They recycle last week's story about the ways people on foot threaten carspace with their imperial ways and should be dressed as hazards with traffic cone apparel.
It seems to me that the implied "understanding between pedestrians, drivers" in the subhead is twofold:
- to people on foot: cars are powerful and people on foot should be sure to yield to them if they don't want to get hit
- to people in cars: walkers are threatening to take over the world, and your rights of autoism are in peril
|1937 propaganda - via NYRB|
But if there's a conspiracy, it's the newspaper staff's knowledge that journalism is in peril, that advertising dollars are shrinking and at risk, and losing big accounts not something anyone wants to happen on their watch...
|The carbonic majority|
No matter how strong the official "walls" between news, editorial, and advertising, there are tacit understandings galore and a deeply entrenched paradigm past which many cannot see. I don't know there's an easy answer for this: cars are a significant cultural problem of the moment, and we should expect lots of debate; and the revenue stream for high-quality journalism is an even more acute problem right now.
We all want a good paper, but how will we fund it?
Back to walking, hopefully we can keep talking about this and in time revert to a more normal understanding of streets as shared public space. The understanding was changed in the early and mid-20th century, and it can be changed again. It happened with cultural and economic effort, and wasn't something that occurred "naturally" or by "necessity."