7 ms·

I’m blaming the company. The list of ways they made this happen is a kilometre long. Are you ignoring all that or unaware of it? Are you here to be provide the

I’m blaming the company. The list of ways they made this happen is a kilometre long. Are you ignoring all that or unaware of it? Are you here to be provide the opinion that pedestrians need to dodge companies doing their alpha testing on public streets? And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal? I’m sitting in my car. You’re on foot. Why should I have some almighty right to drive around without looking for you? Streets are for all citizens, and crossing streets should be safe for everyone, even distracted pedestrians. It’s 2019. Crossing the street should not be a life-or-death proposition. It’s ridiculous that capitalism gives us battery powered scooters to rent by the trip, and rockets that can land themselves on a barge, but somehow the idea that we can make streets safe for cyclists and pedestrians is too difficult or ideologically impossible. Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right.

matz1 7y ago
>And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal Because it can endanger the car driver too. Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver. Yes thats why designated crossing place is made, to make it safer for the pedestrians. >Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right Sure, from your perspective. But from mine, America is the right one. Even in America sadly they don't enforce it as much as I like.
- romwell 7y ago
  I sincerely wish you to lose your driver's license, if only for a brief period of time, so that you could appreciate just how much our infrastructure is unsuitable for pedestrians. We barely have sidewalks in most places. And you suggest outlawing "jaywalking"? And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime. Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them - gasp - walk to work in SF!). Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.
  - matz1 7y ago
    You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere? Pedestrians should not be allowed to walk anywhere they want, but the penalty for an infraction should not be death.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Sure, if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver.
        romwell 7y ago
        >if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver. And why not the other way around? What is it about driving a vehicle that should give one priority? I don't necessarily disagree with your vision. But in practice, that means blocking off cities for cars. Drive all you want on the highways, nobody will restrict you there. The idea that drivers should not be "restricted" by pedestrians is the entitlement I am talking about.
        matz1 7y ago
        In the end it boils down to matter of preference. Whatever you do, you either put restriction the car or the pedestrians The idea that pedestrian to have priority, is in itself entitlement too.
        romwell 7y ago
        The idea is that not everyone can own and operate a car (the killed woman was one of them). The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die. The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads). The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference. The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians. The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people. Is that last thing too hard to grasp?
pandaman 7y ago
>It’s ridiculous that capitalism ... JFYI - Jaywalking was illegal in the USSR too.
- romwell 7y ago
  JFYI, that was not the point. And I'm not aware of a single city in the USSR where lack of sidewalks would be a problem, or where one would struggle to get to places without a car. It was very hard to get a car in the USSR. The country was optimized for non-drivers.
  - pandaman 7y ago
    Exactly, even though nobody can claim that auto-industry and an evil cabal of drivers had any power in the USSR it still had anti-jaywalking laws. Ergo, the claims here that the only possible reason to outlaw jaywalking is pandering to drivers and auto-industry are false.
    - romwell 7y ago
      No, the claim is that the word jaywalking was invented to shift the responsibility away from the drivers. Shaping the language to spin the narrative. There is no such word in Russian.
      - pandaman 7y ago
        You seem to be the only person making this claim here and without any serious arguments. Russian does not have single words for many other traffic violations too, nevertheless they remain illegal. Anyways, that was not the point I argued.
        romwell 7y ago
        >You seem to be the only person making this claim here There's an entire thread[1] up here where people from the UK are saying the same thing: >>‘Jaywalkers’ is such an offensive concept >> "jaywalking" as a negative term was promoted by auto interests in the US in the early 20th century etc. >and without any serious arguments. My argument is simple: try translating "jaywalker" into literally any other language. You can't. "Jaywalker" as a concept only exists in the US. In other places, the law varies, but you can't call someone a "jaywalker" because there's no concept for it. And the law varies, too, but in most European countries it is not a thing; see Wikipedia[2]. As for the invention of the word and its usage to shift the blame to pedestrians: it's a well-known historical fact. See Wikipedia again on the origin and use of the word[2]. (To wit, in Russian, the best you could do for "jaywalker" would translate back as "a person who has crossed the street in a place not designated for it", which bring street into the debate: specifically, whether/why the point of crossing was not designated as such. There is no automatic negative connotation, because we all know how much streets layouts can suck. On top of that, you literally can't label a person as a "jaywalker" in Russian. Mind-blowing, right? Languages are fun. Even funner thing that it doesn't make sense in the UK English either, see the above thread[1].) Really, do read[1] and tell me where I am wrong. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459085 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
romwell 7y ago
The downvotes on your comment is a sad indication that things won't change too soon.

