“Yeah, there’s this whole path for pedestrians, and that whole path for cars, but sometimes I just want to be on the car one for no reason, so cars should be inconvenienced for that.”
TBH I think that the demeanor of „why can’t I have 80% public city land for me“ sounds way more like entitlement for me. That is for me the reason why I found the original post so interesting.
Do you have any idea how often pedestrians are inconvenienced by cars? We have to beg to cross streets and only where it is designated, busniesses are farther away and hidden behind vast parking lots, we are subject to their exhaust noise and fumes just about everywhere, and in many places we neglect nearly every form of travel that isnt a car.
It isn’t like the car can’t still get down the road, they just have to do it at a safe speed and be aware of the pedestrians. This is a neighbourhood not a highway.
It is ridiculous that people are using the street in their own neighbourhood? Did you never get to play street hockey as kid? Maybe wheels chairs can’t handle the cracks on the sidewalk? Do you really want to ban people from their own streets?
Are you really trying to sound like the sidewalk and the street are equal? The car has enough space for 4 of it to be side by side. The pedestrian has enough space for 2 of them to be side by side, touching. You sound entitled to me.
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.
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.
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 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.
MLK argued that change requires agitation. Since cars should be mostly banned from pedestrian areas I fully support any effort to retake space and to inconvience cars. Any effort to make driving more painful for others chips away at car dependency
Holy Entitlement.
“Yeah, there’s this whole path for pedestrians, and that whole path for cars, but sometimes I just want to be on the car one for no reason, so cars should be inconvenienced for that.”
TBH I think that the demeanor of „why can’t I have 80% public city land for me“ sounds way more like entitlement for me. That is for me the reason why I found the original post so interesting.
But for the current day driver trying to drive safely, the die is already cast.
It’s shitty no matter who is doing it.
Do you have any idea how often pedestrians are inconvenienced by cars? We have to beg to cross streets and only where it is designated, busniesses are farther away and hidden behind vast parking lots, we are subject to their exhaust noise and fumes just about everywhere, and in many places we neglect nearly every form of travel that isnt a car.
It isn’t like the car can’t still get down the road, they just have to do it at a safe speed and be aware of the pedestrians. This is a neighbourhood not a highway.
These people aren’t crossing the road, they’re walking along it.
So they are road users? Pedestrians are not excluded from residential streets.
Not legally, no. At least not in my state.
But they should be. This is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous that people are using the street in their own neighbourhood? Did you never get to play street hockey as kid? Maybe wheels chairs can’t handle the cracks on the sidewalk? Do you really want to ban people from their own streets?
None of that is happening in the photo. People are just walking in the street.
If the kids had a place dedicated to street hockey, they shouldn’t be in the street. But can you play street hockey on the sidewalk?
How about people cooperate to create the most livable neighborhood for all?
How about we ban cars from pedestrian areas instead?
Cars are already banned from sidewalks.
Are you really trying to sound like the sidewalk and the street are equal? The car has enough space for 4 of it to be side by side. The pedestrian has enough space for 2 of them to be side by side, touching. You sound entitled to me.
So maybe we need bigger sidewalks. Fair enough, that’s a reasonable discussion. Taking over the entire road is not.
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.
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?
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 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.
MLK argued that change requires agitation. Since cars should be mostly banned from pedestrian areas I fully support any effort to retake space and to inconvience cars. Any effort to make driving more painful for others chips away at car dependency
The road is not a pedestrian area.
The infrastructure should be changed, but the driver is not in a pedestrian area.
Further, risking your safety and potentially setting an innocent person up for an accident is a dick move.
Advocate for change. I’m into that. Smart towns and cities are making progress and I’m all for it. Don’t put people at risk.
What a gross ideology.