this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
67 points (94.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9591 readers
69 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pogogunner@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"The city of Chicago is openly proclaiming itself as a bike-friendly city. Is that an indication of the city's intent?" Justice Liz Rochford asked a lawyer for the city.

"No, your honor," replied Stephen Collins, Chicago's assistant corporation counsel.

Any lie necessary to avoid reasonable infrastructure. Especially with bicycles banned on the sidewalk.
Stop stealing all the taxpayer money, and provide the bare fucking minimums.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Alave filed suit later that year, arguing that the city meant for bicycles to be rented and operated in the area and city officials therefore had the duty to exercise reasonable care for intended road users, as required by state law.

The city isn't trying to avoid building reasonable infrastructure, here, they're trying to avoid liability for cyclists hitting potholes.

Their argument seems to be that unless a road is included on the official bike plan, it shouldn't count as one intended for biking on for the purpose of legal liability, regardless of if there's a nearby city-operated bike rental.

Honestly, unless the ruling were that "the city is liable for bike injuries anywhere in it", holding the city liable here might produce perverse incentives to make bike infrastructure worse.