It sounds utopian…

It’s not that we don’t want robots doing it - honestly that’d be pretty cool. It’s that we want to be sure the people that are being replaced are being taken care of.

There will always be some jobs. That’s no guarantee that there will be enough jobs for everyone to live modest lives on.

Why is that the comparison, though? Sears developed mail-order catalogues in the 1800s. That’s what Amazon replaced.

…okay, I really want to know the story behind that picture!

Nah, highways tend have lots of visibility around them, you can see a person a long ways off. Though, if you do see a kid on the side (and don’t intend to stop), you should absolutely be slowing down and giving them a wide berth!

Nice, how’d you come by that? Posted article didn’t have anything but the town name.

The only way I can see the driver not being at fault is if he 1) could not see the kids near the road, and 2) had no reason to expect people might be in blind spots near the road.

Given that there were houses less than 2 blocks from the site of the incident, 2 seems unlikely - this sounds like either a suburban or urban neighborhood (multiple crosswalks within 2 blocks for a 4 lane road). No mention was made of any obstructions, which is not evidence in itself; but it’s the rare four lane road that hasn’t had obstructions cleared from the sides of the road (partly for this reason!), particularly in a non-rural area. At a glance, Gastonia seems to generally keep their roads clear.

I can certainly be convinced otherwise with more evidence, but the burden of vehicle safety absolutely lies on the driver. If you can’t respond fast enough to a seven year old running out in front of you from a place you can’t see; you are, by definition, driving too fast - regardless of the posted speed limit. And if you can see them, and aren’t driving in such a way as to be able to keep them safe should they run in front of you, you’re driving recklessly.

Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!

I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.

Fair point, it was indeed between crosswalks. But from the sound of it, the kids had been waiting to cross, and the younger kid jumped out on his own.

The older kid saw the danger, meaning the car should have been able to see at least one kid too. I maintain that if you can’t react safely to kids you can see jumping unexpectedly off the curb as you drive by, you have no business driving.

He’s cooperating with the cops apparently, but it sounds like it was a bystander who was checking on the other kid until their parents could get there.

They left their mom at home, and were walking two blocks up the street to meet up with their dad, who was grocery shopping. The dad was on the phone with the older kid at the time, keeping tabs on them while letting them gain confidence going on their own.

As a parent who struggles not to helicopter my kids, none of this sounds out of line to me. The driver who apparently couldn’t react to a kid stepping out unexpectedly, in what sounds like a residential area? I want to know why he’s got a license.

They were going from their house where their mom was 2 blocks up the street to where their dad was shopping. The dad was on the phone with the older kid as they walked. They were not left alone.

If the driver wasn’t able to respond in time to a pedestrian entering the street, particularly at a crosswalk, he was driving recklessly.

(Edit) Not a crosswalk, between two crosswalks. I maintain that inability to react to pedestrians safely in an area at least near housing constitutes reckless driving.

there is no evidence of speeding or wrongdoing on the part of the driver, therefore no charges have been filed.

He hit a pedestrian. If you cannot react to a pedestrian entering the road unexpectedly, especially at a crosswalk, you are, by definition, driving recklessly.

Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle

Pretty confident that’s the intention of that name

I think it was mostly the fact that if he did go at that point, the other warehouse guys would decide he had indeed sat down to pee, regardless of what actually happened.

Used to do IT for a small meat packing plant; would shoot the shit with the warehouse guys whenever they came in for a break. Bunch of 20-something guys slinging 20-60 pound boxes of meat all day.

Power went out one time, and we’re all sitting around waiting to see if the power is going to come back quickly enough that we don’t need to start unloading all the inventory; and one of them expressed a need to use the facilities. I told him the bathroom was right there; it didn’t need power to flush.

There were no windows, and he didn’t want to end up peeing all over the floor.

I pointed out that if he sat down, he wouldn’t need to aim.

“I’m not gonna sit to pee!”

“Dude, it’s not like it’s gonna fall off.”

“It might!”

Given the state of the US justice system, that’s not much of a gotcha.