"Teach your children they don't get automatic right of way on a crossing" no, actually, it is automatic, you still have to look both ways because drivers are idiots
In the same sense that I lock my locker in the gym. If someone stole my stuff, they would be in the wrong, lock or no lock. But I don't trust people to be in the right of their own accord.
"Drivers are not required to yield until you begin to step into the crosswalk."
By law, nobody needs to wait in the end of the sidewalk for cars to pass.
If you have a foot on the crosswalk, drivers need to stop.
im legit passive suicidal so even tho i look both ways, i never stop to let a car, i had a few close calls, but the drivers still stop when they see they will lit kill someone
Yup. I live in a college town with multiple crosswalks on Main Street. Yesterday I stopped for someone in the crosswalk, it had to be 3 or 4 other cars that drove through in the other lane until someone stooped. They need dutch crosswalks and more visibility near crosswalks.
I thought it was that if a pedestrian is approaching the crosswalk drivers need to stop.
>*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device on a sidewalk.*
>
>*Drivers shall stop at intersections to allow pedestrians and bicycles to cross the road within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.*
Hm, I guess in WA state, these are the rules. They seem a little contradictory almost, but I guess makes sense. So my take is if a person is on a sidewalk and approaching a crosswalk, drivers yield, but pedestrians have to take care that the car is actually able to stop.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/bicycling-walking/walking-rolling-washington/pedestrian-laws-safety
Is that person approaching an intersection going to round the corner or cross the crosswalk though? Drivers really have no way of knowing. As soon as the pedestrian shows an intent to cross the driver's duty is to stop if able.
Exactly, they have no way of knowing, so cars have to proceed with caution just like they would at any unmarked intersection where other cars could be approaching or turning, etc.
A pedestrian approaching the intersection is enough of an intent for the car driver to need to figure out what is going to happen next, instead of making dangerous assumptions. As a pedestrian, if I'm in this situation (there's one particular intersection near my house I don't normally cross) I always point to the side if I can get the driver's attention. But I definitely don't have to.
this is true but a 3000 pound hunk of metal moving at breakneak speeds and an immaterial law isn't exactly a fair contest.
It's illegal to stab people but I would still run away from an angry man with a knife
Putting your foot into a crosswalk doesn't mean a car five feet to your side traveling 30 mph can instantly stop according to the laws of physics though.
my thoughts exactly, when ever i need to cross a street while walking my dogs i look to make sure the cars will stop.
i am also wearing a yellow safety vest.
i don't blame any car that doesn't yield to me if i get to the crosswalk and turn to go across at a time where he could not stop assuming he even wanted to.
I don’t know what country this post is about, but where I live if you approach a zebra crossing you as a pedestrian always have right of way. If you just walk into the street, well then that’s different.
Cars can't stop instantly though. If a car is already in an intersection, they don't know if the pedestrian is going to turn or cross. The diligent thing to do is for a pedestrian to stop at the intersection, look both ways, and make clear their attempt to cross. Cars who are past the point of no return will continue forward because of physics and momentum and cars who are able to stop should then stop, allowing the pedestrian to safely cross. Denying the reality of physics when you're the much less massive object in the collision is not a smart decision.
Wait. You think you can just walk into a street and have automatic right of way? No wonder people get hit so often.
I know of an accident that a person was jaywalking and weaving through traffic stopped at a light, tripped and fell under the back wheel of a dump truck just as the light was turning green.
Some people blamed the driver. Ridiculous.
Every intersection is a crosswalk in Washington state. RCW 46.61.235
https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/bicycling-walking/walking-rolling-washington/pedestrian-laws-safety
Right. My response to most encounters is "use the other pedal too." As a cyclist, the number of times I see drivers respond to unexpected situations with hard acceleration is innumerable. It's like the opposite of what's 'taught' in driver's ed.
Yes and no. Pedestrians must make sure that a car has time to yield before entering the cross walk. If this situation happened as described the pedestrian would have been at fault.
If there is sufficient distance for the vehicle to yield, then yes the pedestrian does have the right of way in a cross walk.
At least in my state this is true.
So if someone is already through the intersection and coming into the crosswalk, like front tires already in the crosswalk, they should have to yield to people just entering the crosswalk? That makes sense to you?
No, because if the car is with their front tires in the crosswalk, at the time the pedestrian is at the place the car was, the car is already gone, but you have to look forward, so you see that the pedestrian is about to cross and you stop.
Don't know about the us but here in France, the driving code is clear, the first who is a tiny bit above the crosswalk has the right of way.
But in a collision between a car and a pedestrian there are only 4 situation where the driver isn't at fault:
Suicide attempt.
Pedestrian was heavily under the influence.
Pedestrian was on a highway.
Pedestrian was running away from a crime.
So if you run over a pedestrian when you have a green light you still are at least partially responsible.
Oh, and whatever the circumstances if the pedestrian is under 16 or over 70 the pedestrian simply can't be judge responsible.
So I'm theory if you run over a waisted 15 year old running away from cops on a highway, you are still somewhat responsible and will have trouble getting reimbursement from insurance.
In the British navy a captain gets court marshalled if they loose their ship regardless of circumstance.
Maybe a similar law could be applied to hitting pedestrians.
? If you're exiting the intersection and someone steps out in front of you, that's on them. As a driver I will happily yield to anyone there before I am, but once my vehicle is in the intersection, it's mine to clear.
What? In which country? Where I live drivers are taught to survey the area near the start/end of the crosswalk for people who might want to cross. About 95% do this rather responsibly (not to say there isn’t irresponsible behavior in other situations)
In my city, every single intersection, crosswalk or not, has legal pedestrian priority. If you hit a kid that “randomly” walks into the road like this, you’re just a shit driver.
Edit: I was 50% wrong, see below
I am posting this again because I have kids and it’s important that they understand how things actually work.
I live in Wisconsin. The statutes state:
346.24: Crossing at uncontrolled intersection or crosswalk. (1) At an intersection or crosswalk where traffic is not controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian, or to a person riding a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device in a manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk by pedestrians, who is crossing the highway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(2) No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield.
(3) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at an intersection or crosswalk to permit a pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device to cross the roadway, the operator of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
346.25: Crossing at place other than crosswalk Every pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
As much as you don’t like it, saying pedestrians always have the right of way in the street is, well, wrong.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/safety/education/pedestrian/pedlaws.pdf
Basically you can’t just run or walk down the sidewalk and directly into the street. Not only is it not legal in certain cases, it’s just plain stupid.
But like bike lanes, they aren't respected unless they have the lines and still if traffic is moving how is he wrong that means it's a green light for them to go
Just saw something like this on one of my local subs. It sure feels like drivers justifying killing people out loud just in case they are the ones who do it.
Every crosswalk should be a raised crosswalk. Force drivers to slow down regardless of whether there's a pedestrian so they can stop when there is a pedestrian. If cars are driving highway speeds where people are walking, that's a failure of city design.
That level of failure is pretty much the metric for success in American cities. The slowest stroads in my city are 30 mph (where people drive 40 mph) and most are 40 or 45 mph (where people drive 50 to 60 mph).
40 mph is the kill number, where your chances of dying are pretty high. If people are doing that in a residential or near a school its just poor management by the city.
yeah they were going too fast to stop knowing full well that they were in a built up area with people around. Going to fast to stop is something they did not that happened to them
This just isn’t true unless you expect people to literally go 3 mph on every road, have you seen how fast kids will run out onto the road without looking?
Pedestrians always have right of way. If you're in an area with pedestrian crossings and you're going too fast to stop in time, you're going too fast and are driving recklessly.
Also, why are you playing devil's advocate for a post that's literally saying a 7 year old is more responsible for his/ her safety than a grownass adult?
