16 points

Iโ€™ve never really understood this type of thought when it comes to safety. Simple self preservation should lead you to the same conclusion. When it comes to safety, the squishiest one loses.

We donโ€™t blink an eye when told to not stand under something being lifted by a crane, so why balk at being told to be safe around the two ton travelling metal boxes?

permalink
report
reply
28 points

We donโ€™t blink an eye when told to not stand under something being lifted by a crane, so why balk at being told to be safe around the two ton travelling metal boxes?

Nobody is saying that you shouldnโ€™t act safely around cars. People are saying we shouldnโ€™t design transportation infrastructure that prioritizes driver convenience over pedestrian safety. Cranes are only allowed to operate in much more tightly controlled situations than drivers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I take it youโ€™ve never been on a job site, because there is a TON of infrastructure and protocol that cranes and crane operators have to follow to make sure everything is as safe as possible.

You need to have extensive training to be allowed to do overhead materials handling, the ground conditions need to be thoroughly checked, the job site needs to be planned and laid out, in general there are a ton of constraints and checks to make sure that there is virtually zero risk that a random person could accidentally walk into a danger zone and get hurt.

Thatโ€™s pretty much the exact opposite as with cars. Pretty much every parking lot I have ever been to is front-loading, which REQUIRES that pedestrians have to cross the main driving path to get to their destination and there is very little training and certification required of drivers compared to crane operators.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Pretty much every parking lot I have ever been to is front-loading, which REQUIRES that pedestrians have to cross the main driving path to get to their destination

Do you have an alternative in mind? Because the only one I can think of is to move the whole sidewalk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Donโ€™t be so quick to make assumptions.

Have you never been in a shop that uses bridge cranes? I can see a half dozen 200 ton versions from where Iโ€™m standing now. At best the operator might hit the warning buzzer. And no, thereโ€™s no formal training requirements to use them.

permalink
report
parent
reply

The poster is alluding to other approaches to road safety. You can prevent fatal interactions through infrastructure and city design. Failing to do so and pinning it on everybody outside of a vehicle is absurd.

Of course, we all need to be mindful of dafety, no matter what form of transport. But our roads are designed and the dialog is set up so that all responsibility is focused on pedestrians and cyclists who arenโ€™t the ones in control of a potentially deadly machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Simple self preservation should lead you to the same conclusion. When it comes to safety, the squishiest one lose

Also, this is a dangerously devoid of any sense of responsibility. It sounds like what someone would say after blowing a red light and running someone over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The dead donโ€™t care about responsibility, and hence Iโ€™m not really commenting on it. Iโ€™m just saying itโ€™s not in your own best interest to rely on others for your own safety, when itโ€™s entirely possible to handle it yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I should be mindful of my own safety, yes, but also we should improve overall safety by having proper urbanism

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Because the driver is it immediate and instant control of the vehicle and should be expected to stop on a dime when someone runs in front of them while starting at their phone or looking at some stray cat thatโ€™s not on a leash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Human is also operating that crane. You wouldnโ€™t trust the operator AND the machine to work flawlessly enough to walk under the load

permalink
report
parent
reply

The stationary crane comparison doesnโ€™t carry over to dangerous machines in the context of transport.

The only proven way to make cycling and walking safe is by separating motor traffic from other modes of transport, by way of cycleways along main roads, and filtering minor roads to restrict through-motor-traffic.

When you have no such safe infrastructure and the entire dialog is โ€œbe careful around those dangerous carsโ€, then there is clearly a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Thatโ€™s not entirely the case that we put everything on pedestrians.

If a car drives over a family the driver is going to have a trial for manslaughter charges. The driver is liable for their injuries and they legally have to have insurance to cover that.

Cars need to get safety tested, need to be licensed, drivers need to be licensed, etc.

It would be difficult to kill someone on a bike or walking by comparison.

permalink
report
reply

Youโ€™d be shocked at how little traffic violence is treated as manslaughter. In Ontario, Canada, a lady only got a temporary driving suspension for driving through a group of girl guides at 120km/h in a school zone, killing one and injuring several others. The driver even denied responsibility in court.

The public dialog is still that pedestrians and cyclists need to be careful around cars with victim blaming when people are hit. When school starts, the kids better be careful. Where are all the signs and messaging around how drivers need to be careful? I constantly see drivers speeding and rolling stop signs in school zones but itโ€™s completely normalized and shrugged off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

That story was about an 80 year old woman who got the wrong pedal, she wasnโ€™t cruising at 120 just flying down the road. She shouldnโ€™t have been driving at all.

Youโ€™re not wrong though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What the fuck are the tests and license for if this person is able to obtain one. We need stricter testing and license requirements

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If a car drives over a family the driver is going to have a trial for manslaughter charges. The driver is liable for their injuries and they legally have to have insurance to cover that.

This rarely happens (at least, in Canada), from what Iโ€™ve seen in recent pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.

For starters, most are hit and runs, and often go unsolved.

When someone is caught, they almost never see a manslaughter charge. To add insult to injury, theyโ€™ll usually get a traffic violation and not a criminal charge. Failure to obey a road sign (even if that caused someone to die), for example.

And any consequences for actually killing someone tends to go with the lightest jail sentence you can imagine.

We had a truck driver kill sixteen people. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, but only served 3. Less than six months for every person killed. He would have gotten more if he hit someoneโ€™s mailbox.

Iโ€™ve heard of testimonies where people who have had their partner killed by a driver are not covered financially and any money that gets paid out goes to their insurance company, and not their family.

Being a pedestrian or cyclist in north america is incredibly high risk.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fuck Cars

!fuckcars@lemmy.ca

Create post

Your hub for collection of materials that contribute to a world with less car ownership. Including buses, motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, longboards, scooters, hoverboards, e-scooters, pedestrians, walking, running

Community can decide if: truck have a place here.

Matrix

Discord

Community stats

  • 324

    Monthly active users

  • 131

    Posts

  • 606

    Comments