Traffic Fatalities Are a Choice(asteriskmag.com)
asteriskmag.com
Traffic Fatalities Are a Choice
https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/traffic-fatalities-are-a-choice
192 comments
A great thing about the Netherlands is that their infrastructure makes it much easier for them to take away the licenses of older drivers who no longer can pass driving tests without leaving that person stranded at home.
I noticed that link shows the jump in fatality rate for older cyclists and pedestrians is bigger than the one for drivers. How much do your skills as a pedestrian really degrade as you get older? To me, this suggests that part of this increase in fatalities is due to the body weakening as we age. An average 30-year-old almost certainly has higher odds of surviving the same accident compared to a typical 75-year-old. Maybe looking at the fatality rate for 70+ year old automobile passengers versus passengers under 60 would be a good baseline to show this and allow us to better estimate the true danger of declining skill of a driver.
The increase in fatalities is almost exclusively due to frailty.
The article you link to specifically calls out that they can't and won't speculate about whether age is a factor in causing car crashes. Elderly people have higher mortality rates in virtually all cases of injury and illness so it shouldn't be surprising this is true when they are involved in a car crash.
Yes, age diminishing driving skills certainly is a huge factor but I wonder how much of this age stat is due to the different generation in which they learned to drive.
I remember driving with my grandparents at that age, and there is a reflex issue. Their reflexes slow and it becomes a lot more difficult for them.
>However, we also need to improve the driving skills of the young and elderly.
In the US, at least, an 80-year-old driver is safer than a 21-year-old.
Additionally, the least safe group of female drivers, females aged 15-20, is only marginally more likely to be operating a motor vehicle that causes a fatal crash (25.5 per 100k licensed drivers for teenaged girls) than the safest male cohort (23.8 for males aged 65-74).
The gender gap is not even close. Males aged 15-20 are 60.3, my cohort is in the mid-30s, and retiree males are in the mid-20s.
Female retirees are 7.5, geriatrics 10.1. All other age groups are in the mid-teens.
It doesn't matter how you massage the data.
Driving for work vs. not, crashes per hours driven, crashes per number of licensed drivers by gender, crashes per 100 million miles driven, highway vs. surface street, at all times in every instance women cause fewer single vehicle, multi-vehicle, pedestrian-involved, injurious, and fatal, crashes.
Crashes involving a female driver are also less likely to have passenger fatalities, due to the greater likelihood that all passengers will be wearing their seatbelts. Females are less likely (by a LOT) to drive intoxicated, less likely to drive distracted, and are less likely to speed.
Actuaries working for insurance firms and rental car bean counters have known this irrefutable and unquestionable truth for at least 30 years.
Whenever I suggest that males receive additional training and oversight until their crash rates fall to those of the typical 16-year-old girl, people get irate.
edit: I can't find the numbers but it is fact that CDLs (commercial driver's licenses) both lower and level the statistics so training and oversight is almost certainly the answer.
In the US, at least, an 80-year-old driver is safer than a 21-year-old.
Additionally, the least safe group of female drivers, females aged 15-20, is only marginally more likely to be operating a motor vehicle that causes a fatal crash (25.5 per 100k licensed drivers for teenaged girls) than the safest male cohort (23.8 for males aged 65-74).
The gender gap is not even close. Males aged 15-20 are 60.3, my cohort is in the mid-30s, and retiree males are in the mid-20s.
Female retirees are 7.5, geriatrics 10.1. All other age groups are in the mid-teens.
It doesn't matter how you massage the data.
Driving for work vs. not, crashes per hours driven, crashes per number of licensed drivers by gender, crashes per 100 million miles driven, highway vs. surface street, at all times in every instance women cause fewer single vehicle, multi-vehicle, pedestrian-involved, injurious, and fatal, crashes.
Crashes involving a female driver are also less likely to have passenger fatalities, due to the greater likelihood that all passengers will be wearing their seatbelts. Females are less likely (by a LOT) to drive intoxicated, less likely to drive distracted, and are less likely to speed.
Actuaries working for insurance firms and rental car bean counters have known this irrefutable and unquestionable truth for at least 30 years.
Whenever I suggest that males receive additional training and oversight until their crash rates fall to those of the typical 16-year-old girl, people get irate.
edit: I can't find the numbers but it is fact that CDLs (commercial driver's licenses) both lower and level the statistics so training and oversight is almost certainly the answer.
CDLs also will lose their jobs or careers if they get infractions or accidents.
Interesting insight. Do you have a source I could read more about the statistics here?
These numbers don’t really account for the fact that the “official” suicide is 4x the rate of women. Men do more dangerous things but they also just kill themselves in many different ways that don’t get depicted accurately in the stats.
These are generally not suicides and suicides are not all that relevant. There is nothing inaccurate about these statistics. Statistically speaking, women drive better.
Women just partake in less risky behavior, period.
One fun example of this is gay bars versus lesbian bars. Lesbian bars are exceedingly rare. Some previous owners have talked about it, but it boils down to:
1. Women don't have the same rate of alcoholism as men. Gay bars are fueled in large part due to men's substance abuse issues combined with higher rates of substance abuse in gay men.
2. Women don't seek sex with people they barely know like men do, and particularly gay men. Well, there goes the allure of the lesbian bar.
Women die less, drink less, smoke less, do crime less, everything.
One fun example of this is gay bars versus lesbian bars. Lesbian bars are exceedingly rare. Some previous owners have talked about it, but it boils down to:
1. Women don't have the same rate of alcoholism as men. Gay bars are fueled in large part due to men's substance abuse issues combined with higher rates of substance abuse in gay men.
2. Women don't seek sex with people they barely know like men do, and particularly gay men. Well, there goes the allure of the lesbian bar.
Women die less, drink less, smoke less, do crime less, everything.
How does that contradicts anything? Even if it was only factor that makes women better drivers, they would still be better drivers. And it would make sense to put more effort into teaching men better.
Women making more rational decisions about alcohol, being less impulsive in emotional situations might be other factors ... but again, a solution might involve teaching men to control impulses better, more like women do.
All those are influenced by culture and societal expections. Ration of women vs men drinking/smaking changes with time and culture.
That being said, 100% of women die, just like 100% of men die.
Women making more rational decisions about alcohol, being less impulsive in emotional situations might be other factors ... but again, a solution might involve teaching men to control impulses better, more like women do.
All those are influenced by culture and societal expections. Ration of women vs men drinking/smaking changes with time and culture.
That being said, 100% of women die, just like 100% of men die.
> How does that contradicts anything?
It doesn't, I never said it does. In fact I'm just adding on, not arguing.
> but again, a solution might involve teaching men to control impulses better, more like women do.
Yeah I agree that will definitely help.
> Ration of women vs men drinking/smoking changes with time and culture.
Somewhat, but I don't believe there was ever a time where women were ahead of men. I think pretty much for all of human history, on the topic of "stuff that can kill you" men take the lead. With the exception being pregnancy, but that's pretty self explanatory.
I think there has to be some hormonal component to this. It seems testosterone is not so good for addictions or impulse control. I don't have any evidence, although maybe some exists. It just seems... more than cultural if this has been a problem for as long as human history has existed.
It doesn't, I never said it does. In fact I'm just adding on, not arguing.
> but again, a solution might involve teaching men to control impulses better, more like women do.
Yeah I agree that will definitely help.
> Ration of women vs men drinking/smoking changes with time and culture.
Somewhat, but I don't believe there was ever a time where women were ahead of men. I think pretty much for all of human history, on the topic of "stuff that can kill you" men take the lead. With the exception being pregnancy, but that's pretty self explanatory.
I think there has to be some hormonal component to this. It seems testosterone is not so good for addictions or impulse control. I don't have any evidence, although maybe some exists. It just seems... more than cultural if this has been a problem for as long as human history has existed.
Safer is not necessarily better. That’s a choice you are making.
I gave up driving a motorcycle when I got married, because I no longer enjoyed putting myself and others at risk. It fascinated me how instantly I lost interest in it, because I hadn’t realized that risk had been the prime motivator.
Maybe the sensation of risk is an important vitamin for the spirit of a man. Anyway, you don’t know that it isn’t.
I gave up driving a motorcycle when I got married, because I no longer enjoyed putting myself and others at risk. It fascinated me how instantly I lost interest in it, because I hadn’t realized that risk had been the prime motivator.
Maybe the sensation of risk is an important vitamin for the spirit of a man. Anyway, you don’t know that it isn’t.
Are you claiming that the difference in traffic fatalities among men and women is because men are secretly using traffic fatalities to commit suicide?
I'm not sure the article takes the opposite side on this point, and I don't think it it was claiming to be a cure-all.
Ah, so close.
Old people aren’t bad drivers because of “driving skills”. They’re bad drivers because driving is incredibly dangerous and they’re old.
What we need to do to prevent this is eliminate driving as a lifestyle. Treat it as the dangerous act that it truly is. We don’t let 75 year olds operate heavy machinery, we shouldn’t let them operate cars either.
Old people aren’t bad drivers because of “driving skills”. They’re bad drivers because driving is incredibly dangerous and they’re old.
What we need to do to prevent this is eliminate driving as a lifestyle. Treat it as the dangerous act that it truly is. We don’t let 75 year olds operate heavy machinery, we shouldn’t let them operate cars either.
>we also need to improve the driving skills of ... elderly
You link doesn't say that. It says they are more likely to die in accidents because they are old and don't survive, not because they cause them by bad driving.
You link doesn't say that. It says they are more likely to die in accidents because they are old and don't survive, not because they cause them by bad driving.
I generally drive at or below the speed limit. This is to reduce fuel and improve safety. On a multiple lane road, I'm nearly always on the right (slow) lane.
Unfortunately, this safety measure is usually torpedoed by other drivers. People (usually driving a 'light truck' (an SUV or pickup)) will drive at a single car length behind me. Even on multi-lane roads. If I had to slam on my brakes, I'd be at risk in my sedan.
I absolutely would support wide proliferation of speed cameras. It would be easy, profitable, promote safety, and we could do it today. It would take zero extra policing (in fact, it'd probably reduce workload on police).
