Most active commenters
  • IshKebab(4)

←back to thread

1163 points DaveZale | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
PaulRobinson ◴[] No.44771331[source]
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 had been put out to safely shepherd pedestrians around it. I was very much "yeah, they're probably only here for a quick job, probably didn't have time for that", because I'm a Londoner and, well, that's what we do in London.

My colleague is like "No, that's not acceptable", and he literally pulls out his phone and calls the police. As we carry on on our way, a police car comes up the road and pulls over to have a word with the contractors.

They take the basics safely over there in a way I've not seen anywhere else. When you do that, you get the benefits.

replies(17): >>44771465 #>>44771583 #>>44772900 #>>44774007 #>>44774211 #>>44774583 #>>44774760 #>>44774868 #>>44774957 #>>44776742 #>>44777216 #>>44777444 #>>44777641 #>>44777855 #>>44777898 #>>44778836 #>>44798382 #
graemep ◴[] No.44771583[source]
On the other hand the UK as a whole had a lower road traffic realted death rate than Finland did: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... The UK is not that different by comparison.

It is a pretty remarkable achievement though, and shows what can be done.

replies(5): >>44771928 #>>44772070 #>>44773530 #>>44774882 #>>44774965 #
sophia01 ◴[] No.44772070[source]
> The UK is not that different by comparison.

Do note that the UK is 15.6x as dense as Finland, and the climate is quite different: e.g. in Helsinki (southermost city) mean daily temperature is below freezing point 4/12 months of the year (very consequential for driving). E.g. in Scotland even the mean daily minimum does not cross freezing point in any month.

OECD data has Finland at 0.36 fatalities per 10k vehicles vs 0.41 in the UK.

https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safety-dashboard

replies(2): >>44773300 #>>44775060 #
throwaway9832[dead post] ◴[] No.44773300{3}[source]
[flagged]
squidgyhead ◴[] No.44773463{4}[source]
Speed enforcement has been extensively studied, and there are a lot of publicly available articles on the subject. The results are basically universally in favour of speed enforcement reducing motor vehicle collisions, reducing injury and cost.
replies(3): >>44774394 #>>44774994 #>>44775187 #
1. IshKebab ◴[] No.44775187{5}[source]
> 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.

Clearly there are other factors at play, but the 20mph people never acknowledge that for some reason...

(To be clear I'm not advocating for 30mph everywhere. I feel like 25mph is actually the best trade-off for most suburban roads.)

replies(6): >>44775490 #>>44775544 #>>44775572 #>>44775874 #>>44776023 #>>44776050 #
2. rtpg ◴[] No.44775490[source]
I think we do in practice apply 0mph (i.e. banning cars) in some major cities, turning roads into pedestrian areas! 0mph happens!

It's obviously a trade between various participants, who have their own interests. 30km/h limits have had good success. If people think the number of fatalities is a problem, there's a solution waiting for you.

3. graemep ◴[] No.44775544[source]
My problem with the 20mph speed limits in the UK is that they seem to be imposed fairly randomly.

There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. In one egregious case I experienced recently near identical stretches of the same road (it was a main road, I think an A road, passing through a built up area) switched between 20 and 30 mph limits. If anything it created a significant distraction keeping track of the limits.

There are a number of other roads like that have 20mph limits. On the other hand narrower side roads in the same areas has 30mph limits.

My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway. Further down the road is broader and clearer. I think the reason maybe to encourage people to use the bypass instead of driving through the village so it may be reasoned- although I suspect the speed bumps are more effective at doing that.

replies(1): >>44776046 #
4. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.44775572[source]
20-to-30 causes a step change in pedestrian outcomes, so no, the logical conclusion isn't 0mph. Also the average speed on 30mph roads before the changeover was around 20mph.

It improves traffic flow and reduces pollution too.

My only objection is that it's been applied in a somewhat blind way. Long sections of road with no houses and no reported accidents should probably be 30, or even 40mph.

replies(2): >>44776024 #>>44782976 #
5. lonelyasacloud ◴[] No.44775874[source]
It is very hard to think clearly about driving too fast given both how much fun it is and the monumental amounts of money that the car industry has pumped over decades into promoting their empty road, drive fast without consequences propaganda within our societies.

However, as with tobacco, the evidence cannot be papered over forever and there are many studies that indicate they are a bad idea (tm) in urban environments. And in particular with respect to the setting of speed limits that they should be lower than many of us have been influenced to think because the rate of injury and death increases disproportionately with speed.

For instance https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi... states that a "1% increase in mean speed produces a 4% increase in the fatal crash risk and a 3% increase in the serious crash risk". And that for pedestrians "The risk of death for pedestrians hit by car fronts rises rapidly (4.5 times from 50 km/h to: 65 km/h.".

So yes, slower is safer - not in some reductio ad absurdum sense that implies '0mph', but in a public health sense where a fair and practical compromise should be sought.

To my mind, 15 - 20mph in urban areas is that compromise.

It allows practical vehicle use, while also respecting the rights of other road users - especially pedestrians and cyclists - to exist and move about without significantly elevated risk.

The idea that some people should be granted the ability to move through shared space at speeds that make them dangerous beyond anyone else simply because they're encased in a car is not just unfair - it creates noisy, dangerous, and ultimately unliveable environments.

replies(1): >>44776013 #
6. IshKebab ◴[] No.44776013[source]
> So yes, slower is safer - not in some reductio ad absurdum sense that implies '0mph', but in a public health sense where a fair and practical compromise should be sought.

> To my mind, 15 - 20mph in urban areas is that compromise.

This is precisely my point. None of the "slower is safer" people even acknowledge that it is a compromise. Their entire argument is "slower is safer" which does lead to 0mph.

It's impossible to have a proper debate if some people are saying "I know slower is safer but I don't want to go at 20mph everywhere" and others are saying "but... it's safer!"

7. Mawr ◴[] No.44776023[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>44776633 #
8. IshKebab ◴[] No.44776024[source]
> the logical conclusion isn't 0mph

Yes it is. If the only thing you consider is safety then 0mph is the safest. That's unarguable.

The point is that you can't only consider safety. There are other factors, but they are often deliberately ignored.

replies(1): >>44783310 #
9. Mawr ◴[] No.44776046[source]
> There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits.

> My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway.

Make up your mind ;)

replies(1): >>44782939 #
10. gmac ◴[] No.44776050[source]
Speed, of course, affects not just how many accidents there are but also how bad they are. A key argument for 20mph is that collisions with pedestrians at this speed are mostly survivable. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtl...
replies(1): >>44779303 #
11. lukan ◴[] No.44776633[source]
Can you explain what you mean?

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.

12. IshKebab ◴[] No.44779303[source]
> mostly survivable

Collisions at 15mph would be even more survivable though.

13. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.44782939{3}[source]
There are many cases, and the bit where they live is not one, but a nearby bit is one.

If you're making a joke I don't get it. Can you explain it?

14. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.44782976[source]
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00014575193010...

I don't really see a step change between 32kph and 48kph.

15. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.44783310{3}[source]
Well also we need to kill everyone so noone can die, the only logical conclusion.

If that's your best argument _against_ saving lives through road traffic controls then at least we know it's not wrong...

I hope your computer is completely unsecured, because if you cared about security you wouldn't even use the web.