8 ms·

In my example (standing at corner), they certainly have right of way, whenever they plan on walking. Sometimes they're just hanging out, which is usually obviou

In my example (standing at corner), they certainly have right of way, whenever they plan on walking. Sometimes they're just hanging out, which is usually obvious to a human, but in a subtle way I can't describe, let alone guess at how to program.

nostrademons 8y ago
In my example (jaywalker) they stopped and waited for the pedestrian to cross the street. The pause times do seem longer than a human would take (I noticed this with the right-turn with pedestrian case as well), but I'd rather that self-driving cars err on the side of safe rather than sorry.
- komali2 8y ago
  Agreed, endgame (all cars self driving) it's gonna be better. But when there's a mix on the road, I imagine a lot of awkwardness. I feel like they should throw a little LCD panel on each side of the car so it can just display a message like "yielding to pedestrian" or whatever.
  - waqf 8y ago
    Imagine the lawsuits when someone relies on what they saw on the panel and an accident ensues. This is why we can't have nice things.
  - nielsole 8y ago
    Mercedes has spent some thought on this. They propose having LEDs in the front of the car that colour where it sees pedestrians, so you know if you've been seen.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  1. "Jaywalker" ("crazy walker") is a slur invented by the auto industry to remove the civil rights of humans not in cars. 2. Your example doesn't even seem to meet the slur's definition.
  - watwat1 8y ago
    It’s not a slur.
  - tempestn 8y ago
    1. 100 years ago yes, but at this point the term is in common use.
    - bkor 8y ago
      What's considered jaywalking (crossing a street where there is no crosswalk) in USA is usually legal in other countries. In Netherlands I can cross the street almost anywhere I want, except if I'm too close to a real crossing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Safety_considerations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Safety_consideratio... for the various unique instances.
      - komali2 8y ago
        In some cities in the USA, Jay walking is also waking across a crosswalk when you don't have the walk signal. Is this a ticketable offense in the Netherlands?
  - mathieumatteo 8y ago
    I am not sure why you got downvoted for stating a fact. About the automotive industry's aggressive lobbying to gain control of the streets in the 1920s, see here for instance: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      > I am not sure why you got downvoted for stating a fact. Personally, I downvoted it for the "civil rights" phrase. It is unnecessary, hyperbolic, and inflammatory; these discussions tend to attract such comments and they derail rational discussion.
- taysic 8y ago
  FYI the definition of jaywalker is "a reckless pedestrian who crosses a street illegally". This sounds legal.
felixhandte 8y ago
As a New Yorker currently living in California, this is something I've had to grapple with. In New York, right of way is pretty unilaterally given to road traffic. Outside of otherwise controlled interactions (signaled crosswalks), pedestrians are expected to give way to vehicles. And vehicles (to borrow maritime terminology) have a stand-on duty--they are expected to maintain speed and direction. So it doesn't matter what posture pedestrians adopt, even when they are standing a full lane into the road (people commonly queue to cross the street in the parking lane, rather than on the sidewalk, leaving the sidewalk clear for people traveling along the street). Cars are expected to proceed---and you can bet they will be reminded of that fact by those behind them if they slow unnecessarily. Furthermore, New York's robust jaywalking culture means that these people are all peering upstream, watching for a break in traffic. In contrast, California has very much opposite expectations. Cars are expected to yield to pedestrians in pretty much all situations (and jaywalking is rare). It turns out if you exhibit really any of the above behaviors in California, drivers tend to interpret that as telegraphing an immediate intent and request to cross the street. When I moved to California, I was initially perplexed and frustrated by how it seemed like cars would randomly stop anytime I happened to be standing by a crosswalk, even when I didn't have any intention to cross, or when I was happy to let them pass by first. Lots of awkward "no, no, please proceed" gestures ensued. Eventually I realized the big cue I was giving them was that I was habitually watching traffic. I now take care to be visibly not looking upstream when standing at a crosswalk. That seems to have solved the problem. So I submit to you that the difference you're picking up on between pedestrians who do and do not have an intent to cross is whether they are paying attention to traffic.
- komali2 8y ago
  Your example perfectly illustrates why I prefer the California method. On my morning walk or bicycle ride to the train station, I have to go through easily 30 lighted intersections. Having to analyze traffic for a gap 60 times a day sounds exhausting. I much prefer just zoning out at the red light, listening to a podcast or whatever, then doing one quick left/right check when my signal comes on. I don't have to analyze anything, I don't have to negotiate with a driver, don't have to guess speed, I just go when it's my time to go.

