5 ms·

This article is a bit backwards - the number of pedestrians walking in front of vehicles is much higher than vehicles being at fault for hitting pedestrians. We

This article is a bit backwards - the number of pedestrians walking in front of vehicles is much higher than vehicles being at fault for hitting pedestrians. We need to reintroduce the concept of pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are... Or put barriers in place to keep pedestrians where they should be (out of the street).

beebmam 5y ago
I'm genuinely curious: is this an ironic comment?
smm11 5y ago
The dystopian future leaders applaud you attitude.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
It's one of the problems with urban designs, large swathes of the public spaces are now "off-limits" to pedestrians. Either way, there's nothing wrong with trying to make cars safer for pedestrians too.
- bifrost 5y ago
  No matter how safe you make a car when a 3000lb vehicle hits a 100-200lb human at any speed, the human loses. Cars are not the problem.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
joshgev 5y ago
I don't disagree that pedestrians and cyclists need to be careful, but as someone who walks far, far more than they drive, I really regret that cars are king in modern cities. Even in Europe, where cities are often better than their American counterparts, it is very difficult to walk without constant interruptions by roads (in the sense that they cause frequent stopping and waiting for traffic lights as well as the constant noise and choking stench of cars with poor exhaust systems). I do think cars have their place, but I don't understand how people have come to believe that cars in, say, Manhattan or the center of Paris, make a lot of sense.
- bifrost 5y ago
  Because Cars are how the elderly and disabled get around? Cars are safer and more convenient than any public transportation for most of the world. Humans interrupt traffic in my city far more than cars do. Cars are easily contained, humans are not therefore humans are the actual problem.
  - disconcision 5y ago
    beginning to suspect a car wrote this
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Probably the same ones Ford Prefect tried to introduce himself to.
  - watermelon0 5y ago
    AFAIK buses and trains are safer than cars for the occupants, and they are a lot better for the environment. What mostly hinders public transport experience is a chicken-and-egg problem, basically, with more passengers we would have more routes, and more buses/trains on them.
    - bifrost 5y ago
      This is false. Buses and Trains in my city are dangerous and are rarely on time.
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    1. This problem is solved. In Amsterdam, the elderly and disabled can get very small, speed-restricted vehicles to use the bike paths. 2. How is a car safer than a train or bus? Definitely agree cars are more convenient given the current design of American cities. But consider if you had a nearby train station with an express line to downtown. By taking the train, you avoid sitting in traffic, get there quicker, don’t have to worry about parking, don’t have to worry about how much alcohol you consume before driving, and help your health by walking a bit more. Of course, few American cities have public transit that good, but that’s because American cities are designed for cars, not because public transit has an inherit problem. 3/4. You’re thinking about this from a car-centric point of view. But that’s totally arbitrary. What actually matters when considering city policies and society? Hunks of metal? No, people matter. The quality of life for people living in the city should be the utmost priority. Why is the person crossing the road? Well, it turns out that you need to walk to places even after you get out of your car. The problem is that humans don’t have a convenient transit option from one side of the street to the other, because cities aren’t designed to promote walking, despite walking being the most space, time, health, and energy efficient transit option for short distances. Containment is totally irrelevant, imo. Sure, highways must be separate for effective transit. But it’s absolutely impossible to design highways to every single location, especially in extremely location-dense areas. We’ve attempted to do that with the so-called “stroad,” and it has been a massive failure. Those multi-lane roads by strip malls and chain stores are very dangerous for