Some cars do have maintenance reminder lights that come on with mileage. Those are distinct from the "check engine" light. No cars have that programmed on miles, but rather based on sensor data indicating a possible problem.
My car's check engine light is tied to milage. When "oil life" drops below 5% the engine light comes on until i acknowledge it. After 0% the light will not go off. (Honda civic.) It is the same light as for sensor problems.
Does it turn on the OBD Malfunction Indicator Light (the MIL or yellow "check engine" light) or another service indicator? My wife's Honda tall Civic (CR-V) has a "service required" light, which is different from the check engine light. This can be reset by the owner, following the process in the owner's manual (presumably after doing the oil change and other service items).
My wife's car can also get a genuine malfunction from a too low oil level, which does light the MIL. This cannot be durably reset by user action (other than remedying the underlying condition).
The author is conflating the "fun of driving" with the necessity of driving 20km every morning and evening to get to work.
Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now caught in a car-centered society where they have no choice but to drive to go anywhere.
Even those who enjoy driving should not be allowed to have too much fun and take risks on public roads. If you want to have fun driving, get your car of choice and go to a car circuit. Do not endanger others driving recklessly on scenic roads. It's just irresponsible.
Here here. Even if you can manage to live such that you are not forced to drive in order to get where you need to go, you are still forced to share almost all of the space on your way with cars. And the reckless/inconsiderate drivers pose more than just an inconvenience, it's a real life-or-death threat that one is forced to live with.
The vast majority of accidents are not linked to joyriding. It is alcohol, and to a lesser extent other drugs. Lethal accidents are the norm at 3am, not rush hour. And we have to be careful about causation statistics. A drunk will be speeding, but the accident is the result of the drunkenness rather than speed as there was no rational choice to speed. Nor was it reckless driving. Stop letting people get behind the wheel after drinking. Solve that problem. All the other sources of accidents are secondary at the moment.
And use seatbelts. I am constantly shocked by how many americans still refuse to do so. Seatbelt use in back seats was still not manditory when i lived in new england.
"Depending on which state a driver is in, not wearing a seat belt in the front seat is either a primary offense or a secondary offense, with the exception of New Hampshire, which does not have a law requiring people over age 18 to wear a seat belt. In the front seat, the driver and each passenger must wear a seat belt, one person per belt. In some states, such as New York, New Hampshire, and Michigan, belts in the rear seats are not mandatory for people over the age of 16."
I can't stop everyone else from driving drunk but I sure can exhibit self control and not speed or drive dangerously as to endanger others just because I want to have some fun.
Just because you're not a drunk doesn't mean your actions are justifiable.
Does "for fun" include trips taken for leasure activities? If i am driving to the waterpark, and cause an accident, was i not driving for fun, for no other purpose than my own pleasure? If we crack dowm on driving "for fun" we should really look into all forms of unnecesary driving. Or shall we admit that many trips are unnecessary and adress the accidents rather than the motivation for why the person took to the road in the first place?
My interpretation of "driving for fun" is doing entertaining maneuvers, usually putting myself or others at risk when on public roads. Not driving to get somewhere fun.
I think you need to distinguish accidents in cities, which are very frequent, but lethal "only" to cyclists and pedestrians, and accidents that kill drivers. The latter happen at high speeds and drugs are often involved, but the former happens all the time simply because people are in a hurry or inattentive.
Bicycles and cars is a very specific probelem. Speed is almost irrelevant given the different masses involved. The only complete answer is not to play, to separate the vehicles. Separate road/paths for bikes, protected by actual barriers. And conversely, no bikes on the car paths. This has largely worked already for pedestrian safety (no driving on sidewalks, no people walking on road etc).
Which is incidentally almost exactly what cyclists demand. Unfortunately this means taking away space from cars, which is met with vehement opposition.
It's the case in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent in Denmark.
I've not heard people complaining that they have to use the bike lane, though I'm sure there are some roads where a fast (maybe recreational) cyclist feels the bike lane isn't good enough.
