Hacker News Reader

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel | Hacker News Reader

I'd never considered that idea before: Cars are now more important than pedestrians. I've always had the opinion that pedestrians are above the drivers, but then again, I don't live in America. Perhaps things differ there.

View on HN

Even within America, norms differ. Two weeks ago my family travelled to California for a vacation, and while walking around they marveled at the way cars would stop for pedestrians waiting at crosswalks. The first time this happened, they were confused... the driver came to a stop to wait for us? In Raleigh you have to wait at a crosswalk until it's all clear in all directions, even if that takes a few cycles of the stoplight, and jog across before more traffic comes.

Yeah, I had the same experience on my first trip to California. I had lived in Boston for years (you know the joke, right? "What's the largest cause of traffic accidents in Boston? Two drivers aiming for the same pedestrian!") and found myself needing to cross a busy four-lane road in San Francisco, with nary a traffic light in sight. I thought I was screwed, but once I stepped out into the crosswalk, I felt like Moses parting the Red Sea. Surreal :-)

In Boston it's safer to jaywalk than wait for a green light, since cars turn right without looking All The Time. Boston bicyclists are reviled, but their daring-do and disregard for the rules of the road are a direct reaction to following those rules being an excellent way to get yourself killed.

Derring-do

Yeah, drivers in my country are taught to watch out for vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians), moving a vehicle onto a pavement is prohibited except for access reasons.

I would say its worse in some parts or Europe. In N. Ireland for example pedestrians do not have the right of way at a crosswalk. Drivers will run you over in an attempt to turn onto a side street. In Colorado, pedestrians are treated like a distinct lane of traffic, so you have to yield to them if you want to cross into their lane.

I actually thought that Jaywalking was a joke - until I visited America. And it was incredibly frustrating for someone from the UK to cross the roads. I really loathed it.

In my mind the rule of the road is something like:

Pedestrians>Cyclists>Scooters>Motorbikes>Cars

I always give large mass vehicles and pedestrian carriers a wide berth.

Though a little common sense can go a long way! What's the problem crossing an empty road! Or even speeding on an empty road?

It's the nanny state gone mad!

As an American it is funny you say that, when I visited France a few years back I spent time in Nice and Paris and it definitely seemed like road vehicles had the right of way. Pedestrians had to be smart about when crossing (even if that is technically, and legally incorrect).

I don't own a car, and I live in a big Northeast US city so walking and public transportation is my main mode of transit - jaywalking is a way of life in Boston and NYC from experience and is probably similar in other NE cities. However, I also think your order is totally wrong, in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal ... pedestrians needs to be mindful of where they are traversing.

> in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal

This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?

The law recognizes reality; a motor vehicle, even one driven by a "perfect" driver, has far fewer degrees of freedom in any given situation than a pedestrian. The vehicle has momentum, limitations on the braking force that can be applied to this momentum, limitations on the ability of the steering system to change the direction that the vehicle mass is traveling in, and sensory limitations for the driver that can decrease the reaction time available. A pedestrian can not move as fast or as far in reaction to such a situation, but they can change direction of travel far more quickly and have a better ability to hear or see the oncoming vehicle.

In a place and time where the motor lobby had not been so successful, the law would probably recognize this reality by imposing strict limitations on the use of machinery which, as you describe it, is so intrinsically dangerous. Locomotive Acts, for example

In Sri Lanka there is a pecking order. And bigger wins out.

High mass vehicles haven't got the ability to stop quickly - or get out the way like a pedestrian or cyclist so I understand that.

However I can't help but feel that we have our priorities skewed. I personally loathe motorised traffic (except for when I need it!)

I'd rather confine freight to nights. And keep traffic out of town centres. And let pedestrians and cyclists relax a little. I think we should all me mindful on the road, but it's pretty tedious being forever vigilant. Some pedestrians haven't fast reactions at all.

As a cyclist, I'm happy to use the sidewalk where the road I feel is too dangerous - but that wouldn't be at the expense of a pedestrian's right of way.

I live near the sea, and the nicest place to cycle is along the sea front away from traffic - it's glorious - but yet illegal. Yet if there were more routes like this, we might have more cyclists. In this case it's illegal as the board walk is there for pedestrians, but it's empty for a good amount of the year. I would still give a pedestrian right of way. So it's in part, attitude. Not thinking that I have right of way.

Having said that pedestrian zones are nice too.

The rule against speeding on an empty road is there because the road may stop being empty before you can react and adjust your speed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com