3 ms·

There are so many fallacies here that it's hard to know where to start. Others already pointed out the possibility that these effects are a short-lived result

by dap 11y ago

There are so many fallacies here that it's hard to know where to start. Others already pointed out the possibility that these effects are a short-lived result of the change in policy. > Research has shown that removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus cuts vehicle speeds by 13%. Not paving roads would decrease vehicle speeds, too. Adding obstructions to windshields would also likely increase uncertainty and cut vehicle speeds. But neither decreasing vehicle speeds nor maximizing safety is the singular goal of the road system, and the article seems to completely miss that. > Rules, controls, signs, traffic lights all reduce our awareness of our surroundings and thus our sense of danger. Even if true, I would expect that rules and signals afford us much more predictive power about nearby moving objects, which could be far more valuable than an increased a sense of danger. > A crossing is where everyone should be watching everyone else, but everyone is watching the lights. They are awaiting orders. When given them, they assume all is safe and crash on. If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen? Of course, they happen because of the people not obeying the lights. What reason is there to believe that the same driver who would run a red light (by accident or otherwise) would generally make better ad-hoc judgments without the light? You could argue that drivers already obeying traffic lights could also avoid accidents by also watching other drivers, but they can already do that. You can argue that removing the lights will force them to do that, but it's not clear that's a _net_ positive (i.e., would ad-hoc human decisions really be better on average?). That argument would also undermine the article's claim that the existing system of lights represents our attachment to the nanny state.

CalRobert 11y ago
>If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen? You can obey lights and stop signs and still run over a walker who is obeying the law. Turning right on a red is terrible for this reason (many drivers never even look right before the turn, assuming only cars from their left merit consideration). Cyclists get right hooked when drivers blindly turn when the light tells them it's ok.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dap 11y ago
  That's certainly true. I thought the article focused more on car-car crashes, but those are obviously important, too. It seems like the considerations in suburban and rural areas are fairly different than urban areas.
  - CalRobert 11y ago
    Protecting everyone is important, but at this point we think disproportionately about people in cars when considering safety. We should be looking at the fact you are vastly more likely to be killed per mile walking or riding than driving. This despite the fact that walking (or cycling) don't even involve hurtling yourself through space at 60mph. (For motorcycles it's not a huge surprise to see higher morbidity, of course, since you combine high speeds AND lack of protection). In short, we've made driving a car safe, possibly by making it really easy to die doing anything but driving a car. Making drivers nervous, slow, and cautious should help with this. (Correlation =\= causation, I realize). How safe do you feel crossing a busy street with an uncontrolled crosswalk? I hate it - drivers don't actually understand they're supposed to stop. How about bicycling on public roads? Waiting in stop and go traffic on your motorcycle hoping the person texting behind you doesn't pancake you between them and the truck in front of you? (This is a good reason to lane split, btw, or at least adopt a lane position such that if you are hit you get thrown into empty space and not a vehicle). On a motorcycle you're thirty times as likely to die per mile as you are in a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety On a bicycle you're twice as likely to die _per trip_ - the rate per mile is much higher since people tend to cycle shorter distances than they drive. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm Pedestrian data is hard to gather well since people don't log walking miles like driving miles, but they are also more likely to die per trip, and again, since people walk shorter distances than they drive, almost certainly more likely to die per mile; "...Pedestrians are over-represented in the crash data, accounting for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities but only 10.9 percent of trips.... " "In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians and 743 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). " http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
ared38 11y ago
> What reason is there to believe that the same driver who would run a red light (by accident or otherwise) would generally make better ad-hoc judgments without the light? There would still be assholes. The difference is the other drivers would be checking for cross traffic instead of going as soon as they see the green light. I'm certainly not convinced and in particular doubt you'd get high traffic flow, but it seems quite plausible for less busy intersections.
mtdewcmu 11y ago
>> Not paving roads would decrease vehicle speeds, too. Adding obstructions to windshields would also likely increase uncertainty and cut vehicle speeds. Removing suspensions from cars, as well. Most people would slow down if all your teeth could be broken by a sufficiently large bump.
aaronchall 11y ago
I do wonder if drivers prefer the markings so that they can, for example, drive faster in the face of on-coming traffic or not give bicycles as much room.

by dap 11y ago

CalRobert 11y ago

>If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen? You can obey lights and stop signs and still run over a walker who is obeying the law. Turning right on a red is terrible for this reason (many drivers never even look right before the turn, assuming only cars from their left merit consideration). Cyclists get right hooked when drivers blindly turn when the light tells them it's ok.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dap 11y ago
That's certainly true. I thought the article focused more on car-car crashes, but those are obviously important, too. It seems like the considerations in suburban and rural areas are fairly different than urban areas.
- CalRobert 11y ago
  Protecting everyone is important, but at this point we think disproportionately about people in cars when considering safety. We should be looking at the fact you are vastly more likely to be killed per mile walking or riding than driving. This despite the fact that walking (or cycling) don't even involve hurtling yourself through space at 60mph. (For motorcycles it's not a huge surprise to see higher morbidity, of course, since you combine high speeds AND lack of protection). In short, we've made driving a car safe, possibly by making it really easy to die doing anything but driving a car. Making drivers nervous, slow, and cautious should help with this. (Correlation =\= causation, I realize). How safe do you feel crossing a busy street with an uncontrolled crosswalk? I hate it - drivers don't actually understand they're supposed to stop. How about bicycling on public roads? Waiting in stop and go traffic on your motorcycle hoping the person texting behind you doesn't pancake you between them and the truck in front of you? (This is a good reason to lane split, btw, or at least adopt a lane position such that if you are hit you get thrown into empty space and not a vehicle). On a motorcycle you're thirty times as likely to die per mile as you are in a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety On a bicycle you're twice as likely to die _per trip_ - the rate per mile is much higher since people tend to cycle shorter distances than they drive. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm Pedestrian data is hard to gather well since people don't log walking miles like driving miles, but they are also more likely to die per trip, and again, since people walk shorter distances than they drive, almost certainly more likely to die per mile; "...Pedestrians are over-represented in the crash data, accounting for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities but only 10.9 percent of trips.... " "In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians and 743 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). " http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

ared38 11y ago

> What reason is there to believe that the same driver who would run a red light (by accident or otherwise) would generally make better ad-hoc judgments without the light? There would still be assholes. The difference is the other drivers would be checking for cross traffic instead of going as soon as they see the green light. I'm certainly not convinced and in particular doubt you'd get high traffic flow, but it seems quite plausible for less busy intersections.

mtdewcmu 11y ago

>> Not paving roads would decrease vehicle speeds, too. Adding obstructions to windshields would also likely increase uncertainty and cut vehicle speeds. Removing suspensions from cars, as well. Most people would slow down if all your teeth could be broken by a sufficiently large bump.

aaronchall 11y ago

I do wonder if drivers prefer the markings so that they can, for example, drive faster in the face of on-coming traffic or not give bicycles as much room.