5 ms·

Let me float you a hypothetical situation: you're in command of a few tons of steel, and your priority is to get to some arbitrary location. Your second priori

Let me float you a hypothetical situation: you're in command of a few tons of steel, and your priority is to get to some arbitrary location. Your second priority, I assume, is to not murder anyone. Here's what you know about the environment : it is populated with (harmless fleshly) people who are also going about fulfilling goals 1 and 2. You know with high probability that at any given moment one might quickly cross the path of your vehicle - it is normal (80-90% of people do it) to behave this way. You can: - reduce your speed, knowing that accidental collisions are likely. This slightly penalizes your first goal, but greatly increases the outlook for the second. - Blame 80-90% of everyone, for not taking the cost onto themselves to ensure you can get to your goal quickly without much effort. I guess it also boils down to your views on responsibility: "I shouldn't be accountable when the risky situations which i knowingly entered materialize into accidents. Especially because these risks mostly apply to others." or "I am personally directing a large amount of kinetic energy for convenience reasons and am responsible of where it ends up. the onus of carefulness befalls me and not the other unwilling participants as they are handling much less kinetic energy and therefore by themselves orders of magnitude less likely to cause the death or injury of others."

unwrap 7y ago
I see no point in wasting words seeing how differing viewpoints are received here. Somebody has even bothered to go over my comment history and downvote everything. I think you'd see it in a very different light if you were living here. I am honestly very worried for my friends and relatives who drive, most of whom do it very, very carefully, and still they have yearly encounters with adults who behave like feeble-minded children. BTW, didn't I say I don't have a driver's license?
- chronolitus 7y ago
  > I see no point in wasting words seeing how differing viewpoints are received here. Somebody has even bothered to go over my comment history and downvote everything. I understand how you feel. However if you are right and I am wrong - then your words are not wasted, even if they are not well received, as long as they are read. > and still they have yearly encounters with adults who behave like feeble-minded children I guess our road safety practices and status-quo should not bother to extend as far as guaranteeing the well-being of the feeble-minded. Children playing in the street are fair-game. To be fair, I understand that your viewpoint is economically efficient, to an extent. I can accept that favoring cars has significant economic benefits, and I understand why society has done it at the expense of quality-of-life at the ground level (children shouldn't play in the street, the area around your appartment/house is not for you to enjoy but for commuting strangers, etc), and personal safety. But is it really necessary to hold on to this so dearly and for so long? Especially when other cities/countries have shown that alternatives are possible and attractive?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Any transition from here to there on the scale of transport and land use policies is going to take a holistic and well-communicated strategy, durable commitment to that strategy, and multiple decades to play out. I'm not sure the first of those pre-conditions has been met and I doubt our ability to commit as a nation to the second.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > I am honestly very worried for my friends and relatives who drive Any worries about friends and relatives who walk?
imtringued 7y ago
Reducing your speed increases the likely hood of collisions because pedestrians tend to no care about their safety at all if they can shave off 2 seconds. They don't wait for your car to pass. If you are on the left lane and the right lane is free then they will walk onto the street and anticipate that you will pass them by the time they have reached the left lane. If you reduce your speed then their guess turns out to be wrong and you risk driving over them.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I think the idea is to drive slower but still consistently and predictably.
- jacobush 7y ago
  There is a threshold where the speed will likely injure, not kill. It's prudent to keep below or near that speed, so you have at least time to bring your car down that speed when braking, if not managing to come to a halt.
- afiori 7y ago
  In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?
    - afiori 7y ago
      I do not understand what you are referring to. > Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both? pedestrian obviously. This implies to me that regardless of the law, pedestrian should be careful when crossing the streets. From the legal side I believe we should adopt the regulations that are more likely to decrease the number and gravity of incidents, this is heavily dependent of local customs.
donatj 7y ago
