18 ms·

The laws could have limited vehicles in a number of ways if it treated shared access to the spaces as fundamental.

andrewla 1y ago
Without doing further research, what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction? I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons. The fact of the matter is that society was changing, and that was it. Places where cars go are not compatible with places that people go and cars were getting cheaper and more common and more necessary all the time.
- cassianoleal 1y ago
  I think it's the USA and Germany who have jaywalking laws. Pretty much everywhere other country in the whole world have dealt with the problem differently.
- Mawr 1y ago
  > I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons. Really? Because the humanity's track record about anything that's brand new is horrible. Lead in gasoline? Seems to help a lot with engine function, let's deploy it planet-wide before making sure it's safe. Nothing can possibly go wrong! > what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction? As for laws themselves, in the event of a driver hitting a pedestrian, the driver is found automatically at fault. If it turns out the pedestrian was at fault, the driver still remains liable for 50% of the damages. (Suprised? Think, which party is the source of the danger? Can the pedestrian ever harm the driver in any way? Then how can the responsibility ever not lay on the driver?) But really, it's not laws that are needed here, but well designed infrastructure. Infrastructure that clearly communicates to everyone how to behave. Speed limits are a great example. How exactly is putting up a sign saying "pls no speederino" supposed to affect a vehicle moving at 100mph through a residental street? Is the threat of potential consequences down the line in the unlikely scenario of getting caught supposed to do that? That'd require humans to be rational actors. Now, if we put a bump on the road that will damage the vehicle if gone over at speeds of >50mph, then the speedster has only two choices: 1) go over it and immediately feel the consequences 2) slow down. Some other such measures: - raised crosswalks (The crosswalk simply continues, it's the road surface that comes up. That way it's the vehicle that intrudes on the space of the pedestrians, not the other way around. Note that this is the opposite of how it's almost always done.) - roundabouts - narrowing roads - curb extensions - chicanes - changing the road surface to be less pleasant to drive on at speed - adding and increasing curves in general

Without doing further research, what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction? I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons. The fact of the matter is that society was changing, and that was it. Places where cars go are not compatible with places that people go and cars were getting cheaper and more common and more necessary all the time.

cassianoleal 1y ago
I think it's the USA and Germany who have jaywalking laws. Pretty much everywhere other country in the whole world have dealt with the problem differently.
Mawr 1y ago
> I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons. Really? Because the humanity's track record about anything that's brand new is horrible. Lead in gasoline? Seems to help a lot with engine function, let's deploy it planet-wide before making sure it's safe. Nothing can possibly go wrong! > what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction? As for laws themselves, in the event of a driver hitting a pedestrian, the driver is found automatically at fault. If it turns out the pedestrian was at fault, the driver still remains liable for 50% of the damages. (Suprised? Think, which party is the source of the danger? Can the pedestrian ever harm the driver in any way? Then how can the responsibility ever not lay on the driver?) But really, it's not laws that are needed here, but well designed infrastructure. Infrastructure that clearly communicates to everyone how to behave. Speed limits are a great example. How exactly is putting up a sign saying "pls no speederino" supposed to affect a vehicle moving at 100mph through a residental street? Is the threat of potential consequences down the line in the unlikely scenario of getting caught supposed to do that? That'd require humans to be rational actors. Now, if we put a bump on the road that will damage the vehicle if gone over at speeds of >50mph, then the speedster has only two choices: 1) go over it and immediately feel the consequences 2) slow down. Some other such measures: - raised crosswalks (The crosswalk simply continues, it's the road surface that comes up. That way it's the vehicle that intrudes on the space of the pedestrians, not the other way around. Note that this is the opposite of how it's almost always done.) - roundabouts - narrowing roads - curb extensions - chicanes - changing the road surface to be less pleasant to drive on at speed - adding and increasing curves in general