5 ms·

The problem is drivers, every single time. DRIVERS hit pedestrians. If a pedestrian avoids it because they hear a motor that's a NEAR MISS that STILL needs to b

The problem is drivers, every single time. DRIVERS hit pedestrians. If a pedestrian avoids it because they hear a motor that's a NEAR MISS that STILL needs to be addressed by drivers. Drivers have all the responsibility. This is not an electric car problem. This is a DRIVER problem. And needs to be addressed from that perspective. Just yesterday I was nearly hit by two drivers. One turning right on a full red who didn't slow down any more than they would on a green light. I was in the crosswalk. Then a driver turning right at a stop sign who didn't even look to their right. I was in the crosswalk. Don't talk to me about TECHNOLOGY. Tell me how we fix DRIVING.

hindsightbias 2y ago
robotaxis equipped with cowbells. Problem solved.
- prepend 2y ago
  Robotaxis will fix this problem as they just won’t hit pedestrians as much because they’ll check for pedestrians.
  - emodendroket 2y ago
    So far that prediction hasn’t borne out.
    - prepend 2y ago
      Robotaxis hit far fewer pedestrians per mile than human driven cars.
      - emodendroket 2y ago
        I see this asserted often but the serious attempts to tabulate it I've seen showed the opposite.
  - TheCleric 2y ago
    Can’t see the pedestrian if they’re already under the robotaxi.
patrick451 2y ago
Defining safety as a univariate problem is naive at best. All robust safety protocols involve multiple, redundant layers. This means both drives and electric cars are part of the problem. Denying this makes about as much sense as being mad at the clouds.
emodendroket 2y ago
If the idea is just we tell people they need to be responsible or slap them with harsher penalties after the fact I doubt it is going to help that much. A lot of the answer involves technology (even if the “technology” is speed bumps or different kinds of intersections) to make it less likely that an inattentive driver has the opportunity to hurt pedestrians.
- galdosdi 2y ago
  There's a technology called a driver's licensing and examination bureaucracy. It was invented hundreds, maybe thousands of years ago (not for driving obviously but the basic idea of having a state bureacracy that administers exams and tracks and validates agaainst something like a written database of who has passed them in exchange for special privileges under the law -- the Chinese had a merit exam system in ancient times for xample; medieval Europe had all kinds of licenses, guilds, and other ways individuals had to prove they were good enough to be able to do something, for bettter or worse). In other countries with more stringent licensing systems, driving poor behavior is much less. So yeah, it's an easily solvable problem that involves just being willing to better apply an ancient technology. I'm not kidding about calling this a technology -- you need writing and central state administration to carry this out, and those were pretty big advanced 10,000 years ago. We should probably have figured it out by now here in the backwards (on this specific topic) USA.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Could you expand more on what you mean in place of the sarcasm/exasperation of how obvious it is? The US has drivers licenses, driver examinations for those licenses, and revocation penalties (similar to most other countries) and the problem persists so it seems there are particular changes to those you think would resolve things?
    - tekla 2y ago
      Make them harder. Most require no effort at all. And make revocation easier, or mandatory after a fatal collision.
chung8123 2y ago
I think we also need to fix communication. If I am at the corner of a road waiting to cross one direction and the other direction turns to walk the car doesn't know if the pedestrian is going to cross or not.
NoPicklez 2y ago
That's ridiculous, it's not every single time. The examples you list are because of drivers blatantly breaking the law. If a pedestrian walks across the road without giving way and only manages to backtrack because they heard a vehicle, that's a near miss that is the fault of a pedestrian not the driver. Drivers do not have all the responsibility in all cases.
- scotty79 2y ago
  It's always drivers fault because they are the ones who chose to operate heavy machinery in the vicinity of random people.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    A while ago I had to brake hard because a person jumped onto the highway trying to cross it. Would it be my fault if we made contact?
    - scotty79 2y ago
      yes, if there are pedestrians present around your anticipated trajectory you should always adjust your speed to the level that lets you stop if they for whatever reason decide to cross you trajectory same if there are any occlusions that prevent you from making sure that there are no people that could cross your trajectory
      - Tade0 2y ago
        He emerged from behind an acoustic panel, so I wasn't seeing him there - he wasn't even supposed to be there anyway. Actually, if I arrived a second later I would not have enough time to react. Would it be still my fault then?
        scotty79 2y ago
        > He emerged from behind an acoustic panel, so I wasn't seeing him there You were seeing acoustic panel, and the edge of it from where someone could conceivably emerge. Yes. You might think it's unfair. But the world and life and even law is unfair from time to time. Getting behind the wheel means taking upon yourself a risk of consequences of events you are not in full control of. You are in control of how much risk you want to accept. If on a given road it is strictly forbidden to exceed some speed it doesn't meant that you can safely drive at this limit or you are absolved of responsibility of consequences of doing so. If you were doing 90 instead of 130 (assuming it was allowed there) you'd have more time to react and less risk so a second wouldn't be a matter of life and death.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
> DRIVERS hit pedestrians. That's crazy. Next you'll tell me guns don't kill people.
solumunus 2y ago
This is so silly. Technology is a variable in road safety, if that variable can be manipulated to reduce accidents then of course we should look at that. We’ve been doing this for decades already. Technological regulation of cars has had a massively positive impact on road safety outcomes. Your argument is all of that was pointless and we should have purely focused on improving drivers? No, obviously we do both. Obviously!
apantel 2y ago
Maybe if you had been making more noise the drivers would have noticed you!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hindsightbias 2y ago

robotaxis equipped with cowbells. Problem solved.

