31 ms·

How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

429 points by JackFr 9y ago

meri_dian 9y ago
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.
- Invictus0 9y ago
  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.
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    Streets have always been for cars in history and been dangerous for pedestrians When I go walking around the Colosseum there's an old Roman street (2 thousand years old give or take) that was built to go faster than walking and it's still hard today with modern shoes to walk on it
- jablan 9y ago
  There are ways to move around other than driving, you know...
  - Spivak 9y ago
    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?
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      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.
      - shuntress 9y ago
        >which can go over [highways] away from pedestrians or even underground This is also a point for automobiles.
      - mmirate 9y ago
        > 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.
        jablan 9y ago
        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.
- dahart 9y ago
  > 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.
  - SomeHacker44 9y ago
    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.
    - dahart 9y ago
      > 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-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2016.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2015.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash-data-report.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash... https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/10/the-rate-of-pedestrians-injured-by-bicyclists-is-going-down/381013/ 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.
- jstanley 9y ago
  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.
  - maym86 9y ago
    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.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      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.
      - maym86 9y ago
        Works fine in a lot of other countries without Jay walking laws
- a-priori 9y ago
  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.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    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.
    - Fricken 9y ago
      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.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        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.
- automobiles 9y ago
  > 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.
- andys627 9y ago
  Definitely not. Car dominance is heavily subsidized at all levels of government.
wccrawford 9y ago
Sure, they were pro-active about it, but let's face it: It was going to happen anyhow. This just accelerated things.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  We live in only one possible future.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    Well, jaywaking isn't a crime in UK (except on freeways), but the general result is roughly the same.
    - JdeBP 9y ago
      It's not a crime on motorways. Pedestrians are not permitted on motorways at all (except for emergencies), so where and how they can cross them is a moot point. * http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/contents/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/contents/made
- makmanalp 9y ago
  Well, we could be living in a situation where pedestrians take precedence and have right of way over cars in city streets, and the opposite in highways, which I think would be much more desirable, especially in crowded cities. Perhaps even ban cars except for abutters, commercial vehicles and emergency vehicles from the densest city center areas. God that would be a relief. edit: OK, yes, obviously you can and should distinguish between streets and roads, the former being smaller and mainly for residents and visitors of a subsector of the area (who can play hacky-sack on their residential street if they so well please, and you still have to wait for them), and the latter being mainly for car transportation in and out of the area itself. You can prioritize humans in one and cars in the other.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    It's already true in many places, in a lot of European cities you see a sign like this when entering: https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg And it basically means that pedestrians have an absolute priority before cars, they can walk on the street as much as they like and you as a driver have to exhibit some extreme attention because if anything happens, it's 99% certain you will be found at fault.
lawlessone 9y ago
What i would like to know is did it actually reduce deaths?
- virgilp 9y ago
  As a percentage of "miles traveled by car"? Absolutely.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    Source?
    - ChrisLomont 9y ago
      The graph in the picture showed 16K deaths in 1923, for a US population of 111M then, with likely much smaller per capita driving miles than now. Now population is 323M, and there are around 5K pedestrian/car deaths annually [1]. We drive around 3 trillion miles annually[2]. If you can find the total or per capita miles driven in 1923, I think that would make the data complete. But it seems quite clear pedestrian deaths are vastly lower now than in 1923. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind... [2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1704.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1704.cfm
      - poslathian 9y ago
        Just to be clear, and I don’t think you said otherwise, that 5k number is only pedestrian deaths. In 2016 there were 37,000 fatalities from motor vehicle crashes. The figure in the article is similarly reporting all automotive fatalities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths...
        ChrisLomont 9y ago
        > Just to be clear, and I don’t think you said otherwise, that 5k number is only pedestrian deaths I clearly wrote "pedestrian/car deaths" and linked to a source that clearly explained it. I'm not sure how else to put it. Here's a better answer [1]: 21 fatalities per 100M vehicle miles of travel in 1923 to 1.36 in 2007. That should completely answer the request for a source. [1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/pdf/fi200.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/p...
rubinelli 9y ago
There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily influenced our views on littering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem; disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared responsibility.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  In much the same way I'm happy we no longer empty chamber pots by heaving the contents out the front window, I don't really care where litter or rubbish comes from but I'd prefer it not pile up on the sidewalk.
  - Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    Same, or that we have to dodge or wait for pedestrians when we're trying to get somewhere. I mean we do but only rarely if people abide by the laws / common sense.
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      As a frequent pedestrian who also pays road taxes, I am also trying to get somewhere, and I don't appreciate all the times I've had to dodge cars while using a crosswalk. The stakes for me are much higher.
      - frabbit 9y ago
        Apart from the dodging, it's having to stand there waiting, while they womble past in their horseless carriage ... getting in my way.
        ars 9y ago
        And you are getting in their way. There is a person in that car, so as far as who is more important it's equal both ways. Sometimes the person walking waits, sometimes the person in the car waits.
mlinksva 9y ago
Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.
- jadedtuna 9y ago
  Do you mean ban human drivers in urban areas or in general?
  - bcit-cst 9y ago
    he means ban humans. period . fullstop.
- jdhopeunique 9y ago
  If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make automated vehicles possible and dominated by the first market entrants.
  - DiThi 9y ago
    > Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment. Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. Smart phones may include such functionality.
    - mieseratte 9y ago
vijayr 9y ago
Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the pedestrians! In what world is this ethical? What is next? Sending overdose details to pharma companies for them to blame the drug users?
- ryandrake 9y ago
  You say this as if it's unusual for news articles to be solely written by various company's PR and marketing teams.
  - vijayr 9y ago
    But there is a difference between promoting a product vs shifting blame, isn't it?
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      In both cases, the entity creating the message is promoting a point of view in which it has a financial stake.
    - RickS 9y ago
      If the success of a product depends on shifting blame, that difference is very blurry. See uber's "but taxis are evil/medallions are a monopoly!"
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  > In what world is this ethical? How many people would be willing to let someone else do their job for them when the cost is adding a little extra bias, something that isn't even a big deal in a single case (but which adds up over time)? It feels like ethics will quickly take a back seat for some small boon.
- upofadown 9y ago
pmulv 9y ago
There's an episode of The Dollop podcast that addresses the introduction of cars to the streets of America when horse and buggie still ruled the road [0]. It is highly entertaining and informative, and it touches upon why "jaywalking" and who "Jay" is supposed to be. I recommend it and the podcast in general to anyone who is interested in peculiar history. [0] http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came
odammit 9y ago
99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back that’s a pretty good listen. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...
- silveira 9y ago
  I came here to post this episode. It's one of the greatest from 99pi.
  - odammit 9y ago
    It was one of the first I listened to, then I went back and listened to them all. :D coin check
mc32 9y ago
Point taken. However, when new tech comes along, new laws follow in their wake. When people moved from farm to city and suddenly we had massive amounts of worker abuse, labor laws got introduced. Barnstorming aviation gave way to regulated aviation. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar in that it's a reaction to change in the operating environment. I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc. Today streets are prescripted and need to meet various contextual requirements (volume, traffic flow, vehicle types, pedestrians, weight limit, wear characteristics, etc.) When a car gets crushed on the tracks, it's usually not blamed on the train. It's typically thought of as the responsibility of the car driver. Now, sure, trains are constrained by tracks and don't enjoy manoeuverability, but same with ships, the little ones get out of the way. Cars can't stop on a dime, so we put the ones on the entity with the most manoeuverability, in this case people.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  It follows urban design, in most of Europe jaywalking isn't a concept, because most urban roads are not large or fast-moving enough to justify it. Most people would not cross dual carriageways just by default, but that is a rare enough case not to require enforcement. And people carrying those ideas of pedestrian-friendly streets into the way new urban areas are designed. When urban motorways and dual-carriageways are the default, then the idea of what is normal is different, and those ideas are applied more generally to enforcement on other roads and planning new roads. It would be interesting to see data about the existence of the crime, and its enforcement. I know about the US and Europe, not so much elsewhere.
- akira2501 9y ago
  > I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc. It's also worthwhile to consider all that cars have added to our society. People stayed in the streets because that's as far as they could go. Vendors came to the streets because that's where their customers could get to. Travel was limited, the movement of goods was basically nonexistent compared to today and "moving for a job" was not even a possibility for the majority of Americans. We introduced cars, then made them faster because that enabled more of what we wanted for ourselves, and sure, we made a sacrifice in that trade but I don't understand this modern trend of decrying our future for love of navel gazing through the past.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
People really turn into extremists around here whenever the topic is cars vs bikes vs pedestrians vs anything else. Of all communities you'd think that this one would be able to discuss this in a more generalized way without getting all emotional about how cars are the devil and bikes have no manners, etc, etc. It would be a lot easier to have a productive discussion if there were some way to have it in terms of something people find more neutral. Maybe find+replace cars with aircraft and people with service vehicles. Fork trucks, pallet jacks and foot traffic could be another substitution. It makes sense to segregate traffic and govern their interactions with defined rules and put lots of redundancy in those rules. That's why bike lanes and sidewalks, are a thing. In ports, rail yards, construction sites, mines an anywhere else there's a lot of different traffic there's similar rules about who goes where and how they interact with each other. Interactions between classes of traffic need to be well defined and include lots of redundant rules for safety. Redundant rules allow the slack from a violation of expected behavior by one party to be picked up by another party that is following the rules that govern how it should behave. With regard to this article in particular, I see jaywalking laws being more a result of society tolerating micro-managerial laws than I do on any special interest group. Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. The only reason people ascribe them to the automobile industry is because the automobile took over from the horse at about the same time period where society started tolerating putting the force of law behind what's just good manners. If someone crosses the street in a dumb manner and expects other traffic to "just deal" they're in the wrong. Whether it's a car running red light or a pedestrian or a rider on horseback cutting off an ox cart does not matter.
