3 ms·

You think pedestrians and cyclists don't realize how car dominant we are?

by hombre_fatal 2y ago

1970-01-01 2y ago
Correct. They expect safe walking and biking infra to fall from the sky and complain online when it does not.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  this is a very uncharitable characterization of communities' desires for safe, quiet, and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    It does sometimes seem that they think they should be able to walk/bike without concern for their own safety. I see pedestrians step into traffic and bicycles blow traffic signals and stop signs all the time. Safety and situational awareness is everyone's responsibility.
    - affinepplan 2y ago
      I guess I kind feel like yeah the person operating the heavy machinery at high speed does bear more responsibility for the damage they cause rather than their victims
- sitkack 2y ago
  You uncharitably speak for all pedestrians.
- inetknght 2y ago
  Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure. Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence. That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other inflated pollutants. The U.S.'s car-dominant infrastructure is a tragedy.
  - 1970-01-01 2y ago
    I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so little to their economy?
    - fwip 2y ago
      Because human beings care about things that aren't the economy. Do you actually evaluate all public spending on this sole metric, or just the things you don't personally desire?
      - 1970-01-01 2y ago
        Can you provide an example where road budget spending was overridden by public outcry and was completed to those expectations?
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      For a start because building infrastructure for cyclists brings more return of investment, happiness and health than infrastructure for cars.
    - NegativeLatency 2y ago
      Cul-de-sac style suburbs, stroads and other related development patterns are a net drain on the local economy. It’s not a sustainable pattern long term when infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded. And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.
    - impendia 2y ago
      For the same reason that people expect car infrastructure to be paid for: whether they are walking, biking, or driving, they are frequently traveling to some place where they will contribute to the economy. Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.
- dvdkon 2y ago
  "Car-centrism" isn't some immutable property given to the US at the dawn of time. Infrastructure is built according to people's opinions, and in a democracy you change those people's opinions (or replace them altogether) by complaining. And I don't think pedestrian infrastructure advocates expect it to "fall from the sky". They expect it to be built by municipalities over time, just like everyone else.
  - 1970-01-01 2y ago
    I fully disagree. Road infra is engineered to move goods quickly, and never to public opinion unless that public opinion brings loads of cash to help. Again, there are major exceptions to this default. Complaining about it helps, but does not bring cash to the table when it's time to build or rebuild road infra. As municipalities change over time, a city will always regress to car-first. Cars are simply the easiest path for it to move goods quickly.
    - dvdkon 2y ago
      If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. Not The People, but indivial bureaucrats. At least here in the Czech Republic, moving goods isn't on anyone's radar when designing municipal infrastructure. Delivery vehicles need to physically fit, sure, but any economic benefit they bring will only be felt as a very slight n-th order effect by the municipality. Complaining residents, be they pro-pedestrian or pro-car, are immediate and much more likely to be heard.
      - 1970-01-01 2y ago
        >If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. This argument simply does not work for the majortiy of USA.
        dvdkon 2y ago
        Is the USA driven by abstract economic argumenents instead of the decisions of elected representatives? I thougt the US had a fairly standard "town council" arrangement, with the councilors having large autonomy and being beholden primarily to voters.

You think pedestrians and cyclists don't realize how car dominant we are?

1970-01-01 2y ago

Correct. They expect safe walking and biking infra to fall from the sky and complain online when it does not.

affinepplan 2y ago
this is a very uncharitable characterization of communities' desires for safe, quiet, and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  It does sometimes seem that they think they should be able to walk/bike without concern for their own safety. I see pedestrians step into traffic and bicycles blow traffic signals and stop signs all the time. Safety and situational awareness is everyone's responsibility.
  - affinepplan 2y ago
    I guess I kind feel like yeah the person operating the heavy machinery at high speed does bear more responsibility for the damage they cause rather than their victims
sitkack 2y ago
You uncharitably speak for all pedestrians.
inetknght 2y ago
Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure. Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence. That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other inflated pollutants. The U.S.'s car-dominant infrastructure is a tragedy.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so little to their economy?
  - fwip 2y ago
    Because human beings care about things that aren't the economy. Do you actually evaluate all public spending on this sole metric, or just the things you don't personally desire?
    - 1970-01-01 2y ago
      Can you provide an example where road budget spending was overridden by public outcry and was completed to those expectations?
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    For a start because building infrastructure for cyclists brings more return of investment, happiness and health than infrastructure for cars.
  - NegativeLatency 2y ago
    Cul-de-sac style suburbs, stroads and other related development patterns are a net drain on the local economy. It’s not a sustainable pattern long term when infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded. And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.
  - impendia 2y ago
    For the same reason that people expect car infrastructure to be paid for: whether they are walking, biking, or driving, they are frequently traveling to some place where they will contribute to the economy. Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.
dvdkon 2y ago
"Car-centrism" isn't some immutable property given to the US at the dawn of time. Infrastructure is built according to people's opinions, and in a democracy you change those people's opinions (or replace them altogether) by complaining. And I don't think pedestrian infrastructure advocates expect it to "fall from the sky". They expect it to be built by municipalities over time, just like everyone else.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  I fully disagree. Road infra is engineered to move goods quickly, and never to public opinion unless that public opinion brings loads of cash to help. Again, there are major exceptions to this default. Complaining about it helps, but does not bring cash to the table when it's time to build or rebuild road infra. As municipalities change over time, a city will always regress to car-first. Cars are simply the easiest path for it to move goods quickly.
  - dvdkon 2y ago
    If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. Not The People, but indivial bureaucrats. At least here in the Czech Republic, moving goods isn't on anyone's radar when designing municipal infrastructure. Delivery vehicles need to physically fit, sure, but any economic benefit they bring will only be felt as a very slight n-th order effect by the municipality. Complaining residents, be they pro-pedestrian or pro-car, are immediate and much more likely to be heard.
    - 1970-01-01 2y ago
      >If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. This argument simply does not work for the majortiy of USA.
      - dvdkon 2y ago
        Is the USA driven by abstract economic argumenents instead of the decisions of elected representatives? I thougt the US had a fairly standard "town council" arrangement, with the councilors having large autonomy and being beholden primarily to voters.