prepend 2y ago
Robotaxis will fix this problem as they just won’t hit pedestrians as much because they’ll check for pedestrians.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  So far that prediction hasn’t borne out.
  - prepend 2y ago
    Robotaxis hit far fewer pedestrians per mile than human driven cars.
    - emodendroket 2y ago
      I see this asserted often but the serious attempts to tabulate it I've seen showed the opposite.
- TheCleric 2y ago
  Can’t see the pedestrian if they’re already under the robotaxi.

patrick451 2y ago

Defining safety as a univariate problem is naive at best. All robust safety protocols involve multiple, redundant layers. This means both drives and electric cars are part of the problem. Denying this makes about as much sense as being mad at the clouds.

emodendroket 2y ago

If the idea is just we tell people they need to be responsible or slap them with harsher penalties after the fact I doubt it is going to help that much. A lot of the answer involves technology (even if the “technology” is speed bumps or different kinds of intersections) to make it less likely that an inattentive driver has the opportunity to hurt pedestrians.

galdosdi 2y ago
There's a technology called a driver's licensing and examination bureaucracy. It was invented hundreds, maybe thousands of years ago (not for driving obviously but the basic idea of having a state bureacracy that administers exams and tracks and validates agaainst something like a written database of who has passed them in exchange for special privileges under the law -- the Chinese had a merit exam system in ancient times for xample; medieval Europe had all kinds of licenses, guilds, and other ways individuals had to prove they were good enough to be able to do something, for bettter or worse). In other countries with more stringent licensing systems, driving poor behavior is much less. So yeah, it's an easily solvable problem that involves just being willing to better apply an ancient technology. I'm not kidding about calling this a technology -- you need writing and central state administration to carry this out, and those were pretty big advanced 10,000 years ago. We should probably have figured it out by now here in the backwards (on this specific topic) USA.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Could you expand more on what you mean in place of the sarcasm/exasperation of how obvious it is? The US has drivers licenses, driver examinations for those licenses, and revocation penalties (similar to most other countries) and the problem persists so it seems there are particular changes to those you think would resolve things?
  - tekla 2y ago
    Make them harder. Most require no effort at all. And make revocation easier, or mandatory after a fatal collision.

chung8123 2y ago

I think we also need to fix communication. If I am at the corner of a road waiting to cross one direction and the other direction turns to walk the car doesn't know if the pedestrian is going to cross or not.

NoPicklez 2y ago

That's ridiculous, it's not every single time. The examples you list are because of drivers blatantly breaking the law. If a pedestrian walks across the road without giving way and only manages to backtrack because they heard a vehicle, that's a near miss that is the fault of a pedestrian not the driver. Drivers do not have all the responsibility in all cases.

scotty79 2y ago
It's always drivers fault because they are the ones who chose to operate heavy machinery in the vicinity of random people.
- Tade0 2y ago
  A while ago I had to brake hard because a person jumped onto the highway trying to cross it. Would it be my fault if we made contact?
  - scotty79 2y ago
    yes, if there are pedestrians present around your anticipated trajectory you should always adjust your speed to the level that lets you stop if they for whatever reason decide to cross you trajectory same if there are any occlusions that prevent you from making sure that there are no people that could cross your trajectory
    - Tade0 2y ago
      He emerged from behind an acoustic panel, so I wasn't seeing him there - he wasn't even supposed to be there anyway. Actually, if I arrived a second later I would not have enough time to react. Would it be still my fault then?
      - scotty79 2y ago
        > He emerged from behind an acoustic panel, so I wasn't seeing him there You were seeing acoustic panel, and the edge of it from where someone could conceivably emerge. Yes. You might think it's unfair. But the world and life and even law is unfair from time to time. Getting behind the wheel means taking upon yourself a risk of consequences of events you are not in full control of. You are in control of how much risk you want to accept. If on a given road it is strictly forbidden to exceed some speed it doesn't meant that you can safely drive at this limit or you are absolved of responsibility of consequences of doing so. If you were doing 90 instead of 130 (assuming it was allowed there) you'd have more time to react and less risk so a second wouldn't be a matter of life and death.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago

> DRIVERS hit pedestrians. That's crazy. Next you'll tell me guns don't kill people.

solumunus 2y ago

This is so silly. Technology is a variable in road safety, if that variable can be manipulated to reduce accidents then of course we should look at that. We’ve been doing this for decades already. Technological regulation of cars has had a massively positive impact on road safety outcomes. Your argument is all of that was pointless and we should have purely focused on improving drivers? No, obviously we do both. Obviously!

apantel 2y ago

Maybe if you had been making more noise the drivers would have noticed you!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]