Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

Post by jmull » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

wycy wrote: post #147

methodover wrote: post #43

“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”” I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding in the street. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I…

It seems like absolute common sense that as abilities degrade as you age you should have to retest for drivers licenses periodically. Perhaps with greatly increasing periodicity with increasing age. However, any politician who proposed or approved such an idea would be immediately voted out of office, because old people are very reliable voters. So it's not going to happen.

Post by afiori » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:24 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #164

afiori wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.

>The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles I think you have it backwards. The pedestrian that darts out into traffic that cannot stop in time causes the accident. The driver who does not travel slow enough to reasonably hedge themselves against a pedestrian darting out is being inconsiderate.

Post by afiori » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #156

afiori wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.

This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?

Post by mcguire » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

zimbatm wrote: post #108

Jaywalking is also a notion that was created by the car industry, with regulation and a PR campaign to shift the blame from cars to pedestrians. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term

Post by mcguire » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

kranner wrote: post #45

scarejunba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in exchange you get to go anywhere in America. You aunt in San Jose you haven't seen in months because it's a day's horse-ride. Well you can pop over for lunch, and be home for dinner. You can go see Yosemite and Tahoe in the same day. Your groceries will be 10 mins away. No. If someone invented cars today, he'd be considered a hero. We'd talk about him in history books.

> Your groceries will be 10 mins away. I doubt your groceries would be more than 10 minutes away even if no cars had been invented. Zoning practices would change to allow more shops distributed across residential areas. That would make more sense than requiring people to ride an hour on horseback. But yes, the supermarket would be much less 'super' with a much smaller selection of goods.