4 ms·

Your comparison doesn't work at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana whereas crossing the stree

Your comparison doesn't work at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana whereas crossing the street while essentially being tunnel visioned on a 6" screen is potentially very dangerous for yourself and, more importantly, others.

renholder 8y ago
>There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana... Today, there isn't, no. How about 50 years ago? Edit: I feel like you entirely missed the point of societal progression, here. There's nothing wrong with it, now, but it doesn't - explicitly - mean that this was never the case or that your arguments of "protecting the people, themselves, or others" was never used to justify the illegality of them.
- xmonkee 8y ago
  What does ignoring safety have to do with societal progression? This isn't some progressive cause. You analogy is absurd.
stefan_ 8y ago
Ah yes, the very dangerous pedestrians! That's depression era revisionism to make people feel less bad for not paying attention, hitting and killing people merely walking with their cars.
- renholder 8y ago
  "Think of the pedestrians!" is the new "Think of the children!"
- bpicolo 8y ago
  It's absolutely dangerous to others to walk into the road without paying attention because it can force oncoming vehicles to behave erratically (fast breaking, swerving, etc).
  - renholder 8y ago
    By this argument, you wouldn't have the pedestrian right-of-way laws that you have today (unless you're in certain areas of the states)... Instead, the onus is on the vehicle to stop and cede right-of-way. How do you reconcile these two - almost identical precepts? The only difference is the phone and where "attention" is paid, yeah?
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    If a pedestrian steps out onto a crosswalk and you cannot stop without behaving erratically, you were going too fast for road conditions or you weren't paying attention and you're at fault. If your quick stop causes problems for any vehicles behind you, they were going too fast or weren't paying attention and they're at fault. edit: jrockway said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676
- dasil003 8y ago
  It’s not revisionism, it was a cultural change sponsored by the auto industry. We may not like it, we may want to reverse it, but it’s not revisionism.
- jrockway 8y ago
  Indeed. The reality is that if you're driving fast enough to not be able to stop for someone looking at their phone, you're also driving fast enough to not be able to stop for some kids chasing a ball into the street. You may not mind murdering some dude on Instagram but I bet you'll feel pretty bad about flattening someone's kid who was just playing outside after school. High-speed traffic and pedestrians don't mix. The problem is not distracted pedestrians, the problem is that the situation where the two classes of traffic can mix exist. Ultimately, pretending that asphalt swaths cutting through the center of society is some "safe zone" for high-speed vehicles was a huge mistake society made. It was never true; someone could always penetrate that space and the unfortunate driver would end up killing them. Very slowly we are walking back on that, sharing space between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Lot less people getting killed. But it is unfortunate that China wants to repeat our mistakes there, and blame pedestrians for existing.

renholder 8y ago

>There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana... Today, there isn't, no. How about 50 years ago? Edit: I feel like you entirely missed the point of societal progression, here. There's nothing wrong with it, now, but it doesn't - explicitly - mean that this was never the case or that your arguments of "protecting the people, themselves, or others" was never used to justify the illegality of them.

xmonkee 8y ago
What does ignoring safety have to do with societal progression? This isn't some progressive cause. You analogy is absurd.

stefan_ 8y ago

Ah yes, the very dangerous pedestrians! That's depression era revisionism to make people feel less bad for not paying attention, hitting and killing people merely walking with their cars.

renholder 8y ago
"Think of the pedestrians!" is the new "Think of the children!"
bpicolo 8y ago
It's absolutely dangerous to others to walk into the road without paying attention because it can force oncoming vehicles to behave erratically (fast breaking, swerving, etc).
- renholder 8y ago
  By this argument, you wouldn't have the pedestrian right-of-way laws that you have today (unless you're in certain areas of the states)... Instead, the onus is on the vehicle to stop and cede right-of-way. How do you reconcile these two - almost identical precepts? The only difference is the phone and where "attention" is paid, yeah?
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  If a pedestrian steps out onto a crosswalk and you cannot stop without behaving erratically, you were going too fast for road conditions or you weren't paying attention and you're at fault. If your quick stop causes problems for any vehicles behind you, they were going too fast or weren't paying attention and they're at fault. edit: jrockway said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676
dasil003 8y ago
It’s not revisionism, it was a cultural change sponsored by the auto industry. We may not like it, we may want to reverse it, but it’s not revisionism.
jrockway 8y ago
Indeed. The reality is that if you're driving fast enough to not be able to stop for someone looking at their phone, you're also driving fast enough to not be able to stop for some kids chasing a ball into the street. You may not mind murdering some dude on Instagram but I bet you'll feel pretty bad about flattening someone's kid who was just playing outside after school. High-speed traffic and pedestrians don't mix. The problem is not distracted pedestrians, the problem is that the situation where the two classes of traffic can mix exist. Ultimately, pretending that asphalt swaths cutting through the center of society is some "safe zone" for high-speed vehicles was a huge mistake society made. It was never true; someone could always penetrate that space and the unfortunate driver would end up killing them. Very slowly we are walking back on that, sharing space between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Lot less people getting killed. But it is unfortunate that China wants to repeat our mistakes there, and blame pedestrians for existing.