I hate how car centric infrastructure makes walking out of your house and into a bus really dangerous.
Attempting an illegal maneuver? That driver completely lost control over their car. Trying to pass a bus on the right side, driving over the grass at high speed. That’s a bit more than “attempting an illegal maneuver”. That driver should lose their license and never get it back. Someone capable of such deranged decisions should not be driving.
Quiz: What is wrong with this picture?
- No sidewalks or pedestrian infrastructure
- That car is attempting an illegal maneuver because they think they’re so much more important than literally everyone else
- No public transportation forcing people to drive thus making people who should not be operating a vehicle (most people) to do so
- Due to being a suburb theres a severe lack of density causing less people being around and the driver to be paying less attention
Conclusion: Fuck cars and fuck suburbs
As a European I visited the USA a couple of times in the past. (NEVER when that traitorous malevolent megalomaniacal mango mussolini was in charge), I always noticed the sheer amount of seriously lacking drivers. Or poorly maintained cars (and roads).
What’s up with that? How can you let such incredulously bad drivers loose on the road?
The answer is simple, generally speaking in the US unless you live in NYC or Chicago (along with certain parts of Philadelphia or Boston) you have no other choice but to drive a car, if someone sucks at driving a car thats everyone elses problem. As for the infrastructure its because we simply cannot be bothered to maintain it because our gov would rather spend all the money bombing children and torturing civilians.
we need to bomb children to siphon up oil to power the cars that we need because we don’t invest in infrastructure because we need to bomb childreo te siphon up oil to…
(the root problem is an economic system that relies entirely on there being things under the dirt that mean some people are rich and other people do work so that some people are rich)
Green shirt sure wasn’t in any hurry.
My family was recently rear ended right at a school bus stop. We were stopped to make a left. The person behind us took a good minute to reach us and the road is basically straight. I don’t understand what the thinking is or what for this person to be moving a 3000lb vehicle without looking forward. I just don’t want them allowed to be on the road when my kids use that bus stop to go to school.
The person got a “tail gating” ticket. The dumb cop didn’t even ask any details. I took two simple photos… One where our van stopped and another where it started. I calculated the other car running at 45mph on a 30mph zone… Without looking at where it was going. Geez!
“You’re not more important. Your job isn’t more important. Nobody is more important than that innocent student trying to get to school,” Lori Masters, Abby’s grandmother, said.
Couldn’t agree more. I just wish school buses wouldn’t pull out in front of traffic and then proceed to stop at every single house on the block. If they let people just go on by and either had all the kids get on at one house per block and let traffic by after each stop, I bet things like this would happen a lot less.
I mean, if someone cut you off and kept brake checking you, would they be less wrong if they had kids in their car? I think it makes them more wrong. Buses can and should contribute to safety, not take away from it.
School buses are pretty much non-existent in my country (except in a few situations).
Because there’s good infrastructure, it’s easy to go by bike or take public transportation. And parents generally have the time to take their kids to school and pick them up, because they’re not working 12 hours a day.
This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.
As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?
What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.
Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?
Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?
Because traffic isn’t going to get any better if we prioritize the needs of single person vehicles over public transit. There just isn’t a way to state it better then that.
Cars need to be inconvenienced. Someone needs to have a pretty good reason to pick it over a public transit option.
As it stands by putting cars first above people (which is where the sin of inconvenience puts us) it in the end makes everything worse for everyone. By not allowing any inconvenience for cars, it paradoxical makes everything inconvenient with laws and structure that focuses on the individual. I’d put my studies up but they are on my computer and not on my phone.
But in short, it is not a question of everyone getting what they want. Because if cars get what they want then by default everyone else can’t get what they want. Because the needs of individual flies in the face of the need for the rest of the people to get where they are going on time. This has proven to be fact time and time again.
If you can wait, I can post all my material when make it back to my computer on Tuesday.
Cars need to be inconvenienced. Someone needs to have a pretty good reason to pick it over a public transit option.
Public transportation doesn’t go where I need. It doesn’t go to my home or to my work. There may be one stop between my home and my job, so there’s no point in me walking to the bus stop because the bus, when it does arrive, will only carry me further from either point. So my pretty good reason is, I like to be able to pay my bills and put food on my table.
100% agree that we need better public transit.
Being avoidably late is the same level of concern for you as being killed?
No, but nice strawman. Not every interaction with a bus while in a car means someone dies. It’s pretty rare. I just think buses could be ran better, more efficiently. Now, if you have the same position as the person with the longer comment, that people who drive cars need to be inconvenienced, that’s a whole other statement, and they made it better, despite making a shorter post than they intended (summarising their post).
