«

| would that depend on the law, in the UK pedastirans have right or way but
I thought in the states the car had the right of way that's where the J
walking comes from.
| As a pedestrian I don;t think walking across a road with green traffic
lights is a crime I was under the imnpression that in the US it was.
|

In the US pedestrians have the right of way. There
are also laws about crossing only in crosswalks, etc.
But the norm varies. It used to be more of a common
sense kind of thing, but increasingly the laws have
become strictly enforced while individuals have become
less cooperative with each other. I live in Boston, with
lots of narrow streets, where J-walking has always been
the norm, but recently I see people "asserting their rights"
by marching out into crosswalks without breaking their
step, and defiantly not looking both ways. That's new.
They think it's their right so long as they're in a crosswalk.
Likewise, a cyclist recently chased me, yelling and
swearing about his rights. My crime? I went around him
on a left turn where I had room to do so, despite that he
was too far into the middle of the road. Legally he had
no right to obstruct the roadway, but in his mind it was
my duty to follow respectfully behind him. With behavior
like that it becomes very difficult to avoid accidents.

But I'm sure it will be Google to the rescue. Once they
get the cars automated they can start running paramilitary
drones to pick off anyone -- driver or pedestrian -- who
acts selfishly. Then we can finally have some civility.

I once lived for awhile in Tucson with a brother of
mine. There they have very wide streets, planned on
a grid pattern. One day my brother was stopped for
J-walking because he didn't go down to the crosswalk
at the next corner to cross. We were both astonished.
For us it was like being arrested for spitting. Would we
be forced to wear a scarlet "J"? But the Tucson police
took it very seriously -- letter of the law stuff; it didn't
matter that there were no cars nearby.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>The investigation of accidents and failures has played a large part of
>nearly 40 years of my working life. Virtually every accident or
>failure is preceded by a train of events which if they were forseen
>and avoided would have prevented the accident or failure. Your
>definition combined with my experience means that there is not really
>any such thing as an accident. What then is that one should insure
>against?


With a not-dissimilar background, I tended to refer to refer to such
incidents, not as 'accidents', but as 'negligents', short for 'adverse
incidents resulting from negligent actions and/or omissions.

It is important to recognise that negligent omissions (a failure to do
something) are a more frequent contributor to an 'adverse incident'
than negligent acts. An omission can be equally or more influential
than an act.

Obviously, in my reports, I never used the shorthand word 'negligents'
but spelt out the negligent causes in full.

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:50:21 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-28 04:41:32 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:39:54 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Then the responsibility lies with the Google Car collision avoidance
>
> >> system which should take Google Cars and non-Google cars into account.
>
> >> Their system should also take the non-system car into account, just as
>
> >> it should take a pedestrian stepping off a sidewalk, or a dog crossing
>
> >> the road into account.
>
> >
>
> > would that depend on the law, in the UK pedastirans have right or way
>
> > but I thought in the states the car had the right of way that's where
>
> > the J walking comes from.
>
> > As a pedestrian I don;t think walking across a road with green traffic
>
> > lights is a crime I was under the imnpression that in the US it was.
>
>
>
> Nope! It has nothing to do with the Law, or right of way. It depends on
>
> the collision avoidance system detecting a potential collision and
>
> taking an action to avoid it.

No as I was talkign aboutn the past and the present, the only collision avoidance system is teh human or animal in the situation.

> It could be a potential collision with a
>
> crate which has fallen off a truck in front of the "Google Car". The
>
> pedestrian could be sober or drunk,

Which would mean yuo won;t even need a licence to drive.


> a "non-Google car" might have an
>
> incapacitated river at the wheel. If the collision avoidance system is
>
> going to work it should be programmed to avoid all collisions.

Yes, it should but if something falls of teh back or a truck should a collion avaiodence reverse the vehicle behind to a safe place and what of the vehicle or pedestirain behind that, you'd need even nmnore strickter laws .
Just suppose usain bolt comes running up to yuor car from the front or back should the car aviod him. It does mean that car would need to drive within what we call the highway code.


