For the record, this is about preventing accidents, not “terrorism.” (If nothing else, you can tell by the fact that the other sides of the pedestrian platform aren’t protected.)
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me. Tone it down next time, please.
We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me.
Usually this is just an indicator that you aren’t actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn’t realize you were doing it.
Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it’s a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It’s usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It’s a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.
And on that count… It should be “crash”, not “accident”. “Accident” partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
Alright, back into my pedantist cage.
And on that count… It should be “crash”, not “accident”. “Accident” partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
I often make that point myself, but in this particular instance I chose “accident” deliberately in order to emphasize the lack of malicious intent.
Anyway, it can be a fine line between shifting the Overton Window and destroying your credibility, and IMO this was just on the wrong side of it. I’m not unsympathetic to the strategy of hyperbolic rhetoric you’re talking about (which is why you’ll notice I didn’t remove the post or demand OP actually change the title); I’m just trying to dial it back a tad. Besides, IMO we shouldn’t cheapen the word “terrorism” because then it loses its impact when we use it to describe when drivers actually do engage in violence against cyclists/pedestrians deliberately.
I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can’t really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.
We should stop car terrorism the same way we stop other terrorism. With a ‘targeted’ campaign of airstrikes that hit not just the car terrorists but car civilians and car women and children too.
Trees are great for that too, and it has added benefits like another patch that is no longer impermeable, helps manage storm water, filter rainwater into the aquifer, lowers flood risks, provide shade against heat. It is also an habitat for plants, insects, birds, and small animals, while also improving air quality by absorbing pollutants and providing a natural sound barriers, reducing noise pollution and stress levels related to it.
I’ll disagree with that one for this use case. Usually trees are a great answer, but we’re looking for something that can reliably protect people’s lives while maintaining good sight lines. A tree is not enough.
Down with the empty patches of grass and up with the masses of trees and bushes!! Here here!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a heavy object, is a good guy with a heavy object.
Big steel spikes around every sidewalk
Equal and opposite reaction rings true in all kinds of ways.
Do you really expect me to say that on camera? /hard cut
Been saying it for years, and starting to feel like I’m going insane. How in the fuck have so many municipalities around the world, especially those concerned with vehicle-based terrorist attacks on pedestrians, not settled on bollards? If it works for embassies, military bases, and other sensitive sites, why not exclusively vehicle-free areas?
In Oslo in Norway there’s these really big and heavy cast iron flower pots. Wish more places used something like this. Something that’s also pretty or serves some other purpose.
That’s a really great idea, utilitarian and smells nice.
Karl Johan jumpscare
(It’s always interesting when you randomly see a place you live in get posted, it feels so strange)
Det er så jævlig rart å se folk fra Norge på Lemmy.
Especially since there’s like 34 people living in Norway and only one of us has heard of Lemmy. So I guess one of us is faking it and is actually just Swedish.
Vel, om bare en av oss kan fortsette som nordmann og den andre bli dømt til å være svensk…
But yeah, I get you, it is a bit funky ^^
people in Nordic countries (and places like the Netherlands) do tend to be vastly overrepresented in the English internet, however
not settled on bollards?
I remember, maybe last year, there was city “debate” over installing bollards at intersections to protect cyclists and pedestrians. From what I recall, NIMBYs pushed HARD against the idea, saying it was “confusing” and “dangerous” for motorists…
Anything to save lives or improve safety tends to be an automatic “NO!” in most places because of NIMBYs.
That’s why certain safety projects should just move forward without public input.
You’re giving me flashbacks to the implementation of traffic roundabouts in my country. They’ve been used for a long, long time all over the world with minimal complication, but people were talking as though the cities were reinventing the fucking wheel. Long story short, they got installed anyways and work fine - much ado about nothing lol
installed anyways and work fine - much ado about nothing lol
most conservative pushback goes like that. “This change is scary and bad!” -> change is good, actually. Often, the conservatives will then fight to defend against the thing they fought against before. It’s just kneejerk emotions.
Too true, they’re easy as pie, and not so tricky as a pedestrian either (the queuing feels off because of the way that cars don’t automatically come to a stop at a red light).
I’m so thrilled right now that we’ve gotten a bunch of bollards installed in my neighborhood, even in some places to cordon off entire blocks or direct traffic only for right turns. It’s possible that I’m noticing the benefit more than someone who isn’t as enthusiastic about this stuff as I am but it just feels like it lightens the whole mood and comfort level of the area.
There have been some neighbourhoods in my city where the ends of entire blocks have been redone to physically prevent access by cars. Not so simple as bollards, but running the sidewalk straight across what used to be the sidewalk and installing either giant planters or other barriers has worked well. It’s a bit of a pain in the ass where one-way streets already complicate non-pedestrian access, but it’s better that way IMO, as these are all residential streets anyways. Whoever was mad about it decades ago has been long forgotten by the birds bopping around, and kids playing in the street.
