
How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking” - JackFr
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
======
mlinksva
Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover
the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase
qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely,
leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to
reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

~~~
jdhopeunique
If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in
addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that
confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently
confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I
suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts
at regulatory capture to make automated vehicles possible and dominated by the
first market entrants.

~~~
Tiktaalik
Absolutely. I see this here on hacker news with people excited about the
notion of doing away with stop lights so that AI traffic can flow easily.
People are completely ignoring the existence of pedestrians and cyclists. It
would not be surprising to see a new crime of "hindering an autonomous
automobile" be lobbied for.

~~~
whatshisface
It's only a matter of time before some stupid kids start jumping in the way of
self-driving cars to make them brake hard. That's when we'll see the anti-
pedestrian regulations appear, by my estimation.

~~~
adrianN
Self driving cars are not magic and judging their braking distance is not much
easier than with a human driver. I think kids trying that will quickly find
out that it's not too hard to make an autocar hit a human. In other words, I
think the problem would quickly solve itself.

~~~
jdhopeunique
In bad neighborhoods, the carjackers(might not want a autonomous car though)
or robbers might just roll a beach ball into the street to stop the car or
maybe just a cheap open umbrella. I can imagine those people who practice
"rolling coal" doing the same thing to rich autonomous car riders or just
throwing a beach ball out the window on an interstate. Lots of possibilities
that security researchers will need to consider.

~~~
adrianN
Rolling a ball on the street is probably enough to stop human drivers as well.
Is carjacking that much of a problem where you live? I've never heard of
anybody being carjacked here. I guess you could equip your car with one of
these devices if you're concerned:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg)

~~~
kazinator
A human driver has a good chance to recognize the situation for what it is and
just hit the beachball. (Or heck, the hoodlum himself.)

~~~
adjkant
Um where do you think this is happening exactly that people know that
beachball = carjacking? Based on the language used, I suspect you aren't in
such an area and are coming up with an unrealistic scenario here.

~~~
kazinator
Okay, so we have to suppose we're driving through LA County's Palos Verdes
Estates, and a beachball suddenly pops up. Fair enough.

------
vijayr
_Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get
in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed
widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians_

To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were
outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the
pedestrians! In what world is this ethical?

What is next? Sending overdose details to pharma companies for them to blame
the drug users?

~~~
ryandrake
You say this as if it's unusual for news articles to be solely written by
various company's PR and marketing teams.

~~~
vijayr
But there is a difference between promoting a product vs shifting blame, isn't
it?

~~~
ryandrake
In both cases, the entity creating the message is promoting a point of view in
which it has a financial stake.

------
rubinelli
There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily
influenced our views on littering:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI)

Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem;
disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared
responsibility.

~~~
tedunangst
In much the same way I'm happy we no longer empty chamber pots by heaving the
contents out the front window, I don't really care where litter or rubbish
comes from but I'd prefer it not pile up on the sidewalk.

~~~
nxsynonym
The difference is that one is biologically unavoidable and the other is
stubbornness in the name of saving production costs.

~~~
spaced-out
If someone ate an orange or banana and left the peel on a park bench, I'd
still consider that littering.

~~~
nxsynonym
and? obviously I don't want heaps of chamber pot contents on the sidewalk
either. The point I was making is that, yes all littering is bad, but why does
the consumer shoulder the burden when a huge majority of packaging can be
avoided?

~~~
spaced-out
Can be avoided, but there's a cost. Wrapping food in plastic makes it easier,
and thus cheaper to distribute, and vastly lowers the risk of foodborn
illness. If you get rid of plastic packaging, the consumer will bear that cost
in other ways.

I agree that companies often avoid the negative externalities of their
activities, and support things like a carbon tax to fix that. But in the case
of littering, whoever creates the mess needs to clean it up.

~~~
peterwwillis
How exactly does wrapping potatoes and bell peppers and cucumbers individually
in plastic make it easier to distribute them? As far as illness goes, any
number of steps along the food distribution chain can introduce pathogens, so
they still have to be cleaned, separated, prepared and stored properly,
regardless of plastic use.

