3 ms·

> A car can't stop on a dime. That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the perf

> A car can't stop on a dime. That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ? The UK already has designated areas with no pedestrians ("Motorways" ~= US highways [?]) and it has expended considerable resources closing or diverting at-grade crossings of railways (which obviously have a more extreme version of the "can't stop on a dime" problem). You aren't allowed on most airstrips at all, without special permission, in a vehicle or otherwise - so that mostly leaves cars hitting pedestrians, seems robustly like that's actually always the car driver's fault even if (as we see for "Jay-walking") they'd prefer to pretend it was not.

nerdjon 3y ago
> Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ? Because we have to share the space? Replace car with bike, and while the risk to the person walking is far less than with a car it's the same idea. Just pay attention and realize that you can stop on a dime (at least if your walking) as a human and something on wheels cannot. If you are a teenager and older and you don't know that a car can't stop on a dime and you run in front of one I don't know what to tell you, you should wether or not you have ever driven a car before. Ignorance is not a defense in my opinion. Edit: Also I am going to point out that any of our opinions on who is at fault, laws, or whatever has zero impact if your in the hospital or dead because you did something stupid as a pedestrian.
inglor_cz 3y ago
"That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ?" That is a pretty absurd take. Knowing that a ton of steel moving fast can kill you is a necessary knowledge in modern civilization, much like knowing that an enraged mammoth can kill you was a necessary knowledge in the Stone Age. And normal parents teach their children how to be safe(r) in the street long, long before they could possibly become drivers themselves.
userbinator 3y ago
It's absolutely insane to see the extremist anti-car faction here essentially trying to argue against the laws of physics. Humans can change velocity and look in all directions much easier than cars.
- savingsPossible 3y ago
  We are not arguing against the laws of physics We are arguing about the burden. Right now, the burden of preventing accidents is placed on pedestrians and kids. Everyone on foot needs to look carefully, and only step on the road when it is safe We could revert this burden. The cars need to drive in a way that, if a kid appears at a distance of X meters, they can fully stop without touching the kid. This would mean slower speeds and perhaps better breaks. Instead of parents afraid for their kids, we could get drivers afraid of jail, losing cars, heavy fines. There is no question that, when a car is allowed at absurd speeds (like 20 miles per hour -- see the graph in https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds) then the motorist has no time to react and incurs a risk of killing people. If we manage to restrict the speed to 20 mph everywhere a pedestrian might be reasonably expected, then the driver can (physically) react. What you are saying is basically: I want to drive in a monstrous speed so that it is impossible for me to prevent accidents, so you should prevent accidents. The problem is not the fact that the speed precludes your ability not to murder children (we agree it does!) but that you insist to be allowed to drive at those speeds anyway. Also, note that this speed we are asking for is typical for many people in rush hour (see: https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/los-angeles-traffic/ https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/los-angeles-traffic/) 20 mins for 10 km means 30 km/h, or around 18 miles/hour. So people drive most of the time at safe speeds (to commute) but still don't want to drive at safe speeds to avoid murdering children
  - userbinator 3y ago
    What "burden"? You might not even be alive today if it weren't for cars and all they've enabled. You're basically saying we should make cars uselessly slow, because "think of the children!!!1" It's trivial to look for cars when crossing the road. If you think otherwise, that's just your misguided ideology. Even animals know well enough to not put themselves in danger; and for the ones which don't, Darwin wins. No. I've had enough of these insane ideological battles.

nerdjon 3y ago

> Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ? Because we have to share the space? Replace car with bike, and while the risk to the person walking is far less than with a car it's the same idea. Just pay attention and realize that you can stop on a dime (at least if your walking) as a human and something on wheels cannot. If you are a teenager and older and you don't know that a car can't stop on a dime and you run in front of one I don't know what to tell you, you should wether or not you have ever driven a car before. Ignorance is not a defense in my opinion. Edit: Also I am going to point out that any of our opinions on who is at fault, laws, or whatever has zero impact if your in the hospital or dead because you did something stupid as a pedestrian.

inglor_cz 3y ago

"That sounds like a you problem. Why is it up to the pedestrian (who may have never driven a motor vehicle) to anticipate the performance characteristics of this large metal vehicle in the street ?" That is a pretty absurd take. Knowing that a ton of steel moving fast can kill you is a necessary knowledge in modern civilization, much like knowing that an enraged mammoth can kill you was a necessary knowledge in the Stone Age. And normal parents teach their children how to be safe(r) in the street long, long before they could possibly become drivers themselves.

userbinator 3y ago

It's absolutely insane to see the extremist anti-car faction here essentially trying to argue against the laws of physics. Humans can change velocity and look in all directions much easier than cars.

savingsPossible 3y ago
We are not arguing against the laws of physics We are arguing about the burden. Right now, the burden of preventing accidents is placed on pedestrians and kids. Everyone on foot needs to look carefully, and only step on the road when it is safe We could revert this burden. The cars need to drive in a way that, if a kid appears at a distance of X meters, they can fully stop without touching the kid. This would mean slower speeds and perhaps better breaks. Instead of parents afraid for their kids, we could get drivers afraid of jail, losing cars, heavy fines. There is no question that, when a car is allowed at absurd speeds (like 20 miles per hour -- see the graph in https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds) then the motorist has no time to react and incurs a risk of killing people. If we manage to restrict the speed to 20 mph everywhere a pedestrian might be reasonably expected, then the driver can (physically) react. What you are saying is basically: I want to drive in a monstrous speed so that it is impossible for me to prevent accidents, so you should prevent accidents. The problem is not the fact that the speed precludes your ability not to murder children (we agree it does!) but that you insist to be allowed to drive at those speeds anyway. Also, note that this speed we are asking for is typical for many people in rush hour (see: https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/los-angeles-traffic/ https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/los-angeles-traffic/) 20 mins for 10 km means 30 km/h, or around 18 miles/hour. So people drive most of the time at safe speeds (to commute) but still don't want to drive at safe speeds to avoid murdering children
- userbinator 3y ago
  What "burden"? You might not even be alive today if it weren't for cars and all they've enabled. You're basically saying we should make cars uselessly slow, because "think of the children!!!1" It's trivial to look for cars when crossing the road. If you think otherwise, that's just your misguided ideology. Even animals know well enough to not put themselves in danger; and for the ones which don't, Darwin wins. No. I've had enough of these insane ideological battles.