> Now to clarify your understanding of "J-walking". Each state has its
>
> own Laws (a Vehicle Code) as they apply to traffic, vehicles, or other
>
> road users such as pedestrians, and for the most part they are
>
> consistent. There are several types of pedestrian crossings used in
>
> most municipalities, but to simplify let's just say there are two basic
>
> types, controlled and uncontrolled.
>
> Controlled pedestrian crossings are usually found at intersections
>
> controlled by traffic lights. There are also lights indicating to
>
> pedestrians when they can step off the sidewalk, within the bounds of
>
> the marked crossing and cross in the direction vehicles are moving.
>
> Vehicles turning across the pedestrian crossing are to yield to any
>
> pedestrians in that crossing. A pedestrian crossing against the light
>
> is violating the Vehicle Code, disrupting the vehicle flow and creating
>
> a potentially hazardous situation.

That is something we don;t have here or rarher I don;t think pedestrtians can violate the Vehicle Code or highway code in the UK, but not being a driver I'm not sure.


>
> The same applies to a pedestrian attempting to cross in the middle of a
>
> block where there is no marked pedestrian crossing.
>
>
>
> This does not mean that that there is open season on "J-Walkers",
>
> vehicles should still do what they can to avoid hitting that individual
>
> as the pedestrian has a right of way and should be yielded to.

That sounds similar but I don;t think any pedstrian can break any law simpley by crossing a road.

>
>
>
> Uncontrolled crossings can be placed anywhere, but usually at
>
> intersections not controlled by traffic lights, and which have a free
>
> flow in one direction, and a traffic "stop" sign for the cross street.
>
> Vehicles have to yield to all pedestrians in such a crossing.

I think that;s the case here irrespective of the colour of the lights.
I've never heard anyone be charged with causing an accident as a pedestrian.


>
>
>
> In all cases safety of the pedestrian is paramount, and he/she should
>
> be yielded to. "J-walking" violations are usually justified as a
>
> disruption of traffic flow and creating hazardous situations.

As I say we don;t have that here, teh motorist is to blame rightly or wrongly.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:00:38 -0500, "Mayayana"
<> wrote:

>
>| would that depend on the law, in the UK pedastirans have right or way but
>I thought in the states the car had the right of way that's where the J
>walking comes from.
>| As a pedestrian I don;t think walking across a road with green traffic
>lights is a crime I was under the imnpression that in the US it was.
>|
>
> In the US pedestrians have the right of way. There
>are also laws about crossing only in crosswalks, etc.
>But the norm varies. It used to be more of a common
>sense kind of thing, but increasingly the laws have
>become strictly enforced while individuals have become
>less cooperative with each other. I live in Boston, with
>lots of narrow streets, where J-walking has always been
>the norm, but recently I see people "asserting their rights"
>by marching out into crosswalks without breaking their
>step, and defiantly not looking both ways. That's new.
>They think it's their right so long as they're in a crosswalk.
>Likewise, a cyclist recently chased me, yelling and
>swearing about his rights. My crime? I went around him
>on a left turn where I had room to do so, despite that he
>was too far into the middle of the road. Legally he had
>no right to obstruct the roadway, but in his mind it was
>my duty to follow respectfully behind him. With behavior
>like that it becomes very difficult to avoid accidents.
>
> But I'm sure it will be Google to the rescue. Once they
>get the cars automated they can start running paramilitary
>drones to pick off anyone -- driver or pedestrian -- who
>acts selfishly. Then we can finally have some civility.
>
> I once lived for awhile in Tucson with a brother of
>mine. There they have very wide streets, planned on
>a grid pattern. One day my brother was stopped for
>J-walking because he didn't go down to the crosswalk
>at the next corner to cross. We were both astonished.
>For us it was like being arrested for spitting. Would we
>be forced to wear a scarlet "J"? But the Tucson police
>took it very seriously -- letter of the law stuff; it didn't
>matter that there were no cars nearby.
>
The Orlando police department recently announced that they will "crack
down" on people who don't use the crosswalk or walk against the light
in the downtown area. There are a number of bars and restaurants in
the downtown area and people cross haphazardly in the middle of the
block. The law against this has been on the books for years, but has
not been enforced. It is now.

Most traffic signals here have a traffic light for cars, but also a
"Walk/Don't Walk" separate signal for pedestrians.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:50:21 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>Now to clarify your understanding of "J-walking". Each state has its
>own Laws (a Vehicle Code) as they apply to traffic, vehicles, or other
>road users such as pedestrians, and for the most part they are
>consistent. There are several types of pedestrian crossings used in
>most municipalities, but to simplify let's just say there are two basic
>types, controlled and uncontrolled.

