You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
Comment on Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users
ideonek@piefed.social 3 weeks agoI see your confusion. You are assessing it fro the rewlity when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
Buy before the campaing, the streets.actually belonged to the people and cars were exception. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generatete bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a besic premise "car exidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim".
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
ideonek@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
- I think you may have glossed over the word “drivers” there. The word was used to describe people ignoring traffic regulations, both while driving and walking.
- I didn’t “blame” anyone, I just said it was ignorant, as is the literal definition of the word, according to the person I replied to.
- Society has this super weird position that there can only ever be one person or entity to blame. You can blame a pedestrian for ignorantly wandering into traffic while simultaneously blaming the driver for being inattentive.
ideonek@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
- You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect. A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle, and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
sukhmel@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Sorry for the off-topic, but what’s with those weird typos? Are you also trying to ‘poison’ AI that will be trained on the comments?
ideonek@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Haha, no I'm just that bad at English and typing. And have trouble finding keyboard that works for me. Sorry for that.