Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Up until recently I figured that driving was the most dangerous activity I engaged in on a regular basis, but nowadays I'm convinced that walking near an active roadway is worse. I have lost count of the number of near misses I've had due to inattentive drivers basically in tanks. The problem is significantly more noticeable after moving to the east coast where turning left or right without checking for pedestrians is the norm, and it's on you to watch for cars when you are walking regardless of what the light is and who has the right of way. And yes, car designs with massive pedestrian-sized blind spots is making this all that much worse.

View on HN

I previously lived and worked in Uptown in Dallas TX. I had a 1 mile walk to work which I thought would be awesome (barring summer).

What it actually was was a game of leap frog.

At 5pm thousands of middle aged men in button ups driving GMC Suburbans, Tahoes and F250s would be released into up/downtown with the sole goal of getting onto the highway as fast as possible so they could get to their suburb 30 minutes away.

Pedestrians were just interruptions. Right on red? GUN IT! Red light? HA! Scooter crossing the road? Run it over!

I wound up almost never walking to work those few years because of how ridiculously mad max walking through Uptown at 5pm was. I saw probably 10+ people on scooters get hit by cars.

That part of the city would've been really cool if there were pedestrian bridges at every major intersection. But that's not much of a Texas thing.

Wish it were another way but reality being what it is, one has to assume invisibility when it comes to cars (and buses and trucks). Assume they don't see you. If you're about to step into a crosswalk, check not only for crossing traffic but turning traffic. Be ready to dodge out of the way or wait. Even if you have the "right of way" you are going to lose if a vehicle hits you.

"Defensive walking" courses seem to be the next thing we'll start needing.

Whatever you do, stay off the sidewalk.

Probably not safe in many buildings near the roads either.

Look 'em right in the eye before you cross.

"If you can't see my eyes, i can't see you".

This is difficult sometimes due to the extreme window tints many people have, especially in warmer climates.

Literally what I was told in driving school, and as a kid in school before.

Literally impossible for many people due to height/tinting of people and cars.

Prostrate yourself in front of the tank drivers that they may show you mercy

Your job as a driver is to see me. I'll go ahead and start crossing with enough time to stop if you keep ignoring me, and one of two things will happen: either you'll see me and brake, or you won't see me and I will stop, but it'll be clear to all involved that what just happened is wrong. This way, you know you're being an inattentive dick by not seeing me in time, and I'll stay safe and alive.

These kinds of handy one-liners and behaviour patterns are a big part of the problem. I shouldn't have to make eye contact with you, relying on you being semi-awake and not having illegal levels of windshield tint. Screw that, pay attention.

While you’re not wrong, being absolutely in the right won’t save your life when they do fuck up.

EDIT: lol - Downvotes for calling out reality always cracks me up. IMO, you're free to value being right over remaining alive. But life doesn't give two fucks about being right.

Right? Even when you remove selfish and inattentive drivers from the equation, you still have a human behind the wheel of the remaining vehicles. Those humans may be subject to things beyond their control such as glare, a sudden mechanical issue, a sneeze, or will simply make a mistake an humans are prone to doing. As a pedestrian we can’t blindly place responsibility for our own safety solely in the hands of the driver. It is still a shared responsibility.

When they do fuck up, what will save my life is the fact that I accounted for this ahead of time and left enough space/time to react to it and not die. Really, my original comment covers that.

Practically yes, in the sense that not getting run over is a high priority. However, we should repeat that it is the drivers’ responsibility to be alert. That pedestrians have to take this sort of measure is a general failure on the part of our driving culture.

And are the only ones incentivized to, given the asymmetric danger between driving and walking. Drivers would be a lot more cautious with big spike in the middle of their steering wheel. Externalized risk (and unlikelihood of facing consequences if a driver were to maim or kill someone) has a very predictable outcome.

I’ve lived in places where crossing areas have little buttons that set of flashers, but really it would be safer and put the responsibility where it belongs if that button would shoot a bollard post up in front of the crosswalk.

That doesn't work anymore. Due to steeply sloped windshields and tinted windows, a pedestrian usually will only see a reflection of the bright sky, not the driver.

I make an important modification to this pattern. Whenever visibility is good, I act assertively when I cross streets, whenever my right of way is not in question. I leave just enough time to not be hit by the vehicle, but I don't hesitate nearly as much as other people. I want the driver to be uncomfortable, I want them to know they're doing something wrong, if they choose to go for it. Very often this is the difference between them deciding to cut me off and actually braking and yielding the right of way.