- pmyteh 9y ago
  > Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. So I don't think that's true.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is there a statute under which they could be fined? The "jaywalking law" in my state is that you have to use a crosswalk if it's within 300ft. In practice this means that you either use a crosswalk, or cross the street in a reasonable manner at a reasonable time. It's like speeding. If you behave reasonably you have nothing to worry about. The US seems to have more restrictive laws about traffic behavior and enforce them less. If you compare jaywalking laws with the rules vehicles have to follow[1] the result is that if one party is following all their rule. It's similar to the redundancy in road traffic laws (e.g. a safe following distances and using one's signal provide redundancy that prevents rear endings when one party doesn't do one of those things) [1] http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
Zigurd 9y ago
"Limited access" roads already exist. These are the places for unlimited speeds in autonomous vehicles. Everyplace else it should be assumed that cyclists and pedestrians are in the mix, and even if traffic signals for cars become obsolete, those cars will still have to enable bikes and pedestrians to move without joining the v2v network. You might be able to provide a safety advantage to cyclists and pedestrians carrying beacons, but you'll never be able to count on it, so city traffic will have to remain within speeds that keep un-instrumented pedestrians and cyclists safe.
vbuwivbiu 9y ago
the ultimate limit of roads+autonomous vehicles is an inefficient implementation of an electric railway
whack 9y ago
I sold my car 3 years ago, and am lucky to live in a city where I no longer need one to get around. If someone wants to ban/inconvenience cars in a place where public transit is up to snuff, more power to them. But until then, let's get realistic. Most Americans need to drive in order to live their personal/work lives. We can punitively punish drivers all we want, but ultimately, the only people we're punishing is ourselves. Having a combination of sidewalks and roads is the best of both worlds - both pedestrians and cars are free to go as fast as they want, without having to get in each other's way. I've personally experienced the chaos of driving through unruly streets, where pedestrians can get in your way at any second. It's intensely stressful and frustrating to spend half an hour on a drive that could have been easily accomplished in 15. I'll take the smooth roads, demarcated lanes and traffic lights, thank you very much.
Lukeas14 9y ago
Not surprising to read that Los Angeles was the starting point for jaywalking laws. Still today, it enforces them harder than most other cities. Try running across an empty street with no crosswalk for 1/4 mile in either direction in front of a cop. It's likely that you'll still receive a fine citation. I'd like to see it replaced with an "impeding traffic" law that would only apply if you're actually putting yourself or others in danger. But I presume the city makes too much money from the current jaywalking law to make that change. The relationship between automakers and L.A.'s city government back in the 20s an 30s is an interesting topic. They seem to have had an enormous amount of power over the city. Automakers were instrumental in shutting down the extensive subway system as it transformed into the car based city it is today. Was this due to corruption or was L.A. just preparing for what we thought would be the future of transportation?
- sundvor 9y ago
  Wow, didn't know it was that bad. In Australia, as a ped (pedestrian) you may cross at any time when you're more than 20 metres away from a pedestrian crossing - if closer, you may get done. It's pretty darned rare for a police officer to charge you though, it'd almost have to a be a "safety blitz" or for the person to have their head down in their phone whilst doing so. Seems much more sensible, and reasonable - basically you're technically free to cross as long as you're not immediately next to a pedestrian crossing, in which case use that. Pedestrian crossing light control system is heavily geared towards cars, though, as pressing the button never changes the current cycle but merely says we'll consider your needs at the next check point. These intervals may be several minutes long (at least that's what they typically feel like). I'm comparing this to Norway when pressing the button often has a rather immediate effect.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Granted I don't live in LA, but I've visited many times and I'm surprised by this comment because it doesn't match my experience. I"m much more familiar with Chicago, where a taxi cab will jump a curb just for the chance to run down a pedestrian. Meanwhile every time I've tried to cross a road in LA, the minute I lift one foot off the ground while standing at a crosswalk, traffic in both directions comes screeching to a halt with drivers waving me on against the light. I've found drivers in LA to be far more lenient to the random whims of others (pedestrians and drivers alike) than most cities I've visited.
justincormack 9y ago
In the UK jaywalking doesn't exist; technically people still have right of way on roads, but try telling that to a car. In the 1930s, when the first footbridge over a road, Western Avenue in London was built, there were protests: The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic". On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level". In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it". In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins". The war brought and end to the protests, and for a few years the traffic. (from Leadville: A Biography of the A40 by Edward Platt)
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  In my state (Connecticut), pedestrians have the right of way, but Jaywalking is a crime. It makes sense, having the right of way won’t save you if you decide to dart out in front of a car without warning
