5 ms·

You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?

by matz1 7y ago

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
        >either learn to drive, find a way to get a car, use public transportation, walk/cross only in appropriate place etc. Your inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is staggering. Yes, my whole point is that it is too much for some people. Cars aren't an option for everyone. As for "walking in appropriate places" and using buses - how many times do I need to say that these simply don't exist in most of the US (are you from here?). >The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle. Is that too hard to grasp? Frankly, it is. What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about? Slowing down and paying attention to the road? Cry me a river. The expenses for pedestrians is risking lives just to get to places. Yes, it is hard to grasp that you think it's comparable. Again: we aren't living in your fantasy land where sidewalks and pedestrian crossings and public transportation is available. Saying "use those or drive" is not an option for people who can't drive. The killed woman was one of them.
        matz1 7y ago
        >these simply don't exist in most of the US Then the solution is to make these exist. >What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about? Yes, slowing down for one. >Cry me a river Your response indicate, inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. It maybe be unimportant for you but not for others. Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available.
        romwell 7y ago
        >It maybe be unimportant for you but not for others. Surely "not slowing down" and "not dying" are not on the same scale of importance, don't you think? >Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available. Sure! If I could wave a magic wand and make sidewalks appear, I would. Do you have one? And between now and that magic time (which, mind you, might never come in the US), you're saying that pedestrians should die because tough luck, get a car. Meanwhile, it is entirely within your power to go slower and be a cautious driver (as is your responsibility). Let's have a deal: I'll work on making sidewalks happen. Until then, you do your best to avoid killing people (go slow / pay attention), because non-drivers literally don't have any other option other than being on roadways to get to places. Typical example: going to a movie theater requires walking on highway frontage[1]. You might say, don't go to a movie theater, but that's just one example; you can't walk to DPS in that city either (nor take a bus there, at least when I lived there). The bus can only drop you off on the feeder road (where cars go 60mph, and no sidewalk). Do you understand my point? I accept the solution, but it's not feasible in the short term. We all have to compromise until it happens (which might be never, given how these things work). [1]https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Harvey+Road+%26+Scarlett+O'Hara+Drive,+College+Station,+TX/Cinemark+Movies+18+and+XD,+1401+Earl+Rudder+Fwy+S,+College+Station,+TX+77845/@30.6224557,-96.3054606,1056a,35y,39.14t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8646846b6ba0cd99:0x50a5dc7a3b1f531b!2m2!1d-96.3057498!2d30.6267034!1m5!1m1!1s0x864684166ec0e319:0x6c569d9894542c17!2m2!1d-96.3029164!2d30.6355807!3e2 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Harvey+Road+%26+Scarlett+O'H...
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.

You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?

by matz1 7y ago

You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ? Who is the entitled now ?

> 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
        >either learn to drive, find a way to get a car, use public transportation, walk/cross only in appropriate place etc. Your inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is staggering. Yes, my whole point is that it is too much for some people. Cars aren't an option for everyone. As for "walking in appropriate places" and using buses - how many times do I need to say that these simply don't exist in most of the US (are you from here?). >The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle. Is that too hard to grasp? Frankly, it is. What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about? Slowing down and paying attention to the road? Cry me a river. The expenses for pedestrians is risking lives just to get to places. Yes, it is hard to grasp that you think it's comparable. Again: we aren't living in your fantasy land where sidewalks and pedestrian crossings and public transportation is available. Saying "use those or drive" is not an option for people who can't drive. The killed woman was one of them.
        matz1 7y ago
        >these simply don't exist in most of the US Then the solution is to make these exist. >What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about? Yes, slowing down for one. >Cry me a river Your response indicate, inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. It maybe be unimportant for you but not for others. Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available.
        romwell 7y ago
        >It maybe be unimportant for you but not for others. Surely "not slowing down" and "not dying" are not on the same scale of importance, don't you think? >Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available. Sure! If I could wave a magic wand and make sidewalks appear, I would. Do you have one? And between now and that magic time (which, mind you, might never come in the US), you're saying that pedestrians should die because tough luck, get a car. Meanwhile, it is entirely within your power to go slower and be a cautious driver (as is your responsibility). Let's have a deal: I'll work on making sidewalks happen. Until then, you do your best to avoid killing people (go slow / pay attention), because non-drivers literally don't have any other option other than being on roadways to get to places. Typical example: going to a movie theater requires walking on highway frontage[1]. You might say, don't go to a movie theater, but that's just one example; you can't walk to DPS in that city either (nor take a bus there, at least when I lived there). The bus can only drop you off on the feeder road (where cars go 60mph, and no sidewalk). Do you understand my point? I accept the solution, but it's not feasible in the short term. We all have to compromise until it happens (which might be never, given how these things work). [1]https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Harvey+Road+%26+Scarlett+O'Hara+Drive,+College+Station,+TX/Cinemark+Movies+18+and+XD,+1401+Earl+Rudder+Fwy+S,+College+Station,+TX+77845/@30.6224557,-96.3054606,1056a,35y,39.14t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8646846b6ba0cd99:0x50a5dc7a3b1f531b!2m2!1d-96.3057498!2d30.6267034!1m5!1m1!1s0x864684166ec0e319:0x6c569d9894542c17!2m2!1d-96.3029164!2d30.6355807!3e2 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Harvey+Road+%26+Scarlett+O'H...

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.