Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019 • Hacker News Board

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#171

Post by ourlordcaffeine » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

vegardx wrote: post #96

yason wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pedestrians do cross the street when it's red for them You have to think what pedestrian lights are for. They exist solely to improve the flow of car traffic. Pedestrian lights are in gross contrast to the rights and benefits of pedestrians. Without lights, pedestrians would always have first priority on a crosswalk. Cars would have to stop for any pedestrian crossing the street. However, drivers (of inefficient but…

In Oslo at least, the crosswalks (usually) have lights if there's an intersection, and since there are no laws against crossing on red you are free to do so, as long as you don't create any dangerous situations. I'd argue that the lights are not to improve traffic flow, but to signal pedestrians that it's safe to cross, something sighted, young or otherwise healthy people often take for granted by just looking both w…

In the city I live, there are flashing light crossings where cars are obliged to stop whenever there is a pedestrian on the road. Having lights is certainly to improve traffic flow rather than safety.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#172

Post by tyfon » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

marvin wrote: post #150

moralestapia wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's not very fun Sorry to hear that other people's lives get in the way of your idea of 'fun'.

This is just a linguistic misunderstanding. "Det er ikke så moro" in Norwegian literally translates to "it's not so fun", but normally translates closer to "it's not pleasant/convenient" in meaning. When you're not a native English speaker, it's very common to have subtle differences in intent lost in translation due to different ideomatic expressions. It's a good idea to be charitable (or ask for clarification) wrt.…

It's not always easy to keep track of the idioms in different languages!

In this case you can also translate it to an American idiom: It's a pain in the ass :)

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#173

Post by ossworkerrights » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

gombosg wrote: post #152

alkonaut wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, having 0.02% blood alcohol limit (I.e. effectively a zero tolerance) is a good and cheap start. Next comes the expensive things: Replace the car fleet with large, safe and modern cars. Build infrastructure like pedestrian walkways etc to have few unprotected people in traffic. Replace crossings with roundabouts and rebuild motorways and other high speed roads to never have oncoming traffic (separating r…

Just one comment, large cars are not necessarily safer, and small cars can be safe, too. SUVs are not only notorious for their awful gas mileage but also how unsafe they can be for the pedestrian or other car they hit if they do.

Sadly i had to buy an suv for the safety of better road visibility. One really needs to see ahead as overtakings are taking place even when both ways are full of cars and seeing distant events helps my reaction times. I know they pollute more but safety comes first.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#174

Post by wozniacki » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #125

raverbashing wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not yielding, the problem is yielding with too short of a notice to people who think cars have zero inertia. Physics doesn't care who's right or wrong. Edit: I'm not talking about crosswalks, I'm talking about people crossing outside of them

If it's so dangerous, maybe we should get the cars out of the places where people are walking around a lot. Since the primary purpose of a city is for people to get business and life done, and not to move cars from one side of it to the other. People should be able to cross outside of crosswalks, because the cars should be driving fast somewhere else, or driving at a safe speed in the city. That safe speed is far, fa…

   If it's so dangerous, maybe we should get the cars out
   of the places where people are walking around a lot. 
   Since the primary purpose of a city is for people to get
   business and life done, and not to move cars from one 
   side of it to the other.

This is why level-headed observers dismiss opinions on HN to be thoroughly foolhardy, tone-deaf and impractical.

People use cars for a variety of reasons - convenience just being one of them.

One's safety in public places (which cant be guaranteed in public transit atleast to the same degree as offered by motor vehicles), security from riffraff & sinister actors, protection from the elements in even slightly inclement weather, securing & securing valuables (like an expensive laptop or other gadgets) to & from work or otherwise, to receive & place phone calls when commuting in a private & noise-free environment, to enjoy a meal / breakfast while commuting (most transit options forbid eating foods or even drinking liquids) and a whole host of other reasons too long to list here - are all reasons why people prefer cars over transit.

Its foolish to dismiss cars as just A-to-B conveyance method for human bodies.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#175

Post by nagash » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

Here in Perth, Western Australia we have quite reasonable pedestrian right of way laws.

But if you read the recommendations, you will notice the language talks about how it's basically still on you to not die.

For example, pedestrians have right of way when crossing a street where a car may be turning in to, so there should really be no need to check across your shoulder for traffic.

Most drivers don't seem aware of these laws, I get honked at regularly.

https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1629/pedestrian_road_rules...

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#176

Post by gjm11 » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

reallydontask wrote: post #61

glutamate wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't count the emissions from oil & gas extracted from Norwegian fields and exported.

This is true but to whom should we attribute the CO2, the user or the producer?

When someone gets shot, usually you blame the shooter rather than the people who made the gun. Even if the gun is of the sort specifically designed for killing people. (As opposed to hunting animals or target-shooting for sport.)

It seems like the same would go for CO2 emissions. There will probably always be uses for oil that are worth the cost in environmental damage, and if someone uses it for things that aren't then it's on them. Just as there will probably always be occasions where shooting people is at least defensible, and if someone uses a gun for murder then it's on them.

(But if an oil company, or an oil-producing nation, goes out of its way to encourage irresponsible use of oil then I will happily blame them for it, just as I would blame a gun manufacturer that encouraged murder or gang violence -- or, more likely, war -- in order to boost sales.)

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#177

Post by erikbye » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #155

erikbye wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it counts the extraction, and export is through gas pipes, it does not pollute. Besides, extraction pollutes very little, too.

It doesn't count the emissions from burning the exported oil I think the argument is. You can argue that's the buyer's responsibility, and you can argue that it's the extractor's responsibility. Both arguments are valid. It's a mix of both I'd say: the extractor is making market prices lower than they would be if the oil had not been extracted.

That is reasonable, yes. But my point is that, in this case, gas usage by the importer, results in lower emissions, not higher. Several of the current importers are on their way to phasing out coal, which would not be possible without gas.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#178

Post by MereInterest » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

vegardx wrote: post #119

alistairSH wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, pedestrian signals do NOT signal when it’s safe to cross. Cars almost always have a green in the same direction, meaning they can turn into you. I almost get run over once a month because of this.

Seems like a cultural problem, not a crosswalk light problem. Most people (myself included) automatically slow down when driving into a crosswalk. Our intersections are usually fairly small, so it's hard to build up any speed, even if you wanted to.

Oh, it is definitely a huge cultural problem. In the US, many drivers will ignore the existence of pedestrians altogether. For example, pulling up to an intersection and only looking to the left before making a right turn, because that is the only direction that car traffic can be coming from.

It isn't every car by any means, but enough cars that pedestrians need to assume that drivers are incompetent until given evidence otherwise.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#179

Post by keldaris » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #98

yason wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pedestrians do cross the street when it's red for them You have to think what pedestrian lights are for. They exist solely to improve the flow of car traffic. Pedestrian lights are in gross contrast to the rights and benefits of pedestrians. Without lights, pedestrians would always have first priority on a crosswalk. Cars would have to stop for any pedestrian crossing the street. However, drivers (of inefficient but…

I am not sure what you mean with this effectiveness. I live in Prague, the city with (what they say) one of the best public transport systems in the world, and yet, going to my workplace is 45 minutes by public transport and 15 minutes by car. Even though I live close to a subway and tram station, and the workplace is right in the city center, car still wins - where is the effectiveness you're talking about? This is…

From my experience, your anecdote generalizes very well across most of the EU. You're being downvoted because HN has a particularly loud car hating bubble. Luckily, there are very few places these people have any meaningful chance of imposing their views on the rest of us.

Re: Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

#180

Post by ourlordcaffeine » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #125

raverbashing wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not yielding, the problem is yielding with too short of a notice to people who think cars have zero inertia. Physics doesn't care who's right or wrong. Edit: I'm not talking about crosswalks, I'm talking about people crossing outside of them

If it's so dangerous, maybe we should get the cars out of the places where people are walking around a lot. Since the primary purpose of a city is for people to get business and life done, and not to move cars from one side of it to the other. People should be able to cross outside of crosswalks, because the cars should be driving fast somewhere else, or driving at a safe speed in the city. That safe speed is far, fa…

Pedestrianization is a thing in a lot of places outside the US and UK. But whenever it is proposed in the US or UK, the usual suspects turn pink with rage and claim that removing cars from the city centre will kill the high street (spoiler alert: it doesn't)