4 ms·
> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. Y
by msla 6y ago
> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations.
OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.
- booleandilemma 6y agoMight doesn't make right.
- bigwavedave 6y agoThat's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.
- msla 6y agoIt is invalid to derive an "is" from an "ought" in any situation. ("Cars ought not hurt people who have the right-of-way, therefore they won't.")
- majormajor 6y agoMaybe that's not a place the vehicle should be going 35mph, then. Maybe the vehicle should be smaller, instead of ever-larger SUVs and trucks. Maybe there should be crosswalks and signals. There's nothing in the laws of physics that dictate that roads should be hard to cross on foot, and that cars should move at their current speeds, and be designed the ways they are. Those are all choices.
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoMaybe the cars should simply be banned at certain places, it's also a valid possibility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283
- mainstreemm 6y agoThere's a crosswalk and signal at literally every block in NY, which has been the focus of this discussion. SUVs exist and are so large because emissions standards don't allow for large enough family vehicles in sedan or wagon format. That's why families have SUVs instead of sedans now. If you legislate away every vehicle capable of carrying more than five people you're essentially banning families larger than that, especially in places in the US which don't have public transit, which is most of the country. THIS is the kind of clueless urban elite childless Coastal DINK perspective that drives regular people raising families in flyover country absolutely bananas with its complete lack of perspective for other lifestyles than the ones in San Francisco and New York! Not all of us want to live in tiny apartments and on crowded trains for our whole lives and the people who do want that life do not have the right to dictate that to the rest of us through limits on what kind of vehicles we're allowed to drive
- woodruffw 6y ago> You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Shooting someone is still a crime, even though the laws of physics dictate that the bullet is going to win against my flesh. Right-of-way is a normative statement, not an extension of physical laws.
- chrisseaton 6y agoIf that's the case, why is the car going 35 mph in the first place? Maybe they shouldn't be going that fast in areas with pedestrians?
- msla 6y agoPeople do a lot of things they shouldn't. Some of those things have heavier penalties than others. For example, speeding rarely renders one a quadriplegic.
- chrisseaton 6y agoWhy's your reaction to ban the pedestrians from the street rather than banning the cars from the street?
- msla 6y agoWhy's aren't you advocating to make roads safer?
- chrisseaton 6y agoI think banning cars from them, or limiting them more significantly, would make roads safer.
- hmottestad 6y agoIn Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. There was a fair bit of discussion a few years ago about how someone jogging in the dark would dart across a zebra and then drivers had to slam on the brakes not to hit them. As a driver though, most roads to my right have the right of way. So if there is a road to the right where the view is blocked by some bushes or a house ... I will slow down just in case a car could pop out of there. That is what right of way means. I also do this for zebras. I will slow down just in case, unless I'm sure that no one could possibly cross.
- bigwavedave 6y ago> In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. For only a moment, my brain thought you meant that Norwegians riding zebras had the right of way, but half a second later my brain realized they could no longer be considered pedestrians if they were riding an animal. Is "zebra" the real term for "crosswalk" and I've been wrong my whole life?
- chrisseaton 6y agoThere are many types of pedestrian crossings. Zebra, Pelican, Toucan, Tiger, etc.
- hmottestad 6y agoI grew up with British english. Might be why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing
- lazugod 6y ago> In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. Context for those who don’t know: zebras are crosswalks.
- bluecalm 6y agoGenuine question: don't pedestrians have the right of way on crosswalks/zebras everywhere? I thought it's the very idea of having the crossing in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- caconym_ 6y agoA shift in thinking toward cars not being kings of the road rightfully able to plow through any and all obstacles with impunity will make all road users safer. Removal of a tool police use to disproportionately stop and harass poor and/or non-white people will contribute to wiping out the absurd extant bias in policing. This has nothing to do with advocating that pedestrians start stepping out in front of cars. Take a moment to understand the issue before deploying your straw man.
- klyrs 6y ago> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. Before the advent of the automobile, you had carriages drawn by teams of oxen. If there was lesser risk to pedestrians, it's because the oxen themselves don't enjoy walking on humans. Irony being that the automobile places more responsibility on the driver, who (ITT) sees an opportunity for manslaughter as a justification for manslaughter.