3 ms·

Why do you think I didn't think when I wrote it? You can't expect to start crossing the road with approaching cars, hoping they would accommodate you instantly.

by bitL 8y ago

Why do you think I didn't think when I wrote it? You can't expect to start crossing the road with approaching cars, hoping they would accommodate you instantly. What if a driver sneezed while you are doing it, unable to react for a second or two or there was some sudden mechanical or other failure? Friend of mine was driving 55mph when an older man suddenly decided to quickly cross the road and he couldn't avoid hitting him, so he is now scarred for life from terminating somebody else's life and seeing it all realtime. It's obvious the Uber driver didn't pay attention, that however doesn't absolve the victim from being the primary offender. Think about it before you go emotional.

tom_ 8y ago
You're the one coming up with outlandish scenarios in response to a simple suggestion that failure to yield shouldn't be a death sentence. Who's getting emotional?
emodendroket 8y ago
I'm sorry to hear about your friend but it's not quite the same situation if the driver had six seconds to react.
pjc50 8y ago
The point is that it's ridiculous to think of crossing the road as an offence against the driver, when it turns out so badly for the victim. It's more of a tragic error.
- malandrew 8y ago
  What if the driver had seen the pedestrian and swerved, flipped the car and died? Would that be an offense against the driver? The only reason we consider the pedestrian to be the victim here is because in this specific instance, that is who died, but there are no lack of cases where a driver tries to avoid a collision and ends up dying as a result.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    That would also be a tragic error on the driver's part. Although I think it's a much rarer kind. (I would also question that, except maybe in rural areas where there are hedges right up to the road, if you are at risk of killing yourself if something unexpected appears, perhaps your speed is not appropriate for the road, visibility, and lighting conditions? This applies to human and inhuman drivers)
  - 7952 8y ago
    There are risks associated with driving. You could hit a deer, or slip on black ice. Unintentional behaviour by pedestrians is exactly the same. It is just unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be completely attentive to safety at all times. That would require an unpleasently authoritarean set of rules. Do you really want public spaces to be so strictly regulated?
    - bitL 8y ago
      But here you have two legal persons (or more) - driver and pedestrian; it's not like inanimate subjects (environment) or legal non-persons (deer). If pedestrian does what the poster implied, resulting in killing the driver (+ perhaps the whole family, including small kids), why would you place the guilt/blame on driver? Where is justice in that? I am sure you can find videos on Internet where pedestrians by their actions caused fatalities when drivers tried to avoid & save them.
      - 7952 8y ago
        As long as the act was accidental I don't see any need to assign blame or guilt to anyone. This need for regulation simply dosn't apply to pedestrians, and strict rules just seem extreme and uneccessary. There simply isn't the evidence that pedestrian behaviour is a cause of death and injury among drivers. So why bother inflicting unpleasant rules and laws on people? Especially when the pedestrian themselves is likely to be the only person injured or killed. Of course some places do have jay walking laws, and I would agree that people should follow the law. But those laws exist solely for the benefit of motorists and not the safety of pedestrians. I just don't see any strong moral case for those sort of rules to exist. I think that cars create a uniquely weird set of circumstances. We impose a set of rules and restrictions on people that are more aggressive than would normally be acceptable. They are completely against free will and liberty. They are a total drag. And people reactively assume that the same rules should be applied to other road users. But that is categorically unfair and uneccessary. Should drunk walking be banned? Should kids cycling to school be banned? Should we have a law that punishes careless walking? No, that is ridiculous. But we have to have those laws for drivers.

by bitL 8y ago

tom_ 8y ago

You're the one coming up with outlandish scenarios in response to a simple suggestion that failure to yield shouldn't be a death sentence. Who's getting emotional?

emodendroket 8y ago

I'm sorry to hear about your friend but it's not quite the same situation if the driver had six seconds to react.

pjc50 8y ago

The point is that it's ridiculous to think of crossing the road as an offence against the driver, when it turns out so badly for the victim. It's more of a tragic error.

malandrew 8y ago
What if the driver had seen the pedestrian and swerved, flipped the car and died? Would that be an offense against the driver? The only reason we consider the pedestrian to be the victim here is because in this specific instance, that is who died, but there are no lack of cases where a driver tries to avoid a collision and ends up dying as a result.
- pjc50 8y ago
  That would also be a tragic error on the driver's part. Although I think it's a much rarer kind. (I would also question that, except maybe in rural areas where there are hedges right up to the road, if you are at risk of killing yourself if something unexpected appears, perhaps your speed is not appropriate for the road, visibility, and lighting conditions? This applies to human and inhuman drivers)
- 7952 8y ago
  There are risks associated with driving. You could hit a deer, or slip on black ice. Unintentional behaviour by pedestrians is exactly the same. It is just unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be completely attentive to safety at all times. That would require an unpleasently authoritarean set of rules. Do you really want public spaces to be so strictly regulated?
  - bitL 8y ago
    But here you have two legal persons (or more) - driver and pedestrian; it's not like inanimate subjects (environment) or legal non-persons (deer). If pedestrian does what the poster implied, resulting in killing the driver (+ perhaps the whole family, including small kids), why would you place the guilt/blame on driver? Where is justice in that? I am sure you can find videos on Internet where pedestrians by their actions caused fatalities when drivers tried to avoid & save them.
    - 7952 8y ago
      As long as the act was accidental I don't see any need to assign blame or guilt to anyone. This need for regulation simply dosn't apply to pedestrians, and strict rules just seem extreme and uneccessary. There simply isn't the evidence that pedestrian behaviour is a cause of death and injury among drivers. So why bother inflicting unpleasant rules and laws on people? Especially when the pedestrian themselves is likely to be the only person injured or killed. Of course some places do have jay walking laws, and I would agree that people should follow the law. But those laws exist solely for the benefit of motorists and not the safety of pedestrians. I just don't see any strong moral case for those sort of rules to exist. I think that cars create a uniquely weird set of circumstances. We impose a set of rules and restrictions on people that are more aggressive than would normally be acceptable. They are completely against free will and liberty. They are a total drag. And people reactively assume that the same rules should be applied to other road users. But that is categorically unfair and uneccessary. Should drunk walking be banned? Should kids cycling to school be banned? Should we have a law that punishes careless walking? No, that is ridiculous. But we have to have those laws for drivers.