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

Jaywalking legalized in New York City

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 370 posts

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#61

Post by dominicrose »

olliej wrote: post #2

Not growing up in america I never understood what jaywalking was - I legit assumed it was a pedestrian crossing a freeway because nothing else made sense. Growing up I was taught explicitly to do what in the US was a crime: crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections. Obviously, there's a more complex issue with jaywalking where it is a crime that is trivially easy to enfo…

> crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections

It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good visibility then it's not an issue.

There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to them. As a driver having to stop means being scared for your car's behind.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#62

Post by simgt »

freefaler wrote: post #51
simgt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it. Maybe the problem here is that a 2 ton SUV shouldn't be driven at 50mph when pedestrians are anywhere near. I always find it interesting how the ones advocating for the absolute freedom of owning and driving an SUV everywhere, to carry 70kg of human flesh, are usually also the ones asking for the restric…

The problem is not how big is the car or any other subject. The problem with any rule that is badly formulated is the ambiguity it creates. In this instance this bad definition can lead to very bad consequences. Bad rules = ambiguous rules and need for interpretation and that leads to many bad consequences.

There is no ambiguity here, if you don't have the right of way you will be liable if something happens. But "something happening" will likely have to be more than just disrupting an SUV driver going at 50mph by making him slow down a bit.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#63

Post by AStonesThrow »

I grew up in Southern California. My parents strictly observed traffic laws, and riding in the car with them, I would often hear their disapproving gossip about pedestrians' faux pas, including wearing black at night.

In high school, a classmate tried to help me loosen up a bit, and he'd encourage our group to cross a busy stroad. "They'll stop! They'll stop for you!" he assured me. He was right...

I visited Catalonia awhile ago. My companion was a native there and helped me understand local customs. I was able to drive her car a little bit, LHD, although the roundabouts tended to bewilder me. On foot, we'd approach a busy street and she encouraged me to just cross. She showed me how to hold out a hand as a signal of my intent. Motorists would slow and yield. She was also right.

I heard that the walk signal buttons are called "beg buttons", as in "pedestrians beg to enter the street". I use them scrupulously. My justification is that a theoretical personal injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing everything right.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#64

Post by makeitdouble »

echoangle wrote: post #26
reedf1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with). You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous internal bias.

It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.

> utility of cars

Using the right tools at the right place is part of it: cars are useful for some trips, less for others. Trying to solve every transportation problem with a unique solution was IMHO the original sin of this.

> Pedestrians are more nimble

Think kids going to school and elderlies. Having something that work for them requires either putting the burden on cars or removing cars from the picture. One costs a lot more than the other, and in the case you want to keep cars in cities the former is probably more attractive than the latter.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#65

Post by tsimionescu »

freefaler wrote: post #45
tsimionescu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are already supposed to slow down if they see pedestrians on the street, even if the pedestrian is crossing illegally, same as they are supposed to avoid drivers doing illegal things. It's the police's job to punish illegal behavior, not drivers'. So, in the situation you describe, the solution is clear: the car has to slow down, and any police officer is supposed to notice that the car had to slow down and issu…

Rules for people are not the same as a code for a compiler. You may enact a rule, but people are not guaranteed they will comply with it either because they will brake it or they will forget/ignore it. If a bad rule is enacted and it kills 100 people per year more, will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100 people? Rules should take into account the stupid things people will do and that in real life you won't…

Sure, the results have to be measured and the rules adjusted. But a possible result of this rule is exactly that it will make drivers drive more slowly in general, for fear of hitting pedestrians, which would overall reduce accidents, even outside of pedestrian deaths.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#66

Post by echoangle »

relistan wrote: post #42
echoangle wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.

This speed limit, or lower, is pretty common in major European cities. Helps divert investment to things more beneficial to society than individual car ownership, improves transit, cleans up cities, makes for great public spaces.

Yes, I was saying that 30 miles would have to be the limit on every street though, in cities you would probably have to do 10 if everyone could step onto the street at every moment.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#67

Post by fragmede »

tsimionescu wrote: post #58
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "no jaywalking because safety" would make more sense if crosswalks were totally safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in NY, can't traffic move over crosswalks even against traffic lights, in some circumstances? I always find that confusing-and frightening!

In certain parts of the USA, cars are allowed to turn right from the first lane even on a red light, unless there is some explicit sign prohibiting it in that intersection.

Unless expressly prohibited, eg by said sign, right-turn-on-red defaults to being legal across vthe US.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#68

Post by nobody9999 »

pm3003 wrote: post #57
keiferski wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany and Poland both do this.

In Poland I always respect the pedestrian lights. Contrary to France and even Germany, drivers expect you to respect them, and especially in Warsaw there is a very high tolerance on speeding on big wide arters. Cars crossing intersections at speeds of more than 90km/h (7.8 furlongs per minute for Americans) are usual in Warsaw.

>90km/h (7.8 furlongs per minute for Americans)

As an American, I had to do the math on that -- which is really annoying.

If you want to provide us with something we can understand, it's furlongs per fortnight, not per minute. ;)

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#69

Post by 0xEF »

BlackFly wrote: post #56
0xEF wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever driven through a downtown urban area? You can't go more than 30mph anyway, even if you wanted to. There is simply too much connections, turns, etc. And yet, I still disagree that pedestrians should be able to just enter the road willy-nilly. Crosswalks are there for safety because it sets the same expectations for everyone using the road, drivers included, thus creating order and flow that is generally…

> I am not compelled to look to my right as I am timing my turn because I am not expecting traffic to be there since a right turn has you crossing zero lanes of traffic and merging with on-coning that would be on your left. Except you may have just passed a cyclist without leaving enough time to turn because you barely registered their presence and are now going to cut them off. Or you stopped at an intersection and…

I should clarify that when dedicated bike lanes are present, I absolutely look for cyclists in both directions. Again, setting expectations is important. It's also why we use turn signals.

My reference to cyclists goinh the wrong way takes place in the suburbs where I have lived most, and bikes are not exactly common. On a four lane highway with a speed limit of 55mph, multiple driveways, etc (Not Just Bikes calls them Stroads), a cyclist moving against traffic on a narrow shoulder is not expected. We can preach all day about "paying attention" but we have created a situation that demands high levels of attention from all, but cyclists feel they are exempt from the rules of traffic, making the situation worse in some immature act of defiance.

I like my bike. I ride it as often as possible and travel to places specifically because they have good biking infrastructure. But when I am in a place where therd is none, I ride with traffic, use my hand signals, and assume drivers cannot see me because they have a hundred other things they need to pay attention to, so I put effort into making myself visible and communicating intent.

It's not that hard.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#70

Post by EliRivers »

echoangle wrote: post #66
relistan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This speed limit, or lower, is pretty common in major European cities. Helps divert investment to things more beneficial to society than individual car ownership, improves transit, cleans up cities, makes for great public spaces.

Yes, I was saying that 30 miles would have to be the limit on every street though, in cities you would probably have to do 10 if everyone could step onto the street at every moment.

We don't need to guess at probabilities.

We can look at the data. Aactual cities where jaywalking isn't a crime; they do not set the speed limit at 10, and it all seems to work fine.

Post reply on HN