Does society have a responsibilty to help prevent stupid people from getting killed ?

[Dowly]

I applaud the Germans.

While these people might seems idiots (and to some extend, they are), they might still be mothers/fathers/daughters/sons/etc.

If this is what it takes to protect them, so be it.

And as HunterICX pointed out, there is the damage done to the one who runs them over.

I hate this smartphone culture, but it should not be punishable by being run over.

I hope this helps.

[August]

Eh it's all temporary. As soon as they come out with a direct connection to the brain you won't be able to tell who is distracted and who isn't. Think of it as a hands free mode for the visual part of a smart phone.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I applaud the Germans.

While these people might seems idiots (and to some extend, they are), they might still be mothers/fathers/daughters/sons/etc.

If this is what it takes to protect them, so be it.

I think that the principle behind this thinking is somewhat admirable but there is a catch. The more you protect people from themselves, the more dependent they will become on that protection. Where will this lead?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by u crank

Where will this lead?

To speed limits of 70km/h on country roads with trees at the road side...
We just got that here at some of my favorite motorcycling roads.
There was the normal limit of 100km/h there until recently and I really fail to see how anyone could crash his vehicle into the trees by accident at that speed but obviously some did and since 90 or 80 km/h is still waaaayyyy toooooo much to handle for the average driver we had to go all the way down to 70...on a wide road with mild curves where there was nor danger to driving at 100km/h unless one was a complete retard who doesn't know what the steering wheel or handle bars are good for....

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think that the principle behind this thinking is somewhat admirable but there is a catch. The more you protect people from themselves, the more dependent they will become on that protection. Where will this lead?

More lawsuits

[u crank]

As it is written " lawyers shall inherit the earth".

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I hate this smartphone culture, but it should not be punishable by being run over.

Yes they should.
Not because I hate the smartphone culture but because the cause of the problem is the use of the phone which makes you completely ignore your surroundings not the lack of safety measures that have been installed at crossings.

[Wolferz]

Set the traffic lights up to broadcast a signal to the cell phones to flash the screen for a red light, don't walk sign etc.

Ultimately, I'd just call it cleaning the gene pool when your Angry Birds becomes more important than your life and limbs.

Safety course...

THE CORRECT SPEED FOR USING A PHONE IS ZERO MPH /KPH
Remember, it won't kill you to pull over to answer that call or text!

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Set the traffic lights up to broadcast a signal to the cell phones to flash the screen for a red light, don't walk sign etc. ...

Yes, write an app that makes the cell phone screen flash red, and yell "STOP YOU MORON!" at you.

Also, add a small arrow to tell you where to go, to avoid obstacles in real life while looking at the screen all the time.
God there are thousand ideas Google and Appple will make money with

In the future, the phone will take a blood sample of you before or short after a fatal crash, so they can clone you, and replace your memories with Google Brain (tm)

Almost sounds a bit Philip K. Dickish

[Oberon]

I think if it will lead to anything it will just be the extension of pavement barriers so that people can only cross the road in set regulated areas, and these areas will have barriers to prevent people from walking out into the road accidentally when the traffic is flowing. Not particularly a bad thing really, since it will also stop young children from bolting out in front of cars too. Won't stop idiots from climbing the fence though.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think if it will lead to anything it will just be the extension of pavement barriers so that people can only cross the road in set regulated areas, and these areas will have barriers to prevent people from walking out into the road accidentally when the traffic is flowing. Not particularly a bad thing really, since it will also stop young children from bolting out in front of cars too. Won't stop idiots from climbing the fence though.

What do you mean by pavement barriers? You mean like a fence or railing along the side of the road only broken at road crossings?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

What do you mean by pavement barriers? You mean like a fence or railing along the side of the road only broken at road crossings?

That's the one. You can still vault them if you're feeling athletic, but would discourage small children and accidental walking into traffic. I've seen a lot of them in London, I must admit they do irritate me sometimes since if you want to cross the street at a certain point then you have to go to the nearest crossing, but that's just laziness on my behalf.
Then at the crossings they'd put gates up like they have at railway crossings, so if someone does vault the gate and then gets mowed down by a car, then it's clearly not the car drivers fault.
It's a lot of work for infrastructure though, so not really plausible except for perhaps blackspots.