It mostly puts the risk and consequences on the elderly, disabled, and impoverished. Which is evil, but socially acceptable and with many other strong precedents in the US.
Similar results when looking for disability too. Age I'm not following up on right now for time reasons but since the elderly are more likely than average to be either disabled or impoverished it almost doesn't matter.
What's your goal on bringing attention to the BAC of the pedestrians? People are allowed to drink, even be drunk. Is "drinking and walking" to be a crime too? Road safety needs to account for all conditions and decisions likely to be encountered by drivers, including drunk pedestrians just as much as children and wheelchair users.
I could only access the one article you linked https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... which mentions: “With miles of broken or missing sidewalks, inadequate outdoor lighting, distracted drivers and wide streets that facilitate speeding, Gulfton could also be Exhibit A in what has become an alarming nationwide increase in pedestrian fatalities in recent years, disproportionately concentrated in the neighborhoods of people of color with low incomes.”
On reflection, I wonder whether there is any component of cause and effect because black people could be harder to see at night: “Pedestrian fatalities occur mostly in urban areas, at night in dark lighting conditions”, “In 2015, 74 percent of pedestrian crashes happened in the dark”.
I also assume survivability is strongly affected by age and disability.
> I do kind of question your intent or at least motivation here.
In this case I simply used poor search terms. You are violating the site guideline to “Assume good faith” when you write that. I had thought that my examples supported your paraphrased point of discriminatory death. For anti-discrimination, sometimes men and drunk people (as you rightfully reiterate) are not seen as targets.
I am generally curious about causes and effects. It is difficult to tease out the underlying reasons why we measure some clearly unfair and biased outcomes.
I heartily agree we should aim for streets to be safe for all pedestrians, whether: drunk, impoverished, man or woman, PoC, children, etcetera.
> You are violating the site guideline to “Assume good faith” when you write that.
Call the hall monitors then because I'm about to do it again.
Neighborhoods where minorities and the impoverished live are dramatically under-resourced and this has been widely understood for decades now. You can see it by just walking through the black neighborhood in any city I've lived in and comparing the physical streets and sidewalks! Lights and crosswalks are fewer and less maintained, sidewalks are more busted or not even there, forcing people into the street.
But instead of considering, or even looking into, any of that you go straight to "hm maybe black people are just hard to see." What the shit man seriously.
I am listening and agreeing with you. Attacking others is a poor way to help others learn your point of view.
I thought I was https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning but maybe not. Trying to look for facts even should I dislike them, and trying to avoid unfair bias (which is very hard to do).
> hall monitors
We are each responsible for writing comments that create an ambiance on this site which encourages civil discourse. I only use the hall monitors for truely offensive material. For minor communication difficulties, the idea is that we all politely help each other. Conflict is fine, and it is difficult to offend me.
