Hacker News Reader

Comment by ripter | Hacker News Reader

It reduces the number of pedestrians who get hit, and asshole drivers who think they can speed though intersections are getting into accidents.

I don't see the issue.

View on HN

Who do you think the asshole drivers run into? According to the article, drivers who are just trying to be safe by not risking it and slowing down get hit by drivers behind them who speed up.

...drivers who are just trying to be safe...

If their idea of safety is paying attention to pedestrian signals rather than automotive signals, we'd rather they not bother.

Who said anything about "rather than"? What kind of a signal do you expect someone about to rear-end you to give?

They should be looking at the signal that consists of a red lamp above a yellow lamp above a green lamp. While the green lamp is lit, they should keep driving and not slam on the brakes just because the little man in the crosswalk started blinking.

Yes I know that rear-enders are at fault even when the rear-ended did something stupid. In fact many driving accidents can be attributed to the stupidity of multiple parties, and the accidents described above can also be so attributed.

The driver behind them should be watching the car in front of them and be following at a safe distance. I don't see why you should run into the back of someone if they slow down for an intersection with 1-2 seconds left on the timer and they're at a questionable distance about whether they'll make the light.

It's as if you didn't even read the second paragraph, in which I also blamed rear-enders for rear-ending!

If the light is green, there's nothing "questionable". Either one will make the light, or one will have time to slow once it actually turns yellow. If, instead, one does something surprising and irrational, misfortune may result. In this scenario, as in many accident scenarios, both parties have driven poorly.

Yes, I hate those reckless idiots stopping at red lights, too.

I have often seen pedestrian signals where the countdown ends when the red light turns on (so the countdown is still going during the yellow). My reading of the article was thus that the rear-enders are choosing to run more yellow lights, not that the rear-ended are choosing to stop when it's still green. In that case, it's the rear-enders who are paying attention to pedestrian signals and changing their driving as a result, and they're hitting people who are stopping as they approach a yellow in the normal manner.

The article claims that it reduced pedestrian injuries (accidents?), but the asshole drivers run into the cars in front of them, the ones that are stopping for the intersection.

I see your point but I'd happily trade an increase in vehicle-vehicle collisions for a decrease in vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Vehicles have all kinds of safety features that are designed to handle this sort of thing. Pedestrians don't.

This just means both are at fault. The driver in front for not being aware there's an asshole behind him; and the driver behind for being an asshole.

Downvoted I see - funny thing is how legal liability is irrelevant when your car has been pushed into an intersection resulting in your death.

You have responsibility to be aware at all times - even if it's not something you're legally responsible for, when you're in the presence of people driving multiple tons of steel at varying rates of speed, it'd be foolish to believe "but it was his fault" will prevent you from bleeding to death.

Having been hit from behind before, you're almost never at fault when you're hit from behind.

Furthermore, there is sometimes literally nothing you can do. You are not always in control, and you're going to get hit, no matter how "aware" of your surroundings you are.

Vehicle collisions are more survivable than pedestrian collisions; if we're trading one for the other, it seems like a net win for safety.

It has been shown that accidents can occasionally hurt innocent people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com