• stray@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    But if the crosswalks are unreasonably far apart then pedestrians are being encouraged by the state to engage in unsafe behavior. As I said, they could erect a small fence to prevent unsafe crossings. This is a failure of the state to serve its people.

    I’m not sure how to feel about the driver not being charged, but one should drive with the expectation that unforeseen hazards will pop up at any moment, especially children. I would not be shocked to learn that he was driving one of those enormous American cars that makes it impossible to see short adults, another failure of the state. Or that the speed limit was too high. These things would make me feel the fault is more on the state than on the driver. (But it definitely isn’t on the parents.)

    As for your dog, just keep it on a lead. It’s the safest thing for everyone if all dogs are secured properly while going about town.

    e: Also his age. How good is the vision and reaction time of this 76-year-old man? How often are they re-testing drivers?

      • stray@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yes, hostile architecture does sound exactly like the “solution” they’d go for. I hope I didn’t imply the wrong thing; I think fences in conjunction with adequate crossings is the answer.

        Thinking more about it, I don’t think we actually have jaywalking laws here, or at least they aren’t enforced in town. I should hope there’s some kind of rules about being a hazard in busy traffic, but everyone walks in the street in town when cars and bikes aren’t coming, right in front of police even, and I think that’s very reasonable. Many streets are only open to buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles, so it’s quiet and safe.