[HN Gopher] Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015) ___________________________________________________________________ Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015) Author : freedomben Score : 191 points Date : 2023-10-12 17:05 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.vox.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.vox.com) | sandworm101 wrote: | 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 around, no matter its relative | danger, then new regulations were needed. There were once almost | zero regs regarding candles, objects that killed thousands almost | daily by fire. But soon after electricity came along then we | suddenly needed rules to manage the new "dangerous" thing despite | its use preventing untold thousands of deaths. | swatcoder wrote: | Actually, it wasn't new technology -- the 20th century saw a | _massive_ shift in expectations around health and safety and it | reverberated through every part of life, regardless of whether | new technology was involved. | | It had more to do with secular humanism almost fully | supplanting diverse traditional value systems at the government | level, and with capitalism's insatiable hunger for living | bodies that can produce and consume widgets. | akira2501 wrote: | Rephrasing the headline for honesty: | | "Automakers accept the responsibility for the thing they've | created and attempt to improve safety outcomes in a patchwork | regulatory environment dominated by gridlock and disagreement." | Fricken wrote: | Quite the opposite. Automakers passed the responsibility on | to people who don't even drive. | sandworm101 wrote: | Except for the speeding laws. And the red | light/intersection/right-of-way laws. And the drunk driving | laws. Those laws placed plenty of the responsibility on | drivers. | _aavaa_ wrote: | 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. | wredue wrote: | 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? | alexanderchr wrote: | Oh cyclists do use segregated lanes, they just have to be | done properly. Primarily they need to be safer than | sharing the road with heavy vehicles, something that most | bike lines spectacularly fail at. | maest wrote: | > cyclists don't use them anyway | | This claim is so ridiculous is invalidates everything | else you might be trying to argue, come on. | wredue wrote: | My dash cam filled with video of cyclists riding in a car | lane beside a protected bike lane, and otherwise ignoring | signage (stop and yield signs, signs stating road | exceptions where bikes must use and share the sidewalk | with pedestrians instead of the road) is definitely not | ridiculous. | | Also hilariously "why do cyclists not use the bike lanes" | is a top alternative question result when searching bike | lanes. Clearly this is not some random anecdote. Cyclists | frequently do not use the bike lanes, and I am absolutely | not anywhere near the only person to observe this | frequently. | | Never mind that: | | -Protected bike lane implementations often congest and | slow traffic, which increases idling and carbon emissions | no matter how many people say they'll bike if it was | safer. They won't get their fat ass off out of bed 40 | minutes earlier. You're kidding yourself. | | -in colder climates, they're useless for 50% of the year | and exceptionally increase carbon footprints | | -some cities don't actually observe reduced injuries from | protected bike lanes (often because cyclists are | extremely prone to ignoring the rules of the road), and | cyclists disregard their own safety and get slapped by a | turning vehicle, for example. We often see the excuse | that "cars should pay more attention" and they should, | but also, motorcyclists have built a sentiment that you | have to "ride like you're invisible", whereas cyclists | tend to "ride like you're the king of the road". This is | not just a car problem, but an arrogant community with a | lack of self preservation problem. | drunner wrote: | Same with the oil industry and `reduce, reuse, recycle` | nonsense. Like I wouldn't need to be concerned with that if | your product didn't individually wrap every item I can | purchase in a store. | talideon wrote: | Reduce, reuse, recycle isn't nonsense, but good sense. | What _is_ nonsense is how the fossil fuel industry uses | it as a shield to avoid taking responsibility for the | damage they do to the world. | akira2501 wrote: | > Automakers passed the responsibility on to people who | don't even drive. | | We have roads. They are shared by all users and taxpayers | for common purposes. The responsibilities are likewise | shared. The available technology changed. We can't expect | to force the prior status quo to continue to exist in the | face of available technological changes. | | This article points out that attitudes like your similarly | existed at the time and contributed to the apparent delay | in creating a reasonable solution. | Fricken wrote: | Going whole hog with an unsustainable technology is not | reasonable, never was. | akira2501 wrote: | Okay.. so what if they skipped gasoline and built | electric from the start? That's "sustainable" according | to some modern definition. What should we have done then? | | Meanwhile.. take a look at the way life was 120 years | ago. Are you eager to go back to the rural life of farm | labor that implied for the majority of Americans? | Fricken wrote: | Sounds better than going forward 120 years into the | future at the rate we're going. | zelon88 wrote: | I've noticed that people who don't drive usually don't have | frame of reference of what cars are capable of, and usually | don't understand all of the simultaneous requirements that | must be fulfilled by drivers. So you get pedestrians who | don't understand what the stopping distance of a car is, or | pedestrians who don't recognize dangerous situations that | they create. | | In other words, people with driving experience are usually | safer, more considerate as pedestrians. | giantrobot wrote: | > In other words, people with driving experience are | usually safer, more considerate as pedestrians. | | A great example of this is pedestrians in San Francisco. | I've never seen more entitled oblivious assholes that | pedestrians there. They seem to have no situational | awareness and blithely jump out in front of cars. One of | my favorite stupid pedestrian tricks is them jumping out | from between parked cars crossing without so much as | turning their heads to look for cars. | | Thankfully I don't have to deal with SF pedestrians very | often. The city very obviously hates cars but is | decidedly dependent on them existing. The pedestrians | there act dumber than a deer in the rut. | zelon88 wrote: | Cambridge/Boston is the same. | | Another one that baffles me is seeing people ride E-bikes | and scooters on streets with cars or worse, walk ways and | trails where other motor vehicles are not allowed. | | These are not environmentally friendly alternatives. They | are Chinesium E-waste with low quality batteries. They | will be driven for one or two years then put in a closet | and forgotten about. When they do get used they typically | cause more greenhouse gasses from regular cars that have | to yield