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Noos 9y ago
Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid. People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything, unless you use inefficient public transport which tacks on a huge time tax for even basic trips. You are captive to that transport, which means something like being called in is hard to impossible, as well as many duties of your workplace; dropping deposits off to a bank after hours as a manager, for example. That transport doesn't even expand your range that much, maybe one or two towns over; the time for further is so long as to be prohibitive. Even with walking, you wind up spending far more time and expense on basic tasks. Instead of shopping one day you need to shop five, just because you can't fit more than a couple bags of goods. If you are on the bus, you can't even easily use perishables; 30-45 min one way is the norm. You can't do things like buy a mattress without tacked on delivery fees and more time spent waiting to receive it. If anything happens where you simply can't walk like doctor or dentist visits (because doctors don't always stay in walking distance of most people) that's an expensive cab or uber both ways. Sometimes its even worse...jury duty can be in the county courthouse 30 min by car and an hour and a half by bus. You have no social life with no car. Not every town can simply cluster everything in one place; the downtown can easily be 30 minutes away from where people live. It took me an hour to walk to the comic shop one way; the bus would had made that longer, not shorter. Dates are impossible because of that; if the nearest date spot or bar isn't within five minutes, what do you do? A life without personal cars would be a rather limited and even serfish one. Everyone assumes driverless cars might save us, but they have yet to prove they can even navigate a highway during a New England winter, which is what you'd need to do to replace a commute. People talk about bicycles, but 0 degree or snowy weather makes that horrid, as well as high heat. Please stop assuming cars are this evil thing that more walking and biking will solve; they wont, not at all.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  You're in a tough spot because where you live forces you to have a car. Nothing wrong with that. But not having a car is virtuous! It takes an incredible toll on our world to enable cars. Mining is the most polluting industry of all time, followed closely by oil extraction and then refining. Then you gotta burn all that oil to actually drive the car.
darkr 9y ago
As someone from the other side of the pond I always found it strange that pedestrians could be entrusted to carry a loaded handgun, but not to cross the road.
jerrycruncher 9y ago
For anyone that's interested in the subject, Hunter Oatman-Stanford wrote a rather more comprehensive article[1] with a much snappier title on the topic roughly four years ago, and Eben Weiss (aka Bike Snob NYC) responded with one of his charmingly vitriolic hot-takes[2] shortly thereafter. [1] https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ [2] https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-fun-quiz-instead-friday.html https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-fun...
scoot 9y ago
Fantastic photo from 1914, but while the peope are gone, and the buildings are barely recognisable, I'm not sure the car has completely taken over on that particular street (Orhard and Hester facing SSW towards Division St.) https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA/@40.7159103,-73.9913672,3a,75y,166.01h,92.28t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3WQId5LdrSrKTHzX2RO21Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i43!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!2sHester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA!3b1!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555!3m4!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555?dcr=0 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,...
bound008 9y ago
This was covered in a very entertaining show called Adam Ruins Everything. Each episode has footnotes for the sources: http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-cars.html http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-... Interestingly enough, their source was an article from Vox from 2007: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/Norton_Street_Rivals.0.pdf https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/N... EDIT: the article references the original author's work and the book (also cited as a source by the show) http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128 http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Techn...
Annatar 9y ago
I’ve been driving for several decades. I’m also an avid automobile enthusiast, “will talk cars with anyone” kind of a guy. But for 30 minutes every day, I’m just an ordinary pedestrian. And I follow the traffic rules and regulations which apply to pedestrians religiously: always cross at a crosswalk, never cross on Red, even if the intersection is devoid of traffic. Why do I do that? Because as a driver and as a pedestrian, I understand the challenges and the dangers of being on both sides. It has to do with discipline and maintenace of the very high standard of living I enjoy in the country where I live. Being undisciplined would erode that standard. Many pedestrians are undisciplined. I see them crossing the road at places other than a crosswalk. I see them crossing the road on Red, while as a fellow pedestrian I patiently wait to cross at a crosswalk when the traffic light turns Green. It angers me greatly when other pedestrians aren’t disciplined, not only because they erode the standard of living, but because I could have just as easily been the driver who unwittingly hits them and has to live with that for the rest of her or his life.
- ck425 9y ago
  You're presuming here that the current system is fair and reasonable. As it is, pedestrians are massively inconvenienced so that drivers can speed around in a two ton box of steel. To my mind that's not a fair trade off.
  - Annatar 9y ago
    I’m not presuming. Where I live it’s more than fair and reasonable in favor of pedestrians and bicyclists, heavily skewed in their favor as far as traffic laws and infrastructure. Europe isn’t like the States in that respect. And yet a lot of pedestrians don’t abide by traffic laws and a lot of bicyclists actively abuse and violate it. I just had a guy take my right-of-way in a rotor (roundabound) and fly right in anyway although I was already in it and about to make an exit, and when I honked my horn he just waved me down like it was nothing; If I had hit him even though he broke the law, the court would by default favor him because he was on a bicycle, never mind that when they are on one they are a vehicle like any other for the purposes of traffic laws and they have to abide by them.

