4 ms·

>I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossing on a red walk sign Which is an indication that jaywalking isn't the real problem here, it's inatten

>I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossing on a red walk sign Which is an indication that jaywalking isn't the real problem here, it's inattentive drivers. How many of the 36 above were similar situations?

vorpalhex 6y ago
You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. I was making a right turn on a 40mph road on a green light. There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road. And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT WALK. There's a reason we have signs. Follow the signs. Having the right away is not the same as being impervious to being struck by a moving vehicle.
- reportingsjr 6y ago
  For every instance a driver like you has with someone crossing like that, there are probably 100+ of someone walking and a driver nearly plowing over them. I walk and bike around my town a lot, and I'm very cognizant of my surroundings. I can not even count how many times I've had people driving see me start to go in to a crosswalk and just totally blast through it, back out of driveways where I was very visible on the driver's side and not even look (TWICE only getting attention in time to not get hit by bashing on the car), people driving at high speed in to parking lots inches away. A month ago I was walking out of a nearby park on the only road in and out, that doesn't have a sidewalk for some idiotic reason, and I had some asshole try to sideswipe me and ended up clipping me with their mirror on purpose. Think about this next time you bring up a single instance of someone walking in a dangerous way. The design of cities in the US and the contempt of many people driving is many, many times worse for pedestrians than the other way around.
- metabagel 6y ago
  If you can't see around the bend, you're required to slow down so that there is sufficient room for you to stop, should there be a vehicle, pedestrian, or obstruction in the road.
- maccard 6y ago
  > You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. You're being ridiculous here. Nobody is asking for that, they're asking for sensible road design and sensible rules. > because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT WALK. That's shitty road design (if the crosswalk is 40ft from a blind blocked corner in either direction, someone might not see it travelling at speed), and arguably careless driving - blind corners could have a deer, pedestrian, broken down car, etc. > Having the right away is not the same as being impervious to being struck by a moving vehicle. Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead.
  - reificator 6y ago
    > Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead. This is disingenuous. Say for instance a person wants to die by being hit by traffic: they can jump out from behind a parked car right as the car passes. So in at least some percentage of cases, there's simply nothing even the most attentive driver could do to avoid hitting someone. I'm not saying cars are never at fault (I walk, ride a bike, and ride a motorcycle, each more than I drive a car; I've got plenty of first hand experience with at-fault drivers) but framing it this way seems very dishonest to me.
    - maccard 6y ago
      > So in at least some percentage of cases, there's simply nothing even the most attentive driver could do to avoid hitting someone. Only a sith deals in absolutes. Just because you can't prevent someone who _wants_ to be hit from being hit doesn't mean you shouldn't be completely vigilant. As an example, it's not reasonable to expect an obstruction on highway/motorway traffic, but it _is_ on a 40mph road with crosswalks.
- ajuc 6y ago
  So you're driving at over 60km/h in the city (which is illegal in many countries and for a good reason) at night near a blind corner and narrowly avoid killing people and you think you did nothing wrong and it would be their own fault. That's the exact attitude that criminalization of jaywalking is teaching drivers. And that's exactly why it's killing people every day. It's just as absurd as making a law that forbids women to walk alone at night (for their own safety) and blaming them if they break that law and get raped.
- watwut 6y ago
  > There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road. And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, 1.) If you cant see, you should not speed up. 2.) If you cant see, she cant see the crossroad either. Also, pedestrians dont are the ones with requirement to have driving license - drivers are the ones supposed to be in the know and in control.
reificator 6y ago
> > I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossing on a red walk sign > Which is an indication that jaywalking isn't the real problem here, it's inattentive drivers. How many of the 36 above were similar situations? Perhaps your signals are different, but in my area a "red walk sign" means "Do Not Walk". Your comment to me sounds like you're talking about a white walk sign, which would in fact be mostly attributable to inattentive drivers. But if the sign is red, then while driver inattentiveness may be involved, it's not the primary culprit.
- 8note 6y ago
  It is still the primary culprit. The driver is licensed to be watching for and not hit pedestrians

vorpalhex 6y ago

You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. I was making a right turn on a 40mph road on a green light. There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road. And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT WALK. There's a reason we have signs. Follow the signs. Having the right away is not the same as being impervious to being struck by a moving vehicle.