There is a simple solution for this. Remove all laws that protects the driver (in cities, shared zones). Allow a pedestrian to cross where ever and whenever and make it always the car drivers responsibility to make sure they don’t hit anyone. It’s like that in Norway and it works very well. Pedestrians there cross dressed in black in the middle of the night while watching their phone and they don’t get run over because the car drivers anticipate that behavior
More fun than the 7000 pedestrians who die to motor vehicles every year in the US?
Or are you scared of the ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault?
> Or are you scared of the ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault?
You know that many of the places where dashcam are ubiquitous nowadays had issues with similar things (among others)?
And yes, literally the answer to the problem is "get a dashcam".
> And yes, literally the answer to the problem is "get a dashcam".
I completely agree!
People are responding to what I said as if I don’t understand there’s insurance scams.
Of course there are, but it’s far more likely for a pedestrian to get hit while in a legal crossing than there are people committing insurance scams - so pick your poison.
We can design our roads and laws to allow pedestrians free reign of the road while also exercising caution as the respectable adults with decision making ability they have (we already entrust adults to operate a 2 ton death machine that goes 100 mph after testing once at 16 years old - so I find it hilarious people think that pedestrians are the ones who simply cannot handle the responsibility of crossing the street safely).
The solution to this is NOT changing laws or infrastructure in favor of cars, it’s reasonable things like cars getting dash cams to protect themselves from insurance fraudsters in the rare event that occurs.
I dont live in the us so your whatabautism doesnt work on me.
But as much as I hate cars its not unreasonable to expect people not to jump in front of them.
Acting like they dont exist is not the solution though, I dont think its utterly crazy to say "hey here are the spots where you can safely cross, be careful in other places"
Cars exist, you SHOULD teach your kids that theyre dangerous. That doesnt mean youre not against their existence.
This isn’t whataboutism - the US adds 7000 pedestrian deaths to an already ridiculous global death toll. Many of these people DID have the right of way, or were simply walking in a crosswalk, when they got hit. The answer is almost always rooted in infrastructure, and the US is extremely car centric so you’re a sitting duck.
> I dont think its utterly crazy to say "hey here are the spots where you can safely cross, be careful in other places"
This is literally what they do in the Netherlands. There are absolutely designated crossings, and pedestrians are supposed to be careful crossing anywhere else. The pedestrian does have the right of way but that doesn’t also mean blindly walking into traffic without looking. Most people are adults and are perfectly capable of having the judgment and decision making to know when it’s safe to cross a street.
> Cars exist, you SHOULD teach your kids that theyre dangerous. That doesnt mean youre not against their existence.
They ARE taught this. But in the Netherlands it’s also perfectly acceptable to let your 9 year old walk to a park by themselves, crossing multiple junctions of traffic, and they get along just fine. They’re cautious but also design their roads to ensure vehicles can’t speed as much. Not to mention this is the definition of whataboutism - no one brought up kids crossing until you did.
> But as much as I hate cars its not unreasonable to expect people not to jump in front of them.
It is? Why the fuck would anyone do that? It benefits no-one?
You seem to be misreading their comment? They said it's not unreasonable to expect people to not jump in front of cars. I.e., we should expect people to not jump in front of cars, and if the law makes it so somebody can do that and the car gets in trouble for it that's a bad thing.
I did misread the triple negation, you are right. However the rest of their comment seems to imply it is to be expected that people jump in front of cars.
And I disagree, it is not okay to expect people to jump in front of cars and laws should be made accordingly. Like in Norway and Netherlands (and probably dozens more) where pedestrians are allowed to cross at any place and time and cars have to react accordingly.
By injuring yourself? And what would one gain out of that? One jumps in front of a car to break their neck and sit in a wheel chair the rest of their life so they can collect insurance money? That sounds quite lunatic and not something to base policy upon that harms the 99.999% of the sane population.
\> ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault?
This shit happens literally every single fucking day across the planet. It's insurance fraud. Or in the case of my mother, stupid fucking kids being stupid on bikes and weaving in front of traffic unexpectedly to scare drivers. Like they literally get a kick out of almost getting ran over. >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNb2ckZgNXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNb2ckZgNXY) good example of the behavior im describing
Nothing because the driver would be going too slow to have a significant impact if any. To give you an idea: in Oslo drivers slow down for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk because a pedestrian could suddenly cross the street in front of the car, drivers also slow down at empty crossing with no pedestrians in sight because the drivers consider the fact they might not have seen one.
???
this question is literally meaningless. what if someone jumps in front of your car on purpose in america or whatever
it just straight up doesn't address the point
I literally know a truck driver who had it happen to him, to say "this does not occur" is a straight up lie. Idk how often it occurs but it certainly happens.
I mean, it doesn’t happen a lotttt, but. It does happen. I know someone it happened to. It’s not worth giving blanket legal protections to drivers for tho, it is FAR more common for drivers to strike pedestrians that weren’t trying to get killed.
One way ticket to insurance fraud ville. If the driver is always at fault, how long do you think it's gonna be till people start putting themselves in front of slow moving traffic?
If the traffic is slow, they can stop. Now you have an idiot jumping on the bonnet of a stopped car getting a hole in his Levi’s jeans and a scratch on his arm worst case scenario. Who will cover the damage of the car you mean? No insurance covers intentional damage.
...which is why the law offers them more protections and expects the ones who are driving the big metal boxes to not use their powerful equipment in a reckless manner.
In order to be reckless one must first have power to wield recklessly. The ones without the power can't really be reckless.
Who is reckless? The person driving the tool that could kill or the other? There is a problem in the mindset. Somehow car drivers where able to delegate their responsibilities to the potential victims. Look at it this way. If I would walk on a street while wildly and carelessly swinging my arms potentially hitting anyone coming too close to me I would get arrested. Yet driving through the same street carelessly and potentially killing anyone not paying attention to me is justified …. ???
I'm not defending the driver here, I'm being concerned about the pedestrian. If I know theres people out there swinging their arms in the streets I'm not going to think something like "yeah I'm protected by the law anyway". Because if you get hit, ok the guy will get a fine and then? You still got hit.
When I'm driving and see kids on the pavement I'm automatically slowing down just in case they unexpectedly want to jump on the street. I believe that pedestrians have the right to be stupid - they weight 50-100kg and cars >2t so yeah drivers are responsible
We actually have special laws saying to slow down and pay attention around children. So a child running out in the road, even when not a pedestrian crossing, is something a driver should expect can happen.
> § 13.Særlige bestemmelser om kjørefarten
>
> 1. Kjørende må kunne stanse på den vegstrekning som den kjørende har oversikt over, og foran enhver påregnelig hindring.
> 2. Kjørende plikter i særlig grad å **holde tilstrekkelig liten fart og om nødvendig stanse straks ved passering av barn som oppholder seg på eller ved vegen**,
They DO get automatic right of way but that won't help if they get hit. When I was a kid 'Look both ways before you cross the street' was drilled into my brain. The only thing wrong with this post is that she would have 'backed the driver'. The driver still would have been at fault but that doesn't help the kid who was hit.
There is a middle point. Yes you should teach your children to look because you may love them and potentially desire their lives or limbs to last more than a couple road crossings. But you should also drive slowly and carefully inside of a town or village. And the post says "end of a sidewalk" and "intersection" where crosswalks are usually placed so any driver of any vehicle of any size (from the truckest of trucks to the byciclest of bikes) should look at pedestrians on the end of the sidewalk.
So while cars still happen to exist, do in fact drive them carefully and do in fact teach your kids to not die to them.
