5 ms·
On the reflective gear, such thinking only shifts the blame from the drivers to the pedestrians. It's the car that has the light, the driver that controls the s
by TomK32 4y ago
On the reflective gear, such thinking only shifts the blame from the drivers to the pedestrians. It's the car that has the light, the driver that controls the speed and it's their responsibility to be able to stop their car quickly enough. After all distraction and speeding are the main causes for accidents here in Austria, reflective gear can't change that. The solution to reduce distraction and speeding is changing the road layout so drivers feel less comfortable to speed. Narrower roads, trees, speed bumps, even cobble stones will do the trick.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoBlame is not always 100% on one side. If it is difficult to see you, especially at night, it is dangerous for you and cars (obviously more for you as pedestrian) even if drivers are prudent. Help cars and help yourself by being visible.
- secretsatan 4y agoI don't see why walking around town should need protective gear, maybe we should wear helmets too?
- macintux 4y agoIf a driver turns off all their lights and gets hit, you don’t think the driver shares some of the blame? Pedestrians wearing dark clothes at night are almost invisible. Until we put sidewalks and bright crosswalks on every street in the country, wearing reflective clothes is common sense. Comparing that to a helmet mandate is absurd.
- secretsatan 4y agoUgh, talk about a false equivalence No, someone who pops out to the shops should not have to think about putting on reflective gear, someone who goes out in a car a night should be the ** aware pedestrians exist and know to turn their lights on.
- ticviking 4y agoNo because the default for all of human existence is that I wear my normal street clothing to walk from my home to my neighbors house, or the market. The idea that innovations demand normal folks to change their way of life is absurd on the face. Very simple measures, like major consequences for all vehicle-pedestrian collisions would solve this better.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago>”like major consequences for all vehicle-pedestrian collisions would solve this better.” There are already major consequences for hitting a pedestrian.
- andrepd 4y agoYes, for the pedestrian. A driver can pretty much commit murder behind the wheel and get by with token penalties.
- ticviking 4y agoA failure to yield citation, maybe with an additional citation for negligent or distracted driving is not a major consequence. Insurance tends to cover the monetary cost of the civil suit, and higher auto insurance bills aren't really a "major consequence" either. To be charged with vehicular assault or manslaughter you have to prove intent, most of these collisions are a result of mild negligence or even poor roadway design. Many states don't have any kind of charge for negligent collision that results in jail time. And yes if you kill or injure someone while driving distracted I think 3-6 months in jail is still pretty minor, given that consequences can be permanent.
- slhck 4y agoSure, it does not hurt to wear such clothes. But those arguments aren't mutually exclusive, and by always repeating them, public discussions tend to shift towards the arguments that blame the weaker ones (i.e., cyclists, pedestrians), often neglecting the underlying issues at fault (reckless car drivers or unsafe infrastructure). For instance, in many cases, when a car has injured a cyclist severely, there could have been infrastructure to prevent this (e.g. separate bike lanes, clear road layouts, …). A helmet would not have prevented the accident. Similarly, unless someone's crossing a dark street at night without looking for oncoming traffic, why should pedestrians have to be wearing reflective gear all the time, when there could be well-illuminated crosswalks, slower driving speeds, speed bumps etc.? (I'm not claiming there aren't cyclists ignoring red lights or pedestrians randomly crossing roads in unsafe situations … that's usually the next argument.)
- mytailorisrich 4y agoI don't understand the problem and, seemingly, the outrage in some of the replies. If it is dark and there's traffic it is safer and useful for everyone to be visible. Obviously this depends on how well the streets are lit, if they are very well lit it may not be a big issue. As a pedestrian at night (which is pretty much any commute to/from work in winter in the UK) I know that sometimes cars don't see me or see me at the last moment if I wear dark clothes, or even any clothes that are not high-viz. And as a driver I know that this is because pedestrians, or even cyclists at crossings, can be very difficult to see in low light conditions (good forbid there's fog as well!) even if you're driving carefully. This is all common sense, really. In my neighbourhood, which is residential and poorly lit as many are here in the UK, people also wear lights on themselves when they walk their dogs in the evening, and they usually also make the dogs wear lights. When I go running in the evening I wear a high-viz jacket and one of those chest lights so that I can be seen and can see the potholes as well. Again, common sense for safety in such conditions.
- citrin_ru 4y agoNo matter who is to blame reflective elements on clothing increase visibility and safety. Of course nothing would help if a driver is distracted by a smartphone but this is another problem. As a pedestrian I wish I could wear only jackets with reflective stripes but in most cases there is no such option available. Even when I cycle (which implies speed much lower than for a car) I sometimes notice pedestrians in dark garments (without reflective elements) at a small distance and have to brake hard (moving light beam up would help to see them further but it would blind both pedestrians and other drivers).
- sagarm 4y agoSo dark colored cars are also dangerous then?
- cowgoesmoo 4y agoCars have lights and reflectors
- yeetawayhn 4y agoWhere is it legal to operate a dark colored car in the dark without lights?
- Someone 4y agoWe require cars and bicycles to have lights on at night to make it easier for other drivers to be able to stop their car quickly enough. I don’t see why we couldn’t require some reasonable action from pedestrians, too. I’m not suggesting pedestrians should become Christmas trees, but things like “don’t be dressed in Vantablack” seem reasonable to me. Firstly, though, street designs should aim to have street lighting wherever car drivers and pedestrians are expected to interact.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago"Being a pedestrian" is the default state of a human outdoors. What are you going to do to enforce a requirement someone fails to meet take away their going outside privileges?
- sokoloff 4y agoThe car has the light and is already contributing to being able to see and avoid the pedestrian. The pedestrian now has an independent choice to wear clothing that helps make themself visible or clothing that makes them harder to see. Their own safety will be affected by their choice. I wouldn’t pass a law requiring it, but I do choose light/visible clothes for myself and for my family when out at night.
- ksimukka 4y agoThe logic behind my thinking is more based on what we do as humans to be safe. For example: When it is cold, we wear protective gear to keep us warm. When the UV index is high, we wear protective gear to protect our skin. When it is dark, we wear reflective elements to be seen. Obviously not everyone subscribed to that thinking, and it is not my intention to shift blame.
- wolverine876 4y agoIt doesn't shift blame because there is no blame. It's just the mechanics of human factors: reflective clothing adds visbility, which increases available response time of drivers, which reduces injury.