to them, or stop busy intersections so they can | cross. | | As an avid dirt bike rider it is especially frustrating | because these are usually the same people (yuppies) who | would call the police on me if I took my 17 year old | 200cc dirt bike down the same trails. | UtopiaPunk wrote: | "Another one that baffles me is seeing people ride | E-bikes and scooters on streets with cars or worse, walk | ways and trails where other motor vehicles are not | allowed." | | Wait, where is the place e-bikes should be in your | opinion, then? | | At least where I live, the laws are quite clear which | type of vehicles are allowed where. The laws here | generally allow a pedal-assisted ebike to ride whereever | a non-electric bicycle may ride. The pedal-assist is | important. | | So yeah, you probably can't ride your motorbike down a | pedestrian path -\\_(tsu)_/- | zelon88 wrote: | Nowhere but private property or registered OHRV trail. | Same as a 4 wheeler. | | They are bad for the environment. Worse then small | motorcycles. Most of the time when you see them they are | crossing 8 lane intersections with the walk signal and | there are 25 cars idling waiting for them to GTFO the | way. If that person were riding a conventional motorcycle | they would be part of traffic and contributing | financially to support the infrastructure they require. | Rather they are leeches. Slowing everything down and | giving untrained motorists unregulated motor vehicles. | | They are made to last 2 years tops and will need new | batteries shipped from China. Chances are the owners will | outgrow them or get bored. Then they will end up in a | land fill instead of a junkyard like normal motorcycles | that get recycled almost completely. | InitialLastName wrote: | I see plenty of people who are drivers also clearly | incapable of meeting or understanding all the | simultaneous requirements that must be fulfilled by | drivers. | | Looking up from their phones being at the top of the | list. | UtopiaPunk wrote: | I've noticed that people who don't walk or bike usually | don't have frame of reference of what cars are capable | of, and usually don't understand all of the simultaneous | requirements that must be fulfilled by pedestrians and | cyclists. | | So you get drivers who don't understand that they need to | look both ways even on a one way street, because someone | might be using the sidewalk, drivers that don't pay | attention to walk signals at intersections, drivers that | speed down low traffic streets, or drivers who don't | recognize dangerous situations that they create. | | I own a car, but I bike and walk a lot. The person | driving the mutli-ton machine should carry the | responsibility of operating it safely. It _is_ a big | responsibility, but it is their responsibility to not | hurt or threaten others. | zelon88 wrote: | I understand the reasoning behind wanting this to be some | kind of David v Goliath story, but this is the real | world. | | Cars don't stop as fast as feet. Everybody is a | pedestrian sometimes but not everyone is a driver. You | can say accountability belongs to one or the other but | one is gonna walk away and one isn't. Personal | responsibility should take precedent over right of way. | | You cannot regulate or control others, but you can | regulate yourself. | | I'm fine with cars having the right of way. They pay for | the roads with sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, | registration fees, inspection fees, insurance that pays | for all kinds of things, and the car itself which is a | huge investment into the economy. Quite literally it is | the drivers who pay for the infrastructure used by | everyone on the road. They earned it. | tim333 wrote: | 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. | seanr88 wrote: | No other country has anything to teach the USA. The USA is | unique and special for a large number of reasons and so | foreign methods won't work here. If I recall they even drive | on the other side of the road in the UK, that will never | catch on here. | alexfoo wrote: | You could phase it in slowly like Ireland did. | | Cars on a Monday. Lorries and HGVs switch on Wednesday. All | remaining traffic on the Friday. | | Done! | talideon wrote: | Citation, please? | alexfoo wrote: | https://www.engineersireland.ie/Engineers- | Journal/Civil/coul... | | (Note that it was a follow up to patently satirical | parent comment, but it does remind me that Sweden made | the change on 3rd Sep 1967) | cfstras wrote: | is this satire? I honestly can't tell. | talideon wrote: | It is, and blatently so. | TacticalCoder wrote: | Germany always is doing super well in these rankings. Yet | 2/3rd of the highways have no speed limit at all. It's of | course unsurprising: all cars are driving in the same | direction on the highway so head-on collisions on the | highways are extremely rare. | | Also pedestrian deaths on the highway: the number is so | minuscule it doesn't even register. | hkwerf wrote: | However, crossing the autobahn on foot is actually | forbidden (SS 18, Absatz 9, StVO), so there is a | "jaywalking" law in Germany that probably helps reducing | pedestrian deaths on the highway. | tim333 wrote: | Germany does have jaywalking laws though. I'm not sure | about Holland which has very low pedestrian deaths. | hef19898 wrote: | 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. | giantg2 wrote: | "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. | wil421 wrote: | The land of the free has 50 states with various laws. | Luckily mine is freer than most and we have no jaywalking | laws. However, the pedestrian must yield to traffic but | is allowed to cross when it's safe. I suppose a city | could enforce their own traffic law and make it illegal. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> head-on collisions on the highways are extremely rare. | | And they aren't as dangerous as many would think. Cars have | done lots to improve such collisions (airbags, crumple | zones). A head-on collision between cars is still two | relatively lightweight objects. Hit a concrete wall, | overpass support, cliff or tree and you are going up | against an object that makes a care look like tinfoil. The | head-on seems bad, but it is more survivable than having | your car bisected around a tree trunk. Or get pulled under | a big truck. | giantg2 wrote: | 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. | moritzwarhier wrote: | I immediately thought of this as well (horse sleigh scene in | Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment comes to mind, I mean, | neither of us has experience with horse-first transportation, I | assume). | | I just arrived at a different conclusion. To compare the number | of people killed by automobiles and their infrastructure, | compared to the numbers for people killed by horses (I can't | give precise numbers for either, I'll admit that) - that | comparison seems absurd to me. | | In other words, relative to the population in urban areas, I'd | be very surprised if horses causes as many deaths as | cars+roads. | kwhitefoot wrote: | You surely have to compare the rates per horse not per unit | population. | moritzwarhier wrote: | depends, I don't think it's even possible to have