News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders by masklinn on Sunday July 31, 2022 @10:07AM (#32295568)
> 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.

Re:When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders by mattmcknight on Sunday July 31, 2022 @11:01AM (#32295968)
>> 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.

Re:When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders by makeitdouble on Sunday July 31, 2022 @11:14AM (#32296075)
>> 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 ?

Re:When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders by tpmoney on Sunday July 31, 2022 @12:51PM (#32296825)
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.
Re:When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders by Symbiote on Sunday July 31, 2022 @01:25PM (#32297065)
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.