I acknowledge that you can fight this kicking and screaming with speed enforcement measures—but I think there's two things that are causing people to drive faster: Wide, straight, flat roads that allow no speed reference, and large sealed vehicles that reduces perceived speed. Change these, and I think that will be a great step to reducing "pedestrian fatalities" (or to call it like it is: people getting murdered due to carelessness and impatience).
Unfortunately, this safety measure is usually torpedoed by other drivers. People (usually driving a 'light truck' (an SUV or pickup)) will drive at a single car length behind me. Even on multi-lane roads. If I had to slam on my brakes, I'd be at risk in my sedan.
I absolutely would support wide proliferation of speed cameras. It would be easy, profitable, promote safety, and we could do it today. It would take zero extra policing (in fact, it'd probably reduce workload on police).
I acknowledge that you can fight this kicking and screaming with speed enforcement measures—but I think there's two things that are causing people to drive faster: Wide, straight, flat roads that allow no speed reference, and large sealed vehicles that reduces perceived speed. Change these, and I think that will be a great step to reducing "pedestrian fatalities" (or to call it like it is: people getting murdered due to carelessness and impatience).
Assuming no weather, your driving below the speed limit on an expressway is almost surely working against your stated goal of improving road safety.
Depends on how much below; 2 mph below the limit must be OK, 20 mph, more problematic.
The highway speed scatterpot in the US has a floor at the "speed limit" and the median speed is usually 10mph to 15mph higher than that. In this scenario, driving the "speed limit" means nearly all other users will overtake you at a significant differential, and some in a disorderly manner. Consistently doing so in heavy traffic provokes backups and the usual consequences to other drivers.
My experience on US highways is that it generally isn't quite that bad: if you're going roughly the speed limit, you will be in company with a significant subset of the commercial vehicles, whose owners mandate following the speed limit (and in some cases enforce it with GPS surveillance).
Your description sounds right but also pretty similar to GP’s characterization of a floor at the limit and 10-15 mph higher median with the result that more than half of traffic is passing you at a 20+% speed differential.
Quite a few people drive somewhat below speed limit. There is nothing unsafe about it, except wishful thinking to rationalize fast driving. Fast driving is fun, quite a few people equate "fast and nimble" with "good driver", but safety is not the thing they are achieving.
The autobahn proves consistently that speed variation is not itself a problem.
If anything, the Autobahn proves that the system works when everyone respects the rules and each other, all cars undergo regular roadworthy inspections, driver training is rigorous, and the road is designed for speed variation. In the US, none of that is the case.
What does "designing a road for speed variation" look like?
Having rigorous enforcement of minimum radius in curves*, preserving more available cornering/braking traction and wide lanes, providing for better sightlines ahead (for faster traffic) and behind (for slower traffic contemplating pulling out to pass even slower traffic).
* - I did an internship for Mercedes in the early 90s and we had testing access to a section of ex-A8 near Stuttgart that was retired because it didn't meet the modern autobahn requirements and so had been replaced with a re-routed A8. To my American college-student mind that seemed incredibly wasteful, but it sure was convenient for our testing. I can't find it now on Google maps, but it's been 30 years so may have been demolished by now.
Edit: There's a hiking area called "Alte A8" which is probably it/related: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1SyBPKNie1x13AYy8
* - I did an internship for Mercedes in the early 90s and we had testing access to a section of ex-A8 near Stuttgart that was retired because it didn't meet the modern autobahn requirements and so had been replaced with a re-routed A8. To my American college-student mind that seemed incredibly wasteful, but it sure was convenient for our testing. I can't find it now on Google maps, but it's been 30 years so may have been demolished by now.
Edit: There's a hiking area called "Alte A8" which is probably it/related: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1SyBPKNie1x13AYy8
Much less overall traffic, in my view.
The Autobahn is much more challenging to drive on due to the extreme speed variation between trucks in the right lane going 80 kph and race car drivers in the left going 250.
IMO the only reason that it's acceptably safe is strict German driver's licensing requirements and fairly strong enforcement of traffic laws. If you had the same regime but American style speed variation, I think you'd see considerably safer roads in Germany.
IMO the only reason that it's acceptably safe is strict German driver's licensing requirements and fairly strong enforcement of traffic laws. If you had the same regime but American style speed variation, I think you'd see considerably safer roads in Germany.
Highly location dependent. Some roads will average right around the speed limit or just above.
Any congestion is more dangerous. Driving below the speed limit is unpredictable and dangerous because it causes congestion.
Driving slow also creates road rage around you, which reduces safety.
Be predictable, follow the flow of traffic. Stop trying to be the safety police because you're just making things worse.
Driving slow also creates road rage around you, which reduces safety.
Be predictable, follow the flow of traffic. Stop trying to be the safety police because you're just making things worse.
I think this is great as long as the speed limits are set correctly. What I worry would happen is that the speed limits would intentionally be set low to maximize revenue from the speed enforcement system.
On my way to work there is a long stretch of road with great visibility, two lanes in each direction, physical separation between directions, very wide shoulders with virtually zero pedestrian traffic, but the speed limit is 50km/hr. Nobody drives 50 on that road. The traffic generally flows at 70. Similarly there are many semi-industrial areas with wide roads, no traffic, few pedestrians with a 50km/hr limit. We also have highways with 80km/hr limits where traffic generally flows (safely) at 90-100.
Guess what, all those places are where police hangs out looking for speeders.
Contrast that with small streets in dense urban or suburban areas where despite the limit being 50 most people drive closer to 40. Or when it's foggy or raining heavily and you want to drive slower on the highway than the speed limit.
That said there is a question of balancing the somewhat improved safety of lower speeds to the improved efficiency of driving a bit faster. I'm not sure how you balance that. There are other options like moving people to mass transit or closing some city streets to car traffic completely.
On my way to work there is a long stretch of road with great visibility, two lanes in each direction, physical separation between directions, very wide shoulders with virtually zero pedestrian traffic, but the speed limit is 50km/hr. Nobody drives 50 on that road. The traffic generally flows at 70. Similarly there are many semi-industrial areas with wide roads, no traffic, few pedestrians with a 50km/hr limit. We also have highways with 80km/hr limits where traffic generally flows (safely) at 90-100.
Guess what, all those places are where police hangs out looking for speeders.
Contrast that with small streets in dense urban or suburban areas where despite the limit being 50 most people drive closer to 40. Or when it's foggy or raining heavily and you want to drive slower on the highway than the speed limit.
That said there is a question of balancing the somewhat improved safety of lower speeds to the improved efficiency of driving a bit faster. I'm not sure how you balance that. There are other options like moving people to mass transit or closing some city streets to car traffic completely.
People who drive below the posted speed limit (road boulders) are a menace. They increase the risk to everyone else as other drivers try to get around them.
Is everyone in the US expected to drive at least the speed limit on motorways? Here in Europe, there are always vehicles going slower - buses, trucks, vans, or just older cars or drivers not in a hurry. If the limit is 130 km/h, you routinely encounter vehicles going 90-110.
The menace are drivers not adjusting to the realities of the road.
The menace are drivers not adjusting to the realities of the road.
it really depends on what part of the country and the type of road and even the time of day
if I were to go even the posted speed limit during my morning commute, I would be causing a hazard. it's 5-10 over just to be safely part of the flow
same road in the evening and doing the limit or even a bit under is safe
imho, the dangerous drivers are those who for whatever reason do not base their speed on the flow of traffic around them
if I were to go even the posted speed limit during my morning commute, I would be causing a hazard. it's 5-10 over just to be safely part of the flow
same road in the evening and doing the limit or even a bit under is safe
imho, the dangerous drivers are those who for whatever reason do not base their speed on the flow of traffic around them
Wow, that sounds like a toxic environment.
I'm also in Europe and here it's completely normal to drive the speed limit. The motorway speed limit in my country is 130 km/h (81 mph). I drive an EV, so I usually stay around 110 km/h (68 mph) for efficiency, which is still faster than all trucks (limited at 90 km/h (56 mph)) and quite a few passenger cars and vans. Most cars drive a bit faster than me (at or around the speed limit) and very few drive faster than the limit (mostly the usual suspects, german luxury cars or sports cars).
I honestly can't imagine being forced to break the law every day just to get to work safely.
I'm also in Europe and here it's completely normal to drive the speed limit. The motorway speed limit in my country is 130 km/h (81 mph). I drive an EV, so I usually stay around 110 km/h (68 mph) for efficiency, which is still faster than all trucks (limited at 90 km/h (56 mph)) and quite a few passenger cars and vans. Most cars drive a bit faster than me (at or around the speed limit) and very few drive faster than the limit (mostly the usual suspects, german luxury cars or sports cars).
I honestly can't imagine being forced to break the law every day just to get to work safely.
In the US, speed limits are set far lower than required for safety, in order to maximize revenue from citations. More importantly, it allows the police to pick and choose who to pull over: When 99% of cars on the freeway are speeding, the police can pull over anyone, and they will use that discretion to pull over “certain kinds” of people they would like to target. Black people get pulled over less frequently at night, when the darkness does not allow the officer to see who is in the car they choose to pull over[1].
1: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...
1: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...
Translating those to our dumber units, that would be a highway posted at 80mph and seeing slower traffic doing 55-70 mph.
This subthread is discussing highways with prevailing 75-80 mph traffic and some road users driving less than the posted 55 mph limit in a belief that doing so adds to road safety.
This subthread is discussing highways with prevailing 75-80 mph traffic and some road users driving less than the posted 55 mph limit in a belief that doing so adds to road safety.
A large part of the US depends on 2 lane highways on which overtaking slow vehicles can be a dangerous proposition even when done legally.
[deleted]
Everyone that drives slower than me is a slowpoke, everyone that drives faster than me is a maniac.
Nah dude, your intolerance is the menace here.
Nah dude, your intolerance is the menace here.
In my city I sometimes hire a scooter-share. These electric scooters can go up to 17mph.
It is perfectly legal for me to drive in a traffic lane. It may be OK to drive on the sidewalk, with significant restrictions. But it is usually not.
