146
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

So maybe we need bigger sidewalks. Fair enough, that's a reasonable discussion. Taking over the entire road is not.

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

Man the fucking moment a pedestrian steps onto the street they live on it's "taking over the entire road" but roadside parking on both sides is normal. Fuck off.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

From a safety perspective, pedestrians in a road is already a huge issue.

Like, the area should be changed. I totally agree with the idea of vastly increasing DESIGNATED pedestrian space.

But for this driver on this day, they are using the infrastructure as designated. The street pedestrians are not, and are putting themselves at risk in the current system. A driver not wanting a high risk pass with a pedestrian, while a sidewalk exists in the current system is not entitled.

It's the same as if someone was uphill hiking on a designated downhill mountain bike ONLY trail. It isn't wrong for the cyclist in that equation to be mad if they come across a hiker on a non shared trail.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

This is how a neighbourhood street should look like. Note the sign saying "auto te gast", meaning "cars only as guests", basically meaning, you can drive here, but rolling footballs and kids skipping around, and people just walking have right of way, you can't disturb people living their lives.

I get that's not how it's set up on the OP, but hell, why is this not the case?

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

From a safety perspective, pedestrians in a road is already a huge issue.

Olympic level mental gymnastics are required to believe that the pedestrian is the safety issue in regards to the hunk of rust flying past family homes.

[-] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

Lol how is that your takeaway from what they said? They clearly meant it in the opposite way smh

This community has some of the dumbest takes bolstered by "righteous fury," it's like being in church all over again

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago

Lol what? It's a safety issue FOR THE PEDESTRIAN

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Because of THE CAR

THE CAR causes the safety issue

Ma'am

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Obviously cars are more dangerous than human bodies. We all acknowledge that.

The point is the space is already designated for cars. That should change, sure, but for today, that's how it is.

So a human on the proverbial train tracks is the one in danger. It's not a safety issue for the car, but the person. Which was my point that you are trying to dodge.

Also not sure what the ma'am was for, were you suggesting something?

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

I'm not dodging your point, I'm rejecting it. It's victim blaming. I'm sorry you can't see past your nose, I'm gonna stop replying

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

Probably best as you closed your last with a potentially gendered insult and didn't clarify.

Back on point: it's not victim blaming when someone uses an existing system definitively wrong. If you sunbathe on a train track and get run over, you are the only one to blame.

A more interesting topic for this community would be how to remap the traditional US suburb to establish more safe space for pedestrians, specifically how sidewalks out front of existing properties could take up some of the pavement, with traffic calming measures, and dedicated bike lanes.

[-] BReel@lemmy.one 1 points 2 days ago

I’m excited for the day I’m coming home from work at night, coming over a hill I can’t see over, and then BOOM a human is in the middle of the road and I run someone over, because they “deserve to use the road as a pedestrian”

Cool. I’ll tell that to my therapist for the rest of my life while I try and cope with the fact that I’ve ended a life.

It’s one thing for someone to walk down the street and put themselves at risk.

It’s an entirely different deal to force an unsuspecting person into a dangerous situation. That’s fucking selfish.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

Totally agree.

Let's make more spaces for pedestrians, but let's not joust with cars.

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago
[-] BReel@lemmy.one 0 points 20 hours ago

Yes. Driving the speed limit and cresting a hill is dangerous.

Walking on a road where a hill hides you from drivers isn’t. How could I mistake those.

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
146 points (71.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9495 readers
123 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS