5 ms·

It’s not just about cost: if you read about the topic you will find many arguments that bollards shouldn’t be placed because they endanger motorists — even thou

It’s not just about cost: if you read about the topic you will find many arguments that bollards shouldn’t be placed because they endanger motorists — even though they would make pedestrians safer. The article is challenging the implicit prioritization of motorist safety over pedestrian safety that underlies such a judgment.

flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
And that's fair, to an extent, but the author seems to have a vendetta or total lack of empathy towards motorists. You can't just ignore the consequences of vehicles hitting bollards, you have to weigh the likelihood of cars hitting them and the severity of those incidents against the likelihood of cars going past where the bollards would be and the severity of that scenario both when there are or aren't pedestrians that could be struck. I'm not saying the status quo is correct, but I am saying that the author's tone does not strike confidence that they are approaching this from an objective and rational viewpoint that accounts for all the factors, at least in the case of bollards in locations where there's a good chance of high speed collisions with them.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  I didn't get the sense the author is wishing for motorists to die; he's taken the (in my view quite reasonable) stance that the person operating the dangerous machine has a greater responsibility and that pedestrians who are not endangering anyone else shouldn't shoulder the risk for what they do.
  - flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
    I agree that pedestrians shouldn't shoulder risk, within reason. But by my interpretation of the article the author derides city planners for perceived incompetence/prioritization of motorist safety, without considering any nuance.
    - wonder_er 2y ago
      I do desired them for their _objective_ incompetence. Among serious traffic people, globally, american traffic planners are regarded as children in a corner eating play dough. I have plenty of nuance, here you go: - https://zoningverydifferentthanours.substack.com https://zoningverydifferentthanours.substack.com - https://josh.works/issues-in-golden https://josh.works/issues-in-golden - https://josh.works/parking-in-golden https://josh.works/parking-in-golden - https://josh.works/about-roundabouts https://josh.works/about-roundabouts I could go on. Do you want to start with Donald Shoup's [The High Cost of Free Parking](https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1332084228&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=markeurban-20&linkId=65aeac5942c99b794876bb2d2dc32bb0 https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/...) or my friend Alain Bertraud's beautiful book about urban _economics_ as the right frame of analysis for managing shared city resources: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39644188-order-without-design https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39644188-order-without-d... There's a deep and intimate relationship between american zoning laws, american mobility regimes, and the american ethnic cleansing of all non-whites: https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan Tell me more about my lack of nuance. You might be right, fwiw, but it might kinda be the point. I'm not interested in a message of "your opposition of ethnic cleansing is _insufficiently nuanced_.", though it is slightly humorous.
      - flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
        Thanks, the extra context is helpful, though if anything it contradicts the assertion that American traffic planners are personally incompetent and the cause of the unsafe conditions for pedestrians (given that they're set up to fail) Golden might be an exception though, I do remember seeing a lot of egregious issues back when I lived there. To continue your analogy, without additional context your message, at least to my reading, devolved a bit into "just stop killing people, easy!" as a solution to ethnic cleansing.