429 points by JackFr 9y ago

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.

Invictus0 9y ago
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.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Streets have always been for cars in history and been dangerous for pedestrians When I go walking around the Colosseum there's an old Roman street (2 thousand years old give or take) that was built to go faster than walking and it's still hard today with modern shoes to walk on it
jablan 9y ago
There are ways to move around other than driving, you know...
- Spivak 9y ago
  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?
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    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.
    - shuntress 9y ago
      >which can go over [highways] away from pedestrians or even underground This is also a point for automobiles.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      > 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.
      - jablan 9y ago
        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.
dahart 9y ago
> 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.
- SomeHacker44 9y ago
  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.
  - dahart 9y ago
    > 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-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2016.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2015.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data... http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash-data-report.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash... https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/10/the-rate-of-pedestrians-injured-by-bicyclists-is-going-down/381013/ 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.
jstanley 9y ago
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.
- maym86 9y ago
  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.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    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.
    - maym86 9y ago
      Works fine in a lot of other countries without Jay walking laws
a-priori 9y ago
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.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  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.
  - Fricken 9y ago
    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.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      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.
automobiles 9y ago
> 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.
andys627 9y ago
Definitely not. Car dominance is heavily subsidized at all levels of government.

wccrawford 9y ago

Sure, they were pro-active about it, but let's face it: It was going to happen anyhow. This just accelerated things.

throwaway2048 9y ago
We live in only one possible future.
- virgilp 9y ago
  Well, jaywaking isn't a crime in UK (except on freeways), but the general result is roughly the same.
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    It's not a crime on motorways. Pedestrians are not permitted on motorways at all (except for emergencies), so where and how they can cross them is a moot point. * http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/contents/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/contents/made
makmanalp 9y ago
Well, we could be living in a situation where pedestrians take precedence and have right of way over cars in city streets, and the opposite in highways, which I think would be much more desirable, especially in crowded cities. Perhaps even ban cars except for abutters, commercial vehicles and emergency vehicles from the densest city center areas. God that would be a relief. edit: OK, yes, obviously you can and should distinguish between streets and roads, the former being smaller and mainly for residents and visitors of a subsector of the area (who can play hacky-sack on their residential street if they so well please, and you still have to wait for them), and the latter being mainly for car transportation in and out of the area itself. You can prioritize humans in one and cars in the other.
- gambiting 9y ago
  It's already true in many places, in a lot of European cities you see a sign like this when entering: https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg And it basically means that pedestrians have an absolute priority before cars, they can walk on the street as much as they like and you as a driver have to exhibit some extreme attention because if anything happens, it's 99% certain you will be found at fault.

lawlessone 9y ago

What i would like to know is did it actually reduce deaths?

virgilp 9y ago
As a percentage of "miles traveled by car"? Absolutely.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Source?
  - ChrisLomont 9y ago
    The graph in the picture showed 16K deaths in 1923, for a US population of 111M then, with likely much smaller per capita driving miles than now. Now population is 323M, and there are around 5K pedestrian/car deaths annually [1]. We drive around 3 trillion miles annually[2]. If you can find the total or per capita miles driven in 1923, I think that would make the data complete. But it seems quite clear pedestrian deaths are vastly lower now than in 1923. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind... [2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1704.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1704.cfm
    - poslathian 9y ago
      Just to be clear, and I don’t think you said otherwise, that 5k number is only pedestrian deaths. In 2016 there were 37,000 fatalities from motor vehicle crashes. The figure in the article is similarly reporting all automotive fatalities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths...
      - ChrisLomont 9y ago
        > Just to be clear, and I don’t think you said otherwise, that 5k number is only pedestrian deaths I clearly wrote "pedestrian/car deaths" and linked to a source that clearly explained it. I'm not sure how else to put it. Here's a better answer [1]: 21 fatalities per 100M vehicle miles of travel in 1923 to 1.36 in 2007. That should completely answer the request for a source. [1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/pdf/fi200.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/p...

rubinelli 9y ago

There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily influenced our views on littering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem; disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared responsibility.

tedunangst 9y ago
In much the same way I'm happy we no longer empty chamber pots by heaving the contents out the front window, I don't really care where litter or rubbish comes from but I'd prefer it not pile up on the sidewalk.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  Same, or that we have to dodge or wait for pedestrians when we're trying to get somewhere. I mean we do but only rarely if people abide by the laws / common sense.
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    As a frequent pedestrian who also pays road taxes, I am also trying to get somewhere, and I don't appreciate all the times I've had to dodge cars while using a crosswalk. The stakes for me are much higher.
    - frabbit 9y ago
      Apart from the dodging, it's having to stand there waiting, while they womble past in their horseless carriage ... getting in my way.
      - ars 9y ago
        And you are getting in their way. There is a person in that car, so as far as who is more important it's equal both ways. Sometimes the person walking waits, sometimes the person in the car waits.