On the other hand, if you get rid of plastic packaging, the consumer will bear
the _benefit_ in other ways. A lack of plastic in the environment means a
healthier ecosystem, which affects their food as well as their quality of
life.

But this is all a bit of a red herring because goods aren't packaged in so
much plastic in order to reduce costs or improve quality. The single most
important factor in consumer packaging is "Will this make the consumer want to
buy it more".

~~~
upvotinglurker
In the case of cucumbers, it's to extend the shelf life because otherwise they
very easily dehydrate through their skins[0]. (The alternative is waxing the
skin.)

I've never seen an individually shrink-wrapped potato or bell pepper where I
live. I do see sets of 3 large bell papers, or of a pound or two of "baby"
bell papers, in a plastic bag, and don't know of any excuse for that beyond
convenience.

[0] [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-
drink/featu...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-
drink/features/a-lesson-in-packaging-myths-is-shrink-wrap-on-a-cucumber-
really-mindless-waste-8340812.html)

------
Noos
Can HN please stop it with this "not owning a car is virtuous" shtick? I went
most of my younger life not having a car, only learning to drive at age 28. I
lived in a new england suburb close enough to go to my work and shopping
services at a ten minute walk at the time, and it still was horrid.

People here don't get how limited your life is without a car. You are limited
to a ten-fifteen mile radius for everything, unless you use inefficient public
transport which tacks on a huge time tax for even basic trips. You are captive
to that transport, which means something like being called in is hard to
impossible, as well as many duties of your workplace; dropping deposits off to
a bank after hours as a manager, for example. That transport doesn't even
expand your range that much, maybe one or two towns over; the time for further
is so long as to be prohibitive.

Even with walking, you wind up spending far more time and expense on basic
tasks. Instead of shopping one day you need to shop five, just because you
can't fit more than a couple bags of goods. If you are on the bus, you can't
even easily use perishables; 30-45 min one way is the norm. You can't do
things like buy a mattress without tacked on delivery fees and more time spent
waiting to receive it. If anything happens where you simply can't walk like
doctor or dentist visits (because doctors don't always stay in walking
distance of most people) that's an expensive cab or uber both ways. Sometimes
its even worse...jury duty can be in the county courthouse 30 min by car and
an hour and a half by bus.

You have no social life with no car. Not every town can simply cluster
everything in one place; the downtown can easily be 30 minutes away from where
people live. It took me an hour to walk to the comic shop one way; the bus
would had made that longer, not shorter. Dates are impossible because of that;
if the nearest date spot or bar isn't within five minutes, what do you do?

A life without personal cars would be a rather limited and even serfish one.
Everyone assumes driverless cars might save us, but they have yet to prove
they can even navigate a highway during a New England winter, which is what
you'd need to do to replace a commute. People talk about bicycles, but 0
degree or snowy weather makes that horrid, as well as high heat. Please stop
assuming cars are this evil thing that more walking and biking will solve;
they wont, not at all.

~~~
contingencies
Counter point. Late 30s here, family, no car, no license. I use cabs all the
time, it's great. I have a fine social life and can drink safely. I can rent
houses and move about for work, then change countries without offloading
assets at fire-sale prices. I choose not to live in an unpleasant climate, so
snow is a non-issue for me. Have you considered the option that _maybe you
just don 't get it?_

Cars are responsible for many problems including wasted space, noise, visual
and air pollution, danger, and unpleasant urban space breakdowns.

 _The Highway and Automobile culture are symbols of totalitarian cultures
which deny people more sustainable and equitable alternatives for mobility and
transport_ \- Vandana Shiva, February 19, 2004.

