|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1578326) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jun 16 08:10:27 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:43:52 2021. I don’t see how waiting at a don’t walk sign is an inconvenience for a pedestrian. You make it seem like everyone can walk infinitely non stop. Many need to rest and the don’t walk sign is the perfect opportunity.Waiting when you are ready to move is an inconvenience. It's practically the definition of an inconvenience. Most people at most crosswalks clearly are not happy to be waiting there, which is why a parent teaching their child to wait for the walk sign will have to explain pretty much every time why nobody else is waiting. Pedestrians aren’t allowed on freeways, but cars are not allowed in many parks like Central Park and Prospect Park. So we are even. I used to enjoy driving through those parks when the leaves were changing color. But the city decreed you can only enjoy them on foot or on a bicycle. I agree that parks are the opposite of freeways in that regard, for those fortunate enough to be near one or be able to use one along their route. I don't call it even though. Errand destinations are rarely found within the park, although yes, walking through the park can sometimes be helpful. For every parking lot that a pedestrian needs to cross to get to a building that's offset from the street, and everything else a pedestrian goes through for the sake of cars moving along more quickly, the handful of parks that sometimes shorten walking distances doesn't compare. When do pedestrians ever have to wait two cycles to cross a street? Cars have to often. I was reacting to the implication earlier in this thread that somehow helping pedestrians get across streets like Grand Concourse and Queens Blvd in one cycle was a bad thing. |
|
|
|