327
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by DwZ@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 188 points 1 week ago

I mean, you're not wrong, except it's not to keep the cars from getting scratched. It's there to keep the car from going off into the ditch. It also prevents pedestrians from walking off the edge. If there was no slope there, then there would be no guardrail at all. We don't typically put rails between roads and pedestrian walkways because it would prevent pedestrians from crossing the street. If the rail were closer to the road, the foliage would probably overtake the walkway.

I agree that we should make our communities more walkable, and I agree that safety measures should prioritize the safety of people over inconvenience or the damage of property. But we should understand and accurately describe the reason for the current system, lest we be dismissed entirely.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 week ago

The foliage thing is nonsense. The guardrail does nothing to stop plants from growing. And the guardrail ends at the crossing area anyway. So I think OP has a point here.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Agreed, and with the design of some of our roads, maybe its a good thing to discourage certain pedestrian crossings. It isn't fair pedestrians may have to walk a significant extra distance to cross, but there are also some sections of road like curves and merge lanes that are more dangerous to cross illegally.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Right, but a mower isn't going to go on the other side of a guardrail to clear it, and people aren't going to walk there if it's all overgrown.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don’t see any reason it couldn’t? Sidewalks require maintenance. If we choose not to maintain them then they won’t be usable. The guardrail is barely relevant to that.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Have you seen how a roadside mower works? Because a guardrail between the walkway and the road would definitely impede that. And then for ada compliance, you'd need to make sure the rails are finished on both sides, and there are sufficient gaps at the crosswalks and curb cuts. And, you'd still need some sort of protection on the ledge side to prevent people from falling down into the bushes.

I mean, yeah, unlimited budget and effort, you could make that walkway much better. You could pave the whole thing and level the ground so there is no ditch and no trees. Plant some gardens for pollinators, and put in a water feature to keep things cool. Build a playground and one of those moving walkway conveyors they have at airports. Ice cream and blowjobs for everyone, while we're at it.

The way it is now protects cars and people from the ditch, and is easy and cheap to maintain. Hardly any sidewalks anywhere have guardrails along the curb to protect pedestrians, because most pedestrians are hit where they cross the street. Even if a car jumped the curb and hit the rail, it's unlikely people would be standing in that exact spot, and how often does that happen anyway?

If you want to improve the walkability shown in the picture, you'd do better putting in more crosswalks, signals, signs, and stops to permit pedestrians to cross the street more safely.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

They could definitely design a mower that is able to reach over the guard rail. We could also just send a different mower to do the gaurd rail sections.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Of course they have those. They could have a guy go out with scissors, or replace all the grass with marshmallows and replace them daily when the animals eat them. Good for jobs, good for the animals, and good for me, the municipal marshmallow supplier!

Mowing is like one small part of it, and this configuration allows it to be done with any equipment.

Has anyone been struck by a car here? Have any car accidents happened here at all? What's the speed limit on the road? Is it near a school or a park or a playground for blind children? Putting a safety rail between the sidewalk and the road is inconvenient for many reasons. Of course it can be done, and safety is always going to be inconvenient.

It was inconvenient to put a rail on the far side of the sidewalk. They did it because the need for safety outweighed the inconvenience of it. Cars and pedestrians could fall down the hill, and it would make accidents worse.

I mean, what are we even talking about? Having a second guardrail would make the sidewalk harder to navigate, and would obstruct the view of drivers turning the corner looking for people crossing the street. The most obvious need is for a crosswalk and additional signage.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

When your response is "we could design a different mower" I think you've answered why it's on the side it's on. Yes, I agree, in a perfect world we could. But the people deciding what side the guard rails go on are not the people deciding what mowers look like, nor do they have the sort of power to do that.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

They could just send a crew out with a regular mower. Im also nearly certain ive seen a mower on a tractor reaching over guardrails on a highway before.

That guard rail is there because the book told the designers to put it there and thinkkng outside the book hasn't been allowed for decades in road planning, its all cut and paste.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

They mean that they put the guard rail on the other side so it's less likely a car with get scratched by accidentally rubbing up against the rail by getting too close if they aren't paying attention. Instead they will just run over a pedestrian. Of course the rail is there to prevent them from going into the ditch, but it would do that either way whether it's on one side of the walkway or the other.

And the foliage would take over the walkway no matter where the rail is, there's no root barrier or anything, so they still need to maintain the vegetation with landscape crews anyway.

Rails preventing pedestrians crossing the street would probably also be a good thing because usually they are on a corner/curve which would be very dangerous area to cross with low visibility, they can easily make a gap in the rail at a crosswalk when the road straightens out.

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They very much meant to protect from the branches scratching the cars

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 34 points 1 week ago

I think people don't understand how a guardrail works. If it were on the other side, it still likely wouldn't protect any pedestrian. They're made to collapse if you run into them, not stop you instantly. If you hit this, it's going to go outwards several feet, to slow the vehicle down slowly instead of instantly. This means if it's on the other side the vehicle is still going onto the sidewalk.

