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

U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 625 posts

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#491

Post by mrguyorama »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #313
apexalpha wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Once a car is light and small(ish) the good MPG will follow. My 1988 Volvo 240 got 30mpg on a recent road trip and that's with it needing a tune up. Doesn't this work both ways? If you focus on MPG then lighter, smaller variants of the same model will win out over bigger, heavier ones.

To a certain extent, yes. I'm mostly daydreaming about if you magically remade my little Volvo with modern materials and one of those low-displacement turbo engines they put in cars today. It would be 500 pounds lighter with 3 times as much horsepower. But... that car would be a dud today. It's too simple and lacks features (like power seats).

Also crashing into anything would kill you. Modern safety standards are very heavy.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#492

Post by pc86 »

camdat wrote: post #357
pc86 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this is obviously false. The heavier a vehicle is, the slower it needs to be going to cause a certain amount of damage, up to and including death. How many pedestrians are hit every year? If you can lower the average weight of vehicles on the road you're directly saving lives.

This assumes two vehicles of similar dimensions. An aerodynamic 3,001lb vehicle would be much preferable to me than a 2,999lb flat-front. The physics imply only a portion of the heavier vehicles energy is imparted to me. I don't make the comment to argue that weight isn't meaningful, but to say that "lethality" of a vehicle has many factors.

Yes it does, because we're talking about regulations that would cap the size of vehicle classes. You're not going to turn a 6,000lb F-150 into a 2,999lb truck, but you can shave 50 or 60 pounds off a vehicle.

All else being equal, lighter = less deadly. That's all I'm saying.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#493

Post by mrguyorama »

masklinn wrote: post #484
Scoundreller wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the same sedans are built with different engine options between North America and Europe. Europe models will start with smaller engines that are just unavailable in US models. No idea why given Europe has mountains too and 120 and 130km/h speed limits are the highway norm but often with shorter on-ramps.

American cultural sensibilities making small engines a hard sell? Historically the torque converter gearboxes were a big problem for small euro engines, but nowadays I’d assumed the gearboxes either are DCT or have lock-up clutch so it should be a non-issue.

Americans are just terrible and inattentive drivers in general, because the culture is that driving is a necessary thing, and therefore a right. They also like to merge onto highways in the stupidest possible ways, so you "need" 200 horsepower even in a damn corolla so you can accelerate to 80mph from 30 because you don't understand the concept of an on-ramp or smooth merging.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#494

Post by glimshe »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #402
luxurytent wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ideal described lifestyle is very expensive to cities and ultimately subsidized: https://i.imgur.com/msDV0zm.jpg There is a middle ground. Walkable cities are not a cluster of high rises and this is mostly the result of poor zoning (we lack the appropriate "missing middle")

A lot of people think they as willing to pay for it, but very few really want to see their property and fuel taxes double or triple.

I pay more than $3462 in property taxes alone. So I'm good? The majority of people in my county pays more than that, so it's pretty clear to me that the city isn't subsidizing us... More likely, we're subsidizing the city in our income taxes (in my state a significant chunk of income taxes are spent on welfare services for city dwellers).

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#495

Post by VirusNewbie »

foxyv wrote: post #485
VirusNewbie wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how much of the country is suburbs with large streets or freeways separating housing tracts from shopping centers, is your proposal really to close those freeways and arterial streets down? Or just demolish all the homes that are there and move those people to higher density areas? I'm sympathetic to the idea of building new large developments in a non car centric fashion, but how do you do this with the…

To be honest, the majority of existing areas will probably go bankrupt as densification happens, plunging the value of cookie cutter, match stick homes to be bulldozed and hopefully re-wilded. Most of suburbia is already going bankrupt. The roads, sewers, pipes, and electrical wires are falling apart because they are too expensive to maintain. All it takes is one company to move out or the land to run out before they…

I’m highly skeptical of the core thesis of the “strong towns” link, and cherry picking a few examples certainly doesn’t convince me.

I can cite plenty of small suburban areas that had an influx of demand without “growth” and the subsequent increase in tax revenue.

Even if you are correct, what time frame do you think this will happen? Will hundred of millions of Americans living in the suburbs be in bankrupted cities in 20 years? 40? 60?

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#496

Post by SoftTalker »

michaelmrose wrote: post #442
SoftTalker wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing to do is NOT do the unexpected. Being excessively courteous and letting an oncoming car turn left, or stopping for a pedestrian who is not already in the crosswalk but is waiting for a gap in traffic, is unexpected. It surprises other drivers and they get annoyed and then do something stupid like zooming around you.

If you are required by law to stop for them once they are in the crosswalk then cars should expect to find people stopped some of the time and stop themselves. If nobody expects to stop then pedestrians either must always wait for a big enough gap that they hope to cross unimpeded or step out knowing you are coming to force you to stop. The first is frequently impossible and the second is dangerous. It also creates t…

I don't disagree but I also know who's going to "win" in a collision between me and a car.

When I cross a street I have my head on a swivel and I do not step into the crosswalk unless I have the "walk" light and the cross-traffic is already stopped, or far enough away that they have room to stop. I try to make eye contact with drivers so I can be (more) sure they see me. Or if there is not a signal at the crosswalk I wait until there is a big enough gap that I won't be causing approaching drivers to stand on their brakes to stop for me.

And with all that I still assume that the approaching cars do not see me and am prepared to break into a sprint if needed to get out of the way.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#497

Post by Cupertino95014 »

michaelsshaw wrote: post #464
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> psychopaths driving dangerous lifted trucks whoa. You got some anger issues there, pal.

You might be projecting a little bit. There's a reason we say that people with trucks like that are compensating; it's because they are.

> projecting a little bit

way to turn it around! But you're the one with the psychobabble rhetoric.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#498

Post by mrguyorama »

pnutjam wrote: post #397
VohuMana wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my experience, in my area people have even found ways around the newly installed red light cameras, they just remove their license plate. Usually you would get hit with a pretty big ticket for that but the police are not enforcing any sort of traffic laws and relying on cameras to do the enforcing.

This is what happens when every traffic stop is billed as a combat situation. Cops feel like their dangerous (and they are) because America can't pass sensible gun restrictions.

Lol statistically nearly every traffic stop is a completely benign affair with zero danger. Cops just spend all their training being told everyone is trying to kill them and to shoot anything they don't like.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of cop deaths are from traffic accidents, but try telling cops to stop driving like idiots or driving distracted and they'll just tell you "no no no no it's a hard and dangerous job".

Sanitation workers die on the job more often than cops.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#499

Post by oezi »

saiya-jin wrote: post #217
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop sign + a tiny roundabout is the cheapest way to this, e.g https://www.google.fr/maps/@37.4461846,-122.1654555,3a,75y,3... Someone probably died here for this roundabout to be added though.

This is not the best design, you can still go full speed through it. Much better ones actually force you to slow down, ie sub 30kmh otherwise your suspension, tires etc will get hammered a bit (or more). There are numerous ways how to do it, ie central island is wide, island's walls are high and steep, you can have speed bumps before it etc. Its has been done elsewhere and it works.

The European solution is the right-before-left rule which means you always have to yield to cars coming from your right.

In residential areas you never would have any signs because of this rule.

You can speed through it if visibility is good but it is very hard to argue you weren't at fault in case of a crash.

Re: U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

#500

Post by mrguyorama »

vwcx wrote: post #351
sidewndr46 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why drivers are increasingly angry where I live is because there is no enforcement of traffic laws at all. Red lights are run nonstop, drivers use bicycle lanes as travel lanes, etc. I watched someone just reverse down a road opposite the direction of travel yesterday. Like it was no big deal.

Agreed. Sometimes I feel that most traffic laws only exist to serve as stand-in probable cause for forces' own agendas.

This is an extremely local phenomenon. We have very light touch enforcement in our state yet people do not run red lights or stop signs, because that's a stupid thing to do and a great way to get into an accident.

Distracted driving could use more enforcement though.

Post reply on HN