Comment by embedding-shape
3 hours ago
> becomes congested with no time/space gaps between vehicles, is worse for pedestrians
Why? This feels like it's assuming pedestrians share the street with vehicles, but besides the US and some other places, don't most "modern" countries have separate pavements/streets for pedestrians? Besides in the country-side, vehicles and pedestrians don't generally share the road in populated areas here in Spain. For crossing roads outside cities, building a pedestrian tunnel below or a bridge above seems to preferred here, except in the cases where it isn't possible, and in cities obviously.
In my city in Norway, at least, there is never a traffic pattern where it's not either:
* a small roundabout with really clear pedestrian right of way marked
* a pedestrian path that takes you over or under the road instead of crossing it
It's great!
There used to be an epidemic of cars striking and killing pedestrians. The advertising industry (hired by the auto industry) came up with the new imaginary crime called "jaywalking". This diverted attention from the killers and onto the victims. Just one more version of the victim blaming that derives from the Just World Hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy
> Why? This feels like it's assuming pedestrians share the street with vehicles, but besides the US and some other places, don't most "modern" countries have separate pavements/streets for pedestrians?
Surely this is a joke or just a flimsy pretext to imply that murka bad or whatever.
Even with a fully paved and sidewalked roundabout (or intersection of any other type) the more of a clusterfuck it is the less time and attention any given traffic participant has to give any other traffic participant is and this is where you get all the stupid "idiots trying to pass each other in a hallway" type misunderstandings and whatnot. It's just better for everyone if things aren't a clusterfuck.
Right, you're talking about "traffic participant", are you including pedestrians or not? Because as I said, in many places, "vehicles" and "pedestrians" are well-separated and don't impact/affect each other, so not sure what cluster-fuck could be created there. Seems less of a cluster-fuck than relying on cross-walks and stop-lights?
>Right, you're talking about "traffic participant", are you including pedestrians or not?
Yes, the point of nonspecific language is in fact to be non-specific and apply to all. If I meant pedestrians I would have said that.
>Because as I said, in many places, "vehicles" and "pedestrians" are well-separated and don't impact/affect each other, so not sure what cluster-fuck could be created there. Seems less of a cluster-fuck than relying on cross-walks and stop-lights?
This is exactly the sort of garbage take the first sentence of my comment was made to apply to. Even the richest places with the most investment in traffic segregation still have a lot of cross walks and signals.
1 reply →