From the folks at https://www.urbantruthcollective.com/

A better world requires great cities, communities, streets and places, and the path to get there starts with the truth.

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

Perhaps using a different sign would leave a less negative impression

Instead of saying the road is closed to cars, you say the street is open only to pedestrians.
The picture is seemingly from North America, so I'm not sure if a similar sign exists over there.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    If I were driving I would take this to mean crosswalk or watch for kids due to having seen similar signs.

    I think it would be great to gain a new meaning however when posted in the middle of the road.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    The sign I posted follows the 1967 Vienna Convention on road signs.
    Afaik the US is not signatory to that treaty, but they probably have different signs with similar meaning

    Perhaps something like this, based on the US bike lane sign?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Unfortunately, that's limited to a single language, not international friendly. Having language at all makes it take longer to process too, but that's not as much of an issue in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 6 months ago

    No, the road is closed. It's the street that's open.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    What do you mean, "I plowed directly into the crowd?" It's their fault for jaywalking, it said the road was open!

    /s if it wasn't obvious

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    at first i thought this was a joke about running everyone over with a car lmao

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    No they didn't - road signs are generally for vehicles unless otherwise specified.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Jfc I don’t think that road sign is trying to oppress anyone.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    The road sign is technically correct, but it looks at the situation as "car by default".

    It reinforces the idea that in order to accommodate pedestrian friendly places, we must punish drivers by restricting them from going where they would otherwise be allowed to go. It assumes that cars are allowed to go anywhere, unless explicitely stated otherwise.

    The way you communicate ideas is important if you want to get people on board, so maybe it is better to say the road is "open to pedestrians only", rather than "closed to cars"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The road sign is indeed defaulting to cars because that's what roads are made for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    In current-day America that is indeed the case.

    This thread is arguing that maybe that should not be the case, and is proposing alternative solutions that would be less car-brained.

    Such a "open to pedestrians only" sign already exists and is commonly used in Europe. Why can't such a sign exist in America?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    You want to let cars onto the road full of people?!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    The sign is addressing cars and for cars it's closed but from a human perspective, it's open

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I know, I was just having a bit of fun with wordplay

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments