6 ms·

Stopping distance won't seem like a ''fetish'' to some kid who cases his ball onto a busy street and doesn't get his brains splattered because cars do stop fast

Stopping distance won't seem like a ''fetish'' to some kid who cases his ball onto a busy street and doesn't get his brains splattered because cars do stop faster than they once did.

scrose 6y ago
It seems like the obvious solution is lower speed limits and less deadly cars. Not more pollution in case the person texting on their phone at 30+mph looks up from their phone a split second before they notice a kid playing in or crossing the street.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Children aren't the only suddenly-appearing risks, even in otherwise blue-sky, fair-weather, controlled-access conditions.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  That's a fine snarky retort if you only consider idealised abstract scenarios. In the real world, streets are lined with all manner of visual obstructions that children, deer, etc may be hidden by. Bushes, cars, buildings or garden walls; any speed above parking lot speeds has the potential to kill somebody or something in real world scenarios. Shit happens.
  - scrose 6y ago
    I wasn’t being snarky, and I’m well aware of real world scenarios. I’ve biked in NYC for over a decade, I’ve worked in transportation and volunteer my time for building safer streets. The majority of drivers I see on the street at looking at phones on their laps, or dashboards where their phone is hanging. The obstacles you named(visual obstructions) are all also things that should not exist as much as they do in their current forms. Daylighting intersections to improve sight lines, smaller cars to prevent crushing kids and also improve sight lines, narrower streets to reduce speeds are not idealized abstract scenarios. Plenty of countries outside of the USA have this as a reality and a few have achieved 0 traffic deaths, and that is owed almost entirely to street design, not bigger car tires. ‘Shit Happens’, yes. But there are significantly better ways to make ‘shit happen’ less, and make it less deadly for the people outside of a car.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Saying that visual obstructions should not exist is fine if we're all being idealists daydreaming about the changes we would impose when we become Emperors of the world. But in the meantime, stopping distance is important. Making the changes you propose in urban settings wouldn't even be sufficient. Or do you also mean to clearcut all forests within 50 meters of all roads, then nuke the grass with herbicides? A year ago when driving Alaska Highway 5 during dusk I was nearly killed by a moose. The trees there were cut away from the roads, but the grass was high enough to hide the moose until I was almost next to it. And about ten years ago in Pennsylvania, I did hit a deer in similar circumstances. Thankfully I was able to slow down enough that it didn't come through my windshield. There is no way in hell I would ever opt for any system that increases my stopping distance. ABS and good tires are no longer optional as far as I'm personally concerned.
      - scrose 6y ago
        My initial comment said that, but was edited 30 minutes prior to your reply to include ‘as much as they do in their current forms’ to make my point clearer. I’m not sure if you had the old message cached, but I’d recommend re-reading the point I was making. I don’t believe we disagree with each other. Stopping distance does matter, but there are solutions that exist that are cheaper, more effective, and less destructive. It unfortunately feels like you’re the one being snarky though by comparing street-level solutions like daylighting intersections to idealistic daydreaming and something only fit for an ‘Emperor of the world’ to take on. In reality, those changes typically come up during community meetings and DOT planning sessions. Hardly emperor-level discussions, and input is typically open to the public.
  - zip1234 6y ago
    Lower speeds allow for more reaction time across the board. If a crash happens it is because at least one vehicle was going too fast.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  No thanks. The point of cars is fast travel times and I - and I suspect much of society - would not want to see 25 mph speed limits increasing our travel times and stealing from our precious free time. It’s a tradeoff and I don’t think we have a bad balance with higher speed limits.
  - scrose 6y ago
    Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA experiences the equivalent of over 100 Boeing 747 plane crashes a year(and rising), counting only deaths due to traffic crashes. The number spikes significantly higher when you factor in people with severe injuries who will never fully recover(think: losing arms, legs, brain damage,etc..). Assuming speed limits stay the same, but deaths and injuries continue to rise, at what point would you say we have a ‘bad balance’ and should adjust? What is your ‘balance’ based on? Is there some ratio of VMT(vehicle miles traveled) to occurrences of deaths and dismemberment that you keep in mind?
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      Deaths and injuries don’t “continue” to rise. They’ve been falling dramatically since the 80s. They’ll continue to do so because of safety technologies like rear cameras, blind spot monitoring, lane departure detection, etc. My balance is based on my personal values and risk assessment. I don’t fear injuries or death when I get on the road. Nor do I fear it when walking or on my bicycle. Overall the system is pretty safe and I like my modern conveniences. My point is simply to say that perfect safety isn’t a realistic or desirable goal since the returns for the risks are high.
      - scrose 6y ago
