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

321–330 of 345 posts

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

#321

Post by lamontcg »

giantg2 wrote: post #318
lamontcg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

It is mostly all about speed and kinetic energy and the protection of having a cage vs. having protoplasm. That creates an asymmetry, and cars need to not be treated fairly. They need to be discriminated against. You need to be ten times more careful around people when you're driving than pedestrians need to be around cars.

And if you're worried about someone throwing themselves on your car, have a dashcam and/or get security cam footage. And I live in Seattle where we get a lot of people jaywalking indiscriminately who one way or another don't seem to care about their own safety and I've never come close to hitting any of them either.

There's a real simple tactic to avoiding issues like that which is that if you see someone do anything erratic that you slow down and don't assume that just because you've got a legal right of way that you don't need to react at all. I've seen some videos of truly unavoidable accidents involving vehicles, but I don't think I've seen any unavoidable accidents involving pedestrians, other than the people who hurl themselves on the hood of stopped car to try to insurance scam. Those people aren't dead though.

And I don't see where you've offered any evidence that we have an issue with pedestrians being irrational and you seem to be very transparently trying to flip the blame without any evidence. Find that evidence if it exists. I doubt any traffic safety experts will agree with you though. Most will cite speeding, distracted driving, drunk driving and size of vehicles as the predominant factors behind pedestrian deaths. Everything else is pretty much whataboutisms unless you have evidence and not argument. You don't have the default position here, the default position needs to be that car drivers need to change.

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

#322

Post by giantg2 »

gumby wrote: post #320
giantg2 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That's what I mean - intersections do not need a marked crosswalk as the law treats it as one. Some people don't know this and think if it doesn't have a painted crosswalk, then it isn't one.

Frankly, almost no law is enforced as it's written. Law enforcement discretion and judges legislating from the bench are extremely common in all areas. That said, if you hit someone, you will be investigated (how thoroughly depends on the circumstances).

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

#323

Post by dylan604 »

CalRobert wrote: post #307
dylan604 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(Davis Square - where 7 streets meet) This doesn't sound very square to me. I'm totally amazed at how some cities do not have protected left turn signals. During high traffic times, this means you can litterally never have a gap. Which leads to the situation where once the light turns red, 3-4 cars wanting to turn left run the red light. LA was the worst of the places I've experienced this.

The "square" presumably refers to the place (like a town square) and not the streets themselves.

Yes, just like Madison Square Gardens which is a round/oval shape building. People don't realize how silly words can be when one's inner child takes hold.

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

#324

Post by giantg2 »

lamontcg wrote: post #321
giantg2 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 l…

It is mostly all about speed and kinetic energy and the protection of having a cage vs. having protoplasm. That creates an asymmetry, and cars need to not be treated fairly. They need to be discriminated against. You need to be ten times more careful around people when you're driving than pedestrians need to be around cars. And if you're worried about someone throwing themselves on your car, have a dashcam and/or get…

"and cars need to not be treated fairly."

Depends on your definition. They don't need to be treated equally, but if the system isn't "fair" then what's the point of anything? Nobody will follow a system they don't believe in and that doesn't make sense. Cars aren't treated equally, and are held to a higher standard.

"And I live in Seattle where we get a lot of people jaywalking indiscriminately who one way or another don't seem to care about their own safety and I've never come close to hitting any of them either."

If the police enforced the law, then perhaps we could protect those people from themselves. That's the way the system is designed - to have all parties be alert and responsible so as to reduce the probability of two irresponsible parties meeting, resulting in an accident.

"And I don't see where you've offered any evidence that we have an issue with pedestrians being irrational and you seem to be very transparently trying to flip the blame without any evidence."

Do you have any evidence of me flipping blame, or are you just attacking me now? I'm not trying to "flip" blame. You can look up contributory negligence if you'd like. You can look up just about any city you want and you will see a significant number of accidents show at least partial fault on the part of the pedestrian. Now, we could look at redesigning infrastructure to be safer, but as it stands pedestrians not following the law account for a large part of the problem under the current system. Simply changing the system to shift the blame around, as you propose, is not going to result in a safer system (you've shown no proof). Link at bottom

"You don't have the default position here, the default position needs to be that car drivers need to change."

There is no "default position" here, and to assume one is uncharitable and detracts from the discussion.

My position is that we need stricter testing for drivers. It's also in opposition to assuming a driver is guilty of manslaughter - I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

In an effort to explore your position, I've repeatedly asked for what proof would absolve a driver under your proposed system of guilty until proven innocent, yet you haven't provided any. We need criteria.

I've given examples of when pedestrians could be at fault by breaking the law. It appears you are the one engaging in whataboutism since my statements are backed up by law and fact, yet you have provided neither.

https://www.treehugger.com/why-are-percent-fatal-accidents-f...

