> they cause all the deaths

And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.

They don't have all the utility. In fact, they're grossly overused for the utility they do provide.

There was a great article on here the other day about the evolution of pickup trucks, the user-survey statistics about how trucks are typically used was pretty eye opening. As was the size of the forward facing blindspot for your everyday stock F-150. Kids don't stand a chance.

Did they give any stats on the percentage of pedestrian accidents where visibility was a factor? It doesn't seem like it would be a major factor if the driver is paying attention to objects entering and leaving their blind spots, as well as the increasing use of cameras, collision detection, etc.

It seems the biggest factor is alcohol, which played a role in around 50% of pedestrian fatalities (not all on the part of the driver).

The ever growing size of trucks is in part because the government outlawed the more reasonable economical compact trucks, through an absolutely bone-headed combination of CAFE and the chicken tax and various regulation.

If your kid is so stupid they can't look out for a giant fucking truck in the street... Fuck em. We have enough people.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

The problem is simpler than your framing alludes. There are other modes of transit that are much safer with far fewer negative externalities than private cars, like walking, bike, bus, and rail. We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them. This spending for street safety is a step in the other direction, but by and large does very little to change the dominance of public spending on private cars in the US.

That political decision is due to a lack of support. Preferences have to change. One major factor standing in the way is the overwhelmingly poor service by most cities. So it's a bit of a catch-22 since service can't improve without money.

I'm not even going to bring up places like rural or lower density suburbs as the service there is almost non-existent.

I agree with everything you said in this comment, except for the lack of support. It's kind of a meme in online urbanist circles at this point that in the US you can pick either walkable or affordable. There's incredible demand for walkable places where you don't have to use a car, to the point where these places are not affordable for most people (I'm not saying all the demand for these dense places comes from walkability, but there is good research saying it's a strong factor). Your comment is also sort of based on the view that "whatever the (federal) government is doing is what the public ultimately demanded", which is clearly not true. Federal government agencies like USDOT act with a certain degree of autonomy, and their actions are very much open to public criticism as we are doing in this thread.

To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here. That is changing with more dense transit-oriented development happening across the country, but it will probably take decades for the needle to move significantly. And unfortunately the street safety measures that this money is going to are not going to help very much with this, which is sort of the point of the original comment.

These issues are all intertwined, but I don't understand the arguments in these comments that point out the problems are intertwined and stop there, as if that's a death knell for change (for example, political support for transit service is tied to the quality of that service). Yes, no one is denying they are intertwined, that is even why urbanists have started using terms like "car culture" that encapsulate the messy ball of issues. The more we discuss these issues, even online; the more consciousness arises in the public about how things can change, and things eventually do change. Hence the use of attention-grabbing call to action phrases like "cars are the problem" that started this thread, which provide an alternate framing.

I agree that the government isn't always following popular opinion. However, there is also a difference between idealistic opinion and reasonable opinion. People want better transit, but fewer people with to raise taxes for it, and fewer still can pock a tax they want to raise.

https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/What-Do-Americans-Think-a...

"To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here."

If it's such low density, is it really a problem?

> bus, and

The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.

That is because:

> We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them

Public transit can be fast and efficient if it is prioritized. That may require raising the federal tax on gasoline (last raised thirty years ago!!!) and directing that overdue increase to funding alternative transportation options.

One other possibly is due to the lower density in many areas.

For the higher density cities, cost is a major factor. I remember seeing a study or article comparing cost and time to build a subway in the US vs a European country. If I remember correctly, it tooks years longer and cost tens of millions more for a similar route even adjusted for local cost differences.

I would like additonal funding for many things. I would first like to explore efficient use of the money we do have in order to make it all more effective.

Yeah, I took public transportation for a while. It went from a 20 or so minute drive to about an 80 minute commute with 2 trains, a shuttle, and about a mile of walking.

Are you serious? A BMW driving some schmuck to an office park has "all the utility"?

I'm hoping that is just a bad faith attempt at trolling. Because otherwise I'm speechless. Though it sure would explain a lot about how some folks on HN arrived at the conclusion they did.

How come everyone doesn’t bike everywhere? That’s what I do. So easy pEople

If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo

And good luck not having your bikes regularly stolen in places like SF or NYC. You better ride the most revolting beater you can find, and even then.

eh...decent hardware fits on an old steel frame. and while yes, it does suck to lose a bike...I still end up way way ahead of someone paying to park, fuel, and maintain a car. and I'm much more fit and enjoy my commute more.

I’ve had a $300 used bike service me just fine for over 11 years now.

There was a period right during/after the pandemic where things were really bad but it’s settled to a fairly decent situation.

If you ride a $500 bike then you will probably be fine factoring in a $50-$100 theft cost at most.

Finally, most bike theft is covered under rental insurance, which isn’t all that expensive to begin with, and is highly recommended anyways.

Might want to check the deductible on your renters insurance. For me it'd be a total loss. Basically only worth it if someone drives up with a moving truck and just steals half the house or if someone gets hurt and sues me for medical bills.

