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.

  • blarghly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I feel like getting hit by a car is a bigger hazard than choosing to walk/bike down a hill.

    • cravl@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

    • huppakee@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      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

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Right. It’s the cars. But as long as the cars are there, a barrier is a good quick fix

        • huppakee@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.