> pedestrian's shouldn't be able to just suddenly jump out in front of a fast-moving stream of heavy traffic and expect everyone to stop across all lanes for them.
I don’t agree. If you are driving too fast to stop for pedestrians, you are driving too fast, period.
I’ll make an exception for protected major freeways, especially in rural areas. (Abominations like the I-5 going straight through the middle of Seattle should be illegal).
> I don’t agree. If you are driving too fast to stop for pedestrians, you are driving too fast, period.
no offense, but this is kind of ridiculous. on a street with parallel parked cars, an uncareful pedestrian can instantly transition from being totally obstructed from view to only a couple feet in front of a moving vehicle. I literally can't drive slow enough to avoid hitting them without slipping the clutch all the way through the city.
This is literally not a problem. I drive practically everywhere and love it. The way people act is pretty normal: they peek out between the cars, then sort of obviously act like they want to step out. And you're driving, what, max 30 mph in such a place? Easy to stop. Any time I'm a pedestrian people usually stop. Any time I'm a driver I usually stop.
I think it's good to point out once in a while that there is no right to drive a car, but there is a right to walk in public spaces. The responses in these threads always devolve to "But I have to drive my car, and if I can't do it safely, then people are just going to have to die."
If you really can't drive slowly enough, then avoid streets like that, ride a bike, walk, bus, cab, etc. In these kinds of crowded, pedestrian-filled areas, I'll drive 10 mph. I don't care. That's the speed I feel is right and safe for me and my neighbors. Speed limits really are limits. I _can_ drive slow enough.
> I think it's good to point out once in a while that there is no right to drive a car, but there is a right to walk in public spaces. The responses in these threads always devolve to "But I have to drive my car, and if I can't do it safely, then people are just going to have to die."
from a formal legal perspective, sure, but this kind of ignores the "facts on the ground" in the US. it's unfortunate, but most people in this country really do need access to a car to complete basic life tasks. outside of uncharacteristically dense places like NYC, it's a privileged minority that is able to get by without owning a car or having a reliable friend / family member that owns one. I live in one of the few truly walkable areas of my city, but I can only afford this because I have a good software job 25 miles out in the suburbs.
> If you really can't drive slowly enough, then avoid streets like that, ride a bike, walk, bus, cab, etc. In these kinds of crowded, pedestrian-filled areas, I'll drive 10 mph. I don't care. That's the speed I feel is right and safe for me and my neighbors. Speed limits really are limits. I _can_ drive slow enough.
even 10 mph isn't slow enough to avoid hitting a pedestrian in every possible situation. it takes around 0.7-3 seconds for a driver to notice a hazard in the road and start applying the brakes. if you are an exceptionally alert driver and hit the 0.7 s figure, you have already traveled 10 feet towards the pedestrian before you've even started to slow down. if the pavement is dry and your brakes and tires are in good condition, you will come to a complete stop in another five feet. if, as in my example, someone darts out from between two parked cars, you will hit them if you do not have at least 15 feet in which to stop (although you probably won't injure them severely at this speed). again, this is assuming absolutely ideal conditions for you and your vehicle.
keep in mind, people routinely bump into each other while they're both walking. no amount of caution is sufficient to prevent a mishap when one party is totally oblivious. this is what I'm responding to here. I totally agree that the driver of a 1.5+ ton vehicle has a greater responsibility than someone moving under the power of their own two feet. what I don't agree with is that a pedestrian can step into oncoming traffic at any time and expect the whole world to stop for them or for it to automatically be someone else's fault if they get hit. as individuals, we can't reorganize america's entire transportation infrastructure overnight to eliminate the need for cars. we absolutely can accept a few minor inconveniences to make transit much safer for drivers and pedestrians both.
also, random aside: why do so many people suggest a bus or a cab as an alternative to driving in these threads? a bus or cab driver does not typically drive any more carefully than I do. all that accomplishes is to shift the liability onto someone else. the liability is not really a problem for me in the first place. I already drive more carefully than is needed to avoid legal fault in these situations.
> also, random aside: why do so many people suggest a bus or a cab as an alternative to driving in these threads? a bus or cab driver does not typically drive any more carefully than I do. all that accomplishes is to shift the liability onto someone else.
No, it reduces the risk because it's one bus, vs fifty selfish people in their own cars. Less potential crashes.
This would relegate your maximum speed to <5mph or so. That's less practical than just encouraging pedestrians not to be in the habit of darting out from between parked cars right into a lane of traffic.
No, 10 is fine, so long as you're paying attention.
> less practical than just encouraging pedestrians
By pedestrians, you actually mean "people". And it's all people. Little kids, people with mental disabilities, etc. What kind of "encouragement" is really going to keep everyone off the 50% of city land that we've turned into roads? Oh, except for the times you're allowed to be in the street. I've yet to meet an adult who even knows what an unmarked crosswalk is, but we're supposed to make sure every toddler knows this stuff or they die?
Having actually had someone dart out in front of me from between two parked cars when I was going about that speed, I don't really agree. Sure, I didn't hit them, but it was close and very dependent on reaction times for all involved.
> 50% of city land
It's more typically 30-35%
> Little kids, people with mental disabilities
Both hopefully supervised. It ain't just cars that will put defenseless people in peril.
I get that you have a very strong ideological opposition to cars, but let's be practical. They aren't going away. Arguably the utility offered by personal transportation in the last century has driven a huge amount of growth. So short of going backwards, we continue to find ways to live with them. Elimination is a pipe dream of a few super privileged people.
I don’t agree. If you are driving too fast to stop for pedestrians, you are driving too fast, period.
I’ll make an exception for protected major freeways, especially in rural areas. (Abominations like the I-5 going straight through the middle of Seattle should be illegal).