this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
1098 points (99.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

12210 readers
1738 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
 

The tables on the road were only there for the inauguration day, but bike lane is here to stay.

https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/1596032/article/2025-06-14/lomme-apaise-securise-et-cyclable-le-bourg-renove-prefigure-l-avenue-de

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Is a pedestrian expected to be aware of car drivers on the side walk?

Is a car driver expected to be aware of pedestrians on the highway?

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes, and also yes. personal responsibility for your own safety doesn't magically disappear because of paint on the ground.

Responsibility for the machine you're operating that can harm others doesn't magically disappear when it weighs less.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

To be honest, it's a wrong argument anyways. The cyclist was aware of the pedestrian on the bike lane and he stopped in time. So the whole argument doesn't matter.

The actual point is whether the pedestrian was in the right to wander onto the bike lane, completely oblivious to his surroundings.

[–] wabasso@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

It’s by momentum. The greater the momentum the greater the responsibility.

Edit: To actually respond to your examples:

  1. No. It is the responsibility of the high mv cars not to enter the sidewalk, or to be incredibly cautious if they must.

  2. Yes. It is the responsibility of the high mv car to look far enough ahead to respond to low mv (or rather high delay v) obstacles ahead. If this sounds impractical, the design of highways and the illegality of a pedestrian entering one makes unavoidable incidents of car-hitting-pedestrian-on-highway low enough to be practical.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, let's put it differently: In the story we are talking about

  • A cyclist was aware of the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane
  • A pedestrian was unaware of the fact that he was on the biking lane
  • The cyclist managed to stop safely before the pedestrian
  • The cyclist got angry for the pedestrian not caring about whether he was allowed to walk where he did
  • The pedestrian felt so justified in walking on the cycling lane that he considered throwing the bike off the river

So what's your point? The cyclist shouldn't have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?

The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren't and neither should they be.

If a driver shouldn't need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?

You can't have it both ways.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

You fail to recognize that everyone can be wrong at the same time.