I typically opt to drive in traffic: the limit is going to be around 35mph. You can perhaps predict the sort of reactions I endure from motorists when I’m hogging their precious lanes at ½ their speed. Would you believe spitting in my face?
Nevertheless, I persist carefully, because I’m right, and I drive with scrupulous safety, and I hope and pray that others follow my lead, because electric scooters at 17mph on the sidewalk is fucking dangerous to pedestrian me at all other times.
It is perfectly legal for me to drive in a traffic lane. It may be OK to drive on the sidewalk, with significant restrictions. But it is usually not.
I typically opt to drive in traffic: the limit is going to be around 35mph. You can perhaps predict the sort of reactions I endure from motorists when I’m hogging their precious lanes at ½ their speed. Would you believe spitting in my face?
Nevertheless, I persist carefully, because I’m right, and I drive with scrupulous safety, and I hope and pray that others follow my lead, because electric scooters at 17mph on the sidewalk is fucking dangerous to pedestrian me at all other times.
> People who drive below the posted speed limit are a menace
Its the speed limit. Its not the speed that everyone has to drive at in all circumstances and conditions.
Its the speed limit. Its not the speed that everyone has to drive at in all circumstances and conditions.
Might I direct you to the text on the sign, Speed "Limit"?
The ones causing danger are the drivers attempting to pass dangerously, not the person driving slowly. Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways? Or is it the people driving multiple-ton vehicles?
The ones causing danger are the drivers attempting to pass dangerously, not the person driving slowly. Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways? Or is it the people driving multiple-ton vehicles?
Assigning blame doesn't do anything for safety, even if you're right. Where I live, by far the safest thing to do is to drive ~4 mph over the limit on all non-residential roads. If you drive below or even right at the limit, you will be tailgated or passed with far greater frequency. That behavior is out of your control, at least on the road. You can push for more consistent enforcement while you're not driving (I'm inclined to do so myself), but while you're behind the wheel, the only behavior you can change is your own.
> Assigning blame doesn't do anything for safety, even if you're right.
It's reasonable to talk about which party should be the one to change their behavior, and that's essentially the same thing as assigning blame.
It's reasonable to talk about which party should be the one to change their behavior, and that's essentially the same thing as assigning blame.
No disagreement here, but where the literal rubber hits the road, you still have to decide how to act when the ambient semi-aggressive driving population continues to behave in the way that they do. Will you blamelessly be road raged at 50-100% more often than a more moderate driver (who drives at the most popular speed, though it may be over the limit) just because if an accident does happen it will be the road rager's fault?
It's a very frustrating social problem. Obviously we can't let ourselves be held collectively hostage by bad actors in all situations. But I would still predict that there are some situations where the bad actor population is so large and "mildly-bad" that indefinitely giving in to their implicit demands is the right game theoretic choice.
It's a very frustrating social problem. Obviously we can't let ourselves be held collectively hostage by bad actors in all situations. But I would still predict that there are some situations where the bad actor population is so large and "mildly-bad" that indefinitely giving in to their implicit demands is the right game theoretic choice.
> But I would still predict that there are some situations where the bad actor population is so large and "mildly-bad" that indefinitely giving in to their implicit demands is the right game theoretic choice.
Game theory is quite a big thing, that's for sure. And it's no surprise that actors will tend towards these situations where you're tempted to think "eh, letting them do this bad thing with impunity feels like the right game theoretic choice, because it's right at the limit of not being bad enough to illicit a response." And yet, there's a reason for things like territorial behavior in the animal kingdom, where an animal will defend minor territory disputes at great personal cost even when the cost of losing a small amount of territory seems much smaller.
Game theory is quite a big thing, that's for sure. And it's no surprise that actors will tend towards these situations where you're tempted to think "eh, letting them do this bad thing with impunity feels like the right game theoretic choice, because it's right at the limit of not being bad enough to illicit a response." And yet, there's a reason for things like territorial behavior in the animal kingdom, where an animal will defend minor territory disputes at great personal cost even when the cost of losing a small amount of territory seems much smaller.
Well, "People who drive below the posted speed limit (road boulders) are a menace" is not just assigning blame, but severely exaggerated angry claim. Somehow, you have choose fairly calm response to it as the thing to criticize as assigning blame.
And driving in the "slow" lane where every single driver has to go past you to get on/off the road isn't generally safe either. On a 2 lane road you don't have much choice, but on a busy 3 lane road, probably not a great choice either.
If you can't understand the subtle, but still fairly obvious and unmistakeable difference between being a net increase in danger/problem potential without a) breaking the rules b) personally increasing your own financial liability for any bad outcomes you probably ought not to be driving.
There's a reason tractors get triangles and oversize stuff gets highly visible signs.
There's a reason tractors get triangles and oversize stuff gets highly visible signs.
If you are driving slower than other traffic, under the speed limit, and there is not a weather condition or a road impediment, that is also illegal in most (or all?) states.
> Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways?
They are also expected to move with traffic if they are taking up a lane. This is among the reasons non-motorized vehicles are not allowed on freeways.
Anyone moving slower than expected are intrinsically an impediment and a hazard, just the same as anyone speeding or otherwise driving recklessly.
> Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways?
They are also expected to move with traffic if they are taking up a lane. This is among the reasons non-motorized vehicles are not allowed on freeways.
Anyone moving slower than expected are intrinsically an impediment and a hazard, just the same as anyone speeding or otherwise driving recklessly.
Just to be clear - your statements about the law are all completely untrue, except for some states having a few specific highways with a “minimum speed”. For example, a highway near me says “left lane minimum speed 45mph” - where the speed of the road is 65.
Unless you can find some laws that specify that driving below the speed limit is illegal?
Unless you can find some laws that specify that driving below the speed limit is illegal?
Impeding the flow of traffic is illegal. Most states have "if x number of vehicles are behind you, you are required to use pull offs or let vehicles pass" laws.
If a cop thinks your slow driving is dangerous they can absolutely write a citation. There are a bunch of laws that allow them to do this in most states.
If a cop thinks your slow driving is dangerous they can absolutely write a citation. There are a bunch of laws that allow them to do this in most states.
Many states have laws against obstructing traffic. Most of them don't mention a specific minimum speed so enforcement is largely at the discretion of law enforcement officers. Personally I would like to see strict enforcement of those laws with tickets given out to anyone who intentionally impedes the flow of traffic.
Obstructing traffic is very different than “driving more slowly than the person behind you wants”. Obstructing means blocking, not making them wait 30 seconds for a good chance to go around.
If you are moving a large item that is fragile, are you allowed to go 35mph in a 45mph zone to reduce the risk of damaging the fragile item? Or is that illegal too? Or what if one of your passengers gets car sick easily?
In fact, there are some winding mountain roads in California where the speed limit is 55, but if you go that fast, you’re suicidal because there are no guard rails and very sharp turns. Occasionally, someone mildly suicidal will come up behind you. Is it illegal to drive 15mph in that 55 zone?
Safety is prioritized above speed, suggesting otherwise is unhinged and antisocial.
If you are moving a large item that is fragile, are you allowed to go 35mph in a 45mph zone to reduce the risk of damaging the fragile item? Or is that illegal too? Or what if one of your passengers gets car sick easily?
In fact, there are some winding mountain roads in California where the speed limit is 55, but if you go that fast, you’re suicidal because there are no guard rails and very sharp turns. Occasionally, someone mildly suicidal will come up behind you. Is it illegal to drive 15mph in that 55 zone?
Safety is prioritized above speed, suggesting otherwise is unhinged and antisocial.
They should use the same fine schedule as speeding.
It ought to be just as lucrative for a cop to nab someone who's unreasonably stopping at a merge as it is to nab someone who's going a few over.
It ought to be just as lucrative for a cop to nab someone who's unreasonably stopping at a merge as it is to nab someone who's going a few over.
It's called unsafe driving and it's definitely ticketable.
It's very smart to have laws set up so that whether you are speeding or not, you can be pulled over for a moving traffic violation! That way, the police always have a legal pretense for a traffic stop.
A very simple google search brought this up immediately:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/346/ix/59...
Other states have something similar on the books as well.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/346/ix/59...
Other states have something similar on the books as well.
Your simple search doesn't back up your position. I can assure you, going ~1MPH below the speed limit does not run afoul of that law.
I never claimed that it did.
Addendum: the margin of error on speed radar generally tends to be in the region of 2mph. You'll need to be a good deal slower than the speed limit before a police officer is likely to consider your driving to be an impairment.
Addendum: the margin of error on speed radar generally tends to be in the region of 2mph. You'll need to be a good deal slower than the speed limit before a police officer is likely to consider your driving to be an impairment.
[deleted]
Above the limit, I agree that people speeding bear primary responsibility, although if you're not going the limit in the left lane, you are creating an obstacle for sure. If you're going significantly below the limit though, what's the reason? The whole point of a car is to get you from point A to point B quickly.
Not in the right lane. On expressways that lane (at least here in California) is most likely to have semi-trailer trucks going their max speed of 55 mph. A 55 mph driver will be right at home in that lane.
What does require in person enforcement is making sure license plates aren't obscured, defaced, or removed. The left in this country needs to reconcile that enforcement of laws is a good thing. Matthew Yglessias talks about this a lot.
This requires the most enforcement in front of NYC precincts. I truly don't know how such a corrupt organization could be reformed.
https://x.com/hashtag/CriminalMischief
https://x.com/GershKuntzman
This requires the most enforcement in front of NYC precincts. I truly don't know how such a corrupt organization could be reformed.
https://x.com/hashtag/CriminalMischief
https://x.com/GershKuntzman
The article starts with statistics. Quoting deaths / person. Is this the right metric?
Since the US is huge and sprawling - it'd probably be better to use Death / km driven.
I checked this: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/road-accidents.html?...
Which paints a very different picture than what's stated in the article.
Since the US is huge and sprawling - it'd probably be better to use Death / km driven.
I checked this: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/road-accidents.html?...
Which paints a very different picture than what's stated in the article.
