Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

> Why do you think that is the case?

I'm not stupid, esoterica. If you want to have a conversation, politeness is better.

Detailed traffic laws can never cover all circumstances (this is why we have judges and juries, not computer programs, to administer justice). I will break traffic laws if necessary to prevent a crash, and I'll accept the ticket if a cop would be so unreasonable as to write the ticket for it.

I bet you will, too.

In the 1960s, there was a public service ad about this - don't be dead right. I suppose I'm the only person who remembers that one.

I've had a couple conversations with bicycle activists. They told me that they'll stick to their road rights even if it results in a crash and they get seriously injured. They smiled that in such a case they'd get a big lawsuit award. I asked them how much is becoming a quadraplegic worth to them.

I don't understand such people.

View on HN

These people don't understand that The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what an individual finds acceptable (or safe) and what they don't. It's a guideline, not a guardrail. 2023 humans can't fathom driving safely at 100mph, but they fail to recognize that shortly after the invention of the automobile, they couldn't fathom driving faster than 30mph. Cars get faster and faster every year, and they also get safer and safer. The law, by definition, TRAILS that.

It’s less safe than ever to be a pedestrian hit by a speeding car due to the proliferation of pointlessly large trucks and SUVs.

Quit playing in the road, then.

Imagine living somewhere so car dependent even the idea of crossing the street is foreign to you. Like living in a post apocalyptic wasteland where you can’t leave your bunker without a radiation suit.

The world changes, my friend, and the cemetary is full of people who had the right-of-way. You either act like physics applies to you, or you run a significantly higher chance of getting meat-crayoned across the asphalt. I know which one I'd choose - look both ways, every time, and stop. playing. in. the. road. Roads are for cars. Parks, sidewalks, and green open spaces of all kinds are for humans.

Why are you accusing me of ignoring physics? I’m literally advocating for slower cars because I understand the physics of being struck by a speeding car. America has a higher pedestrian kill rate than any other first world country despite having the same laws of physics as everywhere else. The problem is transportation policy that does not care about per safety. Pedestrian deaths are not inevitable.

You didn’t address my point. Do you think we should rip out all the concrete road medians so that you have the ability to cross into oncoming traffic in an emergency? Should we also eliminate all grade separated sidewalks and let pedestrians walk next to cars separated by a painted line so you have the ability to drive on the sidewalk in an emergency?

> You didn’t address my point.

Yeah, I did. I don't believe for a minute that you'd choose hitting the kid rather than break the law and swerve into an empty oncoming lane. I also expect a judge would find hitting the kid to avoid breaking the law with disfavor. The law is not a programming language.

So you think we should remove all concrete medians to allow cars to cross into opposing lane everywhere?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com