as many | horses on earth as there are automobiles :) | Tade0 wrote: | Well, the "village idiot" was usually one not because he was | born this way and his parents cared for him until adulthood, | but because he got kicked by a horse/cow and survived, albeit | with brain damage. | turtlesdown11 wrote: | > There were once almost zero regs regarding candles, objects | that killed thousands almost daily by fire. | | "killed thousands almost daily"...source for this? | Tade0 wrote: | A modern equivalent of this is the death toll from kerosene | heaters/lamps, which are considerably safer than candles: | | https://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/two-west-bengal- | toddl... | inglor_cz wrote: | One famous person who was killed by a horse cart was the | Nobelist Pierre Curie. | | In 1906 no less, at the twilight of the long horse cart era. | sparrish wrote: | To protect pedestrians... oh, those evil automakers. | stuaxo wrote: | In other countries we manage without this. | stronglikedan wrote: | And thank goodness someone did. Although, my boss getting | ticketed for walking across an _empty_ downtown LA street just | shows it 's still ripe for abuse. And the most ironic part was | the cop running his car up onto the sidewalk to jump out and | write the ticket. | leptons wrote: | California has a new jaywalking law | | https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/californias-new-2023... | | _" Starting Jan. 1, the Freedom to Walk Act officially becomes | law, allowing pedestrians in California to jaywalk without fear | of a ticket, as long as it's safe."_ | | Also, most people including police misunderstand how jaywalking | works, or is intended to work. Nobody should be expected to | walk a mile out of their way simply because that is where the | only crosswalk is. Jaywalking is technically only possible | _near a crosswalk_ , so if the pedestrian was near a crosswalk | but didn't use it, then that would be jaywalking. If the | pedestrian is say half a mile from the nearest crosswalk, they | are free to cross so long as they yield to oncoming traffic and | don't cross dangerously. | f4c39012 wrote: | the perils of "big car" | jowea wrote: | > A hundred years ago, if you were a pedestrian, crossing the | street was simple: You walked across it. | | What about horses and carriages? | paulryanrogers wrote: | You looked both ways, and probably heard them coming even if | not. You didn't get a ticket for not walking to the block | corner. | pengaru wrote: | PSA: | | On January 1, 2023, jaywalking became legal in California with | the Freedom to Walk Act, reversing what was once one of the | strictest laws against this practice in the country. Now, | pedestrians can cross the road at places other than intersections | and crosswalks without penalty. | rurban wrote: | Because of this incident: | | https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-cops-scrutiny-teens-jay... | pengaru wrote: | Here's the letter of the bill as well: | | https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml. | .. | cjensen wrote: | The Library of Congress has a great film taken from the front of | a cable car in pre-fire San Francisco [1]. It's absolutely | terrifying to see how unsafe the streets were. It wasn't just | cars either: horse-drawn carts dart in and out of traffic just as | cars did, pedestrians cross at-will in front of all vehicles, and | at one points kids mess about jumping on the back of vehicles. | | It's obvious major regulation was needed, and not just for | pedestrians. Pretend cars didn't exist on that street for a | moment and think about the changes needed to make it safe: carts | needed lanes and rules for changing lanes, cable cars needed | dedicated lanes, intersections needed a system to allow traffic | from multiple directions, and pedestrians were being a bit too | free with their judgement calls. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uINgSqEU26A | paldepind2 wrote: | 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. | ilaksh wrote: | 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 due to the | physics of collisions between a person and a vehicle. I don't | think slow vehicles is a good solution because we do need to | get places. | | I think an actual good (but very expensive) solution is for | new cities to be designed differently in several ways. One of | which is for roads to be only for small autonomous vehicles | and entirely separate from pedestrian paths. To make that | reasonably practical you need some other core assumptions to | be changed. And also a totally new development probably. | alexfoo wrote: | 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. | pixl97 wrote: | Cars are perfectly capable of going slow... | | The American mindset is not. I swear that a huge portion | of people in the US have been propagandized to believe | that the car is king and that any idea to the contrary is | heresy punishable by death under the front bumper of a | Ford F-250 jacked up 3 feet higher. | yowzadave wrote: | Bingo--this argument (like many others) is one that | doesn't require us to speculate or to invent new ways of | building cities. We just need to look around the world to | cities that have dealt with this problem successfully, | and learn from their examples. | snthd wrote: | The Dutch do road design/purpose very well, and they didn't | start with a new development. | | https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable- | sa... | | https://swov.nl/system/files/publication- | downloads/dv3_en_ko... (pdf) | Animats wrote: | > It reminds me a bit of the idea of "shared space" which is | a recent concept that is actually claimed to make streets | safer. | | It's a 1990s concept from France. It was implemented in the | 1990s on Theater Way in Redwood City. CA, and did not work | well. One side of the street has a curb, but the other side | does not. Vehicle traffic was allowed, and people could get | out in front of the movie theater. The other side of the | street, with no barriers, had cafe tables.[1] | | This worked badly. The cafe tables kept creeping outward. | Some auto traffic was too fast. During COVID, the outside | seating kept growing into the roadway. Plastic bollards were | erected to discourage non-delivery traffic. Overpowered | electric bikes zooming through became an problem. Police cars | were sometimes deployed to block the roadway. Then plastic | Jersey-type barriers were set up at one end, but not filled | with water, so they could be moved for deliveries. Currently, | one end of the street has been torn up for installation of | some kind of raiseable barrier. | | [1] https://earth.google.com/web/@37.48560402,-122.22909676,5 | .07... | mlazos wrote: | Characterizing that as terrifying is a bit hyperbolic. It looks | like Europe in the present day. If cars were moving slower it | would be much easier to be a pedestrian safely | sudobash1 wrote: | I was strongly reminded of the driving in Italy, except much | slower (and more horses). | lkramer wrote: | As someone who lives and occasionally drives in London that | feels like my daily life to be honest.. | limitedfrom wrote: | It's chaotic, but not terrifying or likely that dangerous given | the speed / injury/deaths are very unlikely at such low | speeds[1]. Vehicles are moving at near-walking speeds, and even | with the added weight of carriages/cars, there's a lot of | reaction time. | | [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds | freedomben wrote: | More of a meta-comment, but somebody working with AI to | upscale/enhance images/videos ought to take a crack at making | that picture quality better. Would be fascinating to generate a | reasonable audio track as well of what it would have sounded | like, especially as cars/motors accelerate, people shout | things, etc. Certainly not an easy task, but would be super | cool | piscisaureus wrote: | https://youtu.be/VO_1AdYRGW8?si=0q_u8ASJKn3YXGdd | joshuahaglund wrote: | Looks fine to me. I think the unsafe thing is speed. Top speed | of a cable car is 9.5mph. No vehicle appears to be going over | 15mph. There's a cyclist pretty casually keeping pace with the | cars. https://youtu.be/uINgSqEU26A?t=153 | | From https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk- | seve... | | "Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a | pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed | of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% | at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches | 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, | 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph." | | Slower speeds mean a collision is less likely to occur. We're | pretty good at moving in crowded conditions without frequent | collisions at low speeds. See also NYC sidewalks. | | Also, it appears the video is slowed down. I played at 1.5 | speed to make my estimates | jcynix wrote: | If you cross the street "near" a red traffic light, that costs | you 5EUR 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 of "near" you may ask? While in | Germany almost everything is regulated in detail, the definition | of "near" is up to the cop. | | ObJoke: it's midnight somewhere in Europe and no car in sight, | but some people are waiting for the traffic light to turn green? | You can bet that these are Germans ;-0 | macleginn wrote: | As many other aspects of the German ethos, this seems to be | dying away. I live near Stuttgart, jaywalking is rampant, and | nobody cares; in two years, I haven't seen a traffic cop | anywhere except for accident sites. | watwut wrote: | It was not near crossing, surely :) | | But like, German do not actually respect all the posted | rules. Nec ver did. | eimrine wrote: | "I was not interested to look for any car in sight because I | would like to save 5EUR for the case of being caught" | aurea wrote: | While I "jailwalk" pretty much all the time (in Europe), | nighttime is when I am the most reluctant to do so. Poor | visibility and higher chance of meeting a drunk driver. | nerdjon wrote: | 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 never be and will | instead of smaller pockets (I mean it just makes sense given how | large the country is). We should have more car free zones, but | where we have to share the space it makes sense. | | I am not going to sit here on a high horse and say I don't jay | walk. But I do it knowing the risks. | stuaxo wrote: | 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. | nerdjon wrote: | 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 responsible if they were clearly | driving in an unsafe manner, but we have the share the space | somehow. | JWLong wrote: | > 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 to come to a complete stop. And I think we | both know that they are not linear. | | Over the decades, posted speed limits in North America have | only increased. | | https://www.brake.org.uk/files/images/Speed/Infographics/_l | a... | nerdjon wrote: | > 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. | tialaramex wrote: | > 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 obviously have a more extreme | version of the "can't stop on a dime" problem). You aren't | allowed on most airstrips at all, without special | permission, in a vehicle or otherwise - so that mostly | leaves cars hitting pedestrians, seems robustly like that's | actually always the car driver's fault even if (as we see | for "Jay-walking") they'd prefer to pretend it was not. | nerdjon wrote: | > 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. | inglor_cz wrote: | "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. | talideon wrote: | If you can't "stop in a dime" somewhere you might expect | pedestrians, either the speed limit is too high or you're | speeding. | | You mention drivers cutting in front and pedestrians | running out into the street, but not drivers who aren't | paying due attention or who think that amber lights are | advisory at best and a signal to speed up at worst. I'm one | of those saps who actually crosses at pedestrian crossings | even where there's no obligation for me to do so, and I | make a habit of counting how many cars run an amber light | when I come to traffic lights. I've found that you can | guarantee at least one will, even if the speed limit is low | enough that they could literally "stop on a dime", and more | than likely, you'll get up to three doing the same. | | And then there's the number of times I've seen people run | reds, including at a pedestrian crossing where I wouldn't | be alive if I didn't trust drivers. | | So, I'll have more sympathy for drivers when they stop | running lights, and until then I'll continue to turn my | head towards oncoming traffic when I cross so the driver | who might end up killing me has my face seared into their | brain. | sillystuff wrote: | 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. | csswizardry wrote: | As a Brit, 'jaywalking' is so alien to me. I once jaywalked in | front of a police car who stopped and waved/signalled me across | the road! Whenever I'm overseas, crossing anywhere when the road | is clear is second nature to me and I have to remind myself not | to. Conversely, you can always spot a foreigner in the UK: | they're the ones waiting for the signal at a deserted crossing at | 2am. | leni536 wrote: | To be fair in the UK pedestrian traffic lights at intersections | are absolutely horrible, feels like they are never ever green. | kwhitefoot wrote: | There are not many countries in Europe that have jaywalking | laws. Only Germany and Poland come to mind. | input_sh wrote: | I'd say the most common rule across Europe would be "you can | cross anywhere as long as you're not within X meters of a | crosswalk". As in if there is one within your line of sight, | it's there for a reason and you should use it. If there isn't | one, cross away. | xyzelement wrote: | In the US this is very regional. In NYC, you never weight a | light. In places like Seattle (just as one example) and lots of | other places, it's considered very rude to not wait. | kzrdude wrote: | I'll defend the waiting people: If I don't know the city or | country that well, then I'm more careful. | retrac wrote: | 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 requirement for pedestrians to | use pedestrian crossings, and to follow stop lights, where those | are installed.) | | There are too many cases where it's perfectly safe