18 ms·

I agree, let's fucking reduce pedestrian deaths! But you're ignoring the analysis given in the article-- drivers already don't acknowledge speed limits. From th

I agree, let's fucking reduce pedestrian deaths! But you're ignoring the analysis given in the article-- drivers already don't acknowledge speed limits. From the article: > Luckily, there is some logic to the speed people choose other than the need for speed. The speed drivers choose is not based on laws or street signs, but the weather, number of intersections, presence of pedestrians and curves, and all the other information that factors into the principle, as Lt. Megge puts it, that “no one I know who gets into their car wants to crash.” Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians. A more complete analysis of pedestrian deaths: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injuries/ http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injuries/ Here are some useful factoids: - Finally, the more one drinks, the higher the risk of being involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality. One study found that out of 176 pedestrian fatalities, 86 of those involved pedestrians who had been drinking, nearly all of whom had BACs of 0.10 percent or more. - In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in urban areas. - Finally, the majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities happen to males between the ages of 25 and 44. This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas.

rayiner 10y ago
The most effective thing, as shown in European cities, is to make it hard to speed. Have narrower roads that cannot be easily traversed at high speed. To see an example in the US, look at Center City Philadelphia. Outside a few major thoroughfares like Market Street, the roads are one way in each direction and very narrow. Walking as a pedestrian on Walnut (a major retail road) feels very safe.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This is also an idea in Christopher Alexander's "Timeless Way Of Building" book, and a topic that's been taken up a bunch of times by the Strong Towns blog.
sushisource 10y ago
Not only that, the article specifically addresses parent comment's concerns: > “I don’t want to lie to people,” Lt. Megge tells us. It may make parents feel better if the speed limit on their street is 25 mph instead of 35 mph, but that sign won’t make people drive any slower. Megge prefers speed limits that both allow people to drive at a safe speed legally, and that realistically reflect traffic speeds. People shouldn’t have a false sense of safety around roads, he says. > If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective. Read the article before commenting, people.
- sethherr 10y ago
  This is my huge problem with the article - it argues we have no control over speeding. And then it suggests places that ticket aggressively are behaving irresponsibly, to the point of villafying a town in Missouri for enforcing its speeding laws. All while skirting the fact that there is a clear correlation between higher speeds and higher fatality rates. Everyone knows a place cops like to hang out, and slows down accordingly. Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them? Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
  - CrystalLangUser 10y ago
    Vilifying
    - gjm11 10y ago
      You're right (though I like the idea of villafying a town, which I suppose would mean filling it with large Mediterranean-style dwellings) but this sort of correction to something no one was in much danger of misunderstanding doesn't really contribute much and I suggest is best avoided unless (1) the perpetrator specifically asks for corrections, (2) there's serious danger of misunderstanding as a result of the mistake, or (3) correcting it gives the opportunity to say something genuinely interesting and relevant.
lmm 10y ago
> Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians. I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present. > This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas. Isn't that classic victim-blaming? Getting pedestrians off the road would reduce pedestrian deaths, but it's the wrong way to solve it as a matter of principle.
- civilian 10y ago
  > I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present. Sounds plausible, I'd love to know the context. Got a link? As for the victim-blaming... Teaching safety isn't something that should be controversial. If it's victim-blaming to teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street, then I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    > I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage. That "American culture" is actually a by-product of the automotive industry. In the early 1900s the automobile manufacturers managed to turn around the image of cars being child killing machines, which they were, into it being the fault of the kids. Drive down that cul-de-sac at the speed limit and if you run over a kid, the kid wasn't looking properly, you're not at fault! How could you be when the child wasn't looking? The driver should almost always be responsible for hitting something. In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened.
    - grzm 10y ago
      > In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened. This comes off as incredibly flippant. Is this something you've personally experienced? Would you elaborate on what you mean by a small fine? Going on with life as if it never happened? I fortunately have not been through anything like this, but I've never come across anyone who considers vehicular manslaughter insignificant.
stuaxo 10y ago
In the UK many towns have 20mph on residential streets. It is not just signs though, there are humps to drive over "sleeping policemen" and other obstacles that would make it harder to drive faster.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  I remember when I was on a college campus that had those. All the gear-heads on campus did their best to make the pavement on the far side of the speed table look like the end of a runway. You didn't even have to break the speed limit to do it.
wcarron 10y ago
> men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas Think you may be mixing up two words > In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in __urban__ areas
- civilian 10y ago
  Oh shit, thanks. The post is too old to edit. :/
vka 10y ago
Shouldn't you just remove cars from every place where pedestrians are allowed?
wahern 10y ago
Ideally the speed limit should be whatever is objectively safe given the immediate environment. The problem is that enforcement of such a rule is impractical in most situations. If you're going 35Mph in what was once posted as a 25Mph zone, and it was posted as 25Mph because there's a school zone in two blocks, even if there's a strong argument that 25Mph is the objectively safest limit, you'll then have to prove that the driver knew there was a school in two blocks. Then the driver could argue school was out. Etc, etc, etc. There's a tension between administrative efficiency regarding enforcement and fairness to the accused. This tension is made greater the larger the community. In a tiny community everybody can trust the sheriff to make a judgment call, and the ticketed person not to contest the issue. As the community becomes more diverse and less personally connected, and the environment more complex, you need to rely on strict, clearly articulated rules that minimize discretion. There's another axis we're dealing with here, too. Do we emphasize overall outcomes, or do we emphasize individual justice (for victims, for offenders)? If you emphasize overall outcomes then we focus on prevention and social measures. If you emphasize individual justice you want to make it easier to punish offenders, as well as make the rules clear so that everybody knows precisely how to avoid offending. I tend to emphasize more on overall outcomes. I think most people do, at least in the abstract. But the moment a kid or a biker is run over many people switch into individual justice mode, and that's how elections play out.

