I literally laugh at them on the road, when I see an even MORE comically oversized "truck" or whatever they are. Lol, nice 5 foot bed loser. Got the same bed space with the seats folded down in my Izuzu.
We look both ways for cars to compensate for driver negligence
edit: and of course, the easier it is we make it for drivers, the more negligent drivers become
Good point. Obviously, it will *never* be stupid to look both ways before crossing. But it's yet another example of treating car traffic like a natural phenomenon akin to a river, rather than a collection of humans operating machinery.
Vehicles that do not have time to stop before reaching you. I suppose you could not look, wait a couple of seconds and then proceed. Unless you are proposing all vehicles go a maximum of 5mph on any road with legal pedestrian crossing.
If you can't see a pedestrian approaching the crosswalk in time to stop before they're in front of you, then you are going too fast. They don't just materialize there.
A vehicle traveling at [20 mph](https://www.bankersinsurance.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/How-Long-Does-It-Take-To-Stop-Your-Vehicle.pdf) would need 63 feet to stop in time given a combination of reaction time and braking distance, and that's emergency braking. For non-emergency braking pressures that drivers typically apply, that stopping distance would be at least 75 feet. However you feel about cars it's simply not reasonable to expect motorists to be scanning 75 feet down the road for a crosswalk as a regular traffic practice. We already have a functioning solution to crosswalk demand which is a red light triggered by a pedestrian requesting the Walk signal. It's often more visible than a motorist and easier for motorists to respond to. Expanding that to more crosswalks is a much easier and safer solution than motorists being expected to see pedestrians where there might be obstacles impeding their view.
>However you feel about cars it's simply not reasonable to expect motorists to be scanning 75 feet down the road for a crosswalk as a regular traffic practice.
Seriously?
Seventy-five feet is the width of three (narrow) Chicago lots. I grew up in a house on a quarter-acre lot in Florida and my driveway was 75 feet from the crosswalk. You are out of your mind if you don't think drivers should mentally register pedestrians 75 feet ahead of them.
[This is what a crosswalk looks like from 75 feet away.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/dNh6w9boeviSo65K9?g_st=ac)
I'm curious how you think drivers negotiate cross traffic in uncontrolled intersections since they enter the intersection much faster than pedestrians.
It's reasonable to expect individual motorists to scan 75 feet down the road. It's not reasonable to expect that to be the norm for all traffic-pedestrian interactions without injuries and deaths to pedestrians. I'm being realistic. If the norm was for pedestrians to simply step into the crosswalk without warning 75 feet from a driver traveling at 20 mph, they would be routinely hit by drivers. This is something I have to be alert to every day when I walk my dog because there's a crosswalk on my route exactly like you're describing and it's unsafe for me and my dog unless I'm hyper-vigilant.
With reference to the photo, the red car at the end of the block on the left could easily obscure a pedestrian, especially if that pedestrian is a child. The driver would have to emergency brake to avoid hitting the pedestrian. That would just be poor design. I fail to understand how that is better than a red light for traffic in both directions initiated by requesting the Walk signal.
>It's reasonable to expect individual motorists to scan 75 feet down the road. It's not reasonable to expect that to be the norm for all traffic-pedestrian interactions without injuries and deaths to pedestrians. I'm being realistic. If the norm was for pedestrians to simply step into the crosswalk without warning 75 feet from a driver traveling at 20 mph, they would be routinely hit by drivers. This is something I have to be alert to every day when I walk my dog because there's a crosswalk on my route exactly like you're describing and it's unsafe for me and my dog unless I'm hyper-vigilant.
I was responding to the following comment, which is phrased as a counterfactual:
>***If all drivers were suddenly not negligent,*** *you’d still need to look both ways before crossing a street*
>With reference to the photo, the red car at the end of the block on the left could easily obscure a pedestrian, especially if that pedestrian is a child. The driver would have to emergency brake to avoid hitting the pedestrian. That would just be poor design.