The reality is that most people live in dense Asian urban environments, and
this trend is increasing. More and more people rely solely on public
transport, and this is a good thing for society and the environment. If
everyone carried on like Americans or Australians, global warming would be
insane. Let's encourage pluralism and change. Cars have had their chance - the
1950s called and wants its suburban utopia back.

~~~
Noos
That's called "being wealthy." Being wealthy enables you to escape a lot of
the problems that not having a car involves, because you can just throw money
at the problem to overcome it. A lot of people are not wealthy and cannot do
this.

There's also a bit of good fortune involved. I was young, single, and healthy.
But I'm older now, and there are times when I simply cannot afford to use
public transit or walk. If you get the flu, you don't even have the choice;
walking fifteen minutes to get medicine or food is agony. And you always have
to walk fifteen minutes, just to get to the transit spot. You feel the weather
a lot more as you age; a brisk rain shower is rougher on you at 40 than at 20.

And come on, what can be more totalitarian than restricting the ability of
people to move beyond a tiny radius apart from communal vehicles that can be
shut down on a whim?

~~~
contingencies
I think you are evaluating many things from an American context and you reveal
that you are older. IMHO the problem with American environments are that
they're often semi-explicitly designed around the car. If you are used to a
car, not having one is probably a horrible prospect. However, as you
explicitly discussed aging, you can't put your head in the sand - obviously
eventually you won't be able to drive a car, so you'd better get ready for it.
Most of the US likely won't change quickly enough to lessen that challenge for
you, but perhaps with younger generations behind change one day that issue
won't be faced by others.

~~~
Noos
You can drive a car a lot longer than you can walk. I could do a 30 minute
walk as a younger person, but now it's something I could only do as a special
thing, not every day to a job. Society will not be able to redesign for this;
if anything it's other people who own cars that act as caregivers for
housebound seniors as their work.

~~~
ck425
Can I ask what age you? You should easily be able to walk 30 min at any age
short of 60, unless you have relates health issues. If you can't then you need
to seriously consider improving your health.

~~~
tasuki
My dad is 66 and can easily walk for hours. I think the problem here is
strictly health issues, not age. (Obviously, health issues often come with
age... but age itself is not the limiting factor at all!)

------
justincormack
In the UK jaywalking doesn't exist; technically people still have right of way
on roads, but try telling that to a car. In the 1930s, when the first
footbridge over a road, Western Avenue in London was built, there were
protests:

The Bridge of Fools, the first footbridge over a road in Britain

In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on
Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry
of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour.
The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it
would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested
traffic".

On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach,
and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to
build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of
the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to
force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a
thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level".

In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people
demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it
was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it".

In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a
week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a
coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins".

The war brought and end to the protests, and for a few years the traffic.

(from Leadville: A Biography of the A40 by Edward Platt)

~~~
BoorishBears
In my state (Connecticut), pedestrians have the right of way, but Jaywalking
is a crime.

It makes sense, having the right of way won’t save you if you decide to dart
out in front of a car without warning

------
mc32
Point taken. However, when new tech comes along, new laws follow in their
wake.

When people moved from farm to city and suddenly we had massive amounts of
worker abuse, labor laws got introduced.

Barnstorming aviation gave way to regulated aviation.

It's not exactly the same, but it's similar in that it's a reaction to change
in the operating environment. I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow
and generally ad hoc. Today streets are prescripted and need to meet various
contextual requirements (volume, traffic flow, vehicle types, pedestrians,
weight limit, wear characteristics, etc.)

When a car gets crushed on the tracks, it's usually not blamed on the train.
It's typically thought of as the responsibility of the car driver.

Now, sure, trains are constrained by tracks and don't enjoy manoeuverability,
but same with ships, the little ones get out of the way.

Cars can't stop on a dime, so we put the ones on the entity with the most
manoeuverability, in this case people.

~~~
akira2501
> I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc.

It's also worthwhile to consider all that cars have added to our society.
People stayed in the streets because that's as far as they could go. Vendors
came to the streets because that's where their customers could get to. Travel
was limited, the movement of goods was basically nonexistent compared to today
and "moving for a job" was not even a possibility for the majority of
Americans.

We introduced cars, then made them faster because that enabled more of what we
wanted for ourselves, and sure, we made a sacrifice in that trade but I don't
understand this modern trend of decrying our future for love of navel gazing
through the past.

