Hacker News Reader

Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart.

These aren't slow residential roads either, but roads around commercial centers with speed limits around 45 MPH.

> In the Netherlands, for example, traffic engineers and urban planners have actually worked to lower the country’s curbs so as to encourage people to cross wherever they like.

This I don't understand at all unless it's in low/slow traffic areas.

View on HN

Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians, California in particular. Some areas in Orange County have blocks before cross walks, or cross walks only on one side of the street so you had to make the right decision a block ago about which side of the street to be on! Strip malls seemed designed to have people drive the 1k feet between businesses rather than having accessible walking. With city planning focused on driving you start to realize why pedestrians can behave so badly?

If you're talking specifically about urban cities, I still bet Japan/Germany have been urban planning for sidewalks which encourages "good behavior".

I don't think I've ever seen an American strip mall without a wide sidewalk running in front of every business on the strip. The sidewalk is such an integral component of a strip mall, it sounds like what you're describing isn't a strip mall at all. And if people are so lazy that they drive around the parking lot instead of using the sidewalk, that reflects on them, not the sidewalk.

Walking TO the strip mall, not walking across the storefronts. Strip malls typically have awful pedestrian accommodations in the parking lot; there's often no "safe" way to get from the street to the stores.

> And if people are so lazy that they drive around the parking lot instead of using the sidewalk, that reflects on them, not the sidewalk.

I think this reflects a lot of comments, "American's are lazy" and "Look at this german punks walking and respecting traffic laws!" Is the argument US is just inherently lazy? Could there be something else at play? I think it's just that when a use case isn't a main focus of design those users will be stuck trying to hack the system or having a poor experience. USA isn't designed for walkers most places, those people will behave "badly" because of it.

Also, yes there are strip malls that bad, I can show one but then we'll be having pedantic arguments over "hey if you walk an extra 600 feet you have a sidewalk!" or something. Like, even the idea of a strip mall inherently is car centric, with most square footage devoted to parking and who wants to walk (or even drive!) through a parking lot.

> Is the argument US is just inherently lazy?

If the shoe fits... I've seen too many young slightly chubby people coasting around on mobility scooters at Walmart instead of walking a few hundred meters to think laziness isn't a strong component to this sort of behavior.

You're only thinking one level deep, what causes the laziness. My argument is US society actively encourages it on multiple levels starting from just the design of our cities.

I remember being in Kreutzberg in the dead of night with a bunch of other punks and them mohawks and and all waiting for the green man. Blew my mind

> Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians

Exactly, which is why the decriminalization of jaywalking in those cities is a terrible idea. Orange County isn't going to be redesigned, so more jaywalkers means more pedestrian deaths.

"Hey we made an awful system many people can't follow, let's keep them criminalized or more bad stuff could happen."

No option is perfect, but it's layering unfairness on unfairness, ESPECIALLY considering that such laws are often selectively enforced.

Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car?

Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path? Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path?

Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance.

Because if cars are being driven at a speed where they are actually useful, then basic physics dictates that it is not safe to mix cars and pedestrians. The car can only stop so quickly, and you must also factor in that both the pedestrians and drivers are humans and will make mistakes in gauging distance, speed, visibility, and will not always have ideal response times. The legal "right of way" cannot ignore reality. To avoid deaths it is far better to designate areas where cars have right of way and where pedestrians have right of way and clearly mark them.

I agree that the US infrastructure doesn't do enough to support pedestrian and bicycle transport. Expecting people cross only at intersections that are a half-mile apart is unrealistic. Expecting people to cross at a cross-walk that is 5 yards away is not. Crossing just beyond an intersection is the most dangerous possible place to cross due to inherently poor visibility, and all the competing demands for attention that drivers and pedestrians encounter around an intersection. This isn't a matter of rights or relative importance, its a matter of physics and human ability.

Wishing away all the cars is not practical solution, which is what your post essentially amounts to.

This is exactly the problem wit the car culture, almost everywhere outside the netherlands. You give cars so much space, they start behaving like it's the freeway, and then drive into buildings or do other stuff which kills drivers and other users. Of course they are speeding, and they shouldn't do that. But the netherlands thinks ahead, and tries not to give cars the opportunity to speed. So, we make a lot of obstacles and opposing traffic. Somehow drivers still do not like to kill people, slow down, and save themselves in the process.