If pedestrians don't take what's theirs (in a safe manner), there are just far too many drivers who will ignore them. Fixing that will take decades, best case, but I want to walk around my neighbourhood as a first-class citizen now. So I do.

Disclaimer: I am tall, visible, only do this in good visibility, and live in Canada where driver behaviour is a bit better. If the situation is borderline, I never tempt fate, rather I throw my hands up in the air and make it obvious that yes, I hereby assert that this driver is being an asshole.

What you said, but I'm considering carrying a rock now. Drivers seem to think I'm disposable for committing the crime of walking somewhere. Middle fingers are only so memorable, but that ding in the paint or a window might help them remember I have the right to not be hit in a crosswalk.

You will be quickly reminded by your local police force that throwing rocks at moving vehicles will result in at least a mischief charge.

Your edgy angst is better spent engaging with local levels of government.

Or it may anger them into jumping a curb to explicitly hit you.

Road rage due to damage to their pavement princesses is deadly when your in a cage of steel.

Victim blaming.

If a driver can be goaded into murder, perhaps they shouldn't have the tools to commit that murder so easily.

I don't read that comment as victim blaming at all, it's just a statement of our sad reality: it's de facto legal to murder someone in a car so long as you're not inebriated and you stay at the scene and plead your innocence.

As a general rule I go out of my way to not piss off drivers, not because I think they're in the right, but because they can murder me with impunity and they know it.

But we live in the kinds of society where a person has rights until they prove they shouldn't. Not the potential, but the actuality. Now I think the middle ground might be better enforcement of near misses... "No harm no foul" needs to be removed from the mindset of traffic cops.

> Victim blaming.

A rock thrown at a vehicle moving at speed can be (and has been) charged as attempted first degree murder. There are not really any victims in this scenario.

https://jalopnik.com/blood-brothers-kill-woman-after-throwin...

An armed society is a polite society

The driver of the vehicle (vehicles cause a dozen 9/11s worth of deaths a year) is armed. Only person that can stop a bad guy with a vehicle is a good guy with a rock.

You most likely will be punished more severely by the law for denting a car with your rock than a driver would be for killing you with their car as long as they were not drinking or ran away from the scene of the crime.

Killing someone with a car effectively counts as not killing someone.

That's a good way to get shot.

Pedestrians can conceal-carry.

Yep. As I lay dying on the ground, bleeding from every orifice, my organs and bones crushed to a fine pulp at the blunt end of a BMW X7 going 50mph. I will reach for my gun and shoot my assailant.

Yep definitely a real plan that solves real problems. /s

[edit] Or was the plan to prevent the collision in the first place? As I see the driver coming for me, murder in their eyes, I will smoothly draw my weapon, shoot the driver through the windshield, leap into the air and sail smoothly over my assailant's steel battering ram, executing a perfect three-point superhero landing as my fellow pedestrians cheer.

Was that the idea instead?

I'm not specifically advocating that everyone carry guns -- I was just responding to the phrase "that's how you get shot". Entitled drivers should recognize their own mortality in the event that they threaten pedestrians with a gun.

But I do prefer your scenario instead.

Only in uncivilized countries.

Toss some caltrops in the road in front of drivers who would choose to kill you for their own convenience. Or use one of these: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N3D4J58

"The referee only sees the retaliation" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWixJl8VFLs

(Bill Burr clip, very adult language)

I've always wanted some kind of throwable sticker that says "Watch out, I don't know how to drive!" That's close to what I yell when people playing with their phones almost hit me when I am bike commuting, "learn to drive!"

Something very similar to that was suggested about 35 years ago [1] but I don't think anyone tried it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLmIR6MOFiE

I doubt you would actually do this, but even if you did, I don't see how you could seize the opportunity. Meaning by the time you knew to strike, the car would have to be less than a few feet away, right? Once they pass you, its impossible to hit them. Unless you just wanted to fire on anyone who didn't obey the ped xing (which isn't usually the same thing as a close call).

I want to carry a large illuminated weight on a fishing pole that I can hang at windscreen height in front of me, so I can claim the space I have the right of way to, without risking my body

Absolutely, where I live pedestrians have right of way at all intersections, which includes some pretty busy wide roads the drivers think they own. When I'm crossing I don't stop at the curb and wait for it to clear, I'll enter the first safe lane, usually the parking lane.

Sometimes I'll do a big exaggerated step showing drivers that I do not intended to stop, unless they choose to kill me. I won't actually step into a lane when a driver might not have seen me so I feel safe doing it, but it breaks drivers expectations that they own the road.

