Comments
MrPterodactyl t1_ixzpx04 wrote
Yes, but some safety features actually make things worse for pedestrians and cyclists. For example, A pillars (the two structural pieces to the side of the windshield) have gone up in width in order to house side airbags and meet rollover requirements. This makes the forward blind spot of a car much larger.
thebruns t1_ixzrstt wrote
Rear window visibility is also dreadful these days
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2qt1j wrote
A pillars is what they’re called? I agree they’re wide. I often bounce my head around looking around it to see cuz there’s been a few times I missed someone as they were in that blind spot and I nearly hit them
[deleted] t1_ixzisyx wrote
[deleted]
rolexpo t1_ixznwwh wrote
Thanks Obama
Ancient-Isopod-2991 t1_ixzo6qs wrote
Please explain
thebruns t1_ixzrr2v wrote
Suvs and pickups are classified differently from sedans
[deleted] t1_iy00yf6 wrote
[deleted]
Ancient-Isopod-2991 t1_ixzt3c4 wrote
Just because SUVs and pickup trucks are classified differently I still don't understand your conclusion. I do see that in 2009 Obama offered Cash for clunkers which actually encouraged to purchase of lower priced more fuel efficient vehicles. How does that equate to SUVs and pickups.
SnortingCoffee t1_ixzuvdl wrote
I think you replied to the wrong comment here, but the short version is that vehicles over a certain size were considered work vehicles, not road vehicles, and thus exempted from the normal regulations. This size, at the time, seemed so massive that it was a clear difference, and there's no way manufacturers would start making every single small to mid-sized truck absolutely huge, would they? Oops, that's exactly what happened.
vwcx t1_ixzwcmb wrote
This is the exact reason that federal regulations need to adjust as market conditions evolve...unfortunately a belief that's incompatible with modern politics on a certain side of the spectrum. Same reason we're finding it hard to regulate almost anything these days.....the BUT MUH FREEDUMZ crowd is to thank.
buxtonOJ t1_ixzejt8 wrote
PHONES!!! People are on them more and more
[deleted] t1_ixziqao wrote
[deleted]
emp-sup-bry t1_ixzolxi wrote
They did while they were driving
buxtonOJ t1_ixzli31 wrote
I did, and still stand by my comment.
thebruns t1_ixzru5r wrote
You don't think they have phones in every other country?
buxtonOJ t1_ixztoec wrote
I do, however in more tech savvy countries the prevalence of smart phones (they’re more distracting) is muchhh higher as well as more lax laws on using said phones. Throw in automatic transmissions that are much more prevalent in the US (only need to use one hand to drive, other can be on your phone) as well as a general societal selfishness that seems to be more widespread here and you’re going to see increased numbers. Just my 2 cents - a couple mentions of other countries in a basic article isn’t a great argument.
[deleted] t1_ixzy60v wrote
[deleted]
jgf556 t1_iy18tlv wrote
- Gadgets
sagarnola89 t1_iy19tpd wrote
And smart phones. 15 years ago there was no reason to be playing on your phone while driving.
stephiereffie t1_ixz7jp9 wrote
Meanwhile next door is full of folks who complain about every single improvement that's made for cyclists or pedestrians.
Todays unhinged next door rant:
> I'm so sick of hearing DRIVERS NEED TO SLOW DOWN! yes we do and we're already doing 25mph and I. Some places 15..but when are we going to address and speak on the PEDESTRIANS and CYCLISTS that just dart out in front of moving traffic without looking up from their phones to MAKE SURE it's clear to proceed!..if I'm driving and traffic is flowing steadily behind me I can't just STOP ON A DIME because you just decide to run across! Because when I slow down unexpectedly it causes a chain reaction! The responsibility rest on both! Yes PEDESTRIANS have the right of way but they have to do the same as drivers and proceed with caution.
Brawldud t1_ixzav2b wrote
imo when someone gets in a giant death machine and turns it on and starts flinging it at deadly speeds through densely populated areas for their own benefit, the responsibility lies with them to do no harm.
Blightking t1_iy06p8q wrote
The law very much agrees with you
Brawldud t1_iy08p6g wrote
Courts, law enforcement and public opinion are more inconsistent about this point unfortunately
Blightking t1_iy0zytc wrote
Interested to read how the courts don’t agree. A speeding vehicle hitting a pedestrian should be a very simple tort matter
Brawldud t1_iy19134 wrote
in the US frequently you can murder someone who was walking or biking with your car and as long as you stayed on scene and were not drunk you will face no consequences.
Blightking t1_iy1aziy wrote
At minimum there's tort liability there, even considering contributory negligence. Wasn't able to find anything on westlaw or lexis you're describing. Do you have a specific case/incident/statute in mind?
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2r1jo wrote
Did the pedestrian have the right of way to cross or were they jay walking?
