Comment by masklinn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by masklinn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Ouch, so US towns and cities didn't always be hostile towards walking. My assumption that it's always been this way, was wrong.

Couldn't have been since US cities (at least on the east coast) predate the very existence of cars.

> But in a way that's worse because it means they used to have this privilege and it has been taken away, and cars-first has become the norm.

Yep, the entire concept of jaywalking was invented for the convenience of car owners and the car industry, and pedestrians were alienated from the street surface.

> But the roads would have been used for something, at a guess, was it trams and horse carriages, and that these didn't pose much of a problem?

Much less so, horses would not trample people unless spooked (and they don't have anywhere near the acceleration or speed of a car, especially as mass increases). And streetcars generally keep to pretty low speed (bike range) in pedestrian areas.

You can see what it looks like in low-speed / pedestrian streets of europe, where streetcars are pretty common e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXrGbZ6LKzs

>> But the roads would have been used for something, at a guess, was it trams and horse carriages, and that these didn't pose much of a problem?

> Much less so, horses would not trample people unless spooked (and they don't have anywhere near the acceleration or speed of a car, especially as mass increases).

That's what one would expect, but surprisingly that might not be the case.

I haven't been able to find a lot of articles about pedestrian deaths from horses but those I did find tell of rates comparable to cars.

1900 pedestrian horse fatality rate in NYC for example were higher than the 2003 car rate [1]. In England and Wales cars are more deadly than horses were but not by much [2].

The BMJ article notes that direct fatality rate comparisons might not be appropriate because treatments have greatly improved since the horse and buggy days. Horse rates would likely be lower if current treatments had been available back then, and car rates would likely be higher if we only had 1900s medical systems.

[1] https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-p...

[2] https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horse...

> 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.

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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Scotland

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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 ?

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps the specific term, but not the "entire concept".

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.

Yet sidewalks have existed for much longer than cars.

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.

It doesn't improve a pedestrians welfare, instead it removes responsibility and legal liability from the driver.

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.

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.

> 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...

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.

> Yep, the entire concept of jaywalking was invented for the convenience of car owners and the car industry, and pedestrians were alienated from the street surface.

In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.

America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.

> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle.

Nonsense. The ability to walk doesn't a pedestrian make" in the context of the discussion, and having to walk from the parking lot to the store and back isn't a pedestrian activity.

> Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.

I didn't decide of the historical events of a hundred years ago mate.

> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.

Even worse, completely ahistorical, nonsense. Long-term infrastructural decisions are rarely decided directly by voters (as Robert Moses knew and leveraged), and furthermore can often be swayed by short terms concerns.

> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.

I live in a city where almost 40% of households do not own cars but our public space has been massively reconfigured to prioritize car owners, not just with traffic lanes and signal priority but also huge subsidies for car storage at the expense of other potential use of public space.

Despite this, any time someone tries to make something better the public planning process will inevitably have car owners loudly complaining about being discriminated against if something will remove even a single parking space or suggest that they pay market rates.

> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.

Only in an environment where public infrastructure is designed to require a car for social participation. The venn-diagram is substantially less circular when public infrastructure accommodates and encourages other modes of transport, like walking and metros.

> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.

Again, only true if you ignore the wider context. US infrastructure policy for the past 50 years has basically made car ownership an absolute necessity. It doesn’t matter what one’s personal preference is, if you wish to participate in US society, you must own a car.

For concrete examples of these policies, look at US zoning policy. It basically requires that only single family homes are built, and makes it almost impossible to build new dense housing. Despite the fact that historical sense housing in walkable areas is currently some of the most expensive real estate in the US, showing clear and strong demand for such housing.

Further US road policy prioritises automotive speed above all other factors. Pedestrian accessibility, or accessibility in general, pedestrian safety, is given little to no thought at all. An approach that is now rearing its ugly head in the US pedestrian fatality rate, which is far high than almost any other developed nation.

It's crazy how all the zoning policies were hand crafted by the General Motors board of directors. Oh wait, they weren't, they were decided by the municipalities.

US zoning policies are the way they are because that's the way the people in those cities wanted to live. Have you been to a city council meeting in a US city where they've discussed zoning changes? Tons of local people will come out against denser housing and against public transit and against protected bike lanes, and then there's usually only the builder from out of town or the transit authority arguing for it. Single family housing in far flung suburbs is built out so much because that's what a lot of voters want.

> Tons of local people will come out against denser housing and against public transit and against protected bike lanes,

This is true in almost every city in the world. But not because that “what the people want”, but rather only those who hold very strong opinions ever bother to turn up to planning meetings. Most people only have strong negative opinions about public infrastructure, especially public infrastructure that’s seen “take something from them”. Public infrastructure that works well is mostly ignored, with the vast majority of people being entirely indifferent to changes to the infrastructure. Unfortunately it means that making any attempt to improve infrastructure, where that improvement isn’t “more of the same please”, is difficult because the only people who hold strong opinions are experts who have studied the problem, and people that hate change. Which, as it happens, is exactly the mix of people you say are in these meetings.

If you want to get a real understanding of peoples views on walkable areas, bike lanes etc. you need to build it, then survey the locals a year or so after the work has completed. Only then can you remove the selection bias seen in city meetings, and also remove peoples initial dislike for change, before they’ve had any opportunity to realise the positives brought by that change.

It turns out, that if you actually do all that leg work, most people like being able to venture outside and do things, without getting in a car and driving first.

So you're arguing the government should act against the wishes of the people being governed and ignore the desires of the people who care enough to actually vote?

I'd argue we need more people showing up to these kinds of public planning meetings who do want these things which are supposedly incredibly popular online and actually vote for candidates who say they'll do these things.

> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle.

In the 10s and 20s where the phrase was popularized by automobile interests in the US the car ownership rate was ~8%.

> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests

Why make up a history when there's a real one? There were real people that did real things to push a reluctant culture in a particular way. I think you're using Panglossian reasoning here.

> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case

Orr it could actually be that they paid for advertisements and politicians just to do that. If you don't want to read about it, here's a video that explains it:

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com