets.

Complaining about this system is just silly.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#70

Post by randomdrake » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

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.

> slow down cars in urban areas

This is actually happening. Portland has recently fallen in line with other cities, like Seattle, and lowered thousands of miles of streets from 25 MPH to 20 MPH.

http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portla...