5 ms·
We had trees, they ripped them out in the name of safety. "A drink driver might swerve off the road" killed so many old growth trees in the US.
by Guvante 3y ago
We had trees, they ripped them out in the name of safety.
"A drink driver might swerve off the road" killed so many old growth trees in the US.
- moomoo11 3y agoWouldn't that be safer? I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.
- vorpalhex 3y agoYou've discovered a core disagreement point in safety, "good for everyone" versus "good for the individual". Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases. Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count. This problem ruins a lot of really nice things.
- eddd-ddde 3y agoThe nice thing is there's an even better way of decreasing crash fatalities. Just decrease the amount of driving.
- vorpalhex 3y agoSure and we can fix computer security by confiscating all computers. Not much of a realistic fix, is it?
- Guvante 3y agoNot comparable. Driving isn't intrinsic. Transportation is important but has multiple solutions.
- dymk 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit
- brightlancer 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand Mass transit will NOT reduce auto transit: any driver who chooses to take mass transit will be replaced by a new driver on the road.
- dymk 3y agoGo read the page you just linked, but more closely. Induced demand is relevant to adding more car lanes, not dedicated bus lanes and other off-grade transit. Civilized countries already solved this problem.
- iggldiggl 3y agoFreed-up capacity is freed-up capacity, no matter whether it was created by building an additional lane or by motivating some people to switch to alternative modes of transport. If enough people switch to public transport to noticeable reduce congestion, the reduced congestion makes driving more attractive again, so some people will switch back to driving, or people who used to drive anyway will now make longer trips, etc. So if you're just building out transit while keeping road capacity the same (less common with dedicated bus lanes or light rail, because space for those is often created by converting former car lanes, but with "other off-grade transit" modes you need to make a conscious effort of reducing road capacity if reduced car usage is your goal), it's entirely possible that public transport use increases, while passenger miles travelled by car remain the roughly same long-term.
- zach_miller 3y agoDecrease, not eliminate. Even for computers. Do light bulbs really need computers? If not, why increase my network’s attack surface area? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075139.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075139.h...
- swexbe 3y agoNo sympathy for drunk drivers. A non-intoxicated driver would slow down in a more risky driving environment.
- brightlancer 3y ago> A non-intoxicated driver would slow down in a more risky driving environment. Unless they were distracted by a phone, the radio, a passenger, putting on make-up, etc. Or fatigued.
- Guvante 3y agoNon-intoxicated drivers do slow down in less forgiving environments though. It isn't that accidents are impossible but the impact speed if you were doing 30 mph is livable. If you were drunk doing 60 mph it wouldn't be.
- beebeepka 3y agoHow is increase of drunk driving suicides a bad thing? I hate this argument. Let's cut the trees because certain people just can't help themselves. Infuriating for all sorts of reasons
- Guvante 3y agoOnly recently has the traffic safety community started ignoring drunk drivers. Historically we measured efficacy by measuring fatalities. If you treat all deaths as equal your minimizing function will be narrow viewed.
- Zpalmtree 3y agoCmon brah, people committing suicide isn't good
- beebeepka 3y agoWhen the choices are: 1. Save drunk drivers but kill trees 2. Save drunk drivers but kill innocents 3. Let the drunk driver die before they kill anything/anyone else I will always pick 3. I don't understand where the sympathy for this reckless behaviour comes from
- TulliusCicero 3y ago> Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases. But without trees they might run into someone walking or on their porch/front yard.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoWhich would increase fatalities - hitting a tree prevents them from killing anyone else. The core argument is wrong.
- mc32 3y agoIt wasn’t one reason. Some of it came down to liability (buckling sidewalks, falling limbs in storms, pruning), public safety (baddies can hide under trees and away from choppers before FLiR), impact on utilities (100+ years ago maybe there was a sewer line and maybe a water line, but not much else in most places).
- barbazoo 3y agoYou're not wrong but man have we unlearned in many parts of the world how to live alongside nature.
- Guvante 3y agoIt can cost tens of thousands to remove a single tree. No shot those reasons would justify millions in tree removal fees. However the huge budgets for roads could do it trivially. You underestimate the impact of measuring fatalities as the only way of verifying success of transportation policy... Certainly if other benefits were weighed properly it might not happen but if you ignore the upsides... (certainly we historically ignored shade for pedestrians).
- CaliforniaKarl 3y agoCloser to where I work, over the four-year period ending one year ago, we had one tree per year fall during the Winter season. The period ended when the campus arborist did a detailed check of all the trees in the immediate area, and a number were removed. In the wider area, this part Winter had multiple trees fall. Not tree limbs, entire trees. One came down in front of a minivan carrying a local bus driver & his supervisor. I've got pictures. I'm a pedestrian: I own neither a car nor a bike. But I understand why some trees are removed. I don't think the trees here are not watered deeply enough, so they don't have a deep hold on the ground.
- Guvante 3y agoI don't mean never remove trees. I mean that we removed healthy trees in the name of safety. Certainly verifying the health of trees and removing those that aren't healthy is a good thing. My point is removing all trees within X distance on a non-highway was common practice. Certainly clearing for highways is good as well.
- nojvek 3y agoDrunk driver dies hitting a tree. Whose fault is that really? Could have easily hit a person, a traffic pole, another car on sideways. I don’t understand the argument why trees are at fault here. Trees are the ultimate carbon capture, they produce oxygen and humidity, they provide shade, something beautiful to look at. They bring in birds and tree dwelling animals like squirrels. Trees are a magical invention by nature. That’s why we feel amazing walking in a neighborhood with trees.