6 ms·

Oh! One of my favorite soap boxes! How about instead of making laws more restrictive for drivers, we change car regulations so that everyone isn’t driving a tan

Oh! One of my favorite soap boxes! How about instead of making laws more restrictive for drivers, we change car regulations so that everyone isn’t driving a tank. Pedestrian deaths are on the rise because windows are smaller, cars are heavier, grills are larger, etc. Just start taxing tanks more heavily. Or, even easier, scale back subsidies for trucks

willcipriano 3y ago
We have already made pedestrians bigger to compensate.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
Why not also make traffic laws stricter where vehicles and pedestrians intersect? It’s not like the right on red rule came from on high, or represents some innate personal freedom. It’s just added competition between vehicles and pedestrians for right of way, and even the tiniest, safest vehicles “win” that competition in the worst way.
- c22 3y ago
  There's no competition here, the pedestrian has the right of way. Just start actually enforcing it. Use those red light cameras and send a ticket to anyone who cuts off a pedestrian or fails to come to a complete stop before turning.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    Um. I think you’ve misunderstood my point. By the time any ticket is issued, the driver has already either hit a pedestrian or used the vehicle’s superior weight and velocity to threaten same (“won” the “competition”). Sure, they’re breaking the rule which already exists, but it’s far less likely to happen if both vehicles and pedestrians aren’t expected to share the same space in the same traffic phase.
    - c22 3y ago
      No, you've misunderstood my point. If you enforce the laws then people are more incentivized to follow them, and in this case more people following the law would likely reduce the number of car-pedestrian collisions. Nobody really wants to hit a pedestrian, if they slow down and pay attention most people will avoid it. If you don't enforce the laws then making them more comprehensive is unlikely to fix anything.
      - eyelidlessness 3y ago
        You are still misunderstanding my point. A driver doesn’t have to want to hit a pedestrian for right on red to be dangerous. They just have to want to move their dangerous vehicle through an intersection in a dangerous way (ie when pedestrians may also be entering it). A want which right-on-red inherently promotes. It’s not like traffic cops are just watching drivers run rights-on-red. It’s not like red light cameras aren’t in use, and tickets aren’t being issued for violators that get caught, no matter how they enter or exit an intersection on red. The law isn’t unenforced. The law, where it exists, is inherently dangerous. And it incentivizes dangerous behavior that makes being a pedestrian disproportionately less safe than being a driver. A ticket is far less risk to a driver than getting hit is to a pedestrian. There is no good reason to continue to allow an inherently dangerous traffic maneuver, full stop.
        c22 3y ago
        Do the cameras ticket you for rolling right on red? Because I've never heard of it and I see people doing this all the time. I've definitely seen it happen in the presence of cops who did nothing.
        eyelidlessness 3y ago
        The cameras don’t ticket anyone for anything, they just take photos. I don’t know what determines whether a ticket is issued for any red light photo. I’ve seen cops ignore all manner of traffic violations, yes including running a right on red. I’ve also seen it enforced, and know people who’ve been on the enforcement end. If you’re moving the goal posts to “enforcement must be total before stricter laws”, you’ve basically eliminated the basis for any traffic law besides vehicular manslaughter. Which is perhaps a logically consistent position, albeit one I can’t take seriously. Do you have any interest in engaging the actual point I’m making? Which, again, is that right on red is inherently dangerous and unnecessary. Here, I’ll even throw your preoccupation with enforcement a bone: prohibition of right on red is significantly more enforceable in the first place. To the earlier point about red light cameras, I imagine photographic evidence of a right-on-red violation is among the more worthless bases for automated enforcement. For actual traffic cops on duty, a no-stop violation is likely much easier to miss than a prohibition of the maneuver altogether. And I’ll ask you this: what is your actual motivation here? Are you focused on enforcement of existing law on some principle? Or just a blanket reluctance to expansion of law in general? Do you specifically prefer allowing right on red, for any particular reason? Something else I haven’t considered?
Borgz 3y ago
Requiring vehicles to be safer is a good idea, but it will take many years before unsafe vehicles are off the road. In the meantime, we should try to make changes that can have an impact on a shorter timeframe. Changing traffic laws can be done relatively quickly and have an immediate effect.
- az09mugen 3y ago
  You mean that kind of unsafe vehicle ? https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=self+driving+car+pedestrian&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=self+driving+car+pedestrian&...
up2isomorphism 3y ago
Why every time when there is a problem , some socialist dude will jump out to propose tax as a remedy? This particular insane in this case where bunch of infrastructure improvements can be made to reduce such issues and taxing is not even relevant.
- squigz 3y ago
  Interesting that you'd ignore the last point OP made, while crying about socialism.
  - up2isomorphism 3y ago
    I have no objection to remove subsidies, why should I be against that?
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  We should raise taxes on anyone who has a different world view than myself
- timothyduong 3y ago
  In Australia the registration for private road vehicles is based on the weight of the vehicle (weight class based), which in my mind makes sense as the heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear, and impact to the shared roads. So yes, I agree with the sentiment that larger vehicles should cost more. They’re literally using more road than others.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  The taxes already exist. They are suggesting a process of rationally evaluating the incentives that the current taxes create and then from there considering replacement taxes that lead to different incentives.
  - up2isomorphism 3y ago
    He is proposing put “heavier” tax, which means to increase tax. What’s the point of mentioning “taxes already exist”?
shagymoe 3y ago
A Prius will kill or seriously injure someone with something like 85% effectiveness of a larger vehicle, no?
- spott 3y ago
  The Prius has better visibility, and thus is unlikely to run into a pedestrian. A large truck/SUV can’t see anything shorter than like 4 feet that is right in front of it… so it is more likely to kill someone just because it can’t see them.
- Macha 3y ago
  It depends. At like 80kph, you're pretty screwed from the impact alone regardless of the vehicle. At 15kph, both are pretty survivable from an impact perspective. But if your survive the impact, the next question is where do you go? For big, raised, boxy vehicles, the answer is more often "under the car" than for cars with ramping low fronts. Having the weight of the car on you is dangerous by itself, even at 1kph. Then of course there's the impact of the design on driver visibility and therefore accident frequency, especially if the pedestrian is a child, short, in a wheelchair, etc.
  - kristianp 3y ago
    I think the impact location is important here. A large SUVs grill can impact on the pedestrian's head, for example.
acdha 3y ago
We have to do both, and also something about phone usage since a lot of drivers are roughly in DUI territory now. The problem is that driving instead of walking/cycling/transit and especially big vehicles have been a status symbol for many decades and so most of the political class and DOT leaders identify as drivers, and are loathe to make changes which might personally slow themselves down.

