Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 345 posts

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#311

Post by giantg2 »

gumby wrote: post #51
samwillis wrote: post #34

Here in the UK they have just changed the Highway Code (the rules that given all road users, including pedestrians) so that pedestrians have ultimate right of way in almost all cases. It’s the opposite of the situation in the US, a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way. It’s going to be interesting to see how it effects accident numbers, I’m worry it may actuall…

That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.

"California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians."

The cars are still obligated to stop to avoid hitting someone. It just allows a pedestrian to be ticketed for impeding a vehicle's travel (which is dangerous) while not being in an established crossings (which I believe includes implicit ones at intersections, but unsure about that part).

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#312

Post by edmcnulty101 »

dncornholio wrote: post #183
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #102

Why is this a reckless driving question and not a reckless pedestrian question?

Because pedestrians have the intrinsic motivation of not wanting to die. This question baffles me because where I'm from, hitting a pedestrian or biker with your car, the car driver is almost always 100% liable. And it works. Cars don't want to hit cyclists or pedestrians because they don't want to pay, and cyclists/pedestrians don't want to hit cars because they want to stay alive.

> Because pedestrians have the intrinsic motivation of not wanting to die.

Exactly. So it seems to me the pedestrian would want to avoid the 4 ton vehicular machines and the law here differs from common sense in my opinion.

Seems to me... by virtue of being a 4 ton death machine...the auto should have the right of way in almost every case against a small fleshy pedestrian.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#313

Post by giantg2 »

jeffbee wrote: post #299
giantg2 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Situations like that make me miss my caprice. Slow speed, I have the right of way, my car isn't worth anything. Go ahead, hit me.

and everyone assumes you're a cop.

Except the actual cops, who will flip a u-turn to run your plates and follow you. I guess because they are popular with specific demographics.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#314

Post by giantg2 »

lamontcg wrote: post #302
giantg2 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. I feel split on this. I believe we need stronger testing. But I also wonder, if someone is following the law (which is vast), what would be the other steps for reasonable care?

They're generally not following the law. But they do something like turn right on red without stopping and we consider that a "mistake". Or they do stop but they have 1,000 yard stare off to their left and they hit a pedestrian legally in the crosswalk. Or they're just speeding and we consider 15 over to try to beat the light perfectly reasonable because everyone does it. Being distracted and driving a bit too fast w…

"Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence."

This I why I'd like to see the stats/breakdown. There are more laws that apply to pedestrians than many realize. Like walking on the left side of the road, jay walking, not obeying traffic signals. This could be seen as negligence or recklessness.

There are a ton of irresponsible or unknowledgeable drivers, and those same people are also likely to be pedestrians at some point and exhibit similar actions.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#315

Post by mrep »

gumby wrote: post #51
samwillis wrote: post #34

Here in the UK they have just changed the Highway Code (the rules that given all road users, including pedestrians) so that pedestrians have ultimate right of way in almost all cases. It’s the opposite of the situation in the US, a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way. It’s going to be interesting to see how it effects accident numbers, I’m worry it may actuall…

That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.

> California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians.

As an avid jaywalker, in what situation do you think you should be legally prioritized over a car on the road? If the car can stop in time sure but otherwise you're the one causing a problem.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#316

Post by masklinn »

ghaff wrote: post #264
masklinn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such active traffic calming measures can be combined with more passive ones (lane narrowing, visual obstructions) to create a psychological slowdown effect in addition to the physical ones. This works especially well combined with pedestrian and cycle passthroughs and such, including to avoid “drive-through” neighbourhoods without having to make the neighbourhood entirely impassable and a pain in the ass to residents…

>including to avoid “drive-through” neighbourhoods without having to make the neighbourhood entirely impassable and a pain in the ass to residents. I suspect that Google Maps and the like have worsened the level of driving through residential neighborhoods as they route you through a maze of residential streets to save (in theory) two minutes.

Mostly Waze as it uses real trip times for its estimates and so can find “hidden shortcuts” through side streets. Though the rise of traffic avoidance in GPS likely contributed.

