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

#321

Post by esotericn » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

alkank wrote: post #300

esotericn wrote: post #246

I've been traveling in northern Scandinavia for the past few months. One thing that sticks out is that Norway has very low speed limits. They also have strict enforcement compared to the UK and super high fines. In the northern part of the country you really need it because the weather varies a lot and the highways are basically mountain passes. At the moment around where I am close to Lofoten the roads are pretty mu…

Speed limits in towns in the UK are either 20mph or 30mph, which is 30 km/h to 50 km/h. So speed limits look very similar to me. The weather is an interesting point though, UK doesn't get any harsh winters - e.g. it almost never snows and doesn't go below 0 degrees celsius, however Norway seems to fluctuate between -5 and +15 degrees celsius. Oslo: https://en.climate-data.org/europe/norway/oslo/oslo-81/#clim... Londo…

The difference is that tiny little villages/hamlets of the sort that I drove though in Northern Norway would definitely not be 20 or 30 zones in the UK.

You might see a 40 or 50 limit. 30 zones are generally reserved for places that are fairly built up.

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

#322

Post by isoskeles » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

elweston2 wrote: post #296

tehwalrus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It varies from state to state and city to city. Some have the very regulation you are talking about. I have never seen it enforced. In your case if there was no indicator light. Then you could go for it when the traffic was going in the same direction as you or when clear from the other direction. The general rule of thumb is from any corner you can cross. That does not mean you get to stop traffic to do so. Though i…

> They seem surprised when I honk at them.

Maybe roll down your window and say something instead of blaring your horn at people who aren’t encased in a car. Although I am not sure why you think you have a right to teach strangers a lesson.

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

#323

Post by DogOnTheWeb » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #297

pi-rat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seatbelt issue is probably going away. My car will nag the hell out of me if anyone isn't wearing a seatbelt at speeds over 20 km/h. I assume this is true for most modern cars. Part of the population who didn't grow up with seatbelts is aging. I remember my late grandmother hated the seatbelts, they didn't exist when she grew up. Often she would pretend to use the belt, holding it in place by hand so that it looked l…

For better or worse, seat belt alarm stoppers are cheap and readily available to habitual seat belt avoiders. I know at least one person who has such a thing. https://thetikit.com/ https://www.wish.com/product/57ea6315b8a56d0827d79f9d

The fact that these seat belt alarm stoppers have integrated bottle openers really seals the deal.

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

#324

Post by AaronM » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

audunw wrote: post #295

whatshisface wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> suburbs don't have sidewalks Plenty of suburbs have sidewalks.

> Nobody complained because why would you want to walk miles to the closest grocery store anyway? I've been guests at a few different suburban neighborhoods in the US. I realize that some of these are so big and remote that it really is too far to walk to anything significant, but those I visited did have grocery stores and such within a walkeable distance, but that's not always the case, and still there's not much i…

In the US it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk in most places

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

#325

Post by Jaygles » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #319

pi-rat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seatbelt issue is probably going away. My car will nag the hell out of me if anyone isn't wearing a seatbelt at speeds over 20 km/h. I assume this is true for most modern cars. Part of the population who didn't grow up with seatbelts is aging. I remember my late grandmother hated the seatbelts, they didn't exist when she grew up. Often she would pretend to use the belt, holding it in place by hand so that it looked l…

Is that easily bypassed? I don't need my car nagging me because I put a large box in my back seat.

I usually just engage the seatbelt and place the box on top or if the box has fragile/valuable stuff in it I will strap it down with the seatbelt

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

#326

Post by _-david-_ » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #291

bluGill wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Still not sure why they don't have more pedestrian catwalks in cities directly above the roads. That's a whole lot less expensive than elevated roadways (you have to support ~200 pound pedestrians instead of 80,000 pound trucks), separates the pedestrians from the cars, and doesn't require any additional land. And then you could have second story pedestrian entrances to buildings, which already have elevators in them…

>Still not sure why they don't have more pedestrian catwalks in cities directly above the roads.

I assume it would cost more in building and maintenance costs than sidewalks.

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

#327

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

klmr wrote: post #147

kmlx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same in the UK. but more than that, in the UK in any intersection with traffic lights the pedestrians will never have a green light at the same time as cars. meanwhile, in most countries i've visited making a left or a right turn in an intersection will most likely cause you to stop for pedestrians that also get a green light. frustrating and illogical!