Yes, while road design could be better, a contributing problem is that US sprawl requires people to travel longer distances to commute/shop/etc. This then contributes to a desire for higher roadway speeds and the designs that support those higher speeds.
miles driven/person is also a choice that the US has made.
Even in sprawling suburbia, most trips a person takes are under 3 miles, eminently bikeable, but the bike infrastructure and built environment sucks for that. So people drive, from parking lot to parking lot.
The fact that the US is huge doesn't mean that the majority of miles driven are on long trips.
Even in sprawling suburbia, most trips a person takes are under 3 miles, eminently bikeable, but the bike infrastructure and built environment sucks for that. So people drive, from parking lot to parking lot.
The fact that the US is huge doesn't mean that the majority of miles driven are on long trips.
> Even in sprawling suburbia, most trips a person takes are under 3 miles
That is surprising to me. Is that factoring in trips to the neighbors or to the mailbox or something? Because the average US driver drives over 39 miles per day.
That is surprising to me. Is that factoring in trips to the neighbors or to the mailbox or something? Because the average US driver drives over 39 miles per day.
citation? nm found this: https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/average-miles-driven-per-year...
hmm. fair enough. I have heard the short trip stat bandied about a lot. Having spent time with people in the suburbs, even close in suburbs, the stat makes sense... if you exclude commute to work. When I visit my parents in stroadville, a trip to the store is 2 miles each way and should be easily bikeable, but bike infra is non existent so everyone drives.
One note about the framing. The average US Driver excludes everyone who isn't a driver
hmm. fair enough. I have heard the short trip stat bandied about a lot. Having spent time with people in the suburbs, even close in suburbs, the stat makes sense... if you exclude commute to work. When I visit my parents in stroadville, a trip to the store is 2 miles each way and should be easily bikeable, but bike infra is non existent so everyone drives.
One note about the framing. The average US Driver excludes everyone who isn't a driver
> One note about the framing. The average US Driver excludes everyone who isn't a driver
That's true but traveling by car is so overwhelmingly common that it doesn't swing the stats much. Only about 3% of people travel by public transit (most of which is a bus on the road anyway) and another 3% under their own power, with most of that being people who walk (mostly those who work/live in the same place).
That's true but traveling by car is so overwhelmingly common that it doesn't swing the stats much. Only about 3% of people travel by public transit (most of which is a bus on the road anyway) and another 3% under their own power, with most of that being people who walk (mostly those who work/live in the same place).
The point they are making is that the data doesn't seem to support the article's conclusions.
Death / km driven is only a good metric if you think driving more is inherently good.
(Traffic deaths / km driven) was NaN for most of human history. It's a dumb metric with dumb units.
There should be a well-defined unitless quantity that's real-valued across human history, say normalizing by population size and total human travel. I am not claiming that fixes the NaN, just that the NaN is a smell.
Another smell is that everyone being horribly maimed but never killed would not be a victory for safety though the above metric says it'd be great.
There should be a well-defined unitless quantity that's real-valued across human history, say normalizing by population size and total human travel. I am not claiming that fixes the NaN, just that the NaN is a smell.
Another smell is that everyone being horribly maimed but never killed would not be a victory for safety though the above metric says it'd be great.
Well it's also a good metric if you are trying to make an argument that the US has unsafe infrastructure compared to other countries like the article does.
Living in suburbs instead of in dense walkable cities is a choice as well.
Also making it illegal to build dense walkable cities like we used to is the choice that causes many people to live in the suburbs. It isn't just a preference for suburban style living. It is more efficient to live in cities and should be less expensive, but because we have made building housing effectively illegal, city real estate is incredibly expensive.
The USA has great potential to save lives and improve quality of life. As an outsider, it’s unclear whether either is actually a goal.
As a European, American culture baffles me in this regard. Things like school shootings, police violence, traffic deaths, healthcare, alternative (public) transportation, all seem to be linked by a common thread of inaction towards things that should in principle be solved. And it seems baked into the way the system works, if not the culture itself (due to the focus on U.S. exceptionalism/defaultism, individualism and bias towards individual freedom at others’ expense). But I wonder what causes such structural cultural/political issues to just be ignored.
Think of America more like 50 countries. Now take your school shooting example. A lot of states have made changes to their gun laws in response to this. Making federal (i.e. applies to all states) gun law changes is more challenging because you have to get 75% of the states on board with any constitutional changes. Without a constitutional amendment, any gun legislation ultimately must respect the existing 2nd Amendment so it's not possible to have Japan-esque policies without a constitutional amendment. Also USA takes up an entire continent so different regions of the us have different cultures and sentiment towards guns. People living in highly rural areas like Montana probably have favorable gun ownership sentiment. People living in highly urban areas like NYC usually have negative gun sentiment.
And it's important to note that these different gun laws don't actually meaningfully affect crime, particularly something as exceedingly rare as a mass shooting.
The rate is about two mass shootings per day in the USA. I would not call that "exceedingly rare". The rate in the UK, a country with strict gun laws, is about 1-2 a year.
There are too many ways to define mass shooting. Wikipedia has approximately 1/day for 2025 so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
1 a day, 2 a day... does it matter? It's still 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than a culturally similar country with strong gun control.
It matters if you care about being accurate, and having a reasonable definition. It's the same reason you don't include suicides in figures about gun violence if you're actually interested combating gun violence and not just scoring political points.
Half the definitions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... don't even exclude gang violence, drug violence, or organized crime. Statistically if you're not involved with gangs or drugs, you're not going to be involved in a gang or drug related shooting. The majority of those killed or injured are at least peripherally involved. So you should immediately question to credibility and motived of any organization that wants to talk about "mass shootings" which by definition are scary because they're random and unprovoked but then want to include a huge number of incidents are driven by crime, drugs, and gangs, none of which is random or unprovoked.
Half the definitions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... don't even exclude gang violence, drug violence, or organized crime. Statistically if you're not involved with gangs or drugs, you're not going to be involved in a gang or drug related shooting. The majority of those killed or injured are at least peripherally involved. So you should immediately question to credibility and motived of any organization that wants to talk about "mass shootings" which by definition are scary because they're random and unprovoked but then want to include a huge number of incidents are driven by crime, drugs, and gangs, none of which is random or unprovoked.
Citation needed
RAND did a decent review.[1]
They do show supportive evidence of some gun laws having a meaningful effect on violent crime, so I'm not sure what they're referring to. For instance, it appears that child access prevention laws, specifically, are associated with a significant reduction in firearm homicides.[2]
RAND does complain that there is insufficient or limited evidence in a lot of areas though, like effect on mass shootings.
[1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-s...
[2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce...
They do show supportive evidence of some gun laws having a meaningful effect on violent crime, so I'm not sure what they're referring to. For instance, it appears that child access prevention laws, specifically, are associated with a significant reduction in firearm homicides.[2]
RAND does complain that there is insufficient or limited evidence in a lot of areas though, like effect on mass shootings.
[1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-s...
[2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce...
A lot of these state laws have also been rolled back because the Supreme Court declared them against the 2nd amendment.
The US being "50 countries" was sort of the original idea, but over time things changed significantly. Many aspects of life are controlled federally and have been for almost a 100 years. Yes, there is also state government but there is nothing special about that: many countries have some type of sub-national government with varying degrees of power. In the US state governments tend to have more power than average, but that does not make it "50 countries".
Everything is stuck in a weird dysfunctional limbo where none of the major institutions work as was intended at all. Endless discussion and navel-gazing over what some comma could perhaps have meant 250 years ago is not a serious way to govern a country.
The US being "50 countries" was sort of the original idea, but over time things changed significantly. Many aspects of life are controlled federally and have been for almost a 100 years. Yes, there is also state government but there is nothing special about that: many countries have some type of sub-national government with varying degrees of power. In the US state governments tend to have more power than average, but that does not make it "50 countries".
Everything is stuck in a weird dysfunctional limbo where none of the major institutions work as was intended at all. Endless discussion and navel-gazing over what some comma could perhaps have meant 250 years ago is not a serious way to govern a country.
> Also USA takes up an entire continent
Not even half.
Canada is slightly larger, plus there's Mexico and a bunch of smaller countries, which share the North American continent with the USA.
Not even half.
Canada is slightly larger, plus there's Mexico and a bunch of smaller countries, which share the North American continent with the USA.
That doesn’t sound like 50 countries at all. That sounds like one incredibly disfuncional country.
How does it not sound like 50 countries? There are 50 countries (states) each with their own laws and government. Hence varying degrees of gun strictness depending on the country (state). Laws that change the federal constitution must be approved by 75%.
Sounds like a dysfunctional country where states seem like they have a lot of power but they really don’t because they don’t control their borders. And a few holdouts can ruin everything for the large majority.
If your states were like real countries, they could just ban guns, set up border controls, and turn away anyone bringing guns in. But they can’t, so they’re not countries.
If your states were like real countries, they could just ban guns, set up border controls, and turn away anyone bringing guns in. But they can’t, so they’re not countries.
I didn't say they are countries, I said they are like countries. Finding all the ways they are not like countries to prove they aren't countries just ignores all of the similarities.
States are like countries in the same way that I’m like a horse. We’re both mammals with 4 limbs, but that’s about it.
Plenty of countries have states with distinct laws and cultures. Canada, Brazil, England, Italy, etc. That doesn’t mean those states are countries.
Sounds like you’re letting US exceptionalism cloud your judgement.
Plenty of countries have states with distinct laws and cultures. Canada, Brazil, England, Italy, etc. That doesn’t mean those states are countries.
Sounds like you’re letting US exceptionalism cloud your judgement.
Each one of these has a knee-jerk European response that either completely ignores reality or violates a half dozen or more laws.
Two examples:
1. "Police violence." What violence? Against whom? In a year approximately 50 million people have a police interaction (not the total number of all interactions). About 75,000 people are taken to a hospital following police use of force and about 600 people (0.001%) are killed. Of course the ideal number is zero but 0.001% doesn't seem like there is an epidemic of police violence sweeping through the country.