Tell bikes they cannot ride through crosswalks, that they must walk as a pedestrian would. That is very common but universally ignored. Heck, tell bikes they have to obey stop signs, also universal but ignored. Bikes hate limitations exactly as much as any other vehicle.
> Speed is almost irrelevant given the different masses involved.
A healthy 30-year-old pedestrian has a 97% chance of surviving a collision with a car traveling 20mph. At 45 mph that same 30-year-old's chances of survival are worse than 50/50.
> Stop letting people get behind the wheel after drinking. Solve that problem.
The solution to this problem seems quite trivial to me: to equip all cars with alcohol (and, perhaps, some drug) sensors [not breathalyzers, but rather some more sophisticated remote-sensing devices], strategically located throughout interior to prevent cheating / gaming the system, and integrate them with ignition and engine. As long as the system determines that a driver is drunk or under influence of drugs, it prevents the car from starting or (in case someone starting drinking or using drugs after stopping a car, but leaving it idling) moving.
Well ... Firstly, human lives are much more important than a preference to use an alcohol-based mouthwash (considering that non-alcohol alternatives exist). Secondly, it very well might be possible to design and/or calibrate sensors to distinguish between both cases based on chemical components or relevant concentration ratios that are specific to mouthwash formula.
Trivial, eh? I would argue that the solution is not some imaginary set of sensors that could somehow flawlessly detect every class of psychoactive drugs that could somehow impair a person, including but not limited to: xanax, PCP, ketamine, cocaine, alcohol, GHB, LSD, mushrooms, marijuana, 2C-I, MDMA, MDA, meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc. Not to mention a myriad more prescription drugs, including sleep medication and antipsychotics which are perfectly legal to drive on, but can also be equally impairing.
... But actually to continue the work that we're already doing to implement self-driving cars. I mean, it's not just drugs, it's also tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes. We can make cars safer by removing human drivers and replacing them with extensively tested machines. It will take a bit more time, but we'll get there.
I didn't say trivial implementation, but rather a trivial solution (i.e., a general approach). Regarding the issue that, in addition to alcohol, there exist a large number of drugs potentially diminishing one's ability to drive: it could be approached using Pareto principle. Either focus just on alcohol (which most likely is responsible for 80% of road accidents) and ignore the other 20% (distractions, lack of attention, drugs, etc.), or apply Pareto principle again, now to the drugs class, and identify most frequently used ones and/or most potentially impairing ones and design relevant sensors to cover the 20% that causes 80% of issues.
While I certainly recognize potential benefits of autonomous driving (and automation, in general), relevant global or nationwide deployments are still a very long way to go; it's not "a bit more time", but most likely decades. Imagine how many lives could be saved with simpler sensor-based solutions (which, by the way, could very much help with the problems of "tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes") in the meantime ...
I think it's very realistic to have driver-assist solution that can provide advanced collision warnings, collision assistance and watch the driver's face to see if they are paying attention.
With respect to self-driving, search YouTube for FSD beta. You can see what Tesla has been up to. It's not perfect but it keeps getting better. It's not going to take several decades.
The sensor-based driver assist solutions is what I meant as a secondary aid in my comment above. However, these solutions are reactive and quite partial as opposed to strong preventative measures like alcohol detection-based car immobilization solutions. Some would say that it is a radical measure, but so is electronic speed limiter/governor in all modern cars.
I'm well aware of the progress in autonomous driving space (including Tesla's - though, I would argue that Tesla is not the leader in this space; I think that it's Waymo). However, more generally, my point was not about limited fleet use cases, but rather global-scale deployments and massive adoption. That, I believe, is certainly not going to happen soon.
People drive drunk because they drink to socialize, and access to other humans is almost always mediated by roads. This is not going to get solved separately from car dependence.
Further, drunk driving used to be much more accepted. In the "old days", cops would often let people go if they were drunk, but seemed OK at driving.