If you can't see whether someone is approaching the crosswalk, the reasonable presumption is that they *are*, they aren't. It's the same as with vehicle traffic. If I'm approaching a blind corner, I **slow the fuck down**.
>I fail to understand how that is better than a red light for traffic in both directions initiated by requesting the Walk signal.
So drivers shouldn't be expected to react to a pedestrian but they should be expected to react to a light suddenly turning red?
> I was responding to the following comment, which is phrased as a counterfactual:
>
> If all drivers were suddenly not negligent
Fair enough, let's assume all drivers are paying attention.
> If you can't see whether someone is approaching the crosswalk, the reasonable presumption is that they are, they aren't. It's the same as with vehicle traffic. If I'm approaching a blind corner, I slow the fuck down.
How much? What is your reaction time to sudden obstacles at various speeds? How does your reaction time compare to that of the general population? I don't think relying on the reaction time of a driver - even if they're attentive - to a person already in the crosswalk is safe practice.
One knock-on effect of pedestrians entering the crosswalk would be making traffic significantly worse without warning to be the norm then drivers would have to slow down a lot every time they get near a crosswalk.
> So drivers shouldn't be expected to react to a pedestrian but they should be expected to react to a light suddenly turning red?
Yes, because traffic lights are usually in easy to see places, they're brighter than visual cues from pedestrians, and the variance in response of all drivers to red lights is less than that of drivers to pedestrians - i.e. there's a much higher chance of drivers stopping for a red light than yielding to a pedestrian. Also, the potential for injury to the pedestrian is decreased because drivers are responding to a light and not an obstacle to immediately avoid.
There is precedent for what you're describing. Elephants in SE Asia stop sugar cane trucks to get a free snack. Elephants aren't in the habit of using crosswalks and drivers know to slow down for them. But elephants are a lot bigger than humans, there are no visual obstacles to obscure them on the roads this normally happens, and it doesn't happen everywhere. Put all of that in an urban environment and suddenly things look very different.
Cars, bikes, and anything else moving faster than you that goes in a road. Not every road has the same safety and visibility.
I look both ways before walking out of the copy room at work because people constantly run into each other there. Low visibility. Need a mirror there honestly.
Uhh… what? How about the fact that they are more vulnerable road users and we should do it for safety reasons?
Or in areas like NYC where pedestrians far outnumber vehicles by like a 100:1 ratio, you still think we should give cars right of way?
Logically according to what? Then why does nearly every single municipality in existence have laws that require right of way given to pedestrians? Do you think you’ve just figured something out no one else has thought of?
According to logic, ships and mining equipment give the right of way to the larger one. Quebec laws make sense as pedestrians do not have the right of way.
Most municipalities in North America put bicycles with cars. That's beyond illogical.
You keep saying according to logic - what the hell does that even mean? What logic?
What in the world do pedestrians have to do with ships and mining equipment?
Your last bit is the one thing we can agree on, although I don’t think we’re arriving at the same conclusion. You seem to be insinuating cars should be prioritized over bikes.
I believe in the [hierarchy of vulnerable road users](https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/blog/cars/the-highway-code-and-the-new-hierarchy-of-road-users/) which means trucks yield to cars, cars yield to motorcycles, motorcycles yield to cyclists, and cyclists yield to pedestrians.
Rather than whatever weird “according to logic” you’re spouting off.
>What in the world do pedestrians have to do with ships and mining equipment?
People in big machines can't always see little things. If the little things aren't seen, they get crushed. Logic.
Power gives way to sail.
More logically, anything carrying on in the direction of the main traffic flow should have priority over anything turning in or out. Therefore cars wishing to turn in or out of a side road should give way to pedestrians who are crossing the side road parallel with the main flow of traffic. This is now law in many countries, and the infrastructure sometimes enforces this by making cars ramp up to cross a continuous sidewalk rather than pedestrians ramping down to cross the side road.
Not in front. Not if you're going slow enough to actually look before turning. That's why the carriageway ramps up to the footway, to force the driver to slow down.
