5 ms·

Sounds like the kind of hypocrisy you'd hear from "urbanists" today: Complain about pedestrian deaths, then complain about a thing that prevents them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bombcar 3y ago
It’s amusing how nobody complains about pedestrian infrastructure over and under trains.
- growse 3y ago
  Isn't that because most people understand that trains don't drive on sight? Railways are for trains, roads are for people.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - defrost 3y ago
      Who were they for then? Recall the context, please: the first footbridge over a road in Britain a country with a network of roads 2,000+ years old. And who were those roads for? Armies to march on. You know, armies of people.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Everyone forgets the horse and its carts and carriages.
      - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
        Great. Stick to the ancient roads while you're walking, and you should be fine.
        defrost 3y ago
        If you're not comfortable with an answer to a question that you posed then perhaps you need to be more careful with your ill thought rhetoricals.
    - avianlyric 3y ago
      Roads existed long before the motor vehicle did, the Romans were famous for them. And last I checked most people use roads to transport themselves, their not domain of empty cars driving themselves around. In the civilised world, which the UK is part of, pedestrian have unlimited right of way and priority on all roads, except highways. Motor vehicles are guests, it just seems that drivers believe wrapping themselves in tons of metal gives them the right to bully and brutalise other road users with impunity.
      - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
        "it just seems that drivers believe wrapping themselves in tons of metal gives them the right to bully and brutalise other road users with impunity." It seems that way to people projecting their hysterical delusions on everyone else. And, again, we all know that modern roads are for vehicles and not PEDESTRIANS, (since you pretend to need it spelled out). That's why we have sidewalks.
        avianlyric 3y ago
        > It seems that way to people projecting their hysterical delusions on everyone else. Are you telling me I was having a hysterical delusion last week when a driver chased me down and deliberately used their car to smash me into the side of a lorry, hospitalising me for a week? If so, you should really tell my local police, because they need to release the guy that hit me. > And, again, we all know that modern roads are for vehicles and not PEDESTRIANS, (since you pretend to need it spelled out). That's why we have sidewalks. Again, in the civilised world pedestrians have universal rights to use the road, and can use pavements at their discretion. From your language it seems you’ve yet to visit.
    - xorcist 3y ago
      Most of them are. Horses came much later.
- buran77 3y ago
  If you look at it superficially - everything is people transport - it can look hypocritical. But the issue is with the externalities each of those apparently equivalent decisions create. Cars and trains are certainly not that similar beyond "transporting people". A drug den isn't a hospital just because drugs are administered there. A diesel and an EV are not the same just because they only differ in fuel source. You treat them differently, you try to encourage the positive externalities and discourage the negative ones. Some people have seen it coming a long time ago that as a society we are encouraging cars and their infrastructure too much and among other things we're giving up some (maybe too much?) individual freedom in favor of them. And wouldn't you know it, a century later we're aiming at making cities walkable again, even banning cars entirely in some areas, as proof that society is realizing those concerns weren't at all hypocritical.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  Yes we do. There are pedestrian level crossings in the UK but because there is the very occasional fatality they are increasingly replaced by bridges. This is a huge inconvenience for the vast majority of us who are capable of looking both ways and we do complain about it.
- eCa 3y ago
  Ever heard the saying ”wrong side of the tracks”?
ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
[flagged]
avianlyric 3y ago
Why should pedestrians be forced to clamber over bridges for the convenience of drivers? Drivers are the one with huge mechanical advantage, make them go up and down, don’t force the local pedestrians who live in the to take huge detour, just so drivers from out of town can save 30 seconds.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  Those are good points, but the simple argument to the contrary is a matter of cost. It costs a whole lot less to build a foot bridge over a road than to build a road bridge over a foot path.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    Yes cost is the obvious elephant in the room. But ultimately all these things come down to priorities. Do we prioritise building human scale environments that are welcoming and pleasant to people, or do bulldoze that for car scale places that are hostile and unpleasant for people, unless they’re wrapped in tons of metal? Turning all of spaces in car centric spaces also has cost, it’s just less obvious. Many time building that car bridge is cheaper for a government, if it helps keep people out of cars, and removes the huge number of negative externalities that car ownership brings.
  - account42 3y ago
    The cost of building the structure is hardly the only cost involved. Either solution means a cost or benefit to the two different groups that you can't just ignore away.
JambalayaJim 3y ago
Bridges are still very real obstacles to people in wheelchairs, bikes, with strollers or shopping carts, or just mobility impaired in general.
- IIsi50MHz 3y ago
  True generally, although many Tokyo pedestrian bridges have narrow ramp space reserved adjacent to the steps so that people with bicycles can walk them up to or down from bridge level with considerably less difficulty than if only steps were provided. The remaining cases are not addressed in these designs, though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bombcar 3y ago