> frustrating and illogical! That’s certainly a matter of opinion (and as a German currently living in the UK I disagree): Having separate green light for pedestrians means that the average waiting time is much longer (both for cars and pedestrians) and, further, green light times are often kept much shorter. Having simultaneous green light for parallel car and pedestrian traffic does mean you have to pay more attent…

I'm in the US, which also allows cars and peds to share a "green" in the same direction. I regularly have cars nearly run me over when they turn left/right while I'm in the crosswalk with a valid crossing signal. The problem, in the US, is that drivers don't give a shit about anybody but themselves. They are completely self-centered.

If there were penalties for hitting pedestrians or cyclists, this might change. I presume Germany has stricter enforcement of rules with regard to vehicle/ped/cycle interaction. In the US, there is almost none. Hitting a pedestrian or cyclist is almost always deemed an accident, with no fault assigned (or, if fault is assigned, a $200 fine is the result, not loss of driving privilege).

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

#328

Post by CelestialTeapot » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

gokhan wrote: post #13

One interesting observation on Oslo is that, pedestrians do cross the street when it's red for them, if there's no moving traffic close by. This is totally different from, for example, Copenhagen, Stockholm and places I visited in Germany. They're like Italians of the north. That's probably why we felt at home on the streets during our stay there, as a family from Turkey. I would love to have that 0 deaths statistics…

I do the same when I am on my bicycle as long as there are no cars approaching. Particularly if I'm crossing a moderate speed highway. It's safer for me to clear the intersection when there are no cars moving in the same direction (or worse, wanting to make a right turn as I start moving). Unfortunately, I'm in America, where that is a moving violation in my state.

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

#329

Post by isoskeles » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #219

testplzignore wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live in the US, my understanding is that pedestrians always have the right of way at intersections (regardless of whether there are any traffic or pedestrian signals) unless: 1. There is a pedestrian signal that says to NOT cross, or 2. The traffic signal going in the direction the pedestrian is walking is red. So if the light is green and the pedestrian signal does not say to not cross, then the pedestrian h…

The problem I've seen is that (especially in suburbs where pedestrians are rarer) drivers don't check for pedestrians. Almost every time I'm walking for any length of time I nearly get hit by a car that assumes that a green light means they're free to turn right without any restrictions. This isn't me intentionally creating an unsafe situation (often I'm already in the intersection), it's drivers who see so few pedes…

This is my impression as well, having been both a driver and pedestrian in the suburbs and in a big city. Driving in a densely populated city trains you to think there’s a pedestrian waiting to pop out of every nook and cranny and hop in front of your car. You might even witness one crawling out of a sewer hole to stand in the middle of the street, and it wouldn’t be too much of a surprise when it happens.

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

#330

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #301

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of those conveniences is more valuable than the human lives that are lost in traffic accidents. Again, cherry-picking cars or vehicular traffic, as some how a convenience that puts way too many lives at risk is just absurd. We, as a society in modern times, weigh the trade-offs of many deadly and even fatal things and allow them, only if the net good is far too great to be ignored or sidelined. There are well es…

>> Again, cherry-picking cars or vehicular traffic, as some how a convenience that puts way too many lives at risk is just absurd.

I could point to many other such conveniences that are more harmful than they are useful, e.g. electronic devices that cause much environmental damage, but the discussion is about cars and safety.

Regarding efficiency, this is a very vague term in this context. Cars are certainly more "efficient" than e.g. horse-drawn carts in terms of how much load they can carry but not, e.g. in terms of the fuel they require, or the necessary infrastructure. A horse carriage doesn't need to be mass-produced at a factory, the feed for the horse can be grown cheaply and sutainably and horse-drawn carriages dont' need asphalt roads. So, no, I don't think it's considerations of "efficiency" that is the reason we have so many cars.

I wouldn't dare propose a reason why we do. You seem to be much more convinced you understand the complex economics of the industrial age better than me, and most. I find this a bit hasty.

>> Despite all the downsides ( like pollution which should be a non-issue with the advent of electric cars or hydrogen-fueled cars like the Mirai ) cars are an out sized net good.

Electirc cars still require electirc power to be generated somewhere, somehow and power generation is the major cause of greenhouse gas production. Electric cars only displace the problem of environmental pollution.

Again, it's very vague to speak of a "net good" in this context. As long as there's cars we'll have fatal accidents and environmental pollution. What is the "net" in this case? E.g. how many human lives do we accept to be lost for how many hours gained travelling or carrying goods a certain distance?