this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
49 points (91.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43968 readers
1274 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, but this kind of logic just baffles me. Are you talking out of your ass on this one? If you're driving and I'll jump onto the road right in front of you, will you still be at fault? Where in the world would that be the case? If I come to a factory and stick my hand into a wood chipper that someone was operating and then say "whoever the hell was operating this 5 thousand pound hunk of steel should be at fault now!", would I be correct in my logic?
This is next level mental gymnastics. If someone robbed you, think about it this way - if you hadn't been there, none of it would have happened. So maybe you're at fault after all
It's easy. You decided to drive a vehicle, you're at fault, it's your job to watch out for pedestrians. If you can't stop in time, you're moving too fast. If your vehicle is so large that it kills them instead of simply hurting them (see - large trucks with huge grills instead of safer lower fronts), then you're at fault 100% because you chose an unsafe vehicle. If you can't see them because it was at night, still I don't care, that was on you, you should be able to see them. Feel free to argue it in court, that's what they're there for, but duty should on the driver to prove that, they were the one operating the heavy machinery. If that worries you or makes you feel emotions then good. You should feel nervous when you drive a vehicle, it's quite literally heavy machinery that you're hurtling forward at 60mph. You're responsible for it.
Sadly, there are plenty of instances of drivers who killed pedestrians doing just that and succeeding. Heck, in two cases the pedestrian was on the sidewalk or inside a building.
I think it happens even more when it comes to cyclists being killed by drivers
You didn't adress any of my points though, can you please come out of your bubble?
Fine, you want me to be explicit?
Yes. I would be at fault. I'm the one driving a hunk of metal that is capable of easily killing people, you could be drunk, delirious, it doesn't matter. It's on me.
I say everywhere.
Irrelevant. Streets are not supposed to be deathtraps. No one deserves to die simply by wandering into the street. Again, drunk, delirious, or a child - none of them deserve to die because they wandered into the street.
Again, victim blaming. It is not the victims fault. It doesn't matter that they were there, if they had 100 sticking out of their pocket. Still robbery. It doesn't matter if a woman is revealing "too much". Still rape. It doesn't matter why a person was in the street. They're still dead.
If you don't appreciate what you're capable of when you're driving, then you shouldn't be driving.