Old people drive better than16-29yo when using objective safety benchmarks. Check the iihs.org website https://www.iihs.org/topics/older-drivers#age-and-driving-ability I often advocate for raising the driving age to 25. There's no secret young drivers contribute a disproportionate share of car related damage to society. As a bonus, raising the driving age will make autonomous vehicles safer since we moved the goalposts into a safer direction. It's easy to make an AV safer than the average driver when the stats are skewed by young drivers
eLJay
joined 1 year ago
Raise the driving age to 25. Nobody likes sharing the road with reckless kids that cut you off, do not signal for turns, run red lights, almost hit your own kids, etc.
People won't stop driving entirely. Some are legitimately afraid of rain, sun, wind, snow, etc . Placing the toll booths every 100m would go a long way to reducing traffic and reducing dangerous vehicle speeds.
at least the Tesla monstrosities outsource pollution to outside of the city, while trucks pollute our own living area. If coal power plants are in proximity to the residential areas, then my argument is nullified.
35
Just had the fleeting thought that maybe there is a substantial cost to review and create enormous traffic safety research systems and the subsequent training required of law enforcement personnel and administrative staff.
In contrast to the status quo which is basically a long running experiment, I'm imagining the control condition is cars are electronically speed limited to 15 mph since there is substantial evidence that travelling at this speed reduces traffic fatalities to nearly zero.
Has anyone seen estimates of the administrative costs associated with traffic safety analysis? My first intuition is that it is trivial compared to the damage to life, limb, and property.
can you prove they are worse than useless? this is very counterintuitive to me. They effectively calm traffic better than zero speed bumps. Don't strawman me. I know there are better options. I'm not saying to add speed bumps
Here's a starter guide on how to drive. I feel like it belongs here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-jseyTm1iDAUudu6MCq2bcmS0m4uGsa/view?usp=drivesdk
No, it's just like solar. You need existing infrastructure to make it worthwhile, e.g. the top, sides, or inside of an apartment building . Otherwise there would be vertical farms everywhere. America is entrepreneur/Venture capital heavy. If it penciled out properly, people would be doing it.
It's just not destined to ever be a 'bike w/out 2 operating brakes' city. Unless the hill grades are 20% I suppose. But even then an argument could be made against cars since hills drastically reduce their efficiency.
It would be productive to delete these posts once the sale ends
I commute 14 miles one way. Spandex saves a lot of energy. Plus safer because you're faster. Faster means less cars pass you per minute. The number of cars passing you is important because the odds of getting rear ended by a distracted driver is proportional to the number of cars we are exposed to. The effect is greatest if you can make a yellow light. For context I commute in Phoenix on 45mph roads. It's also much safer in crosswinds because you swerve less. You can buy used cycling clothing for $25 on eBay. The first mistake I made was to buy regular cycling gear. I should have invested in triathlon year which is much easier to walk in.
view more: next ›
I would be fine with people commuting to suburbs, if they weren't endangering my life and sucking up a disproportionate share of the tax dollars to fund their lavish land use.
Cordon cars to freeways, make tailpipe emissions filter through the passenger air cabin filter, and stop using tax dollars to make more roads. Then I'll have no problem with suburbanites.
Although, whether or no it's fair for children to be subject to the fantastical whimsical lifestyle choices forced on them by their parents is a complicated matter. I sure wish I had a normal childhood. Suburban dreams of my parents kept that from me.