Look at this video's and others from this channel, to see how the netherlands builds infrastructure being more forgiving of mistakes, and find out how our cities turn out more livable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

(Yes, i'm aware the suburban culture is different, hence the relation with cars)

It's not a law of physics that dictates that you must be allowed to operate cars at a speed that you feel is actually useful.

There are plenty of things that could be useful, yet aren't in the context of civilized society. For instance, shotguns are useful for killing squirrels. That alone doesn't grant someone the right to use them that way at any place or time.

"Wishing" people into crosswalks is also not a practical solution.

> Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car?

a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass.

> Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path?

So that they take responsibility for their own safety.

> Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path?

Because I disagree I should be liable if someone darts out into traffic and is struck by my car.

> Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance.

In dense cities... sure, I agree. In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea.

All your arguments are about protecting yourself and limiting your liability at the expense of the pedestrian and you just slowing down and taking more care.

You even talk in the passive voice about people being struck by your car rather than you striking them with your car.

That's a shit attitude.

I would have to drive very far below the speed limit on any street in my vicinity to be able to safely stop before hitting a jaywalker.

I can do that, of course, but I then become a road hazard. I find it hard to believe that the overall safety would increase as a result. I'm open to being otherwise convinced.

The solution there is that you drop the speed limit for everyone and therefore you're not a road hazard. Anywhere that could have a reasonable number of pedestrians should have adopted limits such that the majority of traffic can safely stop before hitting someone in most cases. Drivers convenience should not trump people's lives.

Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue?

I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe. So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively brake if pedestrians waited their turn at a designated crosswalk.

In the effort to find common ground, maybe the villains are not the specific drivers, but the planners or collective culture who decided to built highway like roads next to shopping plazas. "The speed limit needs to be lowered" is a good compromise.

You argue by Germany and in Germany jaywalking the way it exists in USA does not really exist. There are a lot more options for pedestrians to cross the street, the marked crossing is not necessary.

There are ways for pedestrian to get small fine, but generally cars are supposed to be in control and watch for pedestrians.

You are the safety issue. Without you there is no safety issue. And you should drive accordingly.

It takes two to tango. Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. So jaywalkers should jaywalk accordingly.

> Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either.

This isn’t true - a street of just cars will have lethal crashes amongst themselves even with no pedestrians. A street of just pedestrians will never lethally bump into each other. The only lethal thing in the situation is the cars.

> Why am I being villainized

Because cars bad, of course. Bicycles and pedestrians should always have the right of way in every situation, of course.

If a pedestrian is walking in the lane on the highway, it's obviously the car's legal responsibility to make way for them.

> a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass.

In Germany, car drivers must always be prepared to brake for pedestrians, including children and elderly people. Children as young as 6-7 walk the streets alone or in packs, so the kid dashing is real possibility. No one is gonna call CPS over it, schools literally recommend first graders to walk to school alone.

Pedestrian must use shortest path through street, but does not have to use crossing - you have to use crossing only if one is available within 40m or so.

The power dynamic does not really plays out. The cars are slow in cities, cross walks are everywhere.

> b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass.

I'd argue the opposite conclusion and say that as one operating dangerous machinery you should be given lower right of way for safety reasons. The burden should be on you to drive safely more than others to safely stay out of your way.

> So that they take responsibility for their own safety

And what about your responsibility as the person choosing to speed around in a ton of metal?

> In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea.

There's a chicken and the egg problem here. Such cities came about because of monopolization of streets by drivers. We can't change that over night but given the vast benefits of people centric urban design we should be tilting the balance away from cars and towards people.

Why can't you take some responsibility for their safety? You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation.

>"You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation."

If somebody can dart out in front of my car, isn't that the fault of the person who darted? Or, the civil engineer who designed the road? How can you possibly say that I let myself get into this situation?

My point is: why were you not more carefully assessing the situation, to ensure that you were driving at an appropriate speed, given the risk of having somebody leap into the path of your car? That is after all a situation you presumably want to avoid.

(Even if you don't care about hitting somebody, maybe at least consider that it's equivalent to having a 75 kg lump of meat fired at your car at, say, 35 mph.)

I've had pedestrians dart out in front of my path on three separate occasion in my life. Thankfully, I was aware enough to prevent hitting them. A combination of a slow enough speed, good brakes, enough distance, and luck (to be honest). It was a jarring experience each time, and each time it was completely unexpected. Of course I care about the life of the people who almost got hit - and I'm glad they didn't get maimed. But I absolutely did do a lot of cursing and wondering why they didn't look both ways.

