Comment 100764

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 01, 2014 at 16:56:55 in reply to Comment 100761

Not every situation is balanced, and it should be obvious that the vast difference in potential to cause harm to others makes motorist/pedestrian collisions one of these situations.

Motorists pose a huge danger to pedestrians; walking would not be a dangerous activity if there were no cars. The vulnerability of pedestrians and the power to harm of cars makes the situation highly asymmetrical.

Do you really think every issue requires a "balanced" treatment? Like: "opinions differ on the shape of the Earth" or "...but we would be remiss to not to consider the possible benefits of malnutrition and poverty".

In every situation where a pedestrian or cyclist is killed or injured by an automobile, it is the automobile that caused the death and someone was in control of that automobile. That is a fact. If the driver had instead chosen to walk, there would have been no serious accident.

The driver is responsible (although not necessarily at fault or responsible in a legal sense) because they chose to engage in an activity that is dangerous to themselves and others and they have control over their vehicle. Maybe the collision was unavoidable, but their car hit and injured someone. This is the reason any moral person feels huge remorse if they kill or injure someone with their car, no matter what the details of the collision were. They know intuitively that they caused the death or injury.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-05-01 17:04:09

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools