Tesla Model Y vs Mustang Mach-E (my thoughts)

[Ghost Ryder]

In California they decided to make jaywalking legal. Which I'm sure will not help with auto/ped collision. All in the name of not wanting to harm the oppressed.

Sponsored

 

[DennisD]

Here we are with the cogent test again...

Collions between cars and pedestrians occur when both operators put their vehicle (i.e. the car and the pedestrian's body) in the same place at the same time. It is easier for the pedestrian not to put his body in the same place as the car's body. If the pedestrian does not walk out in the road in front of a moving car, he can't be hit by it.

I doubt any driver who accidentally hits a pedestrian when the pedestrian walks in front of his car, purposefully intends to hit the pedestrian. It is different than when a person disobeys a law to purposefully murder someone, or purposefully embezzle funds from his employer. So no, just because a driver is unable to avoid a collision with a pedestrian (it being illegal to not yield right of way to the pedestrian in the crosswalk) doesn't mean he purposefully decided to break the law.

Your understanding of logic is flawed, Sir.


Streets in Europe are narrow because the Romans laid them out centuries ago. The USA is not Europe.

I've not driven in every US city, but I have driven in many major cities in the US such as Washington DC, New York City, Boston, Richmond, Charleston, Des Moines, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Colorado Springs, and Denver.

Most all US cities have signal controlled traffic intersections and crosswalk signal controls. Crosswalks are clearly marked with wide white tape hatching and obnoxious yellow signage.

With my incident in LA, the crosswalk in the middle of the block was clearly marked, it was that the dude just unexpectedly stepped off the curb in front of my car. He did that because the LA California traffic laws says he could. Not everyone driving in LA is from LA and is not aware of every traffic law. But the laws should make (common) sense.

This is too easy.?

When people drink and drive, I would assume that no one intends to purposefully do harm as well. I would guess that you would do away with that law as well? ?

And my logic is flawed?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I don't know why anyone would want to test Darwin's theory. But every year, there's is an award that is handed out. Could very well be given to the pedestrian that walked out in front of the car because he had the right of way and the driver should of known better.

 

[ChehRob]

At the turn of the 1900s roads belonged to carts, horses, mules, pedestrians, dogs, kids playing on the street and who knows what else. Automobiles came along and their lobbyists started inventing crimes of being on the road unless you were in an auto - jay walking - an invented crime of auto industry and their fellow thieves. Freeways belong to those interest groups. But they are increasingly going to have to cope with the rest of us taking roads back. They do not belong to cars, and the sooner drivers learn that the more likely they will spend time in jail or prison.

 

[DennisD]

LOL.

Your DUI comment perfectly proves my point why pedestrian right-of-way laws are anti-protectionary for pedestrians. The law ASSUMES the driver is competent, paying attention, and SOBER. Walking out in front of a car driven by a drunk driver is precisely WHY you don't walk out in front of a moving car regardless if the law says you have the right of way and the driver supposed to stop. Because as a pedestrian, you have no idea if the driver is competent, paying attention, and sober, the safest action is to wait until the car has passed before crossing the street, or is stopped at a traffic signal and the pedestrian signal indicates it is safe to cross the street. Even then the pedestrian needs to double check it is safe to do so.

If you grew up without such life lessons, well, that is unfortunate.

The law is in place for reasonable actions. If the pedestrian walks in front of a moving vehicle and the pedestrian is hit, the law is in place of what a reasonable/responsible person would do. If the driver could have stopped in time but did not due to not paying attention or going too fast, the driver will be held responsible.

If the the driver could not have reasonably been able to avoid said accident, no ticket would be issued.

The law is in place to provide an incentive for drivers to look out for things in the road and to avoid casualties.

The ticket is a moot point. The pedestrian (whether the law is in place or not) will ultimately lose. Having the law in place simply provides an incentive to lower the death rates of said accidents. You do realize that you are a pedestrian at times as well? ?‍ Pedestrians know they are at risk and they should know this. If they choose to be ignorant, they will lose. The law isn't in place for ignorant people but rather innocent people due to age or disabilities.