Now there is absolutely zero tolerance for drunk driving, which also means that if there is an accident/death, and even the hint of alcohol, it is now labelled as 'drunk driving'. This is partially to reinforce the (needed) narrative, but also because cops hate to see this sort of thing, and therefore, it increases the penalties when someone dies.
This inflates the statistics, yet the rate is, as seen, extensively reduced.
Beyond spot checks, you now have a very low tolerance for any alcohol in the blood. Down to 0.05 where penalties start, meaning that even a full grown man worries about drinking a beer (recall, we have stronger alcohol content in beer in Canada) and driving.
These sorts of things, and more, can dramatically change the landscape... regardless of human nature.
I agree however, that there will always be outliers. Those that do not comply. However, you're trying to link "Driving cars", with "See all the ills they cause!", which I deem to be highly unfair and non-logical.
You could point to any other thing, knives, guns, chainsaws, ladders, and explain how due to human nature, these things will sometimes be used for ill. While this is true, it is a nasty trick, in order to get ones personal peeve resolved.
This article was about advertising and selling the "fun of driving" in a era that was much different than today. Your complaints have nothing to do with what the author offered:
"Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now..."
"Even those who enjoy driving should not be allowed to have too much fun and take risks on public roads"
You've conflated the author's story into something entirely different in order to complain about something that has nothing at all to to with what the author was sharing.
You know, if you look for something to complain about everywhere you look you will always find something to complain about. That is one of the easiest things ever to do.
I think you should re-read that article with the intent to learn and feel and experience what they're sharing because it's not about you, and you completely missed what it is about.
I entirely understand that the article was exposing a different era, thank you. Even in this era, I would argue that selling the "fun of driving" was irresponsible, because it brought us the car infrastructure that we live in today. Who else should I complain to?
I _love_ cars. I also _love_ bicycles. I'm not saying I'm normal but perhaps I can provide some perspective. Even before I went fully remote 2 years ago I took a combination of bicycle and train to work here in Seattle where public transportation is okay at best. Before that I biked 10 miles one way to an office in Missouri after selling my car.
I don't depend on cars for my lifestyle so if I do have a car I want it to be one I enjoy taking to the store or driving to the mountains or whatever. They are cool machines and driving can be fun.
I don't think it's fair to equate the "fun of driving" with reckless driving.
The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door sedan or big SUV on a curvey mountain road is not all about how fast you can go. They're just a lot more fun.
One of my favorite cars was a little Suzuki Samurai. It wasn't at all fast but it was a blast to drive with the top down and go 4wheeling on the National Forest roads.
Consider "lowriders". Those aren't famous for being fast, they're famous for going slow, but they're a lot of fun to cruise the strip in.
I think people fumbling with their phone while driving is a bigger issue right now than people speeding and racing.
The person you're replying to isn't talking about bad drivers, they're talking about bad infrastructure that was designed to comply with the "fun of driving" marketing narrative: unnecessarily wide roads, parking everywhere, speed limits higher than what is safe, deceptive landscaping and painting to make drivers comfortable at unsafe speeds, nonenforcement of speed limits and red lights, highly segmented zoning to artificially give people a reason to use cars that would otherwise be unnecessary, etc etc etc.
That "bad infrastructure" bit was in their response to my first comment, which I did not address at all on in my second comment.
Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay.
I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want!
All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up.
I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on.
But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Trees are cut down and signs widely spaced so that drivers can go fast while feeling like they are going slow.
And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1]
As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present.
Traditional traffic engineers argue a wider lane is safer. Although every engineering standard publication (FHWA 2011; TAC 1999) identifies pavement width as the most influential safety feature, discussion is surprisingly scarce (Hauer, 1999)
The article itself asserts that "traffic engineers" believe this to be safer, that "every engineering standard publication" agrees.
Whilst the article may, or may not provide a conflicting view (I haven't the time to read it right now), it 100%, completely and totally agrees that roads are built this way to promote safety. It agrees, stating that this is why engineers are building roads this way.
The very best you can argue is that "this is wrong", but you cannot argue "the purpose is not safety", for this is why engineers are doing it!
You are literally misrepresenting things. Please stop.
You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract without apparently reading any of the rest, or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence.
Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true.
Engineering standards aren't scientific papers, they are practical and instructional, and the hunches of their authors is sufficient for standardization, necessary even, because you can't do science on the efficacy of standards that you haven't written yet. Some early road engineers guessed that wider streets were safer, and it has been taken as gospel truth ever since.
You are literally misrepresenting things, by quoting the first sentence of the abstract
Wrong. As I said, it is at the start of the paper. It is not the first sentence. Your statement is inaccurate.
without apparently reading any of the rest
Wrong. I did read some of the rest, and in fact indicated precisely where I stopped.
or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence.
One might argue that to internalize, is to be human. That there is always bias. However, this is hardly the case here, for what is instead happening, is that you are ignoring cause and effect.
Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true.
The above is irrelevant. Let me explain again. You assert this:
Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety.
Yet, how do roads get widened? Well, a process exists, and part of that process is to follow standards, and to have engineers enact those standards at the behest of, for example, governments.
The process is simple. Clear. Logical. And both your cited paper, and everything else I've read indicates this happens:
- engineers looks at standards, are trained on standards
- standards say 'wider is safer', engineers believe this standard.
- money is spent, roads are built wider, with the intention of improving safety
Yet by stating "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you claim the act of widening was predicated upon some other motive.
Yet, this is not so. Even your paper agrees it is not so.
You are confusing 'cause' and 'effect'.
As I said in my prior post, all you can argue at this point is that this is wrong. You cannot argue that people are building roads wider for comfort, for this is not their intent.
Again, when you say "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you are indicating intent. Yet the intent is clearly NOT this. You are providing no context for anything else.
I am going to be very honest here, and I will ask that you do not take this the wrong way, for you are not alone in this.
By stating "Why this is happening" as "What people intended", and by stating "What the effect is" as "Why a thing was done", you are going to immediately lose your audience, and lose any chance of getting your real point across.
I know what you meant. The problem is, that even now, you have not actually said it.
What you meant to say was:
"All those governments may be paying exorbitant outlays from their budgets to widen roads, and all those engineers may be insisting on wider roads for safety, but they are wrong. Instead, there is a lack of data for this, and this assertion is predicated upon a falsehood."
I am fairly sure the above is somewhat what you mean. But again, by stating it as you did? It immediately seems like you think everything is some sort of conspiracy, which engineers, municipalities, governments are in on. Purposefully, intentionally, trying to make roads less safe.
> Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now caught in a car-centered society where they have no choice but to drive to go anywhere.
I used to think that way. But the past year has shown me that private car ownership has massive upsides. Public transit is wonderful in many ways, and I have used it as much as possible for a long time, but during the pandemic it has been very nice to have my own car. I would never be willing to go without one.
Apparently a lot of other people feel the same way, because used car prices have been unusually high this past year.
At the moment I would rather have a car commute than a bus or train commute, and that won't change until the pandemic is over.
Don't tell me to ride a bike to work -- this isn't the 1800s. We are accustomed to living miles away from work, and modern public transit was built with that assumption -- if we all lived within a mile of work we would just walk. Cities are not spread out merely because of cars. Cities are spread out because people want space, and all modern transit infrastructure, including streetcars 100 years ago, was built to accommodate the fact that people were already living miles away from work.
Clearly written by someone who hasn't ridden a bike since childhood.
Effective bike range isn't one mile, it's 2-10 miles. One mile isn't worth getting on the bike for. Since the majority of car trips taken by Americans are less than 7 miles[1] and have only one passenger, a bicycle is the optimal vehicle for the trip, especially since the advent of ebikes means that physical strain is no longer a consideration.
