This legitimately makes it safer for them to coexist, this isn’t some bad thing the lawmakers did just because they had cars. Whether or not you agree with still having cars doesn’t change that that was a good thing.
At the time, many places were considering outright banning cars or at least requiring speed limiters in all cars (to limit to like 25 mph). Car companies knew this would hurt sales, so they started a PR campaign to victim blame pedestrians for pedestrian fatalities. I personally think universal speed limiters set to a quite low speed along with far fewer cars would be far better for safety than modern “rules of the road” + car domination.
The turning point came in 1923, says Norton, when 42,000 Cincinnati residents signed a petition for a ballot initiative that would require all cars to have a governor limiting them to 25 miles per hour. Local auto dealers were terrified, and sprang into action, sending letters to every car owner in the city and taking out advertisements against the measure.
…
Even while passing these laws, however, auto industry groups faced a problem: In Kansas City and elsewhere, no one had followed the rules, and they were rarely enforced by police or judges. To solve it, the industry took up several strategies.
One was an attempt to shape news coverage of car accidents. The National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, an industry group, established a free wire service for newspapers: Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians — signaling that following these new laws was important.
Similarly, AAA began sponsoring school safety campaigns and poster contests, crafted around the importance of staying out of the street. Some of the campaigns also ridiculed kids who didn’t follow the rules — in 1925, for instance, hundreds of Detroit school children watched the “trial” of a 12-year-old who’d crossed a street unsafely, and, as Norton writes, a jury of his peers sentenced him to clean chalkboards for a week.
This was also part of the final strategy: shame. In getting pedestrians to follow traffic laws, “the ridicule of their fellow citizens is far more effective than any other means which might be adopted,” said E.B. Lefferts, the head of the Automobile Club of Southern California in the 1920s. Norton likens the resulting campaign to the anti-drug messaging of the '80s and '90s, in which drug use was portrayed as not only dangerous but stupid.
Auto campaigners lobbied police to publicly shame transgressors by whistling or shouting at them — and even carrying women back to the sidewalk — instead of quietly reprimanding or fining them. They staged safety campaigns in which actors dressed in 19th-century garb, or as clowns, were hired to cross the street illegally, signifying that the practice was outdated and foolish. In a 1924 New York safety campaign, a clown was marched in front of a slow-moving Model T and rammed repeatedly.
This strategy also explains the name that was given to crossing illegally on foot: jaywalking. During this era, the word “jay” meant something like “rube” or “hick” — a person from the sticks, who didn’t know how to behave in a city. So pro-auto groups promoted use of the word “jay walker” as someone who didn’t know how to walk in a city, threatening public safety.
North american street and road design are not great at preventing automobile accidents due to their wide designs, high speed limits, and poor road hierarchy uses. The roads are especially unsafe for anyone outside of a car like pedestrians and cyclists. If this was truly done for safety there would be more traffic calming, safer pedestrian crossing and protected bike lanes. Cars are the most subsidized method of transit in North America and the roads/streets are designed to move as many cars as fast as possible.
Lawmakers also sat idly by while big auto corporations bought street car companies, ripped out the street cars, replaced them with buses, and eventually cancelled the bus services as they were now stuck in the traffic created by destroying the street cars and promoting more people to drive. Lawmakers also decided that dense downtown areas should be destroying their buildings to meet parking minimums that were based on very little real data. Sure lawmakers didn’t force you to buy a car, but they certainly contributed to the erosion of walkability and transit as well as promoted car centric design (suburbs, strip malls, parking minimums).
Not disagreeing with the person above me here in the reply chain but wanted to tack onto the conversation that all of the following is historically true:
A) the lack of separation of means of travel has caused traffic issues for everyone involved as long as there have been more than one mode of travel (and those modes of travel weren’t separated)
B) most people (but especially urban Americans) were opposed to cars and saw them as a blight on their city. The city was for the people, the road was for the people. This mentality is reflected in many many news articles which interviewed everyone from the average worker, to cops, to mayors.
