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

Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 324 posts

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#61

Post by nerdjon »

tialaramex wrote: post #41
nerdjon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians should also take responsibility for acting dangerously. To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving. If a person runs in front of a moving vehicle it shouldn't be the driver responsible if they basically cut the car off. A car can't stop on a dime. Drivers should be held…

> A car can't stop on a dime. That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ? The UK already has designated areas with no pedestrians ("Motorways" ~= US highways [?]) and it has expended considerable resources closing or diverting at-grade crossings of railways (which ob…

> Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ?

Because we have to share the space?

Replace car with bike, and while the risk to the person walking is far less than with a car it's the same idea.

Just pay attention and realize that you can stop on a dime (at least if your walking) as a human and something on wheels cannot. If you are a teenager and older and you don't know that a car can't stop on a dime and you run in front of one I don't know what to tell you, you should wether or not you have ever driven a car before.

Ignorance is not a defense in my opinion.

Edit: Also I am going to point out that any of our opinions on who is at fault, laws, or whatever has zero impact if your in the hospital or dead because you did something stupid as a pedestrian.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#62

Post by giantg2 »

tim333 wrote: post #26
sandworm101 wrote: post #2

How quickly we forget history. Horses were also lethal. Look at the number of people killed by horses, either being thrown from them, trampled by them, or run over by carts pulled by horses. Streets were not some utopic garden of pedestrian safety prior to cars. There were no jaywalking rules because society had evolved over thousands of years being rather acceptive of horse-related dangers. When the new device came…

The UK has no jaywalking laws (apart from full motorways) and about 1/3 the pedestrian deaths of the US ( https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/10/exactly-how-far-u-s-s... ). There are other ways to do things.

Might I point out that driver testing is more stringent in most of those countries. This can also partially explain lower vehicle fatalities as well, even on higher speed roads like the autobahn. Road design and other technical factors can help, but at the end of the day, ignorant or stupid people will still make stupid choices.

Edit: why disagree? We should be focusing on education and testing for the best improvement as it will be beneficial to multiple problems.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#63

Post by inglor_cz »

tialaramex wrote: post #41
nerdjon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians should also take responsibility for acting dangerously. To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving. If a person runs in front of a moving vehicle it shouldn't be the driver responsible if they basically cut the car off. A car can't stop on a dime. Drivers should be held…

> A car can't stop on a dime. That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ? The UK already has designated areas with no pedestrians ("Motorways" ~= US highways [?]) and it has expended considerable resources closing or diverting at-grade crossings of railways (which ob…

"That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ?"

That is a pretty absurd take.

Knowing that a ton of steel moving fast can kill you is a necessary knowledge in modern civilization, much like knowing that an enraged mammoth can kill you was a necessary knowledge in the Stone Age. And normal parents teach their children how to be safe(r) in the street long, long before they could possibly become drivers themselves.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#64

Post by giantg2 »

hef19898 wrote: post #55
tim333 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany does have jaywalking laws though. I'm not sure about Holland which has very low pedestrian deaths.

Only for red traffic lights and marked pedesteian crossings. Everything else is fair game, as it should be. One has to love the fact that in the land of the free one cannot cross a street where one wants.

"One has to love the fact that in the land of the free one cannot cross a street where one wants."

This is only really true for a very small number of places in the US, even smaller when you consider the lack of enforcement.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#65

Post by alexfoo »

ilaksh wrote: post #28
paldepind2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. It looks a bit chaotic but honestly not _that_ unsafe to me as everything is going quite slow. It reminds me a bit of the idea of "shared space" which is a recent concept that is actually claimed to make streets safer.

I think it comes down to things like speed. If we accept that the road is a place to be able to quickly move a lot of vehicles, then that just isn't a safe place for pedestrians. If we go back to lower speeds then maybe it could be manageable in a same way. But as it is actually used now for 3000 pound vehicles to zoom about in, it makes no sense for pedestrians to be intersecting and sharing the space at all. Just d…

Luckily some countries don’t think about it like this. Many European countries put pedestrians first in cities and towns.

Cars can go “quickly” between cities and towns but around pedestrians they really do need to slow down.

I wouldn’t want to live anywhere where the car is king and everyone else must cede to its ultimate priority.

