this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
160 points (66.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9593 readers
553 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Meh, shits actually quite rare. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt086.htm

When folks are talking to you in percentages and avoid absolutes you can assume they are massaging the message to be more palatable to the intended audience.

[–] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 17 points 10 months ago (41 children)

Hate to break it to you but that link is talking in percentages. The only absolute number the give is number of fatalities, everything else is a percentage. Specifically, it claims that because turning right on red represents a small % of overall injuries from all traffic it's not unsafe. That's not an exaggeration, it's literally the conclusion they give.

In conclusion, there are a relatively small number of deaths and injuries each year caused by right-turn-on-red crashes. These represent a very small percentage of all crashes, deaths, and injuries. Because the number of crashes due to right-turn-on-red is small, the impact on traffic safety, therefore, has also been small. Insufficient data exist to analyze left turn on red.

A bullet to the arm is safer than a bullet to the head but that doesn't make it safe.

[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Approximately 84 fatal crashes occurred per year during the 1982-1992 time period involving a right-turning vehicle at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. During this same time period there were 485,104 fatalities.

Thus, less than 0.2 percent of all fatalities involved a right-turning vehicle maneuver at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. FARS, however, does not discern whether the traffic signal was red. Therefore, the actual number of fatal RTOR crashes is somewhere between zero and 84 and may be closer to zero than 84.

They literally use numbers in their report.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Accidents are rare, sure, and fatalities are rare because the relatively low speed impact. We can nevertheless aspire to create more inclusive infrastructure where pedestrians and cyclists can feel a sense of belonging. The car-centric roads we have in the US today could be better for everyone.

[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

And banning right in red ain't it. It'll be ineffective, piss off drivers, and have little to no meaningful effect. If you want to blow political capital in this worthless shit more power to us but I'll prefer a pragmatic approach that has a chance of being effective.

[–] Chastity2323@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago

If making people feel safer walking and biking in cities = "worthless shit" to you then why are you even here? I can't tell you how many times I've been honked at or yelled at or nearly run over while walking or on my bike by drivers who refuse to stop at red lights at all because of the right on red rule.

Cars don't belong in cities at all, with the possible exception of delivery/commercial vehicles and vehicles for disabled people. Banning right on red is just one part of a multi-pronged approach to get us there, together with better bicycle infrastructure and public transit, etc.

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

piss off drivers,

oh no their precious feelings, once again taking precedence over human life

[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

Yes. Guess what, you have to live with those people and you have to convince them to vote on your policies.

If you're going to sit there nagging them over stupid rare occurrence shit and piss them off you don't get your policies. So go ahead and waste political capital pissing off voters with inconsequential shit that pisses them off.

Pragmatic politics is dead replaced by whiney absolutism.

Edit: the best part is even if you go ahead and get to piss everyone off is it'll never ever be enforced except in certain high traffic intersections.

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

you have to convince them to vote on your policies.

no I don't and won't because they don't listen. If you want to get something done in politics, you lobby local politicians directly.

For the record, we don't have right-on-red, here, because we're not insane enough to think that's a good idea. Bicycle lanes stop ~2 meters in front of cars so they're visible and get to enter the intersection first because it literally saves lives. Fuck car-owners feelings.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You missed the salient point in your knee jerk reaction about ‘carbrain feels’

if you want to spend political capital Is this fight worth it more than getting cycle lanes or pedestrian zones?

Or phrased differently, unless you’re the road dictator who defines policy in a vacuum, you will have to get buy-in or agreement from the primary roads users - drivers. Which will involve compromise on your goals.

Right on red does provide (limited) ecological and congestion benefit by limiting idling at otherwise clear intersections. Inattentive drivers are not a new problem, but I would much rather have cycle lanes physically segregated from vehicles as a priority for road reform

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you'll find that the amount of emissions saved from idling at these intersections would be paid for a hundred-fold by just leaving the car at home for one short trip once a year. It essentially doesn't exist. Additionally, fuck your congestion, I don't care. You chose the car, you get to be stuck in traffic in it. I won't accept any risk to my body because you can't wait an extra minute.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ahhhh. You didn’t miss the point about ‘an okay compromise today, instead of utopia never’ you willingly ignored it

It’s incredibly ableist and ageist to demean drivers as a whole. Public transport is not a 100% coverage map, let alone timetables. Telling a wheelchair user/someone living with cerebral palsy/etc to move themselves three km start-and-finish to a bus stop to do their bi-weekly shopping is not a solution. Get real, or everyone else will see you for an extremist and ignore you.

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Please explain to my low attention-span millennial avocado-brain how implementing a safer-for-all traffic intersection forces disabled people out of their cars, because that strangely doesn't seem to be a problem in my municipality. Disabled people who are car-bound has, if I may be so bold, seemingly benefited from the safer intersections on account of pedestrians and bicyclists fearing less for their lives in traffic and thus encouraging them to walk or bike instead of drive, leading to less cars on the road meaning less congestion for the disabled car-bound people.

