3 ms·

Agreed. I think that it's in fact quite immature to act like we must always optimize for lives saved, no matter the cost and no matter how small the gain.

by bigstrat2003 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The important thing to remember is that dollars are always lives, but there are finite resources available. If we can save more lives spending the same money on medical research or emissions reductions or housing construction[1] then we should do that instead. [1] Keep in mind that a single new housing unit that reduces the owner's commute by 40 miles/day is good for eliminating more than half a million vehicle miles, in addition to all of its other benefits.
- komali2 3y ago
  This presumes efficient spending of effort and capital across government, which, especially in the USA, a State comprised of up to nearly a hundred governments depending on where you're standing (federal, with federal agencies; state, with state agencies, county, with county agencies, city, with city agencies, school district, with school district agencies; etc), is not a good presumption. If a local government can get together a million bucks to install some bollards at one or two dangerous intersections, that's a win. That million dollars could never have been spent on a national emission reduction effort.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    It doesn't presume anything, it's just relative value. The local government by definition can't enact a national program, but it could certainly use the money for e.g. local tax credits for solar panels or electric vehicles or heat pumps. It could provide incentives for local housing construction or a hundred other things. They could even return the money to citizens, who would do something with it, often something good. And if any of those things provide more value than the bollards then that's what they should do instead.
    - komali2 3y ago
      This is still assuming too much efficiency. The transportation department gets a budget and spends it. Should we remove their budget until cancer is cured?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The transportation department doesn't choose their own budget, the legislators do. Many of the things the transportation department does are life-critical -- emergency services need usable roads. And if you don't have transportation infrastructure then you don't have commerce or a tax base or money to spend on anything else. Whereas if you're asking whether they should remove other waste from the transportation budget, or any other budget, which is money spent with low value (e.g. overpaying to use a politically connected contractor), and use that money for cancer research, the answer is yes.
        komali2 3y ago
        Clearly then, the legislators should restrict road usage to emergency vehicles only, and in order to allow other people to get to work, set up a cheap bussing system. This would be the most cost effective way to save the most amount of lives, letting you write off transport and focus on funding cancer research. So why don't they do that?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Because it isn't actually the most cost effective. Mass transit only works in areas of high population density. Otherwise you get empty buses or extremely long waits between service intervals. It's also, in general, slower because you have to wait for the bus and then be delayed as it picks up other passengers or takes an indirect route to your destination, which reduces the efficiency of ~everyone. There are also many others who need roads other than emergency vehicles: Delivery vehicles, tradesmen with their equipment, the proverbial soccer mom who has to transport the soccer team and all their gear to the game, etc. And once you're already paying the cost to build and maintain the roads, you might as well use them for general purposes.
- slow_typist 3y ago
  Your argument only holds where prices reflect the real (internal + external) cost. Otherwise you are bound to market failure (which has already happened to the transportation market).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The values are entirely on paper. It's a comparison you make when deciding how to allocate funding. Politicians obviously and frequently don't get the math right (or even do the comparison), but that doesn't affect what they should do if they were making better policy choices, or what voters should ask for if they're doing the numbers.
    - slow_typist 3y ago
      It is a bit more complicated since car drivers don’t pay for most of the externalities of driving. If you take individual car traffic as a given, I agree.
      - graemep 3y ago
        Not directly, but: 1. taxes - I pay hefty taxes on fuel (in the UK) and tax on owning a car 2. insurance - I have to have an insurance policy that will pay for any damage to third parties. The payment for those externalities is pooled, but paid. Not perfect, and not entirely, but a lot of it is paid.
        slow_typist 3y ago
        Yeah the fuel price sucks. In germany car traffic is highly subsidised. It doesn’t even pay for the infra it needs. Probably the situation in the uk is not that different.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
scott_w 3y ago
Sweden operate Vision Zero with exactly this goal and the Netherlands also have a great record here, showing it’s possible if you actually try.
- olalonde 3y ago
  Yet, most of its sidewalks do not have bollards.
  - scott_w 3y ago
    I’m not arguing for or against bollards, I’m specifically addressing the following claim: > I think that it's in fact quite immature to act like we must always optimize for lives saved, no matter the cost and no matter how small the gain. This is plainly incorrect, as Sweden and the Netherlands demonstrate.
  - PeterSmit 3y ago
    I would argue the point of the article isn’t “we need more bollards everywhere “, it’s “our regard for pedestrian safety is absurdly low, even cheap tools to increase pedestrian safety (like bollards) are uncommon / controversial"
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Vision Zero rules are that you either need physical separation or a speed limit of 30 km/h. 30 km/h is approximately the threshold where the vast majority of vehicle-pedestrian collisions aren't fatal. They've chosen to lower the speed limit rather than add bollards.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  The Dutch have gone in the other direction in some places: - deliberately mix pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles - remove all traffic signs, traffic lights and markings at intersections https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get...

