Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives • Hacker News Board

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#131

Post by mkagenius » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:14 AM UTC

lukeqsee wrote: post #85

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

In Europe, if you strike a pedestrian outside a crosswalk, the same might happen to you depending on the jurisdiction. Pedestrians create their own right of way, practically speaking (if not judicially). :-)

In India if you strike a pedestrian anywhere, you can yell at him for being a nuisance and be on your way. Pedestrians have 0 value in terms of life in India.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#132

Post by coredog64 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:15 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #112

donatj wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with it being so black and white. Higher speed travel saves time and energy. 55mph is generally considered optimal for vehicle fuel consumption. Slowing speeds pretty directly affects climate change and pollution. I’d like to see a direct comparison of loss of life vs mph including figures on deaths from increased air pollution and other climate considerations. I think one could also argue time lost in tra…

Driving an electric car for 4.5 years has helped me experience the tradeoffs in speed and efficiency (range) on a daily basis with fast feedback. Though 55 mph is much more energy efficient than 65 mph, 35 mph is much more energy efficient than 55 mph as well. I think the 55 mph point is realistically a balance between energy and time efficiency, not an optimum of energy efficiency alone.

Spark ignition ICEs experience something called “pumping losses”: There’s a physical impediment (the throttle) that the engine has to work against at low engine speeds. So while drag increases with speed, it’s also true that at lower speeds you’re still converting hydrocarbons to waste heat at the same rate. The truth is that fuel economy is a delicate balance between rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, gearing, and the engine power curve.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#133

Post by coredog64 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:17 AM UTC

> Those who walk or bike to work receive no commuter tax benefit

False. It’s possible to pay for mass transit with pretax dollars.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#134

Post by drdeadringer » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:21 AM UTC

unwrap wrote: post #66

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based off your parent poster's description of the situation, it sounds as if the pedestrian had the right of way. However, if the driver was half their age, all else equal, would we say the DMV should assess if they're competent to drive? The primary cause of the accident could be independent of age.

For a pedestrian it doesn't matter whether you have "right of way", because you can be right a hundred times over and still go to a mortician. That's all I am trying to say. If you are crossing the road, please wait for the cars to stop, or make absolutely sure there aren't any nearby. Cars are multiple-ton steel monsters, it takes a lot of energy and space to slow them down. Just bringing some perspective from a cou…

> If you are crossing the road, please wait for the cars to stop, or make absolutely sure there aren't any nearby.

Recently I've had to take some "defensive pedestrian" tactics and strategies at certain crosswalks at certain corners at certain times of day. It's a little more than the usual common sense for when walking around in an urban environment, but it's helped.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#135

Post by lostjohnny » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:25 AM UTC

bancars wrote: post #79

vixen99 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it helps to live in a famously flat country.

We need to give this argument a rest. Cycling infrastructure has everything to do with availability and very little to do with hills. I don’t avoid biking to work because of the hills, I avoid it because it’s treacherous.

Disclaimer: I don't like cars, I love driving, but as a sport, not in urban areas.

Biking is like running, playing soccer, playing tennis, swimming, many people don't do it because they don't do any sport.

Biking requires skills that normal people usually don't have, but that they believe they have.

It is in fact more dangerous than driving (compared to the driver, not pedestrians)

As soon as older people could not bike anymore, they started buying electric scooters and in Holland they have now more deaths caused by scooter accidents than cars.

France is going to ban them because they are too dangerous.

People than cannot drive anymore because of age or because they had their driving license revoked, started using less "law encumbered" vehicles and the number of accidents began to rise.

People on bikes are less controlled,they are not forced to use safety measures, they are not inside a "secured box", they don't have anti intrusion bars, air bags, safety belts, etc. etc.

Very few wear an helmet, many of them don't follow street rules, they bike on the sidewalk, very fast, they are very quiet and many pedestrian don't hear them coming.

They pay a lot less taxes (and fines), taxes used to implement mobility politics.

In Italy, for example, the money that cities earn from fines, cannot be used for anything else than mobility.

City planning is complicated, you don't solve problems just by changing few rules, you have to carefully plan for them

Changing a model that has been THE model for at least half a century and that have become so popular because freed people from the task of commuting or having to go somewhere, fast, without having to share the ride with other 150 people, just like the washing machine freed women from the task of washing clothes, it's not an easy task.

EDIT

I don't want to give the idea that cities are doomed, but biking is not the solution, biking is just like cars but with different problems, THE solution is walkability.

Walkable cities are for everyone.

Bikeable cities are just for bikers.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#136

Post by afiori » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:30 AM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #132

sokoloff wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving an electric car for 4.5 years has helped me experience the tradeoffs in speed and efficiency (range) on a daily basis with fast feedback. Though 55 mph is much more energy efficient than 65 mph, 35 mph is much more energy efficient than 55 mph as well. I think the 55 mph point is realistically a balance between energy and time efficiency, not an optimum of energy efficiency alone.

Spark ignition ICEs experience something called “pumping losses”: There’s a physical impediment (the throttle) that the engine has to work against at low engine speeds. So while drag increases with speed, it’s also true that at lower speeds you’re still converting hydrocarbons to waste heat at the same rate. The truth is that fuel economy is a delicate balance between rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, gearing, an…

With the car I usually drive the minimal efficient speed is around 30mph. Below that you are forced to a very low gear.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#137

Post by r3bl » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:31 AM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #109

chronolitus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me float you a hypothetical situation: you're in command of a few tons of steel, and your priority is to get to some arbitrary location. Your second priority, I assume, is to not murder anyone. Here's what you know about the environment : it is populated with (harmless fleshly) people who are also going about fulfilling goals 1 and 2. You know with high probability that at any given moment one might quickly cross…

Shouldn't the same logic apply to a pedestrian? I mean his goals are getting to some arbitrary location and arriving at that location intact. Why should only the driver carry the responsibility? Driving slower than average increases the driver's chances of getting in an accident. Also, lower speeds aren't guaranteed safety. I know of an accident that occurred around 10-20km/h right next to a hospital, which resulted…

Because your life, as a driver, is shielded by a huge metal can. Pedestrian life is not. Pedestrians can't put your life in danger, while you can put their life in danger.

That's why, in "normal" countries, it's always the driver that needs to be questioned by default, not the pedestrian. If the driver proves that he did all he could to avoid the accident, he faces no consequences. If not, he faces them.

This really isn't that complicated. It's okay for the pedestrian to not respect all the rules because he's not in the position in which he can put other people's lives in danger — only his own. Drivers are willingly putting themselves in a situation in which they can put other people's lives in danger, so the burden of proof is on them.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#138

Post by afiori » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #109

chronolitus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me float you a hypothetical situation: you're in command of a few tons of steel, and your priority is to get to some arbitrary location. Your second priority, I assume, is to not murder anyone. Here's what you know about the environment : it is populated with (harmless fleshly) people who are also going about fulfilling goals 1 and 2. You know with high probability that at any given moment one might quickly cross…

Shouldn't the same logic apply to a pedestrian? I mean his goals are getting to some arbitrary location and arriving at that location intact. Why should only the driver carry the responsibility? Driving slower than average increases the driver's chances of getting in an accident. Also, lower speeds aren't guaranteed safety. I know of an accident that occurred around 10-20km/h right next to a hospital, which resulted…

the same reason you should be more careful when handling guns than when handling bananas.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#139

Post by Shivetya » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:37 AM UTC

DaveInTucson wrote: post #27

According to Wikipedia [0], the number of MV-related deaths has been right about 10 or 11 per 100,000 per year for the last ten years. Which makes the opening claim "Americans are condemned to lose friends and relatives to traffic violence" seem particularly overwrought. And while the legal system may have been of some help, I rather suspect the main reason cars took over is because they give the user a tremendous am…

the whole article is a festival of cherry picked statistics, innuendo, and hyperbole, all to support a fantasy world ideal the author desires.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#140

Post by afiori » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:37 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #78

chronolitus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me float you a hypothetical situation: you're in command of a few tons of steel, and your priority is to get to some arbitrary location. Your second priority, I assume, is to not murder anyone. Here's what you know about the environment : it is populated with (harmless fleshly) people who are also going about fulfilling goals 1 and 2. You know with high probability that at any given moment one might quickly cross…

Reducing your speed increases the likely hood of collisions because pedestrians tend to no care about their safety at all if they can shave off 2 seconds. They don't wait for your car to pass. If you are on the left lane and the right lane is free then they will walk onto the street and anticipate that you will pass them by the time they have reached the left lane. If you reduce your speed then their guess turns out…

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car?

A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.