this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
510 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

12899 readers
415 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 75 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Burton said the woman (...) didn’t see the flashing yellow lights — although they don’t require drivers to yield, either, according to state statute. Only flashing red lights require drivers to stop and yield to those walking and biking.

“There’s no signage that says that requires a driver to slow, stop, yield right of way — anything,”

Am I getting this right: yellow flashing lights at a crossing, presumably installed officially, are legally meaningless? Isn't putting them there an act of deliberately misleading pedestrians/cyclists then?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 59 points 5 days ago

It’s absolutely insane, that means it’s not a pedestrian crossing it’s a pedestrian trap to bait them into crossing where drivers can legally run them over.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (2 children)

There is a lot of malpractice going on in traffic engineering (I say as a person trained as a traffic engineer). In a sane world, the engineer of record would lose his license for this sort of shit.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's not an engineer thing that's a law thing.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Who do you think writes the MUTCD, deciding which signage and road markings carry the force of law and which don't (i.e. which are 'regulatory' and which are 'advisory')? Who do you think decides to use a particular type of signage and marking in a particular situation?

This was 100% on the engineer, who specified a design inappropriate for the situation.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

... If you think engineers make laws....

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

What he's saying is "the traffic engineers decided to use a flashing yellow indicator, which means nothing and carries no legal force, over a traditional stoplight or flashing red, which would require yielding." Intersections, like every mile of roadway, are designed and signed off on somewhere by some engineer.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

For the amusement of the rest of us, I'd love if you explained who you think writes building codes, electrical codes, municipal street codes, etc etc

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

Hmm hostility and wants an answer. Tell me how that goes in life.

[–] dickalan@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Do you have the air of a confidently incorrect Redditor garbage person?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] dickalan@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No u type response. Later chud. I will not be responding further. Thank you for proving my point

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Personal attack kind of responses, plural. Have a great day!

[–] PedestrianError@towns.gay 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

@A_norny_mousse @logicbomb Every state has some version of duty of care or expectation that a driver maintain control of their vehicle to avoid collisions. Passing stopped cars in two adjacent lanes before hitting the person crossing under a flashing yellow light is definitely an indication of negligence. There was clearly some traffic engineer negligence too, but if police/the DA wanted to at least put a mark on the driver's record for killing the victim, they absolutely could.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 13 points 5 days ago

A mark on the record for killing someone seems like a weak response.

They should lose their license and the intersection should be fixed.

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wouldnt matter, only a fucking moron would think the can demand priority/right of way. You wait for cars to stop, because if they dont, well, this happens. So many people think that being right is some kind of shield, its not. Being right will get you killed just as quickly as being wrong. Even when its a red light, if youre stepping out in front of a 2 tonne death machine, you make sure its stopped first.

[–] PedestrianError@towns.gay 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

@Bennyboybumberchums @A_norny_mousse Do you say this about motorists who are proceeding through an intersection with a green light when someone comes along speeding on the cross street, fails to stop, and t-bones them?

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yes I do. Priority/right of way is not taken, it is given. Had loads of fucking idiots speeding through shit they werent supposed to. LOOKING, saved my life on many occasions over my 30 years of driving. As I said, being right isnt a protective shield.