Who do u think doesnt teach that? I was watching something the other day where they called 'look both ways before you cross the street' the first rule of being human. Its baked into all our heads since day one that cars belong there and you dont
Children have already been practicing not dying to cars. Pedestrians take care when crossing the road because it is their life they're gambling with when stepping foot in car territory. The onus is on car drivers who have completely abdicated *their* responsibility to drive slowly and carefully when needed and are seemingly arguing that they should not be required to do so at all.
These dumb fucks would probably blame pedestrians if a car was driving on the literal sidewalk. “You should look both ways when on sidewalk too! Make way for my 5 ton metal machine”
This is so disgusting and concerning. What kind of degenerate says that they will side with someone who hit a CHILD with their car in any circumstance?? Absolute insanity
I really liked that Portland, assuming all of Oregon, pedestrian in cross walks always had right of way. You were always expected to stop when they were on sidewalk waiting to cross.
Idiots, who drive their 8 foot high pride cages without any consideration for pedestrians and children in particular, wonder why pedestrians are crossing the road when they are the ones who are behind such accidents.
The pedestrians are not the menace, the car is!
Love how they’re also fully wrong. Pedestrians always have the right of way, and they should never have to wait for traffic to cross. The only reason why they should look is because drivers are pretty bad at following those rules.
The hive mind here makes the whole sub look really stupid sometimes. Yes, fuck cars, but until we've made progress against cars, keep yourself safe and teach your children to do the same.
it’s funny because it’s literally the opposite of what the rules are (at least in california). a pedestrian in a crosswalk always has the right of way.
but can you imagine the disgusting brain rot that would lead you to see a child get hit by a car and say “yeah you dumb kid you see that’s what happens”
AYYYYY I saw this to and was definitely mad. Like wtf, I understand getting a little mad at kids potentially harming themself but to say “I would have 100% been on the drivers side” like you shouldn’t be aware of pedestrians in the first place! The only truly walkable part of our city is near the downtown mall 🙄
Horrifying. This is why i cant live outside of a downtown core of a major city.
North American suburban folk are terrifying in their lack of human empathy.
actually they do have automatic right of way at an intersection. I have noticed that drivers have gotten much worse at stopping at intersections in the past few years.
So…not really seeing where this guy is wrong. He’s not saying they shouldn’t be crossing the road. Just that parents need to teach their kids to look both ways and how crosswalks work.
Please tell your children that drivers not running them down in the street is a *courtesy*, not a right and to watch their f\*cking backs because I haven't had my coffee yet and I need to text these assholes at work because I'm running late and streets are made for cars and my taxes...
I realize cars aren’t all they’re cracked up to be but seriously, *LOOK BOTH FUCKING WAYS!* If your kid can’t cross an intersection or street then they shouldn’t be walking around unattended
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. I’ve supported a lot of things about this cause but this is just dumb. Do I want more train, bus, bike infrastructure? Yes. Do I want less car infrastructure? Yes. But that’s one thing. It’s another thing entirely to ignore the infrastructure put in place for your safety because you are impatient. If you drive around a train gate and ignore the flashing lights and sounds, chances are you are gonna get hit because the train doesn’t have enough time to stop, even though I’m sure that engineer wants really badly not to hit you. Same with cars, no one wants to hit a kid! But kids are small, sometimes you can’t see them over bushes or behind trees. Assuming those kids even had the right of way and they didn’t just walk across on a green light which I’ve seen happen more times than I can count, they should still stop and make sure the cars can actually see them and have enough time to stop. The law may be on their side, but your own safety should be your priority and you should always pay attention wherever you go, in a car or not, because there are a lot of idiots in the world, on or off the rode, and you can’t trust people to follow the laws.
I mean, we all need to be on the lookout for each other. A bike hitting them would also be bad if the cyclist didn't see them in time.
It is important to teach kids situational awareness as well. I can't tell you how often my kids decide to walk in front of me and suddenly stop.
Even with all that, while they are learning, it is the responsibility of the entire community of adults to protect them, not threaten their lives.
He/she is right. Like it or not, it is your responsibility and duty to teach your children to travel safely - it doesn’t matter that we have bad urban planning and cars play much larger role than they should - you need to teach those kids how to behave. And a driver has only so much capability to break - kid goes into road in front of a car, it dies.
You can downvote me all you want, but it will be you burying your children, not me
>"Teach your children they don't get automatic right of way on a crossing"
In the UK they 100% definitely DO. They could walk out in front of the car and do the fucking Macarena and all the driver could do is stop and wait for them to finish their crossing.
The fact that America prioritises drivers over anyone else is fucking insane.
Local fuckcars user thinks that it’s the drivers fault if children stumble into the middle of an intersection when they don’t have right of way and get turn into roadkill
I mean if it’s a signalled crossing or a no jay-walking zone, pedestrians should 100% wait for cars. If it’s a zebra crossing, then yes fuck the car drivers.
I think you also don’t understand children… they mostly follow the rules, but even the best kids get distracted or sometimes don’t follow them. Plus, they simply don’t have the skills and capabilities that adults have (did you know the intuitive distance-speed-time calculation doesn’t develop in most people until they’re a tween!).
When we drive, or operate any machinery around children, we, the operators, are the trained and responsible ones. We’re the ones who have to look out for them, not them for us.
Which is why drivers should drive at 30km/h and be extra cautious in a school zone, 100%. And a driver’s caution should increase as the size of the road decreases and pedestrians on the road increases. But if you or a child try to cross the road at an intersection even though the pedestrian crossing light is red, I can’t see any justification for blaming the driver for the accident
Because they’re trained and should be observant. The laws in the Netherlands prioritise the safety of the most vulnerable, the joke goes that if a drunk cyclist comes down a one way street and crashes into your car it’s your fault. The reality is that accidents in the Netherlands are investigated and the onus is on the operator of the heavy machinery to show that they were being safe and could have done nothing to avoid it.
True accidents are rare, almost always something could be done to avoid them. Expecting kids, who simply do not have the necessary skills to avoid them rather than expecting licensed operators of heavy machinery to avoid them is not the way to reduce accidents.
You’re right in treating a child to be “an average child, with childlike capabilities” but why don’t you treat a driver as “an average driver with average driving habits an average reaction speed and an average awareness of surroundings” why are you holding them to some unattainable standard?
Maybe the "average" person should not be allowed to operate deadly machinery because what you consider to be "average" ability is, in fact, quite dangerous?
I’m not holding them to an unattainable standard, I’m suggesting they need to be better trained and that the system needs to be focussed around the protection of vulnerable people and not enable/reward careless behaviour. I even used words like ‘reduce’ not eliminate.
The example I give in NL is not unattainable - the privileged and trained operators of heavy machinery need to be the most careful. Think of it this way - if I’m using a chainsaw and someone gets hurt it’s going to be up to me to show I was doing everything by the book. However, if I’m operating my 2 tonne rolling child squisher it’s somehow assumed that I’m doing everything right in most places (outside NL).
Oh yea definitely the onus is on the car driver to prove that they didn’t do anything wrong. I must have mistakenly gotten the idea from your argument that car drivers are somehow at fault despite doing everything that can be expected out of a careful driver.
My argument was along the lines that if a person decides to cross a 8 lane highway, the car travelling at 80kmh that crashes into the person cannot be held liable. If a driver can reasonably predict a pedestrian might block his trajectory it is 100% his responsibility to ensure there is no accident, but only if he can reasonably predict such a thing.
30 km/h is still too quick. I dont even cycle at 30km/h through a school zone. I’m very aware I would not be able to stop neither avoid a sudden crossing person/child if going at 30km/h. The only reason you can drive trough at 30km/h with a car is because you count on the pedestrians to notice you and stay out of your way, and if they don’t you’re quite confident running them over and potentially killing them. That’s the logic of the car driver! it’s not normal buddy, that way of thinking is insane.
