Comment 110310

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 19, 2015 at 09:28:04 in reply to Comment 110306

I answered your question in a straightforward way to provide evidence that your implication that pedestrians are responsible for their own deaths because they don't pay attention is not justified by the data. I also pointed you to the Coroner's report that makes well justified recommendations for lower speed limits and for designing streets based on the most vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians).

I also pointed out that there is a big difference between infrastructure being dangerous and causing injuries (as our current streets do, especially for cyclists and pedestrians) and complaining that you don't know how to drive on a narrow two-way street (such as those common throughout the city).

It is a good rule to assume commenters are contributing in good faith, genuinely interested in finding out more about an issue (in this case how best to design streets to be maximally safe and convenient for all road users).

However, I think many readers have noticed your unrelenting sarcasm, negativity and bizarre claims, especially when you claimed to be a traffic engineer while making statements that indicated you didn't really care about the safety and convenience of pedestrians or the desire of residents for liveable neighbourhoods:

and your previous comments:

It's sometimes hard to assume good faith given your previous comments and sarcastic attitude. Since you like statistical jargon, people's behaviour is Bayesian: our actions depend in large part on our past experience.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-03-19 09:32:44

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools