5 ms·

Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? It might be possible that the sudden increase in deaths is due to the rise of handhel

Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? It might be possible that the sudden increase in deaths is due to the rise of handheld distractions. Also the same could be true of drivers and cyclist using their handheld.

upofadown 8y ago
It doesn't mention distracted and inattentive pedestrians because that is not an important factor. From the article: >Most pedestrians and bicyclists are killed or injured while they are obeying the law.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  It sure is important when death is on the line. It's no consolation telling St Peter "But I was within the law!" It's risky out there. Everybody, please keep your heads up!
  - jgys 8y ago
    Also don't dress too provocatively, or you'll be asking for it. ... Oh, wait, we're victim blaming about something else this time?
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Didn't go there. Just encouraging people to ride defensively. Righteous indignation doesn't pay any hospital bills.
    - magduf 8y ago
      It doesn't matter if you're right when you're dead.
      - upofadown 8y ago
        But it does matter who is right when determining who is wrong...
        magduf 8y ago
        That only helps in punishing the wrongdoer. If you can avoid being a victim in the first place, yes, the wrongdoer will get away with doing something wrong (though much less wrong than if you succeeded in becoming a victim; e.g., he's guilty of running a red light rather than running a red light and causing a crash that resulted in someone's death), but the price you pay for making the wrongdoer guilty of a greater crime (homicide) is your life. Is that really worth it? The whole right vs. wrong thing is only useful in assigning blame when something really bad happens, and society wants to punish someone to achieve "justice". But having justice isn't really useful if you're dead, and not really worth it IMO if you're maimed for life. It's better to avoid the whole incident in the first place. "Justice" is nothing more than a concept society created to prevent people from seeking personal vengeance.
        upofadown 8y ago
        In the end though, Homer Simpson is still a bad safety supervisor. Just telling people to "Safen up!" is pointless and in this case is a way of distracting from an important truth ... that the problem here is cars and their drivers, not the pedestrians and cyclists. The legend of the reckless everyone else but drivers is less accepted these days and people tend to get called on it.
        magduf 8y ago
        I'm not disagreeing that cars and their drivers are the real problem, but this whole thread is about someone saying that pedestrians and cyclists need to watch out for cars, even if they're in the right, and someone else calling this "victim blaming". Call it what you want, but it doesn't matter if you were completely within the law when a car hits and kills you: you're still dead!!! Getting on some high horse about the car driver being "wrong" isn't going to bring the pedestrian back to life. And sure, maybe (maybe) the legal system will penalize the driver, but is it going to change anything? No, because our society has decided that cars are more important and we're not going to curtail our usage of cars at all, and accidents like this are unavoidable because of the nature of cars and ever-increasing traffic. If we built more trains/subways to take the load off the roads, we really could reduce the cyclist/pedestrian fatalities, but the US isn't going to do that; it's proven that it's completely incapable of building new public-transit infrastructure.
- notacoward 8y ago
  "Obeying the law" is irrelevant. It's not illegal to use a phone while walking, like it is while driving. The statement in the OP could be 100% correct and still not address the issue of whether distracted pedestrians are contributing to their own injury statistics.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? I don't know what you mean - it shouldn't matter how distracted and inattentive a pedestrian on the sidewalk is, because the cyclists shouldn't be in the same space as them in the first place.
- cr1895 8y ago
  Clearly you haven't visited the Netherlands. Distracted pedestrians (and cyclists!) is a significant problem.
neetodavid 8y ago
"Adding to the dangers are distracted drivers and pedestrians and the introduction of electric scooters. Some observers also believe an epidemic of narcissism is causing more aggressive driving. " This is linked in that passage: https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-unplugging-in-the-age-of-distraction-43572 https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-unplugging-in-the-a...
chasd00 8y ago
this shouldn't be downvoted. I've sat a green light while a pedestrian walked right out in front of me without even looking up from their phone. They only realized what they did in the middle of the road and then darted back.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Absolutely correct. On the other hand, if the pedestrian had the green and got hit, the fact that they were looking at their phone wasn't the problem. We need to differentiate between two separate scenarios.
stefan_ 8y ago
Why on earth would it mention that? When were you last grievously injured by an inattentive pedestrian? The ultimate cause of these deaths is principally in the tons of metal propelled to abnormal speeds by engines that could just as well serve the power needs of an entire row of houses. If your traffic policy doesn't realize this basic fact and instead prefers to make worthless publicity campaigns appealing for "everyone to pay attention", it is not rooted in evidence and doomed to fail. Imagine every day we had 10+ planes crash, killing everyone inside, and we collectively shrug our shoulders, make tactless comments along the lines of "if it goes up it's gonna come down" and put up posters for plane construction workers to pay more attention putting the rattling cans together.
ahoy 8y ago
Pedestrians dont weigh 4000 pounds and move at 40 miles/hour, for starters

