Read on Twitter
It’s a slow news day, so just for fun, let’s dissect this particularly bad example of a not-at-all uncommon phenomenon: the pedestrian-blaming crash report.
Problem #1: Car crash, @KOLDNews. Not accident. ( @APStylebook agrees.) (1/7) http://bit.ly/2YLXN03
Problem #1: Car crash, @KOLDNews. Not accident. ( @APStylebook agrees.) (1/7) http://bit.ly/2YLXN03
Problem #2: Pretty sure a sentient car didn’t kill Mr. Grajeda. A driver did. (2/7)
Problem #3: Scrutinizing the pedestrian’s actions without scrutinizing the driver’s actions isn’t a good look, @koldnews.
Was the driver speeding? Distracted? No word. Did the pedestrian even *have* a crosswalk conveniently available nearby? No idea. (3/7)
Was the driver speeding? Distracted? No word. Did the pedestrian even *have* a crosswalk conveniently available nearby? No idea. (3/7)
. @KOLDNews didn’t include an intersection in its reporting, but based on a quick Streetview scan of this road…yeah, not a whole lot of crosswalks around there. (4/7)
Problem #4: Fun fact: pedestrians in Arizona are not legally required to dress as human disco balls when walking after dark.
Also: was there a working streetlight? (5/7)
Also: was there a working streetlight? (5/7)
Problem #5:
We might say the driver piloting at 2,500 pound automobile might have “contributed” a little something to this crash...not to mention the roadway engineer who prioritized level of service over safety. But hey, that’s just us. (6/7)
We might say the driver piloting at 2,500 pound automobile might have “contributed” a little something to this crash...not to mention the roadway engineer who prioritized level of service over safety. But hey, that’s just us. (6/7)
HT to @kostelecplan for pointing out this stunner. Did we miss anything? Point it out in the thread. (7/7)
