Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- From: frkrygow@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:53:26 -0700
On Oct 8, 1:02 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 8, 8:44 am, frkry...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else.
The only way to GUARANTEE you won't harm anyone else is to not operate
the machinery at all. There is absolutely no other way. Having 5
sets of eyes in the car won't do it. Only travelling at 5 mph won't
do it. The only thing that can possibly accomplish your standard is
to never operate. Period.
That is why it is so difficult for people to believe you when you
claim you are not totally anti-car.
If you want to take your idea to a ridiculously extreme, I suppose you
might claim that even _owning_ a machine might harm someone else.
Why, what if your car were parked in your drive ever since it was
delivered (by a different driver, of course) and the emergency brake
cable and transmission pawl rusted through? Why, it might coast down
your drive and run someone over!
But a reasonable person should see a difference between a ridiculous
extreme, on the one hand, and driving carefully enough that you don't
almost hit a pedestrian, as Nate did.
My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
pedestrian or cyclist. And as with most good guarantees, if my
promise should somehow fail, I'll make it up, certainly financially,
and possibly by ceding my driver's license.
The current situation with most drivers (especially driving
"enthusiasts") is, they expect people to stay out of their way and
never delay them. When people don't, they get enraged. When they
damage something or injure someone, they make excuses. As Nate did.
They somehow believe that people have no right to the most fundamental
form of human locomotion, whenever the walker's path crosses their
own. I think that's incredibly selfish.
I learned a long time ago that one should not rely on a single point
of failure. Wearing dark clothing at night in traffic is doing
exactly that. Wearing light colored clothing does not shift
responsibility from the driver; it only reduces the danger from that
single point of failure (the driver). That danger always exists, not
matter how much care is taken, no matter how much speed is reduced,
etc.
And I think it's a good idea to be visible when walking at night. In
fact, when I do walk at night, I normally carry a small light. BUT
there should be no expectation on the part of a driver that all
pedestrians will do this!
A driver should always drive within the limits of his visibility. And
since pedestrians have no legal requirement to carry lights or dress
to a motorist's preference, motorists _should_ drive in such a way
that they won't run over any person of any race dressed in any color
he may choose.
Why is this too complicated for some people?
- Frank Krygowski
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- From: frkrygow
- Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- From: N8N
- Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- From: frkrygow
- Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- From: AustinMN
- Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- Prev by Date: Re: Watch out for road cracks!
- Next by Date: Re: 31 Mile Ride
- Previous by thread: Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- Next by thread: Re: Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
