43
The technology to end traffic deaths exists. Why aren’t we using it?
(www.fastcompany.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
73759 readers
548 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Trains? We've been using those for over a century now.
They don't help with last mile.
Have you considered more trains?
Sure! let's put train lines in every other street! Brilliant!
More trains, trams, bicycle and/or e-scooter rentals, walking (a mile is what, 20 minutes walk at most?)
Trains?! For last mile?!
Trams, sure, smaller buses that run more often too. More routes.
Bicycles et al so long as they pay insurance, have a plate and know the traffic rules like everyone else - and preferably put them in their own lanes when possible.
Walking... if you have time and physical ability, but who cares about that, right? It's so cool and eco-friendly to say "just walk 20 minutes".
Bicycle insurance and plates? Why? That makes zero sense. We have these for cars because cars are dangerous, not just for funsies. Bicycles don't pose the same danger.
Yeah it is cool and eco-friendly to walk 20 minutes (assuming one is able-bodied, as you mention.)
Bicycles do pose similar dangers. A cyclists running a red light it the typical example. Forces someone else to swerve and hit a post then what?
Cyclists on the whole break traffic laws a lot less than motorists.
Also, I love how your only example of "the dangers of cyclists" involves someone in a car having to react to a cyclist. If everyone is cycling, speeds are low enough to react and typically avoid collisions even if a potential conflict arises. The "forces someone to swerve" phenomenon mostly happens at the speed of motor vehicles.
That's utter bullshit, I see them running lights all the time. And riding in groups, clogging the whole road, like they're on the freakin' tour de France.
You should know that it doesn't take "motor vehicle speeds" to cause a (serious) accident. And I suspect you do.
I wasn't talking about people on group rides, I'm talking about people using bikes as a means of transportation. I agree that people in group rides can sometimes be bothersome road users.
Red lights and stop signs are designed for cars and it's honestly stupid to expect cyclists to treat them the same way. Studies have shown that treating stops as yields when on a bike is safer for all road users.
That's not what I said. I was pointing out how your "swerve into a post because a cyclist ran a red light" is a dangerous situation made possible only by the presence of cars.
About time you should your zealotry. Or trolling.
Cars on roads? Oh no! Yeah I'll go with trolling.
Cheers.
so you want to ruin childhood by placing pointless restrictions on bikes?
Riiight, childhood's defined by riding bicycles and not doing so would ruin it... uh-huh. Kids can ride them.all they want in parks and bike lanes, but you want them on the street alongside those dangerous cars? They might have a serious accident... now that would ruin their childhood.
Grownups can ride on roads (if there's no bike lane available) provided the vehicle has a plate and is insured, like any other vehicle. The driver should have the basics of road safety and rules, as any other driver.
Your think of the children take is kinda lame, especially considering most kids these days care more about game consoles that bicycles (which is bad imho).
I currently live in a place where there aren't sidewalks for more than 80% of the roads (heck I've lives in a place that had two roads with sidewalks and only 4 with pavement) treating roads as inherently unsafe is fair only in the context of stupidly large cities. There are still a bunch of cities that have dirt (not gravel) roads and they suit the needs because if there aren't hundreds of people needing to use a road it doesn't need to be able to handle dozens of cars.
Trains never crash.
Well, they do, but don't cause traffic deaths.