• Leg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It really is. Slippery slope fallacy. Letting one neighborhood collectively decide to make an intersection by a park safer for children to cross is not the same as letting all people make their own decisions regarding signs and intersections. We are capable of handling individual situations as context-sensitive instead of assuming universal application is the only option.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s not slippery slope, it’s literally the same law. You can’t just add or remove signs on a whim.

        • Leg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Wasn’t on a whim. And you totally can. Whether or not it’s a good idea or without consequence is a different story. However, it’s not a stretch to suggest that most people who deal with road infrastructure have dealt with unsafe conditions that could be avoided with restructure. If conditions were unsafe, nothing was being done about it, and the community did something about it to make it safer, power to the people. No one is suggesting a precedent should be set by this, but I would suggest that if we don’t want a repeating pattern, there ought to be a better, more expedient process in place than breaking the law to make this action unnecessary.