Blightking t1_iy2rg2l wrote
if right of way, the driver is completely at fault, if jay-walking, depending on the actions of the driver and the circumstances, the pedestrian would have contributory negligence.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2u0ap wrote
Yeah I know. I’ve seen a lady ina. Wheel chair get hit. She was ina cross walk but didn’t have the light. Rolled out in front of a truck and got hit when the light for the truck turned green. Driver didn’t see her directly in front of his vehicle and he hit and she flew. She was alright just bruised up and they called the cops and the cops said told her that because she was crossing without the light, she was at fault. She even admitted it was pretty stupid of her.
Blightking t1_iy435kv wrote
no qualms with that result. pedestrians don't have the absolute right of way.
Working-Grapefruit42 t1_iy16j5u wrote
Not if the pedestrian caused the accident… for example if a pedestrian runs out in the street where there’s no cross walk it’s not always the drivers fault. Any typically insurance will take care of it for cases where the pedestrian isn’t in the crosswalk or the driver isn’t “in the wrong”
Blightking t1_iy1bl31 wrote
oh yeah if someone runs out into the street that's typically their fault. Basic negligence. A driver adhering to the law (not speeding, not texting [plaintiffs can request records of phone activity during the period in question to establish liability in discovery], etc.) obviously shouldn't face any legal liability.
Working-Grapefruit42 t1_iy16bvh wrote
That’s not at all how physics works my good sir.
Brawldud t1_iy1966e wrote
explain
Working-Grapefruit42 t1_iy1bk0y wrote
The average breaking distance for a car going 15 miles an hour about 45 feet, and that’s assuming The driver saw the object while they were at least 30 feet away. and that’s for small cars with new breaks A lot of people don’t understand the math behind their everyday life when you are driving a car typically at 25mph you are going actually going about 37feet per second or about 12 meters per second. The average pedestrian pops out about 40-50 feet ahead of u. So there’s not much most drivers can do when someone pops out of nowhere the driver can’t just stop their car. Physics just doesn’t work to make the driver accountable for pedestrians because the relative speed of each object to so vastly different. Cars going the same speeds have a better chance of missing each other because of that relative speed everyone is kind of on the same plane but with cars and bikes they’re not moving close to the same relative speed so when they pop out thinking they can make it. They’re are not accurately judging what it takes for that “giant death machine” to stop moving and how fast it’s actually coming at them on pedestrians account
I hope that makes more sense for you
DUVAL_LAVUD t1_ixzfbg6 wrote
Living in DC has radicalized me against how car-centric this country is.
r/fuckcars
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy03b11 wrote
Same
noquarter53 t1_ixz87f8 wrote
Imma go out on a limb and say that people driving like maniacs, with zero moving violation accountability, are a bigger threat than lack of pedestrian safety measures.
Turbo2x t1_ixzb1gi wrote
It's crazy that we spend so much time wringing our hands over every other type of crime or risk factor except cars when car injuries and fatalities are by far the easiest to identify and mitigate.
Brickleberried t1_iy0a2ld wrote
Who is "we" here? This subreddit is chock full of "fuck cars" people.
bubbameister33 t1_ixzvvd6 wrote
Next Door is a shithole though, a social media site for the worst of neighbors imaginable.
iwasbornin2021 t1_iy08hcz wrote
The favorite social network of Karens (both male and female)
stephiereffie t1_iy4vnw5 wrote
omg, the drama is insane there. Like the rants folks go one about are honestly kinda impressive. If you subscribe to /r/trashy it's a goldmine of material.
[deleted] t1_ixzycdb wrote
[deleted]
Brawldud t1_iy05c83 wrote
The way motorists describe it, you'd think that DC is some kind of reverse-guerrilla warfare battlefield, where cyclists and pedestrians are lying in ambush around every corner and crouched behind every waist-high object, waiting to spring out in front of them and commit suicide-by-car.
Working-Grapefruit42 t1_iy16nsr wrote
Sometimes they are
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2qzki wrote
I mean the part about people be hind her being inconvenienced by stopping is stupid. She’s right about not being able to stop on a dime. The laws of physics say my 3,000lbs car needs a few hundred feet to stop and pedestrians are distracted by their phones and frequently step off the curb early. Or stand right on the edge with their toes and bellies hanging off around the tight corners.
Complex-Marzipan-218 t1_iy0ej0e wrote
How are the other drivers who are tailgating me supposed to know to look up from their phone to break for the pedestrian?
Brickleberried t1_ixzmqhv wrote
To be fair, bikers and pedestrians are also crazy. Sure, when they're crazy, they don't endanger other people as much as a crazy driver, but they endanger themselves. I can't count how many times I've seen a biker go through a red light or a pedestrian trying to walk through 4 lanes of ongoing traffic in the middle of a block.
Edit:
Bikers: "Too many of us are hurt or killed by bikers."
Me: "That is true, but bikers also commit dangerous acts that endanger themselves."
Bikers: "Fuck you. That doesn't matter."
I mean, if you want to protect bikers, you should accept all ways to protect bikers, not just ones that inconvenience other people.
stephiereffie t1_ixzr3ib wrote
Nah, sorry. Not fair.
The problems that cars cause vs the problems that pedestrians or bikes cause are in such different magnitude, to bring it up is obviously not in good faith.
Cars kill people, bikes inconvence people.
Professional-Can1385 t1_ixzuygy wrote
I can only control my actions, not any one else’s.
As a pedestrian who does not have a metal cage for protection, that means I try to be aware of cars and not do stupid stuff around them that could get me hurt.
Everyone has a responsibility to be safe, but you can’t control anyone else.
Abitconfusde t1_ixzrype wrote
> Cars kill people
Whoa, there pal. Next you'll be saying that guns kill people. Settle down and think a little bit. Everybody knows that only people kill people. /s
Ancient-Isopod-2991 t1_ixzusqw wrote
Bikers May kill themselves.
Brickleberried t1_iy00eqq wrote
Bikers risk their own lives when they don't follow the rules of the road.
Edit: I'm getting downvoted for this, but this is objectively correct. Bikers are so fucking mad that they're getting injured or killed, but also get mad when they're told to follow rules of the road that will help keep them safer. The people who do this are just whiny jackasses.
stephiereffie t1_iy01y9g wrote
Okay, cool.
From my gooogling, looks like about 400 people died in single vehicle bicycle accidents in 2020.
On the other hand, 6516 pedestrians were mowed down by cars in 2020.
They're not comparable.
Brickleberried t1_iy02ugv wrote
I'm not sure how that disproves my statement that both bikers and pedestrians can be crazy, which endangers their own lives.
stephiereffie t1_iy0mgfx wrote
I'm not disproving it, I'm pointing out how inconsequential your statement is. Who gives a crap about the damage bicyclists do to themselves? We care about the damage cars can do to pedestrians.
Brickleberried t1_iy0pxf2 wrote
> Who gives a crap about the damage bicyclists do to themselves?
So you don't actually care about the safety of bikers?
stephiereffie t1_iy0s1k9 wrote
I think folks have the right to hurt themselves if they want.
That's obviously not the case when a car hits pedestrian.
stephiereffie t1_iy0suzi wrote
>Edit: I'm getting downvoted for this, but this is objectively correct. Bikers are so fucking mad that they're getting injured or killed, but also get mad when they're told to follow rules of the road that will help keep them safer. The people who do this are just whiny jackasses.
Omg, no they're not. They're irritated when the conversation is "with all the traffic fatalities, how can we make the road infrastructure safer for cyclists and pedestrians? ", and some dude rolls in with "we don't need to change driving habits or our roads, the bikes need to stop running redlights!"
Like no crap dude, but let's spend more time working on the 6000 deaths.
Also, if you're getting down voted, take a look in the mirror and ask... Why?
Brickleberried t1_iy102xl wrote
> and some dude rolls in with "we don't need to change driving habits or our roads,
I didn't say that though.
Y'all just don't like when you have to change how you operate too.
SquishWindow t1_ixzxq90 wrote
> I've seen a biker go through a red light
This isn't crazy or dangerous unless there is cross traffic
> a pedestrian trying to walk through 4 lanes of ongoing traffic in the middle of a block.
If the pedestrian is at a crosswalk, the only thing that is "crazy" about them is expecting drivers to follow the law
Brickleberried t1_iy007wx wrote
> This isn't crazy or dangerous unless there is cross traffic
lol, okay
SquishWindow t1_iy00bi0 wrote
Have you ever looked both ways and jaywalked when there weren't any cars coming?
Brickleberried t1_iy0100i wrote
So you think cars should be able to go through red lights too as long as they look both ways?
SquishWindow t1_iy02t88 wrote
No, I don't.
Now answer my question - have you ever looked both ways and jaywalked when there weren't any cars coming?
Brickleberried t1_iy09fht wrote
Of course. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same with a car though?
stormcloudbros t1_iy0b902 wrote
Because a car typically weighs at least 3000 lbs and a driver has has far more limited ability to see or hear if they can safely cross than a person on foot, bike, or scooter.
Brickleberried t1_iy0c2il wrote
It's actually pretty easy to see if anybody is approaching most of the time.
Edit: Well, since /u/stormcloudbros blocked me, I'll respond here:
> Then why do drivers keep getting in crashes?
That's a non sequitur. Thanks for playing.
stormcloudbros t1_iy0c663 wrote
Then why do drivers keep getting in crashes?
ccbmtg t1_iy06gip wrote
lmao and the good faith goes out the window.
Brickleberried t1_iy09bkx wrote
How is the good faith out the window? The other person is saying it's not crazy for a biker to cross the street when nobody is looking because sometimes pedestrians jaywalk.
ccbmtg t1_iy06ep8 wrote
it isn't. in fact, it's so normal that's it's outright on the books as legal in some states. it's called the Idaho stop. it must be commonplace in most areas so that they had to put it on record as legal.
Brickleberried t1_iy09d48 wrote
Is it legal here?
SquishWindow t1_iy0f06t wrote
Jaywalking is illegal here. Do you believe that jaywalking after you look both ways and see no cars coming is "crazy and dangerous"?
Brickleberried t1_iy0jiti wrote
No more than cars doing it.