While the state has laws, the determining laws in this instance are
usually city or municipality. And, enforcement of the laws is usually
a very local situation. In this city, you can cross the street in the
middle of the block in front of a policeman and he/she will turn a
blind eye *except* in the downtown area and *except* on major roads
where there have been previous incidents of road accident.

Also, the word is "jaywalking", not "J-walking". The word derives
from "jay" as a term for an inexperienced person or rube and
"walking". The first recognized appearance of the word was in the
_Chicago Tribune_ in 1909.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> One problemm is that drivers need to make a continuous stream of
> decisions without complete knowledge of the facts. It is inevitable
> that what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision will turn out
> to be wrong for reasons which cannot be known to the driver until
> after the event. The system is imperfect and failures (accidents) will
> be inevitable.

which is why driverless cars will be able to reduce the number of
collisions because they will have more facts and can process them more
quickly and make better judgements too.

In article < ocal>, J.
Clarke <> wrote:

> If all three of them are Google cars then they should each know where
> the other is and what it is doing and the one in the driveway shouldn't
> back out.

exactly

> The problem comes with two Google cars on the street and a non-Google on
> the driveway.

that just changes the problem a little bit.

it's sort of like tcas and mode-s transponders in planes.

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:32:55 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-28 07:31:18 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:50:21 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >> On 2012-11-28 04:41:32 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:39:54 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >>>> Then the responsibility lies with the Google Car collision avoidance
>
> >>>> system which should take Google Cars and non-Google cars into account.
>
> >>>> Their system should also take the non-system car into account, just as
>
> >>>> it should take a pedestrian stepping off a sidewalk, or a dog crossing
>
> >>>> the road into account.
>
> >>
>
> >>> would that depend on the law, in the UK pedastirans have right or way
>
> >>> but I thought in the states the car had the right of way that's where
>
> >>> the J walking comes from.
>
> >>> As a pedestrian I don;t think walking across a road with green traffic
>
> >>> lights is a crime I was under the imnpression that in the US it was.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nope! It has nothing to do with the Law, or right of way. It depends on
>
> >> the collision avoidance system detecting a potential collision and
>
> >> taking an action to avoid it.
>
> >
>
> > No as I was talkign aboutn the past and the present, the only
>
> > collision avoidance system is teh human or animal in the situation.
>
>
>
> Then why even bring up the issue of the "Google Car"???

because I;m wondering who';s fault it will be when there is a so called accident because there will be. Would we sue the car manufactors or the software writers.


> >> It could be a potential collision with a
>
> >> crate which has fallen off a truck in front of the "Google Car". The
>
> >> pedestrian could be sober or drunk,
>
> >
>
> > Which would mean yuo won;t even need a licence to drive.
>
>
>
> What on Earth has a crate falling off a truck, or avoiding a pedestrian
>
> got to do with the Law requiring vehicle operators to have a license,

Who's the vehical operator google or the person siting in the automated car ?


> and be able to demonstrate their ability to comply with the Vehicle
>
> Code?

I'd assume the 'Vehicle Code' would change it does between automatic and manual cars in the UK it's a difertn licenese what will it be with a google car. ?

This is similar to the discusions about driverless trains on the London underground.



> >> a "non-Google car" might have an incapacitated driver at the wheel. If
>
> >> the collision avoidance system is going to work it should be programmed
>
> >> to avoid all collisions.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, it should but if something falls of teh back or a truck should a
>
> > collion avaiodence reverse the vehicle behind to a safe place and what
>
> > of the vehicle or pedestirain behind that, you'd need even nmnore
>
> > strickter laws .
>
>
>
> No! It means that the developers of a collision avoidance system (CAS)
>
> need to think beyond the fantasy of the concept.

It will mean stricker laws or more enforcable.


> > Just suppose usain bolt comes running up to yuor car from the front or
>
> > back should the car aviod him. It does mean that car would need to
>
> > drive within what we call the highway code.
>
>
>
> It means the CAS should function within its parameters to avoid any
>
> collision, it doesn't matter if it is an Olympian, a 6 year old child,
>
> or a horse. Some of those parameters would be the "highway code" and
>
> any local applicable laws. A full analysis of the potential collision
>
> environment would have to be made by the CAS, and it should take each
>
> factor into account before executing the avoidance action.

