Yeah, in general. Cars are not allowed to drive on sidewalks under most if not all circumstances. The point is that e-scooters have their restrictions for a reason, regardless of any whataboutism relating to cars. We want walkable cites, not e-scootable.
No clue what that street sigh means, but I guess it’s supposed to signify a shared space?
They’re not supposed to do a lot of things, and yet they do all of those things. They speed, they overtake dangerously, they kill pedestrians and cyclists, they kill or injure other motorists.
“But there’s a rule against it” doesn’t resolve problems like all the pedestrian and cycling deaths that we seem to accept as a needful sacrifice to keep bad transport infra and as-is. There are also rules against scooters operating dangerously. I’m not sure why bigger, heavier, more-powerful vehicles ought not to be subject to similar kinds of controls scooters are
The point is that e-scooters have their restrictions for a reason, regardless of any whataboutism relating to cars.
I mean if sneezing at running speed of physically unfit person is so terrible, then why the fuck cars are not hardlimited to 10 km/h?
No clue what that street sigh means, but I guess it’s supposed to signify a shared space?
Kinda (article from where I took sign). Here it means transit traffic(driving through) is not allowed, speed is limited to walking speed(which in my country defined as 20km/h) and vehicles should yield to any pedestrians. Usually it is placed around micro-district where internal roads are connected to two or more city highways.
Only at specific points where a car crossing a sidewalk is expected, such as a turn in to a driveway, or an active emergency that would require the car to cross onto the pavement. Drivers can’t just yeet themselves across the pavement for no reason.
I mean if sneezing at running speed of physically unfit person is so terrible, then why the fuck cars are not hardlimited to 10 km/h?
Because drivers have to go though training and always have the potential of having their license revoked. Not anyone can just walk up to a car dealership and walk out with a car and no understanding of road law. Divers can just be trusted more than people using other modes of transport, which is why they get to move faster.
And again, whataboutism. Being the lesser of two evils is not the same as being acceptable.
In denser commerical areas, up to and even exceeding 50% of the sidewalk space can be driveways and entrance ways for cars. Add that many of this style of road can be 4+ lanes and 60+ km/h traffic. There is a lot of potential conflict areas, drivers often enter these driveways exceeding speeds safe for pedestrianized areas and these roads are designed for drivers to see other cars, not notice pedestrians.
As for trusting drivers due to their “training” most drivers are taught once while they are a teenager/young adult, pass some short practical tests (maybe 1 hour total time of testing) and are now trusted for a lifetime of driving. They never get retested despite change in driving laws, car technology, changes to their physicsl or mental health, or time since their last test. Driving infractions are paid off by monetary fines and not dealt with by mandated retraining courses.
The existence of a driver’s lisence as proof of a safe driver means very little to the cyclist who got hit by a right turning vehicle thhat vehicle did not check their mirrors for a clear bicycle gutter.
One of these share footpaths with pedestrians. The other two have to use their own dedicated pathways.
And also speed restrictions.
E-scooters shouldn’t be sharing the footpath, they should be in the cycle lane with other similar vehicles.
If they exist. I took a multi mile bike ride today and aside from the occasional bike gutter there were none
Oh, really?
Yeah, in general. Cars are not allowed to drive on sidewalks under most if not all circumstances. The point is that e-scooters have their restrictions for a reason, regardless of any whataboutism relating to cars. We want walkable cites, not e-scootable.
No clue what that street sigh means, but I guess it’s supposed to signify a shared space?
Speak for yourself. I want cities that are not dependent on cars. Walkable is the ideal, but cycling and scooting is an upgrade from cars.
They’re not supposed to do a lot of things, and yet they do all of those things. They speed, they overtake dangerously, they kill pedestrians and cyclists, they kill or injure other motorists.
“But there’s a rule against it” doesn’t resolve problems like all the pedestrian and cycling deaths that we seem to accept as a needful sacrifice to keep bad transport infra and as-is. There are also rules against scooters operating dangerously. I’m not sure why bigger, heavier, more-powerful vehicles ought not to be subject to similar kinds of controls scooters are
Not all. All cars can drive across sidewalk.
I mean if sneezing at running speed of physically unfit person is so terrible, then why the fuck cars are not hardlimited to 10 km/h?
Kinda (article from where I took sign). Here it means transit traffic(driving through) is not allowed, speed is limited to walking speed(which in my country defined as 20km/h) and vehicles should yield to any pedestrians. Usually it is placed around micro-district where internal roads are connected to two or more city highways.
Only at specific points where a car crossing a sidewalk is expected, such as a turn in to a driveway, or an active emergency that would require the car to cross onto the pavement. Drivers can’t just yeet themselves across the pavement for no reason.
Because drivers have to go though training and always have the potential of having their license revoked. Not anyone can just walk up to a car dealership and walk out with a car and no understanding of road law. Divers can just be trusted more than people using other modes of transport, which is why they get to move faster.
And again, whataboutism. Being the lesser of two evils is not the same as being acceptable.
In denser commerical areas, up to and even exceeding 50% of the sidewalk space can be driveways and entrance ways for cars. Add that many of this style of road can be 4+ lanes and 60+ km/h traffic. There is a lot of potential conflict areas, drivers often enter these driveways exceeding speeds safe for pedestrianized areas and these roads are designed for drivers to see other cars, not notice pedestrians.
As for trusting drivers due to their “training” most drivers are taught once while they are a teenager/young adult, pass some short practical tests (maybe 1 hour total time of testing) and are now trusted for a lifetime of driving. They never get retested despite change in driving laws, car technology, changes to their physicsl or mental health, or time since their last test. Driving infractions are paid off by monetary fines and not dealt with by mandated retraining courses.
The existence of a driver’s lisence as proof of a safe driver means very little to the cyclist who got hit by a right turning vehicle thhat vehicle did not check their mirrors for a clear bicycle gutter.
They shouldn’t, but they do.
More like they ban pedestrians from their pathways.