Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdjon | Hacker News Reader

Pedestrians should also take responsibility for acting dangerously.

To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving.

If a person runs in front of a moving vehicle it shouldn't be the driver responsible if they basically cut the car off. A car can't stop on a dime.

Drivers should be held responsible if they were clearly driving in an unsafe manner, but we have the share the space somehow.

View on HN

If you can't "stop in a dime" somewhere you might expect pedestrians, either the speed limit is too high or you're speeding.

You mention drivers cutting in front and pedestrians running out into the street, but not drivers who aren't paying due attention or who think that amber lights are advisory at best and a signal to speed up at worst. I'm one of those saps who actually crosses at pedestrian crossings even where there's no obligation for me to do so, and I make a habit of counting how many cars run an amber light when I come to traffic lights. I've found that you can guarantee at least one will, even if the speed limit is low enough that they could literally "stop on a dime", and more than likely, you'll get up to three doing the same.

And then there's the number of times I've seen people run reds, including at a pedestrian crossing where I wouldn't be alive if I didn't trust drivers.

So, I'll have more sympathy for drivers when they stop running lights, and until then I'll continue to turn my head towards oncoming traffic when I cross so the driver who might end up killing me has my face seared into their brain.

> I'll continue to turn my head towards oncoming traffic when I cross so the driver who might end up killing me has my face seared into their brain.

That's not going to work, you need to post it on their Instagram feed instead.

> 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.

> 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.

"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.

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.

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) 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/)

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

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.

I am interested. You seem to be espousing a belief (that I hope I don't get wrong): "driving above 20mph in a city environment gives significant economic benefits, and should not be curtailed".

In roads, between cities, the benefits are obvious (or at least, I agree with you that they are substantial). So I expressed the belief you seem to hold with an added hypothesis of 'city environment'.

Do you agree with the belief as I quoted? Was I fair?

If so, why do you think so? I just tried some different paths in my city (currently with very low traffic) in google maps. The greatest average speed I was able to find was 26 mph. The city seems to work fine and have good economic development.

I used >>> distance_in_km/((time_in_minutes)/60) * 0.62 (is this wrong? I don't think so)

Might be the case that I just lack intuition, but the advantages of much higher speeds inside the city limits do not seem obvious from an economic standpoint. I would indeed hesitate if I believe that this would have any significant economic cost. A small reduction in productivity can be very costly in human suffering.

As to 'my side', I am not saying only that I want to reduce accidents. I am saying that I want to reduce accidents while increasing the amount of time people can safely spend outdoors and while increasing the activities that they can do outdoors.

The idea that a significant part of our cities must be (or simply is) high speed road is a choice, and I think it merits discussion.

> To me it's the same if a driver cuts in front of me and then slams on their brakes, there was nothing I could have done about crashing into them no matter how safely I was driving.

It shouldn't be. The risk to you is much greater if you hit another car, than if you hit a pedestrian.

Addtionally, while you are right that a car can't stop on a dime, speeds have a large influence on the size of coin needed for a car to come to a complete stop. And I think we both know that they are not linear.

Over the decades, posted speed limits in North America have only increased.

https://www.brake.org.uk/files/images/Speed/Infographics/_la...

> It shouldn't be. The risk to you is much greater if you hit another car, than if you hit a pedestrian.

True but the idea to me is the same for this particular situation, it is something running in front of a moving vehicle with little to no chance to do anything about it as a driver.

You are right for speeds and too many people drive too fast in an urban setting, but even a reasonable driving at 20-30 mph can still cause damage.

All I am trying to say here is everyone take responsibility for their own actions and don't assume that just because you are a pedestrian that cars are going to get out of your way since they may not physically be able too. Same for drivers, don't assume you have the right away because you are in a car.

Idk at 30kmh it is fairly easy to stop the vehicle

Reply on news.ycombinator.com