willcipriano 3y ago

We have already made pedestrians bigger to compensate.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

Why not also make traffic laws stricter where vehicles and pedestrians intersect? It’s not like the right on red rule came from on high, or represents some innate personal freedom. It’s just added competition between vehicles and pedestrians for right of way, and even the tiniest, safest vehicles “win” that competition in the worst way.

c22 3y ago
There's no competition here, the pedestrian has the right of way. Just start actually enforcing it. Use those red light cameras and send a ticket to anyone who cuts off a pedestrian or fails to come to a complete stop before turning.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  Um. I think you’ve misunderstood my point. By the time any ticket is issued, the driver has already either hit a pedestrian or used the vehicle’s superior weight and velocity to threaten same (“won” the “competition”). Sure, they’re breaking the rule which already exists, but it’s far less likely to happen if both vehicles and pedestrians aren’t expected to share the same space in the same traffic phase.
  - c22 3y ago
    No, you've misunderstood my point. If you enforce the laws then people are more incentivized to follow them, and in this case more people following the law would likely reduce the number of car-pedestrian collisions. Nobody really wants to hit a pedestrian, if they slow down and pay attention most people will avoid it. If you don't enforce the laws then making them more comprehensive is unlikely to fix anything.
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      You are still misunderstanding my point. A driver doesn’t have to want to hit a pedestrian for right on red to be dangerous. They just have to want to move their dangerous vehicle through an intersection in a dangerous way (ie when pedestrians may also be entering it). A want which right-on-red inherently promotes. It’s not like traffic cops are just watching drivers run rights-on-red. It’s not like red light cameras aren’t in use, and tickets aren’t being issued for violators that get caught, no matter how they enter or exit an intersection on red. The law isn’t unenforced. The law, where it exists, is inherently dangerous. And it incentivizes dangerous behavior that makes being a pedestrian disproportionately less safe than being a driver. A ticket is far less risk to a driver than getting hit is to a pedestrian. There is no good reason to continue to allow an inherently dangerous traffic maneuver, full stop.
      - c22 3y ago
        Do the cameras ticket you for rolling right on red? Because I've never heard of it and I see people doing this all the time. I've definitely seen it happen in the presence of cops who did nothing.
        eyelidlessness 3y ago
        The cameras don’t ticket anyone for anything, they just take photos. I don’t know what determines whether a ticket is issued for any red light photo. I’ve seen cops ignore all manner of traffic violations, yes including running a right on red. I’ve also seen it enforced, and know people who’ve been on the enforcement end. If you’re moving the goal posts to “enforcement must be total before stricter laws”, you’ve basically eliminated the basis for any traffic law besides vehicular manslaughter. Which is perhaps a logically consistent position, albeit one I can’t take seriously. Do you have any interest in engaging the actual point I’m making? Which, again, is that right on red is inherently dangerous and unnecessary. Here, I’ll even throw your preoccupation with enforcement a bone: prohibition of right on red is significantly more enforceable in the first place. To the earlier point about red light cameras, I imagine photographic evidence of a right-on-red violation is among the more worthless bases for automated enforcement. For actual traffic cops on duty, a no-stop violation is likely much easier to miss than a prohibition of the maneuver altogether. And I’ll ask you this: what is your actual motivation here? Are you focused on enforcement of existing law on some principle? Or just a blanket reluctance to expansion of law in general? Do you specifically prefer allowing right on red, for any particular reason? Something else I haven’t considered?

Borgz 3y ago

Requiring vehicles to be safer is a good idea, but it will take many years before unsafe vehicles are off the road. In the meantime, we should try to make changes that can have an impact on a shorter timeframe. Changing traffic laws can be done relatively quickly and have an immediate effect.

az09mugen 3y ago
You mean that kind of unsafe vehicle ? https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=self+driving+car+pedestrian&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=self+driving+car+pedestrian&...

up2isomorphism 3y ago

Why every time when there is a problem , some socialist dude will jump out to propose tax as a remedy? This particular insane in this case where bunch of infrastructure improvements can be made to reduce such issues and taxing is not even relevant.

squigz 3y ago
Interesting that you'd ignore the last point OP made, while crying about socialism.
- up2isomorphism 3y ago
  I have no objection to remove subsidies, why should I be against that?
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
We should raise taxes on anyone who has a different world view than myself
timothyduong 3y ago
In Australia the registration for private road vehicles is based on the weight of the vehicle (weight class based), which in my mind makes sense as the heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear, and impact to the shared roads. So yes, I agree with the sentiment that larger vehicles should cost more. They’re literally using more road than others.
maxerickson 3y ago
The taxes already exist. They are suggesting a process of rationally evaluating the incentives that the current taxes create and then from there considering replacement taxes that lead to different incentives.
- up2isomorphism 3y ago
  He is proposing put “heavier” tax, which means to increase tax. What’s the point of mentioning “taxes already exist”?

shagymoe 3y ago

A Prius will kill or seriously injure someone with something like 85% effectiveness of a larger vehicle, no?

spott 3y ago
The Prius has better visibility, and thus is unlikely to run into a pedestrian. A large truck/SUV can’t see anything shorter than like 4 feet that is right in front of it… so it is more likely to kill someone just because it can’t see them.
Macha 3y ago
It depends. At like 80kph, you're pretty screwed from the impact alone regardless of the vehicle. At 15kph, both are pretty survivable from an impact perspective. But if your survive the impact, the next question is where do you go? For big, raised, boxy vehicles, the answer is more often "under the car" than for cars with ramping low fronts. Having the weight of the car on you is dangerous by itself, even at 1kph. Then of course there's the impact of the design on driver visibility and therefore accident frequency, especially if the pedestrian is a child, short, in a wheelchair, etc.
- kristianp 3y ago
  I think the impact location is important here. A large SUVs grill can impact on the pedestrian's head, for example.

acdha 3y ago

We have to do both, and also something about phone usage since a lot of drivers are roughly in DUI territory now. The problem is that driving instead of walking/cycling/transit and especially big vehicles have been a status symbol for many decades and so most of the political class and DOT leaders identify as drivers, and are loathe to make changes which might personally slow themselves down.