rayiner 10y ago

The most effective thing, as shown in European cities, is to make it hard to speed. Have narrower roads that cannot be easily traversed at high speed. To see an example in the US, look at Center City Philadelphia. Outside a few major thoroughfares like Market Street, the roads are one way in each direction and very narrow. Walking as a pedestrian on Walnut (a major retail road) feels very safe.

tptacek 10y ago
This is also an idea in Christopher Alexander's "Timeless Way Of Building" book, and a topic that's been taken up a bunch of times by the Strong Towns blog.

sushisource 10y ago

Not only that, the article specifically addresses parent comment's concerns: > “I don’t want to lie to people,” Lt. Megge tells us. It may make parents feel better if the speed limit on their street is 25 mph instead of 35 mph, but that sign won’t make people drive any slower. Megge prefers speed limits that both allow people to drive at a safe speed legally, and that realistically reflect traffic speeds. People shouldn’t have a false sense of safety around roads, he says. > If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective. Read the article before commenting, people.

sethherr 10y ago
This is my huge problem with the article - it argues we have no control over speeding. And then it suggests places that ticket aggressively are behaving irresponsibly, to the point of villafying a town in Missouri for enforcing its speeding laws. All while skirting the fact that there is a clear correlation between higher speeds and higher fatality rates. Everyone knows a place cops like to hang out, and slows down accordingly. Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them? Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
- CrystalLangUser 10y ago
  Vilifying
  - gjm11 10y ago
    You're right (though I like the idea of villafying a town, which I suppose would mean filling it with large Mediterranean-style dwellings) but this sort of correction to something no one was in much danger of misunderstanding doesn't really contribute much and I suggest is best avoided unless (1) the perpetrator specifically asks for corrections, (2) there's serious danger of misunderstanding as a result of the mistake, or (3) correcting it gives the opportunity to say something genuinely interesting and relevant.

lmm 10y ago

> Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians. I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present. > This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas. Isn't that classic victim-blaming? Getting pedestrians off the road would reduce pedestrian deaths, but it's the wrong way to solve it as a matter of principle.

civilian 10y ago
> I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present. Sounds plausible, I'd love to know the context. Got a link? As for the victim-blaming... Teaching safety isn't something that should be controversial. If it's victim-blaming to teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street, then I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage.
- astrodust 10y ago
  > I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage. That "American culture" is actually a by-product of the automotive industry. In the early 1900s the automobile manufacturers managed to turn around the image of cars being child killing machines, which they were, into it being the fault of the kids. Drive down that cul-de-sac at the speed limit and if you run over a kid, the kid wasn't looking properly, you're not at fault! How could you be when the child wasn't looking? The driver should almost always be responsible for hitting something. In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened.
  - grzm 10y ago
    > In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened. This comes off as incredibly flippant. Is this something you've personally experienced? Would you elaborate on what you mean by a small fine? Going on with life as if it never happened? I fortunately have not been through anything like this, but I've never come across anyone who considers vehicular manslaughter insignificant.

stuaxo 10y ago

In the UK many towns have 20mph on residential streets. It is not just signs though, there are humps to drive over "sleeping policemen" and other obstacles that would make it harder to drive faster.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
I remember when I was on a college campus that had those. All the gear-heads on campus did their best to make the pavement on the far side of the speed table look like the end of a runway. You didn't even have to break the speed limit to do it.

wcarron 10y ago

> men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas Think you may be mixing up two words > In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in __urban__ areas

civilian 10y ago
Oh shit, thanks. The post is too old to edit. :/

vka 10y ago

Shouldn't you just remove cars from every place where pedestrians are allowed?

wahern 10y ago

Ideally the speed limit should be whatever is objectively safe given the immediate environment. The problem is that enforcement of such a rule is impractical in most situations. If you're going 35Mph in what was once posted as a 25Mph zone, and it was posted as 25Mph because there's a school zone in two blocks, even if there's a strong argument that 25Mph is the objectively safest limit, you'll then have to prove that the driver knew there was a school in two blocks. Then the driver could argue school was out. Etc, etc, etc. There's a tension between administrative efficiency regarding enforcement and fairness to the accused. This tension is made greater the larger the community. In a tiny community everybody can trust the sheriff to make a judgment call, and the ticketed person not to contest the issue. As the community becomes more diverse and less personally connected, and the environment more complex, you need to rely on strict, clearly articulated rules that minimize discretion. There's another axis we're dealing with here, too. Do we emphasize overall outcomes, or do we emphasize individual justice (for victims, for offenders)? If you emphasize overall outcomes then we focus on prevention and social measures. If you emphasize individual justice you want to make it easier to punish offenders, as well as make the rules clear so that everybody knows precisely how to avoid offending. I tend to emphasize more on overall outcomes. I think most people do, at least in the abstract. But the moment a kid or a biker is run over many people switch into individual justice mode, and that's how elections play out.