As for how people have responded to the pandemic, more have turned to bikes than cars. Car prices are always being hiked, that's the whole reason manufacturers are pushing SUVs: same chassis, same engine, higher price, free profit. Bikes, on the other hand, are in such high demand that new ones are hard to find at all. I ordered a new bike in July, it is not expected to arrive until January because the waiting list is that long.
> Clearly written by someone who hasn't ridden a bike since childhood.
Try again. I know when the last time I rode a bike was. You don't. Hint: it was quite recent.
Condescension reeks throughout your entire post. You are wrong about who I am, you are wrong about my bicycling habits, and you are also wrong about how realistic it is for me to ride my bike to work. Yet you think you are in a position to dictate to me what I ought to be doing.
This is typical of bicycle-commuting advocates and it is the reason you are a fringe minority.
> As for how people have responded to the pandemic, more have turned to bikes than cars. Car prices are always being hiked, that's the whole reason manufacturers are pushing SUVs: same chassis, same engine, higher price, free profit.
Explain how this applies to used cars which is what I mentioned in my post. Of course you won't, because you have already put on your ideological blinkers and ranted about manufacturers pushing new SUVs, which I never mentioned. Instead, please explain why used cars are up in price compared to a year ago.
Please don't respond to someone breaking the site guidelines by breaking them yourself, despite how provocative it may be. Doing this just guarantees a slide into a deeper circle of hell.
When I was daily driving an old Mercedes SLK roadster, every trip - no matter how long or short, in traffic or not - was fun. I owned that car for 6 years and for the whole time of ownership it always made me smile just thinking about going somewhere (well, expect for times when it was broken but it wasn't often). Unfortunately I had to sell it because it started to fall apart and I bought a brand new car that's practical, safe, reliable, but simply boring and now driving became a chore. I'm planning to buy a fun car once again as a second one and use it whenever I can because I miss the joy of driving sooooo much.
The author was born in 1935 and is writing about the car culture of the 1950s and 1960s. That was killed off by the oil crisis. This should be treated as a dispatch from the surprisingly distant past, not a commentary on the present day.
What we might consider is that the freedom was both genuine and unsustainable, and showed a general problem for humans: there's such a thing as too many other people exercising too much freedom getting in the way of you exercising your own freedom. Something to contemplate as you sit in traffic.
(There's a whole interesting discussion we could also have based on the sentences "Advertising didn’t have to be a near-criminal conspiracy. It could be tasteful, honest, and useful.")
Private cars has in many cases been a disaster for most cities. I got so fed up driving 20 km an hour for 20 years to pick up four kids in kindergarten, that I eventually sold the car smd started bicycling. I still get stressed out just by sitting in some of those cars. Autonomous cars is at best a distraction. Cars makes cities spread out across too larhe areas.
I think future generations will learn from history books about how the auto industry managed to elevate a transportation tool to a desirable status symbol, self-identity proxy, or even a cult for many. I think it's really impressive.
What's even more intriguing is that these days, when we know about climate change and pollution, people still don't see cars as tools. When you look at it from the outside, buying 1.5 tons of rusting steel just to transport your ass (that's 2 tons in the US, I guess because of heavier asses?) from point A to point B should not be tied to your perception of self-worth and your social status. And yet.
A related thought: I think placing the exhaust in the back and down at the bottom was a master stroke. The driver doesn't see or smell the pollution. I think a very effective measure to make people realize the pollution issues would be to require that the exhaust be placed in front, pointing upwards, and require adding a non-toxic colorant so that you can see the fumes.
61 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadMy wife's car can also get a genuine malfunction from a too low oil level, which does light the MIL. This cannot be durably reset by user action (other than remedying the underlying condition).
Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now caught in a car-centered society where they have no choice but to drive to go anywhere.
Even those who enjoy driving should not be allowed to have too much fun and take risks on public roads. If you want to have fun driving, get your car of choice and go to a car circuit. Do not endanger others driving recklessly on scenic roads. It's just irresponsible.
