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.
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
237 points (80.8% liked)
Fuck Cars
12630 readers
1992 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 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.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, letβs try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesnβt fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it also protects cyclists from the same cliff/hill
there really should be 2, though. a proper impact-absorbing guardrail between the road and the sidewalk, and a normal railing on the edge of the sidewalk.
I feel like getting hit by a car is a bigger hazard than choosing to walk/bike down a hill.
In general yes, but if you have to put a barrier between the road and the footpath to keep people safe the problem isn't that there are no barriers
Right. It's the cars. But as long as the cars are there, a barrier is a good quick fix
Banning driving under influence and enforcing speed limits would be a better and quicker fix if you ask me. If a car driver can't behave they should take away their car.
Barriers really shouldn't be necessary on local roads.
This sort of punitive approach is generally less helpful in actually making things safer.
It is important to not cast motorists, even those who make poor choices, as "bad people". They are just people, living in the world as best they can in the best way they know how.
Meanwhile, draconian measures which apply severe penalties to commonplace infractions tend to not work. (An aside: losing one's license in an auto-dependent area is draconian, as it typically means losing huge amounts of one's time, work opportunities, and social life.) Consistently, criminal justice research has shown that the severity of the penalty for breaking a law has a much lower impact on keeping people law abiding than simply increasing the public's perception of adequate enforcement. A thief will hold up a liquor store at about the same rate whether the punishment is a $20 fine or the death penalty, since they just assume they won't get caught. But they are much less likely to rob a liquor store when there is a cop standing on the street corner.
Increasing enforcement comes with its own problems however - like the increased cost of police presence and the potential for profiling individuals during traffic stops.
And finally, this sort of concept is a political non-starter. If you live in an auto oriented area like the one pictured, most people drive, and almost all of them will break the laws you've mentioned at least some of the time. Whatever politician floats this idea will be out on their ass almost before the words have left their mouth.
All these reasons are why urbanists emphasize infrastructure over enforcement.
Enforcement assumes humans are either perfect or evil. Infrastructure assumes humans are fallible.
Enforcement must be constantly paid to stand guard. Infrastructure must be built once, then has minimal maintenance costs.
Enforcement punishes those who get caught. Infrastructure prevents tragedies from happening in the first place.
Enforcement solidifies the auto oriented paradigm. Infrastructure subverts it.
Enforcement is a political lightning rod. Infrastructure is a political crowd pleaser.
Even a sober driver obeying the limit could collide with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The driver could have a medical emergency and lose control, the vehicle could break down and lose control.
Much more tragic on average per occurrence, of course. But, I'd be willing to bet that the chance of falling down that slope is way higher than being hit, and thus the "average damage over time" is far greater for falls than collisions. People are really bad at comprehending risk. (See: dying from a shark attack or lightning strike being more common fears than dying from falling down the stairs.)
It feels wrong to reduce human lives to a numbers game, but that's what traffic engineering is. If there's a budget, it has to be a numbers game at some level.
North american traffic engineers don't give a shit about how many deaths their design causes so long as the road is up to spec according to outdated books that prioritize speed and throughput.
If that barrier was more for peolle falling down the hill it would be taller in size. If I crashed my bike into that barrier i would just end tumbling over the barrier and down the hill.