• poopkins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Accidents are rare, sure, and fatalities are rare because the relatively low speed impact. We can nevertheless aspire to create more inclusive infrastructure where pedestrians and cyclists can feel a sense of belonging. The car-centric roads we have in the US today could be better for everyone.

    • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      And banning right in red ain’t it. It’ll be ineffective, piss off drivers, and have little to no meaningful effect. If you want to blow political capital in this worthless shit more power to us but I’ll prefer a pragmatic approach that has a chance of being effective.

      • Chastity2323@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        If making people feel safer walking and biking in cities = “worthless shit” to you then why are you even here? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been honked at or yelled at or nearly run over while walking or on my bike by drivers who refuse to stop at red lights at all because of the right on red rule.

        Cars don’t belong in cities at all, with the possible exception of delivery/commercial vehicles and vehicles for disabled people. Banning right on red is just one part of a multi-pronged approach to get us there, together with better bicycle infrastructure and public transit, etc.

      • drkt@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

        piss off drivers,

        oh no their precious feelings, once again taking precedence over human life

        • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yes. Guess what, you have to live with those people and you have to convince them to vote on your policies.

          If you’re going to sit there nagging them over stupid rare occurrence shit and piss them off you don’t get your policies. So go ahead and waste political capital pissing off voters with inconsequential shit that pisses them off.

          Pragmatic politics is dead replaced by whiney absolutism.

          Edit: the best part is even if you go ahead and get to piss everyone off is it’ll never ever be enforced except in certain high traffic intersections.

          • drkt@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            you have to convince them to vote on your policies.

            no I don’t and won’t because they don’t listen. If you want to get something done in politics, you lobby local politicians directly.

            For the record, we don’t have right-on-red, here, because we’re not insane enough to think that’s a good idea. Bicycle lanes stop ~2 meters in front of cars so they’re visible and get to enter the intersection first because it literally saves lives. Fuck car-owners feelings.

          • Smoogs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            10 months ago

            You talk about being pissed off and having others cater to your fee fees and then call out others for whining and having entitled behavior ….mmmk. The hypocrisy is rather thick in here today.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You missed the salient point in your knee jerk reaction about ‘carbrain feels’

          if you want to spend political capital Is this fight worth it more than getting cycle lanes or pedestrian zones?

          Or phrased differently, unless you’re the road dictator who defines policy in a vacuum, you will have to get buy-in or agreement from the primary roads users - drivers. Which will involve compromise on your goals.

          Right on red does provide (limited) ecological and congestion benefit by limiting idling at otherwise clear intersections. Inattentive drivers are not a new problem, but I would much rather have cycle lanes physically segregated from vehicles as a priority for road reform

          • drkt@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think you’ll find that the amount of emissions saved from idling at these intersections would be paid for a hundred-fold by just leaving the car at home for one short trip once a year. It essentially doesn’t exist. Additionally, fuck your congestion, I don’t care. You chose the car, you get to be stuck in traffic in it. I won’t accept any risk to my body because you can’t wait an extra minute.

            • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ahhhh. You didn’t miss the point about ‘an okay compromise today, instead of utopia never’ you willingly ignored it

              It’s incredibly ableist and ageist to demean drivers as a whole. Public transport is not a 100% coverage map, let alone timetables. Telling a wheelchair user/someone living with cerebral palsy/etc to move themselves three km start-and-finish to a bus stop to do their bi-weekly shopping is not a solution. Get real, or everyone else will see you for an extremist and ignore you.

              • drkt@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Please explain to my low attention-span millennial avocado-brain how implementing a safer-for-all traffic intersection forces disabled people out of their cars, because that strangely doesn’t seem to be a problem in my municipality. Disabled people who are car-bound has, if I may be so bold, seemingly benefited from the safer intersections on account of pedestrians and bicyclists fearing less for their lives in traffic and thus encouraging them to walk or bike instead of drive, leading to less cars on the road meaning less congestion for the disabled car-bound people.

                Also: Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands has shown us that disabled people get around on bicycle infrastructure just fine. I find it insulting that you pretend to champion disabled people but don’t actually understand how they use the infrastructure available… almost like you don’t actually care, but just wanted to make a dumb argument because it sounded good in your head.

