3 ms·

How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? Do you think this is happening in Oslo?

mamurphy 7y ago
> How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? Do you think this is happening in Oslo? What if I am having a heart attack and the ambulance is on the way? If it gets there within 5 minutes, I can be saved, if not I die. Oh well, no going over 20 mph, I'm dead. I would hope Oslo has a carve out for emergency response, but I don't see one in the article. Much, much, more abstractly, as the article points out, suburbs are much denser in American than in Olso. "If I could work on my lifesaving cancer cure 8hr/day I would cure it in 10 years, but at 7hr/day I only cure it in 12 years. I can only spend so much time at work and commuting. Oh well, no going over 20mph, it takes me years longer." Lots of productivity losses (some of which are undoubtedly going to result in loss of life) if a(not atypical) American 20 mile commute now takes an hour instead of 20 minutes. It would take restructuring of roadways on a massive scale in America to have this policy not result in staggering productivity/time losses. The article admits this ("it's going to require both institutional and far-reaching cultural changes", "It will take decades"). Without massive changes, adopting this policy would, as the article states, "incite riots in no time." I'd welcome taking steps towards transit restructuring. However, there seems to be little political will for even basic incremental steps. That's why zero deaths seems impossible - getting even basic, functioning, public transit is hard in America.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Emergency vehicles are exempt from many laws and granted priority exactly for this reason - so that they reach you in 5 min, quite an impossible task given the congestion. I'm not sure about Norway, but definitely in Poland. Suburbs too dense sounds like a virtual problem. Concentrate like Singapore or Seoul, more density yet less traffic. Even more ecological if public transportation works properly. US population density is kept artificially low because everyone wants to own land. That is a "dream" sold by realtors, with obvious lack of focus on the costs of it.
WalterBright 7y ago
> How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? People die riding bicycles, too. They die in mass transit accidents. As mentioned earlier, they die because they can't get to the hospital in time. They die because the economy does worse because fewer people shop. It's really hard to tease a simple answer out of an extremely complex, interconnected system. I'm reminded of the argument for the 55 mph speed limit in America, that it "obviously" saved lives. Turned out, it did not. Freeway travel was significantly safer than city street travel, and reducing freeway speeds pushed more traffic onto the city streets, resulting in a higher death rate.
WalterBright 7y ago
Also, everything you do carries some risk of death. But you decide that the benefit is worth the particular risk of death. Demanding that the risk be zeroed out comes with it a reduction in one's standard of living. For example, every time I get on an airplane I risk death. I know it. But I go anyway, because (say, visiting family, having a nice vacation, closing a business deal) is worth it.
ac29 7y ago
So, per the article, they suggest the response should be to: "eliminate all instances where a driver could hit a pedestrian at a speed greater than 15 to 20 mph, even if one or both parties make a mistake. This means in places where people will be out and about (i.e. streets), cars and trucks must either be kept out entirely, or must not travel faster than 20 miles per hour. Period." In the US, this would require an immense amount of infrastructure building and/or an increase in the amount of time people spend in vehicles (due to lower speed travel). Either, with the current status quo, would raise carbon emissions. In 2016, 5987 pedestrians died in the US [0]. And there were 37806 motor vehicle related deaths the same year [1]. Engaging in trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending or increasing the amount of time vehicles spend at low/inefficient speeds will almost certainly kill more people (indirectly) than it saves. I am absolutely for public transit and other infrastructure improvements, but the fact is that preventing deaths just isn't a compelling argument in its favor with the relatively small amount of deaths - substantially more people die from the flu than traffic accidents [2]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Source 1 deals only with accidents vs pedestrian. There are many more crashes with fatal result than just with pedestrians. The numbers are comparable to flu - mind you the influenza statistic counts complications. Most importantly, you have to look at the age structure. Influenza currently takes people in old age. Vehicular accidents are the top cause of death of young people, meaning they're much more impactful in disability adjusted years, which is the real useful measure here, not death count. It's easy to fall prey to Lake Wobegon effect - everyone thinks they are above average and deserve more. Paying 20 minutes daily despite reducing crashes by two orders of magnitude saving average 3 hours of life will be obviously rejected for that reason. Accidents here are generally caused by people ignoring the limits and law anyway, so this measure is unlikely to fix anything unless it causes congestion.