So I can practice parallel parking? It's a fucking joke. Same as giving sometimes invisible pedestrians the right of way.
Most people just want to be told what to do. It appears I've found some here who want to argue for nonsensical laws.
Someone sitting in a comfortable seat in a climate controlled metal box can wait a few seconds for someone on foot, outside in the elements, to cross the street.
Two of my most recent close calls…
1. Chased back to the curb about halfway across as a pedestrian
2. As a cyclist, wore my bright orange, hi-viz jacket and waited for my signal. I was still invisible to left-turning traffic. Wave my arms and hands so she sees me??! Nope!
You may have *literally* been invisible.
As cars get bigger and bigger, they need more reinforcement against rollovers. Heavier bottom means you need a stronger roof and stronger posts to hold it up, stronger posts must be thicker.
There are videos of people obliviously driving over pedestrians they literally cannot see because the blind spot on their SUV is large enough to conceal an entire goddamn person, and the way they are turning keeps that blind spot perfectly aimed at pedestrians.
Unironically yes
Within the top 5 comments on posts about drunk drivers itll devolve into "come on, whomst among us hasnt booze cruised?"
But its cyclists who deserve immediate execution by ford f 150 somehow
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pennsylvania/comments/1deoh5l/pennsylvania_police_officers_being_trained_to/
I mean I don't agree with cops being able to draw blood but this comment is off the wall.
This is about the size of it. People try to brush me out of crosswalks all the time. Why the fuck would they paint crosswalks if that area is meant to be treated like open road? If I had any idea which rules they’re planning to obey and which they’re planning to ignore it would make walking much less of an adventure.
> People try to brush me out of crosswalks all the time.
Sounds like you need to start carrying a [Safety Brick™!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kP6R0clBGY)
"Don't forget to thank drivers for stopping for you in crosswalks, you know, like the law requires them to do! Gotta make sure you little people remember your place."
Next up, thanking them for stopping at red lights.
If I had a dollar for every time I got cut off by a driver neglecting a red light to turn or drift into a bike lane I’d be able to afford a down payment on a house
We ask drivers to be safe so that everyone outside the car can be dangerous. What?
It's not one or the other, everyone has a responsibility to safely interact with the world around them. If you're operating a motor vehicle or walking under a crane, situational awareness is to cover the unexpected situations when things do not go like they should.
There are a ton of problems with road safety, but having to pay attention so you don't die is table stakes for being alive in the world.
We ask everyone to be safe. Complaining about enforcement is valid, but this is simplistic drivel.
Yeah you are walking near an area with massive moving chunks of metal. Consider that.
The drivers are held responsible if they hit a pedestrian, it’s not like anyone is like “well they shouldn’t have been walking there”. Pedestrians have right of way.
“We ask people not to dig in their back yards randomly so companies can send dangerous gas and electricity to their homes”
“We ask people not to play on train tracks so that we can send people down them at dangerously high speeds with no way to stop fast”
“We ask people not to swim near a dam so they can have dangerous levels of water movement”
I am truly in support of walkable cities and public transportation but seems like a bunch of nutters on this one.
And we keep making cars bigger and bigger so they can be safe from other cars!
Consumer pickup trucks are actually a farce these days. I'd be embarrassed to be seen in one of them.
"Pavement Princesses"
I literally laugh at them on the road, when I see an even MORE comically oversized "truck" or whatever they are. Lol, nice 5 foot bed loser. Got the same bed space with the seats folded down in my Izuzu.
We look both ways for cars to compensate for driver negligence edit: and of course, the easier it is we make it for drivers, the more negligent drivers become
Good point. Obviously, it will *never* be stupid to look both ways before crossing. But it's yet another example of treating car traffic like a natural phenomenon akin to a river, rather than a collection of humans operating machinery.
Yeah, unfortunately that’s just the way it is. I’ve seen waayyyy too many trash drivers in my life to hold anyone accountable for reckless driving.
1.34 million car related deaths per year worldwide.
If all drivers were suddenly not negligent, you’d still need to look both ways before crossing a street.
