5 ms·

>I don't want to blame the victims, but But you basically are. You're driving a multi-ton hunk of steel around, and the onus is squarely on you to make sure y

>I don't want to blame the victims, but But you basically are. You're driving a multi-ton hunk of steel around, and the onus is squarely on you to make sure you're driving it safely, which necessarily means proper lighting at night. The city you live in is the second responsible party, because it's up to them to light streets appropriately, especially at designated crossing points. Most if the time they do it the North American way instead.

notacoward 5y ago
> You're driving a multi-ton hunk of steel around No, sometimes I'm the pedestrian. As such, regardless of whatever anyone else does, I bear some responsibility for ensuring my own safety. I owe it to my family. I owe it to other pedestrians, any of whom could become a victim if a driver avoiding me swerves into them. Drivers failing to see pedestrians in the dark at night happens even with the greatest caution. There's no excuse for being an idiot, or BTW for insisting on such a right. If you have an objection to ducking responsibility and always pointing the finger of blame outward, consider your own statements. > it's up to them to light streets appropriately It's not feasible or environmentally responsible to light every inch of roadway even on side/residential streets or rural areas, and I sincerely doubt that happens where you live either. Also, lights fail sometimes. If people want to enter the commons, they have a responsibility to participate in keeping it safe.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  >No, sometimes I'm the pedestrian. Yes, and sometimes I'm the driver. I'm talking about those other times, and the "you" was used in the general sense. I guess we have a significant philosophical difference about how we see this problem. I approach it in much the same way as a woman would deal with the threat of being raped - sure, one should always take measures to watch out for oneself, but at no point can it be reasonably cast as "taking responsibility", because the responsibility always rests with the guilty party, the attacker (or the inattentive driver whose negligence becomes criminal if someone's hurt). It's not good enough to say "here are some rape whistles, purrsonal responsibility gals". And it's not good enough to say "shit happens, drivers sometimes don't care, wear some reflective vests, maybe put on a blinking light and a little spinning propeller on your hat to be more noticeable". No. Instead, we should (and some of us do) demand actual accountability for drivers who kill pedestrians through inattention. We don't have that in North America, and as a direct consequence a lot more people die on our streets, and blinking lights or reflective vests don't have squat to do with that. And we do insist on proper lighting of designated pedestrian crossings, at the very least. Pretty sure walking + more street lights is far more environmentally friendly than driving + no street lights at all. The responsibility lies squarely with the driver. Starts with the driver, stops with the driver. Lack of proper lighting can be a contributing factor, but it's the driver's responsibility to account for that. And all this muddying the waters, with this "yeah but was your hat blinking", is unhelpful.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > I guess we have a significant philosophical difference Yeah, if arguing in good faith or not is a philosophical difference. > we do insist on proper lighting of designated pedestrian crossings Really? Even when two residential streets (which I specifically mentioned) cross? Nope. Show me the statute or GTFO. Restricting this only to "designated crossings" makes it circular. > Pretty sure walking + more street lights is far more environmentally friendly than driving + no street lights at all. This isn't about a future/hypothetical world where more walk and fewer drive. It's about the here and now where the two mix. Another red herring. It would be nice if you or the other "let the little people drive for me" folks could write a whole paragraph without a fallacy. > I approach it in much the same way as a woman would deal with the threat of being raped You're seriously trying to compare auto accidents to rape? I already anticipated that bullshit, e.g. by mentioning the third-party risk. An accident is not the same as an assault. Rape is horrible and auto accidents are horrible, but they're different in many ways. That's a false analogy, appealing to emotion rather than reason, and I won't dignify it or you by engaging further.

notacoward 5y ago

> You're driving a multi-ton hunk of steel around No, sometimes I'm the pedestrian. As such, regardless of whatever anyone else does, I bear some responsibility for ensuring my own safety. I owe it to my family. I owe it to other pedestrians, any of whom could become a victim if a driver avoiding me swerves into them. Drivers failing to see pedestrians in the dark at night happens even with the greatest caution. There's no excuse for being an idiot, or BTW for insisting on such a right. If you have an objection to ducking responsibility and always pointing the finger of blame outward, consider your own statements. > it's up to them to light streets appropriately It's not feasible or environmentally responsible to light every inch of roadway even on side/residential streets or rural areas, and I sincerely doubt that happens where you live either. Also, lights fail sometimes. If people want to enter the commons, they have a responsibility to participate in keeping it safe.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
>No, sometimes I'm the pedestrian. Yes, and sometimes I'm the driver. I'm talking about those other times, and the "you" was used in the general sense. I guess we have a significant philosophical difference about how we see this problem. I approach it in much the same way as a woman would deal with the threat of being raped - sure, one should always take measures to watch out for oneself, but at no point can it be reasonably cast as "taking responsibility", because the responsibility always rests with the guilty party, the attacker (or the inattentive driver whose negligence becomes criminal if someone's hurt). It's not good enough to say "here are some rape whistles, purrsonal responsibility gals". And it's not good enough to say "shit happens, drivers sometimes don't care, wear some reflective vests, maybe put on a blinking light and a little spinning propeller on your hat to be more noticeable". No. Instead, we should (and some of us do) demand actual accountability for drivers who kill pedestrians through inattention. We don't have that in North America, and as a direct consequence a lot more people die on our streets, and blinking lights or reflective vests don't have squat to do with that. And we do insist on proper lighting of designated pedestrian crossings, at the very least. Pretty sure walking + more street lights is far more environmentally friendly than driving + no street lights at all. The responsibility lies squarely with the driver. Starts with the driver, stops with the driver. Lack of proper lighting can be a contributing factor, but it's the driver's responsibility to account for that. And all this muddying the waters, with this "yeah but was your hat blinking", is unhelpful.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > I guess we have a significant philosophical difference Yeah, if arguing in good faith or not is a philosophical difference. > we do insist on proper lighting of designated pedestrian crossings Really? Even when two residential streets (which I specifically mentioned) cross? Nope. Show me the statute or GTFO. Restricting this only to "designated crossings" makes it circular. > Pretty sure walking + more street lights is far more environmentally friendly than driving + no street lights at all. This isn't about a future/hypothetical world where more walk and fewer drive. It's about the here and now where the two mix. Another red herring. It would be nice if you or the other "let the little people drive for me" folks could write a whole paragraph without a fallacy. > I approach it in much the same way as a woman would deal with the threat of being raped You're seriously trying to compare auto accidents to rape? I already anticipated that bullshit, e.g. by mentioning the third-party risk. An accident is not the same as an assault. Rape is horrible and auto accidents are horrible, but they're different in many ways. That's a false analogy, appealing to emotion rather than reason, and I won't dignify it or you by engaging further.