U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-24-2014, 01:38 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,842 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post

2. There are plenty of cars made smaller - usually hyped by urbanists. They might get better gas mileage but are typically no match for traditional vehicles in an accident. BTW the "bigger and heftier" is not necessarily the cause for more safety features.
I have to point out this is incorrect. The increasing forces being exerted on an automobile in an incident is THE leading cause for new regs. It's a matter of physics. Bigger cars generate more force, thus causing more damage. A baseball-sized ball of styrofoam isn't going to hurt much if it hits you; a volumetrically equivalent ball of granite will do some damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
3. Accidents are going to happen just from sheer numbers of people not "due to the automobile".
Side note, people operate based upon context. A person in a "safe" cage is going to act different than a person, on average, open to the environment. There are some theories out there that suggest, and have had some luck providing evidence, that additional safety features lead to more incidents, because, purportedly, people drive with less care in that context. For example, air bags save lives, but not as many as they could because people drive faster knowing they are "safer."

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
As far as the "we" is concerned, you also wouldn't be able to haul groceries, take or pickup kids from school, attend various events (school-related or otherwise), or transport other people or things around. Kinda difficult to haul much in the way of materials around on your scooter.
Groceries is a common meme among car-evangelists. If you have kids (plural), or only do big shopping trips, yeah, a bike won't work. But, if you live in a bicycle-friendly area, you may find it more convenient to do more, smaller ad-hoc trips. If you try to apply a WalMart mindset to bikes, of course they don't make sense; square peg, round hole. That doesn't mean bikes aren't viable, just not viable in that context.

 
Old 07-24-2014, 02:04 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I have to point out this is incorrect. The increasing forces being exerted on an automobile in an incident is THE leading cause for new regs. It's a matter of physics. Bigger cars generate more force, thus causing more damage. A baseball-sized ball of styrofoam isn't going to hurt much if it hits you; a volumetrically equivalent ball of granite will do some damage.



Side note, people operate based upon context. A person in a "safe" cage is going to act different than a person, on average, open to the environment. There are some theories out there that suggest, and have had some luck providing evidence, that additional safety features lead to more incidents, because, purportedly, people drive with less care in that context. For example, air bags save lives, but not as many as they could because people drive faster knowing they are "safer."



Groceries is a common meme among car-evangelists. If you have kids (plural), or only do big shopping trips, yeah, a bike won't work. But, if you live in a bicycle-friendly area, you may find it more convenient to do more, smaller ad-hoc trips. If you try to apply a WalMart mindset to bikes, of course they don't make sense; square peg, round hole. That doesn't mean bikes aren't viable, just not viable in that context.
Now I just have to say, I don't believe that. Prior to the 1970s, virtually all cars were big. Even the "compacts" of the day were big, e.g. the Ford Falcon. And there was little to no safety equipment. Back up lights did not become mandatory until some time in the 1960s. The year GM had backup lights on all vehicles was 1966. <VV> what year did reverse lights become mandatory? Seat belts did not become mandatory equipment until 1968. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions (The first seat belt law was enacted in 1970 in Australia. Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Your middle paragraph sounds like the argument against bike helmets. In fact, it is even more specious, because IME very few people think of themselves as safer in a car with air bags as opposed to one w/o them. Most accidents occur in younger drivers, who've never driven a car w/o airbags. Airbags were first required on cars in the US in 1989, and in light trucks in 1997. Airbag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've gone grocery shopping on a bike with kids. Kids and bags were both in the trailer on the way home. However, after I became a "working mother", I really didn't have time for that. If you live in a climate where it happens to *snow*, you see the value of being able to grocery shop in a car.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 04:07 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,842 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now I just have to say, I don't believe that. Prior to the 1970s, virtually all cars were big. Even the "compacts" of the day were big, e.g. the Ford Falcon. And there was little to no safety equipment. Back up lights did not become mandatory until some time in the 1960s. The year GM had backup lights on all vehicles was 1966. <VV> what year did reverse lights become mandatory? Seat belts did not become mandatory equipment until 1968. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions (The first seat belt law was enacted in 1970 in Australia. Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
but we're not in the '60s, '70s, or '80s, so bringing up policy choices of that era is not germane to a discussion of current regs. And, as I said, bigger cars produce bigger crash forces. That is just physics. And cars keep getting bigger to accomodate more strict regs, which adds mass, which requires new regs to be more strict still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Your middle paragraph sounds like the argument against bike helmets. In fact, it is even more specious, because IME very few people think of themselves as safer in a car with air bags as opposed to one w/o them. Most accidents occur in younger drivers, who've never driven a car w/o airbags. Airbags were first required on cars in the US in 1989, and in light trucks in 1997. Airbag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess that extension could be made. That said, helmets are so basic and so valuable as to be a good idea no matter what.

