5 ms·

Soooo...it's now okay to run over people (5 seconds is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON-crash! time), as long as you have an excuse? Go watch the scapecam footage: even with

Soooo...it's now okay to run over people (5 seconds is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON-crash! time), as long as you have an excuse? Go watch the scapecam footage: even with the horrible picture quality, you can see the victim walking (in a straight line across the road, no less!) a very long time before impact. Perhaps you could also argue "if she were wearing a helmet, it would have conferred +1 to CON and perhaps saved her", for what it's worth - makes sense in the crudest of simulations, but not in RL.

umvi 7y ago
Of course not! It's never okay to kill people. But she is at least partially to blame for her own death. If I take a nap on some train tracks and get run over, is my death 100% on the train engineer for not stopping even though I was in plain sight for 30+ seconds?
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  You are taking this into ridiculous extremes. She wasn't taking a nap in the road, and a car is stoppable at a far smaller distance than a train. Your argument boils down to "it's her own fault for existing outside a car, shit happens."
- ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
  That’s not even close to jaywalking. Bad example
SamReidHughes 7y ago
When I jaywalk (or cross anywhere) I consider it my responsibility to cross safely. If I got hit by a car, it is 100% my fault for not looking. Maybe it is also 100% the driver's fault. Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. In this case the pedestrian and driver are both fully responsible. The pedestrian was lollygagging across the road like a complete idiot. The driver wasn't paying attention.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  > Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. I think I might agree with something you're trying to say, but this point is completely incoherent.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    I'm not saying responsibility + blame > 100%, if that's what you think I said. Read it as two statements: "Responsibility is not something...," and "Blame is not something..." If doesn't clear things up, I don't know how it could be incoherent.

umvi 7y ago

Of course not! It's never okay to kill people. But she is at least partially to blame for her own death. If I take a nap on some train tracks and get run over, is my death 100% on the train engineer for not stopping even though I was in plain sight for 30+ seconds?

Piskvorrr 7y ago
You are taking this into ridiculous extremes. She wasn't taking a nap in the road, and a car is stoppable at a far smaller distance than a train. Your argument boils down to "it's her own fault for existing outside a car, shit happens."
ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
That’s not even close to jaywalking. Bad example

SamReidHughes 7y ago

When I jaywalk (or cross anywhere) I consider it my responsibility to cross safely. If I got hit by a car, it is 100% my fault for not looking. Maybe it is also 100% the driver's fault. Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. In this case the pedestrian and driver are both fully responsible. The pedestrian was lollygagging across the road like a complete idiot. The driver wasn't paying attention.

wutbrodo 7y ago
> Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. I think I might agree with something you're trying to say, but this point is completely incoherent.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  I'm not saying responsibility + blame > 100%, if that's what you think I said. Read it as two statements: "Responsibility is not something...," and "Blame is not something..." If doesn't clear things up, I don't know how it could be incoherent.