SquishWindow t1_iy0muol wrote
Do you believe pedestrians jaywalking after looking both ways is "crazy and dangerous"? How come you can't give a clear yes or no answer to that very simple question?
Brickleberried t1_iy0pr8i wrote
I'm saying it's the same for cars, bikes, and pedestrians. If you're going to say it's not crazy for pedestrians, I'm going to say it's not crazy for cars, and vice versa.
SquishWindow t1_iy0qa52 wrote
You can't say whether it's crazy and dangerous for pedestrians to jaywalk after looking both ways? How can you be so confident in your argument when you can't even stand up to one simple yes or no question? That's pretty weak sauce.
TRIGMILLION t1_iy0bf38 wrote
I try to be a good careful driver but when it's pitch dark out and you're riding your bike in black clothes with no reflective lights anywhere it really enrages me. I don't actually want to kill you but when the only reason I even notice you is a little glint of light coming off your wheels give me a break. I'm not speeding recklessly either but I've seen squirrels dart across the street more carefully than some of these people.
Brickleberried t1_iy0cj6m wrote
Bikers in this subreddit: "How dare you say that bikers could do anything on their own to be safer!"
Just last week, I had a biker run a red light as I turning. Would have hit them if I hadn't hit the breaks. But most fuck cars people would blame me for that.
MrPterodactyl t1_ixzq13k wrote
Yes, there is tons of jaywalking in this city.
Abitconfusde t1_ixzrn11 wrote
I hate driving. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems like there are so many people that are in too much of a hurry to get where they are going. There is so much impatience and aggression. It's a bit like using twitter, actually.
SoberEnAfrique t1_iy03fn4 wrote
This is a huge stretch, but i wonder if having accurate Maps and estimated arrival times has caused people to start timing things too tightly and encourages rushing to "make back time." Long shot ,i know, but something i think about
CrownStarr t1_iy3nqkn wrote
I think about that a lot, glad to see someone else has noticed it too. I don’t think it’s the main or only issue, but I definitely feel more pressure to shave time off when I can see an ETA going up or down. If it’s a route I know well and I don’t have it on, then I don’t care about a minute here or there.
bubbameister33 t1_ixzw286 wrote
Nah, I hate driving too.
vwcx t1_ixzwkfl wrote
My personal belief is that Twitter (and social media in general) is fueling aggression like this in society. Would love to see what happens if we all start to take a step away from social as they start to collapse...
k032 t1_iy03ym3 wrote
In DC specifically, there was a bill introduced about a year ago the Walk Without Worry Amendment. It aims to standardize pedestrian crosswalks to be elevated, and forces drivers to slow down. Like this. or in real life they look like this, this, and this. Instead of designing a street so pedestrians are entering the car road, cars have to cross the pedestrian walkway.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy06bpv wrote
The only thing that slows down traffic is making drivers uncomfortable. Roads need to look different.. if it looks like an 8 lane highway people are going to go 50, no matter how many traffic cameras and stops you make.
RoeRoeRoeYourVote t1_iy4p546 wrote
Yes, exactly. I was driving around Manassas this weekend and was driving like 55ish because the road was designed to facilitate those speeds. Boy was I in for a rude awakening when I saw a much lower speed limit sign.
Even drivers who are actively trying not to murder pedestrians and cyclists will fuck up when the road is functionally built like a highway.
wallaceeffect t1_iy8vb12 wrote
All DC roads should be no wider than 2 lanes, one car travel lane in each direction. All other lands should be converted to public transit, pedestrian infrastructure, bike infrastructure, or greenspace. I will not be talked down from this.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy8xva9 wrote
Agree. Some bus-only roads would help make that reality. NY ave should just be bulldozed. Build housing there instead.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2qkfi wrote
Come to California we have 8 lane highways and people usually go 80.
The thing that slows people down is FINANCIAL PENALTIES. Put up more cameras and have police actually enforce traffic laws and watch as we see a sharp rise in traffic ticket income followed by a sharp decline in ticket income + road fatalities as people suddenly receive financial reminders that there are rules to the road.
[deleted] t1_iy0cx8l wrote
[deleted]
k032 t1_iy3vw6n wrote
I think it can be a case by case thing by street. M street for example in Georgetown, the buses for the most part just go East/West down the street.
So making each crosswalk on the streets in between elevated makes sense to me and leaving the main M st alone.
Removing a lane and adding a seperate emergency / transit access lane seperate by bollards or a curb that isn't elevated as well is an option.
But also doesn't slow them down by much, few seconds at most https://oth.opengov.com/production/uploads/portals/49/forum/issue/7970/issue_asset/asset/9705/Traffic_Calming_Fact_Sheets.pdf
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2qg89 wrote
Oh cool now the drivers will catch some air as they fly thru intersections
aurora4000 t1_iy01zv1 wrote
Excellent article that highlights how three US State Department staff/bicyclists were killed in DC by cars in 2022. There are over 900 comments so far.
On July 27, 2022 DCist posted about Traffic Safety Advocates holding a protest at the Wilson Building where they advocated for specific changes to make roads safer.
