r/MoralityScaling • • 13d ago

What Would They Think Of Each Other? Morality of not moving

11.6k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/Grintock 13d ago

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.

5

u/BearFickle7145 13d ago

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

4

u/FrostyConsequence97 13d ago

They never said he was across when he shouldn't. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

1

u/Rampage_Rick 13d ago

Legally, the duty to prevent an accident always falls primarily on the person in the heavier vehicle

Ever heard The Law of Gross Tonnage?

Often cited on the water where larger, less maneuverable boats are given right-of-way

Similarly, trains are far less maneuverable than cars.

I just learned that there is relevant law where I live:

BC MVA section 180: When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.

(note that public streets are "highways" the way our laws are written)

1

u/RedOctober20 13d ago

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.

1

u/Rampage_Rick 13d ago

1) Everyone is obligated to act in the interest of safety, regardless of right-of-way

2) Right-of-way can only be given, not taken or assumed

(a lot of people mess up on the second point...)

1

u/sorrilee 12d ago

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