3 ms·

As an American, we need to rethink how the cities are designed. Way too much emphasis on car centric design. An emphasis on car centric transportation means fed

• DawnQFunk3 4y ago
  [dead]
• Steltek 4y ago
  The American system is broken. Many (Blue) states would happily rein in oil guzzling pickups, SUVs, etc but Federal law prevents that. Another example is states can't require truck trailers to have side barriers to keep small cars and cyclists from going under.
  • dont__panic 4y ago
    Interestingly, California has essentially put itself in the position of dictating emissions standards for the entire USA because it imposes the strictest requirements, and California is a large enough market that carmakers won't ignore it (but small enough that it's not worth separate SKUs). I wonder what would happen if California, or New York, or a consortium of smaller blue states like New England imposed safety standards that banned or heavily penalized trucks and SUVs over 4,000 lbs, oversized A pillars, etc. Would the automakers blink, and start making cars safer? Or would they just start selling the dangerous vehicles only in red states? Would blue states start to ticket dangerous vehicles purely for existing on roads?
    • mitchdoogle 4y ago
      It'd last a couple years then be thrown out by the conservative SCOTUS
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Where in the Constitution is vehicle size a protected right?
        • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
          Commerce clause. (Yes I know it's not a "right" but there's no political will to ban it federally so the distinction doesn't matter much here.) And given the choice between putting up with oversized vehicles and completely eviscerating federal authority to set rules for individuals and small local businesses and organizations (which is what reinterpreting the commerce clause would lead to) oversized vehicles doesn't seem that bad.
          • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
            We are talking about the SCOTUS striking down state safety standards for vehicles. I dont think they would. I'm in NH and drive a modded Subaru and I'm getting fisted by CA emissions standards. Will the SCOTUS back me up when I sue CA? Edit: Ooh! There is apparently a lawsuit over this exact issue. I guess we can wait and see!
  • gapplebees 4y ago
• Schiendelman 4y ago
  We have rethought it extensively. There are proposals in every major city and probably nearly every neighborhood for improved street designs. But enough of those who drive through those neighborhoods oppose those improvements that they rarely happen. It’s easy for a driver to assign themself responsibility to “drive safely” - and hard to admit that we take constant risks that sometimes result in harm. Accepting that we need new street designs is taken as a personal affront by many drivers. I think the only way to solve this is to take street design decisions (and funding for safety improvements) out of the hands of governments - there’s no level of local gov that is immune from the backlash. But how do we do that without some horrible other outcomes?
  • giraffe_lady 4y ago
    > We have rethought it extensively. Exactly. The way we have it concentrates the harm mostly on the impoverished and disabled which is exactly where we want it. You can purchase your way out of the worst of the danger if you have the resources which again is traditional and aligned with our national values. There's nothing here that actually demands action within an american framework of harm and safety. Maybe we'll grow beyond this eventually but for now we have chosen not to.
  • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >We have rethought it extensively. There are proposals in every major city and probably nearly every neighborhood for improved street designs. But enough of those who drive through those neighborhoods oppose those improvements that they rarely happen. It doesn't help that half the time these proposals wind up being half-baked boondoggles that result in a great deal of money being spent for a situation that is at best net neutral. In my own city they redeveloped some main streets according to modern principals coinciding with a stadium development. They then patted themselves on the backs for how effective they were at traffic calming without reducing throughput at the points before and after the project zone at which they measured. Of course, nobody was talking about the fact that they basically just displaced the traffic from that main thoroughfare into the adjacent neighborhoods and turned "kids play here" streets into exactly the kind of car-filled hellscape they allege to be against. Of course, only the locals know this. If you're far away in some ivory tower the project looks like a success. >and hard to admit that we take constant risks that sometimes result in harm. Modern society is incapable of having the requisite tough discussions about the pros and cons of various risks/rewards when human life and limb is involved. I think the HN classes ought to take a good look in the mirror because we do a great amount of peddling the kind of rhetoric that perpetuates this immaturity. >I think the only way to solve this is to take street design decisions (and funding for safety improvements) out of the hands of governments - there’s no level of local gov that is immune from the backlash. But how do we do that without some horrible other outcomes? We don't. Further removed government doesn't exactly have a great track record. Time and time again you'll see local governments do absolutely asinine infrastructure things because checking some box to meet some criteria for state or fed funding results in a lower total cost after the higher level of .gov kicks in some fraction of the money even though the end result is not what they need. I think the solution here is more direct local control. If some municipalities do figure it out and make improvements then their ideas and patterns of development will be copied elsewhere.