A similar strawman would be to say that for buses to exist, people have to be late for work and lose their jobs and either turn to crime or go on the streets. But as you can see, this false equivalency doesn’t really make any sense. It’s a pretty extreme situation. You’d say “just leave earlier” and tear it to shreds. But “just leave earlier” doesn’t always work — sometimes the buses do, too. They are not very reliable or predictable. And educating bus drivers to not cut off traffic would protect the lives you’re arguing to save. And letting people pass after each stop is just common courtesy. What’s wrong with that? Unless, see above, you’re making another point entirely.
No, those are the actual stakes being discussed. Not every time? That’s not what I said, so who is building strawmen?
I’m not talking about buses, I’m talking about cars, which is where you started before you got called on it.
This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.
As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?
Literal victim blaming.
What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.
Both sides: a middle ground fallacy.
Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?
To make a completely different argument (where both parties share equitable risk and responsibility), you mean. The defining characteristic of this discussion is the asymmetric risk and responsibility. That’s the whole point you’re ignoring.
Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?
All I’m getting here is more victim blaming: get out of your way, they’re making you late, they deserved it. If that’s not your intent, that’s still how it sounds.
deleted by creator
STOP THE FUCKING CAR! Your time is NOT more important than those children. You need to leave earlier or just stay the fuck off the streets if you can’t be bothered to respect the little people!
When I was kid, the bus stopped at every house because the road was absolutely unsafe for children to walk down. It would have been better if they could have consolidated a little, but it would have been unsafe because of the cars.
Fuck cars.
Fuck the car infrastructure.
Bike lanes accessable to the buses and also just bike lanes in general would be more useful.
Bike lanes accessable to the buses
That is an absolutely terrible idea.
Why? When the bus needs to stop and pick up the kids they can temporarily block the bike lane to pick up the kids. The cars will still have to stop for the bus but it takes the loading and unloading out of direct traffic flow.
How about having an actual bus stop for the bus?
You know what’s more dangerous for cyclists than traffic zooming by on an unprotected bike lane? Giant busses with limited visibility swerving in and out of that lane.
You guys keep replying to me like I don’t already know all of this. Doesn’t change the fact that right now there isn’t bike infrastructure or bus infrastructure at all. Right now cyclists and children waiting for the bus have nothing. I’m proposing something. Do I think it’s the perfect solution? No. Do I think it would be an improvement for this situation? Yes.
I think what we’re trying to say is that your suggestion is not an improvement. It increases risks to cyclists, doesn’t protect pedestrians, and only serves to improve car throughput which is not a priority.
Enforcement and heavy penalties for breaking what is already the law would be good, as would be a dedicated bus lane, protected sidewalks, installing speed governors on all vehicles limiting them to 30kph… there are lots of options that would clearly improve safety, and you’re advocating for the one that doesn’t help anyone but selfish drivers.
And their child victims. We keep skipping right over those. Y’all keep making perfect the enemy of better.
It’s very much in the direct traffic flow of bikes, is it not? They then have to pass onto the street with cars or wait.
For 5-10 minutes two times a day the lane would be blocked, but both directions of traffic would be obligated to stop. You can wait 5 to 10 minutes if you think vehicle traffic won’t stop. That doesn’t seem terrible. Many places with dedicated bike lanes allow emergency vehicles to use the bike lanes because it’s more quickly cleared and safer for everyone bikers included.
For 5-10 minutes two times a day the lane would be blocked, but both directions of traffic would be obligated to stop. You can wait 5 to 10 minutes
How does this not already apply to cars?
The cars will still have to stop for the bus but it takes the loading and unloading out of direct traffic flow.
As I see it, you want to make it easier for people to illegally pass school busses when they stop to pick kids up. Having the bus move out of the way will just encourage more people to try to pass them.
How does this not already apply to cars?
Do you not see a difference between getting hit by a bike accidentally vs being hit by a car accidentally? Because it seems like you’ve forgotten what I’m talking about.
As I see it, you want to make it easier for people to illegally pass school busses when they stop to pick kids up. Having the bus move out of the way will just encourage more people to try to pass them.
As I see it you’re making perfect the enemy of better. I also say fuck cars, and part of that is the understanding that cars will avoid doing what is expected of them in favor of what is easier for the driver. In this case it’s hitting children instead of paying attention and following the signals. I’m focused on fixing the problem, not making a perfect and fair world.
