“It has been dubbed Britain’s ‘most woke’ roundabout because drivers must give priority to pedestrians, then cyclists, and then other cars and lorries before continuing on themselves. Locals have pointed out the priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unnecessary as only cars and lorries regularly use the Boundary Way route.”
You must log in or register to comment.
This roundabout: “If there’s a person walking across the road, don’t drive into them.”
Drivers: “Blasphemy!!!”
“Britain builds a normal roundabout”
exactly, normality is too woke, reality needs to be deranged to their worldviews
I don’t get it. It’s just a regular roundabout with zebra crossings.
Regular roundabouts don’t give pedestrian or cyclist crossings priority.
* I’m talking of the UK, that’s what the article is about. People seem confused.
In Canada pedestrians always have the right of way
Cyclists are seen as vehicles though
They do not “always” have right of way. You don’t have right of way over a train, for example. Or against a signal. Or when a car has limited visibility. Lots of cases.
A person crossing against a signal or jaywalking still has right of way
Trains are usually on train tracks not roads so they don’t fall under the rules of the road
Not in Fake Kingston, Ontario.
We even have signs that say “pedestrians yield to vehicles” around town.
As that would be a bylaw it wouldn’t matter in a criminal case, only a civil one
Traffic infractions are never criminal.
A car hitting a person is criminal and the car having right of way based on the sign wouldn’t be a defence
I don’t know what to tell you, Kingston adopted vision zero in 2019, and deaths have gone up since.
No criminal, civil, or highway traffic act charges are ever laid against drivers. Including for a driver that plowed through a child in a school zone cross walk infront of a school.
And cyclists see themselves as whatever is most convenient to them
You mean whatever keeps them alive.
Depending on the county, the road planners do as well
As they should, car trash like to kill them for fun.
They do in my country, and i can only recommend it to the rest of the world tbh.
They do give pedestrians priority. The law changed on that.
I realise these are tiger crossings btw
… priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unnecessary as only cars and lorries regularly use the Boundary Way route.
forgive me if I’m being a little too above-roomtemp-IQ for this, but what’s the problem then?
The new infrastructure might make the route safer and more pedestrain or cyclists may start using the route, which could delay drivers by entire seconds. A clear and deliberate attack on the drivers freedom of mobility and rights to exclussively have all infrastructure catered to them.
Sickos: Yes, ha ha ha YES.
“it might give me a slight inconvenience so it is evil”
If bike and pedestrian traffic is infrequent you’ll rarely have to give priority, problem solved right?
But then, how will they keep their bumper hunter streak?
/s
drivers must give priority to pedestrians, then cyclists, and then other cars and lorries before continuing on themselves.
So, like every crossing everywhere? Because we don’t want to harm others in traffic? If that’s ‘woke’ then ‘woke’ is the only way.
‘woke’ is the only way.
Yes, but universally, by the very definition of the word.
Locals have pointed out the priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unnecessary as only cars and lorries regularly use the Boundary Way route.
So, there is so little pedestrian and cyclist travel, that priority is unnecessary? What’s the issue having the priority then? Surely, it wont affect you, then?
Ah but that means they will have to think about driving instead of going on autopilot
If drivers have to think about driving, people will inevitably die. I’m not being glib or insulting to motorists.
Here in Malaysia I always thought it was our third world mentality that caused drivers to speed up when approaching a pedestrian crossing, when in reality it was a leftover notion from our times as a former British colony.
A lot of so called ‘third world mentality’ is just Victorian cultural norms that were imposed by the global techno fascists of the time (the British Empire).
Weren’t they just regular fascists? I thought “techno fascists” referred to people like Elon and Zuckerberg?
Yes, youre right in a strict sense but the whole advance tech at any cost including mass casualty (as long as its disproportionately nonwhite people) was a colonial era development leading up to the industrial revolution. The idea of outsourcing labor to lesser humans (on a global scale) also comes from that time. Those are the precursors that have led to the Elons and Zuckerbergs of today.
Can confirm (Source: Played Victoria 3)
Facile and lazy. In reality, the norms and practices in “third world” countries are pretty comparable no matter who, if anyone, colonized them. It’s just a question of development. Not everything in the world is the responsibility of big bad white man.
Now, the OP is a bit reductive, as lots of colonizers fucked things up. But it’s so fucking funny to me that people take it personally when you point out that humanity experienced massive waves of cultural homogenization due to imperialism and colonialism.
Think I’m just talking about European settlers? That’s racist. Not everything is about the “big bad white man.” Entire swathes of human population hold roots that go all the way back to Khan. He literally has a genotype named after him, because he sowed his seed across the world. It’s not racist to talk about that. Romans had their fun too. Latin sure is popular. Weirdly enough, they didn’t lead directly to Latinos. That was other empires. Slavic is pretty common. “Chinese” sure is a massive and diverse group of people for a country with a single timezone. Only difference there is, they never left.
Norms and practices differ wildly between cultures. It’s incredibly, wildly ethnocentric to claim that culture is just a function of “development.” To claim that the cultures of people with roots in Slavic, Latino, or French, all just sync up once they reach the industrial age. It’s the most quintessentially colonial idea I’ve ever heard.
Of course the history of imperial expansion and colonization impacts the cultures they paved over, and leaves a lasting effect. Of course the world is forever changed, when a single group of people conquers most of the known world. And unless there’s a goddamn time traveler from Victorian England, nobody was talking about a “big bad white man.”
Chill, bro
If anyone’s “fucking” taking things personally here, then it’s not me.
The argument I was responding to is an obviously ahistorical attempt to blame almost literally everything on “Victorians”. That’s dumb for exactly the reasons you just outlined.