Airbags were simply an example I used. If the theory bares true, it applies in any case wherein a driver feels safer. That applies as much to air bags (one or many, as may be the modern case) as it does to seat belts, lane departure warning, collision avoidance assist, etc. And we see the same concept play out on roadways, where "safe" roadways (wide, straight, relatively few interactions) can have more and more deadly incidents; people feel "safe" and, as a result, drive faster and pay less attention. Exact same processes at play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I've gone grocery shopping on a bike with kids. Kids and bags were both in the trailer on the way home. However, after I became a "working mother", I really didn't have time for that. If you live in a climate where it happens to *snow*, you see the value of being able to grocery shop in a car.
[/quote]

No argument there. But on CD and in the world, people tend to ignore context and argue from a false dichotomy.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 04:47 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
but we're not in the '60s, '70s, or '80s, so bringing up policy choices of that era is not germane to a discussion of current regs. And, as I said, bigger cars produce bigger crash forces. That is just physics. And cars keep getting bigger to accomodate more strict regs, which adds mass, which requires new regs to be more strict still.



I guess that extension could be made. That said, helmets are so basic and so valuable as to be a good idea no matter what.

Airbags were simply an example I used. If the theory bares true, it applies in any case wherein a driver feels safer. That applies as much to air bags (one or many, as may be the modern case) as it does to seat belts, lane departure warning, collision avoidance assist, etc. And we see the same concept play out on roadways, where "safe" roadways (wide, straight, relatively few interactions) can have more and more deadly incidents; people feel "safe" and, as a result, drive faster and pay less attention. Exact same processes at play.

No argument there. But on CD and in the world, people tend to ignore context and argue from a false dichotomy.
[/quote]

I learned to drive on a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500. It weighed ~3700#. I currently drive a 2003 Honda CR-V. It weighs 3201#. The Galaxie had no airbags, nor seatbelts IIRC. I'm not sure about back-up lights. It didn't have an ABS system, either. Yet it was significantly heavier than my CR-V. The CR-V has all that and more. That's the point I was trying to make. The old cars were big, and heavy.

It is totally untrue that the wide straight roads with few intersections, e.g. interstates, have higher accident rates. Apparently you have to subscribe to read this, but here's a brief synopsis.
Interstate highways twice as safe as other highways - AdirondackDailyEnterprise.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Saranac Lake region

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-24-2014 at 05:08 PM..
 
Old 07-24-2014, 05:03 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,950 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I have to point out this is incorrect. The increasing forces being exerted on an automobile in an incident is THE leading cause for new regs. It's a matter of physics. Bigger cars generate more force, thus causing more damage. A baseball-sized ball of styrofoam isn't going to hurt much if it hits you; a volumetrically equivalent ball of granite will do some damage.
BS. There aren't "increasing forces". Cars and vehicles were bigger in prior years than now. There has been a general decrease in car size. Whatever "new regs" you are referring to are a mystery. Federal and state regulations aimed at getting higher MPG fleet numbers generally resulted in shrinking cars. So whatever your point was here, it was lost.

Quote:
Side note, people operate based upon context. A person in a "safe" cage is going to act different than a person, on average, open to the environment. There are some theories out there that suggest, and have had some luck providing evidence, that additional safety features lead to more incidents, because, purportedly, people drive with less care in that context. For example, air bags save lives, but not as many as they could because people drive faster knowing they are "safer."
Uh sure. You might conceivably have an argument with seat belts but air bags? Do you believe people drive differently because they have a 3rd brake light too?

