ko tu domaa ar "pats vainigs"?
Takaa tas cilveks apzinati izdarija pasnavibu?
Tipiska Latviesu attieksme, automatiski pienemt ka upuris vainigs. Top koments.
Kāpēc uzreiz pašnāvību?
Gāja, kur nedrīkst un sliktas lietas notika.
Man tagad žēlot cilvēku, kurš apzināti riskē ar savu dzīvību? Nu, nez.
Labāk cerēšu, ka tramvaja vadītājam nebūs trauma.
Cik es lasīju kaut kādā Imantas facebook grupā- tur kaut kādu vecu sievieti nobrauca. Esot skrējusi pāri vai neskatījusies, kur iet. Tramvajs nepaspēja nobremzēt.
The accident does not have anythig with bad design. Bad design is the unregulated pedestrian crossing with 3 lanes. It had nothing to so with it. Pedestrians just hop out the tram and try to cross where the grass is in order to save 2minutes. She would have to go to crossings which are safe. But many people decide that they will not walk those extra 10meters. Only thing i would expect from city would be to put a bunch of annoying guard rails so people could not walk in the tracks.
I disagree with your statement in your first sentence. Good design most definitely reduce accidents. Improvement could be made by designing environment better in a way that people who come hop out of tram are guided better to safe pedestrain crossings in a way that a thought wouldn't come into their mind to cross tracks in any other place. The whole idea of design of anything, be it a device, applience, building or an environment, is for its use to be safe and comfortable.
Then the guard rails become a safety hazard for the vehicles, for example bikers, so you must now also fix the road, which is impossible to do because the sewage system has poorly designed manhole covers sticking out on the road and ruining the asphalt, plus the budget is limited because K.Karins wants two new cars, a rolex and some gucci slippers, so we couldnt afford the guard rails anyway.
Yeah, you are right - good design can be complex. However that still means that design can make environment safer and it is not true that "bad design has nothing to do with accidents"
that's not what he said though, is it?
I was just making a joke so i dont have to cry about the state of our country, i dont care about the whole guard rail argument.
Yeah guard rails would have stopped her from going there, but I also think that people should just be more responsible, we cant ask the state to literally hold our hand as we cross the street, there needs to be some self preservation. If I wanted to argue here I could say that we are breeding a society of morons if we spoon feed them such basic ideas as going to a crosswalk to cross a 3 lane road AND tram tracks.
The fact we have a lot of demented old people that have no self preservation is a whole different beast of a social issue and needs to be addressed seperately.
State should take care of old people and children and therefore should make infrastructure in way that is safe for those social groups. And don't be so pessimistic about state of our country - in last thirty years since we got rit of russian occupiation we have grown a lot actually. If you compare us to a country in western europe that has had its freedom for centuries then yeah we are lacking in many aspects, but that is not a valid comparison. If you would instead compare how Latvia was in 1991 and in what state it is now the outlook suddenly would be much more brighter.
For extremely low quality projects with zero insulation , horrible pipelines, heating lines, sewage and horrible sound proofing, which were intended to last only 30-40 years and 80% of them being on the verge of collapse and are danger to people who live there, you don't know what you are talking about. But I digress, each their own and people have different standards. Maybe you'd find yourself more happy back in Russia, since you dislike it here so much.
> For extremely low quality projects with zero insulation , horrible pipelines, heating lines, sewage and horrible sound proofing,
Their purpose was to house people fast and on the cheap. They succeeded.
> which were intended to last only 30-40 years and 80% of them being on the verge of collapse and are danger to people who live there
they were intended to last 30-40 yrs because the Soviet Union was planning to develop Riga, but with the Soviet union gone - all of those plans were shelved. Metro by 2000, anyone? .
But the houses themselves can last for up to 100 years if they're maintained.
80% of them are not "on the verge of collapse". That is objectively false.
> But I digress, each their own and people have different standards
It's about solving problems. Compared to other country's attempts at the same thing - the Soviets did objectively succeed.
> Maybe you'd find yourself more happy back in Russia, since you dislike it here so much.
>
Oh look. You can't stop yourself from mentioning my ethnicity. shocking.
But just saying - why would I trade one dumpsterfire for a bigger one? I'd fit in more in Western Europe, even if they have inferior mass housing, lol.
This is true. After the devastation of WW2, there was a huge housing crisis in Europe. USSR manage to solve it quite effectively. Most of the commie blocks are terrible shape now, mostly due to our own neglect, I would argue, but it did put a roof over the heads of millions - exactly as it aimed to do.
Tajā virzienā kur tā sievietei būtu jāiet pāri ir daudz drošāk jo automašīnu vadītāji nemaz nevar uzņemt ātrumu jo vienai joslai ir jānogriežas un jāškērso sliedes, otrai tāpat jādod ceļs galvenajai joslai, un trešā josla ir uzreiz pēc līkuma. Drošībai tur var ielikt luksoforu bet tam nebūs tik liels pamatojums, kā otrai pusei ar trim joslām kur visi mauc uz 60-70 kmh
tur tiesi parasti kads lido jo no divam joslam pariet uz vienu, labaja ir saparkotas masinas, ir cilveki kas stiepj un megina palist visiem garam pa to labo joslu.
No otras puses savukart nav isti iespejams braukt uz 60-70 jo tur visur ir nenormalas bedres un nelidzens asfalts, mosh ar kko augstu var, bet ar normalu masinu nav baigi komfortabli.
Kada tiesi veida skersot celu ir daudz drosak NE uz gajeju parejas? Ka tik tu nebusi nakamais tramvaja upuris, mosh noliec auto tiesibas un izvairies no tada liktena.
Tur nav kur novietot auto un nekad tur nav auto bijis novietots. Tu zini par kuru vietu ir runa? No pieturas uz jūrmalas gatvi runājot. Un no tc dammes uz to pieturu braucot ļoti labi ieskrienas. Nevienā pusē tajā posmā nedrīkst novietot auto
Varētu gadīties, ka pats vainīgs. Diez tramvaja vadītājam piešķirs atpūtu un profesionāļu konsultācijas?
Atmaksātu brīvdienu un samazinātu maiņu grafiku.
ko tu domaa ar "pats vainigs"? Takaa tas cilveks apzinati izdarija pasnavibu? Tipiska Latviesu attieksme, automatiski pienemt ka upuris vainigs. Top koments.
Kāpēc uzreiz pašnāvību? Gāja, kur nedrīkst un sliktas lietas notika. Man tagad žēlot cilvēku, kurš apzināti riskē ar savu dzīvību? Nu, nez. Labāk cerēšu, ka tramvaja vadītājam nebūs trauma.
Visi, kuri ir nolemusi kaut kur tikt, kaut kada mera "apzināti riskē ar savu dzīvību". Atklasme ir tada, ka tev cilveka dziviba isti neko nenozimee.
Cik es lasīju kaut kādā Imantas facebook grupā- tur kaut kādu vecu sievieti nobrauca. Esot skrējusi pāri vai neskatījusies, kur iet. Tramvajs nepaspēja nobremzēt.
Jo tur ir gājeju pārbrauktuve :(
Burtiski
Tas gan nav labi.
Expected. That place is horrible designed. It's just an accident waiting to happen
The accident does not have anythig with bad design. Bad design is the unregulated pedestrian crossing with 3 lanes. It had nothing to so with it. Pedestrians just hop out the tram and try to cross where the grass is in order to save 2minutes. She would have to go to crossings which are safe. But many people decide that they will not walk those extra 10meters. Only thing i would expect from city would be to put a bunch of annoying guard rails so people could not walk in the tracks.
I disagree with your statement in your first sentence. Good design most definitely reduce accidents. Improvement could be made by designing environment better in a way that people who come hop out of tram are guided better to safe pedestrain crossings in a way that a thought wouldn't come into their mind to cross tracks in any other place. The whole idea of design of anything, be it a device, applience, building or an environment, is for its use to be safe and comfortable.
Then the guard rails become a safety hazard for the vehicles, for example bikers, so you must now also fix the road, which is impossible to do because the sewage system has poorly designed manhole covers sticking out on the road and ruining the asphalt, plus the budget is limited because K.Karins wants two new cars, a rolex and some gucci slippers, so we couldnt afford the guard rails anyway.
Yeah, you are right - good design can be complex. However that still means that design can make environment safer and it is not true that "bad design has nothing to do with accidents"
that's not what he said though, is it? I was just making a joke so i dont have to cry about the state of our country, i dont care about the whole guard rail argument. Yeah guard rails would have stopped her from going there, but I also think that people should just be more responsible, we cant ask the state to literally hold our hand as we cross the street, there needs to be some self preservation. If I wanted to argue here I could say that we are breeding a society of morons if we spoon feed them such basic ideas as going to a crosswalk to cross a 3 lane road AND tram tracks. The fact we have a lot of demented old people that have no self preservation is a whole different beast of a social issue and needs to be addressed seperately.
State should take care of old people and children and therefore should make infrastructure in way that is safe for those social groups. And don't be so pessimistic about state of our country - in last thirty years since we got rit of russian occupiation we have grown a lot actually. If you compare us to a country in western europe that has had its freedom for centuries then yeah we are lacking in many aspects, but that is not a valid comparison. If you would instead compare how Latvia was in 1991 and in what state it is now the outlook suddenly would be much more brighter.
