840
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
840 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
12963 readers
970 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, let’s 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 doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Which one of these vehicles expects to be operated in pedestrian spaces?
I don't know why this is so hard. Cars should also have speed limiters, and the reason they don't is bullshit tradition. As we invent the next paradigm in personal transportation we shouldn't be making the same mistakes. I really can't imagine how anyone could disagree with this unless they are acting in bad faith.
The existence of ebikes doesn't depreciate the existence of motorcycles or mopeds. If you want a motorcycle or moped then get one, but don't pretend it's ok to ride it on bike paths.
Cars operate in pedestrian spaces all the time.
You make it sound like cars are driving over the sidewalk at the same propensity and speed that they are driving on the road.
Never seen a crosswalk?
Imagine someone trying to claim to be pro-pedestrian and fuck-cars and yet claiming crosswalks are "pedestrian spaces". What are you, a car company lobbyists? Not just one, but two, lol
"Sure, we believe in pedestrian spaces" - proceeds to slap white stripes on an eight car lane street with narrow one meter sidewalks.
Although I do love to hate on a lot of the single-mindedness of this sub, I'll do the guys in it a favor and assume this argument is an outlier. Otherwise, it's just embarrassing.
Crosswalks are literally the intersection of pedestrian spaces and motorized spaces. It doesn’t matter what facilities they’re provided with, it’s a place where automobiles operate in the same space as pedestrians all the time.
I'm sorry, but your mental gymnastics are just embarrassing. If you are going to be snarky, have better, more relevant arguments. Gotta love how you put "all the time" in italics, as if that's some specially strong point. Hopefully no one takes it to heart and tries to cross them when the traffic lights don't allow them to.
The whole point of crosswalks is that their use isn't supposed to overlap between pedestrians and cars. You will literally fail your driving exam if your "automobile operates in the same space as pedestrians" on a crosswalk. I feel silly just pointing out the obvious.
Yes, this is precisely what I mean by "bad faith." Even in the most terminally car brain culture there is effort made to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic, even if that means time interleaving on the same roadway. Very few places in the developed world allow pedestrians and automobiles to share the same roadway at the same time the way bicycles and pedestrians can.
The simple and (I thought) self evident premise here is that cyclists and pedestrians can coexist in ways pedestrians and motor vehicles cannot. Blurring the line between a bicycle and a moped serves nobody besides those who seek to perpetuate the exact same legacy ideas which currently force pedestrians and motor vehicles into needless, dangerous conflict.
It's bad faith to claim that city streets are exclusively for cars. City streets have always been mixed use spaces historically.
Cars are so dangerous they annexed the mixed use spaces they run in. Cars are a threat to everything around them. Bikes are forced into conflict with pedestrians as much as they are because of the amount space that has been seized by cars.
Roads need to be rebuilt to eliminate or control cars to make them safe to those around them. Cars are the most dangerous thing on the roads, and should be treated as the threat that they are.
What's a "crosswalk" then?
That's what a crosswalk is.
Furthermore, for all modes of transport (even boats), crossing situations are where most crashes occur; overtaking crashes are relatively rare. The reason for not mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic moving in the same direction (and the reason for creating sidewalks in the first place) is for speed and convenience of drivers, at the cost of pedestrian safety. Even in places where people walk in the street, crossings are where they most often get killed.
I'm upset because the government put a bunch of roads in between my house and the other places I like to go, so I have to be around cars in order to get places. I don't think that's fair.
Again, nothing is preventing you from having a moped, or riding a bicycle on the street. However, there are many other places in the world where there are trails and other infrastructure meant to be shared with pedestrians, which is why it is important that the distinction between bicycle and moped/motorcycle be understood.
I can't speak for elsewhere but in much of Canada the situation is opposite what you're suggesting. Bicycles are legally considered vehicles and are expected to use the road with other traffic if no bicycle lanes or designated paths are available. It is illegal for them to share the sidewalk with pedestrians.
This is, however, very rarely enforced.
Here's a lot of places where pedestrians and cyclists share the same walkways, maybe it's the same where the other commenter is from? It can definitely be a problem of infrastructure; even ones biking without electricity often go waaayyy too fast for it to be safe at all.
I walk with my dog a lot and almost every day there's a situation where some crazy cyclists flies past us like 30km/h and doesn't even ring the bell. If I had a more reactive dog it would be a nightmare, a lot of of dogs are triggered to chase if something "runs" past like that, even if they're super friendly and wouldn't actually do anything if they caught the "prey". I don't understand how the cyclists don't care for their own safety even if they clearly don't care about others; if a bigger dog lunges at them (which is almost impossible to prevent with zero warning time, even if they dog was held by the collar) they're the ones that could fly to the asphalt from high and hard. I'm surprised more small children aren't hit by bikes as well, since the cyclists don't seem to slow down for them either.
And yes cars are often a problem as well and the crosswalks can be horribly unsafe because of idiots driving, but at least here the cyclists too are causing constant danger to pedestrians - because of the bad desing. Even without ebikes bike lanes are a must just as roads for cars are
Mixing pedestrians, bicycles, and motorbikes on the same path is fine though, motorbikes can go around pedestrians in a way cars can't.
But don’t you understand? I need to be able to go 130 mph at a moments notice! Just think of all the times I could need that!
Furthermore, in contrast to a car, I see people in bycicles and even ebikes far less willing to brake for any obstacles or civilians in their path. This is because they are less adept at accelerating and braking, so they want to conserve momentum above all else. They also have less visibility at a glance given how bad or completely absent most bicycle mirrors are, and maintaining stability, having to operate the pedals, and having to turn your head and body far more often while being in a far more uncomfortable position makes for a far more stressed operator.
I've always considered it absurd that scooters can't have seats in a lot of countries, this is the one thing bicycles and ebikes get right and it allows for a safer ride with the possibility to rest from the stress of it. Being able to walk and use the road shouldn't be a vehicle training issue, it should be road education training issue. Speed, that is one that varies significantly, like Germany's autobahn shows. Cars can receive traffic tickets and revoking licenses. On an ebike, there isn't a license to revoke, and 25km/h is already considerably dangerous to bystanders, specially coming from a vehicle that far from being designed and tested for collisions is a mesh of protruding elements instead that also has the absence of an insurance provider for when accidents do happen
This is fuck cars, don't expect common sense to predominate, people here hate cars as if they were in a religion dedicated to it. I wonder how many just live in a bubble of privilege where the countries are wealthy enough to have the carless transit infrastructure and their lifestyles are sedentary enough and localized in a sufficiently centralized urban hub where they can actually hold those beliefs.