4 ms·

> Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car? a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentall

by umvi 6y ago

> Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car? a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. > Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path? So that they take responsibility for their own safety. > Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path? Because I disagree I should be liable if someone darts out into traffic and is struck by my car. > Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance. In dense cities... sure, I agree. In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea.

chrisseaton 6y ago
All your arguments are about protecting yourself and limiting your liability at the expense of the pedestrian and you just slowing down and taking more care. You even talk in the passive voice about people being struck by your car rather than you striking them with your car. That's a shit attitude.
- umvi 6y ago
  Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue? I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe. So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively brake if pedestrians waited their turn at a designated crosswalk.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > Why am I being villainized Because cars bad, of course. Bicycles and pedestrians should always have the right of way in every situation, of course. If a pedestrian is walking in the lane on the highway, it's obviously the car's legal responsibility to make way for them. /s
  - watwut 6y ago
    You argue by Germany and in Germany jaywalking the way it exists in USA does not really exist. There are a lot more options for pedestrians to cross the street, the marked crossing is not necessary. There are ways for pedestrian to get small fine, but generally cars are supposed to be in control and watch for pedestrians.
  - francisofascii 6y ago
    In the effort to find common ground, maybe the villains are not the specific drivers, but the planners or collective culture who decided to built highway like roads next to shopping plazas. "The speed limit needs to be lowered" is a good compromise.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    You are the safety issue. Without you there is no safety issue. And you should drive accordingly.
    - umvi 6y ago
      It takes two to tango. Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. So jaywalkers should jaywalk accordingly.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. This isn’t true - a street of just cars will have lethal crashes amongst themselves even with no pedestrians. A street of just pedestrians will never lethally bump into each other. The only lethal thing in the situation is the cars.
- nineplay 6y ago
  I would have to drive very far below the speed limit on any street in my vicinity to be able to safely stop before hitting a jaywalker. I can do that, of course, but I then become a road hazard. I find it hard to believe that the overall safety would increase as a result. I'm open to being otherwise convinced.
  - ck425 6y ago
    The solution there is that you drop the speed limit for everyone and therefore you're not a road hazard. Anywhere that could have a reasonable number of pedestrians should have adopted limits such that the majority of traffic can safely stop before hitting someone in most cases. Drivers convenience should not trump people's lives.
tom_ 6y ago
Why can't you take some responsibility for their safety? You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  >"You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation." If somebody can dart out in front of my car, isn't that the fault of the person who darted? Or, the civil engineer who designed the road? How can you possibly say that I let myself get into this situation?
  - tom_ 6y ago
    My point is: why were you not more carefully assessing the situation, to ensure that you were driving at an appropriate speed, given the risk of having somebody leap into the path of your car? That is after all a situation you presumably want to avoid. (Even if you don't care about hitting somebody, maybe at least consider that it's equivalent to having a 75 kg lump of meat fired at your car at, say, 35 mph.)
    - BitwiseFool 6y ago
      I've had pedestrians dart out in front of my path on three separate occasion in my life. Thankfully, I was aware enough to prevent hitting them. A combination of a slow enough speed, good brakes, enough distance, and luck (to be honest). It was a jarring experience each time, and each time it was completely unexpected. Of course I care about the life of the people who almost got hit - and I'm glad they didn't get maimed. But I absolutely did do a lot of cursing and wondering why they didn't look both ways.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  From a city that has a lot of public transport (Prague): some people will dart in front of fully loaded buses, trams, or even trains at a railway crossing. That is humanity at its finest. (/s) I would be pissed off if maximum speed of a train (a 20000+ bhp murder machine, by your standard) that I use to commute was lowered to some 10 kph in order to keep those candidates of the Darwin Award alive. Being weaker (pedestrian) does not absolve you of all guilt if you decide to hazard with your life.
watwut 6y ago
> a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. In Germany, car drivers must always be prepared to brake for pedestrians, including children and elderly people. Children as young as 6-7 walk the streets alone or in packs, so the kid dashing is real possibility. No one is gonna call CPS over it, schools literally recommend first graders to walk to school alone. Pedestrian must use shortest path through street, but does not have to use crossing - you have to use crossing only if one is available within 40m or so. The power dynamic does not really plays out. The cars are slow in cities, cross walks are everywhere.
anigbrowl 6y ago
You have more power, therefore a greater burden should fall on the pedestrian than you? Hmm.
- umvi 6y ago
  Yes. If you disagree, jump in front of an oncoming train at the last second. After all the train has much more power than you and therefore the burden falls on the train operator to keep an eye out for you and save your life.
  - recursive 6y ago
    And in fact, train operators, do in fact make significant efforts to avoid killing people. It doesn't prevent all deaths. I believe it's reasonable to hold motorists to the same standard. "Make significant effort to avoid killing people". It's not a guarantee, if that's what you wanted to hear.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Train lines rarely run through shared space with pedestrians in the West. Cars want to run through shared space all over the place.
ck425 6y ago
> b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. I'd argue the opposite conclusion and say that as one operating dangerous machinery you should be given lower right of way for safety reasons. The burden should be on you to drive safely more than others to safely stay out of your way. > So that they take responsibility for their own safety And what about your responsibility as the person choosing to speed around in a ton of metal? > In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea. There's a chicken and the egg problem here. Such cities came about because of monopolization of streets by drivers. We can't change that over night but given the vast benefits of people centric urban design we should be tilting the balance away from cars and towards people.
retsibsi 6y ago
> because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. I think this point supports the other side of the argument. The pedestrian already has a very strong incentive to be careful: they might die otherwise. Of course most car drivers would be horrified to hit a pedestrian, but most care much less about a stranger's safety than their own (and some are complete psychos who won't care unless it materially costs them). So placing the main legal burden on the driver will do more to deter risky behaviour than would placing it on the pedestrian.

