3 ms·

You appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in

You appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in front of them (side-impact) and when in traffic, larger vehicles can't stop in time.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
There's a few lifetimes worth of dashcam video on youtube that clearly show (metaphorically speaking, a lot of them are 480p after all) it's often not that simple.
- phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
  What is the "it" you are referring to?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Attributing fault for an accident. Plenty of cases where someone gets hit from behind because they pulled into traffic with too little room to spare or did something other traffic participants could not have reasonably forseen. Yeah there are plenty of people who text message their way into stopped traffic but there's enough edge cases that the generalization falls down.
    - phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
      I would also be interested in data showing that people being run into were mostly at fault. That's not how things happen in MI.
sparrish 6y ago
My comment didn't put culpability on anyone. The comment I was replying to wondered why those two categories were worse. I supposed there's a connection between the size of the vehicle and the visibility (being seen and not being able to see).
- phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
  sparrish> I suppose smaller cars are harder to see at intersections (side-impact) and when in traffic, smaller cars can't see past the larger vehicles in front of them to see the traffic stopping so braking response is slower. phjesusthatguy3> You appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in front of them (side-impact) and when in traffic, larger vehicles can't stop in time. To make it clear: I'm blaming the vehicle that runs into the other vehicle. You appear to be saying "if the vehicle that got run into was more visible, it wouldn't have gotten run into"

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

There's a few lifetimes worth of dashcam video on youtube that clearly show (metaphorically speaking, a lot of them are 480p after all) it's often not that simple.

phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
What is the "it" you are referring to?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Attributing fault for an accident. Plenty of cases where someone gets hit from behind because they pulled into traffic with too little room to spare or did something other traffic participants could not have reasonably forseen. Yeah there are plenty of people who text message their way into stopped traffic but there's enough edge cases that the generalization falls down.
  - phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
    I would also be interested in data showing that people being run into were mostly at fault. That's not how things happen in MI.

sparrish 6y ago

My comment didn't put culpability on anyone. The comment I was replying to wondered why those two categories were worse. I supposed there's a connection between the size of the vehicle and the visibility (being seen and not being able to see).

phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
sparrish> I suppose smaller cars are harder to see at intersections (side-impact) and when in traffic, smaller cars can't see past the larger vehicles in front of them to see the traffic stopping so braking response is slower. phjesusthatguy3> You appear to be blaming the person being run into, which is almost always wrong (at least in Michigan) ITYM people in larger cars can't see what's going on in front of them (side-impact) and when in traffic, larger vehicles can't stop in time. To make it clear: I'm blaming the vehicle that runs into the other vehicle. You appear to be saying "if the vehicle that got run into was more visible, it wouldn't have gotten run into"