5 ms·

I don't think it's fair to equate the "fun of driving" with reckless driving. The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door

by oblib 6y ago

I don't think it's fair to equate the "fun of driving" with reckless driving. The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door sedan or big SUV on a curvey mountain road is not all about how fast you can go. They're just a lot more fun. One of my favorite cars was a little Suzuki Samurai. It wasn't at all fast but it was a blast to drive with the top down and go 4wheeling on the National Forest roads. Consider "lowriders". Those aren't famous for being fast, they're famous for going slow, but they're a lot of fun to cruise the strip in. I think people fumbling with their phone while driving is a bigger issue right now than people speeding and racing.

hannasanarion 6y ago
The person you're replying to isn't talking about bad drivers, they're talking about bad infrastructure that was designed to comply with the "fun of driving" marketing narrative: unnecessarily wide roads, parking everywhere, speed limits higher than what is safe, deceptive landscaping and painting to make drivers comfortable at unsafe speeds, nonenforcement of speed limits and red lights, highly segmented zoning to artificially give people a reason to use cars that would otherwise be unnecessary, etc etc etc.
- oblib 6y ago
  That "bad infrastructure" bit was in their response to my first comment, which I did not address at all on in my second comment. Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay. I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  What the? Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want! All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up. I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on. But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Trees are cut down and signs widely spaced so that drivers can go fast while feeling like they are going slow. And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1] As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present. 1. https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets_Accepted_Paper_for_CITE_Conference_Regina_June_2015_ https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Stree...
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      Absurd. Right from the start of the paper: Traditional traffic engineers argue a wider lane is safer. Although every engineering standard publication (FHWA 2011; TAC 1999) identifies pavement width as the most influential safety feature, discussion is surprisingly scarce (Hauer, 1999) The article itself asserts that "traffic engineers" believe this to be safer, that "every engineering standard publication" agrees. Whilst the article may, or may not provide a conflicting view (I haven't the time to read it right now), it 100%, completely and totally agrees that roads are built this way to promote safety. It agrees, stating that this is why engineers are building roads this way. The very best you can argue is that "this is wrong", but you cannot argue "the purpose is not safety", for this is why engineers are doing it! You are literally misrepresenting things. Please stop.
      - hannasanarion 6y ago
        You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract without apparently reading any of the rest, or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence. Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true. Engineering standards aren't scientific papers, they are practical and instructional, and the hunches of their authors is sufficient for standardization, necessary even, because you can't do science on the efficacy of standards that you haven't written yet. Some early road engineers guessed that wider streets were safer, and it has been taken as gospel truth ever since.

by oblib 6y ago

hannasanarion 6y ago

The person you're replying to isn't talking about bad drivers, they're talking about bad infrastructure that was designed to comply with the "fun of driving" marketing narrative: unnecessarily wide roads, parking everywhere, speed limits higher than what is safe, deceptive landscaping and painting to make drivers comfortable at unsafe speeds, nonenforcement of speed limits and red lights, highly segmented zoning to artificially give people a reason to use cars that would otherwise be unnecessary, etc etc etc.

oblib 6y ago
That "bad infrastructure" bit was in their response to my first comment, which I did not address at all on in my second comment. Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay. I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
bbarnett 6y ago
What the? Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want! All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up. I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on. But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Trees are cut down and signs widely spaced so that drivers can go fast while feeling like they are going slow. And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1] As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present. 1. https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets_Accepted_Paper_for_CITE_Conference_Regina_June_2015_ https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Stree...
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    Absurd. Right from the start of the paper: Traditional traffic engineers argue a wider lane is safer. Although every engineering standard publication (FHWA 2011; TAC 1999) identifies pavement width as the most influential safety feature, discussion is surprisingly scarce (Hauer, 1999) The article itself asserts that "traffic engineers" believe this to be safer, that "every engineering standard publication" agrees. Whilst the article may, or may not provide a conflicting view (I haven't the time to read it right now), it 100%, completely and totally agrees that roads are built this way to promote safety. It agrees, stating that this is why engineers are building roads this way. The very best you can argue is that "this is wrong", but you cannot argue "the purpose is not safety", for this is why engineers are doing it! You are literally misrepresenting things. Please stop.
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract without apparently reading any of the rest, or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence. Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true. Engineering standards aren't scientific papers, they are practical and instructional, and the hunches of their authors is sufficient for standardization, necessary even, because you can't do science on the efficacy of standards that you haven't written yet. Some early road engineers guessed that wider streets were safer, and it has been taken as gospel truth ever since.