Handy for teh road protestors here just sit in front of teh car and it can;lt be moved or perhaps yuo could surrounds it with toilet paper I think in the US you call it TPing I learnt that ferom southpark.



> >> Now to clarify your understanding of "J-walking". Each state has its
>
> >> own Laws (a Vehicle Code) as they apply to traffic, vehicles, or other
>
> >> road users such as pedestrians, and for the most part they are
>
> >> consistent. There are several types of pedestrian crossings used in
>
> >> most municipalities, but to simplify let's just say there are two basic
>
> >> types, controlled and uncontrolled.
>
> >>
>
> >> Controlled pedestrian crossings are usually found at intersections
>
> >> controlled by traffic lights. There are also lights indicating to
>
> >> pedestrians when they can step off the sidewalk, within the bounds of
>
> >> the marked crossing and cross in the direction vehicles are moving.
>
> >> Vehicles turning across the pedestrian crossing are to yield to any
>
> >> pedestrians in that crossing. A pedestrian crossing against the light
>
> >> is violating the Vehicle Code, disrupting the vehicle flow and creating
>
> >> a potentially hazardous situation.
>
> >
>
> > That is something we don;t have here or rarher I don;t think
>
> > pedestrtians can violate the Vehicle Code or highway code in the UK,
>
> > but not being a driver I'm not sure.
>
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Are pedestrians permitted to stroll along or cross
>
> limited access highways/freeways, or toll roads in the UK?

Not on those roads as far as I know, but they are the road with least accidents.


> >> The same applies to a pedestrian attempting to cross in the middle of a
>
> >> block where there is no marked pedestrian crossing.
>
> >> This does not mean that that there is open season on "J-Walkers",
>
> >> vehicles should still do what they can to avoid hitting that individual
>
> >> as the pedestrian has a right of way and should be yielded to.
>
> >
>
> > That sounds similar but I don;t think any pedstrian can break any law
>
> > simpley by crossing a road.
>
>
>
> See my remark above.
>
>
>
> >> Uncontrolled crossings can be placed anywhere, but usually at
>
> >> intersections not controlled by traffic lights, and which have a free
>
> >> flow in one direction, and a traffic "stop" sign for the cross street.
>
> >> Vehicles have to yield to all pedestrians in such a crossing.
>
> >
>
> > I think that;s the case here irrespective of the colour of the lights.
>
> > I've never heard anyone be charged with causing an accident as a pedestrian.
>
>
>
> I have.

Well I meant in the UK, they might well use drunk & disorderly but that's not the same as amotoring offence.

>
>
>
> >> In all cases safety of the pedestrian is paramount, and he/she should
>
> >> be yielded to. "J-walking" violations are usually justified as a
>
> >> disruption of traffic flow and creating hazardous situations.
>
> >
>
> > As I say we don;t have that here, teh motorist is to blame rightly or wrongly.
>
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. There might be a UK precident you are unaware of.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:18:11 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-28 13:20:57 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:11:09 +0000, Anthony Polson
>
> > <> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
> >>> The investigation of accidents and failures has played a large part of
>
> >>> nearly 40 years of my working life. Virtually every accident or
>
> >>> failure is preceded by a train of events which if they were forseen
>
> >>> and avoided would have prevented the accident or failure. Your
>
> >>> definition combined with my experience means that there is not really
>
> >>> any such thing as an accident. What then is that one should insure
>
> >>> against?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> With a not-dissimilar background, I tended to refer to refer to such
>
> >> incidents, not as 'accidents', but as 'negligents', short for 'adverse
>
> >> incidents resulting from negligent actions and/or omissions.
>
> >>
>
> >> It is important to recognise that negligent omissions (a failure to do
>
> >> something) are a more frequent contributor to an 'adverse incident'
>
> >> than negligent acts. An omission can be equally or more influential
>
> >> than an act.
>
> >>
>
> >> Obviously, in my reports, I never used the shorthand word 'negligents'
>
> >> but spelt out the negligent causes in full.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > 'Negligence' has a specific legal definition and I would leave it to
>
> > the lawyers to decide what is or is not negligence. I would merely
>
> > tell them what happened and the relevant responsibilities as far as I
>
> > could tell.
>
>
>
> PeterN could probably explain this better than most here, but having
>
> some experience in Law enforcement, here is what I understand.
>
> "Gross negligence" usually means "serious carelessness" and has various
>
> applications regarding different classes of felonies, misdemeanors, and
>
> violations. "Gross negligence" if demonstrated can elevate what might
>
> not be a crime at all to the level of a felony.
>
>
>
> If, for example a car owner takes his car to a mechanic to have a
>
> problem fixed and he is told that his brakes are not functioning
>
> safely, or if he is driving on bald tires and he is quoted $xxx for
>
> repair and/or replacement. He then elects to not have the work done, or
>
> have the tires replaced and drives away from the establishment. Soon
>
> after driving away, he is unable to stop at an intersection, causes a
>
> collision which results in the death of another person.