Now if you could please answer the question of drunk driving that I posed earlier as opposed to repeating what you have already stated, that would be great. ?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

At the turn of the 1900s roads belonged to carts, horses, mules, pedestrians, dogs, kids playing on the street and who knows what else. Automobiles came along and their lobbyists started inventing crimes of being on the road unless you were in an auto - jay walking - an invented crime of auto industry and their fellow thieves. Freeways belong to those interest groups. But they are increasingly going to have to cope with the rest of us taking roads back. They do not belong to cars, and the sooner drivers learn that the more likely they will spend time in jail or prison.

When a family suv is capable of doing 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, I'm not sure "sharing" the road is the wisest thing. I wouldn't want to cross an interstate, let alone play on one. California just elimated Jaywalking, ask how's that going.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...e-equity-los-angeles-pedestrian-deaths-soared

 

[DennisD]

Okay, we can go more.

The bolded sentence is my point; because the law gives pedestrians the right-of-way, they feel empowered to walk out in front of moving cars because the law says the car must stop. The law leads the pedestrian to a false sense of security, so they think they are not at risk. This was the case I cited as my personal experience in 1985 on Ventura Bouvard; the pedestrian felt he was not at risk and walked out in front of my car.

We've highjacked the thread, so I'm finish replying. The DUI issue is obvious and needs no further explanation.

At least we can both agree that your logic is obviously flawed of not needing laws in the book. ?

Because you chose not answer it, that tells me that you have no ground to stand on with your "logic" if we can call it that.

Thanks for playing.

I too am sorry for hijacking this thread.

Have a great day staying on the sidewalks.......................... ?

 

[rooster19]

We own a 2021 MachE Premium. We decided to buy a second EV this year. The Model Y was on my list, but it was scratched off when we had the chance to rent one and have it for about a week when we went to Yosemite park in October. the things I didn't like about the Tesla were

a) the lack of a second screen in front of the steering wheel
b) overall fit and finish was behind the Mach-e. It was very utilitarian whereas the mache had nicer finishings
c) the acceleration/braking, despite changing the settings, was far too jerky. Its like driving in one-medal mode non-stop. Makes one nauseous


those were the major things.

 

[DennisD]

Seriously, you employ the typical politically left tactic of taking something a person said, then changing it to what he did not say, then attack him for it. You've done it to me and someone else in this thread. I didn't bring up DUI laws you did. I didn't say get rid of DUI laws, you brought it up as a discussion issue. I'm not sure why you even brought DUI into the discussion.

I said from my initial post the pedestrian right-of-way laws are antithetical to safety for pedestrians crossing the street. I've explained why several times even using your own examples. You've not been able to refute my position. Possibly you can't comprehend what I have said.

I simply used it as an example to show because people don't have intent to harm, doesn't mean that the law should not exist.

The reason you have chosen not to defend that position is because it is impossible to defend and still sound/appear logical.

In any event, I am unable to convince you of this obvious point.

Have a good evening. ?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

We own a 2021 MachE Premium. We decided to buy a second EV this year. The Model Y was on my list, but it was scratched off when we had the chance to rent one and have it for about a week when we went to Yosemite park in October. the things I didn't like about the Tesla were

a) the lack of a second screen in front of the steering wheel
b) overall fit and finish was behind the Mach-e. It was very utilitarian whereas the mache had nicer finishings
c) the acceleration/braking, despite changing the settings, was far too jerky. Its like driving in one-medal mode non-stop. Makes one nauseous


those were the major things.

Tesla's are always in 1 pedal mode. You can't can't disable it. It takes a very short time to get used to it, and I prefer it now compare to normal. However I know many people who do not like 1 pedal driving.

 

[DennisD]

Here is what you don't understand why using DUI laws is flawed for this discussion. You've postulated that because (theoretically) drunk drivers do not intend to harm when driving drunk the law should not exist. The reason DUI laws exist is because an intoxicated driver is incapable of not causing harm if a situation were to arise where it would be reasonable to expect a non-intoxicated driver would avoid causing harm.

This is why your basic logic is flawed in this discussion, because you don't fully think through your comments. And your flawed logic is why you are not understanding my position regarding pedestrian right-of-way laws.

I already answered your DUI question by pointing out why pedestrians should wait for a moving car to pass before crossing the street because the pedestrian does not know the sobriety level of the driver (nor for that matter, the sober driver's level of competency to avoid a collision if the pedestrian steps out in front of the moving car).

