at that point you should just move to something optimized for being easy to get in and out of, like a bed
yes, yes. Exactly. Isn’t it much more practical to put her in a bet/mattress on the floor? That’s what we do. Just using the mattress from the crib, for example.
Why must she not be able to climb out(/in) of the crib for napping there?
Very interesting!
Obvious question: who wins when the debate is ultra BS Vs ultra BS? Is then the duel back to a rhetoric one?
I’d be really interested in how the kids do in school and in general in their future. It seems to me that they may get really bored, at least at some classes, and this can backfire—it often happens with gifted kids.
Now it is illegal in some places and not recommended in others → social & cívic pressure against. Plus the increase in usefulness for the cars.
Context: in urban environment + slow roads/streets in general.
Also, are you using the term “zebra crossing” in an unusual way…? It seems like you are
??
That would reduce the usefulness of the road for pedestrians to zero
On the contrary, they could cross anywhere without needing to walk to the zebra crossing! That would increase the road’s usefulness for them.
These were not rhetorical questions, I would like to see your opinion on yield signs and their difference with zebra crossings.
It’s an hyperbole, of course —to keep the usefulness of the road, if it is less dangerous that people just cross in random places than that cars stop before zebra crossings, let’s get rid of the crossings.
It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.
Then let’s just get rid of zebra crossings all together. But I highly suspect that this would not be a good solution (eg. in Europe I have never seen a stop sign for a zebra crossing).
if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
On the other hand, having zebra crossing more often incentivises people to use them.
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe? 1) significant amounts of people crossing in random places, or 2) cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings.
For me, in normal conditions 1) is clearly more unsafe, as car drivers must be paying attention to the traffic anyway. And I’d guess that this is the actual case, otherwise zebra crossings would not have been adopted.
It is not literally forcing anyone but it is effectively forcing everyone. Or don’t call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Note that moving a zebra crossing just 200 m means having to walk 400 m more, so 5 minutes walking. For people with reduced mobility it is much longer. [edited to add the ending ‘d’ in reduced]
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice. Search for, for example, the design failure of Brasilia. Super well designed on plan, a failure in practice. Something similar is repeated once and again.
So, basically forcing people to cross unsafely (and potentially illegally) is the best design choice?
Less accurate, not less predictable ;-)
What is the difference with the yield sign? Or are you also against the yield sign?
Then only busy places should have zebra crossings?
Why is driving slow less predictable than stopping?
A zebra crossing is similar to a Yield sign, just giving way to pedestrians instead of other cars.
This sounds pretty good.
A designated pedestrian crossing without an associated stop sign or traffic light is just very, very bad design.
Why should this be bad design? I find it would be even more stupid to have to stop all the time (stop sign) or when the light is read but no one wants to cross. The traffic lights with a button for pedestrians are useful in some circumstances, but in many they are even more stupid (eg. often the pedestrian would have been able to cross without a problem but is forced to press the button, wait that the traffic light changes and cross, and then several cars have to stop and wait). Of course, in places with a lot of traffic and pedestrians traffic lights are the right choice, but IMO outside the city centres this is often not the right choice.
I’m not sure this is so everywhere, but in Europe one is supposed to drive carefully when approaching a zebra crossing. It is not that the guy I mention above was super-reckless -just that it is easy and useful to signal it when one wants to cross. I could easily stop on time because I drove slow and had him and the crossing in my focus, as one is supposed to do.
I live in Germany and I do something similar… but it has to be always. If you are close to a zebra crossing most cars will stop to let you cross even if you haven’t made any intent to cross, so you have to do all kinds of theatre to make it clear that you are not going to cross (in that moment).
But the other day I understood why they do it (I almost never drive). I was driving approaching a zebra crossing an a guy who was walking in the same direction but through the sidewalk just turned 90º and continued walking when he reached the zebra crossing. He didn’t signal the turn at all and didn’t even look before crossing. He even stared at me annoyed that I did not stop before. It was like, “dude read my mind, I was going to turn all along”.
This system is so inefficient and stupid. The best moments are when people do not realise they are close to a zebra crossing (or they don’t give a damn) and cars approaching stop to let them cross. I’ve seen someone making several cars stop because they were just waiting for something in front of a zebra crossing and the traffic was low enough so that one driver would not see the previous car stopping for nothing.
ok. We take our son anyway out of the bet as soon as he wakes up. He sleeps long enough already by himself.