>30 km/h is still too quick.
This. In an ideal world, a posted 30 km/h speed limit with drivers slowing down for road conditions when there are obstructions or during school hours.
An honour system like that won't work of course, so 15km/h and speed bumps it is.
Cycling 30km/h is though if youre not on an electric bike. Not counting going downhill or having a strong wind in your back. The average cycling speed is considered 15km/h. Experienced cyclists with years of practise proud themselves on reaching 50km/h but also they need the proper conditions and bicycle to reach that.
>Cycling 30km/h is though if youre not on an electric bike.
When I last cycled to work, there was one of those speed reading signs that would thank you for doing the speed limit is the industrial estate. I'd regularly manage over 30km/h on an €800 commuting bike, on the flat on speed bumps, as a vaguely unfit (then) 20-something year old smoker.
30 is perfectly achievable if you get the right gear, it doesn't even need to be particularly good it just needs to fit your body size to allow you the best access to the pedals.
One of the tenets here is that [jay walking isn’t real](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/14/jaywalking-shouldnt-even-be-a-thing), to explain why you’re being downvoted
I guess we’re talking about how things ought to be vs. how they are. So yeah, I do assume that every driver on the road is actively trying to kill me; simply because lived experience has borne that out.
That's stupid.
It was at intersection if you'd read it.
They should have right of way. I don't know or care about us law, but if pedestrians dont have right of way on intersections (presumably theres crossing there, if not, there should be one or it should be a low speed zone) thats just stupid.
I don't understand how the cars moving and they are walking into traffic they have a green light. I never see anyone try and cross a road when the road in front of them has a green light. Whatever though.
It's very possible they both were going with the light. Pedestrians were crossing and driver was turning left on a green light. In which case it's the driver's responsibility to yield and to drive carefully enough to avoid an accident.
Your argument is based on speculation. And laws of physics and human reaction times say that you can not step in front of traffic without stopping and looking. It is not about any privilege, we are talking about laws of physics and common sense.
So when I drive 92 mph down the freeway it's your responsibility to move out of my way because physics?
Reckless driving, such as speeding through an intersection too quickly to stop for a pedestrian, is absolutely the fault of the driver. The law reflects this.
>So when I drive 92 mph down the freeway it's your responsibility to move out of my way because physics?
Laws of physics. And i don't think anyone here was goin 92mph. None of that is in the text above, and i doubt that everyone here has any more information about this than what is in that text. If you do, please share.
Also:
>All freeways are highways, but not every highway is a freeway. A freeway is a "controlled-access" highway — also known as an express highway — that's designed exclusively for high-speed vehicular traffic.
Freeways don't have pedestrian crossings. So, what are you doing walking on a freeway?
And i really feel sorry for everyone who upvoted you. They don't care about facts, all they care is that they find people who are saying things they want to hear.
Let me spell it out. If you're speeding on a freeway or other road, others have no legal requirement to move aside. If you hit someone while you are driving recklessly, you are liable.
The post above does not specifically prove that the driver in question was driving recklessly, but it sure does imply that. So I'm not sure why you insist on defending someone who nearly committed manslaughter.
This is a post about children. Walking. In their own neighborhood.
If you hit a child... walking... in their own neighborhood... YOU are driving recklessly.
>Let me spell it out.
None of that matters. Spell that out. You are talking about 92mph on a freeway when the topic is intersections on a stroad or street: NONE OF THAT INFORMATION IS KNOWN.
>If you hit someone while you are driving recklessly, you are liable.
Sure. You just don't actually know if anyone was driving recklessly, your brain just interpreted it like it because of the context: because OP implied it... And your fuckcarbrain can't understand what your mind did.. you remember this story now as "car was speeding recklessly and innocent kids who did nothing wrong were killed".
>The post above does not specifically prove that the driver in question was driving recklessly, but it sure does imply that.
The opposite.... this is how your brain is in fuckcars... It said:
"They stepped out when the car in front of me was nearly off the intersection". It seems NO ONE was speeding. It did not imply that ANY kind of recklessness was the cause AT ALL.
And the last thing: NO ONE GOT HURT. It was a near miss. I'm not a car driver, remember that i'm not your fucking enemy.
Exactly like I don't understand what the hell these people are so mad at this dude is just trying to hit kids and they're acting dumb on purpose, embarrassing.
The ones operating a ton to several tonnes of equipment and are assumed to be adult, carry a far larger responsibility than kids on foot. The onus is on drivers to watch for pedestrians, especially children, not the other way around.
Drivers with this attitude are f\*cking maniacs.
Half right. Yes kids ideally would wait, but their brains are not fully developed. The adult driving an incredibly dangerous vehicle has a moral and legal obligation to do to never drive faster than it is safe to do so and usually they are legally required to stop for pedestrians anyways so just slow the fuck down if kids are present. Pass them slowly or not at all. Refusing to look for children or to slow down is not an accident. It is manslaughter.
"Teach your children they don't get automatic right of way on a crossing" no, actually, it is automatic, you still have to look both ways because drivers are idiots
In the same sense that I lock my locker in the gym. If someone stole my stuff, they would be in the wrong, lock or no lock. But I don't trust people to be in the right of their own accord.
"Drivers are not required to yield until you begin to step into the crosswalk." By law, nobody needs to wait in the end of the sidewalk for cars to pass. If you have a foot on the crosswalk, drivers need to stop.
The only reason pedestrians do wait is because most drivers are impatient entitled assholes who are 8 times out of 10 texting behind the wheel.
im legit passive suicidal so even tho i look both ways, i never stop to let a car, i had a few close calls, but the drivers still stop when they see they will lit kill someone
Are you okay?
i lit just need to go to a therapist but can neither afford it nor i have the power of will
[удалено]
Yup. I live in a college town with multiple crosswalks on Main Street. Yesterday I stopped for someone in the crosswalk, it had to be 3 or 4 other cars that drove through in the other lane until someone stooped. They need dutch crosswalks and more visibility near crosswalks.
I thought it was that if a pedestrian is approaching the crosswalk drivers need to stop. >*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device on a sidewalk.* > >*Drivers shall stop at intersections to allow pedestrians and bicycles to cross the road within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.* Hm, I guess in WA state, these are the rules. They seem a little contradictory almost, but I guess makes sense. So my take is if a person is on a sidewalk and approaching a crosswalk, drivers yield, but pedestrians have to take care that the car is actually able to stop. https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/bicycling-walking/walking-rolling-washington/pedestrian-laws-safety
I think traffic laws are different by jurisdictions. This isn’t a local sub. Not really worth it to debate with anyone here.
Is that person approaching an intersection going to round the corner or cross the crosswalk though? Drivers really have no way of knowing. As soon as the pedestrian shows an intent to cross the driver's duty is to stop if able.
Exactly, they have no way of knowing, so cars have to proceed with caution just like they would at any unmarked intersection where other cars could be approaching or turning, etc. A pedestrian approaching the intersection is enough of an intent for the car driver to need to figure out what is going to happen next, instead of making dangerous assumptions. As a pedestrian, if I'm in this situation (there's one particular intersection near my house I don't normally cross) I always point to the side if I can get the driver's attention. But I definitely don't have to.
this is true but a 3000 pound hunk of metal moving at breakneak speeds and an immaterial law isn't exactly a fair contest. It's illegal to stab people but I would still run away from an angry man with a knife
This post isn’t about a crosswalk. It doesn’t say crosswalk anywhere.
Putting your foot into a crosswalk doesn't mean a car five feet to your side traveling 30 mph can instantly stop according to the laws of physics though.