This is why pedestrian right-of-way laws are indifference to the laws of Newtonian Physics: (1) a car moving away from a pedestrian is safer than a car moving towards a pedestrian, (2) a higher mass object will cause more damage to a lighter mass object in a collision than vice-versa.

In order to not hijack this thread, please private message me if you would like to reply. This will be my last post.

As I guessed, you were unable to defend the intent rule. You chose to go onto a new defense of incapable. You totally missed the point but I digress.

Just like the DUI law, even though the intent is not to do harm (the defense you used in an earlier post btw) the law is instead to provide safety to both non-intoxicated drivers along with intoxicated.

The pedestrian rule is no different. The intent has nothing to do with it (just like the DUI) but rather the conditions that exist. In using your (shall we phrase it as logic?) you are suggesting that the pedestrian should not be allowed to have the right away because it is too dangerous. The same could be said of non intoxicated drivers? Why place a rule in place (no drinking and driving) if the other drivers are at risk and intent does not exist? Just like the pedestrian rule, why would we issue a law that the pedestrian would have the right of way if they are on the public roads?

It is all about reasonableness and safety. A reasonable person will not cross the street in heavy traffic just like a reasonable person should avoid driving at around 1 am on January 1st. Now can they both do it legally? Yes, but the conditions on the ground is to deter the drunk drivers from driving and the "regular drivers" on the street to watch out for pedestrians. Even though those laws currently exist, I am not going to drive nor cross a street at 1 am on January 1st. without extreme care. The law is designed to protect but not eliminate. The intent goes out the window and that is why you (in your long rant) decided to veer into another direction and stay away from intent. Pun intended. ? While you didn't intend to lose your argument, you tried to steer away and save face. Btw, I came away unscathed.

I am having fun bantering with you but once again, please private message me if you feel the need to continue.

My intent was to not hijack this thread but using your logic................did I? ?

 

[curtisfinney]

LOL.

Your DUI comment perfectly proves my point why pedestrian right-of-way laws are anti-protectionary for pedestrians. The law ASSUMES the driver is competent, paying attention, and SOBER. Walking out in front of a car driven by a drunk driver is precisely WHY you don't walk out in front of a moving car regardless if the law says you have the right of way and the driver supposed to stop. Because as a pedestrian, you have no idea if the driver is competent, paying attention, and sober, the safest action is to wait until the car has passed before crossing the street, or is stopped at a traffic signal and the pedestrian signal indicates it is safe to cross the street. Even then the pedestrian needs to double check it is safe to do so.

If you grew up without such life lessons, well, that is unfortunate.

I used to work downtown Minneapolis and would walk to lunch. You are right that pedestrians need to be wary, but using your logic one may never get a chance to cross the street. Instead, I always had an object - usually a drink cup that would be thrown at a car that wasn’t stopping to get their attention.

No law is perfect, but I’m not ready to get rid of these laws. Distracted and worse drivers that injure pedestrians need to be punished. You forget that kids cross streets too and they don’t always get it right drivers must be held responsible and our roads need to be changed to improve pedestrian safety.

you should get over not wanting to stop for pedestrians

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I used to work downtown Minneapolis and would walk to lunch. You are right that pedestrians need to be wary, but using your logic one may never get a chance to cross the street. Instead, I always had an object - usually a drink cup that would be thrown at a car that wasn’t stopping to get their attention.

No law is perfect, but I’m not ready to get rid of these laws. Distracted and worse drivers that injure pedestrians need to be punished. You forget that kids cross streets too and they don’t always get it right drivers must be held responsible and our roads need to be changed to improve pedestrian safety.

you should get over not wanting to stop for pedestrians

Doesn't matter what side of the debate you're on, but throwing things at other peoples car will get you kill or at least a serious beating in California.

 

[curtisfinney]

Doesn't matter what side of the debate you're on, but throwing things at other peoples car will get you kill or at least a serious beating in California.

I’ve only been forced to do it three times. It was always a paper cup full of water and every single one of them was embarrassed for not paying attention. If getting embarrassed for almost running something over makes you angry, I’m sorry for your small ego.

 

[curtisfinney]

It’s just your attitude that seethes through on not wanting to stop

Sponsored