We live in a car cult with auto impunity. If you want to kill someone and get away with it, run them over.
On the other hand individuals often have no way to escape car dependency. The crimes of individuals are nothing compared to the unpunished crimes of the auto/oil cartels.
Honestly, there are now lots of eye tracking software that can be used to check if someone is looking where they're supposed to. I'm pretty sure it's going to be common in the near term as we're forced to look at ads...
Oh yeah, completely agree as long as it's done by the car with no telemetry or anything. When it comes to features like this my big worry is always privacy. The safety is a good thing.
What is it with this world that we protect car crimes so much like nothing else gets consistent protection in western countries. There is nothing blocking vision here no loose surfaces he could have seen them for a mile which only leaves the driver at fault even if unintentional you have a social responsibility for the safety of others when you're in public. It's pretty obvious he did something that negated this.
Riding with cameras is becoming as mandatory as a helmet these days
“[The evidence] just wasn't there. It's heartbreaking and it's unsatisfactory but it is where we are at right now,” she said to ABC15 in November after she told victims she wouldn’t file felony charges. “It's a collision where we cannot show with the evidence that there was a conscious disregard of a risk that this individual made.”
Why is it that someone can run into over a dozen cyclists, killing some, but also not have made a "conscious disregard of risk"? If it's true that the driver was not consciously disregarding risk, but we still got this outcome, it's absolutely true that the process for obtaining a permit for his vehicle and/or speeds is way too lenient.
One of the problems of car centric society is that the process for licensing almost has to be too lenient, because it causes major issues with people not being able to get around unless almost everybody can get a license, which means that regardless of safety, the bar has to be set low.
It's absolutely this. Let's say that you wanted to make sure this never happened again. You could use the Police playbook, "more training," "better roads," "more awareness," "people centric design,"an unlimited number of buzzwords. But the only solution that would help is fewer cars and fewer roads for them. Non-car infrastructure must be developed, and unfortunately it IS zero-sum as space is finite and valuable.
I was all ready to rant about the problem of new developments being built before public transport infrastructure, but I checked the map and there are two railway lines in the vicinity!
Excuse me? Over what, having to yield for 10 seconds to someone else? Fucking children.
Try living in an older section of my city, where all residential roads are all effectively narrower than these NIMBY childcare center candidates are whining about. Forget getting in a fight, yielding and learning how to negotiate with cars, bikes, peds, and muni vehicles is called life. If you get upset about it here you're clearly not a native to city life, and it shows.
Wow, that's some terminal right-wing privatization going on there. Government not only completely shirking its responsibility to build a public street, but even abdicating its authority to ensure that the developers it delegated the job to did it properly.
"However, council cannot force landowners to develop their property."
Asked if council could force developers to build two sides of a street, the spokesman said it could not.
Motherfucker, what part of "eminent domain" do you not understand?! Building a public street is exactly what that power is for!
That said, everyone involved also deserves a bitch-slap for their failure to comprehend the concept of one-way traffic circulation.
I'm Australian, and the photo clearly showing that you can park a car and get two cars past one another tells me that these "narrow streets" are substantially wider than all the normal streets in my vicinity.
I suspect this is more of a stroad (and planning) problem than an actual narrow street problem.
Clearly an "issue" which would be very obvious when prospective tenants view the buildings, so they should have all foreseen the issue and considered alternative transportation methods (or places to live) before moving in.
It is pretty funny that developers are being allowed to literally build half of a street, though.
Japan has car-supporting streets narrower than this and the residents have not much complaints, they just put one-way road signs and use smaller cars or bikes and everything just fits. Residents should've gotten a smaller car before moving in when they saw the size of the road.
Fuck Cars
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.