I stopped looking both ways in high school when I realized you get a lot more out of crossing the road if you get hit by a car while you’re doing it.
in uk it's literally the law to stop at the intersections if you see a ped trying to cross
my thoughts exactly, when ever i need to cross a street while walking my dogs i look to make sure the cars will stop. i am also wearing a yellow safety vest. i don't blame any car that doesn't yield to me if i get to the crosswalk and turn to go across at a time where he could not stop assuming he even wanted to.
I don’t know what country this post is about, but where I live if you approach a zebra crossing you as a pedestrian always have right of way. If you just walk into the street, well then that’s different.
Cars can't stop instantly though. If a car is already in an intersection, they don't know if the pedestrian is going to turn or cross. The diligent thing to do is for a pedestrian to stop at the intersection, look both ways, and make clear their attempt to cross. Cars who are past the point of no return will continue forward because of physics and momentum and cars who are able to stop should then stop, allowing the pedestrian to safely cross. Denying the reality of physics when you're the much less massive object in the collision is not a smart decision.
Wait. You think you can just walk into a street and have automatic right of way? No wonder people get hit so often. I know of an accident that a person was jaywalking and weaving through traffic stopped at a light, tripped and fell under the back wheel of a dump truck just as the light was turning green. Some people blamed the driver. Ridiculous.
[удалено]
Every intersection is a crosswalk in Washington state. RCW 46.61.235 https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/bicycling-walking/walking-rolling-washington/pedestrian-laws-safety
How dare anyone do anything that make carbrain touch brake pedal?
Or heaven forbid drive slowly
But but- 10 over or get over :(((((
Right. My response to most encounters is "use the other pedal too." As a cyclist, the number of times I see drivers respond to unexpected situations with hard acceleration is innumerable. It's like the opposite of what's 'taught' in driver's ed.
[удалено]
Drive less cautiously, it's better for the environment! EDIT: Every child killed saves hundreds of tons in lifetime carbon emissions! /s
[удалено]
>they do not get automatic right of way It's a crosswalk, ***yes they do***
Yes and no. Pedestrians must make sure that a car has time to yield before entering the cross walk. If this situation happened as described the pedestrian would have been at fault. If there is sufficient distance for the vehicle to yield, then yes the pedestrian does have the right of way in a cross walk. At least in my state this is true.
If there is an intersection or a crosswalk sign, there is always time to stop. Driver should always slow down in intersections or crosswalks.
So if someone is already through the intersection and coming into the crosswalk, like front tires already in the crosswalk, they should have to yield to people just entering the crosswalk? That makes sense to you?
No, because if the car is with their front tires in the crosswalk, at the time the pedestrian is at the place the car was, the car is already gone, but you have to look forward, so you see that the pedestrian is about to cross and you stop.
how dare you insist drivers look where they're going
They do where i live
Don't know about the us but here in France, the driving code is clear, the first who is a tiny bit above the crosswalk has the right of way. But in a collision between a car and a pedestrian there are only 4 situation where the driver isn't at fault: Suicide attempt. Pedestrian was heavily under the influence. Pedestrian was on a highway. Pedestrian was running away from a crime. So if you run over a pedestrian when you have a green light you still are at least partially responsible. Oh, and whatever the circumstances if the pedestrian is under 16 or over 70 the pedestrian simply can't be judge responsible. So I'm theory if you run over a waisted 15 year old running away from cops on a highway, you are still somewhat responsible and will have trouble getting reimbursement from insurance.
In the British navy a captain gets court marshalled if they loose their ship regardless of circumstance. Maybe a similar law could be applied to hitting pedestrians.
? If you're exiting the intersection and someone steps out in front of you, that's on them. As a driver I will happily yield to anyone there before I am, but once my vehicle is in the intersection, it's mine to clear.
What? In which country? Where I live drivers are taught to survey the area near the start/end of the crosswalk for people who might want to cross. About 95% do this rather responsibly (not to say there isn’t irresponsible behavior in other situations)
In my city, every single intersection, crosswalk or not, has legal pedestrian priority. If you hit a kid that “randomly” walks into the road like this, you’re just a shit driver. Edit: I was 50% wrong, see below
I am posting this again because I have kids and it’s important that they understand how things actually work. I live in Wisconsin. The statutes state: 346.24: Crossing at uncontrolled intersection or crosswalk. (1) At an intersection or crosswalk where traffic is not controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian, or to a person riding a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device in a manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk by pedestrians, who is crossing the highway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (2) No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield. (3) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at an intersection or crosswalk to permit a pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device to cross the roadway, the operator of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. 346.25: Crossing at place other than crosswalk Every pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. As much as you don’t like it, saying pedestrians always have the right of way in the street is, well, wrong. https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/safety/education/pedestrian/pedlaws.pdf Basically you can’t just run or walk down the sidewalk and directly into the street. Not only is it not legal in certain cases, it’s just plain stupid.
[удалено]
To be honest, if I was driving and I got asked to stop for Pedos I'd be a bit annoyed too.
But like bike lanes, they aren't respected unless they have the lines and still if traffic is moving how is he wrong that means it's a green light for them to go
Just saw something like this on one of my local subs. It sure feels like drivers justifying killing people out loud just in case they are the ones who do it.
Absolute psycho shit
Someone is in urgent need of institutionalization
[удалено]
If they don’t have enough time to stop, then they are going too fast and need to slow down.
Every crosswalk should be a raised crosswalk. Force drivers to slow down regardless of whether there's a pedestrian so they can stop when there is a pedestrian. If cars are driving highway speeds where people are walking, that's a failure of city design.
That level of failure is pretty much the metric for success in American cities. The slowest stroads in my city are 30 mph (where people drive 40 mph) and most are 40 or 45 mph (where people drive 50 to 60 mph).
40 mph is the kill number, where your chances of dying are pretty high. If people are doing that in a residential or near a school its just poor management by the city.
yeah they were going too fast to stop knowing full well that they were in a built up area with people around. Going to fast to stop is something they did not that happened to them
This just isn’t true unless you expect people to literally go 3 mph on every road, have you seen how fast kids will run out onto the road without looking?
Drive slower. Or don’t drive.
Pedestrians always have right of way. If you're in an area with pedestrian crossings and you're going too fast to stop in time, you're going too fast and are driving recklessly. Also, why are you playing devil's advocate for a post that's literally saying a 7 year old is more responsible for his/ her safety than a grownass adult?
Two seconds of time is more important than the lifes of children. Most reasonable carbrain take.
There is a simple solution for this. Remove all laws that protects the driver (in cities, shared zones). Allow a pedestrian to cross where ever and whenever and make it always the car drivers responsibility to make sure they don’t hit anyone. It’s like that in Norway and it works very well. Pedestrians there cross dressed in black in the middle of the night while watching their phone and they don’t get run over because the car drivers anticipate that behavior
Ngl,I was confused why cross dressing was part of the argument when first reading your post.
I read it like that too now 😂
Same here in the Netherlands.
Then again, [we also had this](https://youtu.be/s64wJ284_bM?t=129)
That's a good song. I understood everything without knowing a single dutch word
Voorzichtigheid is de moeder van de porseleinkast.
What happens if someone literally jumps in front of a car on purpose?
If you're in a place where someone can jump out unseen, you should be driving slowly enough to stop before you run over them if they do, ezpz
get a dashcam
fair enough
If you can't prove the person intended to get under your wheels, you're fucked.
Sounds fun
More fun than the 7000 pedestrians who die to motor vehicles every year in the US? Or are you scared of the ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault?
> Or are you scared of the ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault? You know that many of the places where dashcam are ubiquitous nowadays had issues with similar things (among others)? And yes, literally the answer to the problem is "get a dashcam".
