3 ms·

Let's see, off the top of my head... Turn on red while the pedestrians get the signal to walk. Drunk driving is very common. Driver licensing requirements ar

Let's see, off the top of my head... Turn on red while the pedestrians get the signal to walk. Drunk driving is very common. Driver licensing requirements are extremely low (you have a pulse) and driver education is ridiculous compared to any other developed nation. Road and intersection design is deadly wrong just about everywhere, traffic moving while people crossing, etc. You could look at how other countries are improving this (look at Sweden) but let's be real - the US will never learn from other countries, that would obviously be a sign of some sort of weakness - redesigning roadways, nah, it's cheaper for people to die.

kqr 5y ago
And as a resident of Sweden, while many things are going well, it's clear planners still don't understand how travel by non-car works. Most importantly, in the quest for safety, convenience for non-car traffic is almost always sacrificed, making car travel all the more enticing. This is the wrong feedback loop to have. Semi-recent example. Problem: number of accidents involving people crossing the street too high. Solution: remove zebra crossings. Now don't get me wrong -- this has reduced street crossing accidents. But it has also made foot travel much more inconvenient, because you now have to either walk much longer to find a crossing, or wait for all traffic to pass and then make a mad dash for it. (As a side effect, car travel got a bit more convenient because there are now fewer places you're expected to stop.) This repeats in all shapes and styles constantly. In the name of safety, cyclists are re-routed for almost a mile (!) around what was previously a hundred-yard straight line. The underlying problem, I think, is that planners see that car people are trying to get somewhere. They don't seem to realise that pedestrians, cyclists, etc are also just trying to goddamn get somewhere. These activities are almost universally treated as a hobby or pastime. (You see this even on the local Craigslist-type sites, where bicycles are not under the "vehicle" category where I would expect them, but under "hobby".)
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  The implicit assumption, I think, is that car drivers have more money and pay more taxes and thus should get priority.
  - fock 5y ago
    @democracy disagrees. The continued pollution/negative externalities by car mobility and the associated tax breaks (at least in my european country) are also making a car a net negative.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Perhaps so, but I was referring to what appears to be the implicit assumptions of city planners.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  My guess its a side effect of „Getting to zero“. And once a metric becomes a target…
- imnotlost 5y ago
  Point taken, I don't know enough about individual solutions on the ground but fatality numbers are better, not just in Sweden but in multiple European countries. Ideally pedestrian and cycling should be prioritized and vehicle traffic should be separated by rerouting, bridges, tunnels, barriers, and other physical means (probably cycling / pedestrian too).
- foxpurple 5y ago
  Self driving cars will be great because everywhere becomes a zebra crossing.
- jseban 5y ago
  The reason why cars are prioritised is because they are objectively the most useful vehicle. By far. A bicycle is really a joke in comparison when you actually consider the usefulness, and even though I love to ride my bike sometimes when the weather is nice, I can also realise that it really is a luxury to spend money on bike paths in addition to already existing roads for cars AND public transport. Especially in colder climates like Sweden where they will be largely empty for most of the year, it's pretty obvious why this isn't a priority really. Why is it "wrong" to prioritise the most useful transportation?
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    But cars are not the most useful transportation. They are immensely inefficient, in terms of space needed, pollution, cost etc. If it would be supporting the most useful modes of transportation we would only support public transport and bikes/scooters for short distances.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Turn on red while the pedestrians get the signal to walk. This is an almost daily problem for me as a pedestrian. A high proportion of drivers are, unfortunately, assholes. It's baffling to me that they can't bear to wait 5 or 10 seconds at a light.
- goodcanadian 5y ago
  I don't think the rule is the problem. I think the problem is a lack of enforcement of the rule. Each car is meant to come to a complete stop before proceeding, and then only proceed if it is clear. Basically, no one stops. So all of those drivers are breaking the law and running the red light.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    That's true, but then cops don't like doing traffic duty. I am not in favor of even more cameras and automated systems either.
- derefr 5y ago
  I believe I’ve seen designs for busy intersections, that pop up spike strips along the oncoming side of each crosswalk for as long as the pedestrian crossing light for that crosswalk is active. Big disincentive for being an asshole, that.
- kody 5y ago
  I can’t believe how often I start walking when I have right of way and the driver slams on their breaks and throws their hands up, honks, or cuts me off. Then when I’m driving I understand why pedestrians wave me on: it’s better to be wrong and alive.
- imnotlost 5y ago
  Either cars or pedestrians go - nothing else is safe.
canadianfella 5y ago
“Rising”
dang 5y ago
Please do not swerve into nationalistic flamebait in your comments here. It generally leads to nationalistic flamewars, which are tedious and nasty and the kind of thing we're trying to avoid. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kqr 5y ago