This is the type of thing I was getting at with the law needing to me more strict with google cars.

1/ Is there any reason why a car can't be driver on relavitly bald tyres ?
here in teh UK you can buy retreads which are basically underspec types butthy are quite safe provided you don;lt go too fast, now how will a google car interpret that will it set a lower maxiulm speed for teh car will it aply the breakls earlier or will it just cease to work until the tryes are ofan accetable level and will the google car measure this itself.

Will the google car say at the end of a jounrney "you only have 0.5mm of tread left for this reason you can no longer drive this car", not even to thegarage ?

If teh google car doesn;t know it's own minimiun stopping distance then howwill it know other google cars stopping distance ?



>
> If he was able to show that his brakes failed unexpectedly the
>
> collision and/or death could well be deemed "accidental" and no charges
>
> will made.

I wonder if brakes can fail unexpectedly on a google car.

>
> However, during the investigation into this "accident", his visit to
>
> the mechanic is discovered along with his failure to implement a
>
> repair, or replacement. He has demonstrated that his "Gross negligence"
>
> has fallen so far below the level of care expected from a "reasonable
>
> person" that the enhancement is applied to each level of violation.
>
> So the non-chargeable, non-offense of accident, and accidental death is
>
> elevated to the multi-level charges of "unsafe operation of a motor
>
> vehicle" a violation, "Negligent operation of a motor vehicle" a
>
> misdemeanor, "causing damage to property and/or person due to Gross
>
> negligence" this can be a misdemeanor or a felony, "Vehicular
>
> Manslaughter due to gross negligence" a felony.

Or blame google (when in a google car) for not taking into account the conditions of the tyres, brakes and road conditions.
>
>
>
> Under California Law it is the cumulative effects of the other
>
> "unlawful acts" of the violations and/or misdemeanors which raise the
>
> level of the crime.
>
>
>
> California Penal Code Section 192:
>
> 192.**Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
>
> malice.

Basically the same as UK it seems,. in that it';s murder if it can be proved you planned the killing or that the death was very likely from your acts.


> It is of three kinds:
>
> (a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
>
> (b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to
>
> felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death,
>
> in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This
>
> subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a
>
> vehicle.
>
> (c) Vehicular-
>
> (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a
>
> vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony,
>
> and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a
>
> lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with
>
> gross negligence.
>
> (2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not
>
> amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle
>
> in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an
>
> unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
>
> (3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3)
>
> of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or
>
> vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and
>
> proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision shall
>
> not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of
>
> murder.
>
> This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the
>
> driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the
>
> commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the
>
> commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
>
> manner.
>
> “Gross negligence,” as used in this section, shall not be construed as
>
> prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon
>
> facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to
>
> support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice,
>
> consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People
>
> v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.
>
> You might note that this could under some circumstances the charges
>
> could be elevated to "murder".
>
>
>
> Then there is a case you might be more familiar with, the BP platform
>
> fire, where BP and its contractors were facing criminal charges beyond
>
> the pollution, and damage, because of demonstrated "Gross negligence."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

In article <CCDCF874.93D8A%>, George Kerby
<> wrote:

> >> One problemm is that drivers need to make a continuous stream of
> >> decisions without complete knowledge of the facts. It is inevitable
> >> that what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision will turn out
> >> to be wrong for reasons which cannot be known to the driver until
> >> after the event. The system is imperfect and failures (accidents) will
> >> be inevitable.
> >
> > which is why driverless cars will be able to reduce the number of
> > collisions because they will have more facts and can process them more
> > quickly and make better judgements too.
>
> AND the alcohol they consume doesn't impair their functions...

driverless cars will eliminate driving under the influence of alcohol,
pot, medications, or just too tired.

you can then get as trashed as you want and the car will safely take
you home.