5 ms·

> Every two party accident has at least two parties that could have done something different that would have prevented the accident. Be sure to tell this to th

by zajd 8y ago

> Every two party accident has at least two parties that could have done something different that would have prevented the accident. Be sure to tell this to the family of someone who died when a drunk driver crossed the lanes and hits them head on

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Oh screw off with your edge case specifically chosen for maximum appeal to emotion, we're talking about preventing pedestrian deaths across the board here. No amount of traffic calming and pedestrian friendly design is going to prevent that sort of accident nor is that type of accident particularly relevant to a discussion of keeping different types of traffic from conflicting with one another. If I get hit crossing the street by someone taking a right on red when I don't have a walk signal it's on both of us and of course we'll both allege it's the other's fault and we'll both be right. If the same accident happened in a workplace between a forklift and a pedestrian we'd both face consequences for not paying attention. The rules of the road are specifically built with redundancy that puts the responsibility to pay attention on both parties so that when one party doesn't an accident is still avoided. I should see the car and not step off the sidewalk until I have a walk signal or the car should see me and not take the right on red. To quote HR departments everywhere "safety is everyone's responsibility."
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Yes but also screw off the deliberate ignoring of the difference in risk and culpability. Its always the pedestrian that dies; its always the driver with the mechanical advantage to put their vehicle where it needs to be quickly.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Yes but also screw off the deliberate ignoring of the difference in risk and culpability. The expectation that big traffic is by default responsible when it crushes small stuff is completely opposite of every other case where different classes of traffic mix (unless the accident is an obvious edge case). If a semi backs into the guy spotting it the question is why the spotter was there. If heavy equipment hits a service truck the question is why the service truck was in a place to get hit. If a tank hits a humvee the humvee driver is the first person to get yelled at. Even drunk recreational boaters are expected to steer clear of ships. I'm not saying the bigger class of traffic should be in the right by default but the smaller class of traffic is almost without exception (i.e. I can't think of any exception) the class of traffic that has better visibility as to what's going on in a given situation and can more easily yield. >Its always the pedestrian that dies Physics doesn't know right and wrong. >its always the driver with the mechanical advantage to put their vehicle where it needs to be quickly. Yes and no. A car can go faster and swerve out of a lane faster. A pedestrian can stop much faster and signal its intentions to others much more obviously (hard to convey body language from within a car and pedestrians can't count on people to use blinkers) Edit: I'm really interested in why this is down-voted. There's nothing that should be controversial in this comment.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      I agree. I didn't do that.
riffic 8y ago
That would be an example of crime, not accident.

by zajd 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Oh screw off with your edge case specifically chosen for maximum appeal to emotion, we're talking about preventing pedestrian deaths across the board here. No amount of traffic calming and pedestrian friendly design is going to prevent that sort of accident nor is that type of accident particularly relevant to a discussion of keeping different types of traffic from conflicting with one another. If I get hit crossing the street by someone taking a right on red when I don't have a walk signal it's on both of us and of course we'll both allege it's the other's fault and we'll both be right. If the same accident happened in a workplace between a forklift and a pedestrian we'd both face consequences for not paying attention. The rules of the road are specifically built with redundancy that puts the responsibility to pay attention on both parties so that when one party doesn't an accident is still avoided. I should see the car and not step off the sidewalk until I have a walk signal or the car should see me and not take the right on red. To quote HR departments everywhere "safety is everyone's responsibility."

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Yes but also screw off the deliberate ignoring of the difference in risk and culpability. Its always the pedestrian that dies; its always the driver with the mechanical advantage to put their vehicle where it needs to be quickly.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Yes but also screw off the deliberate ignoring of the difference in risk and culpability. The expectation that big traffic is by default responsible when it crushes small stuff is completely opposite of every other case where different classes of traffic mix (unless the accident is an obvious edge case). If a semi backs into the guy spotting it the question is why the spotter was there. If heavy equipment hits a service truck the question is why the service truck was in a place to get hit. If a tank hits a humvee the humvee driver is the first person to get yelled at. Even drunk recreational boaters are expected to steer clear of ships. I'm not saying the bigger class of traffic should be in the right by default but the smaller class of traffic is almost without exception (i.e. I can't think of any exception) the class of traffic that has better visibility as to what's going on in a given situation and can more easily yield. >Its always the pedestrian that dies Physics doesn't know right and wrong. >its always the driver with the mechanical advantage to put their vehicle where it needs to be quickly. Yes and no. A car can go faster and swerve out of a lane faster. A pedestrian can stop much faster and signal its intentions to others much more obviously (hard to convey body language from within a car and pedestrians can't count on people to use blinkers) Edit: I'm really interested in why this is down-voted. There's nothing that should be controversial in this comment.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    I agree. I didn't do that.

riffic 8y ago

That would be an example of crime, not accident.