And as a resident of Sweden, while many things are going well, it's clear planners still don't understand how travel by non-car works. Most importantly, in the quest for safety, convenience for non-car traffic is almost always sacrificed, making car travel all the more enticing. This is the wrong feedback loop to have. Semi-recent example. Problem: number of accidents involving people crossing the street too high. Solution: remove zebra crossings. Now don't get me wrong -- this has reduced street crossing accidents. But it has also made foot travel much more inconvenient, because you now have to either walk much longer to find a crossing, or wait for all traffic to pass and then make a mad dash for it. (As a side effect, car travel got a bit more convenient because there are now fewer places you're expected to stop.) This repeats in all shapes and styles constantly. In the name of safety, cyclists are re-routed for almost a mile (!) around what was previously a hundred-yard straight line. The underlying problem, I think, is that planners see that car people are trying to get somewhere. They don't seem to realise that pedestrians, cyclists, etc are also just trying to goddamn get somewhere. These activities are almost universally treated as a hobby or pastime. (You see this even on the local Craigslist-type sites, where bicycles are not under the "vehicle" category where I would expect them, but under "hobby".)

anigbrowl 5y ago
The implicit assumption, I think, is that car drivers have more money and pay more taxes and thus should get priority.
- fock 5y ago
  @democracy disagrees. The continued pollution/negative externalities by car mobility and the associated tax breaks (at least in my european country) are also making a car a net negative.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Perhaps so, but I was referring to what appears to be the implicit assumptions of city planners.
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
My guess its a side effect of „Getting to zero“. And once a metric becomes a target…
imnotlost 5y ago
Point taken, I don't know enough about individual solutions on the ground but fatality numbers are better, not just in Sweden but in multiple European countries. Ideally pedestrian and cycling should be prioritized and vehicle traffic should be separated by rerouting, bridges, tunnels, barriers, and other physical means (probably cycling / pedestrian too).
foxpurple 5y ago
Self driving cars will be great because everywhere becomes a zebra crossing.
jseban 5y ago
The reason why cars are prioritised is because they are objectively the most useful vehicle. By far. A bicycle is really a joke in comparison when you actually consider the usefulness, and even though I love to ride my bike sometimes when the weather is nice, I can also realise that it really is a luxury to spend money on bike paths in addition to already existing roads for cars AND public transport. Especially in colder climates like Sweden where they will be largely empty for most of the year, it's pretty obvious why this isn't a priority really. Why is it "wrong" to prioritise the most useful transportation?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  But cars are not the most useful transportation. They are immensely inefficient, in terms of space needed, pollution, cost etc. If it would be supporting the most useful modes of transportation we would only support public transport and bikes/scooters for short distances.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Turn on red while the pedestrians get the signal to walk. This is an almost daily problem for me as a pedestrian. A high proportion of drivers are, unfortunately, assholes. It's baffling to me that they can't bear to wait 5 or 10 seconds at a light.

goodcanadian 5y ago
I don't think the rule is the problem. I think the problem is a lack of enforcement of the rule. Each car is meant to come to a complete stop before proceeding, and then only proceed if it is clear. Basically, no one stops. So all of those drivers are breaking the law and running the red light.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That's true, but then cops don't like doing traffic duty. I am not in favor of even more cameras and automated systems either.
derefr 5y ago
I believe I’ve seen designs for busy intersections, that pop up spike strips along the oncoming side of each crosswalk for as long as the pedestrian crossing light for that crosswalk is active. Big disincentive for being an asshole, that.
kody 5y ago
I can’t believe how often I start walking when I have right of way and the driver slams on their breaks and throws their hands up, honks, or cuts me off. Then when I’m driving I understand why pedestrians wave me on: it’s better to be wrong and alive.
imnotlost 5y ago
Either cars or pedestrians go - nothing else is safe.

canadianfella 5y ago

“Rising”

dang 5y ago

Please do not swerve into nationalistic flamebait in your comments here. It generally leads to nationalistic flamewars, which are tedious and nasty and the kind of thing we're trying to avoid. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html