Concrete barriers can protect a walking path, but not a guard rail.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ill take getting hit by the deforming guardrail and being pushed away over being pinned between the car and the guardrail. They could also design a guardrail that is more rigid. We protect drivers enough already, we shouldn't comepletely throw away pedestrian safey because some driver cant keep their car on the pavement.

I've also seen many bent guardrails from traffic accident and unless hitting it at one of the ends, the deformation is 2-3 feet max for most cars unless going excessive speeds. There would still be room for a pedestrian to be safe if we provided that space between the guard and the sidewalk.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

They could also design a guardrail that is more rigid. We protect drivers enough already, we shouldn't comepletely throw away pedestrian safey because some driver cant keep their car on the pavement.

Again, yes. Concrete barriers do this. I'm not disagreeing we should be protecting pedestrians, just that a guardrail isn't the answer.

[-] Schwim@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 week ago

Well, this was surprising. I looked on Google images to see if it was the norm(it is) and as a bonus, found out that the guardrail exists only to protect the motorist with no consideration for any pedestrians( src ):

Looking at the 2006 Guidelines for Traffic Barrier Placement and End Treatment Design Ward referred me to, I learned that “the function of a roadside barrier is to shield the motorist from impacting an obstacle along the roadside.”

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago

They are designed to crumple on impact, absorbing energy by bending - quite a bit actually. You would die if you stood behind a crash barrier in a crash. So it's a good thing they're not being put right next to sidewalks, in addition to the accessibility issues.

The actual thing wrong here is that sidewalks go on streets (slow speed, pedestrian traffic) and crash barriers go on roads (high speeds, no expected pedestrian traffic). If you need pedestrian access between two points only connected by road, build a separated path.

No pedestrian should feel unsafe due to the lack of a crash barrier, because no pedestrian should be expected to walk next to car traffic going so fast that curbs aren't enough of a deterrent.

The problem is North America in particular is infected with stroads, roads with street-like characteristics (i.e. lots of houses, businesses, intersections) but retaining the throughput and speed of a road. This design is fundamentally dangerous, to road users and in particular to pedestrians. There are ways to rehabilitate stroads into streets, but that requires actual thoughtful urban planning and not a bandaid solution like "encase sidewalks in concrete".

[-] frezik 13 points 1 week ago

They're usually put on highways where pedestrian and bike traffic wouldn't be, anyway. OP is an exception because of the ditch right next to the sidewalk.

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 19 points 1 week ago

The curb protects pedestrians from vehicles. The guardrail protects everyone from the drop-off. Neither is 100% effective.

[-] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

The curb doesn't protect shit. It's only purpose is for drainage.

[-] hogmomma@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

In this case, and I'm guessing in many cases like it, it looks like the rail's there to prevent the vehicle from driving into a ditch or other obstacle.

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

This is the correct answer. Guard rails are to prevent vehicles from going down steep embankments or other hazards. They can be used for separating traffic from walkways, but I don't think there's been any studies into the efficacy of doing so.

[-] TauZero@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

The guardrail can serve the don't-drive-off-embankment function equally well positioned before the sidewalk. The problem is when an out-of-control car strikes the guardrail at a glancing angle, it takes a long time (by design) to grind down to a stop. This creates a bowling alley effect. The guardrail keeps the speedy car centered right on the sidewalk. Any human bowling pins are toast. Some of the most horrific traffic death videos I've seen involve that. Whole families wiped out.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 16 points 1 week ago

More often than not I've seen these metal guard rails put between the road and the footpath, to be honest.

[-] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

it also protects cyclists from the same cliff/hill

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] wieson@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago

"they" actually dont think, protecting vehicles from scratches is more important than protecting pedestrians.

The protection of uninvolved persons or areas next to the road, as well as oncoming traffic, is literally in the guidelines of how to build guardrails (RPS).

I'm as much 'fuckcars' as the next guy here, but please don't post a picture from any random place on earth and blame "them". Who's them? The world ministry of transport?

[-] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

The FHWA guidance on guardrails (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/guardrail-101) is very clear that the guardrails are there for drivers and in fact makes exactly zero mentions of pedestrian safety. Many states have specific guidance that guardrails should be placed behind sidewalks. Here is an example from NCDOT: "The preferred treatment is to place the face of the guardrail 12 feet from the face of the curb. The 12 feet width provides ample sight distance for any intersecting streets or driveways near the guardrail installation. This placement method will also accommodate for sidewalk installation. The guardrail will be placed behind the sidewalk" (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Roadway/Roadway%20Design%20Manual/03.%20Guardrail,%20Barriers%20and%20Attenuators.pdf). "Them" is the institutionalized practice of traffic engineering that treats safety of those outside of a vehicle as an afterthought and not a primary purpose of road design elements in the US (and to varying extents, other countries)

[-] wieson@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

I paraphrased from my guidance (RPS not FHWA). We don't all live in the US, which was the point.

