this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
257 points (80.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

12745 readers
763 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
 

They think protecting drivers cars from scratches is more important than protecting pedestrians from getting hit, so they make the sidewalk part of the "clear zone"

Physical design is not neutral.

Physical design is an expression of our values.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 183 points 1 week ago (21 children)

I mean, you're not wrong, except it's not to keep the cars from getting scratched. It's there to keep the car from going off into the ditch. It also prevents pedestrians from walking off the edge. If there was no slope there, then there would be no guardrail at all. We don't typically put rails between roads and pedestrian walkways because it would prevent pedestrians from crossing the street. If the rail were closer to the road, the foliage would probably overtake the walkway.

I agree that we should make our communities more walkable, and I agree that safety measures should prioritize the safety of people over inconvenience or the damage of property. But we should understand and accurately describe the reason for the current system, lest we be dismissed entirely.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe pedestrians shouldn't be crossing busy roads unless at designated crossings. Additionally, if they are going to jaywalk, having the barrier would at least ensure they have some kinda bare minimum physicality in order to hop over the barrier.

And seriously, how often has a vehicle guard rail been the deciding factor in a pedestrian falling down the ditch?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are you trying to show me?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is a designated crossing. It's just really poorly marked, which is far more dangerous than the lack of a physical barrier between the sidewalk and the road. Crossing the road here would not be jaywalking.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh yes, I was speaking about the idea of guard rails and sidewalks in general, not this specific intersection. This particular intersection looks stupid for several reasons, including that sidewalk that cuts across without any markers to show a crossing. In fact I'd go as far as saying this isn't even a crosswalk, it's a sidewalk with an expectation of teleportation since there's nothing painted on the road.

load more comments (19 replies)