5 ms·

> Yep, the entire concept of jaywalking was invented for the convenience of car owners and the car industry Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? It's n

> Yep, the entire concept of jaywalking was invented for the convenience of car owners and the car industry Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? It's not a good idea to walk on the train tracks either. It seems like the "entire concept" of not walking in front of heavy, fast moving objects may predate automobiles.

masklinn 4y ago
> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. It made collisions between cars and pedestrians the fault of the pedestrian by default, and excluded them from the road surface. > It's not a good idea to walk on the train tracks either. "High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison. Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks.
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  >> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? >No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. This does not mean that it is not for their safety. >"High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison. Train tracks don't take you to as many places as roads. > Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks Yet, they are expected to avoid them and the tram has priority, and many tram routes are protected from pedestrian crossing by barriers. Pedestrians aren't excluded from roads either, it is just that safe crossing points have been established. I know in many places, such as Wien, trams are not obligated to stop at crosswalks if people are waiting. It's not that important, but the idea that "entire concept of jaywalking is for the convenience of car owners" is really not accurate. No need to overstate that to make your other points.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    >> No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. > This does not mean that it is not for their safety. Imagine a car entering a shopping mall: it will go at a very slow pace as it’s in a place primarily for pedestrians, and hitting kids running around will be 100% the car’s fault it was going any faster. Putting the burden on the car gives more safety to pedestrian. The reverse (putting the blame on the people for entering car’s way) doesn’t help in that respect. PS: for instance entering train tracks is not “jaywalking”, and I think you’re focusing on a similar aspect, but for freeways and car dedicated roads ?
- tpmoney 4y ago
  Most right of way systems specify that the smaller more nimble participant is required to yield in conflicting right of way scenarios. Pedestrians yield to bikes, bikes yield to cars, cars yield to trains. On the water too, a swimmer yields to a row boat, which yields to a jet ski which yields to a motor boat which yields to a yacht which yields to a cargo ship which yields to a carrier. It's more a recognition of the laws of physics than it is a exclusionary practice.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    The point is to flip those rules in areas like cities. In the centres of many European cities, cars must yield to pedestrians, or are excluded completely.
avianlyric 4y ago
One would think the deterrent of being hit by a fast moving object would be enough. I’m not sure how arresting or fining people improves their safety or welfare.
- b3morales 4y ago
  I believe the argument is that it may create danger for other people as well. For example, an oncoming car may swerve to avoid striking the pedestrian and hit something else. I'm not sure that's a very likely scenario, however.
- kfarr 4y ago
  It doesn't improve a pedestrians welfare, instead it removes responsibility and legal liability from the driver.
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  Apparently it isn't. We have to build barriers to prevent people from running into traffic because not even the law is enough to discourage it.
scrollaway 4y ago
It’s a bit less straightforward than that. “Jaywalking” as a term is derogatory; you can look up the etymology, if it were invented today it would be called “stupidwalking” or some such. It was pushed hard by car companies, and they lobbied to make cars the primary user of the road within cities. So a pedestrian choosing to cross would by default be in the wrong, unless in the “correct place”, instead of the opposite.
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  Perhaps the specific term, but not the "entire concept".
hnaccount141 4y ago
The difference is that train tracks are designed primarily for trains. Before cars existed, streets were primarily for people and horses. Cars were, as the title of the article suggests, intruders into this space. The push to popularize the term jaywalking was an effort to reframe streets as a space for cars first, where it's the responsibility of pedestrians to stay out of their way rather than the other way around.
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  Yet sidewalks have existed for much longer than cars.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
The difference with train tracks is that they have been specifically constructed for the purpose of transporting heavy machinery. By not being allowed to access them by foot you are not losing any right that you previously enjoyed. Roads and streets, on the other hand, predate automobiles by millennia. Hence the philosophy that is followed in the UK, where there is no such thing as a "jaywalking" infraction. People have had a right of free passage along public highways (English law definition [0]) and general rights of way (Scotland [1]) for centuries, and this right cannot simply be taken away just because now there happen to be heavy fast moving objects that are allowed to use some of them. You are free to walk on and across the road at any point and time whatsoever, as long as you do not cause a danger to other users. Note that this doesn't apply to motorways (≈freeways) though, as these were expressly constructed to carry automobile vehicles and are therefore legitimately of limited access. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_England_and_Wales [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Scotland
watwut 4y ago
No. If primary goal is safety, you draw crossings and traffic lights. You create laws that give priority to pedestrians attempting to cross where is no sidewalk. You lower the speed inside cities.
ska 4y ago
> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? The pedestrians were there first though, and it's not clear how to balance the needs. After all we do have the concept of isolated car travel for safety, it's called a freeway. Much like a rail system, they are useful and pretty safe for point-to-point travel mostly outside densely populate areas. The contentious bit is that all other surface level infrastructure should be primarily shaped to fit the needs of cars at the expense of everything else. For a not-so-practical example, if city traffic was strictly limited to 10mph or less, vehicle pedestrian interactions would be much more safe...