It’s amusing how nobody complains about pedestrian infrastructure over and under trains.

growse 3y ago
Isn't that because most people understand that trains don't drive on sight? Railways are for trains, roads are for people.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 3y ago
    Who were they for then? Recall the context, please: the first footbridge over a road in Britain a country with a network of roads 2,000+ years old. And who were those roads for? Armies to march on. You know, armies of people.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Everyone forgets the horse and its carts and carriages.
    - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      Great. Stick to the ancient roads while you're walking, and you should be fine.
      - defrost 3y ago
        If you're not comfortable with an answer to a question that you posed then perhaps you need to be more careful with your ill thought rhetoricals.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    Roads existed long before the motor vehicle did, the Romans were famous for them. And last I checked most people use roads to transport themselves, their not domain of empty cars driving themselves around. In the civilised world, which the UK is part of, pedestrian have unlimited right of way and priority on all roads, except highways. Motor vehicles are guests, it just seems that drivers believe wrapping themselves in tons of metal gives them the right to bully and brutalise other road users with impunity.
    - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      "it just seems that drivers believe wrapping themselves in tons of metal gives them the right to bully and brutalise other road users with impunity." It seems that way to people projecting their hysterical delusions on everyone else. And, again, we all know that modern roads are for vehicles and not PEDESTRIANS, (since you pretend to need it spelled out). That's why we have sidewalks.
      - avianlyric 3y ago
        > It seems that way to people projecting their hysterical delusions on everyone else. Are you telling me I was having a hysterical delusion last week when a driver chased me down and deliberately used their car to smash me into the side of a lorry, hospitalising me for a week? If so, you should really tell my local police, because they need to release the guy that hit me. > And, again, we all know that modern roads are for vehicles and not PEDESTRIANS, (since you pretend to need it spelled out). That's why we have sidewalks. Again, in the civilised world pedestrians have universal rights to use the road, and can use pavements at their discretion. From your language it seems you’ve yet to visit.
  - xorcist 3y ago
    Most of them are. Horses came much later.
buran77 3y ago
If you look at it superficially - everything is people transport - it can look hypocritical. But the issue is with the externalities each of those apparently equivalent decisions create. Cars and trains are certainly not that similar beyond "transporting people". A drug den isn't a hospital just because drugs are administered there. A diesel and an EV are not the same just because they only differ in fuel source. You treat them differently, you try to encourage the positive externalities and discourage the negative ones. Some people have seen it coming a long time ago that as a society we are encouraging cars and their infrastructure too much and among other things we're giving up some (maybe too much?) individual freedom in favor of them. And wouldn't you know it, a century later we're aiming at making cities walkable again, even banning cars entirely in some areas, as proof that society is realizing those concerns weren't at all hypocritical.
masfuerte 3y ago
Yes we do. There are pedestrian level crossings in the UK but because there is the very occasional fatality they are increasingly replaced by bridges. This is a huge inconvenience for the vast majority of us who are capable of looking both ways and we do complain about it.
eCa 3y ago
Ever heard the saying ”wrong side of the tracks”?

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

[flagged]

avianlyric 3y ago

Why should pedestrians be forced to clamber over bridges for the convenience of drivers? Drivers are the one with huge mechanical advantage, make them go up and down, don’t force the local pedestrians who live in the to take huge detour, just so drivers from out of town can save 30 seconds.

ensignavenger 3y ago
Those are good points, but the simple argument to the contrary is a matter of cost. It costs a whole lot less to build a foot bridge over a road than to build a road bridge over a foot path.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Yes cost is the obvious elephant in the room. But ultimately all these things come down to priorities. Do we prioritise building human scale environments that are welcoming and pleasant to people, or do bulldoze that for car scale places that are hostile and unpleasant for people, unless they’re wrapped in tons of metal? Turning all of spaces in car centric spaces also has cost, it’s just less obvious. Many time building that car bridge is cheaper for a government, if it helps keep people out of cars, and removes the huge number of negative externalities that car ownership brings.
- account42 3y ago
  The cost of building the structure is hardly the only cost involved. Either solution means a cost or benefit to the two different groups that you can't just ignore away.

JambalayaJim 3y ago

Bridges are still very real obstacles to people in wheelchairs, bikes, with strollers or shopping carts, or just mobility impaired in general.

IIsi50MHz 3y ago
True generally, although many Tokyo pedestrian bridges have narrow ramp space reserved adjacent to the steps so that people with bicycles can walk them up to or down from bridge level with considerably less difficulty than if only steps were provided. The remaining cases are not addressed in these designs, though.