this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
151 points (71.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9670 readers
16 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

From a safety perspective, pedestrians in a road is already a huge issue.

Olympic level mental gymnastics are required to believe that the pedestrian is the safety issue in regards to the hunk of rust flying past family homes.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Lol how is that your takeaway from what they said? They clearly meant it in the opposite way smh

This community has some of the dumbest takes bolstered by "righteous fury," it's like being in church all over again

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol what? It's a safety issue FOR THE PEDESTRIAN

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because of THE CAR

THE CAR causes the safety issue

Ma'am

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Obviously cars are more dangerous than human bodies. We all acknowledge that.

The point is the space is already designated for cars. That should change, sure, but for today, that's how it is.

So a human on the proverbial train tracks is the one in danger. It's not a safety issue for the car, but the person. Which was my point that you are trying to dodge.

Also not sure what the ma'am was for, were you suggesting something?

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not dodging your point, I'm rejecting it. It's victim blaming. I'm sorry you can't see past your nose, I'm gonna stop replying

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Probably best as you closed your last with a potentially gendered insult and didn't clarify.

Back on point: it's not victim blaming when someone uses an existing system definitively wrong. If you sunbathe on a train track and get run over, you are the only one to blame.

A more interesting topic for this community would be how to remap the traditional US suburb to establish more safe space for pedestrians, specifically how sidewalks out front of existing properties could take up some of the pavement, with traffic calming measures, and dedicated bike lanes.