US rejects road safety resolution that 140 other nations signed.

[LanghamP]

Simple mandate to reduce traffic deaths is signed by every attending nation except the US.

GLOBALLY, MORE THAN 1.3 million people per year are killed in road crashes, with a further 50 million people seriously injured. Such crashes are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years.

The U.S. objected to several parts of the otherwise globally-agreed declaration.

“While the United States supports many of the objectives outlined in the declaration, we find it necessary to dissociate ourselves from certain paragraphs,” said the U.S. dissenting statement, claiming that the offending paragraphs “muddle our focus and detract attention from data driven scientific policies and programs that have successfully reduced fatalities on roadways.”

Interestingly, the US's own claims go back fifty years, but the last ten years show a doubling of pedestrian and bicycle deaths while driver deaths are about 50% more (apparently due to driving more miles).

What does this mean for us? Well, it probably means the US government has unambiguously choose automobiles as the transportation winners, with zero funding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

[meepmeepmayer]

I assume it's the "Bububut it's not perfect!!" excuse.

[.....]

For some reason I couldnt stop grinning as I read that article. Very interesting....

[PLEASE_DELETE]

Deleted.

Edited March 18 by PLEASE_DELETE
Extra clarification, quote cut off...corrected.

[LanghamP]

14 hours ago, /Dev/Null said:

Work is 35 miles away.  I'd have to find a new job....18.6mph is way too low.  I ride my EUC at that speed.  My friend at work regularly does 65 miles in just over 3 hours on his bicycle.  18.6mph when near pedestrians is insanely slow.  I'd have 1 route to work  where I could go faster than that as every other road has lights or sidewalks or possibly bicycles.

20 mph is the speed that you can hit someone with your vehicle and they'll usually but not always survive. If you are a healthy male, sprint at your top speed and then run into a standing person. Chances are they'll be injured, maybe even a head injury, but they will survive. That's how they came up with the 18-20 mph limit.

If you double the speed to 40 mph then most people die, and the survivors cannot recover from their injuries. Since most urban travel time (about 60%) is spent at red lights, doubling the speed limit to 40 from 20 saves only a little bit of time, that is, a 30 minute trip would still take you 24 minutes even if the speed limit was doubled.

Highways aren't much better during rush hour if they become gigantic parking lots.

So should you move? Maybe. You're spending at least 40 minutes every day one direction to get to work, so you're spending an hour and a half driving, or 350 hours per year driving. Time that you could spend doing anything else. Might be worth biting the bullet and moving. And the financial cost of 50 cents per mile (AAA estimates) comes out to about $8400 per year (70 miles * $.5 * 20 day/month * 12 months).

350 hours plus $8400 per year is a big opportunity cost, but it also buys you some very nice options should you choose to move.

[.....]

Or... the rest of the world can let themselves and others, choose how to handle their own road systems and people? Not really much of my business how europe handles their traffic problems, as its none of theirs how US handles ours. We happily live quite a ways from town(1 hr each way, daily). The drive to town is worth NOT having to live in rancid cities.  Lowering the speeds in some cities would only increase travel times and traffic jams. With your example, 6 minutes increased travel time PER CAR is a HUGE amount of wasted time and resources.  There is NO simple solution, and trying to make an entire country agree to some asinine ideology about how going slower will save lives, is ridiculous. No matter how much you save by living in a city, you still cant buy peace and quiet, nor privacy if you live there.This is more a matter of too many damn people and cars, not speed limits. The REAL solution is to NOT hit people to begin with, and the speed doesnt matter.   Even something as simple as using turn signals and paying attention, has become too bothersome for most drivers. Lowering speeds to a crawl, would create mass issues here. Hooray for USA!

Here's some math for you...  I pay less than $500 a month for over 2 acres and a 1200sqft+ basement home with barn. Equivalent in a nearby city is more than triple that cost. So.. $1000 more per month to live in a city is WAY more than the cost of vehicle maintenance and fuel, in compare to living in a shitty. Only thing left is to calculate time costs. Since we are only worth $10 an hour or less, the math still makes good sense.  $.50cpm---ludicrous! We own cars that cost less than $3k to outright buy, we maintain them ourselves and they get 30+mpg. Fuel costs for the month are less than $250 and we spend less than $800 a year on maintenance, including insurance.

Edited February 28, 2020 by ShanesPlanet

[PLEASE_DELETE]

Deleted.

Edited March 18 by PLEASE_DELETE

[LanghamP]

@ShanesPlanet, 

Let's look at road costs from the federal governments own website. Apendix A3.

Rural arterial costs about 6 million dollars per mile for your typical four lane stroad, then about 1.2 million dollars to maintain every four or so years. The equivalent urban is about four times as much, but densities are ten to twenty times as much, and so the road dollar per person is less.

Now in the past ten years the Federal government built around 300,000 miles of highway (not necessarily interstate), or about 30,000 miles per year.

The cost to build then maintain all these roads is dreadful, which is why all local governments sell municipal bonds; the gas tax and car fees only covers about 40% of the road costs, and the difference is made up via sales tax and city bonds.

