5 ms·

> What I hope Waymo learbx for this, as well applies as similar scenarios: never cross through these zones of high bike traffic when the obstruction from anothe

> What I hope Waymo learbx for this, as well applies as similar scenarios: never cross through these zones of high bike traffic when the obstruction from another vehicle prevents a wide enough view to brake before this zone. This might be fair, but at some point, if you are applying this consistent level of caution, there isn't going to be anywhere in the real world left to actually drive

whyenot 3y ago
Yes. I appreciate the political reasons for wanting zero accidents, but fewer, less deadly accidents than if a human were behind the wheel is what the goal really should be.
- lex-lightning 3y ago
  That’s such a low bar though. Zero is achievable. Part of it is to slow cars down and take more cars off the road rather than changing who drives. Invest in public transit, redesign problematic infrastructure, and create mixed use urban areas so people don’t feel the need to travel through a city. A city should be a safe place. More deaths in a slower zone than on freeways is preposterous. I understand the reasons why this is true, but the deeper reasons for the reasons are that we gave up. Fewer, less deadly automobiles is what the goal really should be.
  - petesergeant 3y ago
    > A city should be a safe place Is that a fundamental attribute of a city?
    - illirik 3y ago
      Of course; that's why our ancestors first built walls around granaries.
      - lex-lightning 3y ago
        I’ll go deeper still. It’s why we’re social animals. Trust is the foundation of secure relationships and secure relationships keep us safe. Cities wouldn’t exist if it were every man for themself. Yeah, for sure I believe that cities, walls, friendships, food chains, economies, armies, language… this all rests on meeting the basic human needs of shelter (security from elements and hostile actors), food (security from starvation), community (security of a support network).
    - lex-lightning 3y ago
      I’ll grant that this was a statement of a value I personally hold, an ethical axiom which I can’t convince you of. Fair. Would you care to present a your own views? Or to dispute the reasoning that follows from my stated values? If not, then we aren’t going to agree. I’m very much in favor of streets not being designed like the video game Frogger. Listen, I like snowboarding; adrenaline is a blast. But I don’t know why getting groceries has to be an adrenaline rush. I’m making a joke. I’m coming into this debate with established opinions. But even if you’re not going to win me over, the floor is yours to persuade future readers that speed and carrying capacity are more important than safety. Or to argue that I’m presenting a false dichotomy. What I don’t find acceptable is accepting the status quo just because it’s the status quo.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> This might be fair, but at some point, if you are applying this consistent level of caution, there isn't going to be anywhere in the real world left to actually drive Not true. The Netherlands actually will redesign roads and intersections when this kind of thing happens; it will also actively seek rules for cars and cyclists that prevent visibility obfuscation. America just doesn’t believe in that, the only fix it can come up with is “drive better, cars.”
vineyardmike 3y ago
Let’s apply this same thing to humans. If a human engaged in this situation, no one would blink an eye. SF had a “zero motor deaths” goal for 2024 and there were human drivers in protest that any changes made to save lives would be inconvenient (eg removing parking spots to increase visibility). The ease at which people will negotiate a human life for parking is horrifying. And likely speaks to how they drive. We really should make driving much more cautious and undesirable. Any incident should result in serious penalties. In MA, if you’re <18, and you get a ticket, you automatically have your license suspended, and depending on severity, you may need to re-apply for a license, and start the testing and permitting process over. This really should be the adult process too. If people are worried that loss of driving will disrupt their life, then all of society might slowly become less car dependent. This would have great effects on the environment, people would have shorter commutes, they’d probably be healthier. Cities would be more walkable, people would save money on the incredibly expense that is cars, and so much more.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ambigious7777 3y ago
  This. I've seen all of those walkable cities, green cities, etc... For the most part, I think that staying away from driving is a good idea. If we could have cities planned out so that anything would just be a few minutes walk away, that would solve so many problems. A car-independent society would have many improvements. Even for medium distance travel, we could have trains and such.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    What you're describing is exactly how a large part of Japanese society lives today. It's one of the main reasons I moved here. I don't need a car, I walk or cycle or take trains wherever I need to go, including to other cities. Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. They don't like walking that much, and they like the isolation and feeling of superiority they get by driving around in an expensive vehicle that signals their class, and they generally hate walking anyway.

