41–50 of 82 posts
As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed, no amount of spending will make streets substantially more safe. Cars are the problem, they cause all the deaths.
> they cause all the deaths And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.
As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed, no amount of spending will make streets substantially more safe. Cars are the problem, they cause all the deaths.
>As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed It’s possible to have both. It’s why we have grade separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_separation
Most pedestrian friendly streets that do mix in cars actually do the opposite to grade separation, slow down the cars a lot and make it clear that they are in a pedestrian space by removing demarcation between cars and people,which changes behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come everyone doesn’t bike everywhere? That’s what I do. So easy pEople
If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo
There is a big difference between what is, and what must be. Improvements are possible, which is what the linked article is all about. These are baby steps, but if you want to bike more (and get healthier and live longer and live happier and pollute less) then demand more from your local politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo
This sounds right, but the actual statistics show that—for the average American—every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute. Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.
I just found a hack, I'm going to spend 12 hours a day cycling and extend my lifespan by at least 50%. All joking aside, cycling as travel is a fantastic way to add physical activity into your daily life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Your quote is talking about shoulders, not additional lanes.
Adding more shoulder space induces higher speeds, unless you also add obstructions in the widened shoulder. If it feels like your car is not squeezed, the natural inclination is to drive faster. You need to resist that inclination to stay within the speed limit. Basically, increasing the perceived width of the lane you’re in increases speed, and speed of crash is one of the core determinants of crash fatality.
I mean, you have to strike an object. Adding obstacles on the shoulder seems like it would increase that likelihood. It would also prevent the option to avoid oncoming traffic, or a sudden braking vehicle in front. I have seen both of those happen multiple times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds right, but the actual statistics show that—for the average American—every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute. Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.
The average American is biking for leisure. If they had to bike on their commute it totally changes and instead of a planned low-risk leisure route you're on the highway to hell in the thick of rush hour traffic. It's completely incomparable.
As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed, no amount of spending will make streets substantially more safe. Cars are the problem, they cause all the deaths.
I wouldn't feel safer if food, medical products, construction materials, and other materials for our wellbeing became less accessible due to the increased labor cost of transport associated with significantly lower speed limits, however.
The amount of actual ped zones in America is pretty small anyway, think downtown shopping precints and stuff like that, so the majority of roads would still be car dominant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is simpler than your framing alludes. There are other modes of transit that are much safer with far fewer negative externalities than private cars, like walking, bike, bus, and rail. We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them. This spending for street safety is a step in the other direction, but by and large does very little to change the dominance of public spending on priva…
> bus, and The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.
> We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them
Public transit can be fast and efficient if it is prioritized. That may require raising the federal tax on gasoline (last raised thirty years ago!!!) and directing that overdue increase to funding alternative transportation options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is simpler than your framing alludes. There are other modes of transit that are much safer with far fewer negative externalities than private cars, like walking, bike, bus, and rail. We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them. This spending for street safety is a step in the other direction, but by and large does very little to change the dominance of public spending on priva…
> bus, and The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.