Car trouble
Pedestrians are getting hit by cars on crosswalks more and more often in this city (“Walking targets,” Feature by Tim Bousquet, January 9; Letters, January 16 and 23). Everyone agrees that it is a problem and that something needs to be done about it. However, every time the problem is brought up, a vocal subset of motorists feels the need to “remind” the public that crosswalk safety is the shared responsibility of drivers AND pedestrians.
It is not. At least, not in any moral sense of “responsibility.” I feel this is obvious, yet I don’t hear anyone else pointing it out. When a motor vehicle driver and a pedestrian approach each other, there is only one person who is operating a piece of technology capable of killing without intention, and one person who stands to be killed. There is nothing resembling a balance of power in this situation.
I get that cars must be accommodated, because they are really, really convenient. It’s hard to imagine what our culture will even look like when they don’t exist. But with the privilege of owning one and being licensed to drive it comes the possibility that it, ie you, might accidentally injure or kill someone. There is no similar privilege/responsibility relationship from the pedestrian’s standpoint. She gets no benefit from your ability to get around faster than her; just a greater likelihood that she will die prematurely.
Here is a morally analogous hypothetical future: We, as a society, decide that it’s OK for anyone to keep a loaded and cocked gun pointed in front of herself at all times, provided she can afford one and has been properly trained in its use. Some people like the feeling of protection this provides, and there are enough of those people that our elected lawmakers decide the convenience outweighs the danger.
Even in such a nightmarish culture, there would have to be some rules about which accidental shootings counted as instances of negligence, and those rules would be rooted in the fact that the people with the guns were ultimately the ones with the moral responsibility. Perhaps there would be “kill-free zones” where people without guns could feel safe in the knowledge that gun-holders were not legally allowed to shoot them, even unintentionally.
The point of this only slightly fantastic analogy is this: If more gunless people started getting accidentally shot in kill-free zones, it would be incredibly misguided and downright tasteless to blame the gunless people for this increased aggression.
Back to cars. Pedestrians have seen a great increase in driver aggression over the last decade or so. Vehicles can no longer be counted on to stop for you when you are waiting at a marked crosswalk. Drivers would rather pretend not to see you and plow through.
And if you are standing at an unmarked corner—which is legally meant to be treated the same as a crosswalk—you will wait all day before anyone gives you a chance to cross.
In short, Halifax has become a war zone, where the pedestrians are pitted unfairly against the cars. If you want to walk across town, you will have to step daringly off of curbs when it is within your legal rights and feign confidence that the law is on your side. You will hope that the approaching drivers will back down against your calculated bluff. Because, morally, they have forgotten who is holding all the cards. —Andrew Glencross, Halifax
Putting my garbage out this week, it’s a little rainy and as usual only a few streetlights are working. I’m startled by the sound of screeching tires. I look up and there’s a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk, and normally I would consider that near-miss the driver’s fault.
Said pedestrian came out from behind the utility pole, wearing all black, hoodie up, didn’t press the button and gave the driver the middle finger. The driver gets out of his car, walks over and presses the button and says loudly “Sorry I forgot to press the button for you sir, I’ll do better next time sir,” gets in his car and drives away with me, the other drivers and another pedestrian applauding. —posted by MadCanuck at thecoast.ca
This article appears in Jan 30 – Feb 5, 2014.
Re: Car trouble…
I have never encountered a more self absorbed, entitled, and frankly obtuse attitude regarding the issue of cars and pedestrians. Mr. Glencross, speaking as both a pedestrian as well as a vehicle driver, I can assure you that it is indeed a shared responsibility. The reason for this is simple. NO ONE but you is responsible for you. The fact that a vehicle can kill you if it hits you should actually be a great incentive for one to accept this responsibility without question. The vehicle doesn’t care if it hits you. The driver of the vehicle, being human can only do so much when a pedestrian decides that the invisible forcefield of ignorance will protect them when they step out into traffic without looking. The sad reality is that people make mistakes. they sometimes lose focus and accidents occur. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have almost killed a person because they refused to accept that physics is a real thing and that I am unable to stop as quickly as they may feel entitled to when they step out in front of me. In closing, One of the biggest lessons I teach my 3 year old daughter is to always look both ways before you cross the street. I do this because I know that we cannot rely on anyone to see us just because we expect them to and that making that assumption can destroy lives. It would behoove you, I think, to relearn this life skill instead of whinging on about how you shouldn’t need to be responsible. You are an adult, sir. Time for you to start acting like one.
Thank you for bringing entitlement into the dialogue, Mr. Marley, because that is exactly what my complaint was meant to be about. I’m glad you are teaching your daughter to “look out for number one.” Self-preservation is an important lesson. But it’s neither a moral nor a legal one.
Respectfully, I fail to see how your complaint can be about entitlement except for perhaps when discussing your own. You speak about there being “no balance of power” between a car and a person, when such a comparison is frankly ridiculous. One could just as well argue that there is a comparable lack of balance between a person and a stampeding herd of buffalo, yet I doubt you or anyone could argue that stepping in front of the latter would not result in death or would indeed be beyond an idiotic act to engage in. Vehicle drivers do have a responsibility to be vigilant for pedestrians. This is a point that doesn’t need to be argued. Conversely, pedestrians also need to be vigilant for drivers. Vehicles are large machines that cannot stop quickly. As such, like with the herd of buffalo, it is prudent for one to stay out of the way and not simply expect it to comply with your expectations. Relying on a “moral or legal” premise will not save you from physics. And no law in the world is good enough to bring you back to life because you decided your right to cross the road would protect you from 2000 lbs of metal and plastic.
Both parties in this situation have a responsibility to obey the law. But the law can only do so much if one is not willing to concede to the reality that physics will trump those white lines every single time. So watch out for yourself and show some bloody patience when crossing the road because no matter who makes the mistake, the car will win.