6 ms·

You have to remember there are also people in the cars who are now put in unnecessary danger by pedestrians jumping out in front of them. The worst part is that

by Sodman 6y ago

You have to remember there are also people in the cars who are now put in unnecessary danger by pedestrians jumping out in front of them. The worst part is that they are at the mercy of others to avoid this danger. Even if they see you unexpectedly moving in front of traffic and react in time, the 2-3 cars behind them also have to do the same for everyone to avoid injury. If you jump in front of moving cars, you should be personally liable for any injuries and damages caused by cars trying to avoid you. And this is all avoidable if the pedestrian walks a little further to get to the crosswalk, or waits a little longer for a walk signal.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Why do we make it the pedestrian's job? You want the pedestrian to walk a little further, you want the pedestrian to wait a little longer. Why don't we turn it around and say the car has to wait a little longer if someone wants to cross in front of them?
- imtringued 6y ago
  Because emergency braking isn't guaranteed to stop your car before you have hit a pedestrian. Plainly said: physics exist.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Maybe we shouldn't be driving so fast in built-up areas?
    - fastball 6y ago
      I personally am not in favor of decreasing the efficiency of our entire economy so that pedestrians who think they own the roads can walk wherever they want and expect everyone else to defer to their whims. Also, you've repeatedly asked the question "why should drivers get any right of way on the roads". Well, for one, I would imagine that the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian.
      - bryanlarsen 6y ago
        Property taxes pay for city streets.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian Pay to play, huh? Rich people get to use the roads for what they want, huh?
- Sodman 6y ago
  Cars already do have to wait a little longer for pedestrians to cross - at traffic lights, stop signs, intersections and crosswalks. Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. Having people on them makes driving far more dangerous, as well as meaning it takes longer to get places, not to mention taking a hit on fuel efficiency. Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? If we're allowing pedestrians unlimited full access to roads with full right of way all the time, then roads basically become sidewalks which cars are also allowed to inch along at walking speed. So what happens to busses now? Are we ok saying busloads of people now have to move at 3mph across a few miles? Again, I am for converting some downtown roads into pedestrian-only areas, but until we do that, we should treat these roads as roads. If pedestrians should have right of way everywhere all the time, should a pedestrian be able to walk across a railroad crossing while the barriers are down and a train is approaching? Is the train expected to stop? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, but it's the same argument.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed. They were walked on before anything else. Then cars hijacked them, and now people have so long forgotten in the US that they've started writing laws to strengthen their land-grab as if it was always this way. > Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind.
    - fastball 6y ago
      That's a fair point. Here's the new idea then: pedestrians have right of way on any road that was originally built with pedestrians in mind and has not since been updated with cars in mind.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      > No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed I mean yes, obviously the concept of a road does literally predate cars. But no roads that modern cars drive on today were built 200 years ago for cattle and wagons to use. Modern city planners built (or re-built) these roads specifically with vehicle traffic in mind (and in some cases maybe bikes). If they didn't want them to support vehicle traffic, they would have built them using different materials and designs. > No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind. This reads like you're saying you think it's completely reasonable to cross the highway even if it obstructs traffic? I could be misinterpreting the connection between your first and last sentences here... Either way, at the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that we disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable obstruction". I believe a single pedestrian wanting to slow down dozens of cars so they can cross the street 30 seconds quicker is unreasonable. Even if we're talking about all pedestrians, the aggregate time saved by pedestrians crossing slightly earlier is far outweighed by the time lost by everyone in a car who's now traveling at 5mph instead of 40mph. I believe the current system we have of batching pedestrians crossing using traffic lights is far more efficient overall. The "should there be roads here in the first place" argument is a totally different one however.

by Sodman 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

Why do we make it the pedestrian's job? You want the pedestrian to walk a little further, you want the pedestrian to wait a little longer. Why don't we turn it around and say the car has to wait a little longer if someone wants to cross in front of them?

imtringued 6y ago
Because emergency braking isn't guaranteed to stop your car before you have hit a pedestrian. Plainly said: physics exist.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't be driving so fast in built-up areas?
  - fastball 6y ago
    I personally am not in favor of decreasing the efficiency of our entire economy so that pedestrians who think they own the roads can walk wherever they want and expect everyone else to defer to their whims. Also, you've repeatedly asked the question "why should drivers get any right of way on the roads". Well, for one, I would imagine that the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      Property taxes pay for city streets.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian Pay to play, huh? Rich people get to use the roads for what they want, huh?
Sodman 6y ago
Cars already do have to wait a little longer for pedestrians to cross - at traffic lights, stop signs, intersections and crosswalks. Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. Having people on them makes driving far more dangerous, as well as meaning it takes longer to get places, not to mention taking a hit on fuel efficiency. Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? If we're allowing pedestrians unlimited full access to roads with full right of way all the time, then roads basically become sidewalks which cars are also allowed to inch along at walking speed. So what happens to busses now? Are we ok saying busloads of people now have to move at 3mph across a few miles? Again, I am for converting some downtown roads into pedestrian-only areas, but until we do that, we should treat these roads as roads. If pedestrians should have right of way everywhere all the time, should a pedestrian be able to walk across a railroad crossing while the barriers are down and a train is approaching? Is the train expected to stop? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, but it's the same argument.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed. They were walked on before anything else. Then cars hijacked them, and now people have so long forgotten in the US that they've started writing laws to strengthen their land-grab as if it was always this way. > Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind.
  - fastball 6y ago
    That's a fair point. Here's the new idea then: pedestrians have right of way on any road that was originally built with pedestrians in mind and has not since been updated with cars in mind.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    > No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed I mean yes, obviously the concept of a road does literally predate cars. But no roads that modern cars drive on today were built 200 years ago for cattle and wagons to use. Modern city planners built (or re-built) these roads specifically with vehicle traffic in mind (and in some cases maybe bikes). If they didn't want them to support vehicle traffic, they would have built them using different materials and designs. > No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind. This reads like you're saying you think it's completely reasonable to cross the highway even if it obstructs traffic? I could be misinterpreting the connection between your first and last sentences here... Either way, at the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that we disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable obstruction". I believe a single pedestrian wanting to slow down dozens of cars so they can cross the street 30 seconds quicker is unreasonable. Even if we're talking about all pedestrians, the aggregate time saved by pedestrians crossing slightly earlier is far outweighed by the time lost by everyone in a car who's now traveling at 5mph instead of 40mph. I believe the current system we have of batching pedestrians crossing using traffic lights is far more efficient overall. The "should there be roads here in the first place" argument is a totally different one however.