Originally Posted by
UniChris
If you're going to continue to insist on ignoring the facts, and throw up your hands emotionally when called on your falsehoods, then indeed, it's best you leave thread.
There was in fact a sidewalk in this location, but it was misused.
Crossing incorrectly between sidewalks and without looking is known to be dangerous. Doubly so on a bike. That's why they're the worst sort of bike routing - but if someone wants to to stop at each intersection and really look as required, that choice is already already there.
And that width you keep ignorantly demanding to eliminate? That width is exactly what keeps me safe on the bike - because it's precisely what lets me not be fighting the cars for the same space, while still being able to be through traffic and take advantage of the efficiency of the road's design, all while being a mutually visible enough part of the whole traffic flow that I can typically just by a riding a little or slower and changing my position appropriately work out the conflicts between driver's intentions and my own long before even reaching the intersection, rather than having to effectively stop to check and resolve conflict at each one.
These are the things you start to learn when you actually use a bike in practice, rather than just in theory.
Dude. I already said I agreed with you. You made your case. It took me a while. But, you convinced me. Per
Texas Law the child's death is perfectly acceptable & justified.
Human persons must break the law & scurry like animals to cross the street. That's how we do freedom, here. Whatever was I thinking?
All my talk about how tearing down a blighted urban lot & replacing/densifying it with say 4, $100,000 dollar units for a taxable land value of $400,000 to the city at a significantly lower personal cost (1/3rd) & no car dependency overhead; An interesting vibrant place with lots of human interaction, culture
& no life threatening risk to residents..All that pales to your assertion that a single structure of $300,000 on the edge of town, massive car dependency bills, at great individual personal cost (3x) and not enough tax base to cover the infrastructure when the replacement bills come due is
somehow the cheaper option. Man, I offered a whole lot of wasted breath. I apologize.
My efforts to strive for a city where killed children and crashed cars are not a necessary and acceptable consequence of car dependency caused by poor policy are obviously mis-guided and wrong. The math of financial solvency recreating a world where childrens death is unacceptable doesn't work because you said so. I am wrong & I now believe you.
I mean: Why would a city manager forgo a dense urban lot with 25% more taxable value when he can have a lot with 30% lower value and negative cash flow, great individual tax payer obligation & high cost infrastructure that sets people (SUV drivers) up for failure? It's a win-win if the city manager wants to keep the population disempowered & to cater to developers with someone else's money, right?
...And you're right. We need lots & lots of high speed wide multi lane straight roads with incredibly high design speeds to encourage as many drivers as possible to pass you at the highest possible speed while you enjoy your child's toy in the cars dedicated space. That's the only way to be safe. No, no. Not a lane for you. You don't like those. A super fast lane for cars with enough room to go around.
It's so simple.
Thank you for being patient & educating me.