You also keep blatantly ignoring the points that refute your strawmen, because you know you can't defend your position.
No one said anything about speeding, crossing the road, or anything of that nature.
The entire discussion is about how walking in the road and not being easily visible is dangerous and stupid. That's it. Full stop.
And you are deliberately ignoring everything I've said, such as my explanation of what I meant when I said 'speeding'. I've made myself clear that I am talking about people crossing the road, as there very fewother reasons for people to be in the road, and I don't believe that there are swarms of people just walking in the middle of the road for no reason.
There is no strawman, because the basis of your argument is that people need to make themselves more visible to avoid being hit by cars. The vast majority of accidents, however, occur due to: distracted or inebriated drivers; or drivers driving too fast for the road conditions. Pedestrians will never be visible enough to prevent these accidents, yet you seem to think that the solution to reducing pedestrian accidents is 'more visibility'.
Did you just learn the word strawman or something?. You don't have to (incorrectly) throw it into every comment you write...
We still get bills and charity letters for the previous owners 5 yrs later. Every one gets rts, no longer at this address, and we asked royal mail not to deliver stuff not addressed to us. Didn't make any difference
You do realize that not every road is perfectly flat, straight, or well lit, right?
You do realise that sensible thing to do on such roads is slow down and drive a speed appropriate to the conditions don't you?
And no, you don't have a right to walk where you want. Jaywalking laws exist for a reason, and it's because idiots like you think their principals trump the laws of physics
I actually do, because I live in a civilised country, but that's besides the point. People don't generally walk done the center of the road, as I already pointed out. The only reason people, generally are in the road, is if they are crossing it. I shouldn't have to base my clothing choice around the likelihood of me needing to cross a road, because you don't understand point 1,above.
You also keep talking about speeding. At no point was speeding part of this conversation until you brought it up. Another strawman because you know damn well your argument doesn't make any sense. The speed doesn't matter unless you're expecting everyone to drive 10mph everywhere.
I am talking about speeding as a synonym for zooming, racing etc. Not exceeding the legal speed limit.
People hit deer all the time for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with excess speed. If any object is in the road, or enters the road, the human reaction time and the vehicle stopping distance might not be enough.
So maybe they shouldn't e driving so fast, and they would be able to react in time to not hit the deer 🤔🤔. Or are you suggesting that deer should wear brighter clothing at night as well?
It's your responsibility to stay off of the road if the conditions aren't sufficient for a vehicle going the speed limit to stop in time. Those conditions include your visibility, and your clothing choices affect it.
So we're back to me not being able to cross a road, incase some entitled driver can't be arsed slowing down a bit. Again the rule is, drive a speed appropriate to the conditions. If it's too dark to see, you should slow the fuck down.
But, if you are stupid enough to go walking in the road, at night, in dark clothes, please at least register as an organ donor.
I don't know where you love that has such an pandemic of people walking in the middle of the road at night, but as I said, mostly I just want to cross the road. I shouldn't have to wear day glow neon and flash like a Christmas tree to do it.
Because I have a right to walk where I want, wearing what I want. To suggest that I must select my clothing to conform some stranger's desire to speed around in a car, paying the bare minimum of attention to the road or conditions, on penalty of death or serious injury, is ridiculous.
Driving so fast that you can't see or react to pedestrians is stupid and dangerous. Why us it such a hard concept for you to understand?
Oh right, you're on about the swathes of people who just walk down the middle of road as a matter of course. I can't be arsed with this discussion any more. Let's just assume that I acknowledge your 'right' to indiscriminately mow pedestrians down for the crime of 'being in the road'
If you're driving too fast, you're the hazard, not me.
You should drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions. If you can't see fsr enough ahead, or can't stop fast enough to avoid a pedestrian, you are driving too fast. I shouldn't have to wear day glow neon and flashing lights everywhere I go, because you can't slow down a bit.
Have you ever heard a Golden eagle call? They hae a weak thin call, like a seagull. This isn't macho enough for the US, so they always play a different call on films, that of a hawk!
When there is no social safety net, and you need money to live you can't afford to be picky.
Forced to. People are forced into these jobs...
I think the humour in the first few episodes was Mcfarlens way of sneaking the show past the network suits - he sold it as family guy meets star trek, then switched on them once it was established.
In England it's illigal to keep a squirrel in captivity, but it's also illigal to release a captured squirrel back into the wild, so the only option is to (humanely) kill the poor fucker.
Like I said, it's a shame there's no way to avoid playing into 'their' hands and giving them all that extra revenue.
If only there were some way to avoid speeding....