C) that the car industry learned how to lobby against the American political system to take advantage of zoning laws and implement stricter guidelines for car centric designs such are minimum parking requirements.
Each of these things played a part in what American car infrastructure looks like today. People hated being afraid of cars, so local government was trying to separate cars from people. The car industry wanted the automobile to be the only form of transportation so it pressured the federal and state governments into passing laws which would result in this happening.
Wanted to highlight this because I feel like a lot of people think it was caused by one thing (namely GM), but life and history aren’t that simple. It was a multitude of factors all overlapping with one another that were amplified by the lobbyists actions.
I think big oil and gas pulled a few strings as well. Making people rely on cars also meant making them rely on gas.
Unfortnately cities were in a sense sold out to these companies with promises of prosperity brought by the automobile but instead recieved crippling debt trying to support the automobiles and their roadways.
![[meme] Pedestrians shouldn't be relegated to the sidelines](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6b416d86-6a93-45bc-9275-c7c1d7a52943.webp){kind=link}
This legitimately makes it safer for them to coexist, this isn’t some bad thing the lawmakers did just because they had cars. Whether or not you agree with still having cars doesn’t change that that was a good thing.
At the time, many places were considering outright banning cars or at least requiring speed limiters in all cars (to limit to like 25 mph). Car companies knew this would hurt sales, so they started a PR campaign to victim blame pedestrians for pedestrian fatalities. I personally think universal speed limiters set to a quite low speed along with far fewer cars would be far better for safety than modern “rules of the road” + car domination.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
At one point, cars had to be preceded by a guy waving a red flag. I believe it was a great solution.
North american street and road design are not great at preventing automobile accidents due to their wide designs, high speed limits, and poor road hierarchy uses. The roads are especially unsafe for anyone outside of a car like pedestrians and cyclists. If this was truly done for safety there would be more traffic calming, safer pedestrian crossing and protected bike lanes. Cars are the most subsidized method of transit in North America and the roads/streets are designed to move as many cars as fast as possible.
Lawmakers also sat idly by while big auto corporations bought street car companies, ripped out the street cars, replaced them with buses, and eventually cancelled the bus services as they were now stuck in the traffic created by destroying the street cars and promoting more people to drive. Lawmakers also decided that dense downtown areas should be destroying their buildings to meet parking minimums that were based on very little real data. Sure lawmakers didn’t force you to buy a car, but they certainly contributed to the erosion of walkability and transit as well as promoted car centric design (suburbs, strip malls, parking minimums).
Not disagreeing with the person above me here in the reply chain but wanted to tack onto the conversation that all of the following is historically true:
A) the lack of separation of means of travel has caused traffic issues for everyone involved as long as there have been more than one mode of travel (and those modes of travel weren’t separated)
B) most people (but especially urban Americans) were opposed to cars and saw them as a blight on their city. The city was for the people, the road was for the people. This mentality is reflected in many many news articles which interviewed everyone from the average worker, to cops, to mayors.
C) that the car industry learned how to lobby against the American political system to take advantage of zoning laws and implement stricter guidelines for car centric designs such are minimum parking requirements.
Each of these things played a part in what American car infrastructure looks like today. People hated being afraid of cars, so local government was trying to separate cars from people. The car industry wanted the automobile to be the only form of transportation so it pressured the federal and state governments into passing laws which would result in this happening.
Wanted to highlight this because I feel like a lot of people think it was caused by one thing (namely GM), but life and history aren’t that simple. It was a multitude of factors all overlapping with one another that were amplified by the lobbyists actions.
I think big oil and gas pulled a few strings as well. Making people rely on cars also meant making them rely on gas.
Unfortnately cities were in a sense sold out to these companies with promises of prosperity brought by the automobile but instead recieved crippling debt trying to support the automobiles and their roadways.
Whether or not it’s a good thing is totally a fair point for discussion. Sidewalks and dedicated driving lanes were not the only possible solution.