I am afraid to ride my bike in Arlington or DC and walk instead - which is also risky as drivers often do not yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk even when pedestrians are walking with the light.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2qp6y wrote
I agree that drivers don’t yield in this city and it’s unsafe to walk but in the opposite side I almost hit pedestrians staring down at their phone at least 1-3 times a week as they don’t look to see if it’s safe to cross before stepping off the curb
aurora4000 t1_iy326uf wrote
Yes - far too many people are distracted by their phones when driving and walking.
[deleted] t1_ixyvi3e wrote
[deleted]
9throwawayDERP t1_ixz3xbu wrote
This is why DC is starting to build more protected cycle tracks and such. But really they should just ban through traffic and install concrete and steel bollards at most intersections/make dead ends for cars.
Since enforcement has stopped, DC needs to make it physically impossible for cars to go into bike lanes and sidewalks.
[deleted] t1_ixz579d wrote
[deleted]
Merker6 t1_ixz8rxi wrote
So reading this article, it really shows some selective analysis that doesn’t really explain it’s very significant finding of road deaths going up 6% dung a lockdown year
First, it claims this to be a “uniquely American” problem, despite Ireland and Switzerland also having shockingly high growths, then also conveniently leaves out traffic fatality rates in China or India. China has one of the fastest growing car ownership rates in the world, and it’s building highways as much as its building heavy rail and public transit.
Second, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of how there was a 6% jump in the US (plus Switzerland and Ireland) during the lockdown year that saw exceptional decreases in driving. They use percentages of growth, but that only tells part of a story; what were the actual share of pedestriaj and cyclist involved accidents overall? Were greater numbers of cyclist in urban centers like DC contributing to the growth, or could it be explained by other issues like people returning to the road after extended periods of not driving? They also cite things like cars getting bigger, but frankly even cars from the 50s going at even moderate speeds can be deadly, so where’s the actual connection? An on top of this, they spend a lot of time talking about highway and road construction, then drop in how a spike in reckless driving was considered the biggest contributor; what difference does a speed limit make when people ignore it?
I guess this turned into an essay, but it’s just incredibly frustrating to see such massive issues in everyday life getting such a terrible article written about it
Brawldud t1_ixzbt0b wrote
A popular theory is that in 2020, the amount of congestion decreased, which meant motorists spent more time driving at higher speeds that both increased both the likelihood that they would hit someone and the likelihood that hitting someone would kill them.
I don't think the article is super rigorous about making this point but the bit where they talk to Polly Trottenberg strongly suggests it.
[deleted] t1_ixzxde4 wrote
[deleted]
thekingoftherodeo t1_ixzgqh8 wrote
> First, it claims this to be a “uniquely American” problem, despite Ireland and Switzerland also having shockingly high growths,
Just to fact check this from an Irish perspective: the growth you see in the NYT chart is from an already very low base. We have one of lowest death rates per capita in the world at 2.2/100k inhabitants. That's a result of focused policing, improvements in both cars and infrastructure and borderline zero tolerance for DUI.
Speaking as an ex-pat here, it blows my mind how accepted driving after a lot of drinks is over here - people think nothing of it.
SquishWindow t1_ixzmpqj wrote
> They also cite things like cars getting bigger, but frankly even cars from the 50s going at even moderate speeds can be deadly, so where’s the actual connection?
There has been a lot of study of this particular issue, linking larger cars both to disproportionately high rates of pedestrian crashes and do higher fatality rates in the crashes that happen. Here is some research from IIHS, for example. I don't think this is a particularly controversial empirical point. Of course any car can be deadly, but taller, heavier, faster cars are more likely to be deadly (one of the things that is likely to be harmful about the EV revolution), and larger vehicles have more visibility limitations than smaller ones.
Anecdotally, if you look back through the pedestrian & cyclist deaths in DC, I think you will see "large vehicle turns into a pedestrian or cyclist" is probably the biggest recurring theme.
cooler266 t1_ixzfb9n wrote
If people are ignoring the speed limit, you turn to infrastructure changes so people drive slower, eliminating slip lanes, no 5 lane roads in ‘walkable’ neighborhoods, or if you do add in pedestrian islands, etc.
If the focus is on road deaths, why bring up the red herring of cyclists and pedestrians? Pedestrians aren’t killing people, cars are.
To your point about cars from the 50s, they even talked about how cars today are bigger, faster, and higher (this last especially kills many more peds).
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy05gvk wrote
I would like to note that the United States NEVER had a lockdown. Irish and Swiss did.
CrownStarr t1_iy3og5l wrote
If you drove anywhere in the first 6 months or so of the pandemic you know that there was a huge change in the number of people driving, so this nitpicking isn’t really relevant here.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy3q8n9 wrote
It's called presupposition and I don't give it a pass.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2rhu6 wrote
🙄
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy2t0lu wrote
Words matter, don't rewrite history.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2tu0e wrote
Lol we had a lock down just because individuals choose not to follow the rules doesn’t mean we didn’t try.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy2uopn wrote
Comparing what you did versus what was done in Europe, you will find two remarkably different experiences.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2ut1n wrote
Comparing us to Europe is stupid. We had a war roughly 250 years ago to not be like them.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy2v25v wrote
Oh ya, I bet you're Washington's direct descendent.
Judging by your ignorant but still arrogant tone, I'm guessing your ancestors were Confederates fighting against the United States a little while later.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy3j1w0 wrote
Such a stupid and immature insult to make. This conversation is pointless and you came here just to bicker. 🙄
xanadumuse t1_ixzo0gs wrote
I always find it entertaining when friends from other countries visit me and they tell me how archaic our roads are. Many people think the US is so modernized. Deaths will continue to go up until we change behavior around driving through better infrastructure, less distractions( I say make the car uncomfortable again- forget about the TVs in the car and seat warmers), smaller cars, and more importantly the willpower of Individuals to resist being selfish and be more self aware for those around you.
sumpdiddlyump_ t1_ixzuniq wrote
Just curious, but which other countries? Non-US road systems almost always feel so chaotic to me.
FatCats2fat t1_iy1jnxo wrote
Chaotic isn't necessarily bad. Part of the problem with our roads is that they're so wide and straight that drivers feel safe going way too fast.
To an extent, uncomfortable drivers are more cautious, slower, and safer.
sumpdiddlyump_ t1_iy4s006 wrote
Yeah, that’s my thinking too. The reason other countries have fewer road deaths is precisely because it’s so uncomfortable to drive, making for cautious drivers.
xanadumuse t1_ixzzao0 wrote
I just got back from a biking trip in Ireland and I felt safe there. I’ve also biked in parts of Spain, Netherlands and Belgium. Hell even Mexico with its erratic drivers at least moves over for their drivers and don’t get so upset when someone is in their “ personal space”.
ichweissnichts123 t1_iy0gy6b wrote
EVs unfortunately will not help this.
Small sedans like a Tesla 3 can weigh as much as an F-150. Higher mass and less stopping power are a bad combination for safety.
Hopefully they start racing cars by curb weight. Especially since EVs do not pay gas tax to maintain roads they disproportionately wear
MrPterodactyl t1_ixzq7p9 wrote
End distracted driving. Mandate manual transmissions.
SquishWindow t1_ixzy1i3 wrote
As someone who drove a manual until a few years ago, I can't promise that I was any less prone to getting distracted than someone with an automatic. Once you're used to a manual, shifting gears fades into the background of your thinking just as much as driving an automatic (except when you're in stop and go traffic or stopped on a hill).
Plus, sadly, manual transmissions are going to have a hard time making a comeback with the rise of EVs.
Abitconfusde t1_iy0a0fo wrote
Manual transmission behavior could be programmed. It doesnt have to be an actual manual transmission. The "gears" would just be tied to speeds (for simplicity) rather than speed and torque. I'm actually surprised no car enthusiasts who think that driving electrics is boring havent already made this mod.
SquishWindow t1_iy0ay65 wrote
Because manual transmission enthusiasts value the feel of using a clutch, not just the ability to control the gear you're in. That's why manual transmission enthusiasts still exist even though semi-automatic transmissions that let you control your gear with shifter are quite common.
Abitconfusde t1_iy1jqx8 wrote
All that behavior can be programmed. Probably even down to being locked out of the lower gear until double clutching for the downshift, as well as the feel of grinding gears. It is definitely possible.
SquishWindow t1_iy1o47j wrote
Of course it's theoretically possible to create a third pedal that is programmed to feel exactly like a clutch, with tangible resistance at the friction point and the feel of stalling out if you aren't timing it properly. It's just a pretty complicated engineering task, especially given that it's not just a software question it's a physical engineering question, an it has an audience of uncertain size. But maybe we will see a niche enthusiast EV in the future that tries to fake the feel of a manual.
MrPterodactyl t1_ixzz1za wrote
That's what regulations are for. Just force manufacturers to make more manuals. Put massive taxes on vehicle autonomy features.
SquishWindow t1_iy006y0 wrote
> Just force manufacturers to make more manuals.
There isn't really any such thing right now as a manual EV, that's not how their gearing works. Forcing manual production would mean forcing production of ICEs. There are better ways of making safer roads.
> Put massive taxes on vehicle autonomy features.
Are vehicle autonomy features bad for pedestrian safety? Obviously it's bad when a "self-driving" car hits a pedestrian. But I'm not sure that the net effect of vehicle autonomy features is negative for pedestrian safety; I assume that some smart features like automatic braking will have positive effects for pedestrian safety.
ohdangherewego t1_iy04001 wrote
I think we're still in too young a phase with autonomous vehicles. Theoretically, computers should be able to avoid pedestrians/cyclists much better than (very distractable) human drivers, but I don't know if the technology is fully there yet.
I for one, can't wait - my desire to live as a pedestrian/cyclist greatly outweighs my desire to drive a vehicle myself.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379718320932
SquishWindow t1_iy05oh0 wrote
> I think we're still in too young a phase with autonomous vehicles. Theoretically, computers should be able to avoid pedestrians/cyclists much better than (very distractable) human drivers, but I don't know if the technology is fully there yet.