by umvi 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

All your arguments are about protecting yourself and limiting your liability at the expense of the pedestrian and you just slowing down and taking more care. You even talk in the passive voice about people being struck by your car rather than you striking them with your car. That's a shit attitude.

umvi 6y ago
Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue? I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe. So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively brake if pedestrians waited their turn at a designated crosswalk.
- falcolas 6y ago
  > Why am I being villainized Because cars bad, of course. Bicycles and pedestrians should always have the right of way in every situation, of course. If a pedestrian is walking in the lane on the highway, it's obviously the car's legal responsibility to make way for them. /s
- watwut 6y ago
  You argue by Germany and in Germany jaywalking the way it exists in USA does not really exist. There are a lot more options for pedestrians to cross the street, the marked crossing is not necessary. There are ways for pedestrian to get small fine, but generally cars are supposed to be in control and watch for pedestrians.
- francisofascii 6y ago
  In the effort to find common ground, maybe the villains are not the specific drivers, but the planners or collective culture who decided to built highway like roads next to shopping plazas. "The speed limit needs to be lowered" is a good compromise.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  You are the safety issue. Without you there is no safety issue. And you should drive accordingly.
  - umvi 6y ago
    It takes two to tango. Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. So jaywalkers should jaywalk accordingly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Without the jaywalker there is no safety issue either. This isn’t true - a street of just cars will have lethal crashes amongst themselves even with no pedestrians. A street of just pedestrians will never lethally bump into each other. The only lethal thing in the situation is the cars.
nineplay 6y ago
I would have to drive very far below the speed limit on any street in my vicinity to be able to safely stop before hitting a jaywalker. I can do that, of course, but I then become a road hazard. I find it hard to believe that the overall safety would increase as a result. I'm open to being otherwise convinced.
- ck425 6y ago
  The solution there is that you drop the speed limit for everyone and therefore you're not a road hazard. Anywhere that could have a reasonable number of pedestrians should have adopted limits such that the majority of traffic can safely stop before hitting someone in most cases. Drivers convenience should not trump people's lives.

tom_ 6y ago

Why can't you take some responsibility for their safety? You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
>"You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation." If somebody can dart out in front of my car, isn't that the fault of the person who darted? Or, the civil engineer who designed the road? How can you possibly say that I let myself get into this situation?
- tom_ 6y ago
  My point is: why were you not more carefully assessing the situation, to ensure that you were driving at an appropriate speed, given the risk of having somebody leap into the path of your car? That is after all a situation you presumably want to avoid. (Even if you don't care about hitting somebody, maybe at least consider that it's equivalent to having a 75 kg lump of meat fired at your car at, say, 35 mph.)
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    I've had pedestrians dart out in front of my path on three separate occasion in my life. Thankfully, I was aware enough to prevent hitting them. A combination of a slow enough speed, good brakes, enough distance, and luck (to be honest). It was a jarring experience each time, and each time it was completely unexpected. Of course I care about the life of the people who almost got hit - and I'm glad they didn't get maimed. But I absolutely did do a lot of cursing and wondering why they didn't look both ways.
inglor_cz 6y ago
From a city that has a lot of public transport (Prague): some people will dart in front of fully loaded buses, trams, or even trains at a railway crossing. That is humanity at its finest. (/s) I would be pissed off if maximum speed of a train (a 20000+ bhp murder machine, by your standard) that I use to commute was lowered to some 10 kph in order to keep those candidates of the Darwin Award alive. Being weaker (pedestrian) does not absolve you of all guilt if you decide to hazard with your life.

watwut 6y ago

> a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. In Germany, car drivers must always be prepared to brake for pedestrians, including children and elderly people. Children as young as 6-7 walk the streets alone or in packs, so the kid dashing is real possibility. No one is gonna call CPS over it, schools literally recommend first graders to walk to school alone. Pedestrian must use shortest path through street, but does not have to use crossing - you have to use crossing only if one is available within 40m or so. The power dynamic does not really plays out. The cars are slow in cities, cross walks are everywhere.

anigbrowl 6y ago

You have more power, therefore a greater burden should fall on the pedestrian than you? Hmm.

umvi 6y ago
Yes. If you disagree, jump in front of an oncoming train at the last second. After all the train has much more power than you and therefore the burden falls on the train operator to keep an eye out for you and save your life.
- recursive 6y ago
  And in fact, train operators, do in fact make significant efforts to avoid killing people. It doesn't prevent all deaths. I believe it's reasonable to hold motorists to the same standard. "Make significant effort to avoid killing people". It's not a guarantee, if that's what you wanted to hear.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Train lines rarely run through shared space with pedestrians in the West. Cars want to run through shared space all over the place.

ck425 6y ago

> b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. I'd argue the opposite conclusion and say that as one operating dangerous machinery you should be given lower right of way for safety reasons. The burden should be on you to drive safely more than others to safely stay out of your way. > So that they take responsibility for their own safety And what about your responsibility as the person choosing to speed around in a ton of metal? > In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea. There's a chicken and the egg problem here. Such cities came about because of monopolization of streets by drivers. We can't change that over night but given the vast benefits of people centric urban design we should be tilting the balance away from cars and towards people.

retsibsi 6y ago

> because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass. I think this point supports the other side of the argument. The pedestrian already has a very strong incentive to be careful: they might die otherwise. Of course most car drivers would be horrified to hit a pedestrian, but most care much less about a stranger's safety than their own (and some are complete psychos who won't care unless it materially costs them). So placing the main legal burden on the driver will do more to deter risky behaviour than would placing it on the pedestrian.