I disagree with it being so black and white. Higher speed travel saves time and energy. 55mph is generally considered optimal for vehicle fuel consumption. Slowing speeds pretty directly affects climate change and pollution. I’d like to see a direct comparison of loss of life vs mph including figures on deaths from increased air pollution and other climate considerations. I think one could also argue time lost in transit as a “loss of life” but that’s understandably too far for some.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Driving an electric car for 4.5 years has helped me experience the tradeoffs in speed and efficiency (range) on a daily basis with fast feedback. Though 55 mph is much more energy efficient than 65 mph, 35 mph is much more energy efficient than 55 mph as well. I think the 55 mph point is realistically a balance between energy and time efficiency, not an optimum of energy efficiency alone.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    The tradeoff will be different for electric cars.
  - coredog64 7y ago
    Spark ignition ICEs experience something called “pumping losses”: There’s a physical impediment (the throttle) that the engine has to work against at low engine speeds. So while drag increases with speed, it’s also true that at lower speeds you’re still converting hydrocarbons to waste heat at the same rate. The truth is that fuel economy is a delicate balance between rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, gearing, and the engine power curve.
    - afiori 7y ago
      With the car I usually drive the minimal efficient speed is around 30mph. Below that you are forced to a very low gear.
  - scotty79 7y ago
Ygg2 7y ago
Shouldn't the same logic apply to a pedestrian? I mean his goals are getting to some arbitrary location and arriving at that location intact. Why should only the driver carry the responsibility? Driving slower than average increases the driver's chances of getting in an accident. Also, lower speeds aren't guaranteed safety. I know of an accident that occurred around 10-20km/h right next to a hospital, which resulted in instant death. Pedestrian was crossing on red, behind a car parked at the traffic light and flew right into a path of a vehicle, trying to pass the car parked at the semaphore, this bounced him just enough to fall and crack his head on the curb. Ironically, according to policemen, was that had the driver driven faster, he might have bounced pedestrian harder, and not kill him on the spot.
- r3bl 7y ago
  Because your life, as a driver, is shielded by a huge metal can. Pedestrian life is not. Pedestrians can't put your life in danger, while you can put their life in danger. That's why, in "normal" countries, it's always the driver that needs to be questioned by default, not the pedestrian. If the driver proves that he did all he could to avoid the accident, he faces no consequences. If not, he faces them. This really isn't that complicated. It's okay for the pedestrian to not respect all the rules because he's not in the position in which he can put other people's lives in danger — only his own. Drivers are willingly putting themselves in a situation in which they can put other people's lives in danger, so the burden of proof is on them.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    > Pedestrians can't put your life in danger Sure they can. They can increase the likelihood you'll get in danger, by trying to avoid collision with them.
    - PakG1 7y ago
      Mm, even if they "tried to not put their life in danger", they still wouldn't be putting your life in danger... simple physics.
lmilcin 7y ago
I agree completely. After watching hundreds or even thousands of accidents on Youtube it could be said that there typically are two parties that could be blamed for the accident. One is officially at fault but there typically is somebody else who did not pay enough attention or did not slow down at intersection or did not do one of the many things that careful drivers would be expected to do. Drivers (or pedestrians) with certain attitude that I would describe as expecting everybody to follow the rules but at the same following the rules only selectively and not giving anybody any margin for error are people that I think cause most of accidents. Everybody makes mistakes and it is in human nature to miss a sign or occasionally misplace attention for a second or two. If everybody was driving defensively most of the time it would take two people to make a mistake at the same time which would cause accidents to be very rare. On the other hand if drivers give no margin for error it only takes a single person to make a mistake. I have an uncle who thinks he is a good driver. Yes, he can drive fast, precisely, he knows rules and knows how to not be the driver at fault. But while he is not officially causing accidents over the last decade he took part in around a dozen accidents. He is not giving anybody any margin for error and this attitude is what I think is more damaging than people that make mistake from time to time.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  An interesting concept in this area is the naked streets concept, where by the streets are stripped of the usual trappings of lights, signs and lane markings. Since no one then feels like they are just "in the right" everyone tends to be much more attentive. https://www.pps.org/article/hans-monderman https://www.pps.org/article/hans-monderman
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    This is, unfortunately, incorrect. The reason the number of accidents got suddenly smaller is because people were used to markings but then they had to re-learn how to function when the markings were removed. When you learn to drive or when you are in unfamiliar place you tend to drive slower and be more attentive. But this is only temporary effect. After some time people adjust and same problems show up. Still not convinced? What about south asian countries which tend to have little in the way of traffic signs? If lack of markings makes people behave more carefully how do you explain relative lack of safety in countries like Vietnam, Thailand, etc?

