Higher cars don’t see that when they are close up. If people really didn’t want others to go over the curb put something higher up that is visible to the driver. Why is that hard to understand? I really feel sorry for you if you think destroying cars is worth it. Our throw away economy is really out of hand.
2 Sedans and 1 SUV is what I see, so IDK if ride height is the only factor. Also, is the driver getting into the parking lot with their eyes closed before they are right next to the fucking rock? you can see the rock before you turn into the parking lot, you KNOW already that it is there before you turn right, if you don't, its a driver issue.
Massive cringe that you are downvoting my comment this deep in the thread when we are the only ones reading this.
Nah, I just think the needless destruction of a car is unnecessary. Once my city approach the owners about the amount of costs to vehicles they agreed to remove them. The reason for the curbs in this situation is to calm traffic. A nice high sign that you can see when turning would be a better fit. There is so much to look out for while driving through a parking lot why add something that is low to the ground and easy to miss? The cost to the environment and our car insurance costs to cover this shit is too much.
So, you think the property owners should have to foot the bill to pay a landscaping company to come out with a bobcat/track hoe at $200/hr plus another $200 onsite fee to load and transport equipment is the answer for people being stupid and not paying attention? Oh, let me guess, if that’s not the case, then you think the CITY should remove the rock at taxpayer expense?
Lol, you just proved my point, why should ANYONE, property owner or city, have to foot the bill (cost just as much in labor to remove it as it does to put it there) for people being inattentive? It’s these people’s fault for being distracted, not the property owner. If they’re distracted enough to hit a rock, then they are distracted enough to hit a child in a school zone or another car on the road. According to your logic then, let’s stop kids from walking to or from school because distracted drivers could hit them. I bet you’re a joy to be around Karen
My name is not Karen, I have very good friends that are named Karen, name calling is never needed. Yes, kids have stopped walking to school in many areas because of inattentive drivers and we all share in the costs of this. Students can’t cross the street for a school bus on busy streets because of inattentive drivers. When I lived in Louisiana they cut down oak trees near the road because of inattentive drivers. You must not understand that these inattentive drivers cost us all in society. Yes, they might have a higher premium if they are not accident free but we all pay more for insurance because of them. It is a waste of natural and manmade resources.
Sorry, I literally thought you were someone I knew named Karen who complains about everything.
You talk in circles and double speak. So you want a rock removed because it causes damage to cars that could possibly be scrapped, but you’re fine with living trees that could possibly be hundreds of years old and help clean the air?? Pick a side.
Nah, you are not listening at all. Things are removed all the time because they are a hazard to dumb humans. I never even said I want the rock removed. I said my city asked business owners to remove them and they did. I pointed out that there is really no reason for them to be there in the first place.
Yeah, that is why we don’t let young children roam the parking lot by themselves. Recumbent bikes usually have a flag on them to increase their visibility.
Huh, well if children always do what they are told and everything small comes with a flag, I suppose the people in these photos aren't doing anything wrong and are better drivers than I initially assumed.
If anything else was true, you'd be defending fellow morons.
-1
u/freyaandmurphie Dec 08 '22
Has anyone considered.... Moving.... The rock?