5 ms·

There is a noticeable anti-automobile crowd here on HN. Personally, anti-jaywalking laws just make sense and there doesn't need to be sinister motivations from

There is a noticeable anti-automobile crowd here on HN. Personally, anti-jaywalking laws just make sense and there doesn't need to be sinister motivations from the auto-industry to explain why we have them.

reportingsjr 6y ago
There are not anti-automobile people on here. There are people who are sick of cars being pushed as the /only/ way for things to be done. Almost every person you see advocating for better safety for pedestrians, people biking, etc understands that cars are necessary for some things. It just doesn't need to be forced for literally every small thing.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I get what you're saying. And for what it's worth I do like the idea of making city centers more walkable and pedestrian friendly. But based on some comments in this discussion there are absolutely anti-automobile people here and they are vocal. I just responded to someone calling a car a "murder machine".
  - ck425 6y ago
    Not that I disagree there's an anti car segment here (I'm personally very anti car) but a car can be (can not necessarily is) an effective murder machine. What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? I'm not saying that's the intent but when people call them murder machine the point they're raising (hyperbolically) is that cars and dangerous pieces of machinery and that has to be taken into account more when we consider urban design.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? knives would be the obvious answer, though they probably don't cause as much accidental carnage as cars.
      - ck425 6y ago
        That's the point. Cars have an unmatched level of potential damage compared to almost anything short of actual weapons. Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        I see what you're getting at, but I don't think this is a great way to show your point. a chef's knife is primarily a kitchen tool, but it makes for a much more effective weapon than a car. the thing that makes cars somewhat unique is their potential for unintentional damage. > Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable. sure, but this is a vague statement that has no real teeth. everyone agrees that drivers ought to try not to hit pedestrians. what gets fiercely debated is how civil (and possibly criminal) liability ought to be apportioned.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? Knives. Belts. Ropes. Electrical cords. Hammers. Chairs. Frying pans. Scissors. Etc., Etc., Etc., as nauseum, ad infinitum.
      - agensaequivocum 6y ago
        Indeed, more murders are committed in the US with hands, fists, and feet than rifles.
        thex10 6y ago
        This in turn is dwarfed by the deaths caused by automobiles!
- leetcrew 6y ago
  there are at least a few commenters here who repeatedly advocate for banning cars altogether in cities. if not "anti-automobile", how would you describe this position?
  - reportingsjr 6y ago
    That almost exclusively refers to largely limiting personal cars, it doesn't include service vehicles, delivery automobiles, etc (so construction vans and trucks, ambulances, etc are still allowed). Much more info on the car free city center concept at this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      tbh I don't actually disagree with banning personal cars in very dense city centers. but I have to say it is a special sort of linguistic backflip to not call this position "anti-automobile".
      - reportingsjr 6y ago
        Why try to tribalize this? I explained how a lot of people feel, and that there is a bit of a spectrum in what people want. It really feels like you're trying to make this an "us vs. them" situation negatively, rather than understanding that it's people wanting safer, healthier, more enjoyable places to live by means of reducing car dependence.
  - stainforth 6y ago
    Perhaps that's where we are in making sure the overton window doesn't cede ground to vested interests; only the extreme alternative as a starting point if negotiations of whats possible are being made.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    "reasonable". Calling someone "anti-something" makes them sound one-sided and hostile.
leetcrew 6y ago
I am definitely not anti-car (I love cars and driving), but I don't agree that jaywalking laws make any kind of sense. as a driver, it's enough to be presumed not at fault for hitting a pedestrian that is behaving erratically. as a pedestrian, it's absurd not to be allowed to cross an empty street when convenient.
- frickenhamster 6y ago
  So you don't normalize walking where you're not supposed to.
  - ck425 6y ago
    Why shouldn't being able to cross the street be normalized?
carapace 6y ago
I don't know about "sinister", I think everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing, but it's historical fact that US jaywalking laws are the result of a deliberate concerted effort by the auto-industry and law-makers. They weren't shy about it. There were announcements and photo-ops and stuff.

reportingsjr 6y ago

There are not anti-automobile people on here. There are people who are sick of cars being pushed as the /only/ way for things to be done. Almost every person you see advocating for better safety for pedestrians, people biking, etc understands that cars are necessary for some things. It just doesn't need to be forced for literally every small thing.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
I get what you're saying. And for what it's worth I do like the idea of making city centers more walkable and pedestrian friendly. But based on some comments in this discussion there are absolutely anti-automobile people here and they are vocal. I just responded to someone calling a car a "murder machine".
- ck425 6y ago
  Not that I disagree there's an anti car segment here (I'm personally very anti car) but a car can be (can not necessarily is) an effective murder machine. What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? I'm not saying that's the intent but when people call them murder machine the point they're raising (hyperbolically) is that cars and dangerous pieces of machinery and that has to be taken into account more when we consider urban design.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? knives would be the obvious answer, though they probably don't cause as much accidental carnage as cars.
    - ck425 6y ago
      That's the point. Cars have an unmatched level of potential damage compared to almost anything short of actual weapons. Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        I see what you're getting at, but I don't think this is a great way to show your point. a chef's knife is primarily a kitchen tool, but it makes for a much more effective weapon than a car. the thing that makes cars somewhat unique is their potential for unintentional damage. > Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable. sure, but this is a vague statement that has no real teeth. everyone agrees that drivers ought to try not to hit pedestrians. what gets fiercely debated is how civil (and possibly criminal) liability ought to be apportioned.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? Knives. Belts. Ropes. Electrical cords. Hammers. Chairs. Frying pans. Scissors. Etc., Etc., Etc., as nauseum, ad infinitum.
    - agensaequivocum 6y ago
      Indeed, more murders are committed in the US with hands, fists, and feet than rifles.
      - thex10 6y ago
        This in turn is dwarfed by the deaths caused by automobiles!
leetcrew 6y ago
there are at least a few commenters here who repeatedly advocate for banning cars altogether in cities. if not "anti-automobile", how would you describe this position?
- reportingsjr 6y ago
  That almost exclusively refers to largely limiting personal cars, it doesn't include service vehicles, delivery automobiles, etc (so construction vans and trucks, ambulances, etc are still allowed). Much more info on the car free city center concept at this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    tbh I don't actually disagree with banning personal cars in very dense city centers. but I have to say it is a special sort of linguistic backflip to not call this position "anti-automobile".
    - reportingsjr 6y ago
      Why try to tribalize this? I explained how a lot of people feel, and that there is a bit of a spectrum in what people want. It really feels like you're trying to make this an "us vs. them" situation negatively, rather than understanding that it's people wanting safer, healthier, more enjoyable places to live by means of reducing car dependence.
- stainforth 6y ago
  Perhaps that's where we are in making sure the overton window doesn't cede ground to vested interests; only the extreme alternative as a starting point if negotiations of whats possible are being made.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  "reasonable". Calling someone "anti-something" makes them sound one-sided and hostile.

leetcrew 6y ago

I am definitely not anti-car (I love cars and driving), but I don't agree that jaywalking laws make any kind of sense. as a driver, it's enough to be presumed not at fault for hitting a pedestrian that is behaving erratically. as a pedestrian, it's absurd not to be allowed to cross an empty street when convenient.

frickenhamster 6y ago
So you don't normalize walking where you're not supposed to.
- ck425 6y ago
  Why shouldn't being able to cross the street be normalized?

carapace 6y ago

I don't know about "sinister", I think everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing, but it's historical fact that US jaywalking laws are the result of a deliberate concerted effort by the auto-industry and law-makers. They weren't shy about it. There were announcements and photo-ops and stuff.