6 ms·

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 f

by 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-...

by scrose 6y ago

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-...