unwrap 7y ago

I see no point in wasting words seeing how differing viewpoints are received here. Somebody has even bothered to go over my comment history and downvote everything. I think you'd see it in a very different light if you were living here. I am honestly very worried for my friends and relatives who drive, most of whom do it very, very carefully, and still they have yearly encounters with adults who behave like feeble-minded children. BTW, didn't I say I don't have a driver's license?

chronolitus 7y ago
> I see no point in wasting words seeing how differing viewpoints are received here. Somebody has even bothered to go over my comment history and downvote everything. I understand how you feel. However if you are right and I am wrong - then your words are not wasted, even if they are not well received, as long as they are read. > and still they have yearly encounters with adults who behave like feeble-minded children I guess our road safety practices and status-quo should not bother to extend as far as guaranteeing the well-being of the feeble-minded. Children playing in the street are fair-game. To be fair, I understand that your viewpoint is economically efficient, to an extent. I can accept that favoring cars has significant economic benefits, and I understand why society has done it at the expense of quality-of-life at the ground level (children shouldn't play in the street, the area around your appartment/house is not for you to enjoy but for commuting strangers, etc), and personal safety. But is it really necessary to hold on to this so dearly and for so long? Especially when other cities/countries have shown that alternatives are possible and attractive?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Any transition from here to there on the scale of transport and land use policies is going to take a holistic and well-communicated strategy, durable commitment to that strategy, and multiple decades to play out. I'm not sure the first of those pre-conditions has been met and I doubt our ability to commit as a nation to the second.
pavel_lishin 7y ago
> I am honestly very worried for my friends and relatives who drive Any worries about friends and relatives who walk?

imtringued 7y ago

Reducing your speed increases the likely hood of collisions because pedestrians tend to no care about their safety at all if they can shave off 2 seconds. They don't wait for your car to pass. If you are on the left lane and the right lane is free then they will walk onto the street and anticipate that you will pass them by the time they have reached the left lane. If you reduce your speed then their guess turns out to be wrong and you risk driving over them.

quickthrower2 7y ago
I think the idea is to drive slower but still consistently and predictably.
jacobush 7y ago
There is a threshold where the speed will likely injure, not kill. It's prudent to keep below or near that speed, so you have at least time to bring your car down that speed when braking, if not managing to come to a halt.
afiori 7y ago
In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?
  - afiori 7y ago
    I do not understand what you are referring to. > Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both? pedestrian obviously. This implies to me that regardless of the law, pedestrian should be careful when crossing the streets. From the legal side I believe we should adopt the regulations that are more likely to decrease the number and gravity of incidents, this is heavily dependent of local customs.

donatj 7y ago

I disagree with it being so black and white. Higher speed travel saves time and energy. 55mph is generally considered optimal for vehicle fuel consumption. Slowing speeds pretty directly affects climate change and pollution. I’d like to see a direct comparison of loss of life vs mph including figures on deaths from increased air pollution and other climate considerations. I think one could also argue time lost in transit as a “loss of life” but that’s understandably too far for some.

