3 ms·

There exist optimization criteria besides "reduce the number of deaths". In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.

• cycomanic 4y ago
  Why? and in particular why drivers only?
  • hgomersall 4y ago
    I'm assuming it's ironic because it made no sense to me either.
  • wyager 4y ago
    > Why? Because I like it when people enjoy things. Do you not? > and in particular why drivers only? Where did I imply "drivers only"?
    • cycomanic 4y ago
      > Where did I imply "drivers only"? You only mention enjoyment of drivers in an article about shared roadways. Omitting cyclist is a statement I would argue.
• dqv 4y ago
  >In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion. Yeah but it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road. And that's the point. We want roads that drivers prefer for "enjoyment" (I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle) and roads that optimize for bicycle rider and pedestrian enjoyment. The drivers can stay on the driver roads and bicycle riders and pedestrians can stay on the bicycle and pedestrian roads.
  • wyager 4y ago
    > it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road. It is important for every road, but sometimes it makes sense to prioritize other traffic types (which is why the OP is reasonable in some circumstances). > I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle You are not a modal American in this regard.
• tremon 4y ago
  Which drivers? Lorry drivers? Race car drivers? Soccer moms? Commuters? Motorcyclists? Regular cyclists? Jockeys? Draft-horse drivers? I grant you that it certainly is a criterion for optimization, but I would call it important only for race tracks, not public roads.
  • wyager 4y ago
    > Which drivers Somewhere on the pareto frontier. You can do a good job for most of them. > but I would call it important only for race tracks, not public roads. Utility theory doesn't stop working off a race track.