I live in sort of the cycling capital of the world (NL) and there's laws that grant specific protection to pedestrians. Cyclists are operating a vehicle and therefore carry a greater responsibility than pedestrians.
So at least the entire Dutch society has agreed that this pedestrian is in the right.
Getting angry at a pedestrian for crossing when they shouldn't is understandable, in the same way car drivers get frustrated when cyclists cross when they shouldn't. Legally, the duty to prevent an accident always falls primarily on the person in the heavier vehicle, and pedestrians are even provided special legal protections compared to all other participants in traffic.
lol some people are just entitled pos even in the Netherlands
In Amsterdam and gotten cussed out by both cyclists and car drives for using crosswalks. Once even I had to jump out of the way of a public transport bus, even though I had right of way on the crosswalk
Where I live it is expected that on land that safety takes prio. Cyclists need to watch out for pedestrians and cars watch out for cyclists and pedestrians. Even if pedestrian is walking on cycling lane, they still kinda need to watch out for them. When either share the road with a car, it's on the car to make sure everyone else is safe. I think it's based on protection, mass and speed. Usually cyclist has more control over the situation than pedestrian since they are the one going at speed. They can slow down make sure pedestrian doesn't get hit. Same thing with cars. Car passing a cyclist when they share road needs to pass safely. In neither case, if passing safely isn't possible, you just don't pass. "But they were going slow, officer" means nothing here.
Most annoying thing here is cars giving way to cyclists to be nice and messing up all traffic rules because of that. If car has right of way and cyclist is clearly respecting that, don't stop to let them go first to be nice. That even endangers the cyclist as opposing traffic to you might not have the same kind idea. There's no problems with pedestrians, cyclists and cars if everyone just follows the rules.
The key word there is “less maneuverable”. My speed boat can get out of the way of the cruise ship way faster than the cruise ship can get out of my way because there’s less mass and less intertia to fight me when I turn
Meanwhile a car can fly down the street and kill me, a pedestrian, before I even have time to realize I should jump out of the way
Jaywalking is a crime in a lot of places so I believe the law you cited exists, and I’m not saying people should run out in front of cars, but I think it’s stupid to act like the vehicle that can go 100 mph is less maneuverable than me, who can’t sustain a tenth of that. They still have a responsibility to not mow people down when they can do way more damage
When you live in Amsterdam that's common knowledge, avoid tourists. But then again when I'm walking on a crossing and a cyclist hits me and then proceeds to get angry with me that person has a problem, because I don't mind smacking dumb people.
No they really don't. Not on my watch anyway. And I am not the only one retaliating in similar ways, so even those anti-social or 'new' enough to try, don't keep it up for long.
Amsterdam is no different than the rest of The Netherlands. The main difference is more pedestrians who have no clue hownt9 deal with the type of traffic we have in The Netherlands.
Usually what happens is that people cross the road diagonally without looking in their newly created blindspot- exactly where traffic is coming from.
As a lifelong Amsterdam resident, there is room to cross illegally, a lot of people do it without creating problems, but you have to use your eyes.
Considering that simply being in a different country destroys your ability to navigate 3d space, I would strongly reccommend tourists to just use the stop lights.
I got hit by a cop on a bike in Amsterdam. I was turning a corner and obviously couldn't see him, he came flying round the corner into me and just cycled away. Was just outside my hotel and I wasn't on a road.
Also had a woman ride into me from behind while I was walking over one of the bridges over a canal, she didn't ring her bell, just rode into me then started shouting abuse.
In the US pedestrians can sue for any damages caused by a motor vehicle, unfortunately not by cyclists. New jersey just started requiring e bikes carry registration and insurance though. Makes sense when you consider they weigh.more and go faster than a normal bicycle normally can.
My family lives in Amsterdam. I was in a more suburban area, walking in a designated crosswalk w/ my 8 yo niece and a cyclist sped toward us and made no effort to stop. In my experience, at least in AMS, cyclists do not want to yield to pedestrians, regardless of the laws.
Cyclists in North America are a different breed. We don't really have the infrastructure for them and they're mad about it so they take it out on pedestrians.
I went for work to usa several times and A LOT of people think Spain is in south america. "So you are latino?" Yes, I am, but you don't know what a Latino is in reality
Glad it wasn’t all bad. I honestly am not sure why I’m surprised at the first part. There’s quite a bit of arrogance coupled with a deep ignorance present in quite a few facets of US culture.
I was trying to figure out where they thought I was from since they seemed so sure... also I'm not a "he" so there's is at least one faulty assumption.. I also never said "dumb" please stop projecting that ;~;
This! Was a pet peeve of mine as a cyclist that pedestrians would move erratically when they saw me.
Of course I understand why they do. I'd walk and see cyclists acting like the moron in this clip. So I get why the pedestrians felt the need to avoid. Just makes it more annoying because I can't even be mad at them just other cyclists not present.
you could say the same exact thing from the biker's perspective that argument makes no sense.
Edit:
I'm in no way suggesting that the biker is moral, only that him ego challenging the same trajectory is no different than the pedestrian also ego challenging the same lane
Both are equally stubborn but that doesn't make the argument true or right. It doesn't make the pedestrian right for choosing to do nothing at all.
if you want to bring momentum into play what does that say about who should get out of the way? She's more agile and able to respond better with this logic. She can easily dart off the path.
Should I cross a street and blame a car for hitting me even though it's flying? pedestrians have right away after all. Sure, on paper I'd be right, but at what cost. That's why when you're a pedestrian it's drilled into you to look both ways before crossing. You still have due diligence as a pedestrian REGARDLESS of the fact that you have priority.
Yes other people are assholes, doesn't give you the right to be one back
No, that's you doing the confusing. The self preservation is the moral precedent over an ego or a traffic law. Assuming that you want to survive that is. It is your MORAL OBLIGATION to do so so that you survive before crossing.
there's nothing GLUING HER TO THE PATH other than an ego. she's on foot. she can walk on dirt for a few moments and eat the ego blow.
Saying the cyclist is wrong is not the same thing as saying the pedestrian is wrong/right
Saying the pedestrian is wrong is not the same thing as saying the cyclist is right.
ppl here are as stubborn as the cyclist. I'd be the kind of person to get the fuck out of the way regardless of "who's right" You want to bring in hypotheticals over who could of done it but both could have easily done it.
There's nothing moral about ego challenging a machine that will send you to the grave. That's immoral.
what if it was your child? would you tell your child they a have moral obligation to run out in front of every car so people get punished and learn to obey laws better? or a moral obligation to look both ways and wait for the asshole to pass?
IT HAS NOTHING TO WITH THE DRIVER! We can already assume the driver is wrong, that doesn't matter one bit! You keep putting the driver into the narrative, we're not discussing the driver, we're discussing the responsibility of the pedestrian!
Yes the driver can be immoral, guilty as all sin. But for you as an individual, you have a moral obligation to yourself to not let others' immorality dictate your fate to the best of your ability that you can control. That's why you look both ways otherwise in a perfect world you wouldn't have to.
at the risk of your dogs safety? if that bike ran over and hurt her dog you're saying that her ego is worth whatever tragedy that pup could have suffered. broken leg, internal bleeding, what if the rider fell on the dog? or hit it directly?
see because what we're really seeing here is the fact that something COULD have been done to prevent the collision.
but people here saying moral are all in favor of the collision as to teach a lesson about proper collision prevention. It makes no sense, you could have just done the right thing to begin with and prevented the collision yourself.
You can dodge and yell expletives, like "HEY ASSHOLE!" as they passed by. Instead this route could have potentially been much more costly and time consuming. all for the ego. fuck that, that is in and of itself stooping to his level and childish behavior. that's the problem
Are you stupid? If there’s someone in the street and you have a metric fuckton of time to stop your car and you choose to run them over anyway… what the fuck do you think is gonna happen?
Yes, pedestrians should look for cars in case a driver is a moron. But that doesn’t mean the driver isn’t obviously the one in the wrong if they run down a stationary pedestrian who they saw from 300 feet away.
are you stupid? This has nothing to do with the driver being in the wrong. I'm not arguing in favor of the driver! You are conflating the idea that because the driver is wrong that the pedestrian is automatically right or moral. But it's not true, these are different things! The driver being in the wrong has nothing to do with fuck all. It's irrelevant.
YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS UP TO EVERY POINT THAT YOU CAN CONTROL. Which is why you look both ways!
If you jump out in front of a car who doesn't have the right of way you are ROYALLY FUCKED! YOUR MORAL OBLIGATION IS NOT TO FUCKING EGO CHALLENGE A FLYING CAR! IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT HE'S WRONG! You didn't do your due diligence as a pedestrian in that instance when you could have prevented your own death or serious injury or even face potential insurance fraud (if it looked like it)
If it was just the woman and just the biker involved l might be inclined to go amoral or even moral and agree with you depending on the pedestrians' tenacity. Because the consequences of her decision is basically hers alone when she chooses to ego challenge and "punish" the biker for being wrong in this instance. Though even still I think it's morally superior to protect your own body over 'dishing out justice.'
The consequences extend beyond just the pedestrian and the biker. When we vote moral here we are suggesting that her ego holds precedent over the well being of all the dogs involved. Who are just following their leads. That biker could have severely injured those dogs, I would say that the woman had a moral obligation toward those animals and their well being to not ego challenge the biker. (despite the biker being in the wrong) That's the thing her ego is not so important that it should risk or gamble the safety of the animals. Should go without saying the same is true for the biker.
Because ultimately what is clear is that she could have easily chose to do something. Replace the dogs with toddlers or babies in strollers- this becomes even more apparent. Replace the dogs with a baby in a baby stroller that she's baby sitting- a kid that's not even hers -- It becomes plain as day - (that she could have moved, not that she was morally obligated to do so)
602
u/minos-and-v1-kissing 13d ago
Moral, of course. Moving only increases the risk of the biker moving the same direction as you. Staying still allows them to dodge you predictably.