this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
316 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9806 readers
7 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Daylighting, which involves removing parked cars from around crosswalks in order to improve visibility and just wiped out about 14,000 street parking spaces, has proved especially controversial.

“If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer,” Nina Geneson Otis wrote in an email to The Standard. The real estate broker said daylighting is the kind of policy that makes Democrats lose elections.

Others say the city’s actions remove responsibility from pedestrians to look out for their own safety. “A pedestrian can do anything, and be irresponsible, and no harm will come to them?” Brandi said, describing the policies as “idiot-proof.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 110 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The idea that a pedestrian walking anywhere but on a limited access highway would ever be at fault for a collision with an automobile is a direct result of century-old propaganda by the moral equivalent of the NRA.

If i made a self-propelled battering ram with remote controlled steering I would rightly be held to strict liabily if anyone was hurt. But if we put a a chair in the same thing and call it a "vehicle", suddenly the rules change in our favor.

I like cars and driving, and can easily imagine a number of mitigating circumstances that would shift liability away from the driver, but the presumption that once-walkable city streets are for cars is the result of fierce industrial lobbying and not a reasoned public policy process.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 weeks ago

The origin of the word "jaywalking" is exactly that. Blame the victim.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago

Always remember that "vehicular manslaughter" was created with lower penalties than manslaughter, because juries were consistently not finding motorists guilty of manslaughter.

It was too easy for jurors to identify with the driver, and think, what if it was me driving that car, killing that person by accident?

We need safer infrastructure in this world than one allowing anyone to be a killer just by being distracted.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

For all its faults, the NRA knows that guns are unsafe. It promotes "gun safety" not "shirt safety" – it doesn't blame people who get shot accidentally because they were wearing the wrong kind of shirt. Whereas cities around the world talk about "bike safety" when the unsafe element is not the bike at all.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

“If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer” is such a wild thing to say oh my god. Yeah, thats the point. Less people die because of it.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer"

Man, I could not have done a better job of distilling the effects of the toxic "rugged individualism" ingrained in American culture down to a single sentence...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

absolutely. Individualism is gonna be the death of us all at this rate

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Especially after we all saw what they mean by the living "having to suffer," during COVID. The "suffering" of having to wear a mask. The "suffering" of maybe getting a perfectly safe vaccine in order to protect yourself and others (including people you don't know and will never meet, wow imagine that)...

But hey, it means that I don't have to pay for some homeless person's health care through my income tax, so worth it amirite?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago

She’s an estate agent. What do you expect?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Nina Geneson Otis wrote in an email to The Standard. The real estate broker said daylighting is the kind of policy that makes Democrats lose elections.

Urbaninsm, like climate change, shouldn't be a political issue but oddly is. I wonder who could be behind it all?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

Is this what we are going to do now, anything remotely good say "things like that is why Dems lose elections" as we watch people and our planet die.

Cool. This is great.

[–] paysrenttobirds 25 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

This is funny because in the bay area as nowhere else I've ever lived, pedestrians actually take the right of way as they should. In Berkeley they don't even glance over their shoulder, it is completely up to the driver. Doesn't work where the driver can't see them, though, so I think peds and (most) drivers are more conscious of that as a bad situation. I don't believe real estate agents speak for residents.

I found it much more annoying as a driver elsewhere where people wait two feet from the curb and wave at you to come to a complete stop before they start crossing. Or while walking, after I've stepped off the curb drivers half a block away assume I must not have seen them so they honk at me. A lot of theatre and emotion for what is really just a normal part of driving (don't run into people even if it means you have to slow down).

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Drivers don’t stop. I’m not stupid enough to step off the curb until it’s clear you’ve seen me and are stopping

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago

You might, I might, but Kids and some adults don't have the awareness. And it's not their fault they don't have the awareness either

[–] yonder 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Exactly. If I'm putting myself in front of a vehicle, I HAVE to know that it will not run me over. Especially since drivers in my area seem to be unable to stop in front of stop lines.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So common to see the rear wheels past the stop line. I wish cops would at least give out warnings to reduce this habit. Its so normalized most don't even realize to stop before the line.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

One thing that I didn't realize, as an American, is that having traffic lights on the far side of the intersection isn't universal. If we only put them on the near side, drivers would have to stop behind the line, or else they'd be unable to see when the light turns green. Another example of better infrastructure being better than enforcement.

