Comment on Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users

• sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  3. 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.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect.

    So there’s no situation where a pedestrian is at fault? If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that’s 100% the driver’s fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?

    A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle

    What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?

    and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does

    No they don’t? And why are we downtown?

    Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking.

    You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?

    We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.

    No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.

    We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.

    I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.

    source

    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.

      If you say, “that car is dangerous” you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.

      If you say “that person is jaywalking” you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. “The wave of the future.” This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.

      Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.

      We are downtown because that was the context in which the term “jaywalking” was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.

      We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions

      Maybe that’s what you’re talking about. The rest of us are talking about how “jaywalking” was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they’re saying.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Can’t help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.

        If you say “that person is jaywalking” you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person.

        Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. “Jaywalking” does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.

        Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.

        Wonderful! Good for them!

        We are downtown because that was the context in which the term “jaywalking” was invented.

        Okay, so “jaywalking” only applies “downtown”. Presumably you can provide a source for this?

        The rest of us are talking about how “jaywalking” was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong

        That is not what you’re talking about. You’re talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.

        That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they’re saying.

        They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don’t require further discussion.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ideonek@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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".

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You grasp the tiniest of straws.

    Absolutely not. Those are enormous straws…

    What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets.

    1. That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote “You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.”

    2. If people are not “wandering into the street” then they are not “jaywalking”, are they?

    People were the rule cars were the exception.

    It doesn’t matter which one is which. The one that is “jay” is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.

    Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies”

    That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean “someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules”, as jaywalking does.

    source

    • ideonek@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      We are clearly not moving toward convincing eachother to anything even a bit, so let's stop here. Have a great day, Ulrich.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn’t say things you did (especially where it’s clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.

        source

        • -> View More Comments