(E: whoops, yes I did suggest it was personal. That’s a fair contention, sorry for that.)
I don’t like the trend towards censoring swear words (not that you did) and interpreting them as inherently hostile, I genuinely do find it funny. But I am hostile towards the idea that all cultures are basically the same once they “develop,” that’s just a fucked up statement.
Most of the third world literally was colonized by Victorian England, though. The rest was mostly colonized by a number of other predominantly white empires.
All those other empires I described almost exclusively stayed on their own continents. It was primarily Western Europe that conquered the entire Southern Hemisphere.
About “fucked” this and “fucked up” that, personally I just see it as laziness and weak language skills. Always reaching for the bazooka because hunting for the scalpel is too hard. But it’s probably a bit generational too.
On empire, it’s the story of humanity. Every nation in the world has been either the author or the subject of imperialism, and it’s usually nonstop back-and-forth. Sure, the European empires were the first to cross seas, but why should that change anything fundamentally?
Personally I find it interesting to observe the relative fates of those countries that choose to dwell on their imperial victim status, and those that don’t. Look at the different outcomes of Algeria and South Korea, for example.
Eh, to each their own. I find them to be a touch of salt and spice, useful adverbs for emphasis.
Sure, the European Empires were the first to cross the seas, but why should that change anything fundamentally?
It informs the origin of influence. The OP you responded to suggested that a lot of “third world mentality” is really just the aftereffects of the first (and often only) empire to conquer and colonize the region.
Personally I find it interesting to observe the relative fates of those countries that choose to dwell on their imperial victim status
This is massive “chicken or the egg” territory here. It’s silly to suggest that an entire nation is suffering from victimhood, when the much more likely scenario is that they were victims of worse / more recent abuse.
South Korea has tremendously different geopolitical conditions that lead to its modern success. It was the staging ground of a proxy war (sorry, “police action”) because it has significant strategic importance, and the US had clear and transparent interest in developing and maintaining a successful capitalist society.
The US literally still holds the line at DMZ, not many other nations ever enjoyed the stability of developing under the umbrella of the world’s most oversized military instead of being pillaged by said military.
Whereas Algeria had lots of oil.
Yes all third world countries are the same /s. Not at all a reductive viewpoint.
Techno fascists have set our world on an unsustainable path and it is past Colonial powers that started that. So, revisionism aside, those “big bad” technology and industry obsessed empires will be attributed most of the blame and they better fix it or we won’t be here much longer.
That, or China will have to fix it since Western countries have been thumb twiddling for decades (despite being the source of the problem). Either way it will be ugly once past colonial powers lose their shine and history reflects an honest assessment of them. “Great” Britain is already a shadow of its former self. More will follow that march into relative obscurity as the rest of the world fixes the mess they created.
The cultural, economic and environmental impact of the Colonial era is much more profound than most know (largely because its ignored in most Western curriculums). You may not recognize issues if you’re white or man, but that can be remedied by going outside and speaking to people that don’t look or talk like you.
This really shows how shit the DVLA have been at communicating the changes to the highway code that happened in 2022.
You’re supposed to give way to pedestrians who want to cross at every roundabout in the UK as it’s a it’s a junction (you’re supposed to at all junctions)
Yeah, really you should be able to cross without worrying, but you can’t. I mean hell, I don’t even like using zebra crossing without waiting for them to stop.
Lads, is it woke to follow The Highway Code?
That is one of the wokest things out there: both some dude’s Toyotta Corolla and the Clarence Thomas’ Motor Coach have to share the road and follow the same rules. Everyone is the same before the Highway code. Sounds like communism, can’t have that.
Hoping not getting crushed by SUVs while drivers are busy scrolling down their phone is so woke. /s
This is the law even in (much of) the carbrained United States. Pedestrians always have the right-of-way, even if they aren’t in a signed or painted crosswalk.
Yes. Even in places where they could get a ticket for jaywalking, cars are supposed to yield and let them mosey/stagger/traipse etc.
This fact will not actually stop a moving vehicle, however. Neither will the painted lines of a crosswalk. So make use of your larger visual field and look out for distracted drivers, e.g. all of them.
Oh yeah, but what I’m saying is I don’t get why this would be “woke” since it’s the most basic of motor vehicle laws in even the least pedestrian-friendly places.
Oh anything that’s not completely selfish for the people who already have all the privileges qualifies as “woke” to them.
I agree it’s just basic common sense and humanity.
But then I felt compelled to point out you can’t rely on it for safety, because pedestrian deaths are high and on the rise.
Drivers in Britain should give way to pedestrians at all junctions, including entrances and exits to all roundabouts. It’s literally in the highway code.
Admittedly it’s only a “should” rather than a “must” for most roundabouts, but still. This is the what driving standards are these days, and it is a good thing. It’s all about protecting the more vulnerable. Car drivers are more dangerous to others than pedestrians are, so car drivers have to take more care and should give priority to the more vulnerable pedestrians.
EDIT: But once again I’ve fallen victim to a classic blunder. The sort of people who would say a roundabout is woke would never care about a well-reasoned argument. And I’m just preaching to the choir in this community anyway!
EDIT: But once again I’ve fallen victim to a classic blunder. The sort of people who would say a roundabout is woke would never care about a well-reasoned argument. And I’m just preaching to the choir in this community anyway!
I’d question the existence of “the sort of people” in any meaningful quantity. As far as I can tell the only people dubbing it the ‘most woke’ roundabout are the authors of the article. Not a single person quoted uses the word woke. It’s a classic rage bait headline to generate clicks.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/transport/britains-most-woke-2m-roundabout-31744635
Goes to North Pole.
Tries to go more North.
Is gimbal lockedRage bait.
