Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think legally, the car has to stop for an approaching pedestrian if it's physically able to stop, so if the pedestrian doesn't "stop about a foot away from your lane" as expected, you don't run into him.

Though I don't know the NYC traffic code. In California, I believe 21950 paragraph C applies... the pedestrian that stops just before walking into the path of the car might be violating paragraph B since the driver may reasonably expect the pedestrian to continue walking.

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

The law as written and the law in practice, are different matters.

NYC would not function with actual adherence to the law.

There is never a break in pedestrians long enough for a car to turn in a fully legal fashion at most intersections, which is why human drivers wait for the largest mass of the built-up crowd to go and then inch their way through the stream of those just arriving at the intersection (with pedestrians seeing what the car is going to do and then flowing around the car). Technically, the pedestrians have the full right of way.

On the pedestrian side, blocks are short, and if you don't jaywalk it would take forever to walk up/downtown.

And if you were to fully split pedestrian and vehicle phases (and get New Yorkers to start adhering to it), you'd just grind the city to a halt because you're moving less people/cars than the "maximum throughput" flows than we have now.

Imagine how much safer NYC would be if the cars and pedestrians were isolated. A dedicated car layer with an extra lane on each side (at current level) and a new pedestrian layer built above the cars with physical barriers preventing falling to the level beneath.

Actually, NYC is very safe compared to most metro areas in the US. On a 2016 ranking, it was the 95th most dangerous metro area out of the 105 ranked.

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/

Another way to increase safety would be to slow down traffic... a lot.

It used to be that cars, trains (and horses) traveled at just over walking pace, pedestrian crossings (and jaywalking) didn't exist, pedestrians crossed the street anywhere.

https://youtu.be/aohXOpKtns0?t=4m4s

Though I guess today's traffic densities wouldn't allow for slowly meandering through traffic.

Final scene, General Motors Futurama, 1939 World's Fair.[1]

[1] https://youtu.be/1cRoaPLvQx0?t=1237

Maybe, but good luck ever getting that built.

Typically the law is broad enough and redundant enough that who's in violation is simply up to the discretion of whoever has the blue lights.

Almost, but not exactly true -- the cop can issue a ticket, but a judge decides who is actually in violation (assuming that the person that got the ticket contests it).

Always-on cameras in self-driving cars will help protect the innocent (assuming the footage is saved and available through subpoena, otherwise, like police dash and body cams, few people will let their own camera prove them guilty)

Oh, you mean like the "too-dark-to-see" scapegoat camera in that very case the article is about? Riiiiight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com