[-] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I suppose I may have found it more obvious than you that this image was taken in the United States, which possesses a plethora of places that look like this. I did try to look up RPS guardrails to get a bearing on the context you were coming from, but didn't come up with relevant results, probably because the search engine is biased for English/American results to English/American queries. You mind me asking where RPS is from?

[-] wieson@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago

RPS = Richtlinien fĂĽr passiven Schutz an StraĂźen durch Fahrzeug-RĂĽckhaltesysteme

Wikipedia

From Germany

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

To be fair, if pedestrians existed on those roads, they might want to cross it.

[-] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 8 points 1 week ago

It's to protect the trees from the cars, just like zoos contain tiny enclaves of wild nature to protect against the humans who are behind the wire.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

nope.

Une glissière de sécurité, parfois appelée « rail de sécurité » ou « garde-fou » (ou encore « bertrame » en Suisse), est une barrière métallique, en béton, ou en bois, disposée le long d'une voie de circulation routière pour amoindrir la gravité des accidents, en évitant notamment les sorties de route.

garde-fou in french is a more interesting name than "guide rail".

A guide rail is a system designed to guide vehicles back to the roadway and away from potentially hazardous situations. There is no legal distinction between a guide rail and a guard rail. According to the US Federal Highway Administration, the terms guardrail and guiderail are synonymous.

Several types of roadway guide rail exist; all are engineered to guide vehicular traffic on roads or bridges. Such systems include W-beam, box beam, cable, and concrete barrier. Each system is intended to guide vehicles back onto the road as opposed to guard them from going off the road into potential danger.

Traffic barriers (known in North America as guardrails or guard rails, in Britain as crash barriers, and in auto racing as Armco barriers) keep vehicles within their roadway and prevent them from colliding with dangerous obstacles such as boulders, sign supports, trees, bridge abutments, buildings, walls, and large storm drains, or from traversing steep (non-recoverable) slopes or entering deep water. They are also installed within medians of divided highways to prevent errant vehicles from entering the opposing carriageway of traffic and help to reduce head-on collisions. Some of these barriers, designed to be struck from either side, are called median barriers. Traffic barriers can also be used to protect vulnerable areas like school yards, pedestrian zones, and fuel tanks from errant vehicles. In pedestrian zones, like school yards, they also prevent children or other pedestrians from running onto the road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_barrier

[-] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 3 points 1 week ago

Dear reader, permit me to introduce you to the concept of Irony.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago
[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago

And stroads shit the bed on all possible metrics.

[-] Gork@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

This would likely only be changed in this particular location when someone gets killed from it.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 points 1 week ago

Too many dangerous situations are only fixed after someone is seriously injured or killed. Or as is often said "regulations are written in blood."

[-] TauZero@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

In NYC they put parking meters on the sidewalk behind metal bollards. Note that they do not put bollards on street corners at pedestrian crossings. Even in the modern intersection redesigns with the wider sidewalk cutouts, the DOT still only ever uses collapsible plastic bollards at best, if at all. Every time I wait for a crossing light as a pedestrian in one of those brown-paint-only sidewalk cutouts at street level, I look over my shoulder to one of these parking meters up on the curb behind their bollards and awe at how much more protection a dumb piece of metal street furniture gets than the squishy me.

[-] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I mean, I get where this post is coming from, but they didn't build guardrails along every single street and deliberately put them behind the sidewalks. They put it there because behind it is a steep dropoff.

It was never about "pedestrian bad", the guardrail wouldn't be there at all if it wasn't for the hill. Same thing with the parking meters others are mentioning. It's not because the meters are more valuable or whatever, it's because replacing them is expensive. Could they have put it in front of the sidewalk? Sure. But I'd bet the sidewalk was there for a while before the rail (plus the fact that there's a sidewalk at all is surprising, in the US)

I get the point this is going for, but don't forget, narrative manipulation can, and is, done by anyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago
[-] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

seriously i should be allowed to take my 2 ton machine and smash it into those stupid trees

[-] TauZero@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Saw an example of correct guardrail usage today, with the overgrown path that some other commenters were worried about.

Hackensack River Bridge

(Lincoln Highway Hackensack River Bridge in Newark)

Let me tell you one thing, I would 100% rather ride on this overgrown sidewalk than on the shoulder of the 55mph highway without a shoulder. This is the official bicycle/pedestrian bridge crossing. I wasn't sure whether the bridge path is even open or exists, but it does and there were even other people using it. (There is a second mesh fence on the embankment side, more so to protect the bushes than to stop you falling over.)

And then take a look at this other beauty today:

Weequahic Park Drive

(Weequahic Park Drive, New Jersey)

Correct guardrail usage AND perfectly maintained path! Alas, pedestrian only, but not a problem to ride on 25mph street. Proof that putting the guardrail before the sidewalk is perfectly possible, both legally and practically. (There is a lake down the embankment. Don't walk into the lake.)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
327 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12717 readers
339 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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS