ASHLAND — Twenty-six Amish who refused to pay their fines for violating a law that requires flashing lights on their buggies appeared in court on Friday.

Once there, Ashland Municipal Court Judge John Good ruled out the possibility of jail time for them and instead said he would impose liens on their real estate.

  • Juice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    People are so up in arms at the seeming contradiction of Amish using a light and a battery on their buggies.

    Guess what: most Amish businesses have cell phones. If you drive through Amish country in Ohio, you will see dozens of people in Amish garb riding e-bikes.

    I hate cars and judges, and frankly Ohio is a hellhole; but if some lights are going to make people safer it really isn’t going to be that big of a burden. If the judge says they have to do it, then their community elders will approve it, nbd.

    None of you ever had Mennonite friends and it shows.

    • Michal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think victim blaming is the problem here.

      • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        By victims I assume you mean unsuspecting drivers coming across a dark, unlighted vehicle in the road at night who could be injured or killed by an accident or swerving to avoid one, right?

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          If they can’t see a fucking cart with their headlights on, then what chance do they have of avoiding a cyclist or a pedestrian out for a walk?

          Some people shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

          • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            They have a very good chance of seeing me while I’m cycling because I’m lighted. If I’m forced to walk on the road at night without a light I’ll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.

            • SlippyCliff76@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              They should see you with only your reflectors. Headlight “safety” ratings have steadily improved since 2016. [https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/ranks-of-top-safety-pick-winners-swell-as-automakers-improve-headlights] I use the air-quotes as IIHS tests favor more light for the driver at the expense of glare for others.

              In any case, if they can’t see you at night, then they need to slow down as the maximum speeds supported by current low beam technology is around 40-45 mph. Bicycles shouldn’t be on roads with such high prevailing speeds, 50 mph+. Rather they should be on a separate path. In that case the risk is far lower to the cyclist then what some flashing lights could’ve achieved.

          • SlippyCliff76@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            What’s depressing is that now headlights are glaring LED supernovas, and yet drivers still can’t stop hitting things at night.

        • Blaine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, by victims we mean the people using a road in the way roads were used for centuries, completely legally. The ones being hit from behind by people in too much of a hurry to use proper caution in area where Amish frequently travel and they are not the only users of the roadway.

          If I drive through a neighborhood with a “Children at Play” sign and run over a kid, I can 100% guarantee you that I am not the victim. That is some very cringe logic. The road exists first for pedestrians, secondly for non-motorized vehicles, and lastly… for automobiles.

            • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s immoral. Sometimes the laws themselves are immoral. I believe this may be such a situation.

              • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                I don’t necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can’t, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don’t apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it’s dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn’t decide the laws don’t apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?

                The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you’re walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.

                If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that’s a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.

                • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That’s a great response and I’m now on board with you. You’re considering this from a perspective I hadn’t, but I see it now. Thanks for taking the time to write this out.

                  Let it be known that on this day, the sixth of August in the year of our Lord 2024, an event of great import and considerable rarity occurred: a man’s opinion was changed by Internet discourse.

                • limelight79@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.

                  But a bear, deer, moose, or other large animal is, and they don’t have warning lights. Drivers need to drive within the distance of their headlights and sight; it’s that simple.

                  I occasionally come around bends in the roads to my neighborhood and discover a deer standing in the road. Because I’m not going too fast, I’m able to stop and avoid hitting them. Or, I could come around a bend and discover a large tree has fallen on the road. Again, it’s my responsibility to be driving in a manner that I can stop in time. It’s not the tree’s fault if I hit it, unless it just happens to fall inches in front of me.

                  Blaming the victims instead of the drivers is the biggest problem with cars in the US today. Drivers need to be responsible for their several tons of heavy machinery, and we do not hold them responsible often enough. So, drivers are practically encouraged to drive like nothing is going to go wrong.

                  • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don’t know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.

                    Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.

                    We’re not taking about a deer being a deer. We’re talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they’re sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone’s safety.

                    The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.

          • SlippyCliff76@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It would be interesting if separate bicycle infra ever makes its way to that part of Ohio. I wonder how the buggies would be treated in that case? Would they be permitted to ride on the bike paths, or would they only be allowed on certain parts of the paths?

        • Michal
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well i assume the drivers used headlights at night so they can see where they’re going and if there are obstacles in the way.

          • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I see you don’t understand how dark objects work at night when they are not lit. Lmfao. And then BOOM instantly lit 5 fr in front of you.

    • Media Sensationalism@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      The idea behind the typical Amish perspective on technology is to preserve community. Exceptions are sometimes made as necessary or reasonable, washing machines being one of the most popular exceptions. It seems to be working well for them.

      • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I honestly really like that approach. I have a feeling they have a much more warm and supportive feeling of family when all goes to plan and there are no predators.