3 ms·
...a drunk driver hits people crossing in sleet (ie, low visibility) and a crosswalk is so certain to have helped that whoever didn't put one there deserves to
by tbrownaw 4y ago
...a drunk driver hits people crossing in sleet (ie, low visibility) and a crosswalk is so certain to have helped that whoever didn't put one there deserves to be sued.
I'm slightly curious to know how closely the actual reason for removing the half-assed crosswalk rather than turning it into a real one matches the clearly editorialized reason he's accusing them of having. I suppose there's no possible way it could have been something like "too many drivers won't respect it and it'll give pedestrians a false sense of safety" or such.
- infogulch 4y agoBy arguing the validity of the article's points you implicitly admit the space to discuss it and thus we fall directly into free speech. The important debate here is not whether Strong Towns is or is not correct, the debate is whether people can use government bureaucracy and process as a stick to silence speech they dislike. None of the allegations made by the license board have anything to do with the validity of Strong Towns' claims, just that he signed his name with "PE" while being fully qualified as a PE but with a lapsed license.
- Aloha 4y agoI don't really agree with the perspective Strong Towns presents, but I'd agree that this is an egregious overstep. Like what Oregon was doing to a guy several years back.
- alisonkisk 4y ago