4 ms·

One of the many ways that drivers can be more predictable to other drivers is to disobey the laws regarding pedestrian rights of way and safety. Drivers not onl

One of the many ways that drivers can be more predictable to other drivers is to disobey the laws regarding pedestrian rights of way and safety. Drivers not only disobey these laws all the time, but they expect you to do so too, lest they honk and use their car as a weapon to show you how angry they are that you let someone cross the street at an unmarked crosswalk. Unfortunately for all those with fantastical fantasies about our autonomous car future, when they finally get here they’re going to be slow. And that’s a good thing, even if it means the utopia is still slow and congested.

btbuildem 9y ago
A crosswalk by definition is marked. Drivers expect other drivers to follow the rules of the road, not to be nice. Did you hear about the woman in Canada [1] who tried to "be nice" and stopped in the middle of a highway to let some ducks cross? She killed a motorcyclist and his passenger. Don't be nice -- be predictable. Same is the reason why the bots get rear-ended -- everyone expects them to roll through a stop, who in the world does a complete, 3 second stop? [1] https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+ducks+fatal+crash+-who https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+duck...
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  A crosswalk by definition is a place where pedestrians can cross with the right of way. They absolutely can be and often are unmarked, and exist in practically every first world country, including yours. Here are the rules by state in the US. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... You should probably learn the rules of the road before you kill someone.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front. And rolling a stop is not following the rules of the road, it is a dangerous violation.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    > Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front. I don't think that's true on a highway or similar road. Stopping in the middle of the highway is very dangerous. You cannot blame the 150km/h+ cars to be able to stop safely in all situations.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I don't think that's true on a highway or similar road. It's definitely true on a highway (which is anything that's not an alley), and even a freeway (which is probably what you meant.) > Stopping in the middle of the highway is very dangerous. Failure to maintain adequate following distance on any road is dangerous; encountering stopped traffic or needing to stop rapidly, even on freeways, is a regular occurrence. > You cannot blame the 150km/h+ cars to be able to stop safely in all situations. I don't blame cars for anything, I do blame drivers for failing to maintain a safe combination of speed and separation. And there's virtually no road, freeway or otherwise, where 150km/h+ (93mph+) is a safe and reasonable speed for any driver, irrespective of separation, so I can quite easiky blame a driver for choosing to drive at such a speed in the first place.
    - Saaster 9y ago
      Absolutely you can always blame the car that does the rear-ending, it is your responsibility to maintain distance and speed such that you can stop if the car in front of you slams on the brakes. Which can happen for a multitude of valid reasons, like something dropping of a truck in front, or an accident. You will absolutely be at fault and stuck with the bill in every single rear-ending case, good luck arguing otherwise.
  - btbuildem 9y ago
    The Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with your.. opinion https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-woman-who-caused-fatal-crash-after-stopping-to-help-ducks-loses-appeal/article35255208/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-woman-... She was sentenced in December 2014 to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends, three years' probation and 240 hours of community service, and given a 10-year driving ban.
iamcasen 9y ago
I think a big part of the problem is that there is too many vague, unspoken rules of the road. Making them explicit would also be impossible because there would be far to much to calculate accurately while driving (for the average person). For example: corner to corner crossing is a normal law for pedestrians. Technically, you should always yield the right of way for pedestrians to cross in this manner. Say you are on a two-lane main road through town, and there is tons of traffic. Do you stop at every single corner to let one person cross? The law says yes. Everyone waiting on you is going to say HELL NO! The people that stop at every corner think they are god's angel doing the right thing, but really they are being a massive sh*t head. That's just one example of the fuzzy line between breaking the law for the common good or following the law to a tee to the detriment of everyone on the road. Obviously, the best solution is just better city planning so that pedestrians rarely have to interact with traffic. When they do have to interact with traffic, it should be limited and explicit ( red lights, big marked crosswalks, etc).
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  > That's just one example of the fuzzy line between breaking the law for the common good or following the law to a tee to the detriment of everyone on the road. Except your “common good” isn’t common. It benefits drivers by mere seconds in exchange for a mortal risk to pedestrians. Like it or not, but the law is written as is for a reason: pedestrians are the lowest common denominator of society. Everybody is a pedestrian some of the time. When your expectations are for pedestrians to go several minutes out of their way to find a light and crosswalk so they can cross the street, just so you don’t have to slow down for a split second, it is you that is being the complete shithead. Luckily autonomous cars will soon make all of the enpathy-deficient sociopathic shitheads wait their turn, like they should have been doing all along.
  - iamcasen 9y ago
    It doesn't impact drivers by mere seconds. It creates traffic backups all the way across the city. When a driver waits 3 blocks in a row for pedestrians to cross, it creates a backup of probably 30 cars. This is my daily experience in my city. I don't think pedestrians should go way out of their way to cross, I think they should just wait for gaps in traffic. Likewise drivers should use good judgment and stop for an old lady, but keep going if it's an in-shape jogger.