Republican stranglehold on finances makes bollards price prohibitive.
They also have issues with how it would interfere with running over protesters
Also NIMBYism because “they look ugly”.
A bollard in every pot, I say.
They have in some places. Most large events inside german cities have bollards now in my experience.
Glad to hear it, it’s such a simple solution to such a serious problem.
I’m hitting a language barrier here (this was not meant to be a ballad joke but take it as you want).
I had never heard that word. I looked up images and it seem like there are two kinds: the kind that is fixed on the sidewalk, and the kind that pops up in the middle of the road. To which you are referring to?
I’m not quite sure where your confusion comes from, but a bollard is just a sturdy post. For the purposes of forming a barrier against heavy vehicles they’d be fixed in place and usually relatively strong.
There’s different kinds. some are weaker/lighter and just meant to make it difficult to accidentally drive into a pedestrian area, basically the same function as a curb but a little stronger or where you don’t want a step up/down for the pedestrians. Others are quite able to stop even heavy trucks.
The other kind you mentioned are probably rising bollards, meant to function as gates or to allow only certain types of vehicles (often buses) to pass.
You should probably assume somebody is talking about fixed bollards unless they explicitly mention retractable.
Thanks
Understandable, some of the sites I’m describing have a combination of more than one you’re talking about.
Bollards are the sidewalk kind, all metal or short metal-cored concrete poles, optionally also used to protect building corners and natural gas meters on properties with vehicle traffic. The kind that pops up in the middle of roads is a security barrier, which I think are hydraulic and rise to wholly block even heavy vehicles up-to-and-including heavy trucks.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider this in urban design but I’ve seen a number of cycling schemes be ruined because of the advice that no gap greater than 1.5m can be left to prevent this sort of attack.
I can’t help but feel we shouldn’t be accept living in a fortress in order to avoid universal access to machines that can cause such damage.
I’ve seen a number of cycling schemes be ruined because of the advice that no gap greater than 1.5m can be left
Ruined in what way? Could you post a picture or something? I’m having trouble imagining it.
This one comes to mind https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-city-centre-cycle-scheme-24598715
Been a while since I looked but my understanding is that 1.5m max widths excludes best practice to allow cargo bikes and accessible bikes movement.
Even Seattle has this problem to this day.
In a 2,100-word, emoji-filled email blast (that’s about three times the length of this post!) announcing a compromise that will keep a traffic safety divider in place while allowing cars to park in the bus lane on Delridge Way SW, City Councilmember Rob Saka blamed a “radical proxy ‘war on cars’” for demonizing his efforts to remove the divider. The barrier, a standard-issue hardened centerline identical to hundreds installed around the city, was installed as part of Metro’s RapidRide H project.
[…]
Saka has consistently portrayed the lack of left-turn car access into the small preschool as an issue of racial and social justice, and his newsletter doubles down on that canard, accusing people who oppose eliminating the divider of “targeting the very immigrant families they claim to support” by denying cars from turning left into the parking lot.
We just got one of these installed and it’s amazing. This was one of the most dangerous sections of road, with a hockey rink on one side and parking on the other so frequent pedestrian crossings. However people impatient with waiting would blast though on the wrong side of the street to get into the turn lane, endangering pretty much everyone. That can’t happen anymore. Too early to see stats though
If two of them weren’t trying to hail the cab they all would’ve been fine.
These are also effective
bollards in the UK are literally just cannons filled with concrete and capped with a cannonball so i don’t see why you couldn’t do the same with a rocket launcher
Some old bollards and mooring posts, mostly in London, are old cannons, just to be pedantic! You can find them if you know what to look for, but London alone has 60,000+ streets and it’s not like no new bollards have been installed since the Napoleonic wars.
Here’s an image from Living London History’s Facebook page for the curious:
Huh, that’s close to one of Melbourne’s older tram stop designs (slowly being phased out and replaced with accessible platform stops).
– wongmUhh. Wouldn’t the terrorist just swerve around it and hit them anyways…?
This is clearly for accidents dude, the hell kinda stretching you doing here?
Since 1931, technology has evolved from big rock, to big retractable pole.
For YOUR image, of course bollards are used, but you see how in your image they COMPLETELY block access? And in how OPs picture you can swerve around? The ad is for fucking accidents lmfao.
Totally different scenarios mate.
OK, fixed it.
It’s just for different scenarios. Complete bollards are used for terrorist scenarios, while OPs is used for accidents.
People are apparently too focused on their bias to comprehend that… different scenarios exist with different solutions. Don’t conflate them because you have an axe to grind.
I think cars are pretty terrifying most of the time. And that’s the point. We’re supposed to be terrified to use the roads, because we might be run over. That’s terrorism. They even told us it’s our own fault when we die, because using the roads is “jaywalking”.
I bet they said the same shit too “I understand you dont like this and want to protest it, but you inconvenienced me and therefore are wrong!”
