4 ms·
It's not about class, it's about staying alive. Cars win any encounter, hands down. My rule of crossing streets is to assume I am invisible and the drivers are
by eikenberry 2y ago
It's not about class, it's about staying alive. Cars win any encounter, hands down. My rule of crossing streets is to assume I am invisible and the drivers are not aware of my existence. This is, IMO, the only safe rule to follow when crossing the paths of fast moving, multi-ton machines with only minimal requirements made of the driver.
- hifromwork 2y agoBut we're talking about writing laws here. For example: >with only minimal requirements made of the driver. could easily be changed by changing the requirements.
- pokeymcsnatch 2y agoNo law is going to physically protect you from a 2 ton hunk of steel.
- david-gpu 2y agoNot so sure about that one. Commercial drivers are involved in collisions less frequently, and the more stringent licensing requirements (i.e. a law) are probably helping with that. Drivers knowing that they will get away with mowing down a pedestrian so long as they say they didn't see them is also going to encourage dangerous driving. Most importantly, laws that promote safer street designs make a massive difference in pedestrian fatalities. All this to say that: laws do protect people from 2ton hunks of steel.
- anon373839 2y ago> Drivers knowing that they will get away with mowing down a pedestrian so long as they say they didn't see them is also going to encourage dangerous driving. This is silly. Nobody thinks this. ”Mowing down a pedestrian”, even if one has a perfect legal defense, would be incredibly traumatic even for the driver. Traffic rules ought to be engineered with practicality (physics, the limits of human cognition and visual perception, etc.) paramount.