If we define "autonomous vehicles" as something like "full self driving cars" then yeah obviously the technology isn't there yet. That said, I think there is a lot of technology available right now that is well short of that threshold that could save plenty of pedestrian lives. Automatic emergency braking already exists in a number of cars and hopefully already helps avoid some pedestrian collisions (especially in daylight). We also definitely have the technology to actually enforce speed limits by software if we wanted to, we just lack the will.
On the whole, I would not seek to discourage vehicle autonomy features right now, despite the existence and well-publicized failures of of Musk the Moron. In the long run I'm sure they will be a good thing, and they are already probably having some meaningful positive effects.
ohdangherewego t1_iy0o6sw wrote
Yeah - we def need more movement towards this and not away, and I get that there's a lot of good stuff we can do before we get to full autonomous operation
However - going by the reactions of engineers working on this technology, I don't think it is as far along as either of us want right now.
MrPterodactyl t1_iy06v44 wrote
I believe that slowing down EV adoption isn't a bad thing for multiple off-topic reasons.
When self-driving car technology is fully developed, then yes, that will be better for pedestrian safety. A computer cannot get fatigued, drunk, distracted, etc. However, this is a lot farther away than most people think.
Semi-autonomous driving, however, is an absolutely awful idea and will produce even worse drivers than we have now. Tons of people are getting their driving reflexes accustomed to adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist. What happens if they are in a situation where they have to drive an older car?
SquishWindow t1_iy08mak wrote
> slowing down EV adoption isn't a bad thing
Disagree. Rapid EV adoption is an imperative. But it does create urgency to improve road safety in the meantime, because EVs are heavier and faster (and therefore more dangerous) than ICE counterparts.
> Semi-autonomous driving, however, is an absolutely awful idea and will produce even worse drivers than we have now. Tons of people are getting their driving reflexes accustomed to adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist.
IDK, this isn't obvious to me, it just seems like a narrow intuitive argument and I don't think I am fully on board with your intuitions. Most "semi-autonomous" features are features that engage under very rare and extreme circumstances, 99+% of the time drivers are driving their cars the exact same way we always have. It's not obvious to me that having some semi-autonomous safety features that engage under rare circumstances will radically change the driving behavior that drivers develop as they learn to drive. And even if it did, it would still be a question of how many accidents were avoided vs. caused by that change.
> What happens if they are in a situation where they have to drive an older car?
Sure, maybe they would be worse drivers in an older car. That seems like an edge case, though - as above, it becomes a question of whether accidents caused in those circumstances are more frequent or worse than the accidents avoided the rest of the time. It is also something that will gradually go away over the course of the transition towards vehicles with more semi-autonomous safety features, rather than a permanent problem with semi-autonomous features. Like, I'm sure that drivers today with backup cameras would be really shitty at parallel parking a car if they had to drive an older car with only a rear-view mirror... but we are rapidly approaching the point at which the likelihood of them ever having to drive an old car without a backup camera is getting pretty low.
MrPterodactyl t1_iy0dzxq wrote
> Most "semi-autonomous" features are features that engage under very rare and extreme circumstances, 99+% of the time drivers are driving their cars the exact same way we always have.
https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot
This isn't the case. Tesla autopilot can steer and change lanes autonomously. Other car manufacturers will catch up if they haven't already.
This is just going to train people to not pay attention while driving.
I do not believe the sensors that ensure your hands are on the steering wheel and your eyes are on the road will do an adequate job of ensuring the driver is paying attention.
Even if these systems are not actively defeated, how many of us know how to daydream while keeping our eyes forward and hands in a certain position?
SquishWindow t1_iy0evbt wrote
> This is just going to train people to not pay attention while driving.
I think it's TBD. Most people don't turn on smart cruise control until they are on a highway; the entire time that they are pulling out of their house, driving through neighborhood streets, and navigating to a freeway, they have to do all the normal work that drivers do to make sure they stay in their lane and not hit what's in front of them.
And again, ultimately what will matter is the number of accidents averted. If we have shitty drivers in safer cars, that might result in safer streets even as drivers themselves become worse. Like, I wouldn't be surprised if rear cameras and some of the automatic parking features in cars today have, on average, made people less skilled at parallel parking. But that doesn't mean there are more accidents while parallel parking than there used to be. It just means that if you gave today's driver yesterday's technology, they would be worse at using it.
Brickleberried t1_iy0a829 wrote
I'll give you credit for uniqueness, but this is a dumb idea.
Abitconfusde t1_ixzsgai wrote
That's actually a really interesting idea -- make it more demanding to drive.
Even make it more demanding than manual transmissions. Get rid of power steering, too. Tesla makes sure that people keep their hands on the wheel at least every so often... decrease that to zero.