btbuildem 9y ago

A crosswalk by definition is marked. Drivers expect other drivers to follow the rules of the road, not to be nice. Did you hear about the woman in Canada [1] who tried to "be nice" and stopped in the middle of a highway to let some ducks cross? She killed a motorcyclist and his passenger. Don't be nice -- be predictable. Same is the reason why the bots get rear-ended -- everyone expects them to roll through a stop, who in the world does a complete, 3 second stop? [1] https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+ducks+fatal+crash+-who https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+duck...

saosebastiao 9y ago
A crosswalk by definition is a place where pedestrians can cross with the right of way. They absolutely can be and often are unmarked, and exist in practically every first world country, including yours. Here are the rules by state in the US. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... You should probably learn the rules of the road before you kill someone.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front. And rolling a stop is not following the rules of the road, it is a dangerous violation.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front. I don't think that's true on a highway or similar road. Stopping in the middle of the highway is very dangerous. You cannot blame the 150km/h+ cars to be able to stop safely in all situations.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I don't think that's true on a highway or similar road. It's definitely true on a highway (which is anything that's not an alley), and even a freeway (which is probably what you meant.) > Stopping in the middle of the highway is very dangerous. Failure to maintain adequate following distance on any road is dangerous; encountering stopped traffic or needing to stop rapidly, even on freeways, is a regular occurrence. > You cannot blame the 150km/h+ cars to be able to stop safely in all situations. I don't blame cars for anything, I do blame drivers for failing to maintain a safe combination of speed and separation. And there's virtually no road, freeway or otherwise, where 150km/h+ (93mph+) is a safe and reasonable speed for any driver, irrespective of separation, so I can quite easiky blame a driver for choosing to drive at such a speed in the first place.
  - Saaster 9y ago
    Absolutely you can always blame the car that does the rear-ending, it is your responsibility to maintain distance and speed such that you can stop if the car in front of you slams on the brakes. Which can happen for a multitude of valid reasons, like something dropping of a truck in front, or an accident. You will absolutely be at fault and stuck with the bill in every single rear-ending case, good luck arguing otherwise.
- btbuildem 9y ago
  The Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with your.. opinion https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-woman-who-caused-fatal-crash-after-stopping-to-help-ducks-loses-appeal/article35255208/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-woman-... She was sentenced in December 2014 to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends, three years' probation and 240 hours of community service, and given a 10-year driving ban.

iamcasen 9y ago

I think a big part of the problem is that there is too many vague, unspoken rules of the road. Making them explicit would also be impossible because there would be far to much to calculate accurately while driving (for the average person). For example: corner to corner crossing is a normal law for pedestrians. Technically, you should always yield the right of way for pedestrians to cross in this manner. Say you are on a two-lane main road through town, and there is tons of traffic. Do you stop at every single corner to let one person cross? The law says yes. Everyone waiting on you is going to say HELL NO! The people that stop at every corner think they are god's angel doing the right thing, but really they are being a massive sh*t head. That's just one example of the fuzzy line between breaking the law for the common good or following the law to a tee to the detriment of everyone on the road. Obviously, the best solution is just better city planning so that pedestrians rarely have to interact with traffic. When they do have to interact with traffic, it should be limited and explicit ( red lights, big marked crosswalks, etc).

saosebastiao 9y ago
> That's just one example of the fuzzy line between breaking the law for the common good or following the law to a tee to the detriment of everyone on the road. Except your “common good” isn’t common. It benefits drivers by mere seconds in exchange for a mortal risk to pedestrians. Like it or not, but the law is written as is for a reason: pedestrians are the lowest common denominator of society. Everybody is a pedestrian some of the time. When your expectations are for pedestrians to go several minutes out of their way to find a light and crosswalk so they can cross the street, just so you don’t have to slow down for a split second, it is you that is being the complete shithead. Luckily autonomous cars will soon make all of the enpathy-deficient sociopathic shitheads wait their turn, like they should have been doing all along.
- iamcasen 9y ago
  It doesn't impact drivers by mere seconds. It creates traffic backups all the way across the city. When a driver waits 3 blocks in a row for pedestrians to cross, it creates a backup of probably 30 cars. This is my daily experience in my city. I don't think pedestrians should go way out of their way to cross, I think they should just wait for gaps in traffic. Likewise drivers should use good judgment and stop for an old lady, but keep going if it's an in-shape jogger.