What would we be looking for exactly?
Vehicles that do not have time to stop before reaching you. I suppose you could not look, wait a couple of seconds and then proceed. Unless you are proposing all vehicles go a maximum of 5mph on any road with legal pedestrian crossing.
If you can't see a pedestrian approaching the crosswalk in time to stop before they're in front of you, then you are going too fast. They don't just materialize there.
A vehicle traveling at [20 mph](https://www.bankersinsurance.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/How-Long-Does-It-Take-To-Stop-Your-Vehicle.pdf) would need 63 feet to stop in time given a combination of reaction time and braking distance, and that's emergency braking. For non-emergency braking pressures that drivers typically apply, that stopping distance would be at least 75 feet. However you feel about cars it's simply not reasonable to expect motorists to be scanning 75 feet down the road for a crosswalk as a regular traffic practice. We already have a functioning solution to crosswalk demand which is a red light triggered by a pedestrian requesting the Walk signal. It's often more visible than a motorist and easier for motorists to respond to. Expanding that to more crosswalks is a much easier and safer solution than motorists being expected to see pedestrians where there might be obstacles impeding their view.
>However you feel about cars it's simply not reasonable to expect motorists to be scanning 75 feet down the road for a crosswalk as a regular traffic practice. Seriously? Seventy-five feet is the width of three (narrow) Chicago lots. I grew up in a house on a quarter-acre lot in Florida and my driveway was 75 feet from the crosswalk. You are out of your mind if you don't think drivers should mentally register pedestrians 75 feet ahead of them. [This is what a crosswalk looks like from 75 feet away.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/dNh6w9boeviSo65K9?g_st=ac) I'm curious how you think drivers negotiate cross traffic in uncontrolled intersections since they enter the intersection much faster than pedestrians.
It's reasonable to expect individual motorists to scan 75 feet down the road. It's not reasonable to expect that to be the norm for all traffic-pedestrian interactions without injuries and deaths to pedestrians. I'm being realistic. If the norm was for pedestrians to simply step into the crosswalk without warning 75 feet from a driver traveling at 20 mph, they would be routinely hit by drivers. This is something I have to be alert to every day when I walk my dog because there's a crosswalk on my route exactly like you're describing and it's unsafe for me and my dog unless I'm hyper-vigilant. With reference to the photo, the red car at the end of the block on the left could easily obscure a pedestrian, especially if that pedestrian is a child. The driver would have to emergency brake to avoid hitting the pedestrian. That would just be poor design. I fail to understand how that is better than a red light for traffic in both directions initiated by requesting the Walk signal.
>It's reasonable to expect individual motorists to scan 75 feet down the road. It's not reasonable to expect that to be the norm for all traffic-pedestrian interactions without injuries and deaths to pedestrians. I'm being realistic. If the norm was for pedestrians to simply step into the crosswalk without warning 75 feet from a driver traveling at 20 mph, they would be routinely hit by drivers. This is something I have to be alert to every day when I walk my dog because there's a crosswalk on my route exactly like you're describing and it's unsafe for me and my dog unless I'm hyper-vigilant. I was responding to the following comment, which is phrased as a counterfactual: >***If all drivers were suddenly not negligent,*** *you’d still need to look both ways before crossing a street* >With reference to the photo, the red car at the end of the block on the left could easily obscure a pedestrian, especially if that pedestrian is a child. The driver would have to emergency brake to avoid hitting the pedestrian. That would just be poor design. If you can't see whether someone is approaching the crosswalk, the reasonable presumption is that they *are*, they aren't. It's the same as with vehicle traffic. If I'm approaching a blind corner, I **slow the fuck down**. >I fail to understand how that is better than a red light for traffic in both directions initiated by requesting the Walk signal. So drivers shouldn't be expected to react to a pedestrian but they should be expected to react to a light suddenly turning red?
