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

US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

smartcitiesdive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#31

Post by nomel »

bilsbie wrote: post #25
Maarten88 wrote: post #5

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.

How come everyone doesn’t bike everywhere? That’s what I do. So easy pEople

Biking means you’re close to your destination. In most American cities, offices are downtown, where cost of living is extreme. I save thousands a month by commuting 20 minutes.

Until cities get affordable to live in, us “poor” will continue to exist in the reality that is now, and commute for two times the square footage, and a backyard, for less than a studio apartment.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#32

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #28
bilsbie wrote: post #25

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

And good luck not having your bikes get regularly stolen in places like SF or NYC. You better ride the most revolting beater you can find, and even then.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#33

Post by hammock »

Maarten88 wrote: post #5

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

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#34

Post by nomel »

zamzoid wrote: post #10
rootusrootus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they cause all the deaths And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.

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.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#35

Post by giantg2 »

brucedawson wrote: post #19
giantg2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing throughput could result in a safety gain if density is reduced. The thing is, none of this will address the real issue - drivers making bad decisions because they're ignorant. Education, testing, and consistent enforcement is how things get better.

The built environment can make a huge difference to how dangerous drivers are. Slip lanes that allow right-turns without slowing down could be eliminated, thus reducing or slowing many vehicle/pedestrian crashes. Right-turn-on-red could be eliminated. More speed bumps or other traffic calming measures, separated bike lanes, bike-priority streets - all these things can help to make pedestrians and cyclists less likely…

I agree with the overall premise. However, some of it depends on location and specific factors. Right turn lanes could be less dangerous overall in areas with little to no pedestrians as distracted drivers would be more likely to rear-end a turning car. In a city with lots of traffic, that right turn lane might be more dangerous.

"Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes."

It very well could. Many of these mistakes are founded in ignorance. I see people doing things like passing on the right/shoulder and having no idea why that's dangerous. Or they have no idea what the vehicle dynamics are like for their car. Doing something like a skid pad or autocross (TireRack had a driver safety program associated with them) can really wake people up to their vehicles limitations. Things like following too closely on the road is generally not a true mistake, but a product of what is essentially negligence.

Edit: why disagree?

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#36

Post by stouset »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #28
bilsbie wrote: post #25

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

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.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#37

Post by alar44 »

digdugdirk wrote: post #11
rootusrootus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they cause all the deaths And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.

They don't have all the utility. In fact, they're grossly overused for the utility they do provide. There was a great article on here the other day about the evolution of pickup trucks, the user-survey statistics about how trucks are typically used was pretty eye opening. As was the size of the forward facing blindspot for your everyday stock F-150. Kids don't stand a chance.

[flagged]

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#38

Post by notch898a »

stouset wrote: post #36
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #28

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.

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.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#39

Post by zekrioca »

d_burfoot wrote: post #9

So people pay taxes to the federal government, who then doles it back out to the cities and states to spend it, after taking a big cut for their own legions of bureaucrats. If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.

It seems most people -- including you -- do not know they need safer roads, inspite of all evidences. It is extremely dangerous to bike anywhere in most cities of the US, and this is just an example.

Re: US DOT awards $800M toward street safety

#40

Post by hammock »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #30
giantg2 wrote: post #22

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.

The stated goal of the improvement is not to reduce speeds, but to reduce roadway departures. I would wager wider shoulders can do that even in the face of marginally higher speeds.

And your assumption that higher speeds are unsafe is unfounded- unless you want to eliminate cars altogether (“there is no safe sex/speed”), a given roadway has a generally safe speed and typically this would be calculated and considered in the widening of the shoulders

Post reply on HN