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

Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 268 posts

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#221

Post by paulcole »

alterom wrote: post #102
paulcole wrote: post #14

The answer is so simple. We really really really really like our cars/trucks/SUVs in the US and have agreed that about 30,000 to 40,000 people a year will die so that we can keep driving the way we do. It’s the price we pay for the way we choose to live.

I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. Fat cars getting fatter, pedestrian-hostile streets becoming faster, city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere. Hmmmm, what could be the reason.

> city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere

I really really really disagree with this.

A huge number of people could design a car-free or less car dependent life for themselves if that was something they valued highly.

People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#222

Post by rglullis »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #220
rglullis wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disappointed as I let the someone go by themselves as I don't get on the elevator. Ok, so you think that people are expected to just step down and be quiet about it. Others would certainly complain and rightly so . Also, while you might feel okay about taking another elevator, we can not tell people "if don't like your pedestrian-hostile and accident-prone environment just go move away, or stop being a pedestrian".

Allow me to restate what you are saying: "we can not tell people:" we can force people to: No dice.

I say "people are justified about being upset, because they end up facing the consequences and bearing the risks of the choices made by others" and you somehow imply am I saying this is an argument about "forcing" anything?

That is a seriously bizarre conversation. Peace out.

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#223

Post by hkpack »

Zambyte wrote: post #112
Zigurd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians pay with their lives so that we can have butch looking trucks in the US. Seriously. It's for the vanity of pavement queens. And it's measurable. Quantifiable. Regulators are unwilling to take on this problem because they'd be called woke.

The "pavement queens" have been convinced they need larger by companies that sell trucks, because larger trucks have lower legal requirements for fuel efficiency.

Of course it is always someone else’s fault.

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#224

Post by alterom »

paulcole wrote: post #221
alterom wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. Fat cars getting fatter, pedestrian-hostile streets becoming faster, city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere. Hmmmm, what could be the reason.

> city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere I really really really disagree with this. A huge number of people could design a car-free or less car dependent life for themselves if that was something they valued highly. People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.

>People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.

Whatever.

Change it to "city infrastructure heavily incentivizing people to drive everywhere by heavily penalizing all other modes of transportation and prioritizing automobiles and accommodating the needs of car drivers above everything else".

When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere.

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#225

Post by alterom »

potato3732842 wrote: post #162
alterom wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. Fat cars getting fatter, pedestrian-hostile streets becoming faster, city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere. Hmmmm, what could be the reason.

>I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character) that you say this despite the articles conclusion basically being "the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe" Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirec…

>I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character)

This isn't coherent, sorry.

>that you say this despite the articles conclusion being...

Notice that I said that the hypothesis is supported by the data presented in the article, not by the lackluster analysis (or the conclusion, which, nevertheless, does point to SUVs as the only hypothesis they find plausible).

>the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe"

This is a bad and misleading summary of the article.

>Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirectly supports this at best and there's probably confounding factors (in particular road design which has been discussed at length and people all over these commands are bringing up).

You missed the entire point of the article, which is trying to understand why the rate of pedestrian fatalities spiked after 2009 in the US (but not in the EU).

Road design, BY ITSELF, isn't the cause of the spike, since IT DID NOT CHANGE.

The speed limits did go up in many places in the US, something that I brought up in another comment (and something that was glossed over by the article). That may be a factor.

But the primary factor is the elephant in the room - cars getting bigger, heavier, taller, and more hostile to pedestrians.

It's the goddamn obvious conclusion, and all the data out there supports it:

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedest...

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#226

Post by fipar »

throw-qqqqq wrote: post #90
physicsguy wrote: post #72

I was amazed when I travelled to the US at just how pedestrian hostile it is. I was travelling to a conference in San Diego and it was just impossible to walk safely between where I was staying and where I was going to because this was the road: https://maps.app.goo.gl/G2PeVbEzQyqbgDTN9

Hahah I got stopped by cops twice for walking to a food court in San José ten years ago :D They thought I was crazy for walking basically. After reassuring them I knew who and where I was, they let me walk off. Much of America seems very car-centric (to a European like myself).

This is basically what seems to have prompted Bradbury to write The Pedestrian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian

There’s a great audio version (I think from the BBC) too.

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#227

Post by sotix »

> if its big SUVs, why are pedestrian deaths for sedans increasing too?

