Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremy_wiebe | Hacker News Reader

My issue, as a driver, is that more and more pedestrians walk wherever and whenever they want with complete disregard for their environment. I’ve had to hit the brakes pretty hard on several occasions when I had “right of way” (right turn light, for example) and a pedestrian stepped off the curb with their face buried in their phone.

I see the fines for jaywalking as a function to encourage safety rather than criminalizing sensible behaviour (ie crossing a completely empty street probably won’t yield a fine but crossing a busy street while holding your arm out to stop traffic will, and should).

View on HN

My issue, as a pedestrian, is that more and more drivers are driving with complete disregard for their environment. I've had to jump or run out of the way on several occasions when I had "right of way" (crosswalks or stop signs, for example) and drivers accelerate right through with their face buried in their phone.

This problem also exists when cycling on shared bike gutters where oblivious drivers veer out of their lane into the bike lane, roll through stop signs, or are just generally unaware that they're sharing the road with people not surrounded by 1 ton of steel.

A pedestrian stepping into the street isn't going to kill other people with their negligence - the burden of caution should not be placed onto them.

Here in Vancouver, I see bad drivers, cyclists who don’t abide by the rules for cyclists, and pedestrians that are also a careless.

I don’t disagree that there are bad drivers, but unfortunately it’s the cyclists and pedestrians who pay the highest price for either their or a drivers negligence.

So if I’m a pedestrian, I’m going to make sure the cars are stopping before I step into traffic. Doesn’t matter if I’m right or not, I don’t want to be dead.

The difference is that you’re cocooned in a tonne of steel, hurtling along at speeds which kill pedestrians. The onus is on both parties to be vigilant, but it’s more on you as a driver. As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road is your own little go-kart track, it’s so much easier to drive safely. I used to hold the same view until I started walking regularly and could understand how much the game is tipped towards cars. Their environment is unescapable and every time you interact with a road as a ped. there’s a huge chance you might die. There’s nearly no chance you’ll die by hitting a pedestrian as you drive. Just drive slower and pay more attention. It’s just not that bloody hard at all.

> As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road is your own little go-kart track

This view was not espoused by the OP. You've made it up for some reason.

They’re complaining about pedestrians not being vigilant. I’m saying drive slower and more carefully, fully expecting that peds will carelessly cross the road, and there will be fewer issues.

We agree that you did make up the "go-kart" nonsense.

On responsibility - each party has one. Don't stumble across streets glued to your phone; don't drive recklessly. There's no point pretending one is the real responsibility. It just adds noise.

Contrary to your characterization of me, I’m a cautious driver. What in my post led you to believe I’m entitled?

> Their environment is unescapable and every time you interact with a road as a ped. there’s a huge chance you might die.

I’m not excusing bad driving, but when I walk, this is plenty enough reason for me to be doubly cautious. I don’t trust any driver until they’ve stopped.

If you find yourself having to hit the brakes hard frequently because a pedestrian stepped off the curb while being distracted, you probably also need to pay more attention while driving.

My general experience is that in practice, in most areas, most drivers don't yield enough and most pedestrians yield too much because the pedestrian has a lot more to lose. It's also important to remember that driving is a privilege specifically granted by the state, walking is not.

Then again, the only reason that that's particularly dangerous is because of the car. Such behaviour in front of a bike, for example, would ve annoying but not really dangerous.

It would be more dangerous for the cyclist.

When a pedestrian and a cyclist collide, it would be more dangerous for the cyclist indeed, I think.

But it would be less dangerous for the cyclist, than it would be for a pedestrian to collide with a car.

And of course, in the former case, it's the person who chose the riskier mode of transport who assumes the risk.

bike brakes are usually pretty terrible though

Maybe yours but not most people I know who use their bike frequently. Maintaining a bike is cheaper and easier than maintaining a car.

maybe the average European bike, which is like this one [1], but much older.

Maybe you shouldn't assume your friends represent a representative sample.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#/media/File:Left_side_...

> Maintaining a bike is cheaper and easier than maintaining a car.

but very few do it, given that they are not forced to keep it functional, unlike here, where I live, where your car has to pass a state mandated safety inspection every 2 years.

If you're gonna complain about my data sources, can you tell me where you are getting yours?

of course: this is the largest bike parking in the Netherlands (6,000 bikes) [1]

You can see by yourself the kind of the average bike and its maintenance state

notice: I deliberately chose the Netherlands because it's the country with the most bikes, the best infrastructures for bikes and with the best kept bikes, so Imagine that 90% of the bikes in Europe are in much worse shape that those you can see in the picture.

[1] https://www.planetizen.com/files/styles/featured_large/publi...

> Maintaining a bike is cheaper and easier than maintaining a car

also debatable

I changed the brake pads of my car two years ago, for 50 euros.

They are still perfectly functional (according to my mechanic opinion).

Admittedly I drive ~200kms a month, but nonetheless maintenance, at least for me, is really cheap.

Nonsense. How much do you think bike parts cost? Basic pads for a bike are about $10-15, depending on rim or disc brakes. With most rim brakes you only an allen key. Most cars need a tool to depress the piston, not to mention you have to lift the car and remove, remove lugs, etc. Compared to a disc bike, you can compress the caliper using only a tire lever, and most bikes have quick release hubs or worst case 2 nuts to remove per wheel.

> Basic pads for a bike are about $10-15,

same for cars (retail price on Amazon for consumers, it's cheaper if you buy them as a professional).

https://www.amazon.it/BREMBO-23-160-Pastiglia-Freno/dp/B01LW...

> Most cars need a tool to depress the piston, not to mention you have to lift the car and remove

mechanics do it for 50 euros here.

And I can change my brake pads, everybody could do it, it's just that people are unaware of how easy it is.

They mostly are unaware of how easy it is to change brakes on a bike too, that's why bike shops make more money than car shops compared to the amount of work required.

Plus one on the huge gulf between how easy the job actually is and how hard people think it is.

I’ve shown about 5 friends how to do it. I don’t think any have continued to DIY additional work, but I tried and at least they know a bit more about their car now.

I've biked all my life (never had a car) and I can always brake better than any car at any speed.

that's impossible, unless you ride at 3 km/h

BTW if you never had a car, how can you tell?

does your bike has ABS?

That's the thing. If it weren't for the prioritization of auto traffic, crossing the street at arbitrary places and times would still be "sensible behavior".

Everything you think you know about cities and the role of pedestrians is wrong -- a distortion introduced by auto companies to diminish walking and public transport and encourage automobile purchases. We are currently radically rethinking our cities and imagining a greatly diminished role for cars in them.

> That's the thing. If it weren't for the prioritization of auto traffic, crossing the street at arbitrary places and times would still be "sensible behavior".

That's not really correct.

Even if all types of traffic (cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc) had the same priority you will often get much better flow for everyone and improved safety by requiring traffic streams going in different direction to cross to certain points, and in higher traffic areas requiring some kind of turn taking at crossings.

This is often even true when you've only got one type of traffic.

So are you also arguing that pedestrians crossing at arbitrary places and times across a busy bike path is also something that is sensible behaviour?

Not from the us but I would not expect a car to have priority at a right turn.

He said it was at a right turn light. That suggests an intersection where there is a specific traffic light for controlling right turns.

Those are usually synchronized with the walk signals controlling the crosswalks that the right turns will cross, so that the car does not have a green at the same time the pedestrians have a walk signal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com