masklinn 4y ago

> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. It made collisions between cars and pedestrians the fault of the pedestrian by default, and excluded them from the road surface. > It's not a good idea to walk on the train tracks either. "High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison. Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks.

mattmcknight 4y ago
>> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? >No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. This does not mean that it is not for their safety. >"High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison. Train tracks don't take you to as many places as roads. > Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks Yet, they are expected to avoid them and the tram has priority, and many tram routes are protected from pedestrian crossing by barriers. Pedestrians aren't excluded from roads either, it is just that safe crossing points have been established. I know in many places, such as Wien, trams are not obligated to stop at crosswalks if people are waiting. It's not that important, but the idea that "entire concept of jaywalking is for the convenience of car owners" is really not accurate. No need to overstate that to make your other points.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  >> No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. > This does not mean that it is not for their safety. Imagine a car entering a shopping mall: it will go at a very slow pace as it’s in a place primarily for pedestrians, and hitting kids running around will be 100% the car’s fault it was going any faster. Putting the burden on the car gives more safety to pedestrian. The reverse (putting the blame on the people for entering car’s way) doesn’t help in that respect. PS: for instance entering train tracks is not “jaywalking”, and I think you’re focusing on a similar aspect, but for freeways and car dedicated roads ?
tpmoney 4y ago
Most right of way systems specify that the smaller more nimble participant is required to yield in conflicting right of way scenarios. Pedestrians yield to bikes, bikes yield to cars, cars yield to trains. On the water too, a swimmer yields to a row boat, which yields to a jet ski which yields to a motor boat which yields to a yacht which yields to a cargo ship which yields to a carrier. It's more a recognition of the laws of physics than it is a exclusionary practice.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  The point is to flip those rules in areas like cities. In the centres of many European cities, cars must yield to pedestrians, or are excluded completely.

avianlyric 4y ago

One would think the deterrent of being hit by a fast moving object would be enough. I’m not sure how arresting or fining people improves their safety or welfare.

b3morales 4y ago
I believe the argument is that it may create danger for other people as well. For example, an oncoming car may swerve to avoid striking the pedestrian and hit something else. I'm not sure that's a very likely scenario, however.
kfarr 4y ago
It doesn't improve a pedestrians welfare, instead it removes responsibility and legal liability from the driver.
mattmcknight 4y ago
Apparently it isn't. We have to build barriers to prevent people from running into traffic because not even the law is enough to discourage it.

scrollaway 4y ago

It’s a bit less straightforward than that. “Jaywalking” as a term is derogatory; you can look up the etymology, if it were invented today it would be called “stupidwalking” or some such. It was pushed hard by car companies, and they lobbied to make cars the primary user of the road within cities. So a pedestrian choosing to cross would by default be in the wrong, unless in the “correct place”, instead of the opposite.

mattmcknight 4y ago
Perhaps the specific term, but not the "entire concept".

hnaccount141 4y ago

The difference is that train tracks are designed primarily for trains. Before cars existed, streets were primarily for people and horses. Cars were, as the title of the article suggests, intruders into this space. The push to popularize the term jaywalking was an effort to reframe streets as a space for cars first, where it's the responsibility of pedestrians to stay out of their way rather than the other way around.

mattmcknight 4y ago
Yet sidewalks have existed for much longer than cars.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

The difference with train tracks is that they have been specifically constructed for the purpose of transporting heavy machinery. By not being allowed to access them by foot you are not losing any right that you previously enjoyed. Roads and streets, on the other hand, predate automobiles by millennia. Hence the philosophy that is followed in the UK, where there is no such thing as a "jaywalking" infraction. People have had a right of free passage along public highways (English law definition [0]) and general rights of way (Scotland [1]) for centuries, and this right cannot simply be taken away just because now there happen to be heavy fast moving objects that are allowed to use some of them. You are free to walk on and across the road at any point and time whatsoever, as long as you do not cause a danger to other users. Note that this doesn't apply to motorways (≈freeways) though, as these were expressly constructed to carry automobile vehicles and are therefore legitimately of limited access. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_England_and_Wales [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Scotland

watwut 4y ago

No. If primary goal is safety, you draw crossings and traffic lights. You create laws that give priority to pedestrians attempting to cross where is no sidewalk. You lower the speed inside cities.

ska 4y ago

> Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? The pedestrians were there first though, and it's not clear how to balance the needs. After all we do have the concept of isolated car travel for safety, it's called a freeway. Much like a rail system, they are useful and pretty safe for point-to-point travel mostly outside densely populate areas. The contentious bit is that all other surface level infrastructure should be primarily shaped to fit the needs of cars at the expense of everything else. For a not-so-practical example, if city traffic was strictly limited to 10mph or less, vehicle pedestrian interactions would be much more safe...