A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
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:
"It has been dubbed Britain's 'most woke' roundabout because drivers must give priority to pedestrians, then cyclists, and then other cars and lorries before continuing on themselves. Locals have pointed out the priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unnecessary as only cars and lorries regularly use the Boundary Way route."
I don’t get it. It’s just a regular roundabout with zebra crossings.
Regular roundabouts don't give pedestrian or cyclist crossings priority.
* I'm talking of the UK, that's what the article is about. People seem confused.
In Canada pedestrians always have the right of way
Cyclists are seen as vehicles though
They do not "always" have right of way. You don't have right of way over a train, for example. Or against a signal. Or when a car has limited visibility. Lots of cases.
A person crossing against a signal or jaywalking still has right of way
Trains are usually on train tracks not roads so they don’t fall under the rules of the road
So if that time some Canadians were driving 2 locomotives on the street, if one hit someone at a crosswalk, who would be liable?
The train car as it would be treated as a vehicle
Not in Fake Kingston, Ontario.
We even have signs that say "pedestrians yield to vehicles" around town.
As that would be a bylaw it wouldn’t matter in a criminal case, only a civil one
I don't know what to tell you, Kingston adopted vision zero in 2019, and deaths have gone up since.
No criminal, civil, or highway traffic act charges are ever laid against drivers. Including for a driver that plowed through a child in a school zone cross walk infront of a school.
Traffic infractions are never criminal.
A car hitting a person is criminal and the car having right of way based on the sign wouldn’t be a defence
And cyclists see themselves as whatever is most convenient to them
You mean whatever keeps them alive.
Depending on the county, the road planners do as well
As they should, car trash like to kill them for fun.
They do in my country, and i can only recommend it to the rest of the world tbh.
They do give pedestrians priority. The law changed on that.
I realise these are tiger crossings btw