this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
316 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9753 readers
1904 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Daylighting, which involves removing parked cars from around crosswalks in order to improve visibility and just wiped out about 14,000 street parking spaces, has proved especially controversial.

“If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer,” Nina Geneson Otis wrote in an email to The Standard. The real estate broker said daylighting is the kind of policy that makes Democrats lose elections.

Others say the city’s actions remove responsibility from pedestrians to look out for their own safety. “A pedestrian can do anything, and be irresponsible, and no harm will come to them?” Brandi said, describing the policies as “idiot-proof.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DomeGuy 110 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The idea that a pedestrian walking anywhere but on a limited access highway would ever be at fault for a collision with an automobile is a direct result of century-old propaganda by the moral equivalent of the NRA.

If i made a self-propelled battering ram with remote controlled steering I would rightly be held to strict liabily if anyone was hurt. But if we put a a chair in the same thing and call it a "vehicle", suddenly the rules change in our favor.

I like cars and driving, and can easily imagine a number of mitigating circumstances that would shift liability away from the driver, but the presumption that once-walkable city streets are for cars is the result of fierce industrial lobbying and not a reasoned public policy process.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 week ago

The origin of the word "jaywalking" is exactly that. Blame the victim.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

Always remember that "vehicular manslaughter" was created with lower penalties than manslaughter, because juries were consistently not finding motorists guilty of manslaughter.

It was too easy for jurors to identify with the driver, and think, what if it was me driving that car, killing that person by accident?

We need safer infrastructure in this world than one allowing anyone to be a killer just by being distracted.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

For all its faults, the NRA knows that guns are unsafe. It promotes "gun safety" not "shirt safety" – it doesn't blame people who get shot accidentally because they were wearing the wrong kind of shirt. Whereas cities around the world talk about "bike safety" when the unsafe element is not the bike at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

In my country its normal for pedestrians to walk in highways. The result is that drivers expect pedestrians everywhere, and collisions are rare