They think protecting drivers cars from scratches is more important than protecting pedestrians from getting hit, so they make the sidewalk part of the “clear zone”
Physical design is not neutral.
Physical design is an expression of our values.
They think protecting drivers cars from scratches is more important than protecting pedestrians from getting hit, so they make the sidewalk part of the “clear zone”
Physical design is not neutral.
Physical design is an expression of our values.
Banning driving under influence and enforcing speed limits would be a better and quicker fix if you ask me. If a car driver can’t behave they should take away their car.
Barriers really shouldn’t be necessary on local roads.
This sort of punitive approach is generally less helpful in actually making things safer.
It is important to not cast motorists, even those who make poor choices, as “bad people”. They are just people, living in the world as best they can in the best way they know how.
Meanwhile, draconian measures which apply severe penalties to commonplace infractions tend to not work. (An aside: losing one’s license in an auto-dependent area is draconian, as it typically means losing huge amounts of one’s time, work opportunities, and social life.) Consistently, criminal justice research has shown that the severity of the penalty for breaking a law has a much lower impact on keeping people law abiding than simply increasing the public’s perception of adequate enforcement. A thief will hold up a liquor store at about the same rate whether the punishment is a $20 fine or the death penalty, since they just assume they won’t get caught. But they are much less likely to rob a liquor store when there is a cop standing on the street corner.
Increasing enforcement comes with its own problems however - like the increased cost of police presence and the potential for profiling individuals during traffic stops.
And finally, this sort of concept is a political non-starter. If you live in an auto oriented area like the one pictured, most people drive, and almost all of them will break the laws you’ve mentioned at least some of the time. Whatever politician floats this idea will be out on their ass almost before the words have left their mouth.
All these reasons are why urbanists emphasize infrastructure over enforcement.
Enforcement assumes humans are either perfect or evil. Infrastructure assumes humans are fallible.
Enforcement must be constantly paid to stand guard. Infrastructure must be built once, then has minimal maintenance costs.
Enforcement punishes those who get caught. Infrastructure prevents tragedies from happening in the first place.
Enforcement solidifies the auto oriented paradigm. Infrastructure subverts it.
Enforcement is a political lightning rod. Infrastructure is a political crowd pleaser.
Even a sober driver obeying the limit could collide with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The driver could have a medical emergency and lose control, the vehicle could break down and lose control.