3 ms·

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

by 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...
    - matz1 7y ago
      >Surely "not slowing down" and "not dying" are not on the same scale of importance, don't you think? Surely if the pedestrian does not walk at inappropriate place, less likely they would be dying. Nah, If anything I would petition on making less sidewalks and more roads. I don't have all the solutions for people who refuse/can't find a way to use vehicle. Thats for those people to figure out.
      - romwell 7y ago
        >Surely if the pedestrian does not walk at inappropriate place, less likely they would be dying. Who gets to define what is an "inappropriate place"? Pretty much anywhere in the word crossing the road like that woman did would be "appropriate". You just want to define traffic laws to your maximum convenience, all else be damned. Clearly, you see nothing wrong with that: bringing harm to people if you can get away with that. Something tells me you won't think it's fair if someone else gets to decide rules in a way that benefits them at your expense.
romwell 7y ago
> The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of the vehicle Reminder: driving is a privilege, not a right. So, no.

by matz1 7y ago

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...
  - matz1 7y ago
    >Surely "not slowing down" and "not dying" are not on the same scale of importance, don't you think? Surely if the pedestrian does not walk at inappropriate place, less likely they would be dying. Nah, If anything I would petition on making less sidewalks and more roads. I don't have all the solutions for people who refuse/can't find a way to use vehicle. Thats for those people to figure out.
    - romwell 7y ago
      >Surely if the pedestrian does not walk at inappropriate place, less likely they would be dying. Who gets to define what is an "inappropriate place"? Pretty much anywhere in the word crossing the road like that woman did would be "appropriate". You just want to define traffic laws to your maximum convenience, all else be damned. Clearly, you see nothing wrong with that: bringing harm to people if you can get away with that. Something tells me you won't think it's fair if someone else gets to decide rules in a way that benefits them at your expense.

romwell 7y ago

> The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of the vehicle Reminder: driving is a privilege, not a right. So, no.