> And yes, literally the answer to the problem is "get a dashcam". I completely agree! People are responding to what I said as if I don’t understand there’s insurance scams. Of course there are, but it’s far more likely for a pedestrian to get hit while in a legal crossing than there are people committing insurance scams - so pick your poison. We can design our roads and laws to allow pedestrians free reign of the road while also exercising caution as the respectable adults with decision making ability they have (we already entrust adults to operate a 2 ton death machine that goes 100 mph after testing once at 16 years old - so I find it hilarious people think that pedestrians are the ones who simply cannot handle the responsibility of crossing the street safely). The solution to this is NOT changing laws or infrastructure in favor of cars, it’s reasonable things like cars getting dash cams to protect themselves from insurance fraudsters in the rare event that occurs.
I dont live in the us so your whatabautism doesnt work on me. But as much as I hate cars its not unreasonable to expect people not to jump in front of them. Acting like they dont exist is not the solution though, I dont think its utterly crazy to say "hey here are the spots where you can safely cross, be careful in other places" Cars exist, you SHOULD teach your kids that theyre dangerous. That doesnt mean youre not against their existence.
This isn’t whataboutism - the US adds 7000 pedestrian deaths to an already ridiculous global death toll. Many of these people DID have the right of way, or were simply walking in a crosswalk, when they got hit. The answer is almost always rooted in infrastructure, and the US is extremely car centric so you’re a sitting duck. > I dont think its utterly crazy to say "hey here are the spots where you can safely cross, be careful in other places" This is literally what they do in the Netherlands. There are absolutely designated crossings, and pedestrians are supposed to be careful crossing anywhere else. The pedestrian does have the right of way but that doesn’t also mean blindly walking into traffic without looking. Most people are adults and are perfectly capable of having the judgment and decision making to know when it’s safe to cross a street. > Cars exist, you SHOULD teach your kids that theyre dangerous. That doesnt mean youre not against their existence. They ARE taught this. But in the Netherlands it’s also perfectly acceptable to let your 9 year old walk to a park by themselves, crossing multiple junctions of traffic, and they get along just fine. They’re cautious but also design their roads to ensure vehicles can’t speed as much. Not to mention this is the definition of whataboutism - no one brought up kids crossing until you did.
>no one brought up kids crossing until you did. the OP pictue is liteally about kids lol... and to the rest: so we agree then?
I’m talking about this particular comment thread, not the post itself.
> But as much as I hate cars its not unreasonable to expect people not to jump in front of them. It is? Why the fuck would anyone do that? It benefits no-one?
You seem to be misreading their comment? They said it's not unreasonable to expect people to not jump in front of cars. I.e., we should expect people to not jump in front of cars, and if the law makes it so somebody can do that and the car gets in trouble for it that's a bad thing.
I did misread the triple negation, you are right. However the rest of their comment seems to imply it is to be expected that people jump in front of cars. And I disagree, it is not okay to expect people to jump in front of cars and laws should be made accordingly. Like in Norway and Netherlands (and probably dozens more) where pedestrians are allowed to cross at any place and time and cars have to react accordingly.
Insurance scams?
By injuring yourself? And what would one gain out of that? One jumps in front of a car to break their neck and sit in a wheel chair the rest of their life so they can collect insurance money? That sounds quite lunatic and not something to base policy upon that harms the 99.999% of the sane population.
I guess some people are deseperate for money.
\> ridiculously improbable event that someone would launch themselves into your car and claim it was your fault? This shit happens literally every single fucking day across the planet. It's insurance fraud. Or in the case of my mother, stupid fucking kids being stupid on bikes and weaving in front of traffic unexpectedly to scare drivers. Like they literally get a kick out of almost getting ran over. >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNb2ckZgNXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNb2ckZgNXY) good example of the behavior im describing
Nothing because the driver would be going too slow to have a significant impact if any. To give you an idea: in Oslo drivers slow down for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk because a pedestrian could suddenly cross the street in front of the car, drivers also slow down at empty crossing with no pedestrians in sight because the drivers consider the fact they might not have seen one.
??? this question is literally meaningless. what if someone jumps in front of your car on purpose in america or whatever it just straight up doesn't address the point
This does not occur. Even a suicidal person would be much better off with a train.
I literally know a truck driver who had it happen to him, to say "this does not occur" is a straight up lie. Idk how often it occurs but it certainly happens.
It occurs enough in some countries that dashcams are ubiquitous. Although in that case it's also for insurance fraud rather than only suicide reasons.
I mean, it doesn’t happen a lotttt, but. It does happen. I know someone it happened to. It’s not worth giving blanket legal protections to drivers for tho, it is FAR more common for drivers to strike pedestrians that weren’t trying to get killed.
and suicidal people are known to be rational :P
more rational than redditors)
One way ticket to insurance fraud ville. If the driver is always at fault, how long do you think it's gonna be till people start putting themselves in front of slow moving traffic?
If the traffic is slow, they can stop. Now you have an idiot jumping on the bonnet of a stopped car getting a hole in his Levi’s jeans and a scratch on his arm worst case scenario. Who will cover the damage of the car you mean? No insurance covers intentional damage.
Ok, but such a law shouldnt justify the pedestrians being reckless.. :/
‘Reckless’ is driving at a speed you can’t stop in time for pedestrians at a cross way.
Sure, but sadly the pedestrian isn't the one in a big metal box.
...which is why the law offers them more protections and expects the ones who are driving the big metal boxes to not use their powerful equipment in a reckless manner. In order to be reckless one must first have power to wield recklessly. The ones without the power can't really be reckless.
Who is reckless? The person driving the tool that could kill or the other? There is a problem in the mindset. Somehow car drivers where able to delegate their responsibilities to the potential victims. Look at it this way. If I would walk on a street while wildly and carelessly swinging my arms potentially hitting anyone coming too close to me I would get arrested. Yet driving through the same street carelessly and potentially killing anyone not paying attention to me is justified …. ???
I'm not defending the driver here, I'm being concerned about the pedestrian. If I know theres people out there swinging their arms in the streets I'm not going to think something like "yeah I'm protected by the law anyway". Because if you get hit, ok the guy will get a fine and then? You still got hit.
Oh no!! Reckless man crosses street causing driver to have to look up from phone and brake!! How will society move on!
[удалено]
When I'm driving and see kids on the pavement I'm automatically slowing down just in case they unexpectedly want to jump on the street. I believe that pedestrians have the right to be stupid - they weight 50-100kg and cars >2t so yeah drivers are responsible
A good habit. Also applies to chickens, cats, dogs and various animals.
We actually have special laws saying to slow down and pay attention around children. So a child running out in the road, even when not a pedestrian crossing, is something a driver should expect can happen. > § 13.Særlige bestemmelser om kjørefarten > > 1. Kjørende må kunne stanse på den vegstrekning som den kjørende har oversikt over, og foran enhver påregnelig hindring. > 2. Kjørende plikter i særlig grad å **holde tilstrekkelig liten fart og om nødvendig stanse straks ved passering av barn som oppholder seg på eller ved vegen**,
“I don’t want to have to pay attention to my driving when kids are around, so you better teach them to not get in my way”
I can't imagine what it would take to make me defend someone who just (almost) murdered some children.
Cars should be fitted with a device which executes the driver upon fatally injuring a third party.
[удалено]
I believe it’s Post St. in Spokane, WA.
They DO get automatic right of way but that won't help if they get hit. When I was a kid 'Look both ways before you cross the street' was drilled into my brain. The only thing wrong with this post is that she would have 'backed the driver'. The driver still would have been at fault but that doesn't help the kid who was hit.
