this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
229 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2904 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help.::Pedestrian automatic emergency braking (AEB), which may become mandatory on U.S. cars in the future, tends to not perform well in the dark.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I know I am part of the problem, but the number of people walking around in dark colors and dark jackets at night baffles me. Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.

Combine that with spending any time after sunset either partially blind from super bright LEDs or fully blind from high beams and yeah. Constantly having to drive defensively and try to spot potential hazards a mile ahead in the brief window of just being partially blinded.

So I am all for some thermals I can glance at

My genuine favorite is a motorcyclist who lives out near my ex. Lights off more often than not and he has jet black leathers and helmet and bike

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A pedantic point from me here, but it's not 'jaywalking' if you have the right of way. It's only jaywalking if it's against regulations.

Still endangering yourself to trust drivers to stop at night I agree, right of way or not.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

AFAIK the law here in Ontario is that pedestrians can cross mid-block on a non-controlled-access-highway (ie a regular road not expressway) as long as any oncoming vehicles have plentiful space to safely come to a complete stop. You only lose the right-of-way as a pedestrian if you're doing something that forces drivers to make emergency manoeuvres.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you cannot drive safely around pedestrians in normal street clothes, you should not be driving. You are the one bringing a lethal machine into the equation, they're just out living.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then please enlighten me as to how you manipulate the laws of physics to increase the reflectivity of clothing while your night vision is impaired by all the headlights at face level angles too far to the left?

Defensive driving is acknowledging problems and trying to mitigate them. Stupidity is pretending there isn't one

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The law says, regardless of the speed limit, you need to be driving slow enough to react to someone suddenly stepping on the road. If you can't do that while driving at the speed limit, you'll just have to drive slower.

[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not how that shit works. At all.

First, throwing out generic legal advice is dumb. It's not consistent in any way. Second, in most states and countries you'd have to prove negligence. You absolutely will not and should not be held responsible if some idiot runs out between two cars and gets hit while you are following the law.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, in EU countries the law explicitly says you have to drive slow enough to react to unexpected changes on the road. If you as a driver hit something or someone, you are automatically at fault because you violated that law. There is an incredibly high burden of proof required to not be at fault as a driver.

But that's usually not an issue, because road planners are only allowed to set speed limits that are low enough that drivers can actually react to unexpected changes. Which is why e.g. the Autobahn has a separate lane for broken down vehicles and significant setbacks and green areas to both sides of the road so you can see from a long distance away if something is in the road.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Drive slower, or walk yourself if you can't see well enough to drive.

[–] brunofin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sure but people can be a little more sensible to think not to dress as a fucking ninja at night and expect to be seen?

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You clearly have never driven at night.

Edit: Also, the idiot wearing dark clothes walking into a road at night will still be just as dead whether the driver is considered culpable or not.

As a motorcyclist of 30+ years, this is a rule you either learn early or pay the price.

[–] Case@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 year ago

I nearly killed a group of people one night.

Full on slamming of brakes and trying to not have another sort of accident.

Roughly 3am, a major major highway, and a group of people decides to dash across.

Dark clothing. Crossed between where any lights were.

Everyone involved was very lucky in that moment.

[–] brunofin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I wanted to bring this up, I'm glad others also see it. (Or rather don't? :p)

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.

I don't know where you live, but over my way that is a dangerous, and factually wrong, assumption.

Anyone reading that, make absolutely sure it applies in your area; it doesn't everywhere.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand I tend to forget people have different life experiences.

The legality doesn't matter in the slightest. The cash settlement for suing the driver who paralyzed you isn't really that large.

Look both ways for fuck's sake

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Legality is exactly what applies when you sue. For example, in California, USA, the law is written pedestrians do not have right of way in your scenario. No, it does not mean drivers can mow them down, but pedestrians assume the risk of their actions.

I've had a lot of puahback talking about this with local people in my city who have a "pedestrians are always right" mentality, and I understand the desire to wish that's true, but it just isn't the case. There are very clear places right of way is, and is not, protecting pedestrians.