4 ms·

The standard of the average academic/research paper is low enough that very few stand on their own. This, of course, is the reason why certain media outlets ar

The standard of the average academic/research paper is low enough that very few stand on their own. This, of course, is the reason why certain media outlets are able to make lots of money with bi-weekly, likely untrue claims that <insert thing here> "causes cancer". This article repeats some conclusions from various research efforts of unknown (to me) quality, most of which carry caveats, and none of which were titled "Effects of Lane Width on Pedestrian Safety: A Quantitative View". These weak (not pejorative, just opposed to strong) statements are then used as the base assumptions atop which a logical argument is constructed - an argument that is incomplete. The relationship between speed and mortality is only attacked from the perspective of what happens once a collision has taken place, for instance, but there will likely also be a relationship between speed and the level of caution exercised by pedestrians, but no evidence about this is presented. This is a question in need of comprehensive study; the tidbits presented here are neither strong nor complete enough to say anything absolute, much less accuse anyone of having blood on their hands. Personally, I think such a study would validate much of what the author feels. But it is only my gut that says that, I'd need a study to "know". As such this comment is not meant as a criticism of the author or the thoughts in the article, but more as a sort-of defensive reminder of what the scientific method means.

andrewliebchen 12y ago
You wrote this from your car, didn't you?
kentonv 12y ago
Another thing missing: What is the economic cost of slowing everyone down? Clearly if people spend 50% longer commuting because they're driving 20mph instead of 30mph, that has real consequences for both their economic output and quality of life (commute time has a surprisingly large impact on a person's overall happiness!). The author disregards this factor entirely. I've seen this pattern in a number of "unintuitive and seemingly clever" traffic engineering tricks proposed in recent years. For example, it has been shown that removing all traffic signs can in fact improve safety -- again by slowing everyone down. Another similar point (mentioned in the article) is that expanding freeways doesn't reduce congestion, because the new lanes are filled quickly. The argument is, apparently, that we therefore should not bother expanding freeways. The argument ignores the fact that the expanded freeway is serving many more people, creating immense value even if the speed of traffic hasn't improved. (For the trolls: I personally take the train rather than drive whenever possible.)
- dr2chase 12y ago
  As someone else pointed out, reducing peak speeds does not necessarily increase travel time. See this report on the Prospect Park West redesign: http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/ http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/ I commute-by-bike on a road with bike lanes in Somerville and Cambridge. At rush hour, no matter what the speed limit, the fastest way from point A to point B is a bicycle (unless A and B are stops on the red line), almost never exceeding 20mph. The reason cars are slow is that they take up too much space and have to wait in line, again and again and again.
- Ma8ee 12y ago
  The problem with the expanded freeways is that they create traffic. People that previously used public transportation now take the car because it's just faster. Then other people take that job on the other side of the city, or buy the house further out in the suburbs because the new lanes makes driving faster (for a while). Of course it is good for the economy that people can commute effectively. But by building more lanes we are choosing spread out cities dominated by highways where no one wants to live and instead drive to work from the suburbs. And there are alternatives. We can choose more densely populated cities where the streets are dominated by pedestrians and people commute shorter distances mostly by public transport. Much better for the environment, and most importantly, better for people. And we are making that choice whenever we chose between using the land for new roads or using the land for new pedestrian buildings and railways.
  - ebiester 12y ago
    ...so long as you build sufficiently quiet apartment buildings. Comparing my apartment in Boston to mine in SF is like day and night. Here, I feel like I have my own place. It is a tad bit like a hotel room, but I don't hear much neighbor noise compared to the racket in Russian Hill. Having a continual uneasiness due to random loud noises or having your own life impacted (listening to TV at a whisper, for example) is not human-friendly. I think apartments get a bad rap because they are built with paper thin walls. It is more expensive to build with bigger spaces and proper noise control, but it has made a giant difference in my standard of living.
  - 12y ago
epistasis 12y ago
> This, of course, is the reason why certain media outlets are able to make lots of money with bi-weekly, likely untrue claims that <insert thing here> "causes cancer". No, that's simply not true. What actually happens is that media outlets write whatever the hell they feel like will sell, rather than what was in the scientific report. This is far more accurate than your description: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 My point is that it's important to through out the telephone game that reports science, rather than the science itself. One shouldn't trust somebody else's summary of a scientific article, it's important to go look for oneself. Since this is a tech website, Peter Norvig should be a familiar name, and he has an excellent example of that here: http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

andrewliebchen 12y ago

You wrote this from your car, didn't you?

kentonv 12y ago

Another thing missing: What is the economic cost of slowing everyone down? Clearly if people spend 50% longer commuting because they're driving 20mph instead of 30mph, that has real consequences for both their economic output and quality of life (commute time has a surprisingly large impact on a person's overall happiness!). The author disregards this factor entirely. I've seen this pattern in a number of "unintuitive and seemingly clever" traffic engineering tricks proposed in recent years. For example, it has been shown that removing all traffic signs can in fact improve safety -- again by slowing everyone down. Another similar point (mentioned in the article) is that expanding freeways doesn't reduce congestion, because the new lanes are filled quickly. The argument is, apparently, that we therefore should not bother expanding freeways. The argument ignores the fact that the expanded freeway is serving many more people, creating immense value even if the speed of traffic hasn't improved. (For the trolls: I personally take the train rather than drive whenever possible.)

dr2chase 12y ago
As someone else pointed out, reducing peak speeds does not necessarily increase travel time. See this report on the Prospect Park West redesign: http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/ http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/ I commute-by-bike on a road with bike lanes in Somerville and Cambridge. At rush hour, no matter what the speed limit, the fastest way from point A to point B is a bicycle (unless A and B are stops on the red line), almost never exceeding 20mph. The reason cars are slow is that they take up too much space and have to wait in line, again and again and again.
Ma8ee 12y ago
The problem with the expanded freeways is that they create traffic. People that previously used public transportation now take the car because it's just faster. Then other people take that job on the other side of the city, or buy the house further out in the suburbs because the new lanes makes driving faster (for a while). Of course it is good for the economy that people can commute effectively. But by building more lanes we are choosing spread out cities dominated by highways where no one wants to live and instead drive to work from the suburbs. And there are alternatives. We can choose more densely populated cities where the streets are dominated by pedestrians and people commute shorter distances mostly by public transport. Much better for the environment, and most importantly, better for people. And we are making that choice whenever we chose between using the land for new roads or using the land for new pedestrian buildings and railways.
- ebiester 12y ago
  ...so long as you build sufficiently quiet apartment buildings. Comparing my apartment in Boston to mine in SF is like day and night. Here, I feel like I have my own place. It is a tad bit like a hotel room, but I don't hear much neighbor noise compared to the racket in Russian Hill. Having a continual uneasiness due to random loud noises or having your own life impacted (listening to TV at a whisper, for example) is not human-friendly. I think apartments get a bad rap because they are built with paper thin walls. It is more expensive to build with bigger spaces and proper noise control, but it has made a giant difference in my standard of living.
- 12y ago

epistasis 12y ago

> This, of course, is the reason why certain media outlets are able to make lots of money with bi-weekly, likely untrue claims that <insert thing here> "causes cancer". No, that's simply not true. What actually happens is that media outlets write whatever the hell they feel like will sell, rather than what was in the scientific report. This is far more accurate than your description: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 My point is that it's important to through out the telephone game that reports science, rather than the science itself. One shouldn't trust somebody else's summary of a scientific article, it's important to go look for oneself. Since this is a tech website, Peter Norvig should be a familiar name, and he has an excellent example of that here: http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html