Also: Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands has shown us that disabled people get around on bicycle infrastructure just fine. I find it insulting that you pretend to champion disabled people but don't actually understand how they use the infrastructure available... almost like you don't actually care, but just wanted to make a dumb argument because it sounded good in your head.

I get it bro you like the wroom wroom but go to your local track on sunday and leave the rest of the city out of it thanks

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer, who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo huh? Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

‘Right on red’ is a very US-centric scenario. Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change, but fuck dude. Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic. I want protected, hardened bicycle routes because I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks. I want better pedestrian infrastructure and walkable cities. I want light rail and better bus service. All I’ve gotten from you is ad-hominem and hostility. Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer

I didn't call you a boomer but thanks for telling on yourself

who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo

Yes, because that's what you did, and are still doing.

Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

If they present sound logic. Right-On-Red kills people, that's why it's primarily a US thing because nobody else is that insanely car-brained.

Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

I did not once tell any disabled person to get out of their personal vehicle. You are pretending that I did because you just want to argue but you have no points and you don't believe in anything. You could've had a point about pragmatic politics but I'm not gonna make your argument for you. You're old enough to do that yourself.

Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change,

Glad we're on the same page. I can't understand why you are arguing against repealing Right-On-Red, then. A change that would literally save lives and require zero infrastructural investment.

Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic.

Nothing I've said is particularly exclusionary. I haven't said all cars must go. I haven't said all disabled people must walk. I said car-owners feelings are once again taking precedence over actual human lives. You are also still ignoring that disabled people seem to be getting around just fine, generally speaking, in countries that deprioritize cars.

I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks.

So lets minimize that and get rid of Right-On-Red instead of telling me I'm a fucking puritan idealist for suggesting as much.

Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

That's funny, because my lefty extreme no-car utopia party is up in recent polling. They even control a district in inner Copenhagen. Denmark doesn't have a pants-on-head retarded 2-party first-past-the-post system, by the way, so voting for what you believe in actually does work over here. I'm sorry you have to deal with your god awful system.

There is no conceivable universe in which you pull this shit out of your ass in good faith because I have dismissed your disabled-people use case like 4 times now. You're just ignoring it because you don't believe in anything and would rather pretend that you're some holy centrist whose views of the world are infinitely nuanced and beyond the reach of idealists like myself because it's apparently utopic to not wanna spend your last minutes on earth being dragged underneath an SUV.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Accuses me of using disabled people as a political prop

Uses “pants-on-head retarded” as a slur

You casually drop ableist slurs and personal insults when challenged. I think I’ve heard all I need to from you, but I genuinely hope you figure out whatever spawns this aggression towards someone who has openly stated to be pro-alternative transport. Do better friend, or at a minimum consider being quiet and leaving space for those who are actually working with local government for change 👍

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 1 points 10 months ago

Don't pretend that you would engage with my argument faithfully under any circumstances.

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm impressed at your inability to just engage with the argument presented, but what else can be expected from a terminally online All-poster.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I think the general point people are making to you is that, in many municipalities where right on red would be bad, there are enough voters in the pedestrian base alone that nobody has to "appeal to drivers" in order to win a majority. The issue itself has validity on the basis that the health of the pedestrians should be a higher priority than the feeling that drivers are being impacted negatively by not being able to perform this maneuver. You could maybe make a counterargument comprised of economic impacts, as a couple people have tried to do, or a counterargument about how it saves emissions, but I'm sort of inclined to think that caving and giving it over to cars is sort of an approach that has diminishing returns in both of those directions, compared to the alternative.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] duffman@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Being pissed is the wrong framing of the issue. There's a legitimate issues with gimping our infrastructure. Nobody would die if we all drove 5mph, but the personal and economic losses to millions of people would be catestrophic.

load more comments (2 replies)

Fatalities are one thing to consider. Another is injuries that can range from minor to life changing.

I don't know the stats on this but pedestrian injuries would be something for policy makers to consider as well.

And in general:

  • If deaths are up it's safe to assume injuries are up as well
  • Good policy making also involves preventing problems, and educating people on the issue. If 0.2% of deaths is acceptable and trending up at what point do we take action? 0.5%? 1%? 5%?

I don't think that the US even tracks injuries at least I can't find anything from a cursory search. But according to Vancouver RTOR is 13% of all deaths and serious injuries. https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2022/08/23/rethinking-the-right-turn-on-red/

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Ninety-three percent of RTOR pedestrian or bicyclist crashes resulted in injury.

So, one of the data sources they use is for fatal injuries only and it appears that right turn on red accidents are not usually fatal. Ok, but look at that injury rate; injuries that are not fatal but could still be life-changing.

That article also talks about the limitations of the second data source they use

My overall reaction to that article is not “meh, no big deal”, but “crap, we should have better data on this”. Anecdotally, I’ve seen much worse driving behavior since COViD, where it’s becoming all too common for cars to not even slow down for right on red, and people here online are trying to defend that you don’t even need to stop despite that being clearly stated in the law. I do have a nice walkable downtown, but walking it has been getting more dangerous in recent years: if you hit my kid because you didn’t feel like stopping, it won’t be at all comforting for you to say “meh, it’s not a fatality”