        I’m not sure why you put “continue” in quotes when my comment never included the word continue. You are correct that deaths for motor vehicle occupants are going down due to safety features specifically designed to keep the occupants safe. But car related deaths for people outside of cars is trending up and is getting grimly close to double what it was just a little over 10 years ago[0][1] [0] https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-idUSKCN1TI231 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-...
stefan_ 6y ago
It's nice you are concerned for the kids, now you just need to collectively remember it when it comes to buying trucks & SUVs that have the grille on head height, sight angles that make it impossible to see small kids just walking in front of you on a crosswalk and with their height rob kids of the ability to see anything but a wall of metal around them.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  If only crosswalks were the only places children might approach a street, stopping distance might not be so relevant. And you need to remember that not all vehicles are SUVs or pickup trucks, even in America, and regular small cars benefit from larger tires as well. No matter how small your car, and no matter how perfect your attention to your surroundings, larger tires are safer.
  - culopatin 6y ago
    I have experience in tuning race cars of different kinds and I can tell you that bigger tires are not always better. Light car with big tires is veeeery sketchy to drive in rain. I had a Miata with 225 wide super sticky tires and I couldn’t go over 60 on the highway without being very nervous. I went down to 205s and it’s way more street friendly. Roads with some gravel, dirt, or otherwise not so perfect are also not great with too big of a tire because the car rolls on the little pebbles or rocks instead of shaping itself around it. The pounds per inch go down enough that the tire won’t get pushed around the rock to contact the asphalt. There is a “safe for the average guy” tire width and a “experienced enthusiast that wants some extra Gs in the turns” width.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Can confirm - hyroplaning is much more common in wider tires assuming the same vehicle weight. 285s are awesome on dry roads, but not so friendly in a downpour. Was definitely made fun of pretty hard by my non-car-guy friends for my slow driving that day.
- giantg2 6y ago
giantg2 6y ago
Had this type of thing happen twice, in both an old an new car. New car (stops 60-0 in 101'): Doing 30mph. Middle school kid just didn't look and stepped into the road about 35' in front of me. I slammed the clutch and brake and the deceleration was very rapid. No contact or injuries - plenty of room. Not sure how he didn't hear the loud(ish) car coming up the hill prior to that. Old car (60-0 in 120' when new, more likely much longer at this point): Doing about 35 mph. High school kid wearing earbuds decides to step out without looking about 20' in front of me. I feather the pedal and it wasn't looking good. At least the kid heard the right front lock-up an got back on the side of the road. If he were walking on the correct side of the road, this wouldn't have been an issue since you can see the oncoming traffic close to you (no sidewalk). What is it with people not looking before crossing the street? They teach this in pre-K/Kindergarden.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- supertrope 6y ago
  Yes children should be taught about road safety but they’re not the ones operating a two ton high speed machine. Pools are fenced because those owning hazards have a duty to safeguard children from them. Children don’t have a duty to be as responsible as an adult would be.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    So, fence the roadways and only allow crosswalks that electronically control a gate to allow pedestrians to cross when traffic is stopped? We already have laws in place to protect pedestrians, including children. Children are still required to follow the law and are expected to know right from wrong at a young age (mens rea around age 8 depending on state). So they are expected, by law, to be as responsible as an adult. Your fence analogy is flawed. The fence is a requirement by law, just as crosswalks and their use are required by law. Neither kid was using a crosswalk or even gave any indication they were going to cross the street (such as turning to look at traffic). They simply stepped into traffic without looking. There's no legal basis for a driver to be held responsible in the scenarios I described where the driver is operating lawfully (attentive, at or under the speed limit, etc) and the pedestrian decides to step out without any indication and in violation of the law. The driver in that scenario performed all their lawful duties but even a lawful driver is not likely to be able to stop a car that takes 30-40 feet to stop at 35mph when someone steps out at 20 feet. Just as someone with a fence around their pool would have fulfilled their lawful duties if a high school kid tresspassed by jumping that fence and drowned. Parents have a duty to safeguard their children. If you allow your child to go unsupervised, then you could be found responsible their actions if they do something wrong (parent's negligence in not supervising a minor). Some states or cities even make it a crime to allow a child under a specific age to go unsupervised whether they did something wrong or not (curfews are very common). But it is generally up to the parent to decide if their child can safely perform an action such as walking along a street or staying home alone. I'd hardly call 30-35 mph high speed, unless we're calling bicycles high speed too. Typically when talking about cars, high speed would be considered at least highway speeds in excess of 50mph.

