this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
244 points (98.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

10342 readers
739 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
244
What if we handle road safety as general safety? (cdn.masto.host)
submitted 1 week ago by lgsp@feddit.it to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What if we handle road safety as general safety?

The hierarchy hazard controls is a de facto standard for determining which measures to take in the presence of risks. The principles can be (and I would argue that they should be) applied to road safety.

From the most effective to the least effective measure, we have:

  • Elimination: Avoid road trips. Of course it is rarely possible.

  • Substitution: Replace dangerous vehicles with non-hazardous vehicles. That is, cars should be limited

  • Engineering controls: people are isolated from risks: cycle paths, sidewalks everywhere, speed bumps, raised crossings, narrowing of the roads

  • Administrative controls: speed limits, 30 km/h cities, speed cameras, training courses.

And last and most definitely least:

  • personal protective equipment: they are the least effective, to be used only if there is no possibility of applying other measures: helmets.

Those who push for certain measures do not understand anything about safety, and thus would start from the bottom of the hierarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_controls

crossposted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113978193983638459

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] trufiassociation@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago

In a 2023 study in the UK, people were more in favor of public policy to make people safer as long topic was something other than cars.

...adults rated, at random, a set of statements about driving ("People shouldn't drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes") or a parallel set of statements with keywords changed to shift context ("People shouldn't smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes"). Such context changes could radically alter responses (75% agreed with "People shouldn't smoke..." but only 17% agreed with "People shouldn't drive...").

https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJENVH.2023.135446>

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 22 points 1 week ago

Bro, wear hi-viz, you will be ok.

[–] banana@communick.news 11 points 1 week ago

I am very familiar with this Heriarchy of Controls for my work designing the power system. We care deeply about public and worker safety. And then traffic engineers throw it out the window when they design our roads? It is very frustrating to see. Motonormativity at work.

[–] kryptonidas@lemmings.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hardly any biker in the Netherlands wears a helmet, probably more km’s driven by bike per person than any other country. There’s:

  • Completely separate infrastructure for bikes
  • Physical barriers for cars
  • Shared infrastructure where cars can go 10-15 kmh.

VS: SF, which is relatively okay for bikes by US standards (minus those damn hills): Here’s your a green painted area on the road and a helmet, God Speed.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

Hardly any biker in the Netherlands wears a helmet

Yes, but:

  1. Head injuries are extremely common in the Netherlands.
  2. Since a large number of bike accidents do NOT involve cars, riders should still wear a helmet to keep their brain safe.

With the increase in e-bike use, especially among the older population, injuries in the Netherlands have gone up dramatically, so there's only so much that infrastructure can do.

We do still need safe cycling infrastructure to separate us from cars as much as possible, but it's not the panacea that many of us believe it to be.

[–] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Cars belong underground.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Above ground (way above ground) would be easier and cheaper. Like the Texas highways.

My urban utopia has parking on the edges. Surface streets only permit last-mile deliveries, electric trams, and electric personal vehicles...number of wheels cannot exceed number of passengers in the vehicle plus one (with exceptions for mobility aids) and a top speed of 25MPH. These should be available on short term rentals like Byrd or BlueBikes.

Mass transit should have stops within a 10 minutes of sidewalk time anywhere in the city.

Going underground is tough. It's expensive and there's tons of unknowns. Evacuation or bringing in resources in an emergency is terrifying. Ventilation is a nightmare.

Good for subways...but trams are just as good, especially if we can get the pesky cars off the road.

[–] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 week ago

Sounds nice!

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do you mean we should bury them like a trash in the landfills?

[–] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 week ago

Out of sight, out of mind. I don't want cars where humans exist. No competition for space.

[–] gimmelemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Ralph Nader does not want you to think very hard about this diagram

[–] jcriecke@urbanists.social 1 points 1 week ago

@lgsp then driver of that dodge challenger would have his dick fall off, which is unconstitutional

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mistook the community this was posted to and almost made a fool of myself.

[–] LovesTha@floss.social 1 points 1 week ago

@lgsp bike helmets are pretty much useless :)