6 ms·

> But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at

> But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at road safety. > the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. > do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? That's framing the debate. If you hit someone with your car, you're guilty of hitting someone with your car. There is no "presumption of innocence". > So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. No. No ambiguity, and no matching moral outcomes, but improving road safety. > in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. But it's not more clear, and moral precision in not a goal. > It's a reasonable trade off. Here I should draw up the statistics of accidents involving cars and pedestrians in Arizona and Germany, but I don't think that's necessary. > It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, > but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice. That's just an incredibly U.S. centered point of view. I don't mind but your parent was talking about the German system. Maybe AZ works in comparison to the laws in other states with a very car-centered way-of-life, but in comparison to Germany it's really just bat-shit insane if the goal is improving road safety, but granted, that might not be the case.

stilley2 8y ago
> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them?
- masklinn 8y ago
  > Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them? The rule over here is that a driver must always be in control of their vehicle. Exceptional circumstances such as those you describe (which are completely and utterly unlike those of the Uber case) would act as mitigating factor, possibly down to no fault if there was no way for a reasonable driver to avoid the accident. But the default state of things is that if you decide to put yourself in control of a multi-tons vehicle, you better be able to handle it or the consequences of your recklessness.
danmaz74 8y ago
> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Such a general principle would be unreasonable. I'm all for putting pedestrians' safety first, but a driver who is following all rules and safety principles can still hit a pedestrian without any fault - the extreme (but not only) example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  In Russia at least for awhile there was a thriving business of insurance fraud where pedestrians try really hard to get cars to hit them. Dashcams became essential safety equipment. Throws a lot of mud in that water.
- fernandotakai 8y ago
  > example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by. a friend of mine had this exactly issue. he was driving at the speed limit, as usual. an old lady just jumped in front of his car. at first, he got a murder charge then it was dropped when the prosecutors saw on the road cameras that the old lady 100% wanted to die.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  In the case of an unavoidable suicide, it gets mitigated up to a point where any course of action is pointless because it would not serve road safety. The outcome would be the same. The difference here is that even if the pedestrian or cyclist was in the wrong, you're not automatically in the right. Your own behaviour as a motorist stands on itself, and you're supposed to take the difference in size and weight into account. Although it may not appeal to everyone's sense of fairness and just punishment(although, in fairness, only one of the parties can realistically be mauled or even killed), but from a road safety perspective it leads to more careful driving.
  - craftinator 8y ago
    I think you're trolling. Let's flag this comment.
rsj_hn 8y ago
My impression is that pedestrians don't jaywalk in Germany nearly so much as in the U.S., as there is a cultural taboo against it. People get mad at you when you do that in Germany, or at least that was my impression -- you can confirm or deny. So it could be that with pedestrians more conscientious, you can put most of the blame on the drivers by default and not have it be an unfair system. That wouldn't be suitable in the U.S. where people are generally less responsible both as drivers and as passengers. In terms of statistics, yes, Germany has ~7 vehicle deaths per billion km-mile travelled whereas the US has ~4, but again, car ownership is much more common in the U.S. and necessary to get to work or do chores. People drive every day, when they are tired, and since almost everyone has to drive long distances you have a lot more irresponsible people doing it out of need. I also think that the streets are laid out in a less pedestrian friendly manner which makes them less safe.

stilley2 8y ago

> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them?

masklinn 8y ago
> Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them? The rule over here is that a driver must always be in control of their vehicle. Exceptional circumstances such as those you describe (which are completely and utterly unlike those of the Uber case) would act as mitigating factor, possibly down to no fault if there was no way for a reasonable driver to avoid the accident. But the default state of things is that if you decide to put yourself in control of a multi-tons vehicle, you better be able to handle it or the consequences of your recklessness.

danmaz74 8y ago

> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Such a general principle would be unreasonable. I'm all for putting pedestrians' safety first, but a driver who is following all rules and safety principles can still hit a pedestrian without any fault - the extreme (but not only) example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by.

vinceguidry 8y ago
In Russia at least for awhile there was a thriving business of insurance fraud where pedestrians try really hard to get cars to hit them. Dashcams became essential safety equipment. Throws a lot of mud in that water.
fernandotakai 8y ago
> example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by. a friend of mine had this exactly issue. he was driving at the speed limit, as usual. an old lady just jumped in front of his car. at first, he got a murder charge then it was dropped when the prosecutors saw on the road cameras that the old lady 100% wanted to die.
craigsmansion 8y ago
In the case of an unavoidable suicide, it gets mitigated up to a point where any course of action is pointless because it would not serve road safety. The outcome would be the same. The difference here is that even if the pedestrian or cyclist was in the wrong, you're not automatically in the right. Your own behaviour as a motorist stands on itself, and you're supposed to take the difference in size and weight into account. Although it may not appeal to everyone's sense of fairness and just punishment(although, in fairness, only one of the parties can realistically be mauled or even killed), but from a road safety perspective it leads to more careful driving.
- craftinator 8y ago
  I think you're trolling. Let's flag this comment.

rsj_hn 8y ago

My impression is that pedestrians don't jaywalk in Germany nearly so much as in the U.S., as there is a cultural taboo against it. People get mad at you when you do that in Germany, or at least that was my impression -- you can confirm or deny. So it could be that with pedestrians more conscientious, you can put most of the blame on the drivers by default and not have it be an unfair system. That wouldn't be suitable in the U.S. where people are generally less responsible both as drivers and as passengers. In terms of statistics, yes, Germany has ~7 vehicle deaths per billion km-mile travelled whereas the US has ~4, but again, car ownership is much more common in the U.S. and necessary to get to work or do chores. People drive every day, when they are tired, and since almost everyone has to drive long distances you have a lot more irresponsible people doing it out of need. I also think that the streets are laid out in a less pedestrian friendly manner which makes them less safe.