3 ms·

I mean there is an obvious conflict here between pedestrians and drivers. And one of these groups feels alienated. Taking direct action is only natural if you’v

I mean there is an obvious conflict here between pedestrians and drivers. And one of these groups feels alienated. Taking direct action is only natural if you’ve been trying to make your case but consistently ignored by your local rulers, which favor drivers again and again. You could just as well ask: why do car makers get to design giant SUVs which kill people on impact? Why do drivers get this much space to allow them to drive so fast that it kills people? etc. Of course you could chicken out of an answer by citing policy made by elected officials. But elected officials make bad policy all the times, and you might be justified in questioning their logic. And at some point you’ve had enough and resort to direct action. And that is happening here, not an ego trip at all.

onphonenow 4y ago
Absolutely an ego trip, and an uninformed one. Many groups doing many things to increase walkability and things like bikeability. There are very few city that I'm aware of that are going backwards in this area, and many that are going forwards. Again, I'm fine with it, as long as they can be sued, their mansions taken etc if they kill people with this. If they don't, great, but they need to take responsibility for what is very likely to be a horrible idea.
- runarberg 4y ago
  What are you talking about. As far as I’m aware walkability is increasing at a snails pace and people all over America are tired of it. Pedestrian and bicycle deaths are increasing in many cities, as people drive more dangerous cars. I mean here is a pretty well done case study on how hard it is for advocacy groups to increase pedestrian safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 Also, I don’t think you understand direct action. Most people engaging in direct action know the risks and are willing to accept it. There is also a little sense of relativity that you might be missing. Painting a crosswalk might theoretically increase risk to passengers (might, as you’d have to conduct a study to actually know) but that risk is irrelevant in the greater context of dangerous activities that drivers regularly engage in, such as speeding, drunk driving, etc. LA (and other cities) really need to up their game in adding walkability, the fact that people are taking matters into their own hands is an obvious call for that.

onphonenow 4y ago

Absolutely an ego trip, and an uninformed one. Many groups doing many things to increase walkability and things like bikeability. There are very few city that I'm aware of that are going backwards in this area, and many that are going forwards. Again, I'm fine with it, as long as they can be sued, their mansions taken etc if they kill people with this. If they don't, great, but they need to take responsibility for what is very likely to be a horrible idea.

runarberg 4y ago
What are you talking about. As far as I’m aware walkability is increasing at a snails pace and people all over America are tired of it. Pedestrian and bicycle deaths are increasing in many cities, as people drive more dangerous cars. I mean here is a pretty well done case study on how hard it is for advocacy groups to increase pedestrian safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 Also, I don’t think you understand direct action. Most people engaging in direct action know the risks and are willing to accept it. There is also a little sense of relativity that you might be missing. Painting a crosswalk might theoretically increase risk to passengers (might, as you’d have to conduct a study to actually know) but that risk is irrelevant in the greater context of dangerous activities that drivers regularly engage in, such as speeding, drunk driving, etc. LA (and other cities) really need to up their game in adding walkability, the fact that people are taking matters into their own hands is an obvious call for that.