The 14-year-old Florida girl who was involved in a recent incident is recovering.

I hate how car centric infrastructure makes walking out of your house and into a bus really dangerous.

  • brianary@lemmy.zip
    21·
    14 days ago

    Being avoidably late is the same level of concern for you as being killed?

    • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      14 days ago

      No, but nice strawman. Not every interaction with a bus while in a car means someone dies. It’s pretty rare. I just think buses could be ran better, more efficiently. Now, if you have the same position as the person with the longer comment, that people who drive cars need to be inconvenienced, that’s a whole other statement, and they made it better, despite making a shorter post than they intended (summarising their post).

      A similar strawman would be to say that for buses to exist, people have to be late for work and lose their jobs and either turn to crime or go on the streets. But as you can see, this false equivalency doesn’t really make any sense. It’s a pretty extreme situation. You’d say “just leave earlier” and tear it to shreds. But “just leave earlier” doesn’t always work — sometimes the buses do, too. They are not very reliable or predictable. And educating bus drivers to not cut off traffic would protect the lives you’re arguing to save. And letting people pass after each stop is just common courtesy. What’s wrong with that? Unless, see above, you’re making another point entirely.

      • brianary@lemmy.zip
        11·
        14 days ago

        No, those are the actual stakes being discussed. Not every time? That’s not what I said, so who is building strawmen?

        I’m not talking about buses, I’m talking about cars, which is where you started before you got called on it.

        This feels like coming from a very car centric mind set. The idea that a individual in their car should be able to get to point A to B without any change or obstruction. The idea that a person inconvenienced in their car is the worst sin comparable to the inconvenience to the walker or biker.

        As opposed to the complete opposite? Should someone be able to obstruct another’s passage without bearing any responsibility for the consequences of that person not reaching their destination on time?

        Literal victim blaming.

        What about a middle ground where everyone gets where they’re going safely? No one should be obstructing anyone.

        Both sides: a middle ground fallacy.

        Between two cars (to keep the argument more equitable), if I’m pulling out into a lane and I see a car coming, far enough away that I can safely get out and up to speed without obstructing them… but I know I’m going to be stopping several times… why wouldn’t I just let them go? That way, we both get to do what we need to do. Why would I need to mess with them? In a situation where I didn’t know they were coming, like say they came around a bend behind me, why wouldn’t I just let them go around me after the first stop? Stop, pick the person up, and then wave them around me. If I don’t know this person or have any grudge against them, why wouldn’t I?

        To make a completely different argument (where both parties share equitable risk and responsibility), you mean. The defining characteristic of this discussion is the asymmetric risk and responsibility. That’s the whole point you’re ignoring.

        Basic decency is all I’m asking, from all sides. The world is bad enough as it is. Why make things worse for someone when it gains you nothing tangible to do so?

        All I’m getting here is more victim blaming: get out of your way, they’re making you late, they deserved it. If that’s not your intent, that’s still how it sounds.