5 ms·

"Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be"

kbenson 5y ago
That's not what I saw. I saw the car abort it's turn that would have taken it through the crosswalk in front of the people and not impeding them. Still illegal, but a far cry from almost hitting them. The car aborted (or was aborted by the driver) and stopped before finishing it's turn on the road from what I saw, leaving it at about a 45 degree angle instead of the 90 degrees it would eventually reach if it continued turning.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  I think it's the devil in the details here. "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing, nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing Was it though? Look closely, and maybe replay it a few times (I just did, another response to a different comment of mine had made this point so I looked). The car seems to have recovered itself, and the driver grabbed it a second later after it was already correcting. That it decided it needed to turn all of a sudden us perplexing, and something that should be looked into, but it also went back to a straight path a moment later, either because of pedestrians too close or because of some other reason. > nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible. "drove directly through where the people were going to be" most definitely implies that to my eyes. People die for exactly that reason all the time. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to communicate.
    - maybeOneDay 5y ago
      If you substitute those quoted words into the sentence I was responding to my meaning becomes less dramatic: > The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section. + > "Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be" reply = "The driver took over way before the car drove directly through where the people were going to be." If you are right that the car stopped itself then it's certainly not as large an error as I had assumed. I think what I was mainly trying to communicate was simply a disagreement with the person I was responding to who implied there was little wrong with this behaviour at all.
soheil 5y ago
Was going to drive != drove
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  Read the comment and substitute in my words. I didn't imply what you're saying I implied

kbenson 5y ago

That's not what I saw. I saw the car abort it's turn that would have taken it through the crosswalk in front of the people and not impeding them. Still illegal, but a far cry from almost hitting them. The car aborted (or was aborted by the driver) and stopped before finishing it's turn on the road from what I saw, leaving it at about a 45 degree angle instead of the 90 degrees it would eventually reach if it continued turning.

maybeOneDay 5y ago
I think it's the devil in the details here. "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing, nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing Was it though? Look closely, and maybe replay it a few times (I just did, another response to a different comment of mine had made this point so I looked). The car seems to have recovered itself, and the driver grabbed it a second later after it was already correcting. That it decided it needed to turn all of a sudden us perplexing, and something that should be looked into, but it also went back to a straight path a moment later, either because of pedestrians too close or because of some other reason. > nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible. "drove directly through where the people were going to be" most definitely implies that to my eyes. People die for exactly that reason all the time. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to communicate.
  - maybeOneDay 5y ago
    If you substitute those quoted words into the sentence I was responding to my meaning becomes less dramatic: > The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section. + > "Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be" reply = "The driver took over way before the car drove directly through where the people were going to be." If you are right that the car stopped itself then it's certainly not as large an error as I had assumed. I think what I was mainly trying to communicate was simply a disagreement with the person I was responding to who implied there was little wrong with this behaviour at all.

soheil 5y ago

Was going to drive != drove

maybeOneDay 5y ago
Read the comment and substitute in my words. I didn't imply what you're saying I implied