Comments on: Faster Isn’t Better, and Cars Aren’t Safer http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/20/faster-isnt-better-and-cars-arent-safer/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Donovan b http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/20/faster-isnt-better-and-cars-arent-safer/comment-page-1/#comment-3237 Donovan b Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:07:23 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1337#comment-3237 This is a great conversation to engage in. M-Bike.org has it right that we need to reevaluate the meaning of mobility. We put so much emphasis on improving access for cars that we forget that other modes could do a better job with less space and lower cost. And getting around by bike or foot in a city is so much more enjoyable than in a car when you have the facilities designed for you - my year in Copenhagen disabused me of any lingering thought otherwise. I'm a little concerned by Todd's piece, though. Not that I think he is wrong, but his reasoning is faulty enough that it wouldn't stand up in a heated debate with an engineer. Mainly, we lack valid exposure data for any mode beyond cars, and perhaps transit, so making any meaningful safety comparisons is next to impossible. I hope no one continues to argue that driving is safe, but we need the sort of data collected across Europe to show just how much safer walking and biking can be. A last thought on risk. If we focus too much on it, we risk (no pun intended) staying with the status quo. Getting more people cycling, for example, could very well mean more bike accidents, in part because the newest riders have the least experience. Rather, we need to break completely from the myopic perspective of the traffic engineer and acknowledge there are a multitude of public policy goals that need to be balanced, including healthy lifestyles, climate change, limited resources in terms of limited street right-of-way, and plain quality of life in a city. Noisy cars degrade our everyday life and having fewer of them, and having those move more slowly, will improve the overall quality of life of residents. This is a great conversation to engage in. M-Bike.org has it right that we need to reevaluate the meaning of mobility. We put so much emphasis on improving access for cars that we forget that other modes could do a better job with less space and lower cost. And getting around by bike or foot in a city is so much more enjoyable than in a car when you have the facilities designed for you – my year in Copenhagen disabused me of any lingering thought otherwise.

I’m a little concerned by Todd’s piece, though. Not that I think he is wrong, but his reasoning is faulty enough that it wouldn’t stand up in a heated debate with an engineer. Mainly, we lack valid exposure data for any mode beyond cars, and perhaps transit, so making any meaningful safety comparisons is next to impossible. I hope no one continues to argue that driving is safe, but we need the sort of data collected across Europe to show just how much safer walking and biking can be.

A last thought on risk. If we focus too much on it, we risk (no pun intended) staying with the status quo. Getting more people cycling, for example, could very well mean more bike accidents, in part because the newest riders have the least experience. Rather, we need to break completely from the myopic perspective of the traffic engineer and acknowledge there are a multitude of public policy goals that need to be balanced, including healthy lifestyles, climate change, limited resources in terms of limited street right-of-way, and plain quality of life in a city. Noisy cars degrade our everyday life and having fewer of them, and having those move more slowly, will improve the overall quality of life of residents.

]]> By: bikerinsf http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/20/faster-isnt-better-and-cars-arent-safer/comment-page-1/#comment-3232 bikerinsf Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:34:30 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1337#comment-3232 ...when planners continue to build roads to increase speed of cars, they continue to endanger car drivers (and bike and ped)... could it be argued that if Planning Departments are not building complete streets with reasonably moving traffic, they are being negligent and could be liable for any injury or death, be it car, bike, or pedestrian-related... ...call it the 'Better streets through lawsuits' campaign? …when planners continue to build roads to increase speed of cars, they continue to endanger car drivers (and bike and ped)… could it be argued that if Planning Departments are not building complete streets with reasonably moving traffic, they are being negligent and could be liable for any injury or death, be it car, bike, or pedestrian-related…

…call it the ‘Better streets through lawsuits’ campaign?

]]>