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

#251

Post by ghaff » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

tehwalrus wrote: post #233

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.

When I visited the USA for a conference, I looked up a nice coffee place that was just across the street from the academic campus where I was staying. I went to the nearest crossing point, waited for several cycles of the traffic lights, and still couldn't deduce when it was safe to cross. The road markings were black and white stripes, which mean "cars must always stop for pedestrians crossing here" where I live (UK…

As a pedestrian, you have right of way over turning traffic. Of course, it's prudent to exercise reasonable care and not just assume a driver has seen you especially if visibility isn't good for whatever reason.

OTOH, especially at a busy intersection, if you're just standing on the sidewalk looking confused, a driver looking to make a turn is probably going to just shrug and turn right through the crosswalk. Some drivers will doubtless be overly aggressive or inattentive. But a random driver is also not going to sit there forever waiting for you to make up your mind about whether to cross or not.

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

#252

Post by kristofferR » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #5

Does Oslo rigorously separate cars from bikes, using bike lanes?

Hehe, nope. It's actually the opposite.

Don't get me wrong - they're building new bike lanes at a rapid pace. However, traffic, bicycles and pedestrians freely intermingle most places, which works because it helps reduce car speeds massively.

Drivers perceive intermingled streets as more dangerous, so they drive safer.

This video illustrates it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWYvovLvMQ

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

#253

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #174

ehnto wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

None of those conveniences is more valuable than the human lives that are lost in traffic accidents. Such deadly traffic accidents could be prevented if the speed limit inside city centers was reduced to the level the OP is suggesting. Or if city centers were pedestrianised, etc.

Also, you really shouldn't be "receiving and placing calls when commuting" in your car. Hands-free included.

Finally, I struggle to see how you can "enjoy a meal" when you have to drive. Unless you're driving at the suggested walking pace, that is.

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

#254

Post by blattimwind » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #203

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.

In Boston cars are required to yield to pedestrians on turns, and many intersections have signs to remind them of this. That said, it's always a good idea to look and see what cars are actually doing, regardless of what laws and signals say.

Pedestrians (ANY traffic, NO MATTER the direction OR lane) that follow the road you are turning from have priority over you making a turn, always.

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

#255

Post by bluGill » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

blattimwind wrote: post #247

OGWhales wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an interesting article on how automobile manufacturers helped to make jaywalking a crime in order to quell the concerns of automobile deaths and shift the responsibility onto the pedestrians in order to make automobiles more appealing: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

Almost like it would make sense to have at least legally separate pathways for motorized, less motorized (scooters, e-bikes), bicycles and pedestrians, because they are very different forms of transport.

It makes perfect sense in theory. In the real world though space is limited. We cannot have separate spaces: there isn't enough room - unless you space things out so far that only only car transport makes sense, at which point why bother building paths for the other modes? Which is why suburbs don't have sidewalks: there is no place you can practically go by any mode other than car so why bother creating space for those modes.

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

#256

Post by ativzzz » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #224

MereInterest wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 evi…

>> Oh, it is definitely a huge cultural problem. In the US, many drivers will ignore the existence of pedestrians altogether. Strange, because most likely the majority of drivers also walk at least a short distance around the same cities they drive into. In the US in particular, eyballing the number of cars and the number of pedestrians in images of places like New York etc that I've seen, it's very hard to believe t…

You have to remember that the vast majority of the US is nothing like NYC in terms of walkability or population density, and in the city I live in (suburb of a major Texas city) there is literally nothing within walking distance of my house except a school, and some of the big streets don't even have sidewalks.

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

#257

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #97

kortilla wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do trains stop for pedestrians crossing the tracks where you’re from? That sounds very inefficient.

Where there are no lights, pedestrians have right of way in Canada. Even though forcing a stop on the gasoline powered vehicle with much more momentum is strictly less efficient than making the pedestrian wait, it stuck as an arrangement, that made for a more enjoyable and relaxing city experience.

[deleted]

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

#258

Post by moralestapia » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

tyfon wrote: post #172

marvin wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Huh? Well, could you provide an example of your idea of having 'fun' while in a car?

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

#259

Post by andrewaylett » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

blattimwind wrote: post #245

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…

> Without lights, pedestrians would always have first priority on a crosswalk. Cars would have to stop for any pedestrian crossing the street. Traffic lights in combination with a pedestrian crossing proper (a zebra crossing) seem to be rather rare, at least in Europe. Thus most crossing points of pedestrian would, in absence of traffic lights, not give them the right of way, because crossing traffic generally does n…

In the UK, the Highway Code rule 8 ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes... ) points out that pedestrians crossing the road have priority over turning vehicles.

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

#260

Post by keldaris » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

glofish wrote: post #215

keldaris wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it mean to "impose" their views? Do you mean that car ownership is disincentivized by making people bear more of the cost of their car ownership?

No, the two questions you ask have very little to do with each other. There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about the externalities of different modes of transportation, but that is not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to a relatively small (but very vocal) segment of almost uniformly young and able bodied city dwellers with a fairly narrow and very strongly held set of views about what city life should look like. These people seem to want to hijack urban planning and tax policy to legislate in the exclusive interest of their preferred lifestyle without regard (and often with outright contempt) for the views of their fellow citizens. That's what it means to "impose" their views.

My prediction is that if and when any of this makes its way into mainstream discourse and actual policy, the backlash will be severe and rather ugly. This is particularly unfortunate, since there are plenty of real issues with urban planning and transportation, but instead of real debate we have polarized flamewars over trivialized strawmen (essentially "ban cars, maximize density" vs. "freedom and country living").