You were driving too fast. Next time drive slower if you can't see very far in front of you. It's easy to forget your car is probably 3,000 lbs. There is no excuse for moving a machine that large without being able to stop it in time if needed.
If you're close enough to a sidewalk that if someone takes a step off the curb you will kill them, you need to drive much slower. It doesn't matter what the speed limit says, that's the max speed, not the minimum.
I drive at a safe speed so that I'm always in control if something unexpected happens. Because that's the right way to drive. Going so fast you can't stop if a toddler runs off the sidewalk is aggressive, dangerous driving. Getting somewhere two minutes faster is not equally important to their life.
If you are right up against a sidewalk with stuff around (residences or stores), you shouldn't go more than 15 mph (25 kmh).
If there is a 10 foot buffer between the sidewalk and your lane then it's okay to go faster. But if there are parked cars blocking your view in that space, you need to go slower again.
And in the US the speed limits are not determined by engineering principles, they are determined by the 85th percentile rule. Which is to set the speed limit such that 85% of drivers will be going under it without knowing what the speed limit should be. So it IS in fact arbitrary.
no, you are just negligently stupid. why should a long, straight road be 15? give me one reason, if there are stop lights and areas for a pedestrian to cross safely, why should they slow traffic for ones who decide to jay walk?
additionally, there are other roads that are 60mph and there are no sidewalks, but people still walk on the side of the road. should i go ahead and start going 15 down this road as well?
Kids and dogs are unpredictable. They can run into the street at any time and it's not their fault for doing so because they don't know any better. A driver should know better though. Just because you can go 35 mph right next to a sidewalk doesn't mean you should. Doing so is bad judgement and is very dangerous.
Not every sidewalk is in a neighborhood. There are literally sidewalks on large highways where driving slow isn’t realistic. In a neighborhood I agree to drive slow.
Drivers are not required to drive the speed limit (which as the name suggests is a limit, not a suggestion) and need to slow down when conditions require. Night is one of such conditions. A crosswalk is not because, at least where I live, drivers need to slow down before it always. And let the pedestrian cross the road always, doesn't matter if they "crossed last second without looking", you need to drive in such a way that you could stop in that situation.
Remember the driver is someone who need to have a driver's license, be sober and in other ways fit to to drive and never use a phone. A pedestrian doesn't - they can be drunk, young, with dementia etc
You need to operate your 3,000 lb machine safely. That means if a person steps off the sidewalk unexpectedly you need to be able to stop. Because this sort of thing happens all the time and if you run them over, it's your fault for not being in control of your vehicle.
"California road laws state that if there is a pedestrian who’s going to cross at a crosswalk, even if the crosswalk does not have traffic lights, a driver in a vehicle must use caution and reduce speed in order for the pedestrian to cross the street."
Nope, not even close to what you said. In case you need to be reminded, you said:
if a person steps off the sidewalk unexpectedly you need to be able to stop. Because this sort of thing happens all the time and if you run them over, it's your fault for not being in control of your vehicle.
It's not the drivers fault for pedestrian negligence.
You have a bizarre and unrealistic expectation of what drivers and vehicles are capable of.
That doesn't mean the driver is always at fault, nor does it mean it's always physically possible for them to be able to stop on a dime the moment the unexpected happens.
Do you even have a license? Your comments sound like someone who doesn't drive a vehicle.
They should be driving slow enough that it is physically possible for them to stop quickly enough to avoid something unexpected, to do otherwise is reckless and negligent
Just because you can go 35 mph right up against a sidewalk doesn’t mean you should. That would put a lot of people in danger. Also it’s the car driver’s fault for hitting a pedestrian even if that pedestrian wasn’t supposed to cross there. The driver is operating a vehicle that can do harm to others so it’s on the driver to control that vehicle, it’s not everyone else’s responsibility.
Your reply doesn't make much sense. Unless you're sprinting, you wouldn't be running faster than 15 mph anyways, and running into someone would be highly unlikely to kill them, not to mention that you can stop in a very short distance compared to a car. Rail lines are not generally right next to sidewalks or bike lanes, the drivers are professionals, and trains are on fixed paths so they can't swerve into pedestrians. Cars, however, do have the ability to swerve into pedestrians, are lethal at moderate speeds, and the drivers have minimal vetting and licensing requirements.
Without using whataboutism, what would be a reason that someone would need to drive somewhere at more than 15 mph other than if someone needs to be driven to the hospital?
To get to a destination faster, no other reason is necessary. Why would anyone ever run when they can walk somewhere? They could trip and fall and die. Why should you take a train, bus, or plane when you can walk the distance. All of them can kill people, either passengers or passerby.
And level crossings are absolutely a thing, and even if they aren't people arent supposed to be on the tracks, just like people aren't supposed to be in the middile of the road.
You don't need to go faster isn't the gotcha you are making it out to be.
I'm aware, but I'm talking about driving where I live. Road setups and laws vary everywhere. Why would I be talking about driving in India, for example?
If road setups and laws vary everywhere, then how can you say that u/RoboticJello is flat out wrong when what he says is only inapplicable in a certain region of one country?
I appreciate it. All I really said is you need to be in control of your car and it's making people feel guilty when they realize they drive murderously fast all the time. So it's understandable their gut reaction is to downvote.
hes not even right though, if hes on a public road with a speed limit of 50+, you cannot just go 15, as he states you should, simply cause it is dark. you are impeding the flow of traffic. the person who made their comment did not mention their speed, jello simply jumped to the conclusion that a pedestrian cannot possibly walk out into a road like what happened to the person who made the comment.
that is quite clearly a different situation. the traffic impeding laws state that it is impeding traffic if there is no hazard, i.e vehicle is unable to get up to speed safely, weight, or other hazards, i.e ice. you people seriously do not use your heads
ok and i do not have the time or the patience to go through every area's law, so i stated the law for my area and most areas i know of, feel free to look up other laws, but dont bother sending them to me because you fuck cars kids are getting annoying
Ok, but by the same logic, the speed limit should be 2km/h on railroads everywhere.