                I get it bro you like the wroom wroom but go to your local track on sunday and leave the rest of the city out of it thanks

                • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer, who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo huh? Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

                  ‘Right on red’ is a very US-centric scenario. Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

                  Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change, but fuck dude. Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic. I want protected, hardened bicycle routes because I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks. I want better pedestrian infrastructure and walkable cities. I want light rail and better bus service. All I’ve gotten from you is ad-hominem and hostility. Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

                  • drkt@feddit.dk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer

                    I didn’t call you a boomer but thanks for telling on yourself

                    who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo

                    Yes, because that’s what you did, and are still doing.

                    Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

                    If they present sound logic. Right-On-Red kills people, that’s why it’s primarily a US thing because nobody else is that insanely car-brained.

                    Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

                    I did not once tell any disabled person to get out of their personal vehicle. You are pretending that I did because you just want to argue but you have no points and you don’t believe in anything. You could’ve had a point about pragmatic politics but I’m not gonna make your argument for you. You’re old enough to do that yourself.

                    Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change,

                    Glad we’re on the same page. I can’t understand why you are arguing against repealing Right-On-Red, then. A change that would literally save lives and require zero infrastructural investment.

                    Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic.

                    Nothing I’ve said is particularly exclusionary. I haven’t said all cars must go. I haven’t said all disabled people must walk. I said car-owners feelings are once again taking precedence over actual human lives. You are also still ignoring that disabled people seem to be getting around just fine, generally speaking, in countries that deprioritize cars.

                    I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks.

                    So lets minimize that and get rid of Right-On-Red instead of telling me I’m a fucking puritan idealist for suggesting as much.

                    Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

                    That’s funny, because my lefty extreme no-car utopia party is up in recent polling. They even control a district in inner Copenhagen. Denmark doesn’t have a pants-on-head retarded 2-party first-past-the-post system, by the way, so voting for what you believe in actually does work over here. I’m sorry you have to deal with your god awful system.

                    There is no conceivable universe in which you pull this shit out of your ass in good faith because I have dismissed your disabled-people use case like 4 times now. You’re just ignoring it because you don’t believe in anything and would rather pretend that you’re some holy centrist whose views of the world are infinitely nuanced and beyond the reach of idealists like myself because it’s apparently utopic to not wanna spend your last minutes on earth being dragged underneath an SUV.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think the general point people are making to you is that, in many municipalities where right on red would be bad, there are enough voters in the pedestrian base alone that nobody has to “appeal to drivers” in order to win a majority. The issue itself has validity on the basis that the health of the pedestrians should be a higher priority than the feeling that drivers are being impacted negatively by not being able to perform this maneuver. You could maybe make a counterargument comprised of economic impacts, as a couple people have tried to do, or a counterargument about how it saves emissions, but I’m sort of inclined to think that caving and giving it over to cars is sort of an approach that has diminishing returns in both of those directions, compared to the alternative.

        • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          You absolutely do not have numbers and do need to consider what hills to die on. Otherwise you’d have basic crap like bike infrastructure in those cities.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Ehh, lot of “those cities” are getting better, if you wanna get more specific as to which one, you know, less general terms, we might get into it and how there are different, you know, ruling party apparatuses that people have to maneuver around and population demographics, I dunno. Mistakes into miracles of covid was that a lot of streets could get shut down and turned into temporary pedestrian streets for limited run studies, or for some amount of days of the week or what have you, so that’s kind of shown people what’s possible.

            A lot of it is also that people who live within city limits and benefit from public services/would benefit from stuff like this kind of lack political will. The drive among most urbanists is less to compromise with drivers and is more to educate/appeal to the population who lives in these cities, is what I’m saying. Which, you know, it’s a safer strategy, those are easier people to convince, you’re having to compromise less on goals. I’d generally agree that maybe things like larger traffic engineering standards in these cities need to change, because standard practice is what tends to shape the built environment rather than one-off projects or even kind of broad legislation like banning right on red, but you’re seeing those happen rather than changing standards becaude one of those tends to be much easier.

      • duffman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Being pissed is the wrong framing of the issue. There’s a legitimate issues with gimping our infrastructure. Nobody would die if we all drove 5mph, but the personal and economic losses to millions of people would be catestrophic.

      • Smoogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        piss off drivers

        you need to have your licence taken and put into anger management. That is not how you formulate laws and it should never be the motivation. Own your own fee-fees.

        • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          Being pissed off at stupid policy has ZERO relevance at anger management. Try to stay on topic next time.