& double parking is illegal yet I see tons of trucks & @#$%& wannabe-taxis (uber/lyft/door dash) doing exactly that. Honestly, my first thought, would be delivery (or pickup if it’s a trash truck late at night)
If it was near the crossing that would be the case. But if a truck is stopped at the crossing with its front bumper exactly where you would stop if it you were waiting for a pedestrian (without its hazards on) then you have to assume it is waiting for a pedestrian. I drive in downtown DC most days (and before that San Francisco) I see illegally parked trucks in all sorts positions every day, but I can’t recall one stopping at a crossing like that, except when it’s waiting for a pedestrian or the light.
It is spectacularly irresponsible to continue at your regular speed in those circumstances, and definitely makes it more the driver’s fault than the pedestrian.
For shits and giggles find some locations where the people setting the traffic rules are held accountable for actual outcomes. (e.a. industrial plants and such) and look at what they come up with as reasonable.
Why are corporations, in places where we do not expect children, pets, elderly, handicapped or impaired people more careful than most public spaces? Why are otherwise reasonably intelligent people advocating for ridiculously dangerous speeds? (Calling widely accepted “safe” speeds for mixed traffic “extremist” 
)
Are we so desperate to run over the neighbors’ dog?
We (as a society) are willing to tolerate some number of pedestrian deaths in order to get fr place to place in what we consider a reasonable time and cost.
Sometimes Fido, or even little Billy chasing his call, has got to go. If the alternative is literally biking speed on all roads that are not access controlled highways, people are going to choose some level of pedestrian deaths.
Again: look at situations where the people making the rules are held accountable for the bottom line.
“We” suck at estimating time and cost when driving. We wildly overestimate the time saved of driving faster.
I haven’t quite worked out all the kinks, yet, but my proposed legislation is that at night, WRT to pedestrians crossing anywhere but at a well lit intersection and bicyclists w/o lights - if they are dressed entirely in black, they are entirely at fault!
I understand your motivation. I’ve “seen” pedestrians who seem to be dressed like ninjas and who are only apparent as a slight different shade of black than the blackness of a dark night.
The ones that really get me are the cyclists. I used to encounter them on 2-lane country roads with zero lighting. Dressed in black from head to toe. Always think they must have a death wish.
Do they NEVER drive such that they have no idea how invisible they are? Do they not care? Do they just assume that the drivers - and the rest of the world - are responsible for looking out for them better than they do themselves?
So slow down if you suffer from night blindness.
No night blindness required; a bicyclist all in black without any reflectors or lights on their bike can be difficult for a viewer with normal vision to see.
It is much better for society if we kill the severely stupid. Ideally before they breed more of the same.
Riding an unlit bike at night dressed in black is severely stupid.
In the post I replied to the road had no lighting and the cyclist were dressed in black.
Nobody said anything about no reflectors or no lights on the bike.
And again you want to punish leaving home without lights (on a nice spring day, riding in the sun, forgetting it will be dark soon) by running people over.
Fail to see the light has turned: instant death
Forget your lights: instant death.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
How entitled?
You forgot riding against traffic
I don’t want to punish people for it. However, the laws of physics are unfortunately likely to do so; as well as to punish the people who hit them because they couldn’t see them, most of whom will feel utterly terrible about it.
Do you drive a car? Do you have any idea how hard it is to see a dark unlit object, against a dark pavement, in the dark, from inside a car?
My husband likes to ride a bike for recreation. I have a lot of carless urban friends who use bikes to get around. I’m a huge advocate of reflective clothing for cyclists. The motion of bicycles is barely visible during the day. (It’s not what our eyes are wired to notice.) Add darkness and dark clothing and you are really wearing an invisibility suit out there. Cyclists should have front lights, rear reflectors, and as much other light-catching stuff as they can easily manage.
Old-Order Mennonites around here have taken to using red blinking lights and reflective clothing: on buggies (which are black), on bicycles, often on pedestrians. It’s massively safer.
Our roads generally have no bike lines, and many of them have next to no shoulders and what shoulder there is rough dirt or rough gravel. There is going to be slow traffic in the car lanes (not all of it Old Order) and it’s necessary for car drivers to watch out for them – but it’s also necessary for them to make themselves visible.
And we should all try to make life easy for everybody: Yes, cyclists should have lights and preferably visible clothes. But drivers also need to slow down on mixed use surfaces.
Drivers suck so much at judging their own speed and abilty that they are crashing into buildings with alarming frequency. No amount of lights or reflective vests help in the face of such incompetance.
True. But not always to 10 miles an hour; unless in a no-passing area they come up behind other traffic going that speed.
And if while going at a reasonable speed for the road they hit someone who’s effectively made themselves invisible – this is not IMO primarily the fault of the driver. Especially if whoever got hit had just made a sudden move into the path of the car.
I have just missed hitting a couple of bicyclists. One was a child who took a sharp left turn right in front of me without looking or signalling, and didn’t appear to see me till they heard my brakes scream. That was in broad daylight and I could see them easily, though I wasn’t expecting the abrupt left. The other was a wobbly cyclist quite near a bar, who fell over right in front of me. (They got back up and wobbled off. Considering the location, I suspect they were drunk.) I’d noticed how wobbly they were, and therefore slowed down; otherwise I’d have hit them. But if I hadn’t been able to see them, I wouldn’t have seen they were wobbly!
I have also, before they took to using the blinking lights, seen a couple of buggies only at the very last moment; they were mostly on the (semi-adequate) shoulder and I was able to avoid them, but it was pretty unnerving. The road is posted at 55MPH, generally driven at 60, and if I’d spent 15 miles going down it at 10MPH I would have posed a significant traffic hazard to other car traffic. I was very glad when the buggies started being lighted.
Yeah it’s fairly hard. But it’s not that hard. If you choose to drive such that you will commit vehicular homicide on me if I’m wearing a black shirt. You will probably also murder me if I’m wearing a red shirt. Yeah I’ll try and wear a red shirt in the hope that millisecond or so extra will be enough for you to decide not commit vehicular homicide but the only way to ensure no one gets murdered is for you to drive safely.