nostrademons 8y ago

In my example (jaywalker) they stopped and waited for the pedestrian to cross the street. The pause times do seem longer than a human would take (I noticed this with the right-turn with pedestrian case as well), but I'd rather that self-driving cars err on the side of safe rather than sorry.

komali2 8y ago
Agreed, endgame (all cars self driving) it's gonna be better. But when there's a mix on the road, I imagine a lot of awkwardness. I feel like they should throw a little LCD panel on each side of the car so it can just display a message like "yielding to pedestrian" or whatever.
- waqf 8y ago
  Imagine the lawsuits when someone relies on what they saw on the panel and an accident ensues. This is why we can't have nice things.
- nielsole 8y ago
  Mercedes has spent some thought on this. They propose having LEDs in the front of the car that colour where it sees pedestrians, so you know if you've been seen.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
1. "Jaywalker" ("crazy walker") is a slur invented by the auto industry to remove the civil rights of humans not in cars. 2. Your example doesn't even seem to meet the slur's definition.
- watwat1 8y ago
  It’s not a slur.
- tempestn 8y ago
  1. 100 years ago yes, but at this point the term is in common use.
  - bkor 8y ago
    What's considered jaywalking (crossing a street where there is no crosswalk) in USA is usually legal in other countries. In Netherlands I can cross the street almost anywhere I want, except if I'm too close to a real crossing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Safety_considerations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Safety_consideratio... for the various unique instances.
    - komali2 8y ago
      In some cities in the USA, Jay walking is also waking across a crosswalk when you don't have the walk signal. Is this a ticketable offense in the Netherlands?
- mathieumatteo 8y ago
  I am not sure why you got downvoted for stating a fact. About the automotive industry's aggressive lobbying to gain control of the streets in the 1920s, see here for instance: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > I am not sure why you got downvoted for stating a fact. Personally, I downvoted it for the "civil rights" phrase. It is unnecessary, hyperbolic, and inflammatory; these discussions tend to attract such comments and they derail rational discussion.
taysic 8y ago
FYI the definition of jaywalker is "a reckless pedestrian who crosses a street illegally". This sounds legal.

felixhandte 8y ago

As a New Yorker currently living in California, this is something I've had to grapple with. In New York, right of way is pretty unilaterally given to road traffic. Outside of otherwise controlled interactions (signaled crosswalks), pedestrians are expected to give way to vehicles. And vehicles (to borrow maritime terminology) have a stand-on duty--they are expected to maintain speed and direction. So it doesn't matter what posture pedestrians adopt, even when they are standing a full lane into the road (people commonly queue to cross the street in the parking lane, rather than on the sidewalk, leaving the sidewalk clear for people traveling along the street). Cars are expected to proceed---and you can bet they will be reminded of that fact by those behind them if they slow unnecessarily. Furthermore, New York's robust jaywalking culture means that these people are all peering upstream, watching for a break in traffic. In contrast, California has very much opposite expectations. Cars are expected to yield to pedestrians in pretty much all situations (and jaywalking is rare). It turns out if you exhibit really any of the above behaviors in California, drivers tend to interpret that as telegraphing an immediate intent and request to cross the street. When I moved to California, I was initially perplexed and frustrated by how it seemed like cars would randomly stop anytime I happened to be standing by a crosswalk, even when I didn't have any intention to cross, or when I was happy to let them pass by first. Lots of awkward "no, no, please proceed" gestures ensued. Eventually I realized the big cue I was giving them was that I was habitually watching traffic. I now take care to be visibly not looking upstream when standing at a crosswalk. That seems to have solved the problem. So I submit to you that the difference you're picking up on between pedestrians who do and do not have an intent to cross is whether they are paying attention to traffic.

komali2 8y ago
Your example perfectly illustrates why I prefer the California method. On my morning walk or bicycle ride to the train station, I have to go through easily 30 lighted intersections. Having to analyze traffic for a gap 60 times a day sounds exhausting. I much prefer just zoning out at the red light, listening to a podcast or whatever, then doing one quick left/right check when my signal comes on. I don't have to analyze anything, I don't have to negotiate with a driver, don't have to guess speed, I just go when it's my time to go.