2. "Alternative (public) transportation." Again you're not being particularly clear on what the fix is here. Most major cities have some form of transit, be it busses, subways, or above-ground rail. If you're talking about major city-to-city high speed rail an LA-to-NYC rail system would be like putting in rail from Paris to northern Kazakhstan. San Diego to Chicago would be like London to Kazan (845km east of Moscow). Iowa is a medium-sized state most in the US never visit and never think about, and it's almost twice the size of Austria. Europeans who rail (pun intended) about how it's so dumb the US doesn't have high speed rail haven't taken the requisite 5 minutes to understand the difference in scale when you're talking about connecting the east and west coasts of the US.
What's more likely? That the US with ~350 million people just decides to ignore these "issues," or that there's something the average person who doesn't live here is misunderstanding?
Two examples:
1. "Police violence." What violence? Against whom? In a year approximately 50 million people have a police interaction (not the total number of all interactions). About 75,000 people are taken to a hospital following police use of force and about 600 people (0.001%) are killed. Of course the ideal number is zero but 0.001% doesn't seem like there is an epidemic of police violence sweeping through the country.
2. "Alternative (public) transportation." Again you're not being particularly clear on what the fix is here. Most major cities have some form of transit, be it busses, subways, or above-ground rail. If you're talking about major city-to-city high speed rail an LA-to-NYC rail system would be like putting in rail from Paris to northern Kazakhstan. San Diego to Chicago would be like London to Kazan (845km east of Moscow). Iowa is a medium-sized state most in the US never visit and never think about, and it's almost twice the size of Austria. Europeans who rail (pun intended) about how it's so dumb the US doesn't have high speed rail haven't taken the requisite 5 minutes to understand the difference in scale when you're talking about connecting the east and west coasts of the US.
What's more likely? That the US with ~350 million people just decides to ignore these "issues," or that there's something the average person who doesn't live here is misunderstanding?
> If you're talking about major city-to-city high speed rail an LA-to-NYC rail system would be like putting in rail from Paris to northern Kazakhstan. San Diego to Chicago would be like London to Kazan (845km east of Moscow). Iowa is a medium-sized state most in the US never visit and never think about, and it's almost twice the size of Austria. Europeans who rail (pun intended) about how it's so dumb the US doesn't have high speed rail haven't taken the requisite 5 minutes to understand the difference in scale when you're talking about connecting the east and west coasts of the US.
I find these "but it's so big!" excuses really lame when the crown jewel of our rail transit network, the Acela, in a large and very dense region... still kinda sucks.
Who cares about coast-to-coast when we can't even get Boston-DC to reach the lower edge of the same category as what's considered good developed-world passenger rail? This is clearly an area we could improve on significantly, and the excuse of "it's not dense enough" doesn't apply there.
I find these "but it's so big!" excuses really lame when the crown jewel of our rail transit network, the Acela, in a large and very dense region... still kinda sucks.
Who cares about coast-to-coast when we can't even get Boston-DC to reach the lower edge of the same category as what's considered good developed-world passenger rail? This is clearly an area we could improve on significantly, and the excuse of "it's not dense enough" doesn't apply there.
Not sure how we define violence, but I found 2 links that show that in USA there are quite some more police killings per capita than in western Europe.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124039/police-killings-...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
Of course some killings might be reasonable (very dangerous people, etc.) and violence is more than killings, but there does seem to be some signal there.
The reality and the laws are what people ask repeatedly. Maybe if they don't think it can be different they will not ask.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124039/police-killings-...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
Of course some killings might be reasonable (very dangerous people, etc.) and violence is more than killings, but there does seem to be some signal there.
The reality and the laws are what people ask repeatedly. Maybe if they don't think it can be different they will not ask.
Pointless to compare when Europe doesn't have the same demographics. Police killings are not random.
My reply was directed to someone that seemed to suggest "there is not so much violence".
I think the first step to discuss a topic is to understand what is there. If the statement would have been "I am fine that police in the USA being (potentially) more violent than in Western Europe", I wouldn't have checked anything because everybody is entitled to an opinion. I did check though because I wondered "is it true that there is not much violence in the USA compared to Western Europe?". I can't say I am sure after searching 5 minutes, but it does look like there is a probability that it is the case.
I think the first step to discuss a topic is to understand what is there. If the statement would have been "I am fine that police in the USA being (potentially) more violent than in Western Europe", I wouldn't have checked anything because everybody is entitled to an opinion. I did check though because I wondered "is it true that there is not much violence in the USA compared to Western Europe?". I can't say I am sure after searching 5 minutes, but it does look like there is a probability that it is the case.
.001% does seem kinda high in a context where a huge fraction of the police are going out and initiating interactions all day.
Now, if it were .001% for situations where the police are actually dispatched as the result of a call I think that'd be pretty ok.
Now, if it were .001% for situations where the police are actually dispatched as the result of a call I think that'd be pretty ok.
Why does the differentiation matter?
There is this tone in a lot of these discussions that the police are going out and hunting young unarmed black men and it simply doesn't line up with reality.
There is this tone in a lot of these discussions that the police are going out and hunting young unarmed black men and it simply doesn't line up with reality.
>Why does the differentiation matter?
Because the millions upon millions of traffic stops water down the fact that the police go guns blazing into petty BS way too often.
>There is this tone in a lot of these discussions that the police are going out and hunting young unarmed black men and it simply doesn't line up with reality.
Worse, they're hunting us all. Anyone who isn't a cop is at best a mark to be shaken down to them.
Because the millions upon millions of traffic stops water down the fact that the police go guns blazing into petty BS way too often.
>There is this tone in a lot of these discussions that the police are going out and hunting young unarmed black men and it simply doesn't line up with reality.
Worse, they're hunting us all. Anyone who isn't a cop is at best a mark to be shaken down to them.
Your high speed rail argument is valid but it’s also a classic misdirection. I doubt you meant to say this, but it came across as “we can’t solve the hardest cases so no one should be trying to solve any of them - and everyone who wants them solved is clueless”. Saying things like that dooms big problems to stay unsolved forever.
Probably couldn’t get it done the exact way they do in Europe, but no need to give up before starting. LA to San Diego? Portland to Seattle? Or a slightly harder one, Chicago to Austin TX?
Probably couldn’t get it done the exact way they do in Europe, but no need to give up before starting. LA to San Diego? Portland to Seattle? Or a slightly harder one, Chicago to Austin TX?
Just to take the low hanging fruit that I'm directly familiar with, there _is_ rail service from LA to San Diego. Just keeping the existing service operating is a massive challenge costing millions of dollars per year to keep the existing train lines operational in the face of coastal erosion. Meanwhile, there are literally dozens of proposals ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to implement a long-term fix by relocating the rails and realigning them to support HSR. Cost aside, _all_ of these proposals are being met with strong NIMBY and/or environmentalist resistance. Do NIMBYs and environmental protection laws not exist in Europe?
> linked by a common thread of inaction towards things that should in principle be solved.
Yes, but this is hardly unique to the US. Various European countries and the EU as a whole often suffer similarly.
It's not like the EU took one look at the Draghi report and immediately started to fix things; often the cultural and policy issues causing the problem also make it harder to implement new fixes to the problem.
Yes, but this is hardly unique to the US. Various European countries and the EU as a whole often suffer similarly.
It's not like the EU took one look at the Draghi report and immediately started to fix things; often the cultural and policy issues causing the problem also make it harder to implement new fixes to the problem.
This can be seen as backlash politics, where deeply rooted racial divisions are used to convince large groups to vote against their own interests in order to withhold any benefit to lesser groups. Two excellent books that explore this issue are The Politics of Resentment and Dying of Whiteness.
It's my pet theory that many Americans are unable to reason in positive freedoms. They don't often think about the freedom to not die in a car crash, or from a preventable disease.
It turns out that the USA operates kind of like "twitch plays X", so your comment reads like "Twitch has great potential to beat Pokemon but as an outsider it's unclear whether that is actually a goal"
Lots of different interest groups in the US have lots of different issues they care about, including traffic safety. Said interest groups compete in various political contexts to get their issues addressed.
Lots of different interest groups in the US have lots of different issues they care about, including traffic safety. Said interest groups compete in various political contexts to get their issues addressed.
Many believe the priority of the US government should be to protect individual liberties before saving lives or improving quality of life, even if to do so is at their detriment.
There is no such major group. There are people who think saving lives or improving quality of life does not matter, but those are also against individual liberties. They care about lowering taxes, more or less. They care about hierarchy.
But they do not care about liberties or freedom as such, not for anyone except the top of the hierarchy. They are consistently voting for politicians that restrict those and want to return back to times when average person was considerably less free. They are good at using freedom as a slogan, as an excuse to enact anti-freedom agenda, repeatedly, again and again.
But they do not care about liberties or freedom as such, not for anyone except the top of the hierarchy. They are consistently voting for politicians that restrict those and want to return back to times when average person was considerably less free. They are good at using freedom as a slogan, as an excuse to enact anti-freedom agenda, repeatedly, again and again.
Yes, I'd even add that those liberties are almost all negative liberties: freedom to X instead of freedom from Y. Few are interested in defending the freedom to not die in a car crash.
In the words of Patrick Henry spoken at the founding of the nation "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
We have great potential to save lives but we're willing and eager to exchange safety and control for individual liberty. Risk taking and individualism is also a reason why America has dominated many fields for so long. Silicon valley doesn't exist in Europe for a reason.
It's also impossible to argue with some people about safety because they're never satisfied, no risk can't be reduced, no risk is ever balanced with what you have to give up in exchange for safety. An argument about where one should set the balance is fine, but plenty of people want to set the risk to zero and that kind of extremism has no limit and runs into a paperclip problem where the only purpose of life is to preserve and extend it and as long as you're breathing it's a good life... or something like that.
We have great potential to save lives but we're willing and eager to exchange safety and control for individual liberty. Risk taking and individualism is also a reason why America has dominated many fields for so long. Silicon valley doesn't exist in Europe for a reason.
It's also impossible to argue with some people about safety because they're never satisfied, no risk can't be reduced, no risk is ever balanced with what you have to give up in exchange for safety. An argument about where one should set the balance is fine, but plenty of people want to set the risk to zero and that kind of extremism has no limit and runs into a paperclip problem where the only purpose of life is to preserve and extend it and as long as you're breathing it's a good life... or something like that.