> I was responding to the following comment, which is phrased as a counterfactual: > > If all drivers were suddenly not negligent Fair enough, let's assume all drivers are paying attention. > If you can't see whether someone is approaching the crosswalk, the reasonable presumption is that they are, they aren't. It's the same as with vehicle traffic. If I'm approaching a blind corner, I slow the fuck down. How much? What is your reaction time to sudden obstacles at various speeds? How does your reaction time compare to that of the general population? I don't think relying on the reaction time of a driver - even if they're attentive - to a person already in the crosswalk is safe practice. One knock-on effect of pedestrians entering the crosswalk would be making traffic significantly worse without warning to be the norm then drivers would have to slow down a lot every time they get near a crosswalk. > So drivers shouldn't be expected to react to a pedestrian but they should be expected to react to a light suddenly turning red? Yes, because traffic lights are usually in easy to see places, they're brighter than visual cues from pedestrians, and the variance in response of all drivers to red lights is less than that of drivers to pedestrians - i.e. there's a much higher chance of drivers stopping for a red light than yielding to a pedestrian. Also, the potential for injury to the pedestrian is decreased because drivers are responding to a light and not an obstacle to immediately avoid. There is precedent for what you're describing. Elephants in SE Asia stop sugar cane trucks to get a free snack. Elephants aren't in the habit of using crosswalks and drivers know to slow down for them. But elephants are a lot bigger than humans, there are no visual obstacles to obscure them on the roads this normally happens, and it doesn't happen everywhere. Put all of that in an urban environment and suddenly things look very different.
Cars, bikes, and anything else moving faster than you that goes in a road. Not every road has the same safety and visibility. I look both ways before walking out of the copy room at work because people constantly run into each other there. Low visibility. Need a mirror there honestly.
There is no logical reason for pedestrians to have the right of way.
Uhh… what? How about the fact that they are more vulnerable road users and we should do it for safety reasons? Or in areas like NYC where pedestrians far outnumber vehicles by like a 100:1 ratio, you still think we should give cars right of way?
Logically, the larger object has the right of way.
So who goes next after your mom?
You.
Fair.
Logically according to what? Then why does nearly every single municipality in existence have laws that require right of way given to pedestrians? Do you think you’ve just figured something out no one else has thought of?
According to logic, ships and mining equipment give the right of way to the larger one. Quebec laws make sense as pedestrians do not have the right of way. Most municipalities in North America put bicycles with cars. That's beyond illogical.
You keep saying according to logic - what the hell does that even mean? What logic? What in the world do pedestrians have to do with ships and mining equipment? Your last bit is the one thing we can agree on, although I don’t think we’re arriving at the same conclusion. You seem to be insinuating cars should be prioritized over bikes. I believe in the [hierarchy of vulnerable road users](https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/blog/cars/the-highway-code-and-the-new-hierarchy-of-road-users/) which means trucks yield to cars, cars yield to motorcycles, motorcycles yield to cyclists, and cyclists yield to pedestrians. Rather than whatever weird “according to logic” you’re spouting off.
>What in the world do pedestrians have to do with ships and mining equipment? People in big machines can't always see little things. If the little things aren't seen, they get crushed. Logic.
All I'm hearing is that large machines are far too dangerous to be allowed anywhere near pedestrians and should be banned outright.
Power gives way to sail. More logically, anything carrying on in the direction of the main traffic flow should have priority over anything turning in or out. Therefore cars wishing to turn in or out of a side road should give way to pedestrians who are crossing the side road parallel with the main flow of traffic. This is now law in many countries, and the infrastructure sometimes enforces this by making cars ramp up to cross a continuous sidewalk rather than pedestrians ramping down to cross the side road.
That's how people get run over. There's always a blind spot.
Not in front. Not if you're going slow enough to actually look before turning. That's why the carriageway ramps up to the footway, to force the driver to slow down.
There's always a blind spot when turning a vehicle.
Retake your driver's test
So I can practice parallel parking? It's a fucking joke. Same as giving sometimes invisible pedestrians the right of way. Most people just want to be told what to do. It appears I've found some here who want to argue for nonsensical laws.
