Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
TBF, the child ran onto the road (a typical US road that encourages drivers to drive fast and be oblivious of pedestrians, I guess), and - according to the police - the driver was neither speeding nor under the influence and is "cooperative".
But to charge the parents with involuntary manslaughter for letting their children walk 2 blocks is madness, and makes me question the police department's objectivity, to put it mildly.
My guess is at the very least the driver's reaction and/or eyesight was impaired due to old age.
You see children next to the road, you slow down. You are the adult operating the deadly machine. You have a duty to be extra careful around kids.
Where I live, if a kid jumps in front of your car, even if there is no crossing and you had no visibility, you still have the majority of the fault. The truth is you are the one driving a killing machine, and if you are going at a speed where you can't ensure, with your currect visibility and road conditions, that an accident won't happen, it's you who is at fault.
Of course that's different on highways and speedways, where the one crossing would be found at fault. But for all residential areas, drivers need to be careful about pedestrians crossing the road, and especially kids who are unpredictable.
So much this!
Also the prosecutor's office, who charges people with crimes.
You gotta be a child to believe the police.
Ofc cops lie about everything.
On top of what everyone else has said, my stance in general is that anyone who harms another with their car should have their license revoked for at least 5 years if they were at all at fault, which this man certainly was being the driver hitting a pedestrian. On top of that, he's at the age where he should probably stop driving anyway. While I don't exactly believe this warrants jail time, especially if the driver has been as cooperative as they are saying, I do think he needs to be charged with something just to get him off the road for the foreseeable future. Outside of that though I do agree with you.
The driver is always at fault. They're choosing to use a deadly machine in public. It's their responsibility not to kill people.
That clause was intended specifically for vehicle on vehicle incidents, I agree that if a vehicle hits a pedestrian they are always at fault.