The thing is, once car-centrism is established and normalized, it's so hard to explain to people what the real problem is. Clearly the kid did a stupid thing and ran into the road when it shouldn't. Clearly the driver had no bad intentions.
But somehow the thought never occurs to people that kids (and adults) will always be stupid and we shouldn't strive to make a world where nobody makes mistakes. We should strive to make a world where making mistakes doesn't kill you.
EDIT: Leaving this up for clarity, but I did in fact read the wrong link from the post. The above commenter is correct. Carry on and have a good day.
Clearly the driver had no bad intentions.
I hate to break it to you, but:
Jerry Guy, the man who hit the family and never stopped, reportedly admitted drinking "a little" alcohol earlier in the day. He also admitted to being on painkillers and being partially blind in one eye.
Guy had been convicted of two previous hit and run accidents. He pleaded guilty to the hit and run that took A.J.'s life and served six months in jail.
In a world without cars this man wouldn’t have killed a child with his decisions. But this is still gross negligence, especially the multiple hit-and-run charges.
I do agree that if anything this is a great case for pushing public transit and eliminating car centrism. But to not stop/pull over, multiple times, is its own level of selfishness.
I agree that "intentions" is a very weak way to put it, but there's nothing indicating this driver did anything wrong either. It's horrendous that the parents got charged, but the child "went between crosswalks", which I take to mean going diagonally at an intersection. It's plausible that the driver was doing everything right by traffic law and didn't have enough time to react.
(Note that the case Broadfern quoted is a different one, I guess to illustrate the point that "intentions" are beyond the point.)
Agreed. As I read this I pictured the four lane stroad they likely had to cross.
If the roads were safer for pedestrians they'd be able to walk around without dying.
after allowing him and his brother, 10, to walk home unaccompanied by an adult from a nearby grocery store.
Wtf, are kids 10 and 7 not old enough to walk by themselves to the grocery store now?
Meanwhile all the boomers talk about how they have such find memories of walking around unsupervised until the streetlights came on or whatever lame Facebook nostalgia meme they're parroting
Sorry I'm not following. Are you saying the boomers experienced it and pulled up the ladder like dickheads? Or that anyone who had freedom as a child is a boomer with irresponsible parents? I'm confused.
I think the point is that boomers will say kids these days are too sheltered, and also say unaccompanied kids today are a nuisance or a safety concern. This is a typical boomer double standard.
Yeah, I remember when I was 7 I'd explore everywhere around my house for at least a few miles. There was a convenience store 2 miles out where I'd buy candy any time I'd scrounged up a few dollars of change.
What happened was terrible, but it was an accident nevertheless. Nobody should have to serve time, especially not the grieving parents.
Those who design american neighborhoods to be so car centric definitely should.
The CEO of the company that built the car should serve time
I dunno does your 7 year old jump out into oncoming traffic often? Cuz this kid did.
I think you're trying to make a pretty s***** implication. Remember that this is a situation where the parents got charged with a crime for being reckless. Are you insinuating that the parents knew that their 7 year old child was likely to jump out into the street, and that perhaps the child had a history of doing so, and that the parents nevertheless allowed the child to walk home from the store? It sounds like that's what you're claiming.
@fodor @pixxelkick Contrast this with the treatment of rich white parents who buy their teenage children cars and allow them to continue using them unsupervised despite evidence that they routinely speed, drive distracted, and otherwise violate traffic laws when their teenager kills someone with their weapon.
there is no evidence of speeding or wrongdoing on the part of the driver, therefore no charges have been filed.
I feel like Atlanta law enforcement might need a refresher on what "wrongdoing" means.
I'm guessing white driver black kid.
They are being real cagey with the deets about the driver. 😒
... the... the unsupervised child ran into the street
The fuck you mean?
The driver didn't do a thing wrong, it's a busy 4 lane road, you aren't in the wrong if some random kid jumps onto the road in front of you.
I get that this is the FuckCars lemmy but give me a break, this is clearly a case of parents being negligent.
Don't let your fucking seven year old child go play unsupervised on 4 lane roads, that's not fuckin rocket science.
This was a problem before cars existed, parents in the 1600s were smart enough to not let their kids go play unsupervised under the hooves of horses too.
@pixxelkick @JSocial For most of history and in most societies today, it was and is absolutely routine for parents to let 7 and 10 year old siblings walk a few blocks together. When my mom was 7, she was responsible for walking her 5 year old brother to school and that wasn't at all unusual in their neighborhood. The problem is the number and size of cars and stroads, not a lack of helicopter parenting.
I mean, I guess running over a kid could be considered doing nothing wrong. I could also guess what kind of "person" you are.
I have watched children be bussed across a stroad rather than making it safe for kids to cross
more than one place i've lived at had a busy road be the 'line' separating bus vs walk to school. where i am now some literally get bussed across the road and then another block to the school, while some who live up to a mile away on the 'same side' of that road as the school get to walk.
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod @HiddenLayer555 And sadly many US residents including those employed as traffic engineers or school facilities planners and transportation officials don't see that as unusual or inappropriate.
the traffic light was a third of a mile away.
I'm having trouble visualizing this. Does this mean that at a walking speed of 3km/h it would take ten entire minutes to get to a cross walk? Because that's insane.
In Sweden we have crosswalks very regularly, usually like a couple minutes of walking at most. For bus stops farther between intersections there are markers indicating that people will cross, even without a normal crossing marker. For areas which can't have a crossing (you may need to walk around a ways to get under or over four lanes) they put up barriers to prevent walking across.
When Americans complain about everything being car-centric, this is exactly the kind of shit they’re complaining about.
My grocery store is a mile away, but I can’t legally walk there. There are no crosswalks to get to the store. If I’m going to fully obey the law as written, I must use a car just to go to the store.
That's fucked up.
Its too bad that Americans refuse to use their 2A rights to enforce normalcy and crush the crony capitalist conservatism that causes these problems
I read it. I can't believe there were even charges against her. This is the second round of court as she was given the option of an offer to retrial. Which is extremely unorthodox.
She and her kids were crossing a street at a non crosswalk at night. A driver who had been drinking hit them (her, her daughter, and her son) and her son lost his life. Driver took off. Driver served 6 mo.
The crosswalk closest to her was 1/3 mile away, her house was just across the street from the bus stop.
When I was 10 my parents never let me out unsupervised and we didn’t even live near a busy road
That 76 year old man will live with his choice to drive at age 76 for the rest of his life.
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.