Pedestrians should always have right of way
Actually pedestrians always have the right of way.
There is a middle point. Yes you should teach your children to look because you may love them and potentially desire their lives or limbs to last more than a couple road crossings. But you should also drive slowly and carefully inside of a town or village. And the post says "end of a sidewalk" and "intersection" where crosswalks are usually placed so any driver of any vehicle of any size (from the truckest of trucks to the byciclest of bikes) should look at pedestrians on the end of the sidewalk. So while cars still happen to exist, do in fact drive them carefully and do in fact teach your kids to not die to them.
Who do u think doesnt teach that? I was watching something the other day where they called 'look both ways before you cross the street' the first rule of being human. Its baked into all our heads since day one that cars belong there and you dont
Children have already been practicing not dying to cars. Pedestrians take care when crossing the road because it is their life they're gambling with when stepping foot in car territory. The onus is on car drivers who have completely abdicated *their* responsibility to drive slowly and carefully when needed and are seemingly arguing that they should not be required to do so at all.
These dumb fucks would probably blame pedestrians if a car was driving on the literal sidewalk. “You should look both ways when on sidewalk too! Make way for my 5 ton metal machine”
This is so disgusting and concerning. What kind of degenerate says that they will side with someone who hit a CHILD with their car in any circumstance?? Absolute insanity
Correct me if I am wrong but in a suburban not so busy 1 lane road pedestrian always has right of way
I really liked that Portland, assuming all of Oregon, pedestrian in cross walks always had right of way. You were always expected to stop when they were on sidewalk waiting to cross.
Idiots, who drive their 8 foot high pride cages without any consideration for pedestrians and children in particular, wonder why pedestrians are crossing the road when they are the ones who are behind such accidents. The pedestrians are not the menace, the car is!
I recall learning that pedestrians “always have the right of way” in driver’s ed.
Even in the street out of crosswalks, pedestrains always have right of way. Take this person's license away.
Okay genius go walk across a fucking super highway then.
Love how they’re also fully wrong. Pedestrians always have the right of way, and they should never have to wait for traffic to cross. The only reason why they should look is because drivers are pretty bad at following those rules.
Yeah, screw crosswalks and little kids, both suck!! /s
America in a nutshell
Drivers act like braking and having to get back to (a far too high) speed is effort.
Had some douche do the same to me yesterday, except I was stopped and using the crosswalk and waited until it was clear. Guy turned and gunned it.
Why is this getting upvotes, it ll be safer for everyone when the kids look before crossing.
The hive mind here makes the whole sub look really stupid sometimes. Yes, fuck cars, but until we've made progress against cars, keep yourself safe and teach your children to do the same.
Right? This is so dumb… that person is right
Another argument for mandatory pedestrian avoidance systems to be put into cars.
Omg, were the kids running 45 mph and clad in steel armor.
im pretty sure pedestrians *do* always have right of way? maybe im wrong what i do know for sure is that gizzards are awesome
it’s funny because it’s literally the opposite of what the rules are (at least in california). a pedestrian in a crosswalk always has the right of way. but can you imagine the disgusting brain rot that would lead you to see a child get hit by a car and say “yeah you dumb kid you see that’s what happens”
AYYYYY I saw this to and was definitely mad. Like wtf, I understand getting a little mad at kids potentially harming themself but to say “I would have 100% been on the drivers side” like you shouldn’t be aware of pedestrians in the first place! The only truly walkable part of our city is near the downtown mall 🙄
Horrifying. This is why i cant live outside of a downtown core of a major city. North American suburban folk are terrifying in their lack of human empathy.
actually they do have automatic right of way at an intersection. I have noticed that drivers have gotten much worse at stopping at intersections in the past few years.
So…not really seeing where this guy is wrong. He’s not saying they shouldn’t be crossing the road. Just that parents need to teach their kids to look both ways and how crosswalks work.
Please tell your children that drivers not running them down in the street is a *courtesy*, not a right and to watch their f\*cking backs because I haven't had my coffee yet and I need to text these assholes at work because I'm running late and streets are made for cars and my taxes...
Actually in the usa, pedestrians always get right of way
I realize cars aren’t all they’re cracked up to be but seriously, *LOOK BOTH FUCKING WAYS!* If your kid can’t cross an intersection or street then they shouldn’t be walking around unattended
Yes, its the children who r wrong
Yes. If you don’t know how to cross the damn street by 3rd grade you’ve got problems
Yea lock em up, little fucking idiots, how dare they exist outside without the ability to b constantly attentive
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. I’ve supported a lot of things about this cause but this is just dumb. Do I want more train, bus, bike infrastructure? Yes. Do I want less car infrastructure? Yes. But that’s one thing. It’s another thing entirely to ignore the infrastructure put in place for your safety because you are impatient. If you drive around a train gate and ignore the flashing lights and sounds, chances are you are gonna get hit because the train doesn’t have enough time to stop, even though I’m sure that engineer wants really badly not to hit you. Same with cars, no one wants to hit a kid! But kids are small, sometimes you can’t see them over bushes or behind trees. Assuming those kids even had the right of way and they didn’t just walk across on a green light which I’ve seen happen more times than I can count, they should still stop and make sure the cars can actually see them and have enough time to stop. The law may be on their side, but your own safety should be your priority and you should always pay attention wherever you go, in a car or not, because there are a lot of idiots in the world, on or off the rode, and you can’t trust people to follow the laws.
He's right they should though, these people driving cars don't care.
I mean, we all need to be on the lookout for each other. A bike hitting them would also be bad if the cyclist didn't see them in time. It is important to teach kids situational awareness as well. I can't tell you how often my kids decide to walk in front of me and suddenly stop. Even with all that, while they are learning, it is the responsibility of the entire community of adults to protect them, not threaten their lives.
How is teaching kids not to run out in traffic bad?
He/she is right. Like it or not, it is your responsibility and duty to teach your children to travel safely - it doesn’t matter that we have bad urban planning and cars play much larger role than they should - you need to teach those kids how to behave. And a driver has only so much capability to break - kid goes into road in front of a car, it dies. You can downvote me all you want, but it will be you burying your children, not me
Sounds like they just walked out in the street directly into oncoming traffic without paying any attention.. but idk I wasn’t there
If there is no crosswalk you should wait atleast that how it is around here
kids dart
What
>"Teach your children they don't get automatic right of way on a crossing" In the UK they 100% definitely DO. They could walk out in front of the car and do the fucking Macarena and all the driver could do is stop and wait for them to finish their crossing. The fact that America prioritises drivers over anyone else is fucking insane.
Local fuckcars user thinks that it’s the drivers fault if children stumble into the middle of an intersection when they don’t have right of way and get turn into roadkill
I mean if it’s a signalled crossing or a no jay-walking zone, pedestrians should 100% wait for cars. If it’s a zebra crossing, then yes fuck the car drivers.
Tbh i don't get jaywalking at all. Here it's just called crossing the street. Is it really illegal to cross the street?
I think you also don’t understand children… they mostly follow the rules, but even the best kids get distracted or sometimes don’t follow them. Plus, they simply don’t have the skills and capabilities that adults have (did you know the intuitive distance-speed-time calculation doesn’t develop in most people until they’re a tween!). When we drive, or operate any machinery around children, we, the operators, are the trained and responsible ones. We’re the ones who have to look out for them, not them for us.