Agreed. I think that it's in fact quite immature to act like we must always optimize for lives saved, no matter the cost and no matter how small the gain.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

The important thing to remember is that dollars are always lives, but there are finite resources available. If we can save more lives spending the same money on medical research or emissions reductions or housing construction[1] then we should do that instead. [1] Keep in mind that a single new housing unit that reduces the owner's commute by 40 miles/day is good for eliminating more than half a million vehicle miles, in addition to all of its other benefits.

komali2 3y ago
This presumes efficient spending of effort and capital across government, which, especially in the USA, a State comprised of up to nearly a hundred governments depending on where you're standing (federal, with federal agencies; state, with state agencies, county, with county agencies, city, with city agencies, school district, with school district agencies; etc), is not a good presumption. If a local government can get together a million bucks to install some bollards at one or two dangerous intersections, that's a win. That million dollars could never have been spent on a national emission reduction effort.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It doesn't presume anything, it's just relative value. The local government by definition can't enact a national program, but it could certainly use the money for e.g. local tax credits for solar panels or electric vehicles or heat pumps. It could provide incentives for local housing construction or a hundred other things. They could even return the money to citizens, who would do something with it, often something good. And if any of those things provide more value than the bollards then that's what they should do instead.
  - komali2 3y ago
    This is still assuming too much efficiency. The transportation department gets a budget and spends it. Should we remove their budget until cancer is cured?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The transportation department doesn't choose their own budget, the legislators do. Many of the things the transportation department does are life-critical -- emergency services need usable roads. And if you don't have transportation infrastructure then you don't have commerce or a tax base or money to spend on anything else. Whereas if you're asking whether they should remove other waste from the transportation budget, or any other budget, which is money spent with low value (e.g. overpaying to use a politically connected contractor), and use that money for cancer research, the answer is yes.
      - komali2 3y ago
        Clearly then, the legislators should restrict road usage to emergency vehicles only, and in order to allow other people to get to work, set up a cheap bussing system. This would be the most cost effective way to save the most amount of lives, letting you write off transport and focus on funding cancer research. So why don't they do that?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Because it isn't actually the most cost effective. Mass transit only works in areas of high population density. Otherwise you get empty buses or extremely long waits between service intervals. It's also, in general, slower because you have to wait for the bus and then be delayed as it picks up other passengers or takes an indirect route to your destination, which reduces the efficiency of ~everyone. There are also many others who need roads other than emergency vehicles: Delivery vehicles, tradesmen with their equipment, the proverbial soccer mom who has to transport the soccer team and all their gear to the game, etc. And once you're already paying the cost to build and maintain the roads, you might as well use them for general purposes.
slow_typist 3y ago
Your argument only holds where prices reflect the real (internal + external) cost. Otherwise you are bound to market failure (which has already happened to the transportation market).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The values are entirely on paper. It's a comparison you make when deciding how to allocate funding. Politicians obviously and frequently don't get the math right (or even do the comparison), but that doesn't affect what they should do if they were making better policy choices, or what voters should ask for if they're doing the numbers.
  - slow_typist 3y ago
    It is a bit more complicated since car drivers don’t pay for most of the externalities of driving. If you take individual car traffic as a given, I agree.
    - graemep 3y ago
      Not directly, but: 1. taxes - I pay hefty taxes on fuel (in the UK) and tax on owning a car 2. insurance - I have to have an insurance policy that will pay for any damage to third parties. The payment for those externalities is pooled, but paid. Not perfect, and not entirely, but a lot of it is paid.
      - slow_typist 3y ago
        Yeah the fuel price sucks. In germany car traffic is highly subsidised. It doesn’t even pay for the infra it needs. Probably the situation in the uk is not that different.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

scott_w 3y ago

Sweden operate Vision Zero with exactly this goal and the Netherlands also have a great record here, showing it’s possible if you actually try.

olalonde 3y ago
Yet, most of its sidewalks do not have bollards.
- scott_w 3y ago
  I’m not arguing for or against bollards, I’m specifically addressing the following claim: > I think that it's in fact quite immature to act like we must always optimize for lives saved, no matter the cost and no matter how small the gain. This is plainly incorrect, as Sweden and the Netherlands demonstrate.
- PeterSmit 3y ago
  I would argue the point of the article isn’t “we need more bollards everywhere “, it’s “our regard for pedestrian safety is absurdly low, even cheap tools to increase pedestrian safety (like bollards) are uncommon / controversial"
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Vision Zero rules are that you either need physical separation or a speed limit of 30 km/h. 30 km/h is approximately the threshold where the vast majority of vehicle-pedestrian collisions aren't fatal. They've chosen to lower the speed limit rather than add bollards.
mikhailfranco 3y ago
The Dutch have gone in the other direction in some places: - deliberately mix pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles - remove all traffic signs, traffic lights and markings at intersections https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get...