3 ms·
300 feet is a LONG WAY to walk to cross a road. Do you not get that? You're asking people to walk 700 feet out of their way - you have to walk both directions,
by QuercusMax 1y ago
300 feet is a LONG WAY to walk to cross a road. Do you not get that? You're asking people to walk 700 feet out of their way - you have to walk both directions, remember.
- mindslight 1y ago345 feet isn't even 7 seconds out of your way at 75 mph (</s>). Talking about crosswalks misses that this is probably a common crossing spot for lots of people. The parents thought nothing of the kids crossing the road here, so this is likely where they always cross. So in the "crosswalk paradigm" it should have had a crosswalk built. Personally I live on a fast road and I've taken to only mowing the frontage and clearing snow with a 2000lb tractor. About half of drivers simply give zero fucks about soft fleshy blobs outside of steel cages, regardless of right of way or other legal considerations. It's only when you add something that might scratch their car that they magically become considerate.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoBoth directions twice, so 1400 feet.
- ectospheno 1y agoSo 5 and a half minutes total. Sounds reasonable.
- wat10000 1y agoIf you somehow let the pedestrians cross instantly at the cost of a five-minute delay to the drivers, they’d string you up by your toes.
- QuercusMax 1y agoReasonable to cross the street? Really? And you're not even including the time waiting for the crosswalk to change.
- ectospheno 1y agoIf the alternative is death then yes. Five minutes well spent.
- QuercusMax 1y ago...talk about missing the point. It should not take 5 minutes of extra walking to cross the street here. The extra time is itself causing a dangerous situation.
- jjulius 1y ago>...talk about missing the point. Why is this an either/or? Can't someone who believes that spending an additional five minutes to cross the street at a theoretically-safer point also believe that the street could be designed to support pedestrians more safely?
- QuercusMax 1y agoThat's why I say it's missing the point. Calling for personal responsibility in the face of clear civic irresponsibility is not a way to run a society.
- jjulius 1y agoBut one can call for both at the same time. We're perfectly capable of calling for civic responsibility as we exercise good personal responsibility in the face of civic irresponsibility.
- QuercusMax 1y agoIf a 10-year-old cannot safely cross a road safely in a reasonable amount of time, no amount of personal responsibility can help with this. You're asking for too much from individuals. That's what I'm saying is missing the point.
- jjulius 1y agoI get it. It's inconvenient. It's a shitty road for pedestrians. I'd also like to increase my chances, by whatever small or large amount, of making it home in one piece. If the downside to increasing my likelihood of survival is that I have to take a few extra minutes to continue to exercise my joints and my cardiovascular system, then... okay. I am very much typically on the side of, "Cities are too car-centric and we need to redesign them for people and bikes," but, seriously... how have we reached the point where, "It's a few extra minutes of flat walking," is the primary argument against something?