Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 524 posts

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

#501

Post by bluGill »

Johnny555 wrote: post #441
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…

so why bother creating space for those modes. My suburb had 2 very popular parks at either end -- as kids, we always walked or rode our bikes there... on the road since there were no sidewalks. Likewise when we went to a friends house we generally walked on the road (or cut through people's yards). There are plenty of reasons to have sidewalks even if there's no commercial destination to get to, not everyone can driv…

One advantage of suburbs is there is so little traffic you can let your kids play in the street.

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

#502

Post by bluGill »

_-david-_ wrote: post #494
bluGill wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a large network building owners will happily install and maintain them. In some places the expensive store fronts are on the second floor where all the people are: they take those cat walks from building to building without putting a coat on.

Maybe in some areas it may work but for most cities and many places in those cities it just won't work.

Like any system you need a critical mass of infrastructure before it takes off. Is it worth it for your situation is always a valid question.

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

#503

Post by weberc2 »

furyofantares wrote: post #485
weberc2 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, the distractedness (on the part of the pedestrian or the driver) doesn't absolve the driver of their responsibility to yield in this scenario. A driver who hits a pedestrian in this scenario will be subject to criminal and civil penalties, and rightly so.

I certainly hope I didn't imply otherwise. On a cultural and legal level, assigning fault/responsibility to drivers makes total sense. On a personal level, if I get killed I'm not gonna care that much that it "wasn't my fault" and I should take the precaution of looking up from my phone when walking in front of moving vehicles.

I don’t think you implied otherwise, but people say some crazy things on this site, so I wanted to be perfectly clear.

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

#504

Post by Zenbit_UX »

esoterica wrote: post #425
turk73 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need to look at total miles driven, not just population size vs. number of deaths. Doesn't Norway have huge taxes on automobiles which chill ownership? If so, then population is not relevant. If only 10% of people can afford to own cars, then the number of crashes and fatalities will certainly be low. The US standard of living is far higher. Whether that leads to more fatalities or not is anybody's guess. I would pre…

Why are you assuming that more driving means a higher standard of living? That’s a very provincial and suburban perspective to have. I’d rather be able to walk and take the subway places than have to drive everywhere.

Indeed, his own argument implies the opposite in that only people that can afford a car in the first place can benefit from this higher standard of living. Most people not needing a car is a far higher goal for a country to attain.

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

#505

Post by Zenbit_UX »

pi-rat wrote: post #355
donatj wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think I’m going to have to start selling different safety system bypassers, there’s obviously a market here.. Fire detectors covers/alarm silencers/extinguisher disablers.. Life boat/jackets deflators.. fake empty lightweight shell bike/motorcycle helmets.. reflector blackouts.. etc.. Kinda like buying Darwin Award lottery tickets..

The motorcycle helmet one is already a thing, just lookup skullcap helmets and imagine their performance in a crash.

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

#506

Post by Someone »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #232
Someone wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes that those not wearing seat belts would be alive if they did. That’s possible, but not a given, and likely not completely true. One way to (sort-of) check that would be to compare that 1/3rd with the fraction of all drivers that do not wear a seat belt.

Indeed. It's reasonable to assume no belt = no survival, but not always. Anecdote time: Knew some kids on HS who liked to party hard. They drove drunk and somehow flipped their car. One of my friends wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was flung violently from the car -- but lived. Even made a full recovery, eventually. The driver and another passenger were crushed.

"Indeed. It's reasonable to assume no belt = no survival, but not always.”

That’s not “Indeed” at all. I claim that “belt ⇒ survival” isn’t true (as confirmed by the fact that 2/3rds of those dying in traffic did wear a seatbelt)

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

#507

Post by trunc »

blattimwind wrote: post #279
trunc wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians had the right of way before the cars existed

No, historically carriages have held the right of way, and the higher their occupants social status the more right of way they had.

Pedestrians existed before carriages, too

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

#508

Post by magduf »

Johnny555 wrote: post #441
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…

so why bother creating space for those modes. My suburb had 2 very popular parks at either end -- as kids, we always walked or rode our bikes there... on the road since there were no sidewalks. Likewise when we went to a friends house we generally walked on the road (or cut through people's yards). There are plenty of reasons to have sidewalks even if there's no commercial destination to get to, not everyone can driv…

I used to live about 1 mile from my middle and high schools. There was a bus that most kids in my subdivision used, and I used it for a while, but eventually I realized that it took about as long to ride the bus to school as it did to just walk (I think I was actually slightly faster walking), and after getting tired of the nasty kids on the bus I just walked every day. Sometimes people driving in the morning felt sorry for me and gave me a ride.

However, one thing I do remember was that there were absolutely no sidewalks, so for a lot of people it probably didn't seem walkable.

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

#509

Post by magduf »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #338
mumblemumble wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really astonished that Americans don't do it the same way. Americans tend to have strange ideas about walking. If they think about it at all, they tend to think of it as something that's only done in extremis. I've discovered, for example, that, when I travel for work, it's generally useless to ask hotel staff if they can recommend any restaurants "within walking distance" when I'm staying in a suburban area. T…

Is that rue of all "Americans" (U.S. citizens) or is it just specific kins off places, like some suburbs? I have seen plenty of footage of people walking around large US cities. And what about rural places? Surely theree's nothing stopping people from taking long walks on the countryside if they live out in the boondocks, etc?

>I have seen plenty of footage of people walking around large US cities.

Where, in the movies?

If you're talking about Manhattan, NYC, that place is absolutely nothing like the rest of America, except maybe for a few other large cities' downtown areas (DC, Boston, Portland, etc). These few places have entirely different lifestyles from the rest of rural and suburban America, where cars reign supreme.

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

#510

Post by GavinMcG »

EpicEng wrote: post #489
GavinMcG wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We have no knowledge of your neighborhood, whereas US readers have a good-enough picture of the US. It's also useless because a neighborhood is too small a unit of measurement to be useful, period. Unlike cities, states, or the entire country, the vast majority of neighborhoods have zero vehicle fatalities.

I'm glad we agree

It doesn't seem that way. If you're being snide... well, I guess that's that. Sad that you need to be so critical of one mildly helpful data point.
Post reply on HN