I had a professor who said that if we really cared about traffic fatalities, we could end them overnight. Just outlaw seatbelts and airbags, then attach a large steel spike to the center of every steering wheel. Everyone would drive like old ladies, and would only drive when truly necessary.
Society has chosen traffic fatalities because at a certain level we've decided that we're okay killing N people if we get XYZ outcome.
I think about that a lot.
Society has chosen traffic fatalities because at a certain level we've decided that we're okay killing N people if we get XYZ outcome.
I think about that a lot.
I think you would find it wasn't a very practical solution, hence it's lack of implementation.
Making everyone use something like Waymos might work though.
Making everyone use something like Waymos might work though.
Did I miss any mention of autonomous driving in this article? Waymo is way more likely to be the cause for reductions in future fatalities than any collective action or behavior change. Waymo vehicles are themselves much safer drivers, calm vehicle traffic overall on the streets they operate, and may reset people's expectations of how safe, efficient, and stress free travel should be.
It's a bit sad that we were never able to solve this problem by designing safer streets, but you're probably right that self-driving cars will end up being the solution in the states.
In the distant future we'll be able to de-design (de-sign?) streets for self-driving cars: no traffic lights, no stop signs, no speed bumps, narrow lanes, fewer lanes, no curbs, no dividers, no street lights, etc.
No pedestrian crossings. No bike lanes. No escape from the noise of thousands of tires going at high speed. No escape from the air pollution of eroding tires and brakes. A vision of that future from a skeptic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
Certainly some unknowns, but I'm optimistic.
> No pedestrian crossings.
Everywhere is a pedestrian crossing when you know that every vehicle sees you and will slow/stop if it anticipates you will enter its path.
> No bike lanes.
I'm an urban bike commuter and would be delighted to share the road with autonomous vehicles instead of human-driven ones.
> No escape from the noise of thousands of tires going at high speed.
I live 60 ft from a highway and would trade the noise of 1 speeding, honking, revving, modified-exhaust having human driven car for 100 well-maintained speed-limit obeying Waymo's.
> No escape from the air pollution of eroding tires and brakes.
Gentle starts and stops from a well-maintained (e.g. proper tire inflation) autonomous vehicle will create less of both of those than the average human-driven vehicle.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
I like a diversity of viewpoints, and glad there are people advocating for pedestrian and cyclist use of roads, but I find very little I agree with in Not Just Bikes pessimism.
> No pedestrian crossings.
Everywhere is a pedestrian crossing when you know that every vehicle sees you and will slow/stop if it anticipates you will enter its path.
> No bike lanes.
I'm an urban bike commuter and would be delighted to share the road with autonomous vehicles instead of human-driven ones.
> No escape from the noise of thousands of tires going at high speed.
I live 60 ft from a highway and would trade the noise of 1 speeding, honking, revving, modified-exhaust having human driven car for 100 well-maintained speed-limit obeying Waymo's.
> No escape from the air pollution of eroding tires and brakes.
Gentle starts and stops from a well-maintained (e.g. proper tire inflation) autonomous vehicle will create less of both of those than the average human-driven vehicle.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
I like a diversity of viewpoints, and glad there are people advocating for pedestrian and cyclist use of roads, but I find very little I agree with in Not Just Bikes pessimism.
> I live 60 ft from a highway and would trade the noise of 1 speeding, honking, revving, modified-exhaust having human driven car for 100 well-maintained speed-limit obeying Waymo's.
The speed limit will certainly be increased if only autonomous vehicles are allowed. It's an easy sell in the city council meetings.
I suggest you watch the video. It may be pessimistic but it makes valid arguments worth keeping in mind when considering that future.
The speed limit will certainly be increased if only autonomous vehicles are allowed. It's an easy sell in the city council meetings.
I suggest you watch the video. It may be pessimistic but it makes valid arguments worth keeping in mind when considering that future.
> The speed limit will certainly be increased if only autonomous vehicles are allowed.
If the vehicles are safe enough to be allowed to drive faster than humans did on the same roads, why not?
If the vehicles are safe enough to be allowed to drive faster than humans did on the same roads, why not?
> why not?
Road noise? My concern about road noise from higher-speed EV AV's is much lower than ICE human-driven vehicles at a lower (posted) speed.
Road noise? My concern about road noise from higher-speed EV AV's is much lower than ICE human-driven vehicles at a lower (posted) speed.
Tire noise increases with speed and weight. At freeway speeds, tires make 60% of the noise of a typical ICE vehicle[0]. Electric cars are also heavier than ICE vehicle due to the battery. High speed AV only roads would probably have more cars on them too, so even more noise.
[0]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-12-hy-wheel...
[0]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-12-hy-wheel...
Yes. In my personal road situation I'd be happy to exchange more tire noise (which is more of a consistent white noise) for the abrupt and annoying other car sounds.
There's still a chance that net tire noise would be same or less: "Tires running higher inflation pressures generate lower noise levels compared to those with lower inflation levels." https://www.tirereview.com/the-fight-against-tire-noise/
I suspect that other design choices (e.g. fender skirts like on the Honda Insight) could be made that would further reduce tire noise.
There's still a chance that net tire noise would be same or less: "Tires running higher inflation pressures generate lower noise levels compared to those with lower inflation levels." https://www.tirereview.com/the-fight-against-tire-noise/
I suspect that other design choices (e.g. fender skirts like on the Honda Insight) could be made that would further reduce tire noise.
In the video I linked it goes over various reasons that would be a bad: road noise(tire noise exceeds ICE engine noise at pretty low speeds, so being an EV doesn't help), asphalt erosion, tire erosion, brake erosion, all of which are pollution as well.
Doubtful we'll get all of this. The reality is that having separation between types of traffic makes a lot of sense even if cars are driven by super safe robots 100% of the time.
How is this supposed to help pedestrians?
Less money spent on car infrastructure means more money available for other priorities. Most people expect widespread use self-driving cars to dramatically decrease the need for parking spots (at homes, apartments, office, stores, along roads, etc.). Parking lots could be turned into parks.
>You are as likely to die driving on an American road as you are driving in Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan
not true. I always drive on American roads and I never drive on Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan roads.
not true. I always drive on American roads and I never drive on Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan roads.
The probability that I've driven on a Kazakh or Kyrgyzstani road is 0, as is the probability that I've died on an American road.
The math checks out.
The math checks out.
So you had accidents 100% of your Kazakh roadtrips.
Even if you use ponylang to calculate, 0/0 is 0
Speed cameras could only be a reasonable solution in a country which has reasonable speed limits . . . which the US often doesn't have. Better to prop up municipal revenue or satisfy the "but the children" crowd by setting them 10+mph too slow for a given road. And that's not touching on the privacy implications.
I don't see people clamouring for more enforcement anytime soon but there are definitely benefits to automated speed cameras. In many ways i much much prefer driving on freeways where the speed is extremely strictly enforced, forcing everyone to turn on cruise control, rather than dealing with drivers that simply can't maintain a constant speed.
Set the speed limit on a typical expressway to 80mph* and plenty of people would be OK with [or even in favor of] speed cameras.
* or whatever the 85th percentile speed is, rounded up to the nearest 5 mph.
* or whatever the 85th percentile speed is, rounded up to the nearest 5 mph.
> crowd by setting them 10+mph too slow for a given road
In NYC at least, they are set for speeds that make the roads safer for other users, such as pedestrians. They are not set in order to please the perception of drivers.
In NYC at least, they are set for speeds that make the roads safer for other users, such as pedestrians. They are not set in order to please the perception of drivers.
I have to wonder where you live. In TN, I very rarely feel that the speed limit is too low.
About a third of those 42,000 dead are due to DUIs. US has historically been lenient here, resulting in many repeat offenders on the road causing preventable tragedies. Distracted driving is around 3,000/yr, while drowsy drivers around 6,000.
If self driving cars do nothing better than on par with alert and sober human drivers, that might cut half of those deaths by itself.
If self driving cars do nothing better than on par with alert and sober human drivers, that might cut half of those deaths by itself.
> If self driving cars do nothing better than on par with alert and sober human drivers, that might cut half of those deaths by itself.
Self driving probably fixes the fatality rate entirely once most people use self driving modes.
Self driving will be the US' economic superpower. We've got so much vehicular infrastructure and it's practically sitting latent waiting for this opportunity.
When most of everything transits this way - food, goods, packages, people, instant fulfillment - it'll be one of the biggest unlocks of the century.
Anything we lost due to underinvestment in rail will be dwarfed by the returns from self driving.
Self driving probably fixes the fatality rate entirely once most people use self driving modes.
Self driving will be the US' economic superpower. We've got so much vehicular infrastructure and it's practically sitting latent waiting for this opportunity.
When most of everything transits this way - food, goods, packages, people, instant fulfillment - it'll be one of the biggest unlocks of the century.
Anything we lost due to underinvestment in rail will be dwarfed by the returns from self driving.
Traffic is largely a choice in the first place. It's just difficult to undo once you've chosen it.
It would be sub-optimal to plan large scale infrastructure improvements without considering the current slope of the S curve in autonomous driving progress. In just a few years we may be choosing fewer fatalities by phasing out steering wheels. Whatever changes the roads and environment need will shift a lot over the next couple of decades.
I think this is great to think about however I think many of the same lessons may still apply and can and should be applied now in a forward looking way:
From the article:
> Whereas the Netherlands clearly differentiates roads and streets — as do Germany, Spain, and France — the US is known for having “stroads,” roads where cars reach high speeds yet must also avoid drivers entering from adjacent businesses and homes. The majority of fatal crashes in American cities happen on these “stroads,” and impact pedestrians and cyclists in particular.
I think this will be _more_ important with autonomous driving. We've developed a built environment where car through traffic and destinations are co-mingled which leaves very little room for people to actually experience their destinations when they get out of their vehicles.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my expectation is that the problem of "stroads" will only become more apparent if less focus is placed on getting from point A to B and more on where a person is trying to go which is my current long term expectations of the impacts of autonomous vehicles.
