Hacker News Reader

Comment by meri_dian | Hacker News Reader

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 road and people should be given the sidewalks, and that people darting to and fro on the street would be very bad for everyone involved.

Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.

View on HN

> 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 globally are now designing more pedestrian and bike friendly streets.

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 for their errors and aggressive biking. 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.

Bikes are worse than cars. Cars respect pedestrians, at least in NYC. Bicyclists are a terror. Just my opinion.

> I have found, in NYC at least, bicyclists are a much greater hazard to pedestrians than cars.

I'm sure it feels like that sometimes, and I have no doubt that in NYC that you have witnessed some bad bike behavior, but even in NYC cars are the greater threat to pedestrians by a long, long way. Here are some statistics:

Just so you don't have to read through all the links, in the three years 2014+2015+2016, there were 3 pedestrian fatalities and 932 injuries in all accidents between a pedestrian and a bicyclist. In the same time frame, there were 32,217 injuries and 421 fatalities in all accidents between a pedestrian and a car.

Between 2002 and 2016, there have been 10 pedestrians who died from a bicycle collision, and 2,345 who died from a car collision. The rate of death from bikes vs cars is 0.42%.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash...

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/10/the-rate-of-p...

Something to keep in mind is that the main reason bikers are behaving badly is defensive biking turned aggressive. It's when they're terrified of cars and don't have a safe space of their own that they act stupid. If we design better biking spaces that are separate from both the driving and the walking spaces, both behavior and safety on the whole will improve. Cities across the US, including NYC, are studying this and have been proving it true for years.

> 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.

I hope you never act on that wish, it wouldn't play out well for any party involved. (And, incidentally, it's not schadenfreude if you cause it to happen.)

I know that peds, bikers, and drivers at times are all frustrated and scared of the others. Take pity on the minority of assholes, rather than get angry. If we understand they're just scared and acting out, then we can ignore the bad behavior and focus on improving the situation as a whole.

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.

A cyclist would have to try very hard or be negligent/unlucky to kill a pedestrian. When it does happen, as in Central Park, it makes national news because the average occurrence across the entire US is less than once a year. Meanwhile, thousands of pedestrians die annually from drivers texting/drinking/road-raging. It's hard to see how bikes are the greater hazard.

I agree. Cyclists are a serious danger, primarily because they don't believe they're a danger, and so they take more risks around people who are following the rules.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Cyclists are not pedestrians.

There are no better alternatives. That's the point.

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.

Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.

> There are no better alternatives.

Sure there are, cities in the US are starting to build better alternatives already.

> 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.

True, the article does make it seem like that. Because that's what happened, it's a fact that US auto industry propaganda led to the establishment of jaywalking laws.

> Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.

You seem to be wanting to litigate the safety of mixing cars and pedestrians. Nobody here is arguing that walking in the street is safe. The article is the story of what happened, which isn't up for debate. We can argue about whether crossing the street should be legal, if you want, but there are many countries in the world where it's not illegal to cross the street. There are many people in the US who think it shouldn't be illegal, and also think crossing a busy street is a bad idea.

Of course the propaganda was a part of the laws being created, that is clear. But the article is trying to say they are the sole reason. That is not clear and is up for debate.

Sometimes people dont follow accepted standards unless that standard is legislated. If the standard is important enough, it should be legislated. This standard will vary from person to person, but eventually we resolve the issue and either legislate or not.

I think enough people would have agreed that jaywalking should be legislated about to have it actually written into law with or without auto industry marketing.

What do you want out of this discussion?

Logic and speculation doesn't explain history. If you think the propaganda wasn't the only reason, then bring some historical evidence rather than opinion.

The fact that some other countries don't have jaywalking laws, even though everyone everywhere agrees that walking in the street can be dangerous is already evidence that jaywalking laws are not a given.

> I think enough people would have agreed that jaywalking should be legislated about to have it actually written into law with or without auto industry marketing.

Someone else already mentioned this here, but that is not how US traffic laws are created. The public doesn't have to agree or disagree with it. It can sometimes influence the process, but public opinion doesn't usually make or break traffic laws.

> The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the road and people should be given the sidewalks

That's a very generous interpretation of how laws are created and passed in this country.

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 drive freely on the streets! Streets are for people! People have been walking freely on streets forever and now you're proposing we vacate them for the convenience of drivers?" and so on.

So let me ask you this: how are you any more right than alternate-universe-you? Other than the status quo bias that you're defending the way things currently are where you (and I) live.

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.

Why do we grant special entitlements to people who opted to use two tons of steel to move one person? That sounds to me like a reason to place heavy restrictions on their behavior. There's an implicit assumption somehow being in a car makes you more important than someone who isn't. And any argument that presumes a pedestrian is wasting energy over someone who has chosen to drive in a car is absurd.

Why are you being so reductionist? Drivers have to accept extremely tight restrictions on their behavior already. I feel like I'm talking to an alien that's never driven a car. I mean good lord you have to 6 month class to learn a subset of the rules of the road.

The fact that cars are given priority because its more efficient to do so doesn't imply that people think they're more important. In a world with only bikes we would make the same contract so that bikes could go faster.

Allowing cars to achieve and maintain speed increases efficiency without impacting pedestrian walk times. Compared to this, a system where roads are shared does waste energy, time, and economic value.

> Allowing cars to achieve and maintain speed increases efficiency without impacting pedestrian walk times. Compared to this, a system where roads are shared does waste energy, time, and economic value.