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

#325

Post by lamontcg »

giantg2 wrote: post #324
lamontcg wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is mostly all about speed and kinetic energy and the protection of having a cage vs. having protoplasm. That creates an asymmetry, and cars need to not be treated fairly. They need to be discriminated against. You need to be ten times more careful around people when you're driving than pedestrians need to be around cars. And if you're worried about someone throwing themselves on your car, have a dashcam and/or get…

"and cars need to not be treated fairly." Depends on your definition. They don't need to be treated equally, but if the system isn't "fair" then what's the point of anything? Nobody will follow a system they don't believe in and that doesn't make sense. Cars aren't treated equally, and are held to a higher standard. "And I live in Seattle where we get a lot of people jaywalking indiscriminately who one way or another…

That URL really doesn't back up your position. Read down to the very bottom and past the headline.

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

#326

Post by mrep »

gumby wrote: post #319
mrep wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

What style of street are you thinking of? Stop sign streets? Main streets with stoplights? Are just wanting to literally walk across any road without looking and force all traffic to stop?

Is walking down to the nearest stop sign/traffic light really that inconvenient?

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

#327

Post by _dain_ »

dqv wrote: post #310
_dain_ wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth should the responsibility be on pedestrians to wear reflectors? That is _preposterous_. What's next, they should wear license plates and helmets? Something is deeply wrong about the built environment that such an indignity is even considered. If pedestrians cannot get around at night without wearing ridiculous fluorescent outfits because of the danger of cars, then the problem is with the cars, not the p…

>If pedestrians cannot get around at night without wearing ridiculous fluorescent outfits because of the danger of cars They can get around just fine, they just don't want to walk further to get to the crosswalks, which is fine, but I think it's reasonable to ask people to wear reflectors as a trade off. I also can't exactly expect drivers new to the area to intuitively know where someone might decide to cross at nig…

I'll wear reflectors while walking as soon as drivers wear helmets while driving.

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

#328

Post by emodendroket »

hervature wrote: post #197
ghaff wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I somewhat hesitate to anecdata this in the same general area. But... For a time, I might have been inclined to put it down to people just weren't driving and had "forgotten" how. But I think that's hard to argue for at this point. I've nearly got run off the road on a merge or had a horn blown at me followed by a pass on the shoulder because I was apparently only going at the speed limit multiple times in just the p…

As someone who has driven quite extensively in SF, LA, NYC, and Boston, I don't know why Bostonians are adamant that their traffic and drivers are as bad as these other cities. My #1 frustration with Boston traffic is how "polite" drivers are. Multiple times, I've had the last car in a string of cars stop at a green light to let me turn left which is probably the most infuriating/stupid thing you can do. What I will…

Well mostly because I heard news reports where they told me they’d measured and found that to be the case. I live in SoCal now and despite all the bitching people do I’d much rather drive in LA.

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

#329

Post by emodendroket »

ghaff wrote: post #217
hervature wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has driven quite extensively in SF, LA, NYC, and Boston, I don't know why Bostonians are adamant that their traffic and drivers are as bad as these other cities. My #1 frustration with Boston traffic is how "polite" drivers are. Multiple times, I've had the last car in a string of cars stop at a green light to let me turn left which is probably the most infuriating/stupid thing you can do. What I will…

LA I don't really know. But SF and NYC (especially) are relatively challenging to drive in as well. I do agree that, especially pre-GPS, Boston/Cambridge/Somerville are most challenging by the almost complete lack of any sort of a grid and all the weird intersections. When I moved back to the area with a car after grad school--though not to the city itself--I think it really took me at least a couple of years before…

Even with GPS there are a number of confusing intersections and if you make the wrong choice you can easily add a ton of time to your journey with no easy way to go back.

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

#330

Post by taylodl »

My observation over the past year has been people are disregarding traffic laws more and more. The light is red? No worries! I'll just go through the intersection. And that's for traffic going straight! We've always had the problem of the left-turners slipping a car or two through after the light has gone red. Now it's 3, 4 and sometimes even 5! I'm now starting see people just go through red lights, treating the light like a 2-way stop. People never used to do that kind of stuff before, at least not in my neck of the woods. Oh and lane drift! Holy crap! People can't stay in their lane anymore. That's gotten a lot worse!

I too was thinking this was caused by the lockdown but now I'm not so sure. My state never locked down too hard in the first place and we've been largely "fully open" since last Spring - yet the driving has gotten worse. I was talking to my insurance agent about it and they said the number of accidents is skyrocketing. Great - so we have increased insurance premiums to look forward to which of course will be blamed on "inflation."

Post reply on HN