4 ms·

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 spe

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.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract Wrong. As I said, it is at the start of the paper. It is not the first sentence. Your statement is inaccurate. without apparently reading any of the rest Wrong. I did read some of the rest, and in fact indicated precisely where I stopped. or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence. One might argue that to internalize, is to be human. That there is always bias. However, this is hardly the case here, for what is instead happening, is that you are ignoring cause and effect. 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. The above is irrelevant. Let me explain again. You assert this: Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Yet, how do roads get widened? Well, a process exists, and part of that process is to follow standards, and to have engineers enact those standards at the behest of, for example, governments. The process is simple. Clear. Logical. And both your cited paper, and everything else I've read indicates this happens: - engineers looks at standards, are trained on standards - standards say 'wider is safer', engineers believe this standard. - money is spent, roads are built wider, with the intention of improving safety Yet by stating "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you claim the act of widening was predicated upon some other motive. Yet, this is not so. Even your paper agrees it is not so. You are confusing 'cause' and 'effect'. As I said in my prior post, all you can argue at this point is that this is wrong. You cannot argue that people are building roads wider for comfort, for this is not their intent. Again, when you say "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you are indicating intent. Yet the intent is clearly NOT this. You are providing no context for anything else. I am going to be very honest here, and I will ask that you do not take this the wrong way, for you are not alone in this. By stating "Why this is happening" as "What people intended", and by stating "What the effect is" as "Why a thing was done", you are going to immediately lose your audience, and lose any chance of getting your real point across. I know what you meant. The problem is, that even now, you have not actually said it. What you meant to say was: "All those governments may be paying exorbitant outlays from their budgets to widen roads, and all those engineers may be insisting on wider roads for safety, but they are wrong. Instead, there is a lack of data for this, and this assertion is predicated upon a falsehood." I am fairly sure the above is somewhat what you mean. But again, by stating it as you did? It immediately seems like you think everything is some sort of conspiracy, which engineers, municipalities, governments are in on. Purposefully, intentionally, trying to make roads less safe. And that concept is indeed absurd.

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.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract Wrong. As I said, it is at the start of the paper. It is not the first sentence. Your statement is inaccurate. without apparently reading any of the rest Wrong. I did read some of the rest, and in fact indicated precisely where I stopped. or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence. One might argue that to internalize, is to be human. That there is always bias. However, this is hardly the case here, for what is instead happening, is that you are ignoring cause and effect. 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. The above is irrelevant. Let me explain again. You assert this: Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Yet, how do roads get widened? Well, a process exists, and part of that process is to follow standards, and to have engineers enact those standards at the behest of, for example, governments. The process is simple. Clear. Logical. And both your cited paper, and everything else I've read indicates this happens: - engineers looks at standards, are trained on standards - standards say 'wider is safer', engineers believe this standard. - money is spent, roads are built wider, with the intention of improving safety Yet by stating "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you claim the act of widening was predicated upon some other motive. Yet, this is not so. Even your paper agrees it is not so. You are confusing 'cause' and 'effect'. As I said in my prior post, all you can argue at this point is that this is wrong. You cannot argue that people are building roads wider for comfort, for this is not their intent. Again, when you say "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you are indicating intent. Yet the intent is clearly NOT this. You are providing no context for anything else. I am going to be very honest here, and I will ask that you do not take this the wrong way, for you are not alone in this. By stating "Why this is happening" as "What people intended", and by stating "What the effect is" as "Why a thing was done", you are going to immediately lose your audience, and lose any chance of getting your real point across. I know what you meant. The problem is, that even now, you have not actually said it. What you meant to say was: "All those governments may be paying exorbitant outlays from their budgets to widen roads, and all those engineers may be insisting on wider roads for safety, but they are wrong. Instead, there is a lack of data for this, and this assertion is predicated upon a falsehood." I am fairly sure the above is somewhat what you mean. But again, by stating it as you did? It immediately seems like you think everything is some sort of conspiracy, which engineers, municipalities, governments are in on. Purposefully, intentionally, trying to make roads less safe. And that concept is indeed absurd.