But that’s the point of traffic calming, they make trips take longer in real time so the route becomes less attractive as traffic avoidance, while not being a huge issue for “normal” local traffic.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#317

Post by lamontcg »

giantg2 wrote: post #314
lamontcg wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're generally not following the law. But they do something like turn right on red without stopping and we consider that a "mistake". Or they do stop but they have 1,000 yard stare off to their left and they hit a pedestrian legally in the crosswalk. Or they're just speeding and we consider 15 over to try to beat the light perfectly reasonable because everyone does it. Being distracted and driving a bit too fast w…

"Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence." This I why I'd like to see the stats/breakdown. There are more laws that apply to pedestrians than many realize. Like walking on the left side of the road, jay walking, not obeying traffic signals. This could be seen as ne…

Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable even when they're not perfectly following the law.

Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard.

And I've been driving for near 35 years and never once come close to hitting a pedestrian, no matter what kinds of mistakes the pedestrians have made.

Walking is a necessity, driving is a privilege.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#318

Post by giantg2 »

lamontcg wrote: post #317
giantg2 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence." This I why I'd like to see the stats/breakdown. There are more laws that apply to pedestrians than many realize. Like walking on the left side of the road, jay walking, not obeying traffic signals. This could be seen as ne…

Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable even when they're not perfectly following the law. Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard. And I've been driving for near 35 years and never once come close to hitting a pedestrian, no matter what kinds of mistakes the pedestrians have…

"Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard."

And the laws show that (cars are obligated to try to avoid it even if they have the right of way). The question is what qualifies as negligence or recklessness. In civil law there is the idea of contributory negligence. Meaning if the pedestrian breaking the law by being there then they contributed to the situation through their negligence. This may be enough to prove that the driver wasn't at fault through negligent or reckless behavior if they were following the law.

"Walking is a necessity, driving is a privilege."

Driving is a privilege. Walking may be a necessity. However, performing illegal acts is not a necessity. This is crucial in the discussion of negligence and recklessness. Especially if the activity is reckless, as they know the risks of their illegal activity and accept them by doing it anyways.

"Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable"

Slower, yes. More predictable, no. People can change direction more quickly and erratically (no turning radius, etc). Cars can be very predictable because of the constraints their mechanical nature provide. You also have to see them to be able to predict, which could be difficult if they throw open a car door from a heavily tinted (illegal in my state) car parked on the side.

So, to get back to the original topic... we could assume that the act of hitting a pedestrian is de facto negligent unless proven otherwise. But what would 'proving otherwise' mean? Here I'm saying that if the pedestrian was negligent or reckless, then that could provide evidence that the accident was the fault of the pedestrian. This could absolve the driver if they were following the law.

And let's not forget that there are people who will throw themselves on cars for the payout. Upsetting the current balance could exacerbate this issue.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#319

Post by gumby »

mrep wrote: post #315
gumby wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.

> California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. As an avid jaywalker, in what situation do you think you should be legally prioritized over a car on the road? If the car can stop in time sure but otherwise you're the one causing a problem.

We have controlled access roads (aka "freeways") which are the natural domains of automobiles. Pedestrians, pets, bicycles and other impedimenta are out of bounds there. We have fenced and raised rail roads and their cars should be able to assume that pedestrians et al won't be encountered.

Everywhere else...I don't believe cars should be allowed to drive as if they have the right of way. Sure, it's bogus to leap out from being hidden between parked cars, but that's a corner case akin to sticking a fork in a power outlet.

A hard example is the unprotected rail lines that run through residential neighborhoods with no fencing or other separation between the rail road and kids. These aren't just in the Central Valley -- you can see this right in Redwood City. Even at a glacial pace a train full of cars can't be expected to stop on a dime.

Re: Pedestrian deaths spike in U.S. as reckless driving surges

#320

Post by gumby »

giantg2 wrote: post #311
gumby wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.

"California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians." The cars are still obligated to stop to avoid hitting someone. It just allows a pedestrian to be ticketed for impeding a vehicle's travel (which is dangerous) while not being in an established crossings (which I believe includes implicit ones at intersections, but unsure about that part).

Well yes, that's the law as written, but generally not as enforced.

I'm not sure what an implicit crossing is. In California every street intersection is explicitly a pedestrian crossing per CVC unless otherwise marked.

Post reply on HN