> How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? Do you think this is happening in Oslo? What if I am having a heart attack and the ambulance is on the way? If it gets there within 5 minutes, I can be saved, if not I die. Oh well, no going over 20 mph, I'm dead. I would hope Oslo has a carve out for emergency response, but I don't see one in the article. Much, much, more abstractly, as the article points out, suburbs are much denser in American than in Olso. "If I could work on my lifesaving cancer cure 8hr/day I would cure it in 10 years, but at 7hr/day I only cure it in 12 years. I can only spend so much time at work and commuting. Oh well, no going over 20mph, it takes me years longer." Lots of productivity losses (some of which are undoubtedly going to result in loss of life) if a(not atypical) American 20 mile commute now takes an hour instead of 20 minutes. It would take restructuring of roadways on a massive scale in America to have this policy not result in staggering productivity/time losses. The article admits this ("it's going to require both institutional and far-reaching cultural changes", "It will take decades"). Without massive changes, adopting this policy would, as the article states, "incite riots in no time." I'd welcome taking steps towards transit restructuring. However, there seems to be little political will for even basic incremental steps. That's why zero deaths seems impossible - getting even basic, functioning, public transit is hard in America.

AstralStorm 7y ago
Emergency vehicles are exempt from many laws and granted priority exactly for this reason - so that they reach you in 5 min, quite an impossible task given the congestion. I'm not sure about Norway, but definitely in Poland. Suburbs too dense sounds like a virtual problem. Concentrate like Singapore or Seoul, more density yet less traffic. Even more ecological if public transportation works properly. US population density is kept artificially low because everyone wants to own land. That is a "dream" sold by realtors, with obvious lack of focus on the costs of it.

WalterBright 7y ago

> How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? People die riding bicycles, too. They die in mass transit accidents. As mentioned earlier, they die because they can't get to the hospital in time. They die because the economy does worse because fewer people shop. It's really hard to tease a simple answer out of an extremely complex, interconnected system. I'm reminded of the argument for the 55 mph speed limit in America, that it "obviously" saved lives. Turned out, it did not. Freeway travel was significantly safer than city street travel, and reducing freeway speeds pushed more traffic onto the city streets, resulting in a higher death rate.

WalterBright 7y ago

Also, everything you do carries some risk of death. But you decide that the benefit is worth the particular risk of death. Demanding that the risk be zeroed out comes with it a reduction in one's standard of living. For example, every time I get on an airplane I risk death. I know it. But I go anyway, because (say, visiting family, having a nice vacation, closing a business deal) is worth it.

ac29 7y ago

So, per the article, they suggest the response should be to: "eliminate all instances where a driver could hit a pedestrian at a speed greater than 15 to 20 mph, even if one or both parties make a mistake. This means in places where people will be out and about (i.e. streets), cars and trucks must either be kept out entirely, or must not travel faster than 20 miles per hour. Period." In the US, this would require an immense amount of infrastructure building and/or an increase in the amount of time people spend in vehicles (due to lower speed travel). Either, with the current status quo, would raise carbon emissions. In 2016, 5987 pedestrians died in the US [0]. And there were 37806 motor vehicle related deaths the same year [1]. Engaging in trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending or increasing the amount of time vehicles spend at low/inefficient speeds will almost certainly kill more people (indirectly) than it saves. I am absolutely for public transit and other infrastructure improvements, but the fact is that preventing deaths just isn't a compelling argument in its favor with the relatively small amount of deaths - substantially more people die from the flu than traffic accidents [2]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

AstralStorm 7y ago
Source 1 deals only with accidents vs pedestrian. There are many more crashes with fatal result than just with pedestrians. The numbers are comparable to flu - mind you the influenza statistic counts complications. Most importantly, you have to look at the age structure. Influenza currently takes people in old age. Vehicular accidents are the top cause of death of young people, meaning they're much more impactful in disability adjusted years, which is the real useful measure here, not death count. It's easy to fall prey to Lake Wobegon effect - everyone thinks they are above average and deserve more. Paying 20 minutes daily despite reducing crashes by two orders of magnitude saving average 3 hours of life will be obviously rejected for that reason. Accidents here are generally caused by people ignoring the limits and law anyway, so this measure is unlikely to fix anything unless it causes congestion.