• wabasso@lemmy.caEnglish
    32·
    2 days 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.worldEnglish
      41·
      2 days 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.