I walk far far far more than I drive. My wife and I share one car and she almost always has it. I walk and pick my kids up from school every day and to stores, etc.

All this to say: I don’t mind waiting for traffic to pass and I find your aggressive style to be distasteful, dangerous and annoying. That said, I will still stop for you 10 feet away and smile as I think of terrible words in my head.

I think you misunderstand “Right of Way”. It’s not just an option for a pedestrian to cross, it’s incumbent on them to maintain predictable movement through the intersection.

Giving up Right of Way creates more confusion (think about the “go” / “no you go” game of a car not moving when it’s their turn at a 4-way stop).

As a child you are taught to approach the street, look both ways, and don’t cross until after the cars have passed or if they are all stopped for you.

no confusion there.

You mention living in the Bay Area, where right of way is clearly defined: https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_2195...

If you don’t want cars to stop for you the solution is easy, stay far enough back from the intersection so it’s clear you’re not trying to cross. Otherwise I will stop for you — it’s the law.

im pretty sure that is part of local cross-walk codes nationwide, but the pedestrian entitlement is extreme here.

I find it to be boorish.

Wonderful! Since I care not one bit what you think of my assertive use of my right of way, all is well! Howdy neighbour! And so forth.

I'm sure this works in some places, but if you try this somewhere like Philadelphia or New York (or indeed most of the USA) you'd be "asserting yourself" from the hospital.

I’ve actually found New York is fine - most of it’s so dense and slow the pedestrians really do claim the roads.

Boston, on the other hand - those motherfuckers speed up when they see you crossing.

Meh, I walked rather assertively around NYC and never had any issues.

> I leave just enough time to not be hit by the vehicle

We need laws (and enforcement) that make it so that taking risks with pedestrian safety can be ticketed (or other consequences).

I've had experiences recently (in TX) of people forcing my action to avoid being hit. Had someone essentially play "chicken" with me where they were actively accelerating through a crosswalk timing it just so that we do not intersect. (but they were increasing velocity in such a way that if my trajectory were to change, such as tripping, stooping to pick up something I dropped etc, I'd be hit hard).

And many will say "Call the police" but the fact is in a large number of metros (including Austin and others in Texas), the police do not respond to much if anything. A lack of enforcement and consequences (on behalf of the perpetrator) is equivalent to a lack of laws entirely.

It's not pretty, but in reality, "right of way" is a path to the hospital as a pedestrian. It shouldn't be, but their worst-case is a paint job, while mine is a jumble of broken bones.

They call that "dead right" - when you had the right of way, and you're still dead. I don't really feel that kind of need to assert my right...

When running / walking downtown, I feel noticeably safer crossing illegally in the center of a one way road than I do at the cross walk when the walk sign is on. Reasoning: at a crosswalk I have to deal with cars coming from 2 or 3 different directions, including behind me. In the middle of the street, cars are only coming in one direction.

Yes! If I can not use traffic light I will do that. Because green traffic light is just a signal and not ten feet thick concrete wall.

From a Swedish perspective this sounds horrific.

> Assume they don't see you.

So what about kids? They're usually not the best at that game. Are they not allowed to become autonomous beings because there are killer tanks on the move?

Sweden actually has driving tests that test the participants though.

In much of the US it is expected that kids will be driven everywhere. Walking is often dangerous.

It's disturbing.

Buddy if the gun situation around here didn’t convey America’s stance on child safety I don’t know what will.

We're Free(TM) here. Autonomous roaming kinder will get you a visit from Child Protective Services.

Major dense metros with viable transit are more immune to this, middle schoolers aren't unheard of but ridesharing probably has raised the threat level.

This isn't unique to being a pedestrian. You need to assume invisibility if you're a cyclist or a motorcyclist or even in another car.

Even if you're in a car and have right of way, if another driver doesn't see you and collides into your car, it's going to ruin your day. The consequences aren't as bleak as if a vehicle collides into your body, but it's still pretty negative, and it's in your best interest to avoid a collision regardless of who would be determined to be at fault.

I teach my kids rule number one as a pedestrian: You never have the right of way. Legally you might, and it's important to go when it's your turn after you've made active eye contact, but realistically the car will always win that fight.

"Yield to gross tonnage" is how I've always put it.

That's a good one. See also: "'He had his turn signal on' won't look good on your tombstone."

Learned this one from an old biker: The Right of Weight will always win.

