3 ms·

That barrier looks bad, but i think the designer is doing two things by putting it inside of the sidewalk. It looks to be doing double duty as a normal fence,

That barrier looks bad, but i think the designer is doing two things by putting it inside of the sidewalk. It looks to be doing double duty as a normal fence, something to keep pedestrians and such from falling into the gully. If it were a wooden fence nobody would notice it. But they went with a metal barrier normally used for cars that now looks out of place. The other possibility is that the sidewalk may have been added afterwards. Turn the right lane into a sidewalk or bike lane and the old vehicle barriers will indeed appear out of place. There are far stranger thing out there on the roads. Strange doesn't mean evil. A third possibility is that the sidewalk may be designed for vehicle use. This is most common in "traffic calming" devices such as those tiny roundabouts. The sidewalk is kept low so that the occasional long truck (ie fire trucks) can still negotiate a corner by driving partially onto the sidewalk. If we want obstacles to slow cars down, we must still think about emergency vehicles. Even the most dedicated anti-car advocate doesn't dare complain about ambulances driving through pedestrian zones.

DanHulton 3y ago
I cannot imagine being okay with an ambulance rocketing down a sidewalk that is explicitly designed as a "pedestrian zone." The solution to emergency vehicles being unable to navigate streets in a timely manner is to redesign the streets, not to normalize the practice of endangering pedestrians. Additionally, if it is necessary to design a mixed pedestrian/vehicle zone, there are absolutely ways to go about that, with specific and different buildout and signage. Any city planner whose solution is "Oh, well, the emergency vehicles can just use the sidewalks to turn or pass other vehicles, and they'll be careful so it's okay" is committing malfeasance and should be held legally responsible for the deaths and injuries arising from said decision.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Who said anything about speed? A vehicle like a fire truck can simply be too long/wide to get around a corner even at a walking pace. So they use the sidewalks. Emergency vehicles in pedestrian areas is a very common. So any barrier system needs to accommodate them. Every, and I mean every, neighborhood is laid out on the premise that firetrucks can get to every location. The size of buildings, even the width of city blocks, is often tied to the capacities of the local fire departments to push water using pumper trucks. Want multi-story residential areas? The roads better be able to handle ladder trucks too.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It’s possible to reduce the size of the fire trucks, too. Not every ladder truck needs to be a full double-steered classic hook and ladder; modern extension trucks can be relatively compact. Amusingly enough around here the widest streets are the oldest; because they were wide enough to turn a wagon and a team of horses. Some of the newest streets are quite narrow - a truck can go down them easily enough but turning around would involve a driveway.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  > The solution to emergency vehicles being unable to navigate streets in a timely manner is to redesign the streets There is another option: redesign the emergency vehicles. I grew up in a city (Salt Lake City) whose streets were designed to be extra-wide to accommodate the turning radius of a horse-drawn wagon; similar considerations are made for fire engines in many cities. By contrast, in Tokyo, they simply designed a smaller fire engine, which offers the benefit making streets more pedestrian-friendly in typical non-emergency situations.
EnigmaFlare 3y ago
Or the footpath is so little used that extra safety provided by the clear zone is greater than the extra safety to pedestrians from having the barrier next to the road. Safety is often about statistics rather than being 100% perfect. I used to work in a sawmill where occasionally logs would fly off the machines and crash through walkways. The solution was requiring workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced. By the way, it's funny you said "inside" and the article said "outside". Thinking as a pedestrian, I considered "inside" means next to the bushes like how you used it. But if you're thinking in terms of the road/cars, that would be the outside.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced. Also the #1 safety factor when in avalanche country. When a threat is deadly, inevitable and unstoppable, speed becomes your best safety device. You don't loiter when crossing a gully on skis, nor do you stop to admire the view when driving though certain mountain valleys.
- Mawr 3y ago
  1. Make something unsafe 2. (nobody uses it, recognizing the lack of safety) 3. Argue against making it safer because nobody uses it
  - EnigmaFlare 3y ago
    Do you really think low-foot-traffic footpaths are that way because people recognize it's not safe? What are they doing instead? Walking around the block?

DanHulton 3y ago

I cannot imagine being okay with an ambulance rocketing down a sidewalk that is explicitly designed as a "pedestrian zone." The solution to emergency vehicles being unable to navigate streets in a timely manner is to redesign the streets, not to normalize the practice of endangering pedestrians. Additionally, if it is necessary to design a mixed pedestrian/vehicle zone, there are absolutely ways to go about that, with specific and different buildout and signage. Any city planner whose solution is "Oh, well, the emergency vehicles can just use the sidewalks to turn or pass other vehicles, and they'll be careful so it's okay" is committing malfeasance and should be held legally responsible for the deaths and injuries arising from said decision.

sandworm101 3y ago
Who said anything about speed? A vehicle like a fire truck can simply be too long/wide to get around a corner even at a walking pace. So they use the sidewalks. Emergency vehicles in pedestrian areas is a very common. So any barrier system needs to accommodate them. Every, and I mean every, neighborhood is laid out on the premise that firetrucks can get to every location. The size of buildings, even the width of city blocks, is often tied to the capacities of the local fire departments to push water using pumper trucks. Want multi-story residential areas? The roads better be able to handle ladder trucks too.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It’s possible to reduce the size of the fire trucks, too. Not every ladder truck needs to be a full double-steered classic hook and ladder; modern extension trucks can be relatively compact. Amusingly enough around here the widest streets are the oldest; because they were wide enough to turn a wagon and a team of horses. Some of the newest streets are quite narrow - a truck can go down them easily enough but turning around would involve a driveway.
yowzadave 3y ago
> The solution to emergency vehicles being unable to navigate streets in a timely manner is to redesign the streets There is another option: redesign the emergency vehicles. I grew up in a city (Salt Lake City) whose streets were designed to be extra-wide to accommodate the turning radius of a horse-drawn wagon; similar considerations are made for fire engines in many cities. By contrast, in Tokyo, they simply designed a smaller fire engine, which offers the benefit making streets more pedestrian-friendly in typical non-emergency situations.

EnigmaFlare 3y ago

Or the footpath is so little used that extra safety provided by the clear zone is greater than the extra safety to pedestrians from having the barrier next to the road. Safety is often about statistics rather than being 100% perfect. I used to work in a sawmill where occasionally logs would fly off the machines and crash through walkways. The solution was requiring workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced. By the way, it's funny you said "inside" and the article said "outside". Thinking as a pedestrian, I considered "inside" means next to the bushes like how you used it. But if you're thinking in terms of the road/cars, that would be the outside.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced. Also the #1 safety factor when in avalanche country. When a threat is deadly, inevitable and unstoppable, speed becomes your best safety device. You don't loiter when crossing a gully on skis, nor do you stop to admire the view when driving though certain mountain valleys.
Mawr 3y ago
1. Make something unsafe 2. (nobody uses it, recognizing the lack of safety) 3. Argue against making it safer because nobody uses it
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  Do you really think low-foot-traffic footpaths are that way because people recognize it's not safe? What are they doing instead? Walking around the block?