Or the road design doesn't facilitate compliance with the speed limit. This is how policy and guidance on road infrastructure talks about these issues.
teuniac_
joined 2 years ago
Not so great for people walking or cycling though. Higher speeds mean more serious and fatal collisions.
Where these modes of transport mix, 20mph is becoming the default choice in western European countries, there is a global declaration on this. If roads feel like they're made for higher streets: that's bad infrastructure design.
https://www.fiafoundation.org/news/stockholm-declaration-focuses-on-reducing-urban-speed
But that’s okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. There’s absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.
Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than we’d like..
Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.
In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.
Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that's taken by the driver.
It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.
To add to this
safety
A broader definition of safety includes health risks from a sedentary lifestyle, which would include a large proportion of people. Cycling reduces these risks, while driving makes them worse. Cycling still increases your life expectancy, so safety shouldn't be a reason not to cycle.
Of course, perceived safety is important too as this is preventing people from taking up cycling. But that's a different conversation.
Your proposal sounds a lot like a car, but then slower and self-driving.
The clever dripper is pretty nice pour over cone with a shut off valve.
When I'm making just one cup of coffee I use an aero press, for 2+ cups I use the clever dripper.
Still, people find it difficult to navigate this. Its use cases are limited, but it doesn't enforce that limit by itself. The user needs to be knowledgeable of the limitations and care enough not to go beyond them. That's also where the problem lies. Leaving stuff to AI, even if it compromises the results, can save SO much time that it encourages irresponsible use.
So to help remind people of the limitations of generative AI, it makes sense to fight the tendency of companies to overstate the ability of their models.
As for EV usage, only 80-90% of particulate matter pollution comes from the exhaust of cars. So EVs don't solve the issue. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate-emissions-from-road-transport_4a4dc6ca-en.html
Lower speeds reduce road danger
Are extra casualties and reduced freedom for people who aren't driving worth the few minutes saved for a minority of people?
view more: next ›
Other road users don't have anything to do with it though, including those who aren't even driving