4 ms·
You'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/w
by vorpalhex 3y ago
You'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.