And use seatbelts. I am constantly shocked by how many americans still refuse to do so. Seatbelt use in back seats was still not manditory when i lived in new england.
"Depending on which state a driver is in, not wearing a seat belt in the front seat is either a primary offense or a secondary offense, with the exception of New Hampshire, which does not have a law requiring people over age 18 to wear a seat belt. In the front seat, the driver and each passenger must wear a seat belt, one person per belt. In some states, such as New York, New Hampshire, and Michigan, belts in the rear seats are not mandatory for people over the age of 16."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation
Just because you're not a drunk doesn't mean your actions are justifiable.
* I really like driving.
You can also go anywhere recklessly, or what reckless people call "having some fun".
Does that clear up your misunderstanding?
I've not heard people complaining that they have to use the bike lane, though I'm sure there are some roads where a fast (maybe recreational) cyclist feels the bike lane isn't good enough.
A healthy 30-year-old pedestrian has a 97% chance of surviving a collision with a car traveling 20mph. At 45 mph that same 30-year-old's chances of survival are worse than 50/50.
https://gizmodo.com/how-likely-you-are-to-get-killed-by-a-ca...
The solution to this problem seems quite trivial to me: to equip all cars with alcohol (and, perhaps, some drug) sensors [not breathalyzers, but rather some more sophisticated remote-sensing devices], strategically located throughout interior to prevent cheating / gaming the system, and integrate them with ignition and engine. As long as the system determines that a driver is drunk or under influence of drugs, it prevents the car from starting or (in case someone starting drinking or using drugs after stopping a car, but leaving it idling) moving.
... But actually to continue the work that we're already doing to implement self-driving cars. I mean, it's not just drugs, it's also tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes. We can make cars safer by removing human drivers and replacing them with extensively tested machines. It will take a bit more time, but we'll get there.
While I certainly recognize potential benefits of autonomous driving (and automation, in general), relevant global or nationwide deployments are still a very long way to go; it's not "a bit more time", but most likely decades. Imagine how many lives could be saved with simpler sensor-based solutions (which, by the way, could very much help with the problems of "tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes") in the meantime ...
With respect to self-driving, search YouTube for FSD beta. You can see what Tesla has been up to. It's not perfect but it keeps getting better. It's not going to take several decades.
I'm well aware of the progress in autonomous driving space (including Tesla's - though, I would argue that Tesla is not the leader in this space; I think that it's Waymo). However, more generally, my point was not about limited fleet use cases, but rather global-scale deployments and massive adoption. That, I believe, is certainly not going to happen soon.
In fairness, the state motto is 'Live free or die.'
Ergo, at least some of this can indeed be solved.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article...
That's a drop to 1/3, in 30 years.
Further, drunk driving used to be much more accepted. In the "old days", cops would often let people go if they were drunk, but seemed OK at driving.
Now there is absolutely zero tolerance for drunk driving, which also means that if there is an accident/death, and even the hint of alcohol, it is now labelled as 'drunk driving'. This is partially to reinforce the (needed) narrative, but also because cops hate to see this sort of thing, and therefore, it increases the penalties when someone dies.
This inflates the statistics, yet the rate is, as seen, extensively reduced.
Beyond spot checks, you now have a very low tolerance for any alcohol in the blood. Down to 0.05 where penalties start, meaning that even a full grown man worries about drinking a beer (recall, we have stronger alcohol content in beer in Canada) and driving.
These sorts of things, and more, can dramatically change the landscape... regardless of human nature.
I agree however, that there will always be outliers. Those that do not comply. However, you're trying to link "Driving cars", with "See all the ills they cause!", which I deem to be highly unfair and non-logical.
You could point to any other thing, knives, guns, chainsaws, ladders, and explain how due to human nature, these things will sometimes be used for ill. While this is true, it is a nasty trick, in order to get ones personal peeve resolved.
"Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now..."
"Even those who enjoy driving should not be allowed to have too much fun and take risks on public roads"
You've conflated the author's story into something entirely different in order to complain about something that has nothing at all to to with what the author was sharing.
You know, if you look for something to complain about everywhere you look you will always find something to complain about. That is one of the easiest things ever to do.
I think you should re-read that article with the intent to learn and feel and experience what they're sharing because it's not about you, and you completely missed what it is about.
I don't depend on cars for my lifestyle so if I do have a car I want it to be one I enjoy taking to the store or driving to the mountains or whatever. They are cool machines and driving can be fun.
The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door sedan or big SUV on a curvey mountain road is not all about how fast you can go. They're just a lot more fun.
One of my favorite cars was a little Suzuki Samurai. It wasn't at all fast but it was a blast to drive with the top down and go 4wheeling on the National Forest roads.
Consider "lowriders". Those aren't famous for being fast, they're famous for going slow, but they're a lot of fun to cruise the strip in.
I think people fumbling with their phone while driving is a bigger issue right now than people speeding and racing.
Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay.
I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want!
All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up.
I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on.
But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1]
As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present.
1. https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Stree...
Right from the start of the paper:
Traditional traffic engineers argue a wider lane is safer. Although every engineering standard publication (FHWA 2011; TAC 1999) identifies pavement width as the most influential safety feature, discussion is surprisingly scarce (Hauer, 1999)
The article itself asserts that "traffic engineers" believe this to be safer, that "every engineering standard publication" agrees.
Whilst the article may, or may not provide a conflicting view (I haven't the time to read it right now), it 100%, completely and totally agrees that roads are built this way to promote safety. It agrees, stating that this is why engineers are building roads this way.
The very best you can argue is that "this is wrong", but you cannot argue "the purpose is not safety", for this is why engineers are doing it!
You are literally misrepresenting things. Please stop.
Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true.
Engineering standards aren't scientific papers, they are practical and instructional, and the hunches of their authors is sufficient for standardization, necessary even, because you can't do science on the efficacy of standards that you haven't written yet. Some early road engineers guessed that wider streets were safer, and it has been taken as gospel truth ever since.
Wrong. As I said, it is at the start of the paper. It is not the first sentence. Your statement is inaccurate.
without apparently reading any of the rest
Wrong. I did read some of the rest, and in fact indicated precisely where I stopped.
or even internalizing the meaning of that sentence.
One might argue that to internalize, is to be human. That there is always bias. However, this is hardly the case here, for what is instead happening, is that you are ignoring cause and effect.
Yes, every engineering standard identifies pavement width as a safety feature, but none of them provide evidence to back this up. The few actual investigations of actual crash statistics show the opposite to be true.
The above is irrelevant. Let me explain again. You assert this:
Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety.
Yet, how do roads get widened? Well, a process exists, and part of that process is to follow standards, and to have engineers enact those standards at the behest of, for example, governments.
The process is simple. Clear. Logical. And both your cited paper, and everything else I've read indicates this happens:
- engineers looks at standards, are trained on standards
- standards say 'wider is safer', engineers believe this standard.
- money is spent, roads are built wider, with the intention of improving safety
Yet by stating "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you claim the act of widening was predicated upon some other motive.
Yet, this is not so. Even your paper agrees it is not so.
You are confusing 'cause' and 'effect'.
As I said in my prior post, all you can argue at this point is that this is wrong. You cannot argue that people are building roads wider for comfort, for this is not their intent.
Again, when you say "Roads are widened ... for comfort", you are indicating intent. Yet the intent is clearly NOT this. You are providing no context for anything else.
I am going to be very honest here, and I will ask that you do not take this the wrong way, for you are not alone in this.
By stating "Why this is happening" as "What people intended", and by stating "What the effect is" as "Why a thing was done", you are going to immediately lose your audience, and lose any chance of getting your real point across.
I know what you meant. The problem is, that even now, you have not actually said it.
