• WldFyre@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lol how is that your takeaway from what they said? They clearly meant it in the opposite way smh

      This community has some of the dumbest takes bolstered by “righteous fury,” it’s like being in church all over again

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lol what? It’s a safety issue FOR THE PEDESTRIAN

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Obviously cars are more dangerous than human bodies. We all acknowledge that.

          The point is the space is already designated for cars. That should change, sure, but for today, that’s how it is.

          So a human on the proverbial train tracks is the one in danger. It’s not a safety issue for the car, but the person. Which was my point that you are trying to dodge.

          Also not sure what the ma’am was for, were you suggesting something?

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Probably best as you closed your last with a potentially gendered insult and didn’t clarify.

              Back on point: it’s not victim blaming when someone uses an existing system definitively wrong. If you sunbathe on a train track and get run over, you are the only one to blame.

              A more interesting topic for this community would be how to remap the traditional US suburb to establish more safe space for pedestrians, specifically how sidewalks out front of existing properties could take up some of the pavement, with traffic calming measures, and dedicated bike lanes.