and reasonable | to do that I see any sense in making it illegal. But it is, to be | fair, very dangerous in some cases. It's hard to judge how fast a | car is moving, sometimes you simply don't see one coming at you. | Toronto Police call this a "mid-block crossing", and in the city, | they account for a significant % of all pedestrian fatalities, | particularly at night, and in busy traffic. | flockonus wrote: | Definitely not true for Canada as a whole, i know of several | people who got jaywalking tickets in BC. Example: | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jaywalkers-c... | retrac wrote: | Yes, not obeying pedestrian signalling is one of the | exceptions. I'd say that's fairly reasonable -- if people | cross freely against indicators it messes with the flow of | traffic. I've only seen this actually enforced with examples | like in the article, outside a busy transit station. | seanr88 wrote: | Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more important | than the pedestrian's flow is indicative of the change in | attitude. Somehow the car has come to be most important | while the pedestrian is a nuisance. Both own and pay for | the road but the pedestrian is a second class citizen | (obviously some people will moan on about road tax and fuel | tax, but these taxes don't come close to paying for the | road infrastructure, I doubt they would even pay the rent | on the area dedicated to roads in one major city - say | NYC). | giantg2 wrote: | "Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more | important than the pedestrian's flow" | | Is it? It seems like in the example, both parties are | following a signal. Cars must yield to pedestrians in | crosswalks. Sure, some places have jaywalking laws when | not in a crosswalk (in some cases including | implied/unmarked crosswalks), and most require impeding | traffic as a component. A few places could move towards | common sense of adding impeding traffic as a requirement. | Nothing I've seen says pedestrians are second class. It's | like saying that one should be allowed to run a red | light. Everyone can wait their turn. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | Look at the amount of road space, infrastructure, | resources devoted to cars vs. pedestrians. The typical | way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway for example | is via a bridge - the pedestrian has to put up with going | up and down the stairs. Pedestrians typically have to go | out of their way to cross streets even at level. Traffic | lights have "beg buttons" for pedestrians to use, god | forbid they interrupt the flow of first-class car drivers | for a minute more than necessary. | | Pedestrians are totally treated as second-class almost | everywhere. | giantg2 wrote: | "The typical way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway | for example is via a bridge" | | I'm not sure where you're from, but I have seen very few | of these. Usually the ones I've seen are over a very busy | road with few to no intersections and a lot of foot | traffic. These are beneficial to the flow of both car and | foot traffic instead of using long cycle times. | | "beg buttons" | | I'm sorry, but that is some _extreme_ spin. What do you | think happens at traffic signals? Those signals use | sensors to identify when cars come up to them. These | sensors don 't work for pedestrians lacking large amounts | of metal to trip the fields. So yeah, they have a button | to tell the machine they want to cross. Usually, the | lights change just as fast if not faster than if a car | pulls up at a red light. | | When in a shared space, everyone must wait their turn. If | you don't, you end up with people steeping out in front | if cars and people running red lights. Taking turns is | part of a functioning society. | alexfoo wrote: | Pedestrians are second class in most crossings though (at | least in the UK). | | For traffic lights that are always green except when a | pedestrian wants to cross we do have the "beg button" but | the problem is that there is usually a reasonable delay | before the lights turn red to stop the cars. | | Obviously there needs to be some sort of delay between | sets of red lights otherwise someone could just spend the | day pressing the button and crossing all day whilst the | traffic backs up. But the delay is front loaded. There | doesn't need to be such a long delay before the lights | turn red if the lights have been green for a long enough | period prior to that. Poor implementation. | | I'm sure there's a study somewhere where they decided to | go with the pre-delay for some reason, but I've never | found anything. | Retric wrote: | In the event of high foot and road traffic you could have | A or B go 3D. The fact it's pedestrians suggests they | have a lower priority. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | > I'm not sure where you're from, but I have seen very | few of these. | | Well I'm not sure where you're from but I have seen tons | of these pedestrian bridges :) wouldn't it be better to | inconvenience the car by building an overpass? The car | has an engine and doesn't get tired. | | On beg buttons: I did not invent the terminology. Look it | up. | fifticon wrote: | "well excuse me for lacking sufficient amounts of | metal:-)" | randomname11 wrote: | Not to mention speed limits. Around here almost all | traffic exceeds the speed limit, yet plenty of drivers | still complain about pedestrians not adhering to the | rules. | justajot wrote: | The designs of most cities in the U.S. absolutely treat | pedestrians as second class citizens compared to | automobile traffic. I'm currently working on a project | that demonstrates exactly this (among other things) in | Dallas. It's both sad and amusing how true it is. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | I've seen this enforced on an otherwise empty street late | at night. Depends on the police officers' mood. This was in | either Vancouver or Toronto. | armchairhacker wrote: | In Boston (and maybe Massachusetts as a whole), jaywalking is a | crime but the fee is literally $1. | | There was a Boston globe article about this, where some | journalist spent his day intentionally and blatantly jaywalking | everywhere, including right in front of cops. He didn't get a | single fine. | ghaff wrote: | It does vary. I'm not saying that in cities like Boston and | New York, literally no one would ever get a ticket, but | people pretty much will take whatever they can get away with | for the most part. Historically, West Coast cities were | considered to have at least a modicum of enforcement but I | expect that's very scattered these days. | | So, yeah, there's technically a crime of jaywalking but in | practice it's mostly limited to whatever you feel you can get | away with absent being run over. | soperj wrote: | > including right in front of cops | | Was the journalist white? | nix0n wrote: | I found the article [0], which has the title "What does a guy | have to do to get a jaywalking ticket in this town?" | | [0] https://www3.