matz1 7y ago

>And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal Because it can endanger the car driver too. Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver. Yes thats why designated crossing place is made, to make it safer for the pedestrians. >Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right Sure, from your perspective. But from mine, America is the right one. Even in America sadly they don't enforce it as much as I like.

romwell 7y ago
I sincerely wish you to lose your driver's license, if only for a brief period of time, so that you could appreciate just how much our infrastructure is unsuitable for pedestrians. We barely have sidewalks in most places. And you suggest outlawing "jaywalking"? And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime. Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them - gasp - walk to work in SF!). Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.
- matz1 7y ago
  You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere? Pedestrians should not be allowed to walk anywhere they want, but the penalty for an infraction should not be death.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Sure, if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver.
      - romwell 7y ago
        >if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver. And why not the other way around? What is it about driving a vehicle that should give one priority? I don't necessarily disagree with your vision. But in practice, that means blocking off cities for cars. Drive all you want on the highways, nobody will restrict you there. The idea that drivers should not be "restricted" by pedestrians is the entitlement I am talking about.
        matz1 7y ago
        In the end it boils down to matter of preference. Whatever you do, you either put restriction the car or the pedestrians The idea that pedestrian to have priority, is in itself entitlement too.
        romwell 7y ago
        The idea is that not everyone can own and operate a car (the killed woman was one of them). The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die. The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads). The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference. The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians. The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people. Is that last thing too hard to grasp?

pandaman 7y ago

>It’s ridiculous that capitalism ... JFYI - Jaywalking was illegal in the USSR too.

romwell 7y ago
JFYI, that was not the point. And I'm not aware of a single city in the USSR where lack of sidewalks would be a problem, or where one would struggle to get to places without a car. It was very hard to get a car in the USSR. The country was optimized for non-drivers.
- pandaman 7y ago
  Exactly, even though nobody can claim that auto-industry and an evil cabal of drivers had any power in the USSR it still had anti-jaywalking laws. Ergo, the claims here that the only possible reason to outlaw jaywalking is pandering to drivers and auto-industry are false.
  - romwell 7y ago
    No, the claim is that the word jaywalking was invented to shift the responsibility away from the drivers. Shaping the language to spin the narrative. There is no such word in Russian.
    - pandaman 7y ago
      You seem to be the only person making this claim here and without any serious arguments. Russian does not have single words for many other traffic violations too, nevertheless they remain illegal. Anyways, that was not the point I argued.
      - romwell 7y ago
        >You seem to be the only person making this claim here There's an entire thread[1] up here where people from the UK are saying the same thing: >>‘Jaywalkers’ is such an offensive concept >> "jaywalking" as a negative term was promoted by auto interests in the US in the early 20th century etc. >and without any serious arguments. My argument is simple: try translating "jaywalker" into literally any other language. You can't. "Jaywalker" as a concept only exists in the US. In other places, the law varies, but you can't call someone a "jaywalker" because there's no concept for it. And the law varies, too, but in most European countries it is not a thing; see Wikipedia[2]. As for the invention of the word and its usage to shift the blame to pedestrians: it's a well-known historical fact. See Wikipedia again on the origin and use of the word[2]. (To wit, in Russian, the best you could do for "jaywalker" would translate back as "a person who has crossed the street in a place not designated for it", which bring street into the debate: specifically, whether/why the point of crossing was not designated as such. There is no automatic negative connotation, because we all know how much streets layouts can suck. On top of that, you literally can't label a person as a "jaywalker" in Russian. Mind-blowing, right? Languages are fun. Even funner thing that it doesn't make sense in the UK English either, see the above thread[1].) Really, do read[1] and tell me where I am wrong. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459085 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

romwell 7y ago

The downvotes on your comment is a sad indication that things won't change too soon.