Most phones can detect when they are travelling over 5 mph. Mandate that they stop working at 10 mph.
vwcx t1_ixzwqtf wrote
That's the thinking with some of the new pedestrian street architecture, especially narrowing. It makes the corridor a bit more challenging to drive, the idea being that drivers won't feel they can look down to scroll.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy03ykk wrote
I rented a Chrysler last month that basically forced the driver to interact with the touch screen while driving. Can't remember what it was, but I was shocked.
Edit: I remember now.. the seat coolers are buried in a menus and default on.
MrPterodactyl t1_iy05nmp wrote
Yes, we need to also mandate that certain functions be physical buttons on cars. Touch screen menus are ultra distracting.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2rnki wrote
100% on board for this! I specifically choose my car because the important buttons are manual: the volume, AC temp and fan speed. The other model had them buried under menus which was confusing and took me too long to stare at to figure out while behind the wheel
FirmLibrary4893 t1_iy0cbtc wrote
> Mandate that they stop working at 10 mph.
uhhh kinda need my gps to know where I'm going
Abitconfusde t1_iy1jzke wrote
Do you use your talk and text to know where you are going? GPS is probably the least distracting thing about the phone. There are a lot of other services that could be shut down selectively.
FirmLibrary4893 t1_iy3ohlz wrote
sure, you didn't say that, though
Abitconfusde t1_iy4erlr wrote
No, I assumed -- incorrectly, I guess -- that anyone reading that comment would know that GPS is an important function that other people wouldn't be dumb enough to propose shutting that off.
FirmLibrary4893 t1_iy5hl6v wrote
people are very stupid on the internet often
CrownStarr t1_iy3ovv3 wrote
> Most phones can detect when they are travelling over 5 mph. Mandate that they stop working at 10 mph.
Sounds great until you’re in the passenger seat. Or on a bus. I do think phone use by drivers is insane and we’ve gotta curb it somehow, but unfortunately it’s not so simple as just detecting speed.
Abitconfusde t1_iy4ezml wrote
I mean... ok. I don't really have a problem with turning off talk and text while someone is in a moving vehicle, regardless of if it is a driver or a passenger.
app_priori t1_ixzssuk wrote
As an occasional driver, I never understand why people want to use their phones while driving. Perhaps it's because I tend to be a very conservative driver and tend not to overrate my own skill when driving distracted.
WontStopAtSigns t1_iy057e3 wrote
Europe seems to prefer it for some reason...
Unfortunately, well tuned automatic transmissions account for a good deal of fuel efficiency. Yes old manuals are more efficient, but a new 8 speed auto does a way better job.
woulditkillyoutolift OP t1_ixzs3nx wrote
This is the best suggestion yet.
monkeyjugglingair t1_iy0wzha wrote
It’s getting a little strange how many exceptionally American problems that are being pointed out. I like the mirror. I don’t like the lack of participation in correction. Thank you for sharing this!
Do better, all! 🤘
eccentr1que t1_iy1ai4e wrote
It's only a problem because Americans refuse to invest in rail and bus in cities. I don't pity people who whine about high gas prices because such people have no forethought for times when prices are high and elect people who aren't interested in public transportation. Neither should you
Special_K_2012 t1_iy5y6qh wrote
Idt it's that Americans refuse to invest in it, I think it's a popular idea but the auto industry conspiring and lobbying against rail is what killed it.
SunnyFloridaAve t1_iy2o5xt wrote
Muriel Bowser DGAF
[deleted] t1_iy4ik2p wrote
[removed]
Uthallan t1_ixzlnfv wrote
reclaim the streets for pedestrians! let's get cars off the road! no EVs, no brodozers! let's have a pleasant city again!
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2rpcg wrote
Again? Cars have been around for a century. You remember DC back before WWI?
cptjeff t1_iy461vf wrote
Reclaim? Before cars, the streets were filled with horses, carts, and streetcars pulled by horses. Many of which were larger than vehicles today. There was absolutely never a time in the history of developed roads where they were only or even mostly for pedestrian use. I mean, we're talking back to the romans here. Rome was far louder than nearly any city today because of the traffic of horses and carts with iron rimmed wheels on cobblestones.
Oh, and the bicycle is about the same age as the car. Roads were never developed with them in mind, either. The width of a road lane was set by the width needed for a cart pulled by two horses side by side.
Working-Grapefruit42 t1_iy163kb wrote
Has anyone thought of how many pedestrians and cyclist actually are at fault for some of these accidents ?
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_iy2rrth wrote
No because that would ruin the cyclist reputation and ability to get blind with rage at motorists.
But this is an issue. I’ve seen cyclist blow thru red lights and force everyone to stop while they blast thru intersections faster than any car
Suburbs-suck t1_ixzhlgx wrote
Ban cars
suffertunity t1_ixzcbw6 wrote
non-paywalled
It's crazy that deaths are rising given how many safety features have been added in the last decade or two (traction control, rear cameras, automatic braking). I think there's two factors at play that have a synergistic effect: 1) bigger vehicles with no additional taxes or discouragement for vehicles that are less safe for other drivers or pedestrians 2) Increasing number of assholes. And they boost each other because the vehicles represented by (1) appeal most to the people who represent (2).