You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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?
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.
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
Lol what? It's a safety issue FOR THE PEDESTRIAN
Because of THE CAR
THE CAR causes the safety issue
Ma'am
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?
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
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.
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.
Totally agree.
Let's make more spaces for pedestrians, but let's not joust with cars.
Stop driving dangerously
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.