3 ms·

I always put my phone down to my side if I was looking at it before crossing a street. But I'm also one of those people who have to slow down if I look at my ph

I always put my phone down to my side if I was looking at it before crossing a street. But I'm also one of those people who have to slow down if I look at my phone while walking; I can't really do both effectively at the same time just because I want to be aware of where I'm going. However I don't think fines are the right way to go. Signs and advertising campaigns would be better. Fines just violate the social contract. You're also not really hurting anyone else but yourself. In the fight or car vs person, the car is going to win .. I mean, unless you get hit by a cyclist.

interfixus 9y ago
You are potentially hurting other cyclists, other pedestrians, and very much the future well-being of any motorist who happens to run you over while running a green light.
- jaxbot 9y ago
  I bike in NYC and occasionally deal with people stepping into the street while looking at their phones and not checking for cross traffic because they can't hear me. It's annoying, but doesn't take much to just brake and dodge them. I wish they would've looked, but the streets are for the people in the city. It's not a freeway. I do fear there will be an uptick in problems with EVs, though, that don't have pedestrian warning sounds added and people not looking because they hear nothing and expect to hear an engine (experienced this a little bit in parking lots during my time driving a Leaf). But we'll see what happens I guess.
- to3m 9y ago
  Why is the person in the car not looking where they are going? It's people driving cars who are responsible for not running people over. The green light is there to tell traffic it's OK to proceed if appropriate. It doesn't make it OK to just run people over.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    The person in the car should be looking where they're going, but they expect a clear roadway, not random pedestrians stepping out without paying attention. In several states, if you're above a certain age (to exempt children) and walk into the path of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk, fault will be assigned to you and the driver in equal amounts (unless the driver is speeding, in which case they accumulate more fault).
    - Symbiote 9y ago
      The driver should certainly not expect a clear roadway. At least in Britain, roughly the first driving lesson begins with looking all around for other road users. Speed must be reduced if there's an increased risk of inattentive pedestrians, such as near parked cars around a school or houses.
    - sheepdestroyer 9y ago
      Where I come from (France) and where I live now (Japan) the laws are quite similar in that, as a driver, you have to be "in control" of your vehicle at any time. Meaning that you need to be able to stop it to avoid any unexpected event. Quite sensible if you ask me.
  - dheera 9y ago
    Well yes but it's also the responsibility of the pedestrian to demonstrate intent to cross the road if they do in fact intend to cross. A lot of the time people are looking at their phones, and look as if they aren't intending to cross, and in the midst of looking at a screen, suddenly out of nowhere, step into the street and start crossing, eyes still glued to the screen.
    - p49k 9y ago
      There is absolutely no excuse for a car to hit a pedestrian in or at the end of a crosswalk, regardless of “signaling”. The car should be driving slow enough to make this impossible, and for the worst-case scenario to be the pedestrian walking into the car.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> However I don't think fines are the right way to go. Signs and advertising campaigns would be better. Fines just violate the social contract. You're also not really hurting anyone else but yourself. In the fight or car vs person, the car is going to win .. I mean, unless you get hit by a cyclist. Slowing other pedestrians, endangering bicyclists and yourself, and putting drivers at risk of a traumatic experience due to your recklessness violates the social contract, not fines for anti-social/rude/unsafe or otherwise reckless behavior. EDIT: Walking while texting or using your phone not held up to your ear? Receive a fine. Doing the same while driving? Lose your driver's license. These are the only ways to fix behaviors that show no regard for others causing a safety hazard.
rhizome 9y ago
That's some impressively-veiled libertarian sophistry.
- dang 9y ago
  This violates the HN guideline against calling names in arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. This applies even when someone else is completely wrong, since a reply like this won't convince anyone anyhow.

interfixus 9y ago

You are potentially hurting other cyclists, other pedestrians, and very much the future well-being of any motorist who happens to run you over while running a green light.

jaxbot 9y ago
I bike in NYC and occasionally deal with people stepping into the street while looking at their phones and not checking for cross traffic because they can't hear me. It's annoying, but doesn't take much to just brake and dodge them. I wish they would've looked, but the streets are for the people in the city. It's not a freeway. I do fear there will be an uptick in problems with EVs, though, that don't have pedestrian warning sounds added and people not looking because they hear nothing and expect to hear an engine (experienced this a little bit in parking lots during my time driving a Leaf). But we'll see what happens I guess.
to3m 9y ago
Why is the person in the car not looking where they are going? It's people driving cars who are responsible for not running people over. The green light is there to tell traffic it's OK to proceed if appropriate. It doesn't make it OK to just run people over.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The person in the car should be looking where they're going, but they expect a clear roadway, not random pedestrians stepping out without paying attention. In several states, if you're above a certain age (to exempt children) and walk into the path of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk, fault will be assigned to you and the driver in equal amounts (unless the driver is speeding, in which case they accumulate more fault).
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    The driver should certainly not expect a clear roadway. At least in Britain, roughly the first driving lesson begins with looking all around for other road users. Speed must be reduced if there's an increased risk of inattentive pedestrians, such as near parked cars around a school or houses.
  - sheepdestroyer 9y ago
    Where I come from (France) and where I live now (Japan) the laws are quite similar in that, as a driver, you have to be "in control" of your vehicle at any time. Meaning that you need to be able to stop it to avoid any unexpected event. Quite sensible if you ask me.
- dheera 9y ago
  Well yes but it's also the responsibility of the pedestrian to demonstrate intent to cross the road if they do in fact intend to cross. A lot of the time people are looking at their phones, and look as if they aren't intending to cross, and in the midst of looking at a screen, suddenly out of nowhere, step into the street and start crossing, eyes still glued to the screen.
  - p49k 9y ago
    There is absolutely no excuse for a car to hit a pedestrian in or at the end of a crosswalk, regardless of “signaling”. The car should be driving slow enough to make this impossible, and for the worst-case scenario to be the pedestrian walking into the car.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> However I don't think fines are the right way to go. Signs and advertising campaigns would be better. Fines just violate the social contract. You're also not really hurting anyone else but yourself. In the fight or car vs person, the car is going to win .. I mean, unless you get hit by a cyclist. Slowing other pedestrians, endangering bicyclists and yourself, and putting drivers at risk of a traumatic experience due to your recklessness violates the social contract, not fines for anti-social/rude/unsafe or otherwise reckless behavior. EDIT: Walking while texting or using your phone not held up to your ear? Receive a fine. Doing the same while driving? Lose your driver's license. These are the only ways to fix behaviors that show no regard for others causing a safety hazard.

rhizome 9y ago

That's some impressively-veiled libertarian sophistry.

dang 9y ago
This violates the HN guideline against calling names in arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. This applies even when someone else is completely wrong, since a reply like this won't convince anyone anyhow.