this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
115 points (97.5% liked)

Portland

968 readers
1 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The gist is that Portland drivers couldn't stop hitting crucial safety infrastructure (proving its necessity) so PBOT gave up on it.

As one of the commenters pointed out: Since a pedestrian/bike fatality costs PBOT nothing and replacing a concrete planter a car has demolished costs them more than nothing, to balance the budget they're going to go with more pedestrian deaths.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ingalls 56 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Frequent collisions show there needs to be more, not less.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It also shows that the layout of these calming devices was poorly designed. There are lots of ways to calm traffic without causing continual accidents

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

are they really accidents if they are predictable

[–] protist@mander.xyz -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, otherwise they'd call them intentions lol

No one's like "I'm going to ram into this giant concrete barrier now," they do it accidentally

Edit: I don't understand why this is so unpopular

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

No, they’re just like “let me check this text while I make this turn”

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

if u make shitty street designs, give driving licenses to people who shouldnt even operate a tricycle let alone a 2+ ton metal vehicle, let such people drive at reckless speed, sdont enforce traffic laws, and then put a concrete planter in the middle of the street that isnt an accident.

[–] trk@aussie.zone 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Imagine being so bad at driving that you can't avoid hitting a bright yellow concrete cylinder sitting in the middle of the road when you're doing 25kph.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They should just replace it with steel planter so they have to replace it less often

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Just fit them with IEDs and gradually eliminate the problem drivers

[–] Intrama@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago

Learn how to drive. Jfc.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

TLDR; They didn't actually expect them to work. Every time they get hit, they move and they require a crane or forklift to put back into position.

Perhaps they should double the weight of them so they're less likely to move when struck.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In the UK if you crash and cause damage to the road infrastructure then you need to pay to fix it. They should bring in that law in US…

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

But that would impede their freedom to destroy stuff because of their terrible driving

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago

If drivers couldn't stop hitting the planters, then the planters aren't the problem. But hey, at least Portland is accomodating to maniac drivers.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Alternative: recycle old, large pipeline and pour concrete between two different diameters of it. Should hold up better to being struck by idiots in vehicles

[–] femtech@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You need a real roundabout, not this half assed giant plat pot.

[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Not every intersection should or needs to be replaced by a roundabout, especially on local lane intersections where speeds are already supposed to be low. They take up more space, are more expensive to maintain (than a stop sign-controlled or uncontrolled intersection), and are also less convenient for bikers as well as cars.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

Stopping with 30 kph puts a pressure of over a metric ton via the seat belt on your body for a short time.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

We really need a higher standard for possessing a drivers licenses if people can't be trusted not to hit large, stationary objects on the regular... All of the forced incentive to drive in this country has made it into something people take for granted. It's easy to forget you're operating heavy machinery capable of high speeds.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure why the people who put these in didn't expect there to be lots of collisions. There's a reason why obstacles are generally not placed in the middle of the road...

[–] pacmondo@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They're usually placed in such a way to prevent people turning far too sharply risking hitting someone in the oncoming lane, usually near the crosswalk. If people are having trouble with this they're having trouble with pedestrians too

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think I understand what you're getting at but your terminology is backwards - what you're describing is a wide turn. The obstacle is actually making people turn very sharply. Maybe my sense of scale is off, but the intersection in the picture looks it might even force some larger vehicles to make a three-point-turn.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

From the look of these roads, there shouldn't be any vehicles so large they have to make a three-point-turn. If there are, then that's yet another indication these were needed.