From a city that has a lot of public transport (Prague): some people will dart in front of fully loaded buses, trams, or even trains at a railway crossing. That is humanity at its finest. (/s)

I would be pissed off if maximum speed of a train (a 20000+ bhp murder machine, by your standard) that I use to commute was lowered to some 10 kph in order to keep those candidates of the Darwin Award alive.

Being weaker (pedestrian) does not absolve you of all guilt if you decide to hazard with your life.

But a train is on specific tracks where a pedestrian has little need to be. That's not the case with cars, which intermingle heavily with pedestrian areas. In those cases I think it's perfectly fair to restrict their speed for safety and to put the onus on the driver to prioritise safety. The alternative is we either ban cars from pedestrian areas completely or we just accept the deaths or heavy inconvenience of pedestrians (which seems to be the current US model).

Please think a little about what you've said; that you'd rather a fellow human would be killed for less than 5 minutes of convenience for you.

That's exactly what the jaywalker said about their own life when they decided to jump out into traffic to get across sooner. And it's a rational calculation: the five minutes saved is concretely useful and the chance of a death is low. When you do the math and present value calculation, you get more of your life to enjoy if you risk it sometimes.

You have more power, therefore a greater burden should fall on the pedestrian than you? Hmm.

Yes. If you disagree, jump in front of an oncoming train at the last second. After all the train has much more power than you and therefore the burden falls on the train operator to keep an eye out for you and save your life.

Train lines rarely run through shared space with pedestrians in the West. Cars want to run through shared space all over the place.

And in fact, train operators, do in fact make significant efforts to avoid killing people. It doesn't prevent all deaths. I believe it's reasonable to hold motorists to the same standard. "Make significant effort to avoid killing people". It's not a guarantee, if that's what you wanted to hear.

> because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass.

I think this point supports the other side of the argument. The pedestrian already has a very strong incentive to be careful: they might die otherwise. Of course most car drivers would be horrified to hit a pedestrian, but most care much less about a stranger's safety than their own (and some are complete psychos who won't care unless it materially costs them). So placing the main legal burden on the driver will do more to deter risky behaviour than would placing it on the pedestrian.

In lots of places cities are actually built for pedestrians not motorists. Some of us prefer it that way.

"commercial centers with speed limits around 45 MPH.

I can't imagine how a "commercial center" could have a road with a 45 MPH speed limit. Lowering that to 20 would solve most of the problem.

Here is the commercial center I was referring to and the road across which jaywalkers dangerously dart:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.17947,-77.2383268,3a,75y,359...

And here is proof the speed limit is 45:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1826157,-77.2383985,3a,75y,1...

Yeah that's some terrible urban design there. If you're getting that close to an area worth pedestrians it should not be a 45mph limit.

> a lady with a shopping cart

Sounds like it is residential. That lady who has to risk death to get her groceries probably doesn't appreciate people going 45+ in her neighborhood.

No, commercial. There are homeless people that jaywalk everywhere and the shopping carts hold their worldly possessions. If there is a shopping cart in a residential area, it usually means the shopping cart was stolen.

Same here. In Utah, if there's a 4-way intersection, pedestrians always have right of way and police enforce it. I was pulled over for not yielding on a 45 MPH road and when the officer asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" I sincerely had no idea.

I think I understand the intent of the law but I guess my own philosophy of "cross where you're far less likely to die" isn't the legal one.

The idea is that you should make it easier and more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists at the cost of cars because cars in the city make our lives miserable, especially cars driving fast. The fewer and slower travelling cars there are the better city life is. Better as in healthier, more comfortable, pleasant to be outside and safer.

I really don't care what other people do so long as they don't cut people off and force them to react (and I apply this heuristic to all types of traffic). Jaywalking into moving traffic is solidly an example of the latter.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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".

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.

"reasonable".

Calling someone "anti-something" makes them sound one-sided and hostile.

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".

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.

> 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.

Indeed, more murders are committed in the US with hands, fists, and feet than rifles.

This in turn is dwarfed by the deaths caused by automobiles!

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

So you don't normalize walking where you're not supposed to.

Why shouldn't being able to cross the street be normalized?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com