The article is well researched but doesn't seem to account for the increase in weight and size of the sedans it mentions as a counter to the rise of SUVs being a leading factor.

I'd be interested in the data on a small that remained the same size and/or got smaller in the window: the Mazda Miata.

| Model | Year | Length (in) | Width (in) | Height (in) | Curb Weight (lbs) | |----------------------|-------|--------------|------------|-------------|-------------------| | Honda Civic | 2009 | ~177.3 | ~69.0 | ~56.5 | ~2,600 - 2,700 | | Honda Civic | 2023 | ~184.0 | ~70.8 | ~55.7 | 2,877 - 2,935 | | Honda Accord | 2009 | 194.1 | 72.7 | 58.1 | ~3,193 | | Honda Accord | 2023 | ~192.2 | ~73.3 | ~57.1 | 3,239 - 3,280 | | Toyota Corolla | 2009 | ~179.7 | ~70.1 | ~57.7 | ~2,358 - 2,623 | | Toyota Corolla | 2023 | ~182.3 | ~70.5 | ~56.5 | 2,955 - 3,150 | | Toyota Camry | 2009 | ~192.1 | ~72.4 | ~58.1 | ~3,193 | | Toyota Camry | 2023 | ~192.1 | ~72.4 | ~56.9 | 3,244 - 3,280 | | Nissan Altima | 2009 | ~191.1 | ~72.0 | ~57.0 | ~3,192 | | Nissan Altima | 2023 | ~192.9 | ~72.0 | ~56.9 | 3,244 - 3,053 | | Mazda MX-5 (NC) | 2009 | ~157.5 - 158.3| ~67.7 | ~48.8 - 49.4| ~2,450 - 2,542 | | Mazda MX-5 (ND) | 2023 | ~154.1 | ~68.1 | ~48.6 | ~2,183 |

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#228

Post by paulcole »

alterom wrote: post #224
paulcole wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere I really really really disagree with this. A huge number of people could design a car-free or less car dependent life for themselves if that was something they valued highly. People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.

>People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do. Whatever. Change it to "city infrastructure heavily incentivizing people to drive everywhere by heavily penalizing all other modes of transportation and prioritizing automobiles and accommodating the needs of car drivers above everything else ". When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver ever…

> When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere.

Not if they really hate driving and want to live differently!

You can say you're a victim of circumstance or you can say I care a lot about something and have more control over your life.

I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I grew up in a very rural area in Florida, went to a big state college, and then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car.

I knew from a very young age that driving a car seemed like a dumb way to live and so wondered why everyone did it and why nobody decided to try something different?

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#229

Post by globular-toast »

paulcole wrote: post #211
globular-toast wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny because when I see people who really, really like something their faces are filled with joy. They talk about what they love and it's always positive. When I see car people I see anger, frustration, furrowed brows everywhere, oh and did you hear about that asshole on the road yesterday? From the outside this "love" looks more like an abusive relationship or Stockholm syndrome or something.

I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I grew up in a very rural area in Florida, went to a big state college, and then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car. I knew from a very young age that driving a car seemed like a dumb way to live and so wondered why everyone did it and why nobody decided to try something different? My view is that if people really…

People stay in abusive relationships all the time. If they really hated it they'd just leave, right?

Re: Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?

#230

Post by notacoward »

Hemospectrum wrote: post #217
ageitgey wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why this turn is illegal in nearly every country in the world except the US and Canada. [1] If you are in the UK, this turn is illegal always and everywhere, so it basically never happens. I grew up in the US with right turn on red, so I was used to it and accepted it as normal. But after living the UK for 6 years, I'm now physically shocked when visiting the US at how dangerous it is to walk around e…

From your link, emphasis mine: > permits the operator of a motor vehicle to turn such vehicle right at a red stop light after stopping Quoting GP, emphasis again mine: > the driver glanced to his left and without stopping or looking in my direction, turned right across my path The driver turned without stopping. That is explicitly and clearly illegal throughout the US. This is one of those rules drivers are supposed…

While it's true that this particular driver probably violated existing law, it's also true that this particular maneuver is inherently mistake-prone. The driver still has to look three ways - across the intersection (for left turners), at the crosswalk, and behind them for cyclists (or fast pedestrians). It's too easy to miss one while checking for another, even for a diligent driver following all laws. The statistics on "right hooks" and the pedestrian equivalent don't lie. Right on red is just a bad idea.
Post reply on HN