Two pedestrians killed in Oakland (Austin, Darlington: school, college, dangerous)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by BigPizzaHutFan

The driver hit and killed someone.

This is a part of our horrific car-centric culture by the way: a man hits and kills a pedestrian and the driver is the one who gets the benefit of the doubt. The pedestrian is assumed to deserve their fate unless it can be proven that the driver was negligent above and beyond the level required to hit and kill a pedestrian.

"It was just an accident" is not valid response. All accidents are preventable.

So there's nothing that states it was the drivers fault. Until there's proof there's no proof. Your hearsay or opinion of drivers doesn't hold water into the driver being at fault regarding the accident.

[BigPizzaHutFan]

Originally Posted by erieguy

So there's nothing that states it was the drivers fault. Until there's proof there's no proof. Your hearsay or opinion of drivers doesn't hold water into the driver being at fault regarding the accident.

A condition of being granted the privilege to drive by the state is that you are able to operate a vehicle safely. If you kill someone, you obviously aren't fulfilling that responsibility properly, and you need to have your privilege revoked.

You buy into what traffic engineers call the Accident Axiom:

Given that all forms of transportation begin and end with walking, this is essentially a right to be a pedestrian—a right severely restricted by expensive and counterproductive high-speed roads that we’ve built. A key problem in defending this right is that very few laws motivate law enforcement to consider killing a pedestrian as a crime. Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter is a potential charge, but it’s hard to prove constructive manslaughter since a little speeding is rarely seen as a crime, and the threshold for recklessness is hard to meet. Anecdotally, drivers who kill a pedestrian are better off waiting for the police to arrive, because hit and runs really are about the only time the police reliably pursue these drivers with any prejudice. New laws specifically dealing with pedestrian-vehicle crashes are needed.


In my opinion, our local media outlets are exacerbating the problem. Their stories discount the human loss and reinforce widely held misconceptions. First and foremost, underlying all of the poor media coverage is what I call the “Accident Axiom.” This is the widely-held (but almost never-question) belief that accidents are an unavoidable and innocent consequence of modern motorized society. The assumption here is that crashes not involving excessive speed, alcohol, or gross negligence are presumably the fault of no one, but an unfortunate systemic fluke.

This axiom has two corollaries: the Inherent Risk Corollary and the Reckless Driver Corollary. The former states that in this world of unavoidable accidents, pedestrians and cyclists are senselessly putting themselves in harm’s way by traversing concrete and asphalt. If they get hit, it is a deserved consequence of their poor decision making. And the latter states that those rare instances when a driver is at fault, it is the result of that driver being a reckless and careless individual, a deviant member of society. All blame is attributed to the individuals involved. The road network and driving culture are given immunity.

The Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, and Why It Barely Registers | Streetsblog.net


Innocent people dying due to the negligence of others should never merit nothing more than a shrug.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by BigPizzaHutFan

A condition of being granted the privilege to drive by the state is that you are able to operate a vehicle safely. If you kill someone, you obviously aren't fulfilling that responsibility properly, and you need to have your privilege revoked.

You buy into what traffic engineers call the Accident Axiom:


The Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, and Why It Barely Registers | Streetsblog.net


Innocent people dying due to the negligence of others should never merit nothing more than a shrug.

That's right, negligence should not merit nothing more than a shrug. Nor should a bad opinion of drivers merit a guilty verdict when you don't have proof or fact. A pedestrian walking or running into the road can be near impossible to avoid.

If you don't like drivers simply stay off the road or pay extra attention when you're on it as driving automobiles is something that will never go away.

[BigPizzaHutFan]

Originally Posted by erieguy

That's right, negligence should not merit nothing more than a shrug. Nor should a bad opinion of drivers merit a guilty verdict when you don't have proof or fact. A pedestrian walking or running into the road can be near impossible to avoid.

If you don't like drivers simply stay off the road or pay extra attention when you're on it as driving automobiles is something that will never go away.

You are implying that the pedestrian walked or ran into the road. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Ms. Bali lived on that road, not three hundred feet from where she died; it's safe to assume that she was aware of the shoulder there and how to walk safely.

You have an incredible bias towards the driver in this case. Why are you so willing to blame the victim for her own death?

No one thinks driving is going away. It would be nice if drivers could exercise some care, and it would be nice if the needless deaths of pedestrians were met by more than a shrug and "this sort of thing happens, she probably deserved it."

(As far as your silly statement about "proof or fact" goes, I'd guess that the human being lodged in the driver's windshield should have been all the proof the police needed when they arrived.)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by BigPizzaHutFan

You are implying that the pedestrian walked or ran into the road. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Ms. Bali lived on that road, not three hundred feet from where she died; it's safe to assume that she was aware of the shoulder there and how to walk safely.

You have an incredible bias towards the driver in this case. Why are you so willing to blame the victim for her own death?

No one thinks driving is going away. It would be nice if drivers could exercise some care, and it would be nice if the needless deaths of pedestrians were met by more than a shrug and "this sort of thing happens, she probably deserved it."

I don't have bias towards either person in the accident. You're assuming you know what happened. Until assumption is fact you're biased to your opinion and assume the driver is at fault. Your disdain of drivers drives has you assuming it was entirely their fault.

Nobody said anyone deserves. You're assuming people feel that way.

If the police arrived to that, an investigation was performed, and the driver was indeed wrong, charges will be filed. Perhaps they will be filed, but until fact is found that's not going to happen and shouldn't.

[BigPizzaHutFan]

Originally Posted by erieguy

I don't have bias towards either person in the accident. You're assuming you know what happened. Until assumption is fact you're biased to your opinion.

A pedestrian was struck and killed by a driver.

Holding a driver's license is a privilege. The state grants that privilege with the assumption that the driver will drive safely and competently. A driver who kills a pedestrian is obviously not capable of that, and their right to drive should be revoked, at least until a full investigation is made into the issue.

Why is it such an amazing stretch of logic for you that killing a person with your car should be evidence in and of itself of wrongdoing? Why are you willing to give the driver every benefit of the doubt, and the pedestrian none?

If I wave my gun around in a fit of puerility and accidentally shoot someone, I am going to jail. If I speed and fling my car around in a fit of puerility, I am probably not going to unless I'm drunk, or some other complicating circumstance. That's how it is in this country, and it is wrong. It encourages reckless driving because people know there are no consequences for it.

[erieguy]

You should call the police department tomorrow and ask them the exact same thing. Then you'll know the facts and won't have to assume.

Your problems with driving and what is wrong with the country are not of reality and don't pertain to the accident in question.

[BigPizzaHutFan]

It's odd that you equate driving with killing pedestrians.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by BigPizzaHutFan

It's odd that you equate driving with killing pedestrians.

I don't see it that way at all, but again you assume.

I asked along with UK about proof in regards to the accident mentioned as I'm genuinely interested in seeing it. I still haven't seen any. Until you provide that, it's opinion, speculation, and assumption. If you have proof, please post it.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BigPizzaHutFan

The driver hit and killed someone.

This is a part of our horrific car-centric culture by the way: a man hits and kills a pedestrian and the driver is the one who gets the benefit of the doubt. The pedestrian is assumed to deserve their fate unless it can be proven that the driver was negligent above and beyond the level required to hit and kill a pedestrian.

"It was just an accident" is not valid response. All accidents are preventable.

Yea, that's kind of like what our entire justice system is built around; that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.