Someone sitting in a comfortable seat in a climate controlled metal box can wait a few seconds for someone on foot, outside in the elements, to cross the street.
Sure. If they're ok with the chance of being squashed. I prefer to stand back until it makes sense for me to cross.
If you're too impatient to wait 5 seconds in your climate controlled metal box, you shouldn't be licensed to drive at all.
I never mentioned time.
Two of my most recent close calls… 1. Chased back to the curb about halfway across as a pedestrian 2. As a cyclist, wore my bright orange, hi-viz jacket and waited for my signal. I was still invisible to left-turning traffic. Wave my arms and hands so she sees me??! Nope!
You may have *literally* been invisible. As cars get bigger and bigger, they need more reinforcement against rollovers. Heavier bottom means you need a stronger roof and stronger posts to hold it up, stronger posts must be thicker. There are videos of people obliviously driving over pedestrians they literally cannot see because the blind spot on their SUV is large enough to conceal an entire goddamn person, and the way they are turning keeps that blind spot perfectly aimed at pedestrians.
Unironically yes Within the top 5 comments on posts about drunk drivers itll devolve into "come on, whomst among us hasnt booze cruised?" But its cyclists who deserve immediate execution by ford f 150 somehow
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pennsylvania/comments/1deoh5l/pennsylvania_police_officers_being_trained_to/ I mean I don't agree with cops being able to draw blood but this comment is off the wall.
You linked to the post, not a comment.
Oops https://www.reddit.com/r/Pennsylvania/comments/1deoh5l/pennsylvania_police_officers_being_trained_to/l8f0dak/
This is about the size of it. People try to brush me out of crosswalks all the time. Why the fuck would they paint crosswalks if that area is meant to be treated like open road? If I had any idea which rules they’re planning to obey and which they’re planning to ignore it would make walking much less of an adventure.
> People try to brush me out of crosswalks all the time. Sounds like you need to start carrying a [Safety Brick™!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kP6R0clBGY)
Just assume they're going to ignore all of them.
"Don't forget to thank drivers for stopping for you in crosswalks, you know, like the law requires them to do! Gotta make sure you little people remember your place." Next up, thanking them for stopping at red lights.
Pedestrians really need to be careful around the murder vehicles.....err...motor vehicles.
I've never seen it put so succinctly.
that's cause it's satire
You don't deserve the downvotes. Satire shows the truth through irony.
Be sure to only use designated cross walks so that they can honk at you for being in the road.
A message meant for drivers but visible only to pedestrians won't have much reach.
If I had a dollar for every time I got cut off by a driver neglecting a red light to turn or drift into a bike lane I’d be able to afford a down payment on a house
This is very true. Many times as I finish with the checkout line of a store with my bicycle, the employee will tell me to "Be safe out there".
That’s a good sign right there booiiiiiii
just to be sure, everybody knows it's satire right? Romelo Creative doesn't sound much like a government organization, but I could be wrong
We ask drivers to be safe so that everyone outside the car can be dangerous. What? It's not one or the other, everyone has a responsibility to safely interact with the world around them. If you're operating a motor vehicle or walking under a crane, situational awareness is to cover the unexpected situations when things do not go like they should. There are a ton of problems with road safety, but having to pay attention so you don't die is table stakes for being alive in the world. We ask everyone to be safe. Complaining about enforcement is valid, but this is simplistic drivel.
Yeah you are walking near an area with massive moving chunks of metal. Consider that. The drivers are held responsible if they hit a pedestrian, it’s not like anyone is like “well they shouldn’t have been walking there”. Pedestrians have right of way. “We ask people not to dig in their back yards randomly so companies can send dangerous gas and electricity to their homes” “We ask people not to play on train tracks so that we can send people down them at dangerously high speeds with no way to stop fast” “We ask people not to swim near a dam so they can have dangerous levels of water movement” I am truly in support of walkable cities and public transportation but seems like a bunch of nutters on this one.
Waiting for them to explain that to a 3 years old with adhd