Mildly Infuriating
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
view the rest of the comments
Bureaucracy at its finest
As much as this case might have been justified (which we just don't know without the traffic study), condoning random people fucking with street signage is a terrible idea. There are very good reasons not to randomly change traffic patterns, especially outside of a popular park; fuckcars, but also vigilante traffic engineering is an insanely dangerous game to play.
Nah, this road is a fucking textbook example of a bad neighborhood intersection.
Wide straight road with a hill on one side leads to unsafe driving speeds. Combined with parking at the intersection making visibility low for anyone crossing the intersection (cars, pedestrians, and bikes all included!)
This intersection needs intervention, and a stop sign is a bare minimum solution. Speed bumps and daylighting would also be justified.
We know we build unsafe intersections, we don't need a traffic study to confirm it, especially if you have a large number of residents with the same complaint.
Sure! And if improvement is warranted hopefully this will bring enough attention that it gets reevaluated. But that all said, even if he was right, being arrested for it is warranted. Hopefully he was right and as a result he's not punished, but if the only requirement for infrastructure changes was community complaint there would be no speed limits and the bones of traffic engineers would hang from every street light.
No it's not the same.
People taking down speed limits signs cause they want to go faster does not warrant the same response as people complaining that an intersection is unsafe and trying to improve it, and only because the city is basically ignoring them.
It is the same though, it goes both ways
It's exactly the same - someone is changing the signage without knowing what they're doing. I don't think he should be harshly punished in this case, especially if he's right, but this also isn't at all different from someone fucking with the speed limit signs because they feel they know best. That person may also be right - that doesn't mean they should be able to make those changes.
But it's literally the same law, if they enforce one they have to enforce the other.
You're punishing him solely to potentially prevent others from doing copying him. Which frankly is insane. Cause lets be honest, he was more than likely right, so punishing him isn't going to make him regret what he did. He would probably do it again under similar circumstances. If his work is undone by the city, then not only will it make his sacrificd meaningless, it will also likely make him and others want to escalate. If his actions do work, whether or not he is punished, it serves as proof that his strategy works, and if people are desperate enough they will copy him. Then lastly the people who want to fuck with traffic stuff just for the fun of it are not going to be the kinds of people deterred by the possibility of getting arrested.
Punishing him not only won't stop shit, it further proves him right. Making an example of him is punishing a man for doing the right thing when the city wouldn't and is unproductive and wrong. The city shoulda just put the stop sign in and none of this would have been an issue.
Nah, this was stupid. If he felt obligated to fix something broke, it's on the county/town, not him. All he did was make the area safer.
With respect, you have no idea if that's true.
Traffic engineering is an actual science - what he did was extremely well-meaning, but it's also the pavement equivalent of alternative medicine. Sometimes you're right, but even if you nail the diagnosis most of the time you're so ignorant you don't even understand the potential harm you're doing in brewing up your own treatment. It is very possible that his traffic revisions have made the area less safe for pedestrians by ex: shifting traffic congestion onto surrounding roads, or simply increasing baseline congestion at this already busy intersection.
It may be a science, but that doesn't place it in some rarefied air of infallibility, any more than any other science. It's only ever as good as how it's applied, and how any science is applied is always subject to human fallibility. Traffic engineering is especially bad in that respect, routinely and as a matter of course being subverted by political considerations, not least by the fundamental choices about who and what matters, and who and what does not matter. It does not deserve much respect as a practice.
But with that said, in this case, even the traffic engineers agreed that a stop sign was an appropriate treatment for this intersection when they rejected it on the basis that the traffic volume wasn't high enough to warrant installing one. Presumably, if there were more cars, it would be fine. So, yes, we can say confidently that this man made the area safer.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.
They allegedly did a study to see whether there was enough traffic, a step which requires a certain commitment of resources. If the placement of a stop sign would've harmed safety by displacing traffic flow, then they could've cited that without spending time on a study. But they didn't, from which we can conclude that a stop sign is okay there.
Ah, I understand. Thank you.
That's a decent example of what I've been saying - basing a conclusion like that on the wording of an uncited press statement is pretty spurious. There simply may have been more reasons and this was judged the easiest to explain (which happens frequently), and without more information we aren't simply equipped to make an informed judgement. Much as he wasn't when he made the initial decision (but we admittedly court far less severe consequences)
Thanks for the excellent reply. I don't exactly agree, but I love that it's logical, clear, and respectful.
Much like that park bathroom that was going to cost something like $2M to install in San Francisco. Once the residents and news got ahold of the story, suddenly the bathroom would only cost $100k to install.