reportingsjr 6y ago
For every instance a driver like you has with someone crossing like that, there are probably 100+ of someone walking and a driver nearly plowing over them. I walk and bike around my town a lot, and I'm very cognizant of my surroundings. I can not even count how many times I've had people driving see me start to go in to a crosswalk and just totally blast through it, back out of driveways where I was very visible on the driver's side and not even look (TWICE only getting attention in time to not get hit by bashing on the car), people driving at high speed in to parking lots inches away. A month ago I was walking out of a nearby park on the only road in and out, that doesn't have a sidewalk for some idiotic reason, and I had some asshole try to sideswipe me and ended up clipping me with their mirror on purpose. Think about this next time you bring up a single instance of someone walking in a dangerous way. The design of cities in the US and the contempt of many people driving is many, many times worse for pedestrians than the other way around.
metabagel 6y ago
If you can't see around the bend, you're required to slow down so that there is sufficient room for you to stop, should there be a vehicle, pedestrian, or obstruction in the road.
maccard 6y ago
> You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times. You're being ridiculous here. Nobody is asking for that, they're asking for sensible road design and sensible rules. > because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT WALK. That's shitty road design (if the crosswalk is 40ft from a blind blocked corner in either direction, someone might not see it travelling at speed), and arguably careless driving - blind corners could have a deer, pedestrian, broken down car, etc. > Having the right away is not the same as being impervious to being struck by a moving vehicle. Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead.
- reificator 6y ago
  > Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead. This is disingenuous. Say for instance a person wants to die by being hit by traffic: they can jump out from behind a parked car right as the car passes. So in at least some percentage of cases, there's simply nothing even the most attentive driver could do to avoid hitting someone. I'm not saying cars are never at fault (I walk, ride a bike, and ride a motorcycle, each more than I drive a car; I've got plenty of first hand experience with at-fault drivers) but framing it this way seems very dishonest to me.
  - maccard 6y ago
    > So in at least some percentage of cases, there's simply nothing even the most attentive driver could do to avoid hitting someone. Only a sith deals in absolutes. Just because you can't prevent someone who _wants_ to be hit from being hit doesn't mean you shouldn't be completely vigilant. As an example, it's not reasonable to expect an obstruction on highway/motorway traffic, but it _is_ on a 40mph road with crosswalks.
ajuc 6y ago
So you're driving at over 60km/h in the city (which is illegal in many countries and for a good reason) at night near a blind corner and narrowly avoid killing people and you think you did nothing wrong and it would be their own fault. That's the exact attitude that criminalization of jaywalking is teaching drivers. And that's exactly why it's killing people every day. It's just as absurd as making a law that forbids women to walk alone at night (for their own safety) and blaming them if they break that law and get raped.
watwut 6y ago
> There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road. And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, 1.) If you cant see, you should not speed up. 2.) If you cant see, she cant see the crossroad either. Also, pedestrians dont are the ones with requirement to have driving license - drivers are the ones supposed to be in the know and in control.

reificator 6y ago

> > I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossing on a red walk sign > Which is an indication that jaywalking isn't the real problem here, it's inattentive drivers. How many of the 36 above were similar situations? Perhaps your signals are different, but in my area a "red walk sign" means "Do Not Walk". Your comment to me sounds like you're talking about a white walk sign, which would in fact be mostly attributable to inattentive drivers. But if the sign is red, then while driver inattentiveness may be involved, it's not the primary culprit.

8note 6y ago
It is still the primary culprit. The driver is licensed to be watching for and not hit pedestrians