Quote:
Groceries is a common meme among car-evangelists. If you have kids (plural), or only do big shopping trips, yeah, a bike won't work. But, if you live in a bicycle-friendly area, you may find it more convenient to do more, smaller ad-hoc trips. If you try to apply a WalMart mindset to bikes, of course they don't make sense; square peg, round hole. That doesn't mean bikes aren't viable, just not viable in that context.
"Meme" - the theme of the collectivists.
Groceries are something that even a few hipsters might understand. Some of them might occasionally prepare their own meals instead of relying upon the restaurants and coffee shops in their "mixed use" neighborhood. A bike isn't functionally sufficient for most households - that's why most households use cars. No "dark" economics needed.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,660,338 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
I learned to drive on a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500. It weighed ~3700#. I currently drive a 2003 Honda CR-V. It weighs 3201#. Yet the Galaxie had no airbags, nor seatbelts IIRC. I'm not sure about back-up lights. It didn't have an ABS system, either. Yet it was significantly heavier than my CR-V. The CR-V has all that and more. That's the point I was trying to make. The old cars were big, and heavy.

It is totally untrue that the wide straight roads with few intersections, e.g. interstates, have higher accident rates. Apparently you have to subscribe to read this, but here's a brief synopsis.
Interstate highways twice as safe as other highways - AdirondackDailyEnterprise.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Saranac Lake region
I'm not here to argue that old cars were safer. But, foot per foot, they are often lighter than modern cars. Keep in mind that the Galaxy was over two and a half FEET longer than your CR-V. Even though older cars used heavier gauges of steel, modern cars pack a lot more stuff into a smaller package.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 05:22 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I'm not here to argue that old cars were safer. But, foot per foot, they are often lighter than modern cars. Keep in mind that the Galaxy was over two and a half FEET longer than your CR-V. Even though older cars used heavier gauges of steel, modern cars pack a lot more stuff into a smaller package.
The Galaxie was 500# heavier than my CR-V. And it didn't have as many safety features. The point is we don't have these "newfangled" safety features b/c cars are heavier. We have 'em b/c they have been shown to increase safety.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,660,338 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The Galaxie was 500# heavier than my CR-V. And it didn't have as many safety features. The point is we don't have these "newfangled" safety features b/c cars are heavier. We have 'em b/c they have been shown to increase safety.
I don't know if we have more safety features because modern cars are heavier, but modern cars are heavier, when comparing apples to apples.
Twenty-year-old Civics got 57 miles per gallon - Dec. 19, 2007
Quote:
Even Civics with back seats are much bigger and heavier today than similar versions were in 1987.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 06:26 PM
 
3,982 posts, read 5,765,970 times
Reputation: 4039
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Are 1000 car interstates really that common in the US? In Ontario, the rural portions of the freeway network typically carries about 20,000 cars per day.
Ex:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Hun...f6ace2df93b679

Least busy in Ontario is I believe this section of freeway from Huntsville to North Bay at 5,000 cars per day.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.90570...dfE7l6wtGg!2e0

And it's not just areas within big cities that are busy, this stretch of highway well past Toronto's suburbs gets close to 100,000 per day.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.43950...y5DAiPfgBA!2e0

I'd say about half of Ontario's freeway network gets around 10,000 cars per lane per day (so equivalent to 40k for a 4 lane freeway).
Ex
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/44.27...m3!1m0!1m0!3e0

Maybe about 20% of the network is over 15,000 cars per lane, and the most congested spots are around 25,000 per lane.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.71754...ZUKB3znNzA!2e0
It has nothing to do with "how many" there are and everything to do with the fact that not every Interstate mile has 50,000 cars passing over it each day. It doesn't. The point is that there are thousands of Interstate miles that don't see 1/4 of that on a daily basis.

Why would you even begin to compare Canada to the US? For one, Canada has few freeways and, therefore, a much more condensed set of road choices. FYI - Toronto is a big city and Ontario is the most populous province in Canada. One should expect elevated numbers there.
 
Old 07-24-2014, 07:47 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now I just have to say, I don't believe that. Prior to the 1970s, virtually all cars were big. Even the "compacts" of the day were big, e.g. the Ford Falcon. And there was little to no safety equipment. Back up lights did not become mandatory until some time in the 1960s. The year GM had backup lights on all vehicles was 1966. <VV> what year did reverse lights become mandatory? Seat belts did not become mandatory equipment until 1968. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions (The first seat belt law was enacted in 1970 in Australia. Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Not sure, but I'd guess that was true for the US, but not for many other parts of the world.

Quote:
I've gone grocery shopping on a bike with kids. Kids and bags were both in the trailer on the way home. However, after I became a "working mother", I really didn't have time for that. If you live in a climate where it happens to *snow*, you see the value of being able to grocery shop in a car.
Snow would make it a pain, but many climate with snow don't get snow all the time, let alone every day. Rest of the time, the roads are plowed. However, they may get narrower and bicycling less comfortable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top