Stopping distance won't seem like a ''fetish'' to some kid who cases his ball onto a busy street and doesn't get his brains splattered because cars do stop faster than they once did.

scrose 6y ago

It seems like the obvious solution is lower speed limits and less deadly cars. Not more pollution in case the person texting on their phone at 30+mph looks up from their phone a split second before they notice a kid playing in or crossing the street.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Children aren't the only suddenly-appearing risks, even in otherwise blue-sky, fair-weather, controlled-access conditions.
bigbubba 6y ago
That's a fine snarky retort if you only consider idealised abstract scenarios. In the real world, streets are lined with all manner of visual obstructions that children, deer, etc may be hidden by. Bushes, cars, buildings or garden walls; any speed above parking lot speeds has the potential to kill somebody or something in real world scenarios. Shit happens.
- scrose 6y ago
  I wasn’t being snarky, and I’m well aware of real world scenarios. I’ve biked in NYC for over a decade, I’ve worked in transportation and volunteer my time for building safer streets. The majority of drivers I see on the street at looking at phones on their laps, or dashboards where their phone is hanging. The obstacles you named(visual obstructions) are all also things that should not exist as much as they do in their current forms. Daylighting intersections to improve sight lines, smaller cars to prevent crushing kids and also improve sight lines, narrower streets to reduce speeds are not idealized abstract scenarios. Plenty of countries outside of the USA have this as a reality and a few have achieved 0 traffic deaths, and that is owed almost entirely to street design, not bigger car tires. ‘Shit Happens’, yes. But there are significantly better ways to make ‘shit happen’ less, and make it less deadly for the people outside of a car.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Saying that visual obstructions should not exist is fine if we're all being idealists daydreaming about the changes we would impose when we become Emperors of the world. But in the meantime, stopping distance is important. Making the changes you propose in urban settings wouldn't even be sufficient. Or do you also mean to clearcut all forests within 50 meters of all roads, then nuke the grass with herbicides? A year ago when driving Alaska Highway 5 during dusk I was nearly killed by a moose. The trees there were cut away from the roads, but the grass was high enough to hide the moose until I was almost next to it. And about ten years ago in Pennsylvania, I did hit a deer in similar circumstances. Thankfully I was able to slow down enough that it didn't come through my windshield. There is no way in hell I would ever opt for any system that increases my stopping distance. ABS and good tires are no longer optional as far as I'm personally concerned.
    - scrose 6y ago
      My initial comment said that, but was edited 30 minutes prior to your reply to include ‘as much as they do in their current forms’ to make my point clearer. I’m not sure if you had the old message cached, but I’d recommend re-reading the point I was making. I don’t believe we disagree with each other. Stopping distance does matter, but there are solutions that exist that are cheaper, more effective, and less destructive. It unfortunately feels like you’re the one being snarky though by comparing street-level solutions like daylighting intersections to idealistic daydreaming and something only fit for an ‘Emperor of the world’ to take on. In reality, those changes typically come up during community meetings and DOT planning sessions. Hardly emperor-level discussions, and input is typically open to the public.
- zip1234 6y ago
  Lower speeds allow for more reaction time across the board. If a crash happens it is because at least one vehicle was going too fast.
throwawaysea 6y ago
No thanks. The point of cars is fast travel times and I - and I suspect much of society - would not want to see 25 mph speed limits increasing our travel times and stealing from our precious free time. It’s a tradeoff and I don’t think we have a bad balance with higher speed limits.
- scrose 6y ago
  Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA experiences the equivalent of over 100 Boeing 747 plane crashes a year(and rising), counting only deaths due to traffic crashes. The number spikes significantly higher when you factor in people with severe injuries who will never fully recover(think: losing arms, legs, brain damage,etc..). Assuming speed limits stay the same, but deaths and injuries continue to rise, at what point would you say we have a ‘bad balance’ and should adjust? What is your ‘balance’ based on? Is there some ratio of VMT(vehicle miles traveled) to occurrences of deaths and dismemberment that you keep in mind?
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Deaths and injuries don’t “continue” to rise. They’ve been falling dramatically since the 80s. They’ll continue to do so because of safety technologies like rear cameras, blind spot monitoring, lane departure detection, etc. My balance is based on my personal values and risk assessment. I don’t fear injuries or death when I get on the road. Nor do I fear it when walking or on my bicycle. Overall the system is pretty safe and I like my modern conveniences. My point is simply to say that perfect safety isn’t a realistic or desirable goal since the returns for the risks are high.
    - scrose 6y ago
      I’m not sure why you put “continue” in quotes when my comment never included the word continue. You are correct that deaths for motor vehicle occupants are going down due to safety features specifically designed to keep the occupants safe. But car related deaths for people outside of cars is trending up and is getting grimly close to double what it was just a little over 10 years ago[0][1] [0] https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-idUSKCN1TI231 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-...