drivers because cars can’t be contained, and that’s without hardly any people walking around. To avoid that, you need to design walkable areas for “destinations,” which completely deprioritize cars. Also, traffic is irrelevant. The purpose of transit is to allow people to get from A to B. car traffic exists to allow that transit. Forms of transit with large vehicles self-create their own congestion. (Like cars) Some, like buses and trains, can be scheduled to avoid that problem. But individual people walking or biking can saturate a given space with significantly more people per second without creating severe congestion. This is crucial for cities, which is why it’s ridiculous that cars have been prioritized in city centers for so long. It’s such an inefficient transit option for dense areas in basically any way you look at it. It’s not even that good for drivers, since city driving is always dangerous, stressful, and congested. Keep cars to the highways for medium/long-distance trips. But there are many better options for dense areas, and that’s where big cars killing people is a problem.
not-my-account 5y ago
> Or put barriers in place to keep pedestrians where they should be (out of the street) This is probably closer to the rational solution than your previous statement (about "pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are"). With proper road design, cars are moving slow enough near pedestrians so they can stop within time. Separated bike lanes save the lives of cyclists and lead to less traffic on the road. North America has been designed to the benefit of cars over pedestrians essentially everywhere, to the great detriment of the local population.
- sli 5y ago
  The improper road design you tangentially refer to is called a "stroad" and it's been discussed on HN before.[0] In short, highway speeds (like a road) but with numerous stops (like a street), and little to none of the predestrian-related benefits of a street (e.g. places to sit, walk, ride bicycles safely etc.). [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293456
avalys 5y ago
Yes, instead of traffic-calming measures, we need to think about pedestrian calming.
- bifrost 5y ago
  Yes, we do. They're 95% of the problem in my city (San Francisco).
  - toothrot 5y ago
    Imagine living in one of the densest cities in the country and also being this dense.
klyrs 5y ago
My house is built on an island in a sea of streets. If I cannot afford a car, should I be legally confined to this block?
- bifrost 5y ago
  Thats a bit of a specious argument because we're mostly talking about big cities. If you walk in the designated areas there is no way you'd be legally confined anywhere.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I've been struck, or nearly struck by cars several times walking in a "designated area" both in uncontrolled and controlled intersections where I had the right of way. In almost all cases, the driver was either utterly oblivious (my favorite being the cop who was looking for vehicular traffic from the left, and accelerated into me while I was in a crosswalk on his right side) or I was plausibly hidden by their A-pillar. That you place the lion's share of the blame on pedestrians is specious.
    - bifrost 5y ago
      Pedestrians are always oblivious.
anigbrowl 5y ago
That claim of yours could use some support. As a pedestrian who agrees traffic lights are there for a reason, I increasingly find crossing the street when I have the right of way to be one of the riskiest situations; many drivers like to make a right turn on red (while I am preparing to cross to the right of them) but are so invested in their plan that all their attention is directed to checking for the approach of vehicles from the left. The sense of entitlement among some drivers just beggars belief. The other day I crossed the street with the pedestrian signal. Beyond the traffic signal (to my right) there were two police cars with lights on blocking one lane to cordon the scene of a recent accident and redirect traffic. While I was crossing a vehicle just casually ran the red light and nearly hit me. When I angrily pointed to the light indicating I had the right of way, they angrily pointed at the police cars, as if their presence somehow superseded the existence of the intervening traffic light.
watermelon0 5y ago
From my experience, car drivers make a lot more mistakes, and break traffic laws more often, than pedestrians do.
- bifrost 5y ago
  You have not been to San Francisco.