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/05/24/what- | does-... | scubbo wrote: | > 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!? | avalys wrote: | 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. | rrradical wrote: | U-turns are not perfectly safe. Last week I saw a U-turner | almost a hit a biker as they backed up after not being able | to complete the turn in one pass. Can they be done safely? | Sure. But that's not the same as perfectly safe. | interestica wrote: | > as they backed up | | That's no longer a U-turn | pixl97 wrote: | When you start looking at the average size of an American | 4 wheeled land yacht you'll understand why U-turns are | illegal. | wilsynet wrote: | Cars also hit bikes when cars are backing up, making | turns, driving above the speed limit, driving below the | speed limit, when the driver opens the door. Really, many | varied circumstances that have nothing to do with making | a U-turn. | | Perhaps the phrase "perfectly safe" is wrong. Maybe | "otherwise intrinsically safe" would be more accurate. | Having said all that, I do wonder if we have U-turn | accident statistics. | ljm wrote: | Roads in the US aren't as safe to cross - you wouldn't take a | shortcut across a dual-carriageway in the UK and that's just | 2 lanes in each direction. | | Walking is just an afterthought really, until you get into | certain areas like South Beach in Miami. | simonbarker87 wrote: | If I was in London or another large city and could see a | multi lane road was clear then I wouldn't think twice about | crossing it. | | It's also not illegal to cross a dual carriage way in the | UK on foot afaik. Motorways are but not at A road. | culopatin wrote: | I got a ticket in Prague for crossing "wrong", so it's not a | US only issue. | vletal wrote: | I've only seen people getting ticket for crossing in Prague | if they * disregarded any safety measure | (arrogant crossing red light while cars are present) | * were crossing red light in front of a Police station | | Prague has such a shortage of officers they stripped the | education requirement and basically anyone who passes | psychological evaluation can become one. It is a rare sight | to see one in flesh. | trothamel wrote: | Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense | when you read them. Here's the law in New York: | | https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... | 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every | pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than | within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk | at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all | vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian | crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or | overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the | right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) No | pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless | authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when | authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross | only in accordance with the official traffic-control | devices pertaining to such crossing movements. | | So what's criminalized isn't crossing the road - it's crossing | without checking. Which seems like a good idea to me. Looking on | the other side of the spectrum, Wyoming's law is: | (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than | within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an | intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon | the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at | a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing | has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles | upon the roadway. (c) Between adjacent intersections | at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians | shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. | (d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally | unless authorized by official traffic-control devices. When | authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in | accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining | to the crossing movements. | | Which is similar, except for (c), which only matters when you're | close to a crosswalk - and almost certainly, on a busy road. | mikrl wrote: | Canada specific, but... | | Diagonal crossing is a thing in Quebec City at certain | intersections which stop the traffic flow in every direction. | | Otherwise I only ever do it when I cannot see any cars which is | fairly common at night in rural areas. | whafro wrote: | My family calls that sort of intersection "the doublecross" | cafard wrote: | Fifty or sixty years ago in Denver it was called the "Barnes | Dance" after the traffic commissioner who instituted it. My | recollection is that only downtown intersections had the | necessary signals, but then it has been years since I have | been back. | dixie_land wrote: | The intersection to Pike Place Market is an all way crossing | (to your point we're pretty cloae to Canada :) ): | | https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic | rangestransform wrote: | They're typically called scramble crosswalks. The most famous | one is Shibuya scramble, but they also have them in LA. | wongarsu wrote: | The Wyoming law seems to implicitly assume that a) | intersections are spaced close to each other and b) each | intersection with traffic lights also has pedestrian crossings. | | I assume b) is simply enforced by some regulation, but a) | sounds like it could lead to lots of unintended problems. What | if there's miles between two adjacent intersections? A person | standing in the middle would have to know if by chance both the | intersection to their left and right have a traffic light, and | then walk to the closest one if that's the case (or find a | marked crosswalk). | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Jaywalking shouldn't ever be a criminal offense. (Intentionally | obstructing traffic is a separate issue.) | | Ticket pedestrians for creating an unsafe environment. It's | what we do to drivers when they do the analogous thing. | pjscott wrote: | To clarify: under the laws linked above, jaywalking is | categorized not as a crime or misdemeanor but as a _traffic | infraction_ , just like breaking the speed limit or failing | to signal a turn. | enragedcacti wrote: | It's important to note that while many states have the fairly | common sense exceptions you mention, they also allow | municipalities to implement and enforce more aggressive | policies that don't have such exceptions. For instance, even | somewhere like New York City where jaywalking is wildly common | doesn't have the "shall yield right-of-way" language: | (c) Restrictions on crossings. (1) No | pedestrian shall enter or cross a roadway at any point where | signs, fences, barriers, or other devices are erected to | prohibit or restrict such crossing or entry. (2) | No pedestrian shall cross any roadway at an intersection except | within a cross- walk. (3) No pedestrian shall | cross a roadway except at a crosswalk on any block in which | traffic control signals are in operation at both intersections | bordering the block. | | https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYC... | kasey_junk wrote: | Jaywalking laws, independent of how they are implemented only | make sense if you start from a prior