[–] zalgotext 1 points 3 weeks ago

Dude so many intersections around me don't even have the stop lines, because they were either never painted in the first place, or they've faded or been paved over

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

I like to go in front of a vehicle with the knowledge that either they will see me and stop, or I'll be ready to jump out of the way. I'm very stressed out when walking around.

[–] paysrenttobirds 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting you go blindly, but it's common practice to step off the curb -- they don't have to pay any attention to you at all until you do. My practice is to avoid eye contact until I'm really in front of them, but obviously if they aren't stopping you don't keep walking.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

More bad driving practices in the US, that became worse as people forgot how to drive over pandemic ….

  • we allow “right turn on red”, but everyone seems to have forgotten “after coming to a complete stop”. So many times they don’t even slow down, and yes I’ve almost gotten hit like that several times
  • many drivers stop across the crosswalk or ahead of the stop line. Even if people stop, they could have already run over a pedestrian. So many times I’ve had to choose whether to walk out into the intersection, or behind the car blocking my right of way.
  • then there’s the ”suicide lane”, where even though a car sees you and stops, that doesn’t mean the next lane will. What happens when you’re partway across and no one else stops?
  • and the ever more popular running a red light. Just yesterday, I slowed to an easy stop at an already red light and two cars behind me pulled around to go through.
[–] paysrenttobirds 3 points 3 weeks ago

I agree drivers got crazy after the pandemic. I haven't been in the bay area since then and maybe my remembered experience just doesn't exist anymore.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

I almost got nailed by a city bus on 5th and Market in SF after the green walk signal turned on. Somebody literally grabbed my jacket and pulled me back and maybe saved my life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Half a block seems really close unless it's a huge block or they're going really slowly to begin with

[–] paysrenttobirds 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh I just mean ample space the details vary, as you say.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The most braindead article ever...

"People die from leopards attacks, leopards say people should be more careful"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, there are plenty of warnings and advice on how to do things like hike through bear or cougar country. Someone who gets mauled trying to pet a bear cub isn't going to get much sympathy.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, an argument that would fly over their heads is that this "daylighting" rule is in place in more than half of the world.

So maybe there’s a good reason ?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's such a common-sense rule that it'd never occurred to me that such a developped country wouldn't have it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

America's more of a developed company than it is a developed country, and the CEOs don't work for the employees.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Lmao. No. Where I live drivers have no problem going right though the crosswalks while people are in them.

I thought they were going to talk about the people who cross at random places, wearing dark clothing, at night. But no they chose to complain about the people crossing correctly who get harassed by cars.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The beating heart of American progressiveism: San Fransisco where the residents would rather kill the poor than inconvenience everyone else. If only you could patch a caved in skull with a pussy hat...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This article is because san francisco is actually trying to address pedestrian fatalities instead of just writing them off as the cost of modernity. Most of the article is from reactionaries, who may not even live here, mad about progressive, at least by American standards, policies that the city is implementing like daylighting.

You could live in a socialist utopia and you could still find people to quote saying they liked it back when the poor knew there place.

San francisco isn't perfect but it's still miles ahead of almost every city in America. That may be a low bar but it's something.

[–] zalgotext 3 points 3 weeks ago

I hear you, but the article is full of dissenting opinions and quotes from people that disagree with what should be a very common sense policy. Like, why even give a platform to someone who says stuff like “If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer"? Why disingenuously portray the issue of pedestrian deaths as some back and forth battle between two equal parties, instead of the incredibly one sided bullying it really is?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

It sounds like satire, but it might just be 2024.

load more comments
view more: next ›