Driving your car is unaffordable when you include infrastructure. You're paying thousands for infrastructure even if you don't own a car.

As for the safety factor, US drivers kill mostly other drivers despite most having insurance and a license. If driver training is a problem, why not impose German standard training?

 

 

[PLEASE_DELETE]

Deleted.

Edited March 18 by PLEASE_DELETE

[.....]

18 hours ago, LanghamP said:

@ShanesPlanet, 

As for the safety factor, US drivers kill mostly other drivers despite most having insurance and a license. If driver training is a problem, why not impose German standard training?

 

 

The answer is quite simple. Americans dont like being told what to do, dont like being denied anything (even if they should), dont like the idea of failing a test and dont give a rats ass about anyone else's safety but their own.  Take one look at how current emissions testing and drivers license testing is a complete farce and it all becomes clear. Regardless of policy, if it is a pain in the ass, we WILL find a way to circumvent it.  I'd almost go as far to say that ANYTHING that can compare the US to germany, is going to have a REALLY tough time passing by the population.

Edited March 1, 2020 by ShanesPlanet

[LanghamP]

5 hours ago, /Dev/Null said:

problem with these kinds of "TCO" are they can NEVER include full costs.  Are you including mental health costs of people who go crazy in the city?  If everybody lived in close quarters things like coronoavirus would/should spread much more rapidly.  Having people separated, with roads to connect them is a _good_ thing. 

The cost of roads don't include parking. These cost in road studies would skyrocket.

Let's take your typical US big box stores like Target, Wal-Mart, or best Buy. Look at the Google satellite image. Notice that the parking lot is between 4 to 6 times bigger than the store.

Cities vary between 1/6 to 1/4 of total land devoted entirely to parking. Now inner cities do have lots of parking but it's multilevel. We devote more land to parking than we do apartments!

In the US, what is the most dense living? It's the mobile home park, because mobile home parks don't have minimum parking standards, while high ride apartments require 2 parking spots per apartment.

Since the cost of infrastructure changes little regardless of density, it follows a dense city block brings in more tax revenue than R1 zoning (low density detached home). The tax collected within cities is redistributed towards the suburbs; cities are revenue generators while suburbs are expense sinks. It's astounding most suburban dwellers take city money then call the city cesspools with bad neighborhoods. Seems ungrateful.

[PLEASE_DELETE]

Deleted.

Edited March 18 by PLEASE_DELETE

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, /Dev/Null said:

You pretty much ignored my entire post.  I'm done.

You and @ShanesPlanet assert that spending a few more minutes of driving time is not worth people's lives. And you may both be right, because drivers are higher than pedestrians and bicyclists on the socioeconomic ladder, and the law treats them as such.

How do you convince drivers that they should afford non drivers the courtesy of life and limb even if it costs then a bit of time? I don't think it is possible unless one points out that the auto eccentric life is hugely expensive for everyone, including hidden costs.

Edited March 1, 2020 by LanghamP

[WI_Hedgehog]

On 2/26/2020 at 11:30 AM, LanghamP said:

Simple mandate to reduce traffic deaths is signed by every attending nation except the US.

GLOBALLY, MORE THAN 1.3 million people per year are killed in road crashes, with a further 50 million people seriously injured. Such crashes are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years.

....

What does this mean for us? Well, it probably means the US government has unambiguously choose automobiles as the transportation winners, with zero funding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

We do have many programs such as Rails to Trails and bike lanes, sidewalks, enclosed walkways, skywalks, etc., some of which cost several million dollars extra per bridge (due to widening of bridges and safety rails to keep vehicle traffic from hitting pedestrians in the case of a vehicular failure), so the statement of "zero funding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure" is wholly inaccurate.

Assuming people are injured due to speed alone is a false argument. People turn into bike lanes at slow speeds because they are not looking around (or caring) enough before running into someone. People cut others off whether on bike or skateboard or car, regardless of speed. We have many, many serious car-bike collisions because people aren't looking.

It is not just the impact of a car with a bike/pedestrian, but also what happens afterward. The secondary injuries from being pushed into a parked car can be worse than the primary injuries.

Speed restrictions are often a non-useful solution. In Chicago the speed limit may be 25 MPH, but traffic often does 2 MPH during the day because of pedestrians and other traffic. At night the limit should be 40 MPH because there are 4 to 5 lanes and few, if any pedestrians or traffic. One size does not fit all.

[LanghamP]

On 3/26/2020 at 12:45 PM, WI_Hedgehog said:

Assuming people are injured due to speed alone is a false argument. People turn into bike lanes at slow speeds because they are not looking around (or caring) enough before running into someone. People cut others off whether on bike or skateboard or car, regardless of speed. We have many, many serious car-bike collisions because people aren't looking.

Speed determines injury severity. People are too concerned about who was right or who cut off who, but those things aren't important because the interaction is psychological. What should be of concern is the damage caused when two people collide, and therefore a collision that causes little injury is more desirable.

A driver who rams a pedestrian at 40 mph will almost certainly kill the pedestrian, and yet 45 mph urban speed limits are extremely common.