3 ms·

I'm surprised you wouldn't always be required to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Vehicles going fast speeding in dense areas are a huge driver of pedestr

I'm surprised you wouldn't always be required to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Vehicles going fast speeding in dense areas are a huge driver of pedestrian fatalities so reducing speed limits sounds great to me. I've heard that lowering the speed limit from 35 to 25 mph can actually increase average throughput in cities by calming traffic. Here in Massachusetts we're trying to make it legal to use automatic speed limit enforcement (cameras with license plate readers detecting speeding vehicles). Bicycle traffic does far less to wear down roads and other infrastructure than vehicle traffic. They simply aren't comparable. They also have a number of ancillary benefits for the city, like increasing income from local businesses (even accounting for decreased curbside parking!). Barrier separated transport is great for cyclists (and pedestrians), but not if it means restricting cyclists to only riding in bicycle lanes. If you limited cyclists to only riding in places where they had dedicated pathways you'd vastly reduce the practicality of riding in any US city I've been to. I personally feel much safer riding on streets when there are more cyclists around me. It feels like the motorists are more likely to keep an eye out and not do something careless. We could also try and force automakers to make safer "light trucks", as they're currently much more dangerous than This article[1] suggests the rate of pedestrian fatalities by vehicle type is 50% higher for light trucks than for cars per mile driven. It's baffling that we allow such large and dangerously-designed vehicles on the road. [1] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232

xur17 3y ago
> Bicycle traffic does far less to wear down roads and other infrastructure than vehicle traffic. They simply aren't comparable. They also have a number of ancillary benefits for the city, like increasing income from local businesses (even accounting for decreased curbside parking!). This [0] is useful context. Bikes are rounding errors compared to everything else. [0] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...
InSteady 3y ago
The person you're responding to sounds like they are rolling off a litany of automotive industry talking points. Especially the jab about "faulty equipment" in the form of bikes and scooters. Ah yes, we need to quarantine pedestrians far away from cars, further locking them out of the physical spaces in their cities. Plus build more parking garages (what? lol). Oh, and let's take aim at the scourge of ride-sharing, all those inexperienced drivers are a menace! Get rid of scooters and bike-share programs while we're at it, all those inexperienced bikers/scooters are practically _trying_ to get themselves run over. Why not take it a step further? While we're at it, we need more economic incentives in the form of tax breaks or other mechanisms to increase new car sales to help solve the problems with these pesky pedestrians getting themselves maimed and killed. I mean older vehicles are inherently less safe right? [please ignore the obvious design choices on new trucks and SUVs that serve no function outside of aesthetics which are contributing to the killing of pedestrians, especially children]
winternett 3y ago
Telling pedestrians they can walk into a busy street when the signal clearly shows to not cross is not intelligent behavior. Regardless of right of way or safety stances, there is everything from impaired drivers to drivers with faulty brakes and other car issues that make crossing at any time unexpectedly unreasonable. Pedestrians should only be told by officials to cross streets when signals indicate it's safe (as had been the case for many years prior). Regardless, they probably may not do so, but local government should not empower people to simply be reckless in crossing streets. Telling people they are somehow protected or justified simply by being in a crosswalk (even when signals indicate to not cross) contradicts years of jaywalking tickets given out in states for decades prior, when the death rates were lower.
- pastage 3y ago
  Traffic lights are there for cars, of course pedestrians and everyone else should be able to ignore them. They are not there for safety, and unprotected road users are superb at managing risks. Jaywalking should never be a crime if you live in such a community you really have along way to go.

xur17 3y ago

> Bicycle traffic does far less to wear down roads and other infrastructure than vehicle traffic. They simply aren't comparable. They also have a number of ancillary benefits for the city, like increasing income from local businesses (even accounting for decreased curbside parking!). This [0] is useful context. Bikes are rounding errors compared to everything else. [0] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...

InSteady 3y ago

The person you're responding to sounds like they are rolling off a litany of automotive industry talking points. Especially the jab about "faulty equipment" in the form of bikes and scooters. Ah yes, we need to quarantine pedestrians far away from cars, further locking them out of the physical spaces in their cities. Plus build more parking garages (what? lol). Oh, and let's take aim at the scourge of ride-sharing, all those inexperienced drivers are a menace! Get rid of scooters and bike-share programs while we're at it, all those inexperienced bikers/scooters are practically _trying_ to get themselves run over. Why not take it a step further? While we're at it, we need more economic incentives in the form of tax breaks or other mechanisms to increase new car sales to help solve the problems with these pesky pedestrians getting themselves maimed and killed. I mean older vehicles are inherently less safe right? [please ignore the obvious design choices on new trucks and SUVs that serve no function outside of aesthetics which are contributing to the killing of pedestrians, especially children]

winternett 3y ago

Telling pedestrians they can walk into a busy street when the signal clearly shows to not cross is not intelligent behavior. Regardless of right of way or safety stances, there is everything from impaired drivers to drivers with faulty brakes and other car issues that make crossing at any time unexpectedly unreasonable. Pedestrians should only be told by officials to cross streets when signals indicate it's safe (as had been the case for many years prior). Regardless, they probably may not do so, but local government should not empower people to simply be reckless in crossing streets. Telling people they are somehow protected or justified simply by being in a crosswalk (even when signals indicate to not cross) contradicts years of jaywalking tickets given out in states for decades prior, when the death rates were lower.

pastage 3y ago
Traffic lights are there for cars, of course pedestrians and everyone else should be able to ignore them. They are not there for safety, and unprotected road users are superb at managing risks. Jaywalking should never be a crime if you live in such a community you really have along way to go.