You’re walking home late at night from the bar because you’ve had 11 shots of tequila but you still made the conscious decision not to drive for the safety of others.

You’re crossing a stroad.

Someone “in a hurry” decide to run the red light and hits you at 70 km/h (because of course they were speeding, why wouldn’t they?), doesn’t see you because you’re hunched over while you’re walking and it’s really dark and the person is driving a giant SUV with shit visibility.

Cars are one of the largest source of fatal pedestrian accidents in a major city. How much more likely are you to get into an accident if you’re drunk and is less able to pay attention to cars breaking the rules and putting you in danger? Walking safely in most cities is a task you need to be sober for because you have to walk super defensively.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Cycling collisions, while harmful, are orders of magnitude less harmful than collisions involving cars, especially SUVs.

    When you hear about a life-threatening or life-ending traffic injury, you can assume it wasn’t two people walking, or two people biking, or one biking and one walking, etc. You can always assume a car was involved.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I did say cycling/pedestrian accidents are less fatal. I just don’t believe that justifies irresponsible cycling. You can still easily be put into the hospital by a cyclist, and (in America) you’ll be paying your own bills. And bills or not, I don’t need or any any pain, suffering, broken bones, bruises, concussions, or any damage that’s caused by being hit by a cyclist.

      Pets can be fatally injured by cyclists, and they often share the same space as pedestrians.

      Just… don’t navigate any vehicle in public while inebriated.