I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
The industry hired actors dressed in old-fashioned clothing to illegally cross streets, making the behavior seem outdated
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
jaywalker was pre-dated by jay-driver – a driver of a horse-drawn carriage or automobile that refused to abide by the traffic laws by driving on the wrong side of the road
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise “car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim”.
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
I think you may have glossed over the word “drivers” there. The word was used to describe people ignoring traffic regulations, both while driving and walking.
I didn’t “blame” anyone, I just said it was ignorant, as is the literal definition of the word, according to the person I replied to.
Society has this super weird position that there can only ever be one person or entity to blame. You can blame a pedestrian for ignorantly wandering into traffic while simultaneously blaming the driver for being inattentive.
To be clear, your position is that “stupid person walked into the traffic” and “it’s that person fault” are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don’t defoult into “the pedestrian was likely ignorant”. Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies” until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed… And 10 years from that somene like you will argue “but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me”.
You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect. A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle, and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
how and why it was used to essentially mean “a stupid person”
You told me how it was used to mean “a stupid driver”. Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
They didn’t make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.
I’m not missing any historical context. What I’m missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.
If you actually care, you can start with things like “walkable cities,” look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.
It doesn’t actually seem like you do, though
Ford’s work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.
Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can’t see how changing the language around it was “inaccurate or inappropriate”
That’s what Google is doing to the average user for “sideloading” - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn’t be allowed
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
https://missedhistory.com/1800/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestrians-inventing-jaywalking/
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
https://debrabernier.com/the-history-of-jaywalking-in-the-u-s/
Maybe try to stay on topic?
So jay-walker seems appropriate, does it not?
How is that offtopic? It’s direct answer to the question that was asked.
https://youtu.be/vxopfjXkArM
How is it not off-topic? It has nothing to do with the suggestion that the word is used to blame pedestrians as a whole.
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
The topic was how the existence of the term “jaywalking” “blames pedestrians” when they’re not actually to blame.
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise “car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim”.
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
Sorry for the off-topic, but what’s with those weird typos? Are you also trying to ‘poison’ AI that will be trained on the comments?
Haha, no I’m just that bad at English and typing. And have trouble finding keyboard that works for me. Sorry for that.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
To be clear, your position is that “stupid person walked into the traffic” and “it’s that person fault” are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don’t defoult into “the pedestrian was likely ignorant”. Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies” until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed… And 10 years from that somene like you will argue “but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me”.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
Which is why I linked two articles discussing the history of the term “jay” and how and why it was used to essentially mean “a stupid person”
Then I even took a quote out for you explaining that car companies paid people to do it trying to vilify it
You told me how it was used to mean “a stupid driver”. Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
The existence of the word does not blame anyone.
It wasn’t a word for crossing the street until Ford wanted to make it illegal to cross the street.
Maybe that’s the historical context you’re missing
They didn’t make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.
I’m not missing any historical context. What I’m missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.
If you actually care, you can start with things like “walkable cities,” look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.
It doesn’t actually seem like you do, though
Ford’s work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.
Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can’t see how changing the language around it was “inaccurate or inappropriate”
That’s what Google is doing to the average user for “sideloading” - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn’t be allowed