Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Answer_Feisty t1_j2fgqsk wrote

It’s fast paced here- why should the pedestrian have to acknowledge the driver if they have the right away?Drivers should just stop. Does a train stop at every railroad crossing to wave at the people stopped for the train?

We have places to be, people to see, we don’t have the time to stop and make sure you’re following the law.

Also like others said, it may just be watching around for other hazards that may happen- like when you slow down to try and communicate with the pedestrian, and the car behind you swerves around you into oncoming traffic because you’re going too slow.

You have a very negative tone, like you’re not going to compromise in any way. That’s fine- but this is the way dc is, so expect it and probably don’t live in a city

21

CorporateProvocateur OP t1_j2fkqz6 wrote

  1. Drivers should just stop.

  2. Trains have lights, bars and, warning alarms that a train is coming so this is a poor metaphor. If a train was being driven by a person I could see and I had to walk in front of it. I'd make damn sure I made eye contact with that person to make sure they saw me before walking in front of it.

  3. The way you've laid out the above relies on perfect adherence and perfect performance. Isn't half a second worth your life or limb to make sure the driver sees you? He should see you, he should stop, but if he doesn't something terrible will happen.

The logic you've laid out above says "I'm so busy and important that I'm not willing to sacrifice half a second and instead will rely on all drivers to be perfectly adherent and never make a mistake despite their best intentions." This just seems like a bad bet to me and a very poor trade off.

I admit it would be hard to convince me the above is a sound way of thinking. I'm a careful driver and am extra conscientious about pedestrians but I know this city has lots of drivers who aren't, so it seems like a poor risk to take.

I have never not lived in a city.

−4