News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Friday December 28, 2018 @05:04PM (#18779822)
"more Kms travelled. " might have some value if it means a trip that wasn't taken before is taken now. It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing. This seems to be what happens.

More people will die horrible deaths in their cars, more people will die walking and cycling, more people will die because their understandable fear of walking and cycling gives them a sedentary lifestyle, more people will die from cancer, lung disease, etc, more wildlife habitat will be destroyed, more sound and light pollution will destroy mental health and disturb wildlife, and the planet will boil a little bit sooner. But those are externalities and not borne by the person choosing to drive more.

But all of this is apparently just fine. Adults matter too of course, but it's striking that cars (drivers, really) are the thing that kills more kids than anything else, and yet people do. not. care. I'm astonished how much outrage there is over kids being killed by bullets but not those killed by cars. People in the US accept it as normal, though. When I pointed out I cared more about automotive violence than gun violence people would look at me like I had 3 heads. And then joke about running over cyclists.

On the bright side, it might encourage those who are able to emigrate somewhere nicer (Netherlands and the Nordics, basically), so I guess it's a gain to those countries.

Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by marcosdumay on Friday December 28, 2018 @05:17PM (#18779916)
> It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing.

Is that because affordable houses are worthless?

So, instead of solving the housing crisis, city planners do nothing on the matter, but go and ration transportation too, so people... well, gain nothing because they will be the same time in traffic.

Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Friday December 28, 2018 @06:23PM (#18780317)
Of course not - affordable homes are great. Building more homes near the places people need to be will help make them more affordable. But nobody ever got votes by campaigning to reduce home prices. Perhaps because you have to live in a place to vote for those governing said place.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by marcosdumay on Friday December 28, 2018 @09:43PM (#18781423)
Rationing transport does not solve that problem. It does nothing at all to solve it, just makes it worse.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Saturday December 29, 2018 @06:04AM (#18783084)
You can build homes near where oeople want to be, or farther. Or hope people emigrate or die. Which is better for transport?
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by pavelrub on Saturday December 29, 2018 @06:48AM (#18783216)
Spending less on housing has tremendous value for the people who benefit from it, including the ability to pay for better medical treatment, and lead an overall happier life. It's unclear what evidence you have that the net effect would be an increase in the overall number of deaths, or - more importantly - human suffering.

Other than that I do not really understand your "astonishment": you've artificially constructed a personal axiom that has never applied to human society - namely that people should care equally about every casualty, regardless of circumstances or causes, or the impact of those causes on society as a whole - and are then surprised that others don't follow this model.

Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Saturday December 29, 2018 @08:10AM (#18783408)
" namely that people should care equally about every casualty, regardless of circumstances or causes, "

Where did I do that?

A thought experiment - how does your reaction to "cyclist on sidewalk kills child on bike" compare to "driver in street kills child on bike" ? I suggest they should be the same.

I understand we may simply have utterly and drastically different worldviews and priorities. This sort of thing is part of why I moved away from a profoundly hostile city.

Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Saturday December 29, 2018 @08:01AM (#18783381)
We both want affordable housing. I just want it to be legal to build it closer to jobs.

Driving is dangerous, as are its byproducts. More driving kills more people.

Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by pavelrub on Saturday December 29, 2018 @10:49AM (#18784093)
If the choice is between cheaper housing with a longer commute, or expensive housing with shorter commute, it's completely unclear that the latter is more beneficial to humanity than the former, even if we only consider the number of deaths caused by each scenario. At the very least you haven't presented any evidence that this is so.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by CalRobert on Saturday December 29, 2018 @11:12AM (#18784212)
That is not the choice.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo... by pavelrub on Saturday December 29, 2018 @11:26AM (#18784276)
When people say that doing X has "negative value", they usually mean that it has negative value compared to not doing X, not compared to some imaginary solution that doesn't exist in reality.