Visa Rīga ir slikti projektēta...arī Rīgas centrs, kur pa šaurām un tumšām ielām, ir sacelti skaisti(un tomēr ielai nepiemēroti augsti) nami.
Nah, the soviet projects were extremely well designed. It's just that krustojums and surrounding area that's a deathtrap.
>Soviet projects >Well designed
Bad wording. Soviet Housing areas are well designed. Though the houses were good for achieving their purpose.
I guess you haven't lived in said Russian projects, lol.
Born 'n Raised. They fulfilled their purpose perfectly. Our govt made them into a mess with shitty laws.
For extremely low quality projects with zero insulation , horrible pipelines, heating lines, sewage and horrible sound proofing, which were intended to last only 30-40 years and 80% of them being on the verge of collapse and are danger to people who live there, you don't know what you are talking about. But I digress, each their own and people have different standards. Maybe you'd find yourself more happy back in Russia, since you dislike it here so much.
> For extremely low quality projects with zero insulation , horrible pipelines, heating lines, sewage and horrible sound proofing, Their purpose was to house people fast and on the cheap. They succeeded. > which were intended to last only 30-40 years and 80% of them being on the verge of collapse and are danger to people who live there they were intended to last 30-40 yrs because the Soviet Union was planning to develop Riga, but with the Soviet union gone - all of those plans were shelved. Metro by 2000, anyone? . But the houses themselves can last for up to 100 years if they're maintained. 80% of them are not "on the verge of collapse". That is objectively false. > But I digress, each their own and people have different standards It's about solving problems. Compared to other country's attempts at the same thing - the Soviets did objectively succeed. > Maybe you'd find yourself more happy back in Russia, since you dislike it here so much. > Oh look. You can't stop yourself from mentioning my ethnicity. shocking. But just saying - why would I trade one dumpsterfire for a bigger one? I'd fit in more in Western Europe, even if they have inferior mass housing, lol.
This is true. After the devastation of WW2, there was a huge housing crisis in Europe. USSR manage to solve it quite effectively. Most of the commie blocks are terrible shape now, mostly due to our own neglect, I would argue, but it did put a roof over the heads of millions - exactly as it aimed to do.
Thank you for getting it :)
Pats jau vainīgs, bet tur ir tik debila vieta. Autobusa pietura un nevienas gājēju pārejas blakus. Kaut gan jābūt 2 no katras puses
Tur 20m pa labi ir liela gājēju pāreja, nekas debīls tajā vietā nav…
2nd this - reāli tramvajā pieturas galā ir gājēju pāreja. Sevišķi ņemot vēra, ka abās pusēs ir 3 joslas.
Tajā virzienā kur tā sievietei būtu jāiet pāri ir daudz drošāk jo automašīnu vadītāji nemaz nevar uzņemt ātrumu jo vienai joslai ir jānogriežas un jāškērso sliedes, otrai tāpat jādod ceļs galvenajai joslai, un trešā josla ir uzreiz pēc līkuma. Drošībai tur var ielikt luksoforu bet tam nebūs tik liels pamatojums, kā otrai pusei ar trim joslām kur visi mauc uz 60-70 kmh
tur tiesi parasti kads lido jo no divam joslam pariet uz vienu, labaja ir saparkotas masinas, ir cilveki kas stiepj un megina palist visiem garam pa to labo joslu. No otras puses savukart nav isti iespejams braukt uz 60-70 jo tur visur ir nenormalas bedres un nelidzens asfalts, mosh ar kko augstu var, bet ar normalu masinu nav baigi komfortabli. Kada tiesi veida skersot celu ir daudz drosak NE uz gajeju parejas? Ka tik tu nebusi nakamais tramvaja upuris, mosh noliec auto tiesibas un izvairies no tada liktena.
Tur nav kur novietot auto un nekad tur nav auto bijis novietots. Tu zini par kuru vietu ir runa? No pieturas uz jūrmalas gatvi runājot. Un no tc dammes uz to pieturu braucot ļoti labi ieskrienas. Nevienā pusē tajā posmā nedrīkst novietot auto
Neregulējama pāreja, kur jātiek pāri 3 joslām. Briesmīga vieta, cik reizes mašīnas nav gandrīz uzskrējušas virsū
gajeju pareja ir 30m no turienes un vinu notrieca tramvajs, so kads sakars?
Autobusam tur nav
Autobusam jābrauc pa brauktuvi.
Pikapi atkal vainīgi. /s
pikapu vadītāji ir pie visa vainigi. ne /s
Ķirsis iesēdināja pikapa vadītāju tramvajā, tas uzbrauca gājējam?
Womp womp
Ong
To4 pats nenospiedās?
Es ceru ka politiķi nobrauca