3 ms·

>And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal Because it can endanger the car driver too. Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver. Yes that

by matz1 7y ago

>And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal Because it can endanger the car driver too. Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver. Yes thats why designated crossing place is made, to make it safer for the pedestrians. >Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right Sure, from your perspective. But from mine, America is the right one. Even in America sadly they don't enforce it as much as I like.

romwell 7y ago
I sincerely wish you to lose your driver's license, if only for a brief period of time, so that you could appreciate just how much our infrastructure is unsuitable for pedestrians. We barely have sidewalks in most places. And you suggest outlawing "jaywalking"? And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime. Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them - gasp - walk to work in SF!). Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.
- matz1 7y ago
  You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere? Pedestrians should not be allowed to walk anywhere they want, but the penalty for an infraction should not be death.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Sure, if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver.
      - romwell 7y ago
        >if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver. And why not the other way around? What is it about driving a vehicle that should give one priority? I don't necessarily disagree with your vision. But in practice, that means blocking off cities for cars. Drive all you want on the highways, nobody will restrict you there. The idea that drivers should not be "restricted" by pedestrians is the entitlement I am talking about.
        matz1 7y ago
        In the end it boils down to matter of preference. Whatever you do, you either put restriction the car or the pedestrians The idea that pedestrian to have priority, is in itself entitlement too.
        romwell 7y ago
        The idea is that not everyone can own and operate a car (the killed woman was one of them). The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die. The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads). The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference. The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians. The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people. Is that last thing too hard to grasp?
        matz1 7y ago
        Then either learn to drive, find a way to get a car, use public transportation, walk/cross only in appropriate place etc. Your response indicate that these are too much. Car driver pay for the tax as well. >The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars Then that need to be changed. The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle. Is that too hard to grasp?
  - romwell 7y ago
    I'm saying that your expectations of what pedestrians should do don't align with the reality of our infrastructure. Most of the country isn't walkable. Getting around on foot practically means walking on roadside and crossing where the isn't a pedestrian crossing. Again, most of suburban streets don't even have sidewalks or pedestrian crossings. You seem to be missing that point, which is why I'm suggesting you try getting around on foot for a month.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Right, then use the car.
      - romwell 7y ago
        What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Great, simply great. As I said, that's not an option for: * people who can't afford a car * the disabled * children * very old people * etc You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is a bit easier for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road. OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.
        matz1 7y ago
        > What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Or use public transportation. > people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car. If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it.
        romwell 7y ago
        >If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it. Well, OK, we are on the same page here. But they surely do not exist in most of the US, and will not be available overnight. Until we have that, we should be mindful of people who have to deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure. Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same applies for children, international students, etc, etc). ========================================= Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph, because there was no alternative. The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for it. In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that. In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but no. There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the main is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception. You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian). So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there and back (the idea that there could be a bus is laughable, of course there is no bus), you are SOL. Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs. You know that people without cars are screwed, because you'd be very afraid to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a privilege that not all of us enjoy. ============================== PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving, and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating. But at the same time, not having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In the US today, it is.

by matz1 7y ago

romwell 7y ago

I sincerely wish you to lose your driver's license, if only for a brief period of time, so that you could appreciate just how much our infrastructure is unsuitable for pedestrians. We barely have sidewalks in most places. And you suggest outlawing "jaywalking"? And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime. Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them - gasp - walk to work in SF!). Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.

matz1 7y ago
You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?
- speedplane 7y ago
  > You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere? Pedestrians should not be allowed to walk anywhere they want, but the penalty for an infraction should not be death.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Sure, if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver.
    - romwell 7y ago
      >if you can find a way that is not restricting the car driver. And why not the other way around? What is it about driving a vehicle that should give one priority? I don't necessarily disagree with your vision. But in practice, that means blocking off cities for cars. Drive all you want on the highways, nobody will restrict you there. The idea that drivers should not be "restricted" by pedestrians is the entitlement I am talking about.
      - matz1 7y ago
        In the end it boils down to matter of preference. Whatever you do, you either put restriction the car or the pedestrians The idea that pedestrian to have priority, is in itself entitlement too.
        romwell 7y ago
        The idea is that not everyone can own and operate a car (the killed woman was one of them). The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die. The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads). The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference. The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians. The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people. Is that last thing too hard to grasp?
        matz1 7y ago
        Then either learn to drive, find a way to get a car, use public transportation, walk/cross only in appropriate place etc. Your response indicate that these are too much. Car driver pay for the tax as well. >The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars Then that need to be changed. The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle. Is that too hard to grasp?
- romwell 7y ago
  I'm saying that your expectations of what pedestrians should do don't align with the reality of our infrastructure. Most of the country isn't walkable. Getting around on foot practically means walking on roadside and crossing where the isn't a pedestrian crossing. Again, most of suburban streets don't even have sidewalks or pedestrian crossings. You seem to be missing that point, which is why I'm suggesting you try getting around on foot for a month.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Right, then use the car.
    - romwell 7y ago
      What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Great, simply great. As I said, that's not an option for: * people who can't afford a car * the disabled * children * very old people * etc You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is a bit easier for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road. OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.
      - matz1 7y ago
        > What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Or use public transportation. > people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car. If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it.
        romwell 7y ago
        >If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it. Well, OK, we are on the same page here. But they surely do not exist in most of the US, and will not be available overnight. Until we have that, we should be mindful of people who have to deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure. Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same applies for children, international students, etc, etc). ========================================= Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph, because there was no alternative. The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for it. In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that. In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but no. There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the main is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception. You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian). So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there and back (the idea that there could be a bus is laughable, of course there is no bus), you are SOL. Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs. You know that people without cars are screwed, because you'd be very afraid to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a privilege that not all of us enjoy. ============================== PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving, and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating. But at the same time, not having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In the US today, it is.