stefan_ 6y ago

It's nice you are concerned for the kids, now you just need to collectively remember it when it comes to buying trucks & SUVs that have the grille on head height, sight angles that make it impossible to see small kids just walking in front of you on a crosswalk and with their height rob kids of the ability to see anything but a wall of metal around them.

bigbubba 6y ago
If only crosswalks were the only places children might approach a street, stopping distance might not be so relevant. And you need to remember that not all vehicles are SUVs or pickup trucks, even in America, and regular small cars benefit from larger tires as well. No matter how small your car, and no matter how perfect your attention to your surroundings, larger tires are safer.
- culopatin 6y ago
  I have experience in tuning race cars of different kinds and I can tell you that bigger tires are not always better. Light car with big tires is veeeery sketchy to drive in rain. I had a Miata with 225 wide super sticky tires and I couldn’t go over 60 on the highway without being very nervous. I went down to 205s and it’s way more street friendly. Roads with some gravel, dirt, or otherwise not so perfect are also not great with too big of a tire because the car rolls on the little pebbles or rocks instead of shaping itself around it. The pounds per inch go down enough that the tire won’t get pushed around the rock to contact the asphalt. There is a “safe for the average guy” tire width and a “experienced enthusiast that wants some extra Gs in the turns” width.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Can confirm - hyroplaning is much more common in wider tires assuming the same vehicle weight. 285s are awesome on dry roads, but not so friendly in a downpour. Was definitely made fun of pretty hard by my non-car-guy friends for my slow driving that day.
giantg2 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

Had this type of thing happen twice, in both an old an new car. New car (stops 60-0 in 101'): Doing 30mph. Middle school kid just didn't look and stepped into the road about 35' in front of me. I slammed the clutch and brake and the deceleration was very rapid. No contact or injuries - plenty of room. Not sure how he didn't hear the loud(ish) car coming up the hill prior to that. Old car (60-0 in 120' when new, more likely much longer at this point): Doing about 35 mph. High school kid wearing earbuds decides to step out without looking about 20' in front of me. I feather the pedal and it wasn't looking good. At least the kid heard the right front lock-up an got back on the side of the road. If he were walking on the correct side of the road, this wouldn't have been an issue since you can see the oncoming traffic close to you (no sidewalk). What is it with people not looking before crossing the street? They teach this in pre-K/Kindergarden.

giantg2 6y ago
Why is this downvoted?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
supertrope 6y ago
Yes children should be taught about road safety but they’re not the ones operating a two ton high speed machine. Pools are fenced because those owning hazards have a duty to safeguard children from them. Children don’t have a duty to be as responsible as an adult would be.
- giantg2 6y ago
  So, fence the roadways and only allow crosswalks that electronically control a gate to allow pedestrians to cross when traffic is stopped? We already have laws in place to protect pedestrians, including children. Children are still required to follow the law and are expected to know right from wrong at a young age (mens rea around age 8 depending on state). So they are expected, by law, to be as responsible as an adult. Your fence analogy is flawed. The fence is a requirement by law, just as crosswalks and their use are required by law. Neither kid was using a crosswalk or even gave any indication they were going to cross the street (such as turning to look at traffic). They simply stepped into traffic without looking. There's no legal basis for a driver to be held responsible in the scenarios I described where the driver is operating lawfully (attentive, at or under the speed limit, etc) and the pedestrian decides to step out without any indication and in violation of the law. The driver in that scenario performed all their lawful duties but even a lawful driver is not likely to be able to stop a car that takes 30-40 feet to stop at 35mph when someone steps out at 20 feet. Just as someone with a fence around their pool would have fulfilled their lawful duties if a high school kid tresspassed by jumping that fence and drowned. Parents have a duty to safeguard their children. If you allow your child to go unsupervised, then you could be found responsible their actions if they do something wrong (parent's negligence in not supervising a minor). Some states or cities even make it a crime to allow a child under a specific age to go unsupervised whether they did something wrong or not (curfews are very common). But it is generally up to the parent to decide if their child can safely perform an action such as walking along a street or staying home alone. I'd hardly call 30-35 mph high speed, unless we're calling bicycles high speed too. Typically when talking about cars, high speed would be considered at least highway speeds in excess of 50mph.