you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -27 points 1 year ago (30 children)

India isn't a continent-sized country emptied of its native inhabitants, so there is much less space to design anything neatly.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] [S] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    there is much less space to design anything neatly.

    That's absolute nonsense. We can design things perfectly well when it suits us.

    Even if it were true (it isn't; Uttar Pradesh is one of India's largest states, there's no dearth of space there -- this is borne of pure greed and stupidity), that's not an excuse. Quite a few other regions that are painfully short on space have been able to come up with brilliant, compact designs that serve their intended purpose without putting people in grave danger every day. Hong Kong comes to mind

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    We can design things perfectly well when it suits us.

    If you can do the taj mahal you can do an intersection

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago*

    he he, the Taj Mahal? That structure built by a king from an invading dynasty, after which he had the artisans' hands cut off? Much like what the British later threatened to do to weavers and healers and fighters who didn't toe their line?

    Irrelevant, don't you think?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    more to the point 3/4 of the visible land in that vid is empty, no need to compare to hong kong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Like I mentioned, UP has no shortage of space. The HK comparison was to say that even if they were short on space that's no excuse to build piss poor infrastructure like this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Everything else remaining the same, you may be wrong. Here, there is no danger at the speeds Indian traffic moves at, that was a sped-up time-lapse. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road.

    I don't know about Hong Kong - more than absolute space, what is the population density - but I imagine control over all the aspects makes for parts that fit better together. Over here, there may be a case for smaller roads planned better, mini buses instead of buses, etc. But the buses already exist. The land is already owned by somebody before they laid down roads. Designed around all that, it isn't that bad.

    We have so much infrastructure at the per-capita income levels as they are of a billion people. This isn't something to fret over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    there is no danger at the speeds Indian traffic moves at

    I fight for my life in Indian traffic every day, don't even give me that guff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    more than absolute space, what is the population density

    Come on. Google is a click away. You knew the answer already.

    Uttar has a population density of 829 / Km^2. Hong Kong is 6800 /Km^2. That makes Hong Kong 8.5x more dense. And land is owned in Hong Kong, Japan and even the US. When roads are built, the owner is given market rate money for the land.

    There is no excuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    HK population-dense And yet, they prioritized roads? Car brain right there?

    ... given market rate for the land diverted Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads? These might not be empty lands possessed decades ago, it might be ancestral family land for centuries. I don't like that those lands are uncultivated, but putting down asphalt liberally everywhere is car-brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads?

    Transportation of some sort is needed. It doesn't matter if it is for bikes, trains, or cars. Land must be used for the good of the people. Absolute ownership, no matter the cost to society is capitalist-brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think your ire is misdirected, but I agree with the ire. The problem is the elevated road there! It serves car-brain, and that space could have been put to good use for the "low income" people as somebody put it, instead of catering to the "high income" people zooming above in cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There is plenty of space for a roundabout on this intersection

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't see it. A roundabout would eat into space vehicles need. And roads were laid in and around land already owned by people, so it wouldn't have been a clean slate.

    Traffic only flows 3 ways: bus goes on straight, bus turns left, and traffic from that road on its left goes straight. The cyclist should have come on the other side below the elevated road, and turned under it to reach this intersection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    He he. Have you lived there? They started limiting permits for new cars to the number of old cars taken off the road, for example. And they are small enough to have very good public transport. And centtalized enough to control all aspects and plan cohesively.

    Do you know of any large region that has done it nearly as well? What is that region's per-capita income and its population density?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    My bro, you said UP doesn't have the land to make sure the junction is even safe to turn, and now you said Singapore is small enough for them to make it work. Do you even understand what is the topic about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Do you even read full messages? They limited car registrations, and have good public transport, because they have to when they are that small.

    That junction is unsafe only to car brains. That cyclist was riding the wrong way, which somehow doesn't count?

    That elevated road was made to appease outsider car brains, and ate up the space that could have satisfied whatever people here say should have been put up for the benefit of laypersons (who seem to have the fortitude to bear the elevated road hogging space there).

    Yet, that elevated road is all right for people here. Right? Otherwise, how could a car-brain third-worldliness pornographer have parked his personal ride on the road above and recorded this!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Do you even read full messages? They limited car registrations, and have good public transport, because they have to when they are that small.

    Yes i read the whole thing. So tell me, how the hell does limiting car and good public transport automagically make their road good?

    And what the heck are you on about? That's not even on topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Some guy brings up Singapore, I talk about Singapore, and the guy says it is not on topic.

    Apparently, road design has nothing to do with whether public transport is involved or not and in what form.

    That's the Internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I mention singapore because you said UP doesn't have enough space to do it, yet you said singapore is small enough to able to do it because of unrelated reason.

    You still haven't tell me how having a good public transport will automagically make sure this sort of junction, which consist of more than 90° angle left turn, no line to indicate who got the priority and who need to yield, and no yellow line in the middle of junction to indicate no stopping, would never exists.

    You're proven wrong yet still want to twist it as if others are so wrong and you're the only correct one. Now that's the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Respond with an example.

    Are there large regions with good population density and existing land use that have good roads designed around those existing holdings, unlike what is done in UP, India?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Upvote if you agree.

    And you think that elevated road not useful to the layman taking up space is OK? And the problem is the simple design of the road below, which people use uneventfully everyday with common sense at Indian speeds?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Upvote if you agree.

    So, you think that, even when roads and transport policies are co-designed on a clean slate like in Singapore, transport policies wouldn't have influenced road design? When even something as simple as a bus lane has been known to work?

  • source
  • parent