People need to give themselves more time to get places, rather than thinking they are far more important than the greatly decreased safety of others.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#66

Post by avalys »

scubbo wrote: post #56
retrac wrote: post #23

Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. There are jurisdictions in the USA where it's legal. And it's legal here in Canada. Even the term stands out -- I'm familiar with "jaywalking" but you only use a term for it if it's illegal. We just call it "crossing the street", or "impeding the flow of traffic", depending how you do it. (It's not exactly a free for all: in Ontario there is still a requi…

> Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. When I first moved from the UK to the USA, I assumed that "jaywalking" was a made-up thing that you warned tourists about, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear . How could crossing the road be _inherently_ illegal, even if done in a safe manner!?

There are tons of traffic laws that make things technically illegal even if they're perfectly safe ("no U-turn"), for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any different or why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws, or why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#67

Post by nerdjon »

JWLong wrote: post #38
nerdjon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians should also take responsibility for acting dangerously. To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving. If a person runs in front of a moving vehicle it shouldn't be the driver responsible if they basically cut the car off. A car can't stop on a dime. Drivers should be held…

> To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving. It shouldn't be. The risk to you is much greater if you hit another car, than if you hit a pedestrian. Addtionally, while you are right that a car can't stop on a dime, speeds have a large influence on the size of coin needed for a car t…

> It shouldn't be. The risk to you is much greater if you hit another car, than if you hit a pedestrian.

True but the idea to me is the same for this particular situation, it is something running in front of a moving vehicle with little to no chance to do anything about it as a driver.

You are right for speeds and too many people drive too fast in an urban setting, but even a reasonable driving at 20-30 mph can still cause damage.

All I am trying to say here is everyone take responsibility for their own actions and don't assume that just because you are a pedestrian that cars are going to get out of your way since they may not physically be able too. Same for drivers, don't assume you have the right away because you are in a car.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#68

Post by eimrine »

jcynix wrote: post #11

If you cross the street "near" a red traffic light, that costs you 5€ in Germany. If you admit that you did it intentionally, the ticket price doubles. Happened to my wife some years ago when walking to a bus stop on the other side of the street. How did the cop know that it was intentional? She remarked that there was no car in sight, neither left nor right, on a straight road in town. Oh, and what's the definition…

"I was not interested to look for any car in sight because I would like to save 5€ for the case of being caught"

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#69

Post by maest »

wredue wrote: post #39
_aavaa_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they did not make the cars inherently safer. A red light does not stop a driver from driving through a pedestrian crossing when people are there. Speeding laws do little for the bikers in unsegregated bike lanes, mere inches away from an inattentive driver.

Maybe I’m just thinking outside of the box here, but how exactly do 3,000 lbs pieces of metal and glass become safer for people crossing the street in an addressable way by auto makers, when it’s the buyers demanding larger and larger vehicles? On segregated bike lanes, I’m afraid to tell you, cyclists don’t use them anyway, so why on earth should anyone focus on putting them in?

> cyclists don’t use them anyway

This claim is so ridiculous is invalidates everything else you might be trying to argue, come on.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#70

Post by sillystuff »

stuaxo wrote: post #15
nerdjon wrote: post #12

I am all for a pedestrian focused city, BUT cars will likely never fully disappear for emergencies, shipments, and people with disabilities. In this particular situation I feel like while the Automakers had ulterior motives it was ultimately a net good. Pretty sure we know who will win in in a car vs a human body. Also as much as I do believe in pedestrian focused cities, that isn't the norm in the US and likely will…

In other places cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians even on non crossings, in practice the penalties for hitting and killing them are way lower than killing a person in another situation.

In California it was the same. A pedestrian is the vulnerable party in any interaction with a motor vehicle, so it makes sense that the pedestrian always has the right of way. But, it was still illegal for a pedestrian to "jay walk". So, if you, as a driver, hit a pedestrian crossing outside an intersection, both you and the pedestrian could both be cited. This year, "jay walking" was decriminalized in California-- and, it turns out pedestrians still try to avoid being maimed/killed by cars even without the threat of fines.

Even with right of way, and decriminalizing "jay walking", the pedestrian can still be assigned some portion of fault in an accident, which e.g., may prevent the pedestrian from successfully suing the driver to pay for medical costs.

Post reply on HN