521–530 of 696 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One way to reduce deaths is just get everyone into cars. A patently absurd claim that holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. The whole nation of the U.S disproves it, for one.
We have far better roads, vehicle testing and driver training than the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Large cars are not the primary driver of increased pedestrian deaths in the USA, either. What is the primary cause of increased US pedestrian deaths?
My money would go on mobile phone usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes i don't doubt your estimates for Vancouver. European cities are built very differently (partially because of historical streets being later adapted for motor-vehicles). What i consider city driving, 50km/h or above would be probably be considered suicidal with the amount of merging, turning, and red lights. And the density is higher at that. Three lanes either way i consider a real motorway. I don't think I've se…
Here is Marine Drive in Vancouver: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ThnKn7PmD8sKSnNs5 Speed limit 50km/h ... It has lights and intersections. Almost no pedestrians. Vancouver has many wide multi-lane streets. Some in denser areas with more pedestrian traffic some less. It has almost no real highways going to the city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even where public transport and cycling infra is more than adequate, you still have to restrict cars. Otherwise some people will choose driving to an extent that it screws up the public transport for everyone else. At least that's the lesson from London's buses. Paris built a more extensive metro system (London's tube is equivalent in the areas where it operates, but less than half the city is within 15 minutes walk…
What do you mean by "Paris"? If it's the City of Paris (Paris intra-muros), then it's not comparable to London in terms of size or density. IMO, for the purposes of this discussion, Paris should mean the whole Paris region, since most of the people live outside the actual city limits. And in those areas, access to public transportation is hit or miss. Some people are close to suburban trains, but many are not. Then,…
The main problem with the buses isn't a lack of them, but that they get held up by endless car traffic. When the roads are quiet, they're efficient.
Suburb to suburb is a challenge for most cities, but I'm not convinced people need to do that as much as they say, it's more they do it because they can. There's some journeys here that are awkward without driving, but in a city of ten million people you're pretty spoilt for choice either way.
I've only visited Paris for work and tourism, but the rail network seems denser there and better set up for short trips - London's trains are fast but they rely on buses to fill the gaps and for short trips: the Deep Tube stations take you quite a long time to get to the platform, so if you're going less than about 2km it's often quicker to walk.
And in the centre of town, walking is as quick as the bus, hire bikes are the quickest way of getting around, but when I've used them I've found they can be in poor condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well-designed human-oriented city like Houston Said no urban planner in the history of urban planning. Or NJB ( https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 ) > FASTER commutes than ANY similar-sized city in Europe. Houston ranks 7th worst traffic in the US. The internet tells me you’re boasting of 30mn for an “average 6 miles commute”. That’s bicycle distance and speed that you need to drive due to a broken city.
> Said no urban planner in the history of urban planning. Or NJB ( https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 ) Wrong. Houston is a great example for planners who care about housing availability and the quality of life for the people. And not bike lanes and road diets. > Houston ranks 7th worst traffic in the US. Yes. And the 7th worst traffic in the US is STILL BETTER than any large European city's oh-so-great transit. Tells you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've sort of given it away with the "smaller cities" thing. People who live in NYC don't want to live in a smaller American-style city with suburban sprawl. (You've also glossed over the more painful statistic: for every lifetime-equivalent lost on mass transit inefficiencies, there are hundreds lost to gridlock in NYC. That number, already terrible, would be far worse without the city's mass transit -- you simply…
I mean, I don't hide my despair at large cities. They're destroying the fabric of the Western civilization by acting as black holes for population. > You've also glossed over the more painful statistic: for every lifetime-equivalent lost on mass transit inefficiencies, there are hundreds lost to gridlock in NYC. Here's the thing. A well-designed human-oriented city like Houston has FASTER commutes than ANY similar-si…
Didn't I debunk your nonsense "data" last time? Why are you repeating incorrect data when you've been corrected? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42648738
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The results are basically universally in favour of speed enforcement reducing motor vehicle collisions, reducing injury and cost. Yeah this argument comes up a lot in the UK from people advocating 20mph speed limits everywhere. It's a super dumb argument though. Obviously increasing speed is never going to decrease danger. But if "slower is safer" is the only argument for 20mph then the logical conclusion is 0mph.…
> But if "slower is safer" is the only argument for 20mph then the logical conclusion is 0mph. Hilariously wrong. Kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared divided by half. That squaring of velocity kills your argument.
The argument is, going 0 mph, meaning not driving at all is safer than even slow driving. Meaning the argument is, there has to be a compromise, all driving is dangerous.
I was in Helsinki for work a couple of years ago, walking back to my hotel with some colleagues after a few hours drinking (incredibly expensive, but quite nice), beer. It was around midnight and we happened to come across a very large mobile crane on the pavement blocking our way. As we stepped out (carefully), into the road to go around it, one of my Finnish colleagues started bemoaning that no cones or barriers ha…
It also gets very very expensive (maybe not in this case specifically). For example in NYC buildings often just leave scaffolding up permanently because it's cheaper to do that than to assemble/disassemble between every job they have to do. I think it's not even clear if scaffolding is that much safer as there have been a number of accidents with the scaffoldings themselves crashing onto people