Copyright Karin Mora 2016
In Italy, a tick rode a doe across a camber very early, before most commuters were up; before people knew there were deer in the city. It was safe: I was driving; I could stop; the road was clear. The doe walked like a jay in that it disregarded zebras and islands and green lights, favouring its own system, seeing the road as a plane, perhaps, or just seeing the road. And what do we see when we cross? Packets of information being ridden by a tag, you’re likely thinking.
And that’s true. At breakfast, with coffee or tea at the table your tag includes resident, guest, or something related: a person in an enclosed environment with its own set of “house rules”. The moment you step outside the door and cross from private to public space, the tag changes: commuter, cyclist, tourist, pedestrian. The latter, unless making a journey to somewhere very close by, must negotiate a system whose tags are collected within a group called economy. Cities are not built to house people, they are built to house commerce. This must flow at the best possible speed across the most advantageous route. Where traffic is concerned, the pedestrian confers a disadvantage.
Regulated obstruction is another tag. You step onto a zebra crossing, you (in the UK) stop the traffic; you (in France) cause an accident. Either way, you are interrupting the flow of information in a system that has limited tolerance. “Crossings are provided as amenities to give access and easier movement to pedestrians without incurring excessive delays to traffic” (LTN 1/95, 1.1.4, my emphasis) “Easier movement” implies a known difficulty for tag: pedestrian to navigate a city across tag: traffic.
(Here’s an interesting aside for the cyborgians among you: the synthesis of human and motorised machine (car, lorry, etc.) has a higher status within the system city than the denuded human. Was that decision reached in a denuded or cyborgian state? Was it even reached at all, or dictated by the system itself?)
What is meant by “difficulty”? According to the Department for Transport (UK), who publish the Local Transport Note for the Design of Pedestrian Crossings, personal injury and, perhaps, death: “It should not be presumed that the provision of a crossing alone will necessarily lead to a reduction in road accidents.” (ibid.) The body can be broken down by logic: the traffic was unwilling / unable to stop and / or the pedestrian was unwilling / unable to stop. Both will and ability are dictated by algorithm. Both human and (cyborg) traffic algorithms are acknowledged by the LTN: “vehicles and pedestrians are positively controlled by signal crossings.” (LTN 1/95, 1.1.6) But the deer managed to cross the road unassisted — why can’t a human?
Deer often can’t cross the road safely, a fact attested to by road signs with a large deer printed on them. Same goes for cows, badgers, and frogs. These animals can’t be successfully integrated into the traffic system; indeed, badgers and frogs are so resistant that civil engineers have subways built at known crossing points. Animals have their paths, their ancient tracks and ways, and they’re given to travelling them. As do we. “When planning improved pedestrian facilities, it is important to understand where pedestrians may wish to cross. Consideration should be given to established and possible new pedestrian routes. These are referred to as ‘desire lines’.” (LTN 2/95, 2.1.1 sidebar) Desire lines, beaten tracks, paths of least resistance, established perhaps when traffic was lighter or before that new junction was laid. Such a lengthy evolution of just going — it’s hard to stop when we have to, especially when we don’t want to. But they don’t use prowling lions on the lights anymore, nor even little red men (more prone to accidents than little red women); now it’s a homogenised representation of a human. In much of Europe, anyway. And we’re not going to attend to that, so we cross nearby, when we think we’ve hacked the system and found an exploit. “Many accidents at pedestrian crossings occur on the approach to the crossing. The provision of a guard railing at such positions should be considered.” (LTN 2/95, 2.5.1). Oops.
But sometimes the system comes into conflict with itself, resisting a new algorithm with such force that it eventually suppresses it, only for it to be reinstated after a crash: “Caution should be exercised where pedestrian flows are generally light or light for long periods of the day. Drivers who become accustomed to not being stopped at the crossing may begin to ignore its existence, with dangerous consequences.” (LTN 1/95, 4.2.4, my emphasis)
Cyborg or solo, we’re just packets of information in a dynamic system of data management, and we’re handled as such. If we threaten the system’s smooth running, it will react appropriately. For example, the call button at a pedestrian crossing near a busy junction is often a placebo, having no effect on the system at all, or only during peak hours. The British philosopher Julian Baggini complained in a BBC article that it was demeaning to be misled even on something so trivial. “We want to be treated as intelligent, autonomous agents rather than being manipulated”, he said (1). The Department for Transport sees it differently. “The decision to use a signal controlled [i.e. not human controlled] crossing is often made because of the close proximity to a traffic signalled junction. Neither zebra crossings nor refuges are suitable as there is a conflict of control methods.” And interests.
We’re not robbed of our dignity when futilely jabbing at a button that doesn’t function: dignity simply isn’t part of the system. As for autonomy, well, we have that, to an extent. We can chose to go against the system, jump the guard rail and run across the lanes. Whether or not we are asserting our intelligence in the process is a question you can answer if you make it safely to the other side.
===================
References
(1) http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23869955, accessed 18/08/2016.
Department for Transport, 2003, Local Transport Note 1/95 The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossing, The Stationary Office
Department for Transport, 2005, Local Transport Note 2/95 The Design of Pedestrain Crossings, The Stationary Office
Leave a Reply