> Do you drive, wiseguy?
Yes, but perhaps not as much as you; at any rate, I haven't acquired Windshield Perspective. Possibly this is because I cycle around New York a lot more than I drive. It's a salutary exercise, in many ways, though it doesn't seem to benefit people who suffer from a legalistic bent. But then, probably nothing would; it's an incurable illness.
You may not recall, but the one and only time you & I met in the 3D world was under the auspices of Charlie Komanoff, at some kind of anti-car rally we organized at City Hall. Back when one could still sorta do that.
So perhaps it won't surprise you to hear that I think the moral onus for avoiding damage lies squarely on the shoulders of the person who introduces the potential for damage. In the context you mention, that would be the driver. The ped poses no danger to anybody; the driver contributes all the danger, and quite a lot of it.
In other words: it's not the ped's responsibility to avoid being hit; it's the driver's responsibility to avoid hitting him.
I'm speaking of morality here, not law. In law-enforcement practice, peds who get killed are nearly always held responsible for flinging themselves perversely beneath the wheels of an SUV. (CK and I did a study of this, some years ago, which you may perhaps have seen.)
Things aren't *quite* so bad in theory, which posits a factitious even-handedness: one law for the wolf and the lamb, as Blake observed.
> Are you constantly having to avoid hitting distracted
> jackasses who step into the crosswalk against traffic?
Of course. And I do so happily, with a downright Buddha-like spirit of forbearance and inner peace. It's especially gratifying when the driver behind me honks. -- Hold it, was that *you*?
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com http://cars-suck.org
When one does a foolish thing, it is right to do it handsomely.