that the roads are | specifically for vehicular use snd it's pedestrians that are | making exceptional use of them. | | The article is pointing out that belief was a specific policy | choice driven at least in part by automakers. | digital-cygnet wrote: | I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not | about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian | "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to | imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this | were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as | places for cars to drive. | | In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking | regime remains: road users with cars, carts, bikes, trucks, or | on foot instead are in a delicate and complex (and often | dangerous) dance of theory-of-mind and courtesy (or a game of | chicken, depending). | | The "right-of-way" dominated way of thinking about roads is | hard to argue with when you look at most roadways in the | developed world (cars zooming around on multiple lanes with few | pedestrians in sight). But the idea that every pedestrian must | yield right of way to every car is much more questionable in | dense cities like NYC, on small, residential streets, where one | car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given | total preference over all the people trying to live their lives | (and cross the street) in B. | jeremy_wiebe wrote: | My issue, as a driver, is that more and more pedestrians walk | wherever and whenever they want with complete disregard for their | environment. I've had to hit the brakes pretty hard on several | occasions when I had "right of way" (right turn light, for | example) and a pedestrian stepped off the curb with their face | buried in their phone. | | I see the fines for jaywalking as a function to encourage safety | rather than criminalizing sensible behaviour (ie crossing a | completely empty street probably won't yield a fine but crossing | a busy street while holding your arm out to stop traffic will, | and should). | Vinnl wrote: | Then again, the only reason that that's particularly dangerous | is because of the car. Such behaviour in front of a bike, for | example, would ve annoying but not really dangerous. | mcbutterbunz wrote: | It would be more dangerous for the cyclist. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | bike brakes are usually pretty terrible though | joshuahaglund wrote: | Maybe yours but not most people I know who use their bike | frequently. Maintaining a bike is cheaper and easier than | maintaining a car. | conor- wrote: | My issue, as a pedestrian, is that more and more drivers are | driving with complete disregard for their environment. I've had | to jump or run out of the way on several occasions when I had | "right of way" (crosswalks or stop signs, for example) and | drivers accelerate right through with their face buried in | their phone. | | This problem also exists when cycling on shared bike gutters | where oblivious drivers veer out of their lane into the bike | lane, roll through stop signs, or are just generally unaware | that they're sharing the road with people not surrounded by 1 | ton of steel. | | A pedestrian stepping into the street isn't going to kill other | people with their negligence - the burden of caution should not | be placed onto them. | joeman1000 wrote: | The difference is that you're cocooned in a tonne of steel, | hurtling along at speeds which kill pedestrians. The onus is on | both parties to be vigilant, but it's more on you as a driver. | As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road is | your own little go-kart track, it's so much easier to drive | safely. I used to hold the same view until I started walking | regularly and could understand how much the game is tipped | towards cars. Their environment is unescapable and every time | you interact with a road as a ped. there's a huge chance you | might die. There's nearly no chance you'll die by hitting a | pedestrian as you drive. Just drive slower and pay more | attention. It's just not that bloody hard at all. | robertlagrant wrote: | > As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road | is your own little go-kart track | | This view was not espoused by the OP. You've made it up for | some reason. | bitwize wrote: | That's the thing. If it weren't for the prioritization of auto | traffic, crossing the street at arbitrary places and times | would still be "sensible behavior". | | Everything you think you know about cities and the role of | pedestrians is wrong -- a distortion introduced by auto | companies to diminish walking and public transport and | encourage automobile purchases. We are currently radically | rethinking our cities and imagining a greatly diminished role | for cars in them. | candybar wrote: | If you find yourself having to hit the brakes hard frequently | because a pedestrian stepped off the curb while being | distracted, you probably also need to pay more attention while | driving. | | My general experience is that in practice, in most areas, most | drivers don't yield enough and most pedestrians yield too much | because the pedestrian has a lot more to lose. It's also | important to remember that driving is a privilege specifically | granted by the state, walking is not. | Timshel wrote: | Not from the us but I would not expect a car to have priority | at a right turn. | jcpst wrote: | Where I live in the US, people simply do not stop at pedestrian | crosswalks. It doesn't matter that there's a large fluorescent | sign, and bold white stripes on the road, and a person waiting to | cross. I've even had a police officer drive straight through | while I was waiting to cross. | | But it seems like they're respected if you install large flashing | lights that the pedestrian can activate. | alexfoo wrote: | In the UK the law is sufficiently vague. | | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/part/I/crosshe... | | " Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings | 25.--(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within | the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being | controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before | any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have | precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver | of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such | pedestrian. " | | The point is that simply waiting to cross you are not "on the | carriageway" and therefore the driver of the vehicle is not | required to stop (by some reading of the law). | | Common custom is that you do stop for people waiting to cross | but sometimes you really do have to stick a foot into the road | to make people stop for you and allow you to cross. | switch007 wrote: | Right | | But the Highway Code says drivers MUST stop if the pedestrian | is /on/ the crossing: | | > you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a | crossing | | This should be sufficient to make drivers understand that you | give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings | willsmith72 wrote: | I like to act like I'm about to start crossing and only stop at | the last possible moment in these cases. That way at least 50% | they