3 ms·

> Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Because that is the rule, and the rule was created to create predictability and there

> Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please? Because that is the rule, and the rule was created to create predictability and thereby increase safety. You are arguing to reduce safety because you have an ideological opposition to cars.

ericd 6y ago
You could argue that the rule was created to make cars more convenient, at the expense of historical norms of on-foot transportation in towns. Even when they're at a safe distance, cars zooming around in towns are extremely unpleasant to be around as a pedestrian.
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, the US has this rule that increases safety and the UK doesn't. Comparing major cities reveals that the UK does better than the US does, though. I don't think you've adequately proven your point. For instance, it's not an outrageous hypothesis that frequent uncontrolled pedestrian crossings readies drivers for that event thereby increasing safety whereas rare uncontrolled pedestrian crossings mean that drivers are surprised for and unable to handle the situation. In a systems thinking sense, it's not obvious that fixed pedestrian/car intersections are the safest.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > I don't think you've adequately proven your point. It's not exactly controversial, so what else needs to be proven? You asked why things are as they are, I say it's because we implemented rules governing how we drive and walk on roads to create predictability and therefore safety. Don't like that cars seem to have more free reign? Change the road design, change the rules. But there are good reasons we have the system we have now.
sagarm 6y ago
Concrete example of how our laws prioritize driver convenience to a comic degree: in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. A similar law for pedestrians might state that any location where pedestrians tend to cross more than X times/day must be a all-way stop.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. That's generally true everywhere, because it's the only answer that makes any sense. We know from lots of experience that even with heavy enforcement, just reducing speed limits doesn't have a big effect on actual speeds. About 10% of drivers rigorously follow the signs, the other 90% drive what's comfortable. So the practical answer is to design roads to be uncomfortable at high speeds. Makes them safer for cars and people both. Just reducing speed limits is a feel-good non-solution.

ericd 6y ago

You could argue that the rule was created to make cars more convenient, at the expense of historical norms of on-foot transportation in towns. Even when they're at a safe distance, cars zooming around in towns are extremely unpleasant to be around as a pedestrian.

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, the US has this rule that increases safety and the UK doesn't. Comparing major cities reveals that the UK does better than the US does, though. I don't think you've adequately proven your point. For instance, it's not an outrageous hypothesis that frequent uncontrolled pedestrian crossings readies drivers for that event thereby increasing safety whereas rare uncontrolled pedestrian crossings mean that drivers are surprised for and unable to handle the situation. In a systems thinking sense, it's not obvious that fixed pedestrian/car intersections are the safest.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> I don't think you've adequately proven your point. It's not exactly controversial, so what else needs to be proven? You asked why things are as they are, I say it's because we implemented rules governing how we drive and walk on roads to create predictability and therefore safety. Don't like that cars seem to have more free reign? Change the road design, change the rules. But there are good reasons we have the system we have now.

sagarm 6y ago

Concrete example of how our laws prioritize driver convenience to a comic degree: in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. A similar law for pedestrians might state that any location where pedestrians tend to cross more than X times/day must be a all-way stop.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> in California if traffic typically travels above the speed limit on a certain road, the speed limit there must be increased. That's generally true everywhere, because it's the only answer that makes any sense. We know from lots of experience that even with heavy enforcement, just reducing speed limits doesn't have a big effect on actual speeds. About 10% of drivers rigorously follow the signs, the other 90% drive what's comfortable. So the practical answer is to design roads to be uncomfortable at high speeds. Makes them safer for cars and people both. Just reducing speed limits is a feel-good non-solution.