• _stranger_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If a car driver is expected to be aware of pedestrians, then a cyclist is to be expected to be aware of pedestrians. You can’t have it both ways. A cyclist can easily cause serious injury to a pedestrian.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Is a pedestrian expected to be aware of car drivers on the side walk?

      Is a car driver expected to be aware of pedestrians on the highway?

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Yes, and also yes. personal responsibility for your own safety doesn’t magically disappear because of paint on the ground.

        Responsibility for the machine you’re operating that can harm others doesn’t magically disappear when it weighs less.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          To be honest, it’s a wrong argument anyways. The cyclist was aware of the pedestrian on the bike lane and he stopped in time. So the whole argument doesn’t matter.

          The actual point is whether the pedestrian was in the right to wander onto the bike lane, completely oblivious to his surroundings.

      • wabasso@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        It’s by momentum. The greater the momentum the greater the responsibility.

        Edit: To actually respond to your examples:

        1. No. It is the responsibility of the high mv cars not to enter the sidewalk, or to be incredibly cautious if they must.

        2. Yes. It is the responsibility of the high mv car to look far enough ahead to respond to low mv (or rather high delay v) obstacles ahead. If this sounds impractical, the design of highways and the illegality of a pedestrian entering one makes unavoidable incidents of car-hitting-pedestrian-on-highway low enough to be practical.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Ok, let’s put it differently: In the story we are talking about

          • A cyclist was aware of the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane
          • A pedestrian was unaware of the fact that he was on the biking lane
          • The cyclist managed to stop safely before the pedestrian
          • The cyclist got angry for the pedestrian not caring about whether he was allowed to walk where he did
          • The pedestrian felt so justified in walking on the cycling lane that he considered throwing the bike off the river

          So what’s your point? The cyclist shouldn’t have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?

          The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren’t and neither should they be.

          If a driver shouldn’t need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?

          You can’t have it both ways.