The gist is that Portland drivers couldn’t stop hitting crucial safety infrastructure (proving its necessity) so PBOT gave up on it.

As one of the commenters pointed out: Since a pedestrian/bike fatality costs PBOT nothing and replacing a concrete planter a car has demolished costs them more than nothing, to balance the budget they’re going to go with more pedestrian deaths.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      It also shows that the layout of these calming devices was poorly designed. There are lots of ways to calm traffic without causing continual accidents

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Yes, otherwise they’d call them intentions lol

          No one’s like “I’m going to ram into this giant concrete barrier now,” they do it accidentally

          Edit: I don’t understand why this is so unpopular

          • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            if u make shitty street designs, give driving licenses to people who shouldnt even operate a tricycle let alone a 2+ ton metal vehicle, let such people drive at reckless speed, sdont enforce traffic laws, and then put a concrete planter in the middle of the street that isnt an accident.

  • 𝚝𝚛𝚔@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 month ago

    Imagine being so bad at driving that you can’t avoid hitting a bright yellow concrete cylinder sitting in the middle of the road when you’re doing 25kph.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    TLDR; They didn’t actually expect them to work. Every time they get hit, they move and they require a crane or forklift to put back into position.

    Perhaps they should double the weight of them so they’re less likely to move when struck.

  • TBi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    In the UK if you crash and cause damage to the road infrastructure then you need to pay to fix it. They should bring in that law in US…

  • onlooker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    If drivers couldn’t stop hitting the planters, then the planters aren’t the problem. But hey, at least Portland is accomodating to maniac drivers.

  • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Alternative: recycle old, large pipeline and pour concrete between two different diameters of it. Should hold up better to being struck by idiots in vehicles

    • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not every intersection should or needs to be replaced by a roundabout, especially on local lane intersections where speeds are already supposed to be low. They take up more space, are more expensive to maintain (than a stop sign-controlled or uncontrolled intersection), and are also less convenient for bikers as well as cars.

  • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Stopping with 30 kph puts a pressure of over a metric ton via the seat belt on your body for a short time.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    We really need a higher standard for possessing a drivers licenses if people can’t be trusted not to hit large, stationary objects on the regular… All of the forced incentive to drive in this country has made it into something people take for granted. It’s easy to forget you’re operating heavy machinery capable of high speeds.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m not sure why the people who put these in didn’t expect there to be lots of collisions. There’s a reason why obstacles are generally not placed in the middle of the road…

    • pacmondo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re usually placed in such a way to prevent people turning far too sharply risking hitting someone in the oncoming lane, usually near the crosswalk. If people are having trouble with this they’re having trouble with pedestrians too

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I think I understand what you’re getting at but your terminology is backwards - what you’re describing is a wide turn. The obstacle is actually making people turn very sharply. Maybe my sense of scale is off, but the intersection in the picture looks it might even force some larger vehicles to make a three-point-turn.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          From the look of these roads, there shouldn’t be any vehicles so large they have to make a three-point-turn. If there are, then that’s yet another indication these were needed.