5 ms·
If the article were about a cyclist who, while riding without a helmet, was run over and killed by a car whose driver didn’t do a safe lane change, and I commen
by jonathanyc 9y ago
If the article were about a cyclist who, while riding without a helmet, was run over and killed by a car whose driver didn’t do a safe lane change, and I commented:
“Not trying to blame the victim... but this is a teachable moment not only for drivers, but for cyclists...”
... it would be a true statement, which is why I didn’t say the GP was making a false one, but a normal native speaker would at least recognize it as a strange thing to say.
Cyclists should wear helmets, and the cyclist certainly is partly to blame. But no one was suggesting that the cyclist is guilt-free, so the actual effect of the statement is to try and draw a false equivalence.
It’s like saying “sure, global warming is real, but let’s not forget the effects of gradual and natural cyclical climate change.” No educated person in the discussion “forgot” the second, but by phrasing it this way you’re implying we should be paying equal attention to a large effect and a much smaller one.
- fastball 9y agoThe pedestrian was at fault here, not the driver. This is not where you should be crossing the road in the middle of the night with no lights on.
- jonathanyc 9y agoNo, as others have discussed, driving above the speed limit when it is “the middle of the light with no lights on” means the driver is at fault as well.
- rootusrootus 9y agoLegally correct, but technically wrong. When it comes to judging whether self-driving cars are safe enough to be allowed on the roads with the rest of us, incidents like this are the kiss of death. With a human driver at the wheel this woman would be alive, even though she was jaywalking. This is going to set back public acceptance of self-driving technology a ways.
- bendauphinee 9y agoThat's a strong assumption to make, that a human could have done better. It was dark, night, nowhere near a normal crosswalk, and not where I as a driver would normally expect a person to be. I think it would have been hard for even the most alert driver to not hit this person in this circumstance.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoThe point wasn't quite "what would human do?" but "computer just drives straight over people, BAN KILLER ROBOTS NOW!!!" Public perception and its backlash is not always commensurate with the technical side.
- telchar 9y agoYou really think drivers have carte blanche to run down people in the road as long as they have right of way? That drivers have no responsibility to avoid killing people as long as those people aren't on crosswalks? That's what you seem to be saying here.