        emodendroket 2y ago
        Well what is the “solution” to ethnic cleansing if not for the perpetrators to desist (or perhaps be made to desist) from doing it? What a bizarre analogy.
- p_l 2y ago
  Cars are already incorporating features to ensure survival of people inside them in case of hitting a bollard - not explicitly for bollards, but because big trees are the more extreme version of bollards that give even less care to cars. Meanwhile there's often absolute zero empathy to people who are not going to have enhancements available to survive getting hit by a car.
  - wonder_er 2y ago
    author of the post here, this is exactly right. There's zero 'structural empathy' towards non-car-drivers. It's always been that way in America, though, as soon as municipal planners figured out they could use federal highway money to run highways through ethnic neighborhoods full of 'those people', and could destroy those neighborhoods. The danger was the point. That 'lack of empathy' has killed literally tens of thousands of children, as their parents plead before local municipal planners to do something, anything, to cause their kids to not die. The planners say "meh, don't know don't care, but I'll sleep fine tonight."
- michael1999 2y ago
  I too prioritize pedestrian safety over bad drivers that can't seem to stay on the roadway. Are you suggesting it is just that drivers have the right to make risky choices and inflict the damage on others instead of themselves?
  - flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
    I see you share the author's naivety/lack of empathy. That's not at all what I'm suggesting, just that the author, to my interpretation, has an overly reductionist take that doesn't acknowledge nuance. By your logic, we should get rid of breakaway bolts for streetlights, etc. because drivers shouldn't hit the posts so in the event they do we should minimize damage to public utilities.
    - michael1999 2y ago
      On highways? No. On high-traffic sidewalks? Yes! It it were up to me, every corner downtown would be guarded by bollards. The idea that pedestrians should eat the risk to be a sacrifice zone for bad drivers is just bonkers. Like here's an idiot cop who can't make a right turn. If that telephone pole hadn't stopped them, they would have creamed the bus stop. I 100% privilege the safety of people minding their own business waiting for a bus over a driver who seems to not be safe to operate a vehicle. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/26/police-cruiser-crash-downtown-toronto-sidewalk/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/26/police-cruiser-crash-... That was Feb. Here is a recent fatality last month. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/pedestrian-killed-on-north-york-sidewalk-was-electrician-who-was-always-trying-to-make-people/article_cfa1bae4-e082-11ee-a9ff-07b469331e3c.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/pedestrian-killed-on-north-... Here's another in February - https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/pedestrian-pinned-after-vehicle-crashes-into-home-in-old-rexdale https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/pedestrian-pinned-aft... TBH - I favour a change in the laws. If you are driving along an occupied sidewalk, you should have a positive obligation to stay off it. That means both hands on the wheel, no drinking a coffee, no phones. If you wind up on the sidewalk, you have to prove there's good cause -- you got hit, cut off, etc. As it is, we consider in reasonable behaviour to just screw up and drive into a store.
    - 2y ago
nephanth 2y ago
This is also challengeable: while it is true that in a crash, a bollard will heighten the risks for a motorist, we have to consider that bollards look dangerous to motorists. Thus they tend to drive slower and more carefully around them. That leads to lower risk of crashes. So all in all, we would need more info to actually argue whether they represent more or fewer risks for motorists

flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago

And that's fair, to an extent, but the author seems to have a vendetta or total lack of empathy towards motorists. You can't just ignore the consequences of vehicles hitting bollards, you have to weigh the likelihood of cars hitting them and the severity of those incidents against the likelihood of cars going past where the bollards would be and the severity of that scenario both when there are or aren't pedestrians that could be struck. I'm not saying the status quo is correct, but I am saying that the author's tone does not strike confidence that they are approaching this from an objective and rational viewpoint that accounts for all the factors, at least in the case of bollards in locations where there's a good chance of high speed collisions with them.

emodendroket 2y ago
I didn't get the sense the author is wishing for motorists to die; he's taken the (in my view quite reasonable) stance that the person operating the dangerous machine has a greater responsibility and that pedestrians who are not endangering anyone else shouldn't shoulder the risk for what they do.
- flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
  I agree that pedestrians shouldn't shoulder risk, within reason. But by my interpretation of the article the author derides city planners for perceived incompetence/prioritization of motorist safety, without considering any nuance.
  - wonder_er 2y ago
    I do desired them for their _objective_ incompetence. Among serious traffic people, globally, american traffic planners are regarded as children in a corner eating play dough. I have plenty of nuance, here you go: - https://zoningverydifferentthanours.substack.com https://zoningverydifferentthanours.substack.com - https://josh.works/issues-in-golden https://josh.works/issues-in-golden - https://josh.works/parking-in-golden https://josh.works/parking-in-golden - https://josh.works/about-roundabouts https://josh.works/about-roundabouts I could go on. Do you want to start with Donald Shoup's [The High Cost of Free Parking](https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1332084228&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=markeurban-20&linkId=65aeac5942c99b794876bb2d2dc32bb0 https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/...) or my friend Alain Bertraud's beautiful book about urban _economics_ as the right frame of analysis for managing shared city resources: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39644188-order-without-design https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39644188-order-without-d... There's a deep and intimate relationship between american zoning laws, american mobility regimes, and the american ethnic cleansing of all non-whites: https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan Tell me more about my lack of nuance. You might be right, fwiw, but it might kinda be the point. I'm not interested in a message of "your opposition of ethnic cleansing is _insufficiently nuanced_.", though it is slightly humorous.
    - flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
      Thanks, the extra context is helpful, though if anything it contradicts the assertion that American traffic planners are personally incompetent and the cause of the unsafe conditions for pedestrians (given that they're set up to fail) Golden might be an exception though, I do remember seeing a lot of egregious issues back when I lived there. To continue your analogy, without additional context your message, at least to my reading, devolved a bit into "just stop killing people, easy!" as a solution to ethnic cleansing.
      - emodendroket 2y ago
        Well what is the “solution” to ethnic cleansing if not for the perpetrators to desist (or perhaps be made to desist) from doing it? What a bizarre analogy.
p_l 2y ago
Cars are already incorporating features to ensure survival of people inside them in case of hitting a bollard - not explicitly for bollards, but because big trees are the more extreme version of bollards that give even less care to cars. Meanwhile there's often absolute zero empathy to people who are not going to have enhancements available to survive getting hit by a car.
- wonder_er 2y ago
  author of the post here, this is exactly right. There's zero 'structural empathy' towards non-car-drivers. It's always been that way in America, though, as soon as municipal planners figured out they could use federal highway money to run highways through ethnic neighborhoods full of 'those people', and could destroy those neighborhoods. The danger was the point. That 'lack of empathy' has killed literally tens of thousands of children, as their parents plead before local municipal planners to do something, anything, to cause their kids to not die. The planners say "meh, don't know don't care, but I'll sleep fine tonight."
michael1999 2y ago
I too prioritize pedestrian safety over bad drivers that can't seem to stay on the roadway. Are you suggesting it is just that drivers have the right to make risky choices and inflict the damage on others instead of themselves?
- flaminHotSpeedo 2y ago
  I see you share the author's naivety/lack of empathy. That's not at all what I'm suggesting, just that the author, to my interpretation, has an overly reductionist take that doesn't acknowledge nuance. By your logic, we should get rid of breakaway bolts for streetlights, etc. because drivers shouldn't hit the posts so in the event they do we should minimize damage to public utilities.
  - michael1999 2y ago
    On highways? No. On high-traffic sidewalks? Yes! It it were up to me, every corner downtown would be guarded by bollards. The idea that pedestrians should eat the risk to be a sacrifice zone for bad drivers is just bonkers. Like here's an idiot cop who can't make a right turn. If that telephone pole hadn't stopped them, they would have creamed the bus stop. I 100% privilege the safety of people minding their own business waiting for a bus over a driver who seems to not be safe to operate a vehicle. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/26/police-cruiser-crash-downtown-toronto-sidewalk/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/26/police-cruiser-crash-... That was Feb. Here is a recent fatality last month. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/pedestrian-killed-on-north-york-sidewalk-was-electrician-who-was-always-trying-to-make-people/article_cfa1bae4-e082-11ee-a9ff-07b469331e3c.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/pedestrian-killed-on-north-... Here's another in February - https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/pedestrian-pinned-after-vehicle-crashes-into-home-in-old-rexdale https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/pedestrian-pinned-aft... TBH - I favour a change in the laws. If you are driving along an occupied sidewalk, you should have a positive obligation to stay off it. That means both hands on the wheel, no drinking a coffee, no phones. If you wind up on the sidewalk, you have to prove there's good cause -- you got hit, cut off, etc. As it is, we consider in reasonable behaviour to just screw up and drive into a store.
  - 2y ago

nephanth 2y ago

This is also challengeable: while it is true that in a crash, a bollard will heighten the risks for a motorist, we have to consider that bollards look dangerous to motorists. Thus they tend to drive slower and more carefully around them. That leads to lower risk of crashes. So all in all, we would need more info to actually argue whether they represent more or fewer risks for motorists