~~~
InitialLastName
The role of technology in society is a perpetual balancing act negotiated by
the actions of the people. Perhaps it isn't so much "navel gazing through the
past" as recognizing that the balance has, for some, shifted too far in the
direction of sacrifice.

Luckily, there are other societies that have managed to achieve most of the
benefits of cars with fewer of the costs. We can learn from them as we try to
find a balance that is acceptable to a broader population.

------
whack
I sold my car 3 years ago, and am lucky to live in a city where I no longer
need one to get around. If someone wants to ban/inconvenience cars in a place
where public transit is up to snuff, more power to them. But until then, let's
get realistic. Most Americans _need_ to drive in order to live their
personal/work lives. We can punitively punish drivers all we want, but
ultimately, the only people we're punishing is ourselves.

Having a combination of sidewalks and roads is the best of both worlds - both
pedestrians and cars are free to go as fast as they want, without having to
get in each other's way. I've personally experienced the chaos of driving
through unruly streets, where pedestrians can get in your way at any second.
It's intensely stressful and frustrating to spend half an hour on a drive that
could have been easily accomplished in 15. I'll take the smooth roads,
demarcated lanes and traffic lights, thank you very much.

------
odammit
99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back that’s a pretty good listen.

[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-
modern...](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-
moloch/)

~~~
silveira
I came here to post this episode. It's one of the greatest from 99pi.

~~~
odammit
It was one of the first I listened to, then I went back and listened to them
all. :D

 _coin check_

------
jerrycruncher
For anyone that's interested in the subject, Hunter Oatman-Stanford wrote a
rather more comprehensive article[1] with a much snappier title on the topic
roughly four years ago, and Eben Weiss (aka Bike Snob NYC) responded with one
of his charmingly vitriolic hot-takes[2] shortly thereafter.

[1] [https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-
machines/](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/)

[2] [https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-
fun...](https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/03/bsnyc-no-friday-fun-quiz-
instead-friday.html)

------
Annatar
I’ve been driving for several decades. I’m also an avid automobile enthusiast,
“will talk cars with anyone” kind of a guy.

But for 30 minutes every day, I’m just an ordinary pedestrian. And I follow
the traffic rules and regulations which apply to pedestrians religiously:
always cross at a crosswalk, never cross on Red, even if the intersection is
devoid of traffic. Why do I do that? Because as a driver and as a pedestrian,
I understand the challenges and the dangers of being on both sides. It has to
do with discipline and maintenace of the very high standard of living I enjoy
in the country where I live. Being undisciplined would erode that standard.

Many pedestrians are undisciplined. I see them crossing the road at places
other than a crosswalk. I see them crossing the road on Red, while as a fellow
pedestrian I patiently wait to cross at a crosswalk when the traffic light
turns Green. It angers me greatly when other pedestrians aren’t disciplined,
not only because they erode the standard of living, but because I could have
just as easily been the driver who unwittingly hits them and has to live with
that for the rest of her or his life.

~~~
ck425
You're presuming here that the current system is fair and reasonable. As it
is, pedestrians are massively inconvenienced so that drivers can speed around
in a two ton box of steel. To my mind that's not a fair trade off.

~~~
Annatar
I’m not presuming. Where I live it’s more than fair and reasonable in favor of
pedestrians and bicyclists, heavily skewed in their favor as far as traffic
laws and infrastructure. Europe isn’t like the States in that respect.

And yet a lot of pedestrians don’t abide by traffic laws and a lot of
bicyclists actively abuse and violate it. I just had a guy take my right-of-
way in a rotor (roundabound) and fly right in anyway although I was already in
it and about to make an exit, and when I honked my horn he just waved me down
like it was nothing; If I had hit him even though he broke the law, the court
would by default favor him because he was on a bicycle, never mind that when
they are on one they are a vehicle like any other for the purposes of traffic
laws and they have to abide by them.

------
darkr
As someone from the other side of the pond I always found it strange that
pedestrians could be entrusted to carry a loaded handgun, but not to cross the
road.

