4 ms·

illegal lane change? no, its just a car getting across a road. Like all things in life, we define patterns of use so we can more easily predict others' behavio

illegal lane change? no, its just a car getting across a road. Like all things in life, we define patterns of use so we can more easily predict others' behavior. Sometimes these pattern definitions come from rules, others come from experience (rolling stops). Either way, pedestrian road crossing is defined in cross walks, typically found at intersections. If someone breaks the pattern, expect others around you to react unpredictably, which may include death. This comment sounds very entitled, as if a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> This comment sounds very entitled, as if a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please. It's not 'as if' that's what I'm arguing - that's literally what I'm arguing. I literally think a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please. (Within reason, to genuinely cross it reasonably quickly, don't step out without giving cars at a reasonable speed enough time to stop, excluding purpose-built major roads.) Look at it from the other angle. Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Why should the pedestrian stop for the car, instead of the car stopping for the pedestrian? Why is your default mental model that the car owns the road?
- abfan1127 6y ago
  I’ll offer 2 points of view. 1) I ride atvs in the sand dunes. There’s an unwritten rule that “tonnage rules” I.e. stay out of the way of bigger things. Regardless of right/wrong, you’re still dead if a dirt bike collides with a sand car. 2) cars are required to stop at cross walks, driveways, and other similar pedestrian interfaces. Cars are entitled to roads because roads are for cars. Otherwise we’d have sidewalks everywhere.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    1) bigger wins is a rule bullies use 2) roads were there for pedestrians long before cars were invented - they got taken from us for cars
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      It’s not a bully, it’s defensive. It’s just like train crossings. Cars stop for trains because trains can’t stop. Lastly modern roads are heavily funded from gas taxes, so cars in effect pay for the roads.
      - umanwizard 6y ago
        Is the land for the roads funded by gas taxes too? I doubt it. Effectively you’re condoning stealing a bunch of land from the commons, because the thieves paid for the improvements on it? (Which only benefit themselves - non-drivers are perfectly happy with non-“modern” roads).
      - sagarm 6y ago
        This is a common misconception. Usage fees (gas taxes, tolls, etc) only cover ~50% of road costs, and that doesn't account for any of the negative externalities imposed on society in terms of air, ground, water and noise pollution. The rest comes form the general fund.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Because that is the rule, and the rule was created to create predictability and thereby increase safety. You are arguing to reduce safety because you have an ideological opposition to cars.
  - ericd 6y ago
    You could argue that the rule was created to make cars more convenient, at the expense of historical norms of on-foot transportation in towns. Even when they're at a safe distance, cars zooming around in towns are extremely unpleasant to be around as a pedestrian.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, the US has this rule that increases safety and the UK doesn't. Comparing major cities reveals that the UK does better than the US does, though. I don't think you've adequately proven your point. For instance, it's not an outrageous hypothesis that frequent uncontrolled pedestrian crossings readies drivers for that event thereby increasing safety whereas rare uncontrolled pedestrian crossings mean that drivers are surprised for and unable to handle the situation. In a systems thinking sense, it's not obvious that fixed pedestrian/car intersections are the safest.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      > I don't think you've adequately proven your point. It's not exactly controversial, so what else needs to be proven? You asked why things are as they are, I say it's because we implemented rules governing how we drive and walk on roads to create predictability and therefore safety. Don't like that cars seem to have more free reign? Change the road design, change the rules. But there are good reasons we have the system we have now.
  - sagarm 6y ago
    Concrete example of how our laws prioritize driver convenience to a comic degree: in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. A similar law for pedestrians might state that any location where pedestrians tend to cross more than X times/day must be a all-way stop.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? I don't think this accurately describes any place I've lived. a driver isn't entitled to do whatever they want on a road. they have to stop for stop signs, signals, etc. that mediate intersecting rights-of-way. they are obligated to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and even if the pedestrian is completely in the wrong, they are obligated to avoid hitting them if possible. what exactly do you want to change here?

chrisseaton 6y ago

> This comment sounds very entitled, as if a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please. It's not 'as if' that's what I'm arguing - that's literally what I'm arguing. I literally think a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please. (Within reason, to genuinely cross it reasonably quickly, don't step out without giving cars at a reasonable speed enough time to stop, excluding purpose-built major roads.) Look at it from the other angle. Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Why should the pedestrian stop for the car, instead of the car stopping for the pedestrian? Why is your default mental model that the car owns the road?

abfan1127 6y ago
I’ll offer 2 points of view. 1) I ride atvs in the sand dunes. There’s an unwritten rule that “tonnage rules” I.e. stay out of the way of bigger things. Regardless of right/wrong, you’re still dead if a dirt bike collides with a sand car. 2) cars are required to stop at cross walks, driveways, and other similar pedestrian interfaces. Cars are entitled to roads because roads are for cars. Otherwise we’d have sidewalks everywhere.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  1) bigger wins is a rule bullies use 2) roads were there for pedestrians long before cars were invented - they got taken from us for cars
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    It’s not a bully, it’s defensive. It’s just like train crossings. Cars stop for trains because trains can’t stop. Lastly modern roads are heavily funded from gas taxes, so cars in effect pay for the roads.
    - umanwizard 6y ago
      Is the land for the roads funded by gas taxes too? I doubt it. Effectively you’re condoning stealing a bunch of land from the commons, because the thieves paid for the improvements on it? (Which only benefit themselves - non-drivers are perfectly happy with non-“modern” roads).
    - sagarm 6y ago
      This is a common misconception. Usage fees (gas taxes, tolls, etc) only cover ~50% of road costs, and that doesn't account for any of the negative externalities imposed on society in terms of air, ground, water and noise pollution. The rest comes form the general fund.
rootusrootus 6y ago
> Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Because that is the rule, and the rule was created to create predictability and thereby increase safety. You are arguing to reduce safety because you have an ideological opposition to cars.
- ericd 6y ago
  You could argue that the rule was created to make cars more convenient, at the expense of historical norms of on-foot transportation in towns. Even when they're at a safe distance, cars zooming around in towns are extremely unpleasant to be around as a pedestrian.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, the US has this rule that increases safety and the UK doesn't. Comparing major cities reveals that the UK does better than the US does, though. I don't think you've adequately proven your point. For instance, it's not an outrageous hypothesis that frequent uncontrolled pedestrian crossings readies drivers for that event thereby increasing safety whereas rare uncontrolled pedestrian crossings mean that drivers are surprised for and unable to handle the situation. In a systems thinking sense, it's not obvious that fixed pedestrian/car intersections are the safest.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > I don't think you've adequately proven your point. It's not exactly controversial, so what else needs to be proven? You asked why things are as they are, I say it's because we implemented rules governing how we drive and walk on roads to create predictability and therefore safety. Don't like that cars seem to have more free reign? Change the road design, change the rules. But there are good reasons we have the system we have now.
- sagarm 6y ago
  Concrete example of how our laws prioritize driver convenience to a comic degree: in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. A similar law for pedestrians might state that any location where pedestrians tend to cross more than X times/day must be a all-way stop.
leetcrew 6y ago
> Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? I don't think this accurately describes any place I've lived. a driver isn't entitled to do whatever they want on a road. they have to stop for stop signs, signals, etc. that mediate intersecting rights-of-way. they are obligated to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and even if the pedestrian is completely in the wrong, they are obligated to avoid hitting them if possible. what exactly do you want to change here?