sokoloff 7y ago
Driving an electric car for 4.5 years has helped me experience the tradeoffs in speed and efficiency (range) on a daily basis with fast feedback. Though 55 mph is much more energy efficient than 65 mph, 35 mph is much more energy efficient than 55 mph as well. I think the 55 mph point is realistically a balance between energy and time efficiency, not an optimum of energy efficiency alone.
- admax88q 7y ago
  The tradeoff will be different for electric cars.
- coredog64 7y ago
  Spark ignition ICEs experience something called “pumping losses”: There’s a physical impediment (the throttle) that the engine has to work against at low engine speeds. So while drag increases with speed, it’s also true that at lower speeds you’re still converting hydrocarbons to waste heat at the same rate. The truth is that fuel economy is a delicate balance between rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, gearing, and the engine power curve.
  - afiori 7y ago
    With the car I usually drive the minimal efficient speed is around 30mph. Below that you are forced to a very low gear.
- scotty79 7y ago

Ygg2 7y ago

Shouldn't the same logic apply to a pedestrian? I mean his goals are getting to some arbitrary location and arriving at that location intact. Why should only the driver carry the responsibility? Driving slower than average increases the driver's chances of getting in an accident. Also, lower speeds aren't guaranteed safety. I know of an accident that occurred around 10-20km/h right next to a hospital, which resulted in instant death. Pedestrian was crossing on red, behind a car parked at the traffic light and flew right into a path of a vehicle, trying to pass the car parked at the semaphore, this bounced him just enough to fall and crack his head on the curb. Ironically, according to policemen, was that had the driver driven faster, he might have bounced pedestrian harder, and not kill him on the spot.

r3bl 7y ago
Because your life, as a driver, is shielded by a huge metal can. Pedestrian life is not. Pedestrians can't put your life in danger, while you can put their life in danger. That's why, in "normal" countries, it's always the driver that needs to be questioned by default, not the pedestrian. If the driver proves that he did all he could to avoid the accident, he faces no consequences. If not, he faces them. This really isn't that complicated. It's okay for the pedestrian to not respect all the rules because he's not in the position in which he can put other people's lives in danger — only his own. Drivers are willingly putting themselves in a situation in which they can put other people's lives in danger, so the burden of proof is on them.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  > Pedestrians can't put your life in danger Sure they can. They can increase the likelihood you'll get in danger, by trying to avoid collision with them.
  - PakG1 7y ago
    Mm, even if they "tried to not put their life in danger", they still wouldn't be putting your life in danger... simple physics.

lmilcin 7y ago

I agree completely. After watching hundreds or even thousands of accidents on Youtube it could be said that there typically are two parties that could be blamed for the accident. One is officially at fault but there typically is somebody else who did not pay enough attention or did not slow down at intersection or did not do one of the many things that careful drivers would be expected to do. Drivers (or pedestrians) with certain attitude that I would describe as expecting everybody to follow the rules but at the same following the rules only selectively and not giving anybody any margin for error are people that I think cause most of accidents. Everybody makes mistakes and it is in human nature to miss a sign or occasionally misplace attention for a second or two. If everybody was driving defensively most of the time it would take two people to make a mistake at the same time which would cause accidents to be very rare. On the other hand if drivers give no margin for error it only takes a single person to make a mistake. I have an uncle who thinks he is a good driver. Yes, he can drive fast, precisely, he knows rules and knows how to not be the driver at fault. But while he is not officially causing accidents over the last decade he took part in around a dozen accidents. He is not giving anybody any margin for error and this attitude is what I think is more damaging than people that make mistake from time to time.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
An interesting concept in this area is the naked streets concept, where by the streets are stripped of the usual trappings of lights, signs and lane markings. Since no one then feels like they are just "in the right" everyone tends to be much more attentive. https://www.pps.org/article/hans-monderman https://www.pps.org/article/hans-monderman
- lmilcin 7y ago
  This is, unfortunately, incorrect. The reason the number of accidents got suddenly smaller is because people were used to markings but then they had to re-learn how to function when the markings were removed. When you learn to drive or when you are in unfamiliar place you tend to drive slower and be more attentive. But this is only temporary effect. After some time people adjust and same problems show up. Still not convinced? What about south asian countries which tend to have little in the way of traffic signs? If lack of markings makes people behave more carefully how do you explain relative lack of safety in countries like Vietnam, Thailand, etc?