Hacker News Reader

Comment by a-priori | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com