Seriously. That's how I've always described it. I drive a large vehicle. You will lose. Get out of the way. Use common sense and move. I like that. I'm going to put that on my car: "Yield To Gross Tonnage". Good shit.

It's not actually supposed to be a call to break the law...

It's a pretty good bumper sticker, though. It's like Pax Propter Vim. "Yield to Gross Tonnage".

Cede Magni Ponderis

Cars take the role of megafauna we have been trained over millennia to respect.

if only we could hunt

And the majority of them have been hunted to near extinction, in some cases not even because they're particularly dangerous, just because it's fun to shoot things. One person indeed stands no chance against such a beast, but that's why it's always a group of several people that takes the job on, and they come armed, and with a plan, and they don't stop until it's dead.

People are very good at this, possibly too good, which I assume is why there are laws against doing this to drivers.

Two of the times I’ve come closest to getting hit were in crosswalks when the driver appeared to look at me, the car slowed down, seeming to yield and then hit the gas.

In the second case the driver stopped after, and told me she’d slowed because she was blinded by glare and then decided to just keep driving.

I don’t even know how you teach that one to a kid — never cross the street?

Waiting for eye contact is also becoming more difficult as more people are blacking out their front windows, effectively obscuring everything in the car even through the windshield.

Last I heard this is illegal -- yet here in SoCal it's pretty much fallen into the "unenforced" bin, along with unmuffled exhausts.

And here in Ohio driving with your high beams on all the time has become normal and I'm seeing more people with rear facing light bars too. All, I assume, breaking laws that appear to no longer be enforced.

Yep, I was going to comment on the blind spots. The massive A-pillars, especially, on newer airbag-equipped vehicles, makes pedestrians simply disappear. I have to constantly stay on top of it as a driver, and as a pedestrian/cyclist, I often see people turn their heads directly in my direction but they CANNOT SEE ME as their entire head is blocked by the pillar.

I found this post[1] to be a really informative read about why we don't see things near pillars.

---

At a traffic junction all but the worst of drivers will look in both directions to check for oncoming traffic. However, it is entirely possible for our eyes to “jump over” an oncoming bicycle or motorbike.

The smaller the vehicle, the greater the chance it will fall within a saccade.

This isn’t really a case of a careless driver, it’s more of a human incapacity to see anything during a saccade. Hence the reason for so many “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you” excuses.

The faster you move your head, the larger the jumps and the shorter the pauses. Therefore, you’ve got more of a chance of missing a vehicle.

We are effectively seeing through solid objects, with our brain filling in the image.

Additionally, we tend to avoid the edges of the windscreen. The door pillars on a car therefore create an even wider blindspot. This is called windscreen zoning.

---

1. https://themartincox.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-safe-road/

Imagine if we wrote software and just told users not to do xyz and it won’t break.

We should design pedestrian infrastructure with pedestrian safety in mind.

But it seems the only bug-free solution is to isolate pedestrians and vehicles at every crosswalk :) E.g. elevated overpasses or underground tunnels which are not practical.

My neighbor was recently hit while walking her 4 year old and pushing her 1 year old in a stroller. In this case, the driver was making a left turn and as he completed the turn he did not see her in the crosswalk. On that road, it's not easy to make the left, so my assumption is they were solely focused on finding a gap to make the left. I can think of lots of improvements they can make: a crossing guard since there's a preschool there, some crossing flags, a turning lane, etc. But all solutions still seem to rely on driver's not making mistakes.

Slowing down traffic via traffic calming does wonders for pedestrian safety. When cars are moving slowly, drivers have more opportunity to notice pedestrians and crashes are less likely to cause serious injury or to be fatal.

One other option there is to add raised crosswalks or a raised intersection, depending on the situation. That physically slows down cars as they enter the space where pedestrians may be.

Bollards, intersection daylighting, narrower streets, leading crossibg signals, raised cross walks, no right on red, fewer unrestricted left turns. Just a handful of things that can be done to make drivers drive in a safer manner without explicit coercion.

I was pretty hopeful when Musk started talking about car tunnels.

I appreciate you pointed out the difference between east and west coast car culture.

here in the bay area, pedestrians treat cross walks like magic force fields. Drivers have to stay alert. I try to teach my kids: the rest of the world is different. They will run you over and keep driving.

Honestly I wish pedestrians would just cool it a bit here. It’s almost a power game for some. I find myself hanging back from the corner until traffic has passed so I can cross without holding everybody up.

(I seem to have attracted the ire of car haters with this one. Heh.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com