mlinksva 9y ago

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

jadedtuna 9y ago
Do you mean ban human drivers in urban areas or in general?
- bcit-cst 9y ago
  he means ban humans. period . fullstop.
jdhopeunique 9y ago
If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make automated vehicles possible and dominated by the first market entrants.
- DiThi 9y ago
  > Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment. Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. Smart phones may include such functionality.
  - mieseratte 9y ago

vijayr 9y ago

Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the pedestrians! In what world is this ethical? What is next? Sending overdose details to pharma companies for them to blame the drug users?

ryandrake 9y ago
You say this as if it's unusual for news articles to be solely written by various company's PR and marketing teams.
- vijayr 9y ago
  But there is a difference between promoting a product vs shifting blame, isn't it?
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    In both cases, the entity creating the message is promoting a point of view in which it has a financial stake.
  - RickS 9y ago
    If the success of a product depends on shifting blame, that difference is very blurry. See uber's "but taxis are evil/medallions are a monopoly!"
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
> In what world is this ethical? How many people would be willing to let someone else do their job for them when the cost is adding a little extra bias, something that isn't even a big deal in a single case (but which adds up over time)? It feels like ethics will quickly take a back seat for some small boon.
upofadown 9y ago

pmulv 9y ago

There's an episode of The Dollop podcast that addresses the introduction of cars to the streets of America when horse and buggie still ruled the road [0]. It is highly entertaining and informative, and it touches upon why "jaywalking" and who "Jay" is supposed to be. I recommend it and the podcast in general to anyone who is interested in peculiar history. [0] http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came

odammit 9y ago

99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back that’s a pretty good listen. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...

silveira 9y ago
I came here to post this episode. It's one of the greatest from 99pi.
- odammit 9y ago
  It was one of the first I listened to, then I went back and listened to them all. :D coin check

mc32 9y ago

Point taken. However, when new tech comes along, new laws follow in their wake. When people moved from farm to city and suddenly we had massive amounts of worker abuse, labor laws got introduced. Barnstorming aviation gave way to regulated aviation. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar in that it's a reaction to change in the operating environment. I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc. Today streets are prescripted and need to meet various contextual requirements (volume, traffic flow, vehicle types, pedestrians, weight limit, wear characteristics, etc.) When a car gets crushed on the tracks, it's usually not blamed on the train. It's typically thought of as the responsibility of the car driver. Now, sure, trains are constrained by tracks and don't enjoy manoeuverability, but same with ships, the little ones get out of the way. Cars can't stop on a dime, so we put the ones on the entity with the most manoeuverability, in this case people.

Brakenshire 9y ago
It follows urban design, in most of Europe jaywalking isn't a concept, because most urban roads are not large or fast-moving enough to justify it. Most people would not cross dual carriageways just by default, but that is a rare enough case not to require enforcement. And people carrying those ideas of pedestrian-friendly streets into the way new urban areas are designed. When urban motorways and dual-carriageways are the default, then the idea of what is normal is different, and those ideas are applied more generally to enforcement on other roads and planning new roads. It would be interesting to see data about the existence of the crime, and its enforcement. I know about the US and Europe, not so much elsewhere.
akira2501 9y ago
> I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc. It's also worthwhile to consider all that cars have added to our society. People stayed in the streets because that's as far as they could go. Vendors came to the streets because that's where their customers could get to. Travel was limited, the movement of goods was basically nonexistent compared to today and "moving for a job" was not even a possibility for the majority of Americans. We introduced cars, then made them faster because that enabled more of what we wanted for ourselves, and sure, we made a sacrifice in that trade but I don't understand this modern trend of decrying our future for love of navel gazing through the past.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

People really turn into extremists around here whenever the topic is cars vs bikes vs pedestrians vs anything else. Of all communities you'd think that this one would be able to discuss this in a more generalized way without getting all emotional about how cars are the devil and bikes have no manners, etc, etc. It would be a lot easier to have a productive discussion if there were some way to have it in terms of something people find more neutral. Maybe find+replace cars with aircraft and people with service vehicles. Fork trucks, pallet jacks and foot traffic could be another substitution. It makes sense to segregate traffic and govern their interactions with defined rules and put lots of redundancy in those rules. That's why bike lanes and sidewalks, are a thing. In ports, rail yards, construction sites, mines an anywhere else there's a lot of different traffic there's similar rules about who goes where and how they interact with each other. Interactions between classes of traffic need to be well defined and include lots of redundant rules for safety. Redundant rules allow the slack from a violation of expected behavior by one party to be picked up by another party that is following the rules that govern how it should behave. With regard to this article in particular, I see jaywalking laws being more a result of society tolerating micro-managerial laws than I do on any special interest group. Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. The only reason people ascribe them to the automobile industry is because the automobile took over from the horse at about the same time period where society started tolerating putting the force of law behind what's just good manners. If someone crosses the street in a dumb manner and expects other traffic to "just deal" they're in the wrong. Whether it's a car running red light or a pedestrian or a rider on horseback cutting off an ox cart does not matter.

