3 ms·

It's unclear to me what the problem is, here. Are you picturing bored teenagers doing this as a joke or something? In practice this is incredibly rare. Such '

It's unclear to me what the problem is, here. Are you picturing bored teenagers doing this as a joke or something? In practice this is incredibly rare. Such 'feral children' will be causing way worse problems elsewhere anyway. If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard. Because you don't want to hit them. But on a very basic level pedestrians have right of way in old world cities anyway. There are junctions in Central London whereby cars often struggle to pass even when the light is green (Kings Cross station is a good one, taxi drivers like to "push" people out of the way by edging closer)

Dylan16807 8y ago
> In practice this is incredibly rare. That's why I said I'm sure it's fine in practice in my first post. >If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard. >Because you don't want to hit them. You don't want to hit them. Entirely separately from that, if they force you to slam on your brakes, when you are not being reckless, they should be chastised. > It's unclear to me what the problem is, here. Giving someone right of way when they're going to cross the road is fine. But it should not be absolute and instant, forcing cars to brake at 100% power. Someone on a footpath, giving no signs of wanting to enter the road, could do so in one second. It takes longer than that for a car to stop. To solve the problem, give cars enough slack to stop at medium braking intensity before the right of way kicks in. That's all. Lack of right of way isn't permission to hit them. It just means they're wrong to be sprinting across the street.

Dylan16807 8y ago

> In practice this is incredibly rare. That's why I said I'm sure it's fine in practice in my first post. >If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard. >Because you don't want to hit them. You don't want to hit them. Entirely separately from that, if they force you to slam on your brakes, when you are not being reckless, they should be chastised. > It's unclear to me what the problem is, here. Giving someone right of way when they're going to cross the road is fine. But it should not be absolute and instant, forcing cars to brake at 100% power. Someone on a footpath, giving no signs of wanting to enter the road, could do so in one second. It takes longer than that for a car to stop. To solve the problem, give cars enough slack to stop at medium braking intensity before the right of way kicks in. That's all. Lack of right of way isn't permission to hit them. It just means they're wrong to be sprinting across the street.