Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 08:48 PM Jan 2014

On pedestrian safety, it appears that no change is desired that pertains to cars or driving rules

or changes to intersections or signaling.

the sum total of the reaction is that pedestrian fatalities are on the driver and pedestrian.

for most. no changes involving engineering, or rules, or slowing traffic are desired. there is a minority who believe that we should bring our powers of engineering and regulation to address this problem.

i don't post this to complain, it is what it is.

i post with the honest question:

is that really a forward thinking to an ongoing problem? that we just rule out of hand, certain improvements or changes in traffic design, in intersection design or safety?

we are talking about pedestrian fatalities. with many problems, the community is open to solutions (climate change, poverty, health care, etc.).

i'm guessing we are open to those things, but i'm wondering why there is apparent hostility to this issue of pedestrian safety.

is it simply because people don't want anything done that might make them stop more often or slow down?

maybe that's it. i'm interested in knowing because on this topic, the response is usually overwhelmingly against pedestrian safety measures, even though walking is environmentally friendly, it's something poor people and the elderly often rely on.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On pedestrian safety, it ...