- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
“If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer,” Nina Geneson Otis wrote in an email to The Standard. The real estate broker said daylighting is the kind of policy that makes Democrats lose elections.
Holy shit I want these people to suffer. No arguments or debates, these people just suck. I hope they step on a lego every day. Full weight right in the heel.
I came here to post the same quote. It made me want to gouge my eyes out. 😭
Others say the city’s actions remove responsibility from pedestrians to look out for their own safety. “A pedestrian can do anything, and be irresponsible, and no harm will come to them?” Brandi said, describing the policies as “idiot-proof.
Pedestrians are literally dying, but sure, no harm done.
“Pedestrians jaywalk, walk drunk or stoned,” said Richard Brandi, a historic preservationist who lives in West Portal. “Nothing is going to stop those accidents.”
Maybe not driving a car into them would stop those accidents?
Great, so since they’re drunk they deserve death. They deserved it because they were drunk. And looking at those two I’m sure they’ve never been drunk or stoned. Guaranteed if he was drunk and stumbling around and found himself in the street there would be some excuse for why a vehicle should have slowed down
Nothing, absolutely nothing, which is why there’s so many traffic deaths even in the supposedly safe countries like the Netherlands… Oh wait there’s 0? Well, I guess they just have a bike culture there!
The San Francisco Standard is a neoliberal rag by a tech venture capital billionaire, so I’m not surprised. It cranks out garbage pushing the agenda of the wealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_San_Francisco_Standard
Then why is this headline weirdly biased to sound like all the community members are blaming pedestrians, instead of that only being two quotes from a more nuanced conversation?
Still, some think safety measures do more to inconvenience motorists than to protect pedestrians.
Oh no, wouldn’t want to be inconvenient to motorist.
Do you know what else is really inconvenient? Death. Tends to mess with your plans.
Of course they’re boomers. Car brained and survival bias in two forms there
Pale skinned boomers to be exact.
Sometimes I forget how stupid humans are.
No unfortunately I think about it every day.
Is he wearing a cardigan/hoodie over his jacket? There might be something off with his judgement…
He’s got the look of someone who goes to every single town hall, council or what ever meetings to complain about children.
Why are these two standing right in the centre of what looks to be a road?! Get off the road stupid pedestrians, you’re asking to get run over. /s
How long until we just have people demanding people drive everywhere for “safety”?
About -30 years
That’s already the common mentality.