What you meant to say was:
"All those governments may be paying exorbitant outlays from their budgets to widen roads, and all those engineers may be insisting on wider roads for safety, but they are wrong. Instead, there is a lack of data for this, and this assertion is predicated upon a falsehood."
I am fairly sure the above is somewhat what you mean. But again, by stating it as you did? It immediately seems like you think everything is some sort of conspiracy, which engineers, municipalities, governments are in on. Purposefully, intentionally, trying to make roads less safe.
And that concept is indeed absurd.
I used to think that way. But the past year has shown me that private car ownership has massive upsides. Public transit is wonderful in many ways, and I have used it as much as possible for a long time, but during the pandemic it has been very nice to have my own car. I would never be willing to go without one.
Apparently a lot of other people feel the same way, because used car prices have been unusually high this past year.
At the moment I would rather have a car commute than a bus or train commute, and that won't change until the pandemic is over.
Don't tell me to ride a bike to work -- this isn't the 1800s. We are accustomed to living miles away from work, and modern public transit was built with that assumption -- if we all lived within a mile of work we would just walk. Cities are not spread out merely because of cars. Cities are spread out because people want space, and all modern transit infrastructure, including streetcars 100 years ago, was built to accommodate the fact that people were already living miles away from work.
Effective bike range isn't one mile, it's 2-10 miles. One mile isn't worth getting on the bike for. Since the majority of car trips taken by Americans are less than 7 miles[1] and have only one passenger, a bicycle is the optimal vehicle for the trip, especially since the advent of ebikes means that physical strain is no longer a consideration.
As for how people have responded to the pandemic, more have turned to bikes than cars. Car prices are always being hiked, that's the whole reason manufacturers are pushing SUVs: same chassis, same engine, higher price, free profit. Bikes, on the other hand, are in such high demand that new ones are hard to find at all. I ordered a new bike in July, it is not expected to arrive until January because the waiting list is that long.
1. http://imgur.com/lCQTN9z
Try again. I know when the last time I rode a bike was. You don't. Hint: it was quite recent.
Condescension reeks throughout your entire post. You are wrong about who I am, you are wrong about my bicycling habits, and you are also wrong about how realistic it is for me to ride my bike to work. Yet you think you are in a position to dictate to me what I ought to be doing.
This is typical of bicycle-commuting advocates and it is the reason you are a fringe minority.
> As for how people have responded to the pandemic, more have turned to bikes than cars. Car prices are always being hiked, that's the whole reason manufacturers are pushing SUVs: same chassis, same engine, higher price, free profit.
Explain how this applies to used cars which is what I mentioned in my post. Of course you won't, because you have already put on your ideological blinkers and ranted about manufacturers pushing new SUVs, which I never mentioned. Instead, please explain why used cars are up in price compared to a year ago.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your comment would be fine without that opening swipe.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What we might consider is that the freedom was both genuine and unsustainable, and showed a general problem for humans: there's such a thing as too many other people exercising too much freedom getting in the way of you exercising your own freedom. Something to contemplate as you sit in traffic.
(There's a whole interesting discussion we could also have based on the sentences "Advertising didn’t have to be a near-criminal conspiracy. It could be tasteful, honest, and useful.")
Surely not! Certainly the car is no longer the poster child for societal progress, but there is no shortage of car enthusiasts.
What's even more intriguing is that these days, when we know about climate change and pollution, people still don't see cars as tools. When you look at it from the outside, buying 1.5 tons of rusting steel just to transport your ass (that's 2 tons in the US, I guess because of heavier asses?) from point A to point B should not be tied to your perception of self-worth and your social status. And yet.
A related thought: I think placing the exhaust in the back and down at the bottom was a master stroke. The driver doesn't see or smell the pollution. I think a very effective measure to make people realize the pollution issues would be to require that the exhaust be placed in front, pointing upwards, and require adding a non-toxic colorant so that you can see the fumes.