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:
For the record, this is about preventing accidents, not "terrorism." (If nothing else, you can tell by the fact that the other sides of the pedestrian platform aren't protected.)
I'm pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me. Tone it down next time, please.
It feels like 5 years ago, but it was only back in January that a man used a truck to kill 14 people in a ramming attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, LA. The city had been warned, and knew of the need to have bollards installed, but cheaped out on temporary bollards, which were apparently malfunctioning at the time of the attack. There had been a vehicle-ramming attack at the Christmas market in Magdeburg in December, and an attack in Munich following in February.
I'd say that the title is right on. Car terrorism is a thing.
I'm certainly not denying that actual car terrorism is a thing now, in the 2020s. But that's very different than claiming it was being described in a comic from almost a hundred years ago, or claiming that the single-direction barricade depicted was intended to be a countermeasure for it (let alone an effective one).
I don't think that that was the claim. We have car terrorism now, and since the 1980's according to the Wikipedia list of incidents, and bollards can help protect potential victims. It's not a new technology, they knew about them in 1931, so what's our excuse for not installing them?
The correct way to prevent car based terror of pedestrians was invented in ireland a century ago. I think there's a drink named after it.
That or random anti vehicle mines.
anti vehicle mines are preferable to most Americans, and they are patriotic
Guinness, for strength!
We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me.
Usually this is just an indicator that you aren't actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn't realize you were doing it.
Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it's a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It's usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It's a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.
And on that count... It should be "crash", not "accident". "Accident" partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
Alright, back into my pedantist cage.
Not pedantic. Matters. Thank you.
And on that count... It should be "crash", not "accident". "Accident" partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
I often make that point myself, but in this particular instance I chose "accident" deliberately in order to emphasize the lack of malicious intent.
Anyway, it can be a fine line between shifting the Overton Window and destroying your credibility, and IMO this was just on the wrong side of it. I'm not unsympathetic to the strategy of hyperbolic rhetoric you're talking about (which is why you'll notice I didn't remove the post or demand OP actually change the title); I'm just trying to dial it back a tad. Besides, IMO we shouldn't cheapen the word "terrorism" because then it loses its impact when we use it to describe when drivers actually do engage in violence against cyclists/pedestrians deliberately.
I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can't really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.
Which postwar car-brains have sadly forgotten. 😤
The Netherlands, Denmark: we saw, we understood, we put it to action.
Rest of the world:.....
We should stop car terrorism the same way we stop other terrorism. With a ‘targeted’ campaign of airstrikes that hit not just the car terrorists but car civilians and car women and children too.
car children are just car terrorists in training after all.
We just got one of these installed and it’s amazing. This was one of the most dangerous sections of road, with a hockey rink on one side and parking on the other so frequent pedestrian crossings. However people impatient with waiting would blast though on the wrong side of the street to get into the turn lane, endangering pretty much everyone. That can’t happen anymore. Too early to see stats though
Even Seattle has this problem to this day.
In a 2,100-word, emoji-filled email blast (that’s about three times the length of this post!) announcing a compromise that will keep a traffic safety divider in place while allowing cars to park in the bus lane on Delridge Way SW, City Councilmember Rob Saka blamed a “radical proxy ‘war on cars'” for demonizing his efforts to remove the divider. The barrier, a standard-issue hardened centerline identical to hundreds installed around the city, was installed as part of Metro’s RapidRide H project.
[...]
Saka has consistently portrayed the lack of left-turn car access into the small preschool as an issue of racial and social justice, and his newsletter doubles down on that canard, accusing people who oppose eliminating the divider of “targeting the very immigrant families they claim to support” by denying cars from turning left into the parking lot.
Trees are great for that too, and it has added benefits like another patch that is no longer impermeable, helps manage storm water, filter rainwater into the aquifer, lowers flood risks, provide shade against heat. It is also an habitat for plants, insects, birds, and small animals, while also improving air quality by absorbing pollutants and providing a natural sound barriers, reducing noise pollution and stress levels related to it.
I’ll disagree with that one for this use case. Usually trees are a great answer, but we’re looking for something that can reliably protect people’s lives while maintaining good sight lines. A tree is not enough.
Down with the empty patches of grass and up with the masses of trees and bushes!! Here here!
I'm not saying we shouldn't consider this in urban design but I've seen a number of cycling schemes be ruined because of the advice that no gap greater than 1.5m can be left to prevent this sort of attack.
I can't help but feel we shouldn't be accept living in a fortress in order to avoid universal access to machines that can cause such damage.
I’ve seen a number of cycling schemes be ruined because of the advice that no gap greater than 1.5m can be left
Ruined in what way? Could you post a picture or something? I'm having trouble imagining it.
This one comes to mind https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-city-centre-cycle-scheme-24598715
Been a while since I looked but my understanding is that 1.5m max widths excludes best practice to allow cargo bikes and accessible bikes movement.
Huh, that's close to one of Melbourne's older tram stop designs (slowly being phased out and replaced with accessible platform stops).
-- wongm
