A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
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:
Transition from: Designed for Cars to Designed for People, Cars, and Bikes
But fuck this shit:
I want my zebra back, this is not visible from far away. And if I don't see a crosswalk anywhere nearby, then I shall cross the road anywhere convenient.
This I like:
The one you dislike is better for two wheel vehicles (bicycles and motorbikes), the paint of the crossing is very slippery when wet.
There's also non-slip paint which is what I see most nowadays.
It looks like it's a signalized crossing now. Depending on the timing settings of the traffic lights and the speed limit this can be better for people walking. Particularly when it has a sensor to see when everyone is done crossing.
Zebra crossings can be very challenging for disabled people, like visual impairments and mobility issues. These groups can feel very vulnerable using such a crossing because there is no auditory confirmation.
There might be better solutions though if the speed limit is lowered.
Up until recently zebras were used everywhere, including on signalized crossings.
The extra challenge with this is/was that guide dogs aren't/weren't (yet) trained on it. Least that's what I've seen in news at the end of last year.
This is the norm in some countries.
The traffic light is visible from far away and at a traffic light it's almost always possible to cross a road.
Bratislava's barely visible pedestrian crossings also tripped me the fuck out when I was there but then I realized you can actually cross wherever it's convenient because drivers are not out to kill you.
Are there images in your comment that other people are seeing? I don't see anything after your : characters except a few lines of white space.
Yeah. But Imgur blocks me because of my VPN, so I used Catbox. However Catbox is blocked in some countries.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: From FAQ, blocked in/on/by: Australia, Ireland, UK, Iran, Afghanistan, Comcast, Spectrum, Rogers, Verizon, Quad9.
I can access catbox from the UK, no VPN. But videos hosted on it often won't show up on Connect(although they did until recently), so I have to view them via browser. I can see your images just fine.
Hmmm thanks for the info. I am in the US. It is probably just my Lemmy client, I'm using "Connect" fwiw.
It's very good, but it would have been even better if they didn't do the "you're on your own now" thing with the bike lane.
seriously, all this and they couldn't find space to make a proper raised bike path?
If there's not very much car traffic and almost no trucks, and if that traffic obeys the rules and speed limits well enough, there is not always the need for separate bike lane. This way the bicycles, if there are many cyclists, become an indication to car drivers that what they are driving on is a local street, woonerf, school area, etc. While the design with separated bike lane would be a 1 person wide situation, while this way cyclists can cycle 2 next to eachother together in the street which is a lot more fun. I don't know this particular street or city, if it works depends on local factors such as general driver culture, habits, local policing efforts, amount of cyclists, etc, but it's not per definition the worse design.
What I dislike is that they did put in the bike lane for the silly short piece. In this case, it could've been better to just raise the entire intersection in a speedbump-plateau and no separate bike lane at all.
One solution would be to sacrifice the new gardens on that top road to make space for bike lanes. Of even better, the whole road becomes a bike-first road where cars are allowed in at 10km/h.
For sure. Or added the crossing where you have to wait for lights. It’s a small road, it should just be a crosswalk with pedestrian priority and a low speed limit. Not a car priority traffic light crossing.
...I mean, cars ended up better too. Hella lot more clarity after.
That's one of the recurring ironies. Most of the stuff anti-car-culture people are pushing for (eg: more trains, this photo, etc) make it better for the people who do drive
Exactly! The design forces everyone to drive more slowly and deliberately. If I was a driver I would be very pleased. The only people that hate this are speeders.
I dunno. Paths are clearer and easier to predict, lanes are more defined. In good circumstances, you can safely speed more than before. Not that it's good idea, but it literally doesn't take away anything from drives while massively improving safety, clarity and elegance.
When paths are narrow and the sidewalks busy (people, trees, benches, etc) drivers subconsciously slow down because it feels faster. Inversely, drivers speed up in wide open areas because it feels slower. This has been well studied and rebutted earlier urban design principles that thought narrow streets and obstacles caused traffic accidents.
bro you don't understand i have to reach the traffic light 2 seconds faster PLEASE
Nice. Looks like not one tree was felled, too.
But we need to address these port-a-potties. What sadist would put them right under someone's window? They have an exhaust pipe at the top!