This sounds right, but the actual statistics show that—for the average American—every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute.

Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.

> every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute

I just found a hack, I'm going to spend 12 hours a day cycling and extend my lifespan by at least 50%. All joking aside, cycling as travel is a fantastic way to add physical activity into your daily life.

The average American is biking for leisure. If they had to bike on their commute it totally changes and instead of a planned low-risk leisure route you're on the highway to hell in the thick of rush hour traffic. It's completely incomparable.

I bicycle commuted for years in an American city. It is as safe as your local council decides it should be, and my commute always felt safe. Don't give in to the belief that unsafe cycling is inevitable.

I mean, it's inevitable for a lot of Americans unless they're willing to devote a significant amount of resources and / or time to try and convince local politicians to spend a bunch of money and fix decades of misguided urban planning, while potentially trying to dodge pushback from local interests who think that changes to make biking safer and more convenient is a zero-sum situation that comes at the expense of others.

I would never bike commute where I live currently, and I don't think that will change any time soon despite it being a relatively left leaning urban area.

Alright, here's my anecdote in kind.

I biked for over a decade without incident for leisure.

Then I started bicycle commuting. Within one year I had not one but two occasions where I was knocked unconscious by angry rush hour drivers. I no longer could plan my destination but rather had to fight the entirety of traffic trying to get downtown at the same time at once. I still have trouble with one arm and the other time I believe I got a concussion after the driver destroyed my bike hitting me broadside and drove off.

I have about 3-4 years of biking as only transport including working as a full time professional bike messenger. I have never been hurt outside of rush hour. I have never been hurt on a planned leisure route. Only when I cannot pick the destination.

The hostility in my experience is like 10x dealing with angry to/from work rush-hour traffic headed to a dense job-rich area, especially with folks like soccer moms desperate to pick up their kiddy from daycare in time, etc.

Hard won wisdom, I am glad you made it through your injuries. I generally will only cycle in my area on weekdays around 09:30 to 13:30 or so in order to avoid any rush hour or high traffic times as much as possible. It makes a significant difference.

As you note and in my experience the school drop off / pick up times are the scariest as you near schools and arteries on the school destination paths. There are frequently backups and gridlock situations at these times, coupled with palpable driver anxiety and hurriedness, which just seems like a recipe to get killed or maimed as a cyclist

Yes, it is as safe as your local council decides, which in the US is somewhere between really unsafe and Mad Max.

What does this have to do with my comment? I was replying to the statement that

> If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo

That said, I used a bicycle as my primary mode of transportation in the Atlanta, Decatur, and Northern suburban areas for several years. It wasn't really all that bad despite a near-total lack of cycling infrastructure (this was before the Beltline).

Just remember that this is a societal choice. Biking can be safe and efficient. In Vancouver BC they have prioritized modes of transportation other than driving, including creating a dense network of cycling paths and slow-streets.

There is a big difference between what is, and what must be. Improvements are possible, which is what the linked article is all about. These are baby steps, but if you want to bike more (and get healthier and live longer and live happier and pollute less) then demand more from your local politicians.

It's more of a choice by the elites which deprioritize the needs of the actual populace. Often they do this by mixing the zoning of cities with surrounding suburban areas who have deeply conflicting interests and lifestyles

Biking means you’re close to your destination. In most American cities, offices are downtown, where cost of living is extreme. I save thousands a month by commuting 20 minutes.

Until cities get affordable to live in, us “poor” will continue to exist in the reality that is now, and commute for two times the square footage, and a backyard, for less than a studio apartment.

I wouldn't feel safer if food, medical products, construction materials, and other materials for our wellbeing became less accessible due to the increased labor cost of transport associated with significantly lower speed limits, however.

The separarion of streets for people and roads for cars means better, faster car flow too. The problem America has is that it tries to smoosh cars and peds on the same roads, making them terrible for both. Instead of being able to do 40 on every road, think instead of doing 15 on some roads and 60 on others.

The amount of actual ped zones in America is pretty small anyway, think downtown shopping precints and stuff like that, so the majority of roads would still be car dominant.

Tell me you’ve only ever lived in North America without telling me you’ve only ever lived in North America.

North American goods actually make most of their way through water and rail but the "final mile" costs are much higher and therefore still significant. In places like Africa this effect is probably more magnified as rail system is far more limited and you must drive from the port.

>As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed

It’s possible to have both. It’s why we have grade separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_separation

It's prohibitively expensive, better would be to sacrifice some city corridors as pedestrian only. Cars don't need to be in the city centre on every street.

Most pedestrian friendly streets that do mix in cars actually do the opposite to grade separation, slow down the cars a lot and make it clear that they are in a pedestrian space by removing demarcation between cars and people,which changes behavior.

My city introduced car free streets, then they introduced mall cops to them and they effectively became unwelcoming commercial strip malls. America has an America problem, and the solution won't be simple.

Would you rather share a grade with slow cars or have actual physical barriers between you and fast cars? Exactly. Separating traffic of different types/speeds is paramount to safety. We've known this for going on 150yr.