or somone else in the car freaks out. | | I hope it teaches them. Even if you can't see anyone, if | there's a pedestrian crossing, especially in an urban area, | just slow down in case. | enragedcacti wrote: | > But it seems like they're respected if you install large | flashing lights that the pedestrian can activate. | | I live near one of these and not even the strobing yellow | lights are always enough to get drivers to yield. I've never | once been able to cross when cars are present without fairly | recklessly walking in front of them. | | Maybe I'll have to try the brick method: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEI8ppiMzZM | dang wrote: | Related. Others? | | _The Invention of 'Jaywalking'_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33825009 - Dec 2022 (4 | comments) | | _California greenlights jaywalking. It's a step in the right | direction_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33769009 - Nov | 2022 (107 comments) | | _Jaywalking is decriminalized in California under new law_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33077573 - Oct 2022 (6 | comments) | | _What does a guy have to do to get a jaywalking ticket in this | town? (2017)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29135602 - | Nov 2021 (6 comments) | | _Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry | made it a crime_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25497772 | - Dec 2020 (438 comments) | | _"Jaywalking" Shouldn 't Even Be a Thing_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22050973 - Jan 2020 (3 | comments) | | _Jaywalking: How the car industry outlawed crossing the road_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18187751 - Oct 2018 (2 | comments) | | _How Automakers Invented the Crime of "Jaywalking"_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16158918 - Jan 2018 (424 | comments) | | _The Invention of Jaywalking_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14246003 - May 2017 (1 | comment) | | _California 's Broken Jaywalking Law_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9384972 - April 2015 (65 | comments) | | _How automakers invented the crime of "jaywalking"_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8893738 - Jan 2015 (189 | comments) | | _The Invention of Jaywalking_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3888104 - April 2012 (81 | comments) | orangepurple wrote: | A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom | often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For | example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly | could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing | any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological | support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they | appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away | from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he | didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile | could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the | introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such | a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When | automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate | their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated | areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's | movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various | traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license | requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, | maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase | price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer | optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the | arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the | majority of people no longer live within walking distance of | their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational | opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for | transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in | which case they have even less control over their own movement | than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly | restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for | traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In | the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to | walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have | just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new | item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual | can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN | optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in | such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use | it.) | | While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our | sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY | ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, | rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue | against any of these things, or against any other of the | innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It | would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the | telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no | disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all | these technical advances taken together have created a world in | which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in | the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of | politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous | technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power | to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. | Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the | introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary | disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. | Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will | make the human being into an engineered product rather than a | free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on | your religious beliefs). | | Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is | that, within the context of a given society, technological | progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. | Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually | become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without | it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. | Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item | of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes | dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today | if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can | move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. | Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but | technology can never take a step back--short of the overthrow of | the whole technological system. | chung8123 wrote: | This is like saying automakers destroyed the trolly system. It | was the people that did this by popular opinion. Most people in | the US use cars, like the convenience of cars, and will vote in a | car centric manner. Blaming automakers is just absolving the | people of blame. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-10-12 21:00 UTC)