From the article:
> Whereas the Netherlands clearly differentiates roads and streets — as do Germany, Spain, and France — the US is known for having “stroads,” roads where cars reach high speeds yet must also avoid drivers entering from adjacent businesses and homes. The majority of fatal crashes in American cities happen on these “stroads,” and impact pedestrians and cyclists in particular.
I think this will be _more_ important with autonomous driving. We've developed a built environment where car through traffic and destinations are co-mingled which leaves very little room for people to actually experience their destinations when they get out of their vehicles.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my expectation is that the problem of "stroads" will only become more apparent if less focus is placed on getting from point A to B and more on where a person is trying to go which is my current long term expectations of the impacts of autonomous vehicles.
Some argue that autonomous driving will enable even worse infrastructure choices if we don't plan ahead. The Youtuber Not Just Bikes, for example, did a video called "How Self-Driving Cars Will Destroy Cities (and what to do about it)"[0].
If we start focusing on making alternatives to cars the most attractive options now, they can still be the most attractive(and efficient and safe) options even with self-driving cars everywhere.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
If we start focusing on making alternatives to cars the most attractive options now, they can still be the most attractive(and efficient and safe) options even with self-driving cars everywhere.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
For me the last 20 years showed the opposite. You should plan infrastructure considering current tech and adjust if required. There were so many promises not fulfilled and surprises where there were no promises that I don't see the point planning based on assumptions.
I lived in the Netherlands and infrastructure was great now and I am sure it will be great in 10 years, because they constantly think on how to improve given the situation. It will not be perfect in 10 years (and neither is now) but that's just life.
I lived in the Netherlands and infrastructure was great now and I am sure it will be great in 10 years, because they constantly think on how to improve given the situation. It will not be perfect in 10 years (and neither is now) but that's just life.
Another demonstration of positive-sum:
> It does so by expanding pedestrian areas via curb extensions or bumpouts, narrowing crosswalks, and removing parking within 20-25 feet of an intersection. [...] This not only slows traffic, but permits turning cars fuller visibility of the crosswalk.
Classical zero-sum thinking would suggest that drivers loose value to pedestrians, with more pavement and less road. However, you don't even have to think about pedestrians to understand why everyone benefits from this: in some American cities (I'm looking at you, Seattle) you have to edge absurdly far into intersections to see perpendicular. Broadening sidewalks improves driver-driver visibility too.
> It does so by expanding pedestrian areas via curb extensions or bumpouts, narrowing crosswalks, and removing parking within 20-25 feet of an intersection. [...] This not only slows traffic, but permits turning cars fuller visibility of the crosswalk.
Classical zero-sum thinking would suggest that drivers loose value to pedestrians, with more pavement and less road. However, you don't even have to think about pedestrians to understand why everyone benefits from this: in some American cities (I'm looking at you, Seattle) you have to edge absurdly far into intersections to see perpendicular. Broadening sidewalks improves driver-driver visibility too.
> At 12.8 deaths per 100,000 people, it is double that of Greece, triple that of Austria, and six times more than Japan.
Should this not be measured in terms of fatal accidents every million of km driven? To normalize by how much people drive on average, and by the average vehicle occupancy.
(Not saying this is easy.)
Should this not be measured in terms of fatal accidents every million of km driven? To normalize by how much people drive on average, and by the average vehicle occupancy.
(Not saying this is easy.)
If you build your infrastructure in a way that people have to drive much more to do the same, should you really discount this difference ?
I rarely drive the car because I can reach by walk any place required by my daily necessities... of course I don't risk a fatal accident as much as somebody that drives daily for work and has to take the car for any kind of shopping.
Put in another way: if are considering ways to lower traffic fatalities, lowering the time that people need to spend in their car is one way to do it.
I rarely drive the car because I can reach by walk any place required by my daily necessities... of course I don't risk a fatal accident as much as somebody that drives daily for work and has to take the car for any kind of shopping.
Put in another way: if are considering ways to lower traffic fatalities, lowering the time that people need to spend in their car is one way to do it.
The article is trying to say Americans are dying more than they have to because we don't invest in safe infrastructure. With that framing, a solution would be to invest in safer infrastructure. But if it turns out we did the wrong thing because we used the wrong metric and spent a bunch of money on it, it would be a gigantic waste. If the reason is because we drive more than other countries, that's what we should try to address.
Well, the two go together.
Safe infrastructure can be fully separated bike paths - a road network that minimizes intersections with car traffic. And stoplights that have a separate right-of-way which allows bikes to go when no cars are allowed to go. Fixing that will mean that more people feel comfortable riding a bike for trips within a couple miles. And more people riding their bikes for short trips mean that drivers have more empathy for bikers, etc. And it means that more people advocate for allowing denser zoning near them since they get the benefit of more amenities.
It’s a virtuous cycle that starts with making lots of safe infrastructure, so safe that even grandma and young children are able to bike safely.
Safe infrastructure can be fully separated bike paths - a road network that minimizes intersections with car traffic. And stoplights that have a separate right-of-way which allows bikes to go when no cars are allowed to go. Fixing that will mean that more people feel comfortable riding a bike for trips within a couple miles. And more people riding their bikes for short trips mean that drivers have more empathy for bikers, etc. And it means that more people advocate for allowing denser zoning near them since they get the benefit of more amenities.
It’s a virtuous cycle that starts with making lots of safe infrastructure, so safe that even grandma and young children are able to bike safely.
If someone's house is 20+ miles from their office, that might be an urban planning issue, but it isn't a road design issue.
No, because it is not “natural” to have to drive long distances — this was a deliberate choice by the US. The goal is not to get people to drive long distances and then make sure they don't start dying too much more than if they had walked instead. Rather, by removing the need to drive, other countries have reduced their traffic fatalities per capita, which was the goal all along.
> the [post pandemic] increase in vehicle occupant deaths appears to be heavily weighted towards people who weren't wearing seatbelts
Why would you do this? (See also: cycling without a helmet.)
Why would you do this? (See also: cycling without a helmet.)
Some people really, really, hate being told what to do, especially when it's a (in their opinion) significant inconvenience to prevent some (also in their opinion) very unlikely hazard.
It's baffling to me too, especially cyclists without helmets. Part of why I don't cycle is because, yes, helmets are annoying, but it's too dangerous to do it without a helmet.
It's baffling to me too, especially cyclists without helmets. Part of why I don't cycle is because, yes, helmets are annoying, but it's too dangerous to do it without a helmet.
It’s really not that dangerous. If you’re a safe rider, riding in relatively safe environments, cycling is about as dangerous as jogging. And yet you never see anyone jogging with a helmet.
There was a recent video about this that summarized my thoughts on helmets
https://youtu.be/g1HgInvm-gY
There was a recent video about this that summarized my thoughts on helmets
https://youtu.be/g1HgInvm-gY
I can't jog at 20mph. Helmets aren't about the likelihood of an accident, rather they're about the severity of an accident regardless of likelihood.
I didn’t say jogging was faster than cycling, I said it’s about as dangerous. Which is what the data from the study cited in the video shows. So i’m not sure why you’re bringing up speed.
Are you claiming that jogging is as dangerous, in terms of level of injury as cycling? That seems implausible to me. I would be curious what you base that on. My initial assumption was that your belief is that you're as likely to suffer and accident while jogging or cycling.
I encourage you to watch the video and check out the sources instead of relying on your initial assumption!
saves on healthcare costs?
Saying that it's a choice and then proposing thete is only one correct choice is deceptive. I could say that using cars is a choice too.
Everything can be a choice by that rhetorical framing. It's just a dumb language game, one that the public is both weary of and pretty keen at sniffing out at this point.
[deleted]
At this point the world should be building or modernizing cities that eliminate self-driven vehicles, reset distinctly separate paths for auto-driven vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
This would dramatically reduce injuries, fuel consumption, and air pollution. It would also reclaim concrete spaces for nature.
This would dramatically reduce injuries, fuel consumption, and air pollution. It would also reclaim concrete spaces for nature.
Even autonomous vehicles pale in comparison to good mass transit, so if we're eliminating human-driven vehicles, might as well replace them mostly with mass transit instead.
Mass transit is a byproduct of large cities. I’d argue that a modern urban plan would by smaller cities with neighborhoods containing every need.
Small cities can support mass transit. Street cars and buses can do an excellent job when you don't have the scale for a subway system. Yes neighborhoods should contain every need, but when you plan neighborhoods to revolve around cars, then there's less space for those needs. If people can't safely and comfortably walk from their home to a place of business, then they'll either take mass transit, or they'll drive. If they drive, then there needs to be more road and parking space to support them. And it starts becoming an unsustainable rat-race where everything ends up spread out with a bunch of pavement in-between, and you can only get places if you have a car.
Remove the idea of "car" and think of auto-driven cubes with their own pathways within a city. Similar to subways, but can be above ground with covering. You don't need parking, streets, traffic signals, and a whole host of infrastructure is eradicated.
You go by behavior:
- I need to go to library, store (walk or bike) - I need to go a business or house (cube it) - I need to leave the city for long-distance travel (now we connect to mass-transit)
You go by behavior:
- I need to go to library, store (walk or bike) - I need to go a business or house (cube it) - I need to leave the city for long-distance travel (now we connect to mass-transit)
[deleted]
Very surprising that this article does not mention trucks, which in America have become larger, more common, and an ever-growing contribution to the rising number of traffic fatalities.
“ Pickups also tend to be more dangerous in collisions between differently sized vehicles — car drivers are 2.5 times more likely to die when colliding with a pickup as compared to another car” [0]
Pickup trucks’ weight increased by 32% between 1990 and 2021 [1]
As a bonus laughable fact, the first generation of F-150s was 36% cab and 64% bed by length. By 2021, the ratio flipped to 63% cab and 37% bed. So much for the “rugged” weekend warriors.
0: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2019.1...
