2 ms·
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
by 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 agoAgree 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.