------
bound008
This was covered in a very entertaining show called Adam Ruins Everything.
Each episode has footnotes for the sources:

[http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-
everything/blog/adams-...](http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-
everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-cars.html)

Interestingly enough, their source was an article from Vox from 2007:
[https://cdn1.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/N...](https://cdn1.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2934608/Norton_Street_Rivals.0.pdf)

EDIT: the article references the original author's work and the book (also
cited as a source by the show) [http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-
American-Inside-Techn...](http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-
Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128)

------
Lukeas14
Not surprising to read that Los Angeles was the starting point for jaywalking
laws. Still today, it enforces them harder than most other cities. Try running
across an empty street with no crosswalk for 1/4 mile in either direction in
front of a cop. It's likely that you'll still receive a fine citation. I'd
like to see it replaced with an "impeding traffic" law that would only apply
if you're actually putting yourself or others in danger. But I presume the
city makes too much money from the current jaywalking law to make that change.

The relationship between automakers and L.A.'s city government back in the 20s
an 30s is an interesting topic. They seem to have had an enormous amount of
power over the city. Automakers were instrumental in shutting down the
extensive subway system as it transformed into the car based city it is today.
Was this due to corruption or was L.A. just preparing for what we thought
would be the future of transportation?

~~~
freehunter
Granted I don't live in LA, but I've visited many times and I'm surprised by
this comment because it doesn't match my experience. I"m much more familiar
with Chicago, where a taxi cab will jump a curb just for the chance to run
down a pedestrian. Meanwhile every time I've tried to cross a road in LA, the
minute I lift one foot off the ground while standing at a crosswalk, traffic
in both directions comes screeching to a halt with drivers waving me on
against the light. I've found drivers in LA to be far more lenient to the
random whims of others (pedestrians and drivers alike) than most cities I've
visited.

~~~
kevinschumacher
At crosswalks that don’t have lights, they have to stop for you when you’re
there. This is also heavily enforced.

But in areas without crosswalks, you’ll get a ticket for stepping into the
street even if there are no cars coming.

Edit: clarity

~~~
kazinator
If no motor vehicles are coming, then no police car or motor bike is coming,
so you don't get a ticket. Unless it's a cop on horseback or bicycle. Or else
the cop was already present there on foot, in which case don't do that!

People who get tickets deserve them because they are obviously not paying
attention to their surroundings.

If you can't see that a cop is there, what else can't you see?

------
scoot
Fantastic photo from 1914, but while the peope are gone, and the buildings are
barely recognisable, I'm not sure the car has completely taken over on that
particular street (Orhard and Hester facing SSW towards Division St.)

[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA/@40.7159103,-73.9913672,3a,75y,166.01h,92.28t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3WQId5LdrSrKTHzX2RO21Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i43!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!2sHester+St,+New+York,+NY,+USA!3b1!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555!3m4!1s0x89c25a28004b74fd:0x86b2847175e8efde!8m2!3d40.7169698!4d-73.9944555?dcr=0)

------
lawlessone
What i would like to know is did it actually reduce deaths?

~~~
andys627
Maybe from cars hitting people - but how about death from obesity and
environmental degradation of suburban auto-oriented lifestyle as compared to
urban walkable/transit oriented lifestyle.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
There have been massive increases in quality of life as a result of cheaper,
faster transportation of people and goods.

