Hacker News Reader

Comment by msla | Hacker News Reader

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations.

OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

View on HN

> You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph.

Shooting someone is still a crime, even though the laws of physics dictate that the bullet is going to win against my flesh. Right-of-way is a normative statement, not an extension of physical laws.

Maybe that's not a place the vehicle should be going 35mph, then.

Maybe the vehicle should be smaller, instead of ever-larger SUVs and trucks.

Maybe there should be crosswalks and signals.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that dictate that roads should be hard to cross on foot, and that cars should move at their current speeds, and be designed the ways they are. Those are all choices.

Maybe the cars should simply be banned at certain places, it's also a valid possibility.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283

In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. There was a fair bit of discussion a few years ago about how someone jogging in the dark would dart across a zebra and then drivers had to slam on the brakes not to hit them.

As a driver though, most roads to my right have the right of way. So if there is a road to the right where the view is blocked by some bushes or a house ... I will slow down just in case a car could pop out of there. That is what right of way means.

I also do this for zebras. I will slow down just in case, unless I'm sure that no one could possibly cross.

> In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras.

For only a moment, my brain thought you meant that Norwegians riding zebras had the right of way, but half a second later my brain realized they could no longer be considered pedestrians if they were riding an animal. Is "zebra" the real term for "crosswalk" and I've been wrong my whole life?

There are many types of pedestrian crossings. Zebra, Pelican, Toucan, Tiger, etc.

I grew up with British english. Might be why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing

> In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras.

Context for those who don’t know: zebras are crosswalks.

Genuine question: don't pedestrians have the right of way on crosswalks/zebras everywhere? I thought it's the very idea of having the crossing in the first place.

In Italy and also bigger cities in France you probably only have the right of way if they hit you. I remember once in Paris standing at a main road for 5 min waiting for someone, anyone, to even slow down slightly. When I did try to venture across the zebra the cars all had to stomp on their brakes as if they were surprised that waiting at a regular zebra meant I intended to cross.

Pedestrian crossings in Paris really are a leap of faith, you just have to be assertive and walk out hoping the driver isn't looking at their phone, otherwise you'll stand there for hours because no-one will stop for you.

>Pedestrian crossings in Paris really are a leap of faith, you just have to be assertive and walk out hoping the driver isn't looking at their phone, otherwise you'll stand there for hours because no-one will stop for you.

Which, I guess, is why I felt so comfortable while in Paris. Exactly the same is true in NYC.

A shift in thinking toward cars not being kings of the road rightfully able to plow through any and all obstacles with impunity will make all road users safer. Removal of a tool police use to disproportionately stop and harass poor and/or non-white people will contribute to wiping out the absurd extant bias in policing.

This has nothing to do with advocating that pedestrians start stepping out in front of cars. Take a moment to understand the issue before deploying your straw man.

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations.

Before the advent of the automobile, you had carriages drawn by teams of oxen. If there was lesser risk to pedestrians, it's because the oxen themselves don't enjoy walking on humans. Irony being that the automobile places more responsibility on the driver, who (ITT) sees an opportunity for manslaughter as a justification for manslaughter.

If that's the case, why is the car going 35 mph in the first place?

Maybe they shouldn't be going that fast in areas with pedestrians?

People do a lot of things they shouldn't.

Some of those things have heavier penalties than others.

For example, speeding rarely renders one a quadriplegic.

Why's your reaction to ban the pedestrians from the street rather than banning the cars from the street?

Why's aren't you advocating to make roads safer?

I think banning cars from them, or limiting them more significantly, would make roads safer.

Might doesn't make right.

That's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.

It is invalid to derive an "is" from an "ought" in any situation.

("Cars ought not hurt people who have the right-of-way, therefore they won't.")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com