3 ms·

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for b

by afiori 7y ago

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?
- afiori 7y ago
  I do not understand what you are referring to. > Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both? pedestrian obviously. This implies to me that regardless of the law, pedestrian should be careful when crossing the streets. From the legal side I believe we should adopt the regulations that are more likely to decrease the number and gravity of incidents, this is heavily dependent of local customs.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I'm saying we shouldn't be satisfied with "that behavior should be illegal for both parties" when one party is much more likely to be injured or killed than the other. Pedestrians should be careful regardless of the law, but the law should focus on drivers, specifically.
    - afiori 7y ago
      Agree but I believe this can be formulated better > when one party is much more likely to be injured or killed than the other. the focal point to me is: "When one party's mistake are much more likely to endanger people (both others and themselves)" Where my intention is to focus on how the car is the dangerous element of the equation rather that on how the pedestrian is the one at risk. I personally find it a more solid building block.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles I think you have it backwards. The pedestrian that darts out into traffic that cannot stop in time causes the accident. The driver who does not travel slow enough to reasonably hedge themselves against a pedestrian darting out is being inconsiderate.
- afiori 7y ago
  in the considered case and assuming a left hand driving system the pedestrian is crossing from the right side and the driver is on the left lane near the middle of the (supposedly two way road). This mean that the driver had very good visibility. Moreover the pedestrian was planning to let the other car pass (as it was considering the case where lower speeds can be dangerous) so the pedestrian is not dashing. I agree with you in your (arguably more common) case, but in this case the driver must have had good visibility and enough reaction time.

by afiori 7y ago

jakelazaroff 7y ago

This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?

afiori 7y ago
I do not understand what you are referring to. > Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both? pedestrian obviously. This implies to me that regardless of the law, pedestrian should be careful when crossing the streets. From the legal side I believe we should adopt the regulations that are more likely to decrease the number and gravity of incidents, this is heavily dependent of local customs.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I'm saying we shouldn't be satisfied with "that behavior should be illegal for both parties" when one party is much more likely to be injured or killed than the other. Pedestrians should be careful regardless of the law, but the law should focus on drivers, specifically.
  - afiori 7y ago
    Agree but I believe this can be formulated better > when one party is much more likely to be injured or killed than the other. the focal point to me is: "When one party's mistake are much more likely to endanger people (both others and themselves)" Where my intention is to focus on how the car is the dangerous element of the equation rather that on how the pedestrian is the one at risk. I personally find it a more solid building block.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles I think you have it backwards. The pedestrian that darts out into traffic that cannot stop in time causes the accident. The driver who does not travel slow enough to reasonably hedge themselves against a pedestrian darting out is being inconsiderate.

afiori 7y ago
in the considered case and assuming a left hand driving system the pedestrian is crossing from the right side and the driver is on the left lane near the middle of the (supposedly two way road). This mean that the driver had very good visibility. Moreover the pedestrian was planning to let the other car pass (as it was considering the case where lower speeds can be dangerous) so the pedestrian is not dashing. I agree with you in your (arguably more common) case, but in this case the driver must have had good visibility and enough reaction time.