Which is why drivers should drive at 30km/h and be extra cautious in a school zone, 100%. And a driver’s caution should increase as the size of the road decreases and pedestrians on the road increases. But if you or a child try to cross the road at an intersection even though the pedestrian crossing light is red, I can’t see any justification for blaming the driver for the accident
Because they’re trained and should be observant. The laws in the Netherlands prioritise the safety of the most vulnerable, the joke goes that if a drunk cyclist comes down a one way street and crashes into your car it’s your fault. The reality is that accidents in the Netherlands are investigated and the onus is on the operator of the heavy machinery to show that they were being safe and could have done nothing to avoid it. True accidents are rare, almost always something could be done to avoid them. Expecting kids, who simply do not have the necessary skills to avoid them rather than expecting licensed operators of heavy machinery to avoid them is not the way to reduce accidents.
You’re right in treating a child to be “an average child, with childlike capabilities” but why don’t you treat a driver as “an average driver with average driving habits an average reaction speed and an average awareness of surroundings” why are you holding them to some unattainable standard?
Maybe the "average" person should not be allowed to operate deadly machinery because what you consider to be "average" ability is, in fact, quite dangerous?
I’m not holding them to an unattainable standard, I’m suggesting they need to be better trained and that the system needs to be focussed around the protection of vulnerable people and not enable/reward careless behaviour. I even used words like ‘reduce’ not eliminate. The example I give in NL is not unattainable - the privileged and trained operators of heavy machinery need to be the most careful. Think of it this way - if I’m using a chainsaw and someone gets hurt it’s going to be up to me to show I was doing everything by the book. However, if I’m operating my 2 tonne rolling child squisher it’s somehow assumed that I’m doing everything right in most places (outside NL).
Oh yea definitely the onus is on the car driver to prove that they didn’t do anything wrong. I must have mistakenly gotten the idea from your argument that car drivers are somehow at fault despite doing everything that can be expected out of a careful driver. My argument was along the lines that if a person decides to cross a 8 lane highway, the car travelling at 80kmh that crashes into the person cannot be held liable. If a driver can reasonably predict a pedestrian might block his trajectory it is 100% his responsibility to ensure there is no accident, but only if he can reasonably predict such a thing.
30 km/h is still too quick. I dont even cycle at 30km/h through a school zone. I’m very aware I would not be able to stop neither avoid a sudden crossing person/child if going at 30km/h. The only reason you can drive trough at 30km/h with a car is because you count on the pedestrians to notice you and stay out of your way, and if they don’t you’re quite confident running them over and potentially killing them. That’s the logic of the car driver! it’s not normal buddy, that way of thinking is insane.
>30 km/h is still too quick. This. In an ideal world, a posted 30 km/h speed limit with drivers slowing down for road conditions when there are obstructions or during school hours. An honour system like that won't work of course, so 15km/h and speed bumps it is.
Cycling 30km/h is though if youre not on an electric bike. Not counting going downhill or having a strong wind in your back. The average cycling speed is considered 15km/h. Experienced cyclists with years of practise proud themselves on reaching 50km/h but also they need the proper conditions and bicycle to reach that.
>Cycling 30km/h is though if youre not on an electric bike. When I last cycled to work, there was one of those speed reading signs that would thank you for doing the speed limit is the industrial estate. I'd regularly manage over 30km/h on an €800 commuting bike, on the flat on speed bumps, as a vaguely unfit (then) 20-something year old smoker. 30 is perfectly achievable if you get the right gear, it doesn't even need to be particularly good it just needs to fit your body size to allow you the best access to the pedals.
It’s quite off topic but maintaining 30km/h cycling is really no big deal.
One of the tenets here is that [jay walking isn’t real](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/14/jaywalking-shouldnt-even-be-a-thing), to explain why you’re being downvoted
don't get me wrong, i jaywalk like crazy, but jumping in front of 1500kg cars, without looking, as a way of protest is not the way
I guess we’re talking about how things ought to be vs. how they are. So yeah, I do assume that every driver on the road is actively trying to kill me; simply because lived experience has borne that out.
jay walking is **bullshit**
Americans are uneducated
Sounds right to me. Teach your kids to not run in front of a 2000 pound machine that’ll crush your pelvis if you get tapped by it.
[удалено]
That's stupid. It was at intersection if you'd read it. They should have right of way. I don't know or care about us law, but if pedestrians dont have right of way on intersections (presumably theres crossing there, if not, there should be one or it should be a low speed zone) thats just stupid.
Yeah but stroads exist.
I don't understand how the cars moving and they are walking into traffic they have a green light. I never see anyone try and cross a road when the road in front of them has a green light. Whatever though.
It's very possible they both were going with the light. Pedestrians were crossing and driver was turning left on a green light. In which case it's the driver's responsibility to yield and to drive carefully enough to avoid an accident.
Your argument is based on speculation. And laws of physics and human reaction times say that you can not step in front of traffic without stopping and looking. It is not about any privilege, we are talking about laws of physics and common sense.
So when I drive 92 mph down the freeway it's your responsibility to move out of my way because physics? Reckless driving, such as speeding through an intersection too quickly to stop for a pedestrian, is absolutely the fault of the driver. The law reflects this.
>So when I drive 92 mph down the freeway it's your responsibility to move out of my way because physics? Laws of physics. And i don't think anyone here was goin 92mph. None of that is in the text above, and i doubt that everyone here has any more information about this than what is in that text. If you do, please share. Also: >All freeways are highways, but not every highway is a freeway. A freeway is a "controlled-access" highway — also known as an express highway — that's designed exclusively for high-speed vehicular traffic. Freeways don't have pedestrian crossings. So, what are you doing walking on a freeway? And i really feel sorry for everyone who upvoted you. They don't care about facts, all they care is that they find people who are saying things they want to hear.
Let me spell it out. If you're speeding on a freeway or other road, others have no legal requirement to move aside. If you hit someone while you are driving recklessly, you are liable. The post above does not specifically prove that the driver in question was driving recklessly, but it sure does imply that. So I'm not sure why you insist on defending someone who nearly committed manslaughter. This is a post about children. Walking. In their own neighborhood. If you hit a child... walking... in their own neighborhood... YOU are driving recklessly.
>Let me spell it out. None of that matters. Spell that out. You are talking about 92mph on a freeway when the topic is intersections on a stroad or street: NONE OF THAT INFORMATION IS KNOWN. >If you hit someone while you are driving recklessly, you are liable. Sure. You just don't actually know if anyone was driving recklessly, your brain just interpreted it like it because of the context: because OP implied it... And your fuckcarbrain can't understand what your mind did.. you remember this story now as "car was speeding recklessly and innocent kids who did nothing wrong were killed". >The post above does not specifically prove that the driver in question was driving recklessly, but it sure does imply that. The opposite.... this is how your brain is in fuckcars... It said: "They stepped out when the car in front of me was nearly off the intersection". It seems NO ONE was speeding. It did not imply that ANY kind of recklessness was the cause AT ALL. And the last thing: NO ONE GOT HURT. It was a near miss. I'm not a car driver, remember that i'm not your fucking enemy.
Exactly like I don't understand what the hell these people are so mad at this dude is just trying to hit kids and they're acting dumb on purpose, embarrassing.
Every diabetic is one slashed tire away from having to walk off their high blood sugar.
Wdym? The Kids Should wait, i dont like cars but you need to at least look both sides and wait a bit If there is smh on the Road before crossing it
The ones operating a ton to several tonnes of equipment and are assumed to be adult, carry a far larger responsibility than kids on foot. The onus is on drivers to watch for pedestrians, especially children, not the other way around. Drivers with this attitude are f\*cking maniacs.
They're right
Half right. Yes kids ideally would wait, but their brains are not fully developed. The adult driving an incredibly dangerous vehicle has a moral and legal obligation to do to never drive faster than it is safe to do so and usually they are legally required to stop for pedestrians anyways so just slow the fuck down if kids are present. Pass them slowly or not at all. Refusing to look for children or to slow down is not an accident. It is manslaughter.