Probably, but "energy, time, and economic value" isn't necessarily an unalloyed good that must be striven for. There are societal costs to the decisions we've made.

Oh hi, it's alternative-universe-you here with a rebuttal.

Optimal for whom? Why should I as a pedestrian have to wait or take an alternate route (e.g. a cross-walk) just to save you a bit of time and energy? Why is your time more important than mine, just because you're driving a car? Why is a pedestrian's safety less important than a bit of energy? These are people we're talking about! If there are limits or inefficiencies about stopping and starting, that sounds like a design flaw in the car to me, not in our laws.

We have certain roads where drivers get priority -- they're called freeways. Everywhere else, you're a person using the road just like anyone else. If you can't keep track of a few people walking around, then you're going too fast! Slow down. Then you'll have more time to react, and it'll even take less energy to stop.

If I were to run on foot through the streets, tackling anyone who got in my way (after all, I would have wasted time and energy moving around them!), then I'd get charged with assault. They certainly wouldn't get charged for impeding me by getting in my way, would they? Of course not, I hit them! Why does anything change just because you're sitting in a car? Why does that give you special status, to the point where it's okay to endanger other people who might want to use the road?

You seem to be attacking a straw man argument along the lines of "Drivers should hit pedestrians whenever possible." The actual question here is whether pedestrians should be limited in their use of roads (e.g. having to use crosswalks), which is not answered by points like "Why is a pedestrian's safety less important than a bit of energy?" and "If I were to run on foot through the streets, tackling anyone who got in my way…".

Obviously cars should not hit pedestrians, but IMO it doesn't make sense to have the slow group getting in the fast group's way all the time. The time and energy needed for me to go 15 miles without a car is much, much greater than the time and energy it takes for me to wait at crosswalks when I'm walking places. You could weigh pedestrians' time and energy twice as heavily as drivers' and you still end up with it being better to have many (not all, but many) roads be primarily car-places.

The UK's roads are an unrestricted free-for-all and the amount of time you spend in your car having to wait for people walking in the road is far short of all of it.

The roads end up mainly for traffic anyway, because people aren't dumb, and they're well aware that most drivers would prefer to kill them than make the effort to press the brake pedal. But there's no need to enshrine this in law and prevent people from crossing where they please when the road is empty, the traffic light and/or slow-moving, or the mass of people large enough.

The reason for it I feel is that the laws are designed to ensure pedestrians use crosswalks and use them responsibility, to promote safety. Its easier and safer for pedestrians to cross the roads at certain spots, with their own unique signal to stop traffic, rather than have them dart out at their own leisure and force the driver to react quickly.

The jaywalking idea was to add teeth to this; you want to train pedestrians to use crosswalks and signals. Its better all around.

(In my state) Pedestrians already have absolute priority. Whether their move is legal or not if you're in a vehicle you must always stop for a pedestrian in the road.

> now you're proposing we vacate them for the convenience of drivers

This argument already happened and would probably go the same way if it happened again. The value proposition for vehicles is too strong. I agree that's it decreases pedestrian liberty to an extent but our current system allows for cars to reach their destination much faster and doesn't meaningfully impact walk times.

I will agree that having walk-only city centers is a good idea. Just so long as there is ample parking on the border.

>So let me ask you this: how are you any more right than alternate-universe-you? Other than the status quo bias that you're defending the way things currently are where you (and I) live.

The "I have a tank and I'll go where I damn well please!"-universe version of them shows up, then they all agree with that one. So tanks are clearly the answer to the cars vs pedestrians argument.

Just because pedestrians shouldn't walk in the road doesn't mean it needs to be a crime for them to do so.

In the UK it's not a crime to walk in the road. It's just a bad idea, for the reasons you mentioned.

This. If it's safe to cross and the pedestrian can get across why should there be a ticket. Waiting for a light to change to cross an empty street seems crazy to me.

Why should there be a ticket for not waiting for red arrow to turn green so I can take a left when I could take the same left into a parking lot 500ft down the road?

Traffic laws have redundancy to provide damage control for parties that don't follow the rules that apply to them.

Cars aren't allowed to hit people. People aren't allowed to cross in certain places. Hopefully at least one party is doing what they're supposed to do at all times.

Works fine in a lot of other countries without Jay walking laws

The article is a historical overview, it's not talking about a "problem". It talks about how the auto industry changed the perception of what streets are for, and clearly, they did such a good job that you can't even imagine a world where roads are not for cars.

And yes, cars are bad for pedestrians. They impede their travel, sometimes hit them, cause air and noise pollution, and are highly space inefficient. We allow cars in cities so that we can traverse cities more easily, but from a pedestrian's perspective, cities would be far better without cars.

> 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.

There are ways to move around other than driving, you know...

I'll bite, what are my options for moving distances that are too far to walk, too short to fly, and don't involve vehicles?

You can use a vehicle that is small and slow enough that it won't kill pedestrians on a collision. For example, a bicycle or a segway.

There is also mass transit, which can go over rails away from pedestrians or even underground.

>which can go over [highways] away from pedestrians or even underground

This is also a point for automobiles.

> a bicycle

These only work if the destination isn't an event that requires attendees to be presentable and thus avoid smelling like cyclists. (And if it was close enough for a "casual-effort cycling" then it was close enough to walk, too.)

> a segway

These are illegal in a huge number of places, iirc.

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

Definitely not. Car dominance is heavily subsidized at all levels of government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com