pmyteh 9y ago
> Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. So I don't think that's true.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is there a statute under which they could be fined? The "jaywalking law" in my state is that you have to use a crosswalk if it's within 300ft. In practice this means that you either use a crosswalk, or cross the street in a reasonable manner at a reasonable time. It's like speeding. If you behave reasonably you have nothing to worry about. The US seems to have more restrictive laws about traffic behavior and enforce them less. If you compare jaywalking laws with the rules vehicles have to follow[1] the result is that if one party is following all their rule. It's similar to the redundancy in road traffic laws (e.g. a safe following distances and using one's signal provide redundancy that prevents rear endings when one party doesn't do one of those things) [1] http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...

Zigurd 9y ago

"Limited access" roads already exist. These are the places for unlimited speeds in autonomous vehicles. Everyplace else it should be assumed that cyclists and pedestrians are in the mix, and even if traffic signals for cars become obsolete, those cars will still have to enable bikes and pedestrians to move without joining the v2v network. You might be able to provide a safety advantage to cyclists and pedestrians carrying beacons, but you'll never be able to count on it, so city traffic will have to remain within speeds that keep un-instrumented pedestrians and cyclists safe.

vbuwivbiu 9y ago

the ultimate limit of roads+autonomous vehicles is an inefficient implementation of an electric railway

whack 9y ago

I sold my car 3 years ago, and am lucky to live in a city where I no longer need one to get around. If someone wants to ban/inconvenience cars in a place where public transit is up to snuff, more power to them. But until then, let's get realistic. Most Americans need to drive in order to live their personal/work lives. We can punitively punish drivers all we want, but ultimately, the only people we're punishing is ourselves. Having a combination of sidewalks and roads is the best of both worlds - both pedestrians and cars are free to go as fast as they want, without having to get in each other's way. I've personally experienced the chaos of driving through unruly streets, where pedestrians can get in your way at any second. It's intensely stressful and frustrating to spend half an hour on a drive that could have been easily accomplished in 15. I'll take the smooth roads, demarcated lanes and traffic lights, thank you very much.

Lukeas14 9y ago

Not surprising to read that Los Angeles was the starting point for jaywalking laws. Still today, it enforces them harder than most other cities. Try running across an empty street with no crosswalk for 1/4 mile in either direction in front of a cop. It's likely that you'll still receive a fine citation. I'd like to see it replaced with an "impeding traffic" law that would only apply if you're actually putting yourself or others in danger. But I presume the city makes too much money from the current jaywalking law to make that change. The relationship between automakers and L.A.'s city government back in the 20s an 30s is an interesting topic. They seem to have had an enormous amount of power over the city. Automakers were instrumental in shutting down the extensive subway system as it transformed into the car based city it is today. Was this due to corruption or was L.A. just preparing for what we thought would be the future of transportation?

sundvor 9y ago
Wow, didn't know it was that bad. In Australia, as a ped (pedestrian) you may cross at any time when you're more than 20 metres away from a pedestrian crossing - if closer, you may get done. It's pretty darned rare for a police officer to charge you though, it'd almost have to a be a "safety blitz" or for the person to have their head down in their phone whilst doing so. Seems much more sensible, and reasonable - basically you're technically free to cross as long as you're not immediately next to a pedestrian crossing, in which case use that. Pedestrian crossing light control system is heavily geared towards cars, though, as pressing the button never changes the current cycle but merely says we'll consider your needs at the next check point. These intervals may be several minutes long (at least that's what they typically feel like). I'm comparing this to Norway when pressing the button often has a rather immediate effect.
freehunter 9y ago
Granted I don't live in LA, but I've visited many times and I'm surprised by this comment because it doesn't match my experience. I"m much more familiar with Chicago, where a taxi cab will jump a curb just for the chance to run down a pedestrian. Meanwhile every time I've tried to cross a road in LA, the minute I lift one foot off the ground while standing at a crosswalk, traffic in both directions comes screeching to a halt with drivers waving me on against the light. I've found drivers in LA to be far more lenient to the random whims of others (pedestrians and drivers alike) than most cities I've visited.

justincormack 9y ago

In the UK jaywalking doesn't exist; technically people still have right of way on roads, but try telling that to a car. In the 1930s, when the first footbridge over a road, Western Avenue in London was built, there were protests: The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic". On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level". In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it". In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins". The war brought and end to the protests, and for a few years the traffic. (from Leadville: A Biography of the A40 by Edward Platt)

BoorishBears 9y ago
In my state (Connecticut), pedestrians have the right of way, but Jaywalking is a crime. It makes sense, having the right of way won’t save you if you decide to dart out in front of a car without warning