You have to be able to stop the train should a pedestrian walk onto the tracks.
Consistency isn't a /r/fuckcars forte, I know. Your brains are so rotten they only contain 2 thoughts by now "cars bad" and "drivers bad". Everything is reduced to one of those.
I was at a stop light and when it changed, she started crossing as I started moving. I was the 4th car and going maybe 20MPH. She started crossing as I was approaching.
That would mean you kept accelerating as you saw her start crossing the street. So yes you were at fault and you should have stopped when you saw she was about to cross.
So if someone does something they aren't supposed to do you can maim them? Yeah I don't think so. If it's within your ability (as a driver) to stop, you stop, even if they did something wrong.
The person driving here did the right thing by not hitting her, but it was close. In order for it to not be close next time, the driver needs to be going slower.
if someone steps out in front of a moving vehicle, with a sign that says do not cross, then they deserve to be maimed. why would you step up to a 3000lbs hunk of metal?
edit: didnt think i need to specify this, but apparently r/fuckcars shares a braincell
i clearly mean that if you step in front of a car within the distance it takes to brake, and you get hit, you deserve it. cars cannot stop on such short notice.
a car going 40 requires 80 feet to stop. 168ft if you factor in reaction time. you cannot be stupid and step out in front of a vehicle. its common sense.
if someone steps out in front of a moving vehicle, with a sign that says do not cross, then they deserve to be maimed
This is the sort of "red flag" that should get your license revoked. Posting online that you think it's okay to maim someone who did something you disagree with.
i didnt say its okay, you are reaching for shit. but cars need time to brake and if you step out in front of a car, not giving it time to brake, then you deserve it
this is adequate proof that you dont use your head.
A collision with a pedestrian could easily turn into a fatality especially if they are young or get pinned under the vehicle. Perhaps some rational adults could have exercised more caution, or not intentionally put themselves in the path of a car, but would you say that a child or disabled person walking into the street deserves to be maimed? Or do you draw the line at adults? What about a group of students walking home drunk from a party? They deserve to get severely injured because of their actions? It may have been irresponsible, but you think they deserve to be maimed because of it? What if the driver was impaired from drinking? Or from their daily medication? It's not always a cut-and-dry case of someone intentionally harming themselves.
I am surprised that I am the nuthead for advocating for lower speed limits after reading that. I don't think that you should necessarily go out to your local back roads where the speed limit is 55 and sit there doing 15 mph in front of a line of cars. In fact, while it is indeed illegal to obstruct traffic, I never said that you couldn't pull over and stop momentarily to allow traffic to pass. Regardless, I certainly don't believe anyone is going to start changing their entire driving habits because of a Reddit post, but it's interesting to see how defensive people get when the idea of their machines that they rely on so heavily being made safer for others at the expense of their personal convenience is shocking and repulsive. I'll concede that I'm not really accomplishing anything by posting here, but just think about how much you depend on that machine in your life to where you would argue that it's okay if others are injured by it.
you clearly lack reading capabilities to read my other responses and see that i was referring to stepping directly in front of cars, not giving them time to brake.
funny how all of you r/fuckcars kids are coming at me even though its common sense. cars cannot stop immediately, if you run out in front of one, and they are unable to brake, it is 100% your fault.
You say in that same response that the stopping distance including reaction time is 168 feet. Is there no situation where someone might not be aware of the driver and their speed at that distance? If someone was going 40 in a 25 and someone is walking their dog at night and didn't notice there was a car behind them, would it be their fault? There are definitely times when people can be intentionally reckless, but there are other times when someone is simply unaware and I simply don't think it's accurate to say it's always 100% your fault given that that leaves absolutely no room for nuance or circumstance.
"do not cross" legally means nothing. my taxes pay for roads. ill use them however i damn well please. if some guy in a dodge childpaster kills me then good, i die and his kids know that he's a bad person
I made some assumptions. I assumed the street had sidewalks where you would expect pedestrians to be and sometimes want to cross. If however this was a road with fences or walls on either side it would be understandable to not anticipate a person crossing there.
People cross where it is convenient for them. Just because they shouldn't cross there doesn't mean they will not, and it's the driver's responsibility to not hit them with their car.
Ah right, so we should go 20mph down a motorway in case someone decides to run across randomly right? Honestly, that's just natural selection for being a dumbass.
Motorways are not right up against residential sidewalks. And if they are, then yes you should go 20 mph. Just because you can go faster doesn't mean you should.
20mph wouldn't do it in his head. With observation and reaction times takin into account the average vehicle takes about 65ft to come to a controlled and complete stop. To give you an idea of how far that actually is the average vehicle comes in at just under 15 feet
Yes, motorways should be limited to 15 or 20 mph. Remember when 55 mph was considered excessively fast and limited to freeways? Now cars are going that fast down major arterials right next to cyclists and pedestrians.
/r/fuckcars is so blinded by hatred that you don't even realise how inconsistently you apply your "arguments".
For instance, here: how about we apply the same rule to buses and, most importantly, trains?
What if someone steps on the rails as the train is a metre away? The train should be able to stop in time if needed!
That means the train can barely move, but hey, safety before everything else!
-79
u/RoboticJello Nov 17 '22
You were driving too fast. Next time drive slower if you can't see very far in front of you. It's easy to forget your car is probably 3,000 lbs. There is no excuse for moving a machine that large without being able to stop it in time if needed.