4 ms·

I feel the same about cars as I do about drones in that they are very dangerous. The car industry had a history of blaming the victim as a "jay-walker" and eve

by foxhop 10y ago

I feel the same about cars as I do about drones in that they are very dangerous. The car industry had a history of blaming the victim as a "jay-walker" and even lobbying for laws against them. In another universe we have a name for somebody that gets in the way of a drone, and the victim is punished for not wearing a helmet.

peterclary 10y ago
Indeed. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...
jasonkostempski 10y ago
Whats the name for someone thats walks across subway tracks? I don't think the car industry is to blame, it's the city planner that put streets right next to sidewalks with no physical barriers and now also puts bike paths weaving throughout the streets and sidewalks.
- scarecrowbob 10y ago
  This breaks down, because there have been plenty of uses for streets without cars, but there aren't a lot of uses for tracks without railcars. If you understand that the streets and roads have always been used for many kinds of traffic, and that limiting these areas to automobile traffic was not initially considered the only natural response to the advent of cars, the OP's point makes more sense.
closeparen 10y ago
Yeah, we took some minor capabilities away from pedestrians: 1) Ability to enter the roadway at any time, rather than after checking that it's clear. 2) Ability to walk down the middle of the roadway instead of the sidewalk. And in exchange, we vastly expanded the amount of commutable land per travel minute, resulting in more space for most people. Also affordable inter-city travel and the National Parks. I'd do it again. Just as suburbia is seen by some contemporary progressives as a great social evil, the crowded conditions of urban tenements were the great problem of our time to progressive visionaries back then [0]. Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. We should have leaned into streetcars instead of personal cars in order to spread out, sure, but then it'd just be some other kind of vehicle making the streets dangerous for pedestrians. No great social problem is solved by drones being welcome at low altitude over crowds. News and public safety organizations already knows how to use real helicopters in that context. There isn't some latent use case for aerial photography that we're all suffering without, it's a nice-to-have, and the decision that it isn't worth the tradeoffs is much more clear-cut. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Tenement_House_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Tenement_House_...
- pkulak 10y ago
  > Ability to enter the roadway at any time, rather than after checking that it's clear. Jaywalking doesn't depend on whether the road is clear or not. Try crossing an 8-lane stroad sometime even when it's "clear" for the moment. A car doing 50mph can get to that far lane way faster than I can, let alone someone who isn't young and in reasonable physical shape. What we've really done is taken half of all land in every city and made it deadly to set foot on. A city that is supposedly built for people, but will kill you if you walk about 10 feet in most directions.
  - zaccus 10y ago
    Your example is absurd. Where do you live that you ever have to cross an 8 lane highway on foot? City streets have crosswalks and stop lights. When used properly it's perfectly safe for everyone.
    - pkulak 10y ago
      Yeah. 5000 pedestrians dead every year, just in the US, and another 25000 drivers. Perfectly safe for everyone. And I didn't say highway. But that's a very good point. Stroads are difficult to cross, but highways carve a city up and are mostly impossible to cross except for a few places per mile. 8 lanes may be a bit rare, but it's easy to find 7. 2 travel lanes in each direction, a turn median, and a parking lane on each side. I was just in SoCal and saw plenty of examples with three travel lanes in each direction, making 9+ lanes in many places!
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. What are you talking about? Walking is awesome, it's incredibly healthy and in the long term, as our cities reorganize around us better, walking will be the default. As a human being, you need to walk to be healthy anyway, so why not kill two birds with one stone? We'll use cars only for long distance travel, but food, work, and other basic daily necessities will all be within easy walking distance of your house. Surburbia is a horrible system because it guarantees density is so low that walking by default is impossible. I would describe any system where it's difficult to choose walking alternatives for your various errands as a form of slow torture which turns peoples bodies into useless sacks.

by foxhop 10y ago

peterclary 10y ago

Indeed. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...

jasonkostempski 10y ago

Whats the name for someone thats walks across subway tracks? I don't think the car industry is to blame, it's the city planner that put streets right next to sidewalks with no physical barriers and now also puts bike paths weaving throughout the streets and sidewalks.

scarecrowbob 10y ago
This breaks down, because there have been plenty of uses for streets without cars, but there aren't a lot of uses for tracks without railcars. If you understand that the streets and roads have always been used for many kinds of traffic, and that limiting these areas to automobile traffic was not initially considered the only natural response to the advent of cars, the OP's point makes more sense.

closeparen 10y ago

Yeah, we took some minor capabilities away from pedestrians: 1) Ability to enter the roadway at any time, rather than after checking that it's clear. 2) Ability to walk down the middle of the roadway instead of the sidewalk. And in exchange, we vastly expanded the amount of commutable land per travel minute, resulting in more space for most people. Also affordable inter-city travel and the National Parks. I'd do it again. Just as suburbia is seen by some contemporary progressives as a great social evil, the crowded conditions of urban tenements were the great problem of our time to progressive visionaries back then [0]. Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. We should have leaned into streetcars instead of personal cars in order to spread out, sure, but then it'd just be some other kind of vehicle making the streets dangerous for pedestrians. No great social problem is solved by drones being welcome at low altitude over crowds. News and public safety organizations already knows how to use real helicopters in that context. There isn't some latent use case for aerial photography that we're all suffering without, it's a nice-to-have, and the decision that it isn't worth the tradeoffs is much more clear-cut. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Tenement_House_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Tenement_House_...

pkulak 10y ago
> Ability to enter the roadway at any time, rather than after checking that it's clear. Jaywalking doesn't depend on whether the road is clear or not. Try crossing an 8-lane stroad sometime even when it's "clear" for the moment. A car doing 50mph can get to that far lane way faster than I can, let alone someone who isn't young and in reasonable physical shape. What we've really done is taken half of all land in every city and made it deadly to set foot on. A city that is supposedly built for people, but will kill you if you walk about 10 feet in most directions.
- zaccus 10y ago
  Your example is absurd. Where do you live that you ever have to cross an 8 lane highway on foot? City streets have crosswalks and stop lights. When used properly it's perfectly safe for everyone.
  - pkulak 10y ago
    Yeah. 5000 pedestrians dead every year, just in the US, and another 25000 drivers. Perfectly safe for everyone. And I didn't say highway. But that's a very good point. Stroads are difficult to cross, but highways carve a city up and are mostly impossible to cross except for a few places per mile. 8 lanes may be a bit rare, but it's easy to find 7. 2 travel lanes in each direction, a turn median, and a parking lane on each side. I was just in SoCal and saw plenty of examples with three travel lanes in each direction, making 9+ lanes in many places!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. What are you talking about? Walking is awesome, it's incredibly healthy and in the long term, as our cities reorganize around us better, walking will be the default. As a human being, you need to walk to be healthy anyway, so why not kill two birds with one stone? We'll use cars only for long distance travel, but food, work, and other basic daily necessities will all be within easy walking distance of your house. Surburbia is a horrible system because it guarantees density is so low that walking by default is impossible. I would describe any system where it's difficult to choose walking alternatives for your various errands as a form of slow torture which turns peoples bodies into useless sacks.