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Noos 9y ago

Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid. People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything, unless you use inefficient public transport which tacks on a huge time tax for even basic trips. You are captive to that transport, which means something like being called in is hard to impossible, as well as many duties of your workplace; dropping deposits off to a bank after hours as a manager, for example. That transport doesn't even expand your range that much, maybe one or two towns over; the time for further is so long as to be prohibitive. Even with walking, you wind up spending far more time and expense on basic tasks. Instead of shopping one day you need to shop five, just because you can't fit more than a couple bags of goods. If you are on the bus, you can't even easily use perishables; 30-45 min one way is the norm. You can't do things like buy a mattress without tacked on delivery fees and more time spent waiting to receive it. If anything happens where you simply can't walk like doctor or dentist visits (because doctors don't always stay in walking distance of most people) that's an expensive cab or uber both ways. Sometimes its even worse...jury duty can be in the county courthouse 30 min by car and an hour and a half by bus. You have no social life with no car. Not every town can simply cluster everything in one place; the downtown can easily be 30 minutes away from where people live. It took me an hour to walk to the comic shop one way; the bus would had made that longer, not shorter. Dates are impossible because of that; if the nearest date spot or bar isn't within five minutes, what do you do? A life without personal cars would be a rather limited and even serfish one. Everyone assumes driverless cars might save us, but they have yet to prove they can even navigate a highway during a New England winter, which is what you'd need to do to replace a commute. People talk about bicycles, but 0 degree or snowy weather makes that horrid, as well as high heat. Please stop assuming cars are this evil thing that more walking and biking will solve; they wont, not at all.

droopyEyelids 9y ago
You're in a tough spot because where you live forces you to have a car. Nothing wrong with that. But not having a car is virtuous! It takes an incredible toll on our world to enable cars. Mining is the most polluting industry of all time, followed closely by oil extraction and then refining. Then you gotta burn all that oil to actually drive the car.

darkr 9y ago

As someone from the other side of the pond I always found it strange that pedestrians could be entrusted to carry a loaded handgun, but not to cross the road.

jerrycruncher 9y ago

For anyone that's interested in the subject, Hunter Oatman-Stanford wrote a rather more comprehensive article[1] with a much snappier title on the topic roughly four years ago, and Eben Weiss (aka Bike Snob NYC) responded with one of his charmingly vitriolic hot-takes[2] shortly thereafter. [1] https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ [2] https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-fun-quiz-instead-friday.html https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-fun...

scoot 9y ago

Fantastic photo from 1914, but while the peope are gone, and the buildings are barely recognisable, I'm not sure the car has completely taken over on that particular street (Orhard and Hester facing SSW towards Division St.) https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA/@40.7159103,-73.9913672,3a,75y,166.01h,92.28t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3WQId5LdrSrKTHzX2RO21Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i43!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!2sHester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA!3b1!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555!3m4!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555?dcr=0 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,...

bound008 9y ago

This was covered in a very entertaining show called Adam Ruins Everything. Each episode has footnotes for the sources: http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-cars.html http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-... Interestingly enough, their source was an article from Vox from 2007: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/Norton_Street_Rivals.0.pdf https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/N... EDIT: the article references the original author's work and the book (also cited as a source by the show) http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128 http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Techn...

Annatar 9y ago

I’ve been driving for several decades. I’m also an avid automobile enthusiast, “will talk cars with anyone” kind of a guy. But for 30 minutes every day, I’m just an ordinary pedestrian. And I follow the traffic rules and regulations which apply to pedestrians religiously: always cross at a crosswalk, never cross on Red, even if the intersection is devoid of traffic. Why do I do that? Because as a driver and as a pedestrian, I understand the challenges and the dangers of being on both sides. It has to do with discipline and maintenace of the very high standard of living I enjoy in the country where I live. Being undisciplined would erode that standard. Many pedestrians are undisciplined. I see them crossing the road at places other than a crosswalk. I see them crossing the road on Red, while as a fellow pedestrian I patiently wait to cross at a crosswalk when the traffic light turns Green. It angers me greatly when other pedestrians aren’t disciplined, not only because they erode the standard of living, but because I could have just as easily been the driver who unwittingly hits them and has to live with that for the rest of her or his life.

ck425 9y ago
You're presuming here that the current system is fair and reasonable. As it is, pedestrians are massively inconvenienced so that drivers can speed around in a two ton box of steel. To my mind that's not a fair trade off.
- Annatar 9y ago
  I’m not presuming. Where I live it’s more than fair and reasonable in favor of pedestrians and bicyclists, heavily skewed in their favor as far as traffic laws and infrastructure. Europe isn’t like the States in that respect. And yet a lot of pedestrians don’t abide by traffic laws and a lot of bicyclists actively abuse and violate it. I just had a guy take my right-of-way in a rotor (roundabound) and fly right in anyway although I was already in it and about to make an exit, and when I honked my horn he just waved me down like it was nothing; If I had hit him even though he broke the law, the court would by default favor him because he was on a bicycle, never mind that when they are on one they are a vehicle like any other for the purposes of traffic laws and they have to abide by them.