4 ms·
Of course, the very idea of jaywalking was created to remove the obligation to not kill people from drivers and shift it to the very people being killed, but th
by CalRobert 10mo ago
Of course, the very idea of jaywalking was created to remove the obligation to not kill people from drivers and shift it to the very people being killed, but this doesn’t seem to bother the meddling grandmothers.
- potato3732842 10mo agoThese are generally the same boot licking demographics who'll sit and wait out a 2min light cycle at 1:45am rather than treating it like a 4-way stop. Putting their money where their mouth is puts them head and shoulders above the types that tend to dominate the discussion on such issues.
- wat10000 10mo agoThat’s not boot licking, that’s “I don’t want to get a ticket, and just because I don’t see a cop doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”
- potato3732842 10mo agoFine then. They drive the speed limit in the left lane or whatever. Point is that the people who advocate for the rules in obscenely trivial situations when deviating them them is in fine taste tend to be drawn from the pool of "robotic rule follower with no extra thought given" type people. Which has the side effect of making them consistent with what they preach.
- systemtest 10mo agoI was in Germany once at a red light for a pedestrian crossing. After the last pedestrian had fully crossed the street and the pedestrian light turned red I drove off. I did not wait for my own light to turn green which is typical in my country. The person behind me flashed their lights. Cultural difference I guess. Why wait when there is nothing to wait for.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- pqtyw 10mo agoRisk/cost ratio? A pedestrian acting irresponsibly can of course do a lot of damage, but the likelihood of killing someone is much lower than if a vehicle is breaking the rules.
- AnthonyMouse 10mo agoIsn't that the argument for the alternative? The risk of being distracted by other traffic and missing a pedestrian who was obscured by another vehicle is much lower when there are no other vehicles or traffic, and then the rules are indecorous for not taking into account the change in risk.
- ajxs 10mo agoI live in Australia, which is culturally the polar opposite of Germany[1], and you'd get a similar response here. If the police saw it, you'd be fined at least $500, and risk losing your licence. 1: Australia is very egalitarian, rather than hierarchical. Pragmatic, rather than bureaucratic. Australians are direct and emotive communicators. Spontaneous planners, etc. etc.
- systemtest 10mo agoIn Southern Europe, not many people wait for a red light if there isn't anything to wait for. Even the police blasts through red lights if nobody is using the pedestrian crossing.
- cyberax 10mo ago"Bootlicking"? I guess you'd love if non-bootlicking neighbors decided to do a rave party outside your window at 3am. Every day. Or maybe a nice drag race on your street at 1am. I mean, only people who think for themselves can do that!
- potato3732842 10mo agoThere is a huge difference between someone being annoyed by some thing based on how it affects you and that thing just so happening to be against the rules vs being annoyed by a thing that's of no consequence to you for no reason other than because it's against the rules. Regardless, I don't share those values. I have stared into the abyss of what people who praise conformity and the common good will do to a municipality if given free reign to regulate it's minutia and I do not want. My neighbors on one side blast music in a language I don't speak until a couple hours after my bedtime most nights and the neighbors on the other have barking dogs. I don't even notice them anymore, same with the nearby highway noise.
- cyberax 10mo agoWhat consequences? Who doesn't like music?!? Oh, and I'll just throw that candy wrapper on the ground. After all, it's of no consequence. You THINK that your rule-breaking has no consequences. This is called in the safety science "normalization of deviance", and it usually leads to more and more rules being ignored. And not necessarily by _you_ but by other people. This is colloquially known as "being a bad example".
- potato3732842 10mo agoLitter is a great example. You people and your rules for everything weren't what changed it's prevalence. Social changes and general attitudes were. Like I said, I've stared into the abyss of what you people will do to a society if left unchecked. You are worse than the alternative. That's why I live where I do.
- 10mo ago
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago> Of course, the very idea of jaywalking was created to remove the obligation to not kill people from drivers and shift it to the very people being killed, but this doesn’t seem to bother the meddling grandmothers. I'm kind of curious how you expect this to work. A driver is driving down the road at the posted speed limit. Instead of crossing at an intersection, a pedestrian steps into the road from between two parked vehicles directly in front of the moving car. By that point the car cannot be stopped before it hits the pedestrian because of the laws of physics, so who would you have at fault and how was that person expected to prevent it?
- CalRobert 10mo agoThe driver needs to go at a speed where they can stop in that scenario. We’ve normalised the idea that they shouldn’t have to, unfortunately.