beebmam 5y ago

I'm genuinely curious: is this an ironic comment?

smm11 5y ago

The dystopian future leaders applaud you attitude.

Synaesthesia 5y ago

It's one of the problems with urban designs, large swathes of the public spaces are now "off-limits" to pedestrians. Either way, there's nothing wrong with trying to make cars safer for pedestrians too.

bifrost 5y ago
No matter how safe you make a car when a 3000lb vehicle hits a 100-200lb human at any speed, the human loses. Cars are not the problem.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

joshgev 5y ago

I don't disagree that pedestrians and cyclists need to be careful, but as someone who walks far, far more than they drive, I really regret that cars are king in modern cities. Even in Europe, where cities are often better than their American counterparts, it is very difficult to walk without constant interruptions by roads (in the sense that they cause frequent stopping and waiting for traffic lights as well as the constant noise and choking stench of cars with poor exhaust systems). I do think cars have their place, but I don't understand how people have come to believe that cars in, say, Manhattan or the center of Paris, make a lot of sense.

bifrost 5y ago
Because Cars are how the elderly and disabled get around? Cars are safer and more convenient than any public transportation for most of the world. Humans interrupt traffic in my city far more than cars do. Cars are easily contained, humans are not therefore humans are the actual problem.
- disconcision 5y ago
  beginning to suspect a car wrote this
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Probably the same ones Ford Prefect tried to introduce himself to.
- watermelon0 5y ago
  AFAIK buses and trains are safer than cars for the occupants, and they are a lot better for the environment. What mostly hinders public transport experience is a chicken-and-egg problem, basically, with more passengers we would have more routes, and more buses/trains on them.
  - bifrost 5y ago
    This is false. Buses and Trains in my city are dangerous and are rarely on time.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  1. This problem is solved. In Amsterdam, the elderly and disabled can get very small, speed-restricted vehicles to use the bike paths. 2. How is a car safer than a train or bus? Definitely agree cars are more convenient given the current design of American cities. But consider if you had a nearby train station with an express line to downtown. By taking the train, you avoid sitting in traffic, get there quicker, don’t have to worry about parking, don’t have to worry about how much alcohol you consume before driving, and help your health by walking a bit more. Of course, few American cities have public transit that good, but that’s because American cities are designed for cars, not because public transit has an inherit problem. 3/4. You’re thinking about this from a car-centric point of view. But that’s totally arbitrary. What actually matters when considering city policies and society? Hunks of metal? No, people matter. The quality of life for people living in the city should be the utmost priority. Why is the person crossing the road? Well, it turns out that you need to walk to places even after you get out of your car. The problem is that humans don’t have a convenient transit option from one side of the street to the other, because cities aren’t designed to promote walking, despite walking being the most space, time, health, and energy efficient transit option for short distances. Containment is totally irrelevant, imo. Sure, highways must be separate for effective transit. But it’s absolutely impossible to design highways to every single location, especially in extremely location-dense areas. We’ve attempted to do that with the so-called “stroad,” and it has been a massive failure. Those multi-lane roads by strip malls and chain stores are very dangerous for drivers because cars can’t be contained, and that’s without hardly any people walking around. To avoid that, you need to design walkable areas for “destinations,” which completely deprioritize cars. Also, traffic is irrelevant. The purpose of transit is to allow people to get from A to B. car traffic exists to allow that transit. Forms of transit with large vehicles self-create their own congestion. (Like cars) Some, like buses and trains, can be scheduled to avoid that problem. But individual people walking or biking can saturate a given space with significantly more people per second without creating severe congestion. This is crucial for cities, which is why it’s ridiculous that cars have been prioritized in city centers for so long. It’s such an inefficient transit option for dense areas in basically any way you look at it. It’s not even that good for drivers, since city driving is always dangerous, stressful, and congested. Keep cars to the highways for medium/long-distance trips. But there are many better options for dense areas, and that’s where big cars killing people is a problem.

not-my-account 5y ago

> Or put barriers in place to keep pedestrians where they should be (out of the street) This is probably closer to the rational solution than your previous statement (about "pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are"). With proper road design, cars are moving slow enough near pedestrians so they can stop within time. Separated bike lanes save the lives of cyclists and lead to less traffic on the road. North America has been designed to the benefit of cars over pedestrians essentially everywhere, to the great detriment of the local population.

sli 5y ago
The improper road design you tangentially refer to is called a "stroad" and it's been discussed on HN before.[0] In short, highway speeds (like a road) but with numerous stops (like a street), and little to none of the predestrian-related benefits of a street (e.g. places to sit, walk, ride bicycles safely etc.). [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293456

avalys 5y ago

Yes, instead of traffic-calming measures, we need to think about pedestrian calming.

bifrost 5y ago
Yes, we do. They're 95% of the problem in my city (San Francisco).
- toothrot 5y ago
  Imagine living in one of the densest cities in the country and also being this dense.

klyrs 5y ago

My house is built on an island in a sea of streets. If I cannot afford a car, should I be legally confined to this block?

bifrost 5y ago
Thats a bit of a specious argument because we're mostly talking about big cities. If you walk in the designated areas there is no way you'd be legally confined anywhere.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I've been struck, or nearly struck by cars several times walking in a "designated area" both in uncontrolled and controlled intersections where I had the right of way. In almost all cases, the driver was either utterly oblivious (my favorite being the cop who was looking for vehicular traffic from the left, and accelerated into me while I was in a crosswalk on his right side) or I was plausibly hidden by their A-pillar. That you place the lion's share of the blame on pedestrians is specious.
  - bifrost 5y ago
    Pedestrians are always oblivious.

anigbrowl 5y ago

That claim of yours could use some support. As a pedestrian who agrees traffic lights are there for a reason, I increasingly find crossing the street when I have the right of way to be one of the riskiest situations; many drivers like to make a right turn on red (while I am preparing to cross to the right of them) but are so invested in their plan that all their attention is directed to checking for the approach of vehicles from the left. The sense of entitlement among some drivers just beggars belief. The other day I crossed the street with the pedestrian signal. Beyond the traffic signal (to my right) there were two police cars with lights on blocking one lane to cordon the scene of a recent accident and redirect traffic. While I was crossing a vehicle just casually ran the red light and nearly hit me. When I angrily pointed to the light indicating I had the right of way, they angrily pointed at the police cars, as if their presence somehow superseded the existence of the intervening traffic light.

watermelon0 5y ago

From my experience, car drivers make a lot more mistakes, and break traffic laws more often, than pedestrians do.

bifrost 5y ago
You have not been to San Francisco.