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02760-8#ref-CR1
“ Pickups also tend to be more dangerous in collisions between differently sized vehicles — car drivers are 2.5 times more likely to die when colliding with a pickup as compared to another car” [0]
Pickup trucks’ weight increased by 32% between 1990 and 2021 [1]
As a bonus laughable fact, the first generation of F-150s was 36% cab and 64% bed by length. By 2021, the ratio flipped to 63% cab and 37% bed. So much for the “rugged” weekend warriors.
0: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2019.1...
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02760-8#ref-CR1
It used to be about hauling 8' plywood or something. Saw a super duty F-350 extended cab yesterday and I'm not sure the bed was 4'.
Suppose it could take a gooseneck hitch for a giant camper trailer.
Suppose it could take a gooseneck hitch for a giant camper trailer.
qingcharles(3)
I've seen these 'bump out's and I LOATH what they do to traffic. While they are one, pedestrian focused, solution I do not believe they are the __best possible__ solution.
""" (with the paragraph broken up into bullet points and some bold text)
The U.S. model typically encourages wide lanes and corners to increase driver visibility, but this has the unintended consequence of encouraging cars to go through intersections faster, and and thereby decreasing the peripheral vision they might have retained at a slower speed. Instead, the Safe System intersection is designed to
limit car speed and facilitate eye contact between users.
It does so by expanding pedestrian areas via
* curb extensions or bumpouts,
* narrowing crosswalks, and
* removing parking within 20-25 feet of an intersection.
The crosswalks and narrowing of the lanes encourages cars to slow and to stop well ahead of the crosswalk, while bumpouts shorten the distance pedestrians must be in the road.
"""
While I agree Eye Contact is important, I think it should not come at the cost of increased driver or pedestrian conative load, but instead in the form of better safety engineering / design.
Crosswalks : Take the extreme version of UK's solution. Crosswalks should be either half way along a road segment, or at least half a block from the vehicle intersection. These should include 'bump outs' to disrupt any parking area and LOW, half meter or less tall, shrubs or features should promote HIGH VISIBILITY and Eye Contact between pedestrians and drivers in a dedicated pedestrian / vehicle interaction area.
Vehicle Intersections : Should have ZERO interaction with pedestrian features, no pedestrians should cross here. Roundabouts, free inner corner turns, traffic control systems and drivers all interact better in an environment that is less chaotic and more predictable. The optimal engineering safety choice is to remove pedestrians from such danger zones entirely. Yes remove parking within 15 meters (45ft) or better within 2 seconds of vision at road speed.
Road Speed : Mark roads at their engineered speed. Do not lie to drivers. Do not intentionally make safety worse by adding distractions and hazardous elements ('traffic calming'). If a road speed IS indicated slower than the conditions appear to permit, time the intersection to intersection speed and post a _suggestion_ to 'lights timed for X speed'. If that's too slow drivers will figure out a more optimal speed within the range of what seems safe.
""" (with the paragraph broken up into bullet points and some bold text)
The U.S. model typically encourages wide lanes and corners to increase driver visibility, but this has the unintended consequence of encouraging cars to go through intersections faster, and and thereby decreasing the peripheral vision they might have retained at a slower speed. Instead, the Safe System intersection is designed to
limit car speed and facilitate eye contact between users.
It does so by expanding pedestrian areas via
* curb extensions or bumpouts,
* narrowing crosswalks, and
* removing parking within 20-25 feet of an intersection.
The crosswalks and narrowing of the lanes encourages cars to slow and to stop well ahead of the crosswalk, while bumpouts shorten the distance pedestrians must be in the road.
"""
While I agree Eye Contact is important, I think it should not come at the cost of increased driver or pedestrian conative load, but instead in the form of better safety engineering / design.
Crosswalks : Take the extreme version of UK's solution. Crosswalks should be either half way along a road segment, or at least half a block from the vehicle intersection. These should include 'bump outs' to disrupt any parking area and LOW, half meter or less tall, shrubs or features should promote HIGH VISIBILITY and Eye Contact between pedestrians and drivers in a dedicated pedestrian / vehicle interaction area.
Vehicle Intersections : Should have ZERO interaction with pedestrian features, no pedestrians should cross here. Roundabouts, free inner corner turns, traffic control systems and drivers all interact better in an environment that is less chaotic and more predictable. The optimal engineering safety choice is to remove pedestrians from such danger zones entirely. Yes remove parking within 15 meters (45ft) or better within 2 seconds of vision at road speed.
Road Speed : Mark roads at their engineered speed. Do not lie to drivers. Do not intentionally make safety worse by adding distractions and hazardous elements ('traffic calming'). If a road speed IS indicated slower than the conditions appear to permit, time the intersection to intersection speed and post a _suggestion_ to 'lights timed for X speed'. If that's too slow drivers will figure out a more optimal speed within the range of what seems safe.
Two issues with what you say:
> Crosswalks should be either half way along a road segment, or at least half a block from the vehicle intersection.
Great, so it'll take pedestrians 3x as long to get anywhere.
> Do not intentionally make safety worse by adding distractions and hazardous elements ('traffic calming').
When drivers feel confident, they drive fast. When they feel wary, they drive slow. I do not believe evidence shows that when drivers must navigate more complex arenas, they become more dangerous. They may feel less safe, but that's the whole point — to reduce drivers’ confidence and force them to act safely and cautiously.
> Crosswalks should be either half way along a road segment, or at least half a block from the vehicle intersection.
Great, so it'll take pedestrians 3x as long to get anywhere.
> Do not intentionally make safety worse by adding distractions and hazardous elements ('traffic calming').
When drivers feel confident, they drive fast. When they feel wary, they drive slow. I do not believe evidence shows that when drivers must navigate more complex arenas, they become more dangerous. They may feel less safe, but that's the whole point — to reduce drivers’ confidence and force them to act safely and cautiously.
> Crosswalks should be either half way along a road segment, or at least half a block from the vehicle intersection.
This could be fantastic, if the city was designed around it with a pedestrian grid half a block out of phase with the car grid. Without other changes, this would likely be a huge pain, so at that point we might as well work to make the whole thing far less car-dependent.
This could be fantastic, if the city was designed around it with a pedestrian grid half a block out of phase with the car grid. Without other changes, this would likely be a huge pain, so at that point we might as well work to make the whole thing far less car-dependent.
Marking the road at its engineered speed is ineffective. People overwhelmingly do not use speed limits to decide how fast they drive. They look at how wide and straight the road is and how many things they see. The problem is we built a lot of streets that are engineered to be 50mph roads in residential neighborhoods. People then ignore the 25mph sign and drive 50mph and hit little children playing outside their home. Rebuilding and rerouting the road is impractical, so how do we fix the problem? Empirical evidence shows that by adding "distracting things" people drive slower, and this results in few fatalities.
You are thinking of them as "distractions" but counter intuitively it might better to think of them "focus holders". Imagine your job is to sit in an empty room with a single button and at random times, a light turns on and you need to push the button within half a second. If this happens every several seconds or so, this is pretty easy, but if it only happens after an hour or so your mind will be wandering and your reaction time will be shit. Now imagine instead you are given a platforming video game like Mario or Hollow Knight, and every time a certain character appears on screen need to push the Y button. This sounds like something that is easy to do for hours, even if the specific character appears infrequently, it would even be enjoyable. Adding those elements like trees, turns and bumps are the same idea, it ensures the drivers focus is always on the road where it needs to be.
Also some people just don't care and race down wide straight roads as fast as they can. The only way to slow these people down is to make it impossible to go extremely fast. I can think of this play ground near my house which is across the street from a school. In orders to stop people speeding down this straight street, the placed large rocks in the middle of the road, so you have to dive this zig zag pattern. I sure this can be somewhat frustrating for drivers but it's now impossible to navigate this road at more than ~20 mph which is what we want.
As for moving interactions I think the idea of not having pedestrian crossings at intersections is infeasible. Though it might work if you were building a new city from scratch. When you are walking in a city you are going to cross multiple blocks. Walking ten+ blocks to get somewhere is so normal it’s not something you even think about. Crossing in the middle of the block would at least double and could triple or quadruple the length of the of a walk and city dwellers would simply not do it and cross at intersections. They already universally ignore traffic lights, and aren't going to walk out of their way dozens of times a day.
I could imagine a city that was designed around walking and all the shops and homes were on car free streets, with streets behind the houses, like alleyways or underground. That I could see working, but the problems with implementation are obvious.
You are thinking of them as "distractions" but counter intuitively it might better to think of them "focus holders". Imagine your job is to sit in an empty room with a single button and at random times, a light turns on and you need to push the button within half a second. If this happens every several seconds or so, this is pretty easy, but if it only happens after an hour or so your mind will be wandering and your reaction time will be shit. Now imagine instead you are given a platforming video game like Mario or Hollow Knight, and every time a certain character appears on screen need to push the Y button. This sounds like something that is easy to do for hours, even if the specific character appears infrequently, it would even be enjoyable. Adding those elements like trees, turns and bumps are the same idea, it ensures the drivers focus is always on the road where it needs to be.
Also some people just don't care and race down wide straight roads as fast as they can. The only way to slow these people down is to make it impossible to go extremely fast. I can think of this play ground near my house which is across the street from a school. In orders to stop people speeding down this straight street, the placed large rocks in the middle of the road, so you have to dive this zig zag pattern. I sure this can be somewhat frustrating for drivers but it's now impossible to navigate this road at more than ~20 mph which is what we want.
As for moving interactions I think the idea of not having pedestrian crossings at intersections is infeasible. Though it might work if you were building a new city from scratch. When you are walking in a city you are going to cross multiple blocks. Walking ten+ blocks to get somewhere is so normal it’s not something you even think about. Crossing in the middle of the block would at least double and could triple or quadruple the length of the of a walk and city dwellers would simply not do it and cross at intersections. They already universally ignore traffic lights, and aren't going to walk out of their way dozens of times a day.
I could imagine a city that was designed around walking and all the shops and homes were on car free streets, with streets behind the houses, like alleyways or underground. That I could see working, but the problems with implementation are obvious.
Yes, we can and should improve the design of the roads. However, we also need to improve the driving skills of the young and elderly.
[1] https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/older-road-users