Anything can be made to look like a massive net negative with the one-sided
comparison that it's fashionable to apply to cars, social conservatives, and a
handful of other topics around here.

~~~
andys627
Both points definitely true. I guess my argument is you can accomplish the
same (probably more?) massive increase in quality of life without the suburban
auto dependent monoculture. Look at quality of life (especially with regard to
ease of mobility) of some bike infrastructure leaders like Copenhagen versus
SF Bay Area where you pretty much have to own a car.

------
Zigurd
"Limited access" roads already exist. These are the places for unlimited
speeds in autonomous vehicles. Everyplace else it should be assumed that
cyclists and pedestrians are in the mix, and even if traffic signals for cars
become obsolete, those cars will still have to enable bikes and pedestrians to
move without joining the v2v network. You might be able to provide a safety
advantage to cyclists and pedestrians carrying beacons, but you'll never be
able to count on it, so city traffic will have to remain within speeds that
keep un-instrumented pedestrians and cyclists safe.

------
pmulv
There's an episode of The Dollop podcast that addresses the introduction of
cars to the streets of America when horse and buggie still ruled the road [0].
It is highly entertaining and informative, and it touches upon why
"jaywalking" and who "Jay" is supposed to be. I recommend it and the podcast
in general to anyone who is interested in peculiar history.

[0] [http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-
came](http://thedollop.libsyn.com/193-when-the-cars-came)

------
dsfyu404ed
People really turn into extremists around here whenever the topic is cars vs
bikes vs pedestrians vs anything else. Of all communities you'd think that
this one would be able to discuss this in a more generalized way without
getting all emotional about how cars are the devil and bikes have no manners,
etc, etc.

It would be a lot easier to have a productive discussion if there were some
way to have it in terms of something people find more neutral. Maybe
find+replace cars with aircraft and people with service vehicles. Fork trucks,
pallet jacks and foot traffic could be another substitution.

It makes sense to segregate traffic and govern their interactions with defined
rules and put lots of redundancy in those rules. That's why bike lanes and
sidewalks, are a thing. In ports, rail yards, construction sites, mines an
anywhere else there's a lot of different traffic there's similar rules about
who goes where and how they interact with each other.

Interactions between classes of traffic need to be well defined and include
lots of redundant rules for safety. Redundant rules allow the slack from a
violation of expected behavior by one party to be picked up by another party
that is following the rules that govern how it should behave.

With regard to this article in particular, I see jaywalking laws being more a
result of society tolerating micro-managerial laws than I do on any special
interest group.

Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. The only reason people
ascribe them to the automobile industry is because the automobile took over
from the horse at about the same time period where society started tolerating
putting the force of law behind what's just good manners.

If someone crosses the street in a dumb manner and expects other traffic to
"just deal" they're in the wrong. Whether it's a car running red light or a
pedestrian or a rider on horseback cutting off an ox cart does not matter.

~~~
pmyteh
> Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later.

There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. So I don't think that's true.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is
there a statute under which they could be fined?

The "jaywalking law" in my state is that you have to use a crosswalk if it's
within 300ft. In practice this means that you either use a crosswalk, or cross
the street in a reasonable manner at a reasonable time. It's like speeding. If
you behave reasonably you have nothing to worry about.

The US seems to have more restrictive laws about traffic behavior and enforce
them less.

If you compare jaywalking laws with the rules vehicles have to follow[1] the
result is that if one party is following all their rule. It's similar to the
redundancy in road traffic laws (e.g. a safe following distances and using
one's signal provide redundancy that prevents rear endings when one party
doesn't do one of those things)

[1] [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
cross...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
crossing-50-state-summary.aspx)

~~~
pmyteh
> If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is
> there a statute under which they could be fined?

No.

There is semi-binding guidance called the Highway Code, which includes
sections for pedestrians ([https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-
for-pedes...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-
pedestrians-1-to-35)) but there are no criminal or administrative penalties
for not complying, except for Rule 34 (railway level crossings) which carry a
criminal fine.

Crossing the road in a dangerous way is discouraged by education ("The Green
Cross Code") and by the obvious downsides of getting hit by a car. If you do
something stupid you may well get a bollocking from any passing police
officer, but no fine.

edit: The Highway Code is actually a very good example of (kinda) law which is
sensible, well-expressed, easy to read and well-illustrated. Well worth a
look.

~~~
robocat
An exception is motorways, where pedestrians would get fined ( bicycles,
mopeds and horses are not allowed either).

~~~
pmyteh
Yes; motorways (and other 'special roads') are restricted. It's not a matter
of crossing them, though - just being at the roadside is an offence.

------
wccrawford
Sure, they were pro-active about it, but let's face it: It was going to happen
anyhow. This just accelerated things.

~~~
mattmanser
I thought jaywalking is only a thing in the US? I'm not sure who's less
informed, you or me, I have no idea about the prevalence of the idea in other
countries.