whyenot 3y ago

Yes. I appreciate the political reasons for wanting zero accidents, but fewer, less deadly accidents than if a human were behind the wheel is what the goal really should be.

lex-lightning 3y ago
That’s such a low bar though. Zero is achievable. Part of it is to slow cars down and take more cars off the road rather than changing who drives. Invest in public transit, redesign problematic infrastructure, and create mixed use urban areas so people don’t feel the need to travel through a city. A city should be a safe place. More deaths in a slower zone than on freeways is preposterous. I understand the reasons why this is true, but the deeper reasons for the reasons are that we gave up. Fewer, less deadly automobiles is what the goal really should be.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > A city should be a safe place Is that a fundamental attribute of a city?
  - illirik 3y ago
    Of course; that's why our ancestors first built walls around granaries.
    - lex-lightning 3y ago
      I’ll go deeper still. It’s why we’re social animals. Trust is the foundation of secure relationships and secure relationships keep us safe. Cities wouldn’t exist if it were every man for themself. Yeah, for sure I believe that cities, walls, friendships, food chains, economies, armies, language… this all rests on meeting the basic human needs of shelter (security from elements and hostile actors), food (security from starvation), community (security of a support network).
  - lex-lightning 3y ago
    I’ll grant that this was a statement of a value I personally hold, an ethical axiom which I can’t convince you of. Fair. Would you care to present a your own views? Or to dispute the reasoning that follows from my stated values? If not, then we aren’t going to agree. I’m very much in favor of streets not being designed like the video game Frogger. Listen, I like snowboarding; adrenaline is a blast. But I don’t know why getting groceries has to be an adrenaline rush. I’m making a joke. I’m coming into this debate with established opinions. But even if you’re not going to win me over, the floor is yours to persuade future readers that speed and carrying capacity are more important than safety. Or to argue that I’m presenting a false dichotomy. What I don’t find acceptable is accepting the status quo just because it’s the status quo.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> This might be fair, but at some point, if you are applying this consistent level of caution, there isn't going to be anywhere in the real world left to actually drive Not true. The Netherlands actually will redesign roads and intersections when this kind of thing happens; it will also actively seek rules for cars and cyclists that prevent visibility obfuscation. America just doesn’t believe in that, the only fix it can come up with is “drive better, cars.”

vineyardmike 3y ago

Let’s apply this same thing to humans. If a human engaged in this situation, no one would blink an eye. SF had a “zero motor deaths” goal for 2024 and there were human drivers in protest that any changes made to save lives would be inconvenient (eg removing parking spots to increase visibility). The ease at which people will negotiate a human life for parking is horrifying. And likely speaks to how they drive. We really should make driving much more cautious and undesirable. Any incident should result in serious penalties. In MA, if you’re <18, and you get a ticket, you automatically have your license suspended, and depending on severity, you may need to re-apply for a license, and start the testing and permitting process over. This really should be the adult process too. If people are worried that loss of driving will disrupt their life, then all of society might slowly become less car dependent. This would have great effects on the environment, people would have shorter commutes, they’d probably be healthier. Cities would be more walkable, people would save money on the incredibly expense that is cars, and so much more.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ambigious7777 3y ago
This. I've seen all of those walkable cities, green cities, etc... For the most part, I think that staying away from driving is a good idea. If we could have cities planned out so that anything would just be a few minutes walk away, that would solve so many problems. A car-independent society would have many improvements. Even for medium distance travel, we could have trains and such.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  What you're describing is exactly how a large part of Japanese society lives today. It's one of the main reasons I moved here. I don't need a car, I walk or cycle or take trains wherever I need to go, including to other cities. Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. They don't like walking that much, and they like the isolation and feeling of superiority they get by driving around in an expensive vehicle that signals their class, and they generally hate walking anyway.