upofadown 8y ago

It doesn't mention distracted and inattentive pedestrians because that is not an important factor. From the article: >Most pedestrians and bicyclists are killed or injured while they are obeying the law.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
It sure is important when death is on the line. It's no consolation telling St Peter "But I was within the law!" It's risky out there. Everybody, please keep your heads up!
- jgys 8y ago
  Also don't dress too provocatively, or you'll be asking for it. ... Oh, wait, we're victim blaming about something else this time?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Didn't go there. Just encouraging people to ride defensively. Righteous indignation doesn't pay any hospital bills.
  - magduf 8y ago
    It doesn't matter if you're right when you're dead.
    - upofadown 8y ago
      But it does matter who is right when determining who is wrong...
      - magduf 8y ago
        That only helps in punishing the wrongdoer. If you can avoid being a victim in the first place, yes, the wrongdoer will get away with doing something wrong (though much less wrong than if you succeeded in becoming a victim; e.g., he's guilty of running a red light rather than running a red light and causing a crash that resulted in someone's death), but the price you pay for making the wrongdoer guilty of a greater crime (homicide) is your life. Is that really worth it? The whole right vs. wrong thing is only useful in assigning blame when something really bad happens, and society wants to punish someone to achieve "justice". But having justice isn't really useful if you're dead, and not really worth it IMO if you're maimed for life. It's better to avoid the whole incident in the first place. "Justice" is nothing more than a concept society created to prevent people from seeking personal vengeance.
        upofadown 8y ago
        In the end though, Homer Simpson is still a bad safety supervisor. Just telling people to "Safen up!" is pointless and in this case is a way of distracting from an important truth ... that the problem here is cars and their drivers, not the pedestrians and cyclists. The legend of the reckless everyone else but drivers is less accepted these days and people tend to get called on it.
        magduf 8y ago
        I'm not disagreeing that cars and their drivers are the real problem, but this whole thread is about someone saying that pedestrians and cyclists need to watch out for cars, even if they're in the right, and someone else calling this "victim blaming". Call it what you want, but it doesn't matter if you were completely within the law when a car hits and kills you: you're still dead!!! Getting on some high horse about the car driver being "wrong" isn't going to bring the pedestrian back to life. And sure, maybe (maybe) the legal system will penalize the driver, but is it going to change anything? No, because our society has decided that cars are more important and we're not going to curtail our usage of cars at all, and accidents like this are unavoidable because of the nature of cars and ever-increasing traffic. If we built more trains/subways to take the load off the roads, we really could reduce the cyclist/pedestrian fatalities, but the US isn't going to do that; it's proven that it's completely incapable of building new public-transit infrastructure.
notacoward 8y ago
"Obeying the law" is irrelevant. It's not illegal to use a phone while walking, like it is while driving. The statement in the OP could be 100% correct and still not address the issue of whether distracted pedestrians are contributing to their own injury statistics.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? I don't know what you mean - it shouldn't matter how distracted and inattentive a pedestrian on the sidewalk is, because the cyclists shouldn't be in the same space as them in the first place.

cr1895 8y ago
Clearly you haven't visited the Netherlands. Distracted pedestrians (and cyclists!) is a significant problem.

neetodavid 8y ago

"Adding to the dangers are distracted drivers and pedestrians and the introduction of electric scooters. Some observers also believe an epidemic of narcissism is causing more aggressive driving. " This is linked in that passage: https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-unplugging-in-the-age-of-distraction-43572 https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-unplugging-in-the-a...

chasd00 8y ago

this shouldn't be downvoted. I've sat a green light while a pedestrian walked right out in front of me without even looking up from their phone. They only realized what they did in the middle of the road and then darted back.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Absolutely correct. On the other hand, if the pedestrian had the green and got hit, the fact that they were looking at their phone wasn't the problem. We need to differentiate between two separate scenarios.

stefan_ 8y ago

Why on earth would it mention that? When were you last grievously injured by an inattentive pedestrian? The ultimate cause of these deaths is principally in the tons of metal propelled to abnormal speeds by engines that could just as well serve the power needs of an entire row of houses. If your traffic policy doesn't realize this basic fact and instead prefers to make worthless publicity campaigns appealing for "everyone to pay attention", it is not rooted in evidence and doomed to fail. Imagine every day we had 10+ planes crash, killing everyone inside, and we collectively shrug our shoulders, make tactless comments along the lines of "if it goes up it's gonna come down" and put up posters for plane construction workers to pay more attention putting the rattling cans together.

ahoy 8y ago

Pedestrians dont weigh 4000 pounds and move at 40 miles/hour, for starters