It's not a crime to "jaywalk" in the UK, and I quote it as the concept simply
doesn't exist here.

Also, in the UK, if you are crossing a side street and a car wants to turn
into it, officially speaking, the pedestrian has the right of way[1].

[1][https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-
road-...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-
road-159-to-203#rule170)

Edit: Seems it's a real mix, some there are none, others have it, some have it
but it's never enforced and some countries have laws that only apply within a
certain distance of designated crossings:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking)

~~~
rb808
Europe is more strict esp Germany. I heard a story that if you get hit by a
car they'll come to your hospital bed to give you the bill to repair the car
damage, though I'm not sure how accurate that is.

~~~
Mo3
That's nonsense. Jaywalking is not a crime or offence here. You cause an
accident, you're paying.

//Edit, I stand corrected. It's a very minor offence, costing you 10€ if
there's no signal, if there's a signal 5€ if traffic is endangered and 10€ if
an accident was caused. 10€ for crossing the Autobahn (or, more likely, your
life)

~~~
bwood
Anecdotally, I once crossed an empty street in Munich when the crosswalk said
not to and was promptly chastised by a police officer.

------
vbuwivbiu
the ultimate limit of roads+autonomous vehicles is an inefficient
implementation of an electric railway

------
meri_dian
This is silly.

>"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians
shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people
know this history"

The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now
is because some industry players forced us into this situation.

No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should
be given the road and people should be given the sidewalks, and that people
darting to and fro on the street would be very bad for everyone involved.

Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because
they made sense.

~~~
a-priori
Okay that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion to have. But it's just one
way things can work.

Another way, is to give pedestrians priority and expect drivers to exercise
due caution to not hit them the same way they do other cars or trains or
ambulances or whatever.

In an alternate universe where the laws had ended up with pedestrian-priority
being the norm, then you'd be coming in here saying "Cars shouldn't drive
freely on the streets! Streets are for people! People have been walking freely
on streets forever and now you're proposing we vacate them for the convenience
of drivers?" and so on.

So let me ask you this: how are you any more right than alternate-universe-
you? Other than the status quo bias that you're defending the way things
currently are where you (and I) live.

~~~
meri_dian
You're not understanding the situation. The nature of all parties involved
means that what we have now is the optimal compromise.

Given the inertia of cars, starting and stopping frequently takes tremendous
energy. Cars having to avoid pedestrians would waste tremendous amount of
energy.

Also when you're driving you're focused on what's in front of you. People
darting to and fro on the street is almost impossible to keep track of when
you're driving and focused on the road ahead.

This is not an opinion. This is fact. And so, taking these facts into account,
we've decided a system that optimizes energy use and safety for everyone
involved. Pedestrians have sidewalks, cars have streets.

Complaining about this system is just silly.

~~~
Fricken
Why do we grant special entitlements to people who opted to use two tons of
steel to move one person? That sounds to me like a reason to place heavy
restrictions on their behavior. There's an implicit assumption somehow being
in a car makes you more important than someone who isn't. And any argument
that presumes a pedestrian is wasting energy over someone who has chosen to
drive in a car is absurd.

~~~
Spivak
Why are you being so reductionist? Drivers have to accept extremely tight
restrictions on their behavior already. I feel like I'm talking to an alien
that's never driven a car. I mean good lord you have to 6 month class to learn
a subset of the rules of the road.

The fact that cars are given priority because its more efficient to do so
doesn't imply that people think they're more important. In a world with only
bikes we would make the same contract so that bikes could go faster.

Allowing cars to achieve and maintain speed increases efficiency without
impacting pedestrian walk times. Compared to this, a system where roads are
shared does waste energy, time, and economic value.

~~~
macintux
> Allowing cars to achieve and maintain speed increases efficiency without
> impacting pedestrian walk times. Compared to this, a system where roads are
> shared does waste energy, time, and economic value.

Probably, but "energy, time, and economic value" isn't necessarily an
unalloyed good that must be striven for. There are societal costs to the
decisions we've made.

