5 ms·

Because a car is much more dangerous than a bike and regulated much looser than a bus or a truck. There's a high likelihood on an auto heavy street that as a cy

Because a car is much more dangerous than a bike and regulated much looser than a bus or a truck. There's a high likelihood on an auto heavy street that as a cyclist I gravely hurt myself or lose my life while the driver only had to pay a fine and or higher insurance. I'd gladly support an alternative where any accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian results in immediate license seizure, but that's even more politically dead in the water than closing a street off from cars in the US. Cars in the US are very lightly regulated heavy machinery.

josephcsible 5y ago
> I'd gladly support an alternative where any accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian results in immediate license seizure If I'm going the speed limit, and a pedestrian on the sidewalk 6 inches away from me (because someone decided that narrow lanes are better) decides to step in front of me, not at a crosswalk, avoiding an accident would require me to have a negative reaction time. Are you saying I'd deserve to have my license seized in that case?
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  Yes and get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault. Right now damages are not proportionate between drivers and anyone else, so a rational actor will drive. If this is acceptable I'll take it and let cars gladly downtown. Elsewise, I'll take a ban on cars in downtown streets.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system?
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      If I need to accept the risk of maiming to play, the other side does not, and both of us are innocent until proven guilty, then I'm not playing unless I really have no alternative. Unsurprisingly this is what actually happens in the US; only a few people proportionally actually use non car modes on streets. The majority are those that have no other option, either because they cannot own a car for cost reasons or other physical or legal reasons (physical disability, suspended licenses, etc). > You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system? Come on, stop putting words in my mouth. We're talking about city downtowns not the whole US. I'm for restricting car use there, which you claim is authoritarian. I proposed an alternative, one used in the Netherlands, to put the onus of harm on the less vulnerable party and balance unfair externalities. You complain that this is "guilty-until-proven-innocent". If you want to rules lawyer your way to a car hegemony be my guest, but I'll continue to advocate for decreasing the unbalanced harms to non-car drivers on American streets.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > > You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system? > Come on, stop putting words in my mouth. Here's what you previously said: > any accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian results in immediate license seizure > and get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault Are you saying you don't consider that to be a guilty-until-proven-innocent system?
        techdragon 5y ago
        The thing I noticed is you seem to be associating the seizure of the license as some form of guilt, where as sat least to be it seems like the equivalent of a “but don’t leave town” warning from the cops. You’re not guilty but you are under investigation to determine if you are guilty, so they politely ask you to not run away in case they have any more questions that could help prove you innocent (I’m obviously putting aside the fact that reality doesn’t work this way anymore for loads of reasons when it comes to the police). The same goes for your license, you are involved in an incident where you being an irresponsible driver is one possible result, preventing you doing further irresponsible driving is justified prior to the conclusion of the investigation and has nothing to do with innocent or guilty.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > If I'm going the speed limit, and a pedestrian on the sidewalk 6 inches away from me [...] decides to step in front of me Which she presumably had to do to avoid the oncoming double stroller without diving into the pile of trash bags awaiting pickup. I disagree with the GP, this isn't merely about penalties for drivers. We've allocated an inordinate portion of available space to large metal vehicles carrying just one or two humans each, and left the scraps to be shared between all pedestrians, skateboarders, outdoor restaurants, parking meters, trash bags, trees, and all manner of other things. Because of course, you can't put the trees in the middle of the street, what would all the cars do? And then the pedestrians also spend 20% of their time waiting at traffic lights that are only necessary because cars are death machines that can't stop quickly enough. The fact that avoiding an accident "would require [you] to have a negative reaction time" is exactly why cars are inappropriate for busy city centers.

josephcsible 5y ago

> I'd gladly support an alternative where any accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian results in immediate license seizure If I'm going the speed limit, and a pedestrian on the sidewalk 6 inches away from me (because someone decided that narrow lanes are better) decides to step in front of me, not at a crosswalk, avoiding an accident would require me to have a negative reaction time. Are you saying I'd deserve to have my license seized in that case?

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
Yes and get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault. Right now damages are not proportionate between drivers and anyone else, so a rational actor will drive. If this is acceptable I'll take it and let cars gladly downtown. Elsewise, I'll take a ban on cars in downtown streets.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system?
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    If I need to accept the risk of maiming to play, the other side does not, and both of us are innocent until proven guilty, then I'm not playing unless I really have no alternative. Unsurprisingly this is what actually happens in the US; only a few people proportionally actually use non car modes on streets. The majority are those that have no other option, either because they cannot own a car for cost reasons or other physical or legal reasons (physical disability, suspended licenses, etc). > You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system? Come on, stop putting words in my mouth. We're talking about city downtowns not the whole US. I'm for restricting car use there, which you claim is authoritarian. I proposed an alternative, one used in the Netherlands, to put the onus of harm on the less vulnerable party and balance unfair externalities. You complain that this is "guilty-until-proven-innocent". If you want to rules lawyer your way to a car hegemony be my guest, but I'll continue to advocate for decreasing the unbalanced harms to non-car drivers on American streets.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > > You're advocating for a guilty-until-proven-innocent system? > Come on, stop putting words in my mouth. Here's what you previously said: > any accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian results in immediate license seizure > and get it back after police/judge agrees that it isn't your fault Are you saying you don't consider that to be a guilty-until-proven-innocent system?
      - techdragon 5y ago
        The thing I noticed is you seem to be associating the seizure of the license as some form of guilt, where as sat least to be it seems like the equivalent of a “but don’t leave town” warning from the cops. You’re not guilty but you are under investigation to determine if you are guilty, so they politely ask you to not run away in case they have any more questions that could help prove you innocent (I’m obviously putting aside the fact that reality doesn’t work this way anymore for loads of reasons when it comes to the police). The same goes for your license, you are involved in an incident where you being an irresponsible driver is one possible result, preventing you doing further irresponsible driving is justified prior to the conclusion of the investigation and has nothing to do with innocent or guilty.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> If I'm going the speed limit, and a pedestrian on the sidewalk 6 inches away from me [...] decides to step in front of me Which she presumably had to do to avoid the oncoming double stroller without diving into the pile of trash bags awaiting pickup. I disagree with the GP, this isn't merely about penalties for drivers. We've allocated an inordinate portion of available space to large metal vehicles carrying just one or two humans each, and left the scraps to be shared between all pedestrians, skateboarders, outdoor restaurants, parking meters, trash bags, trees, and all manner of other things. Because of course, you can't put the trees in the middle of the street, what would all the cars do? And then the pedestrians also spend 20% of their time waiting at traffic lights that are only necessary because cars are death machines that can't stop quickly enough. The fact that avoiding an accident "would require [you] to have a negative reaction time" is exactly why cars are inappropriate for busy city centers.