all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 3 months ago (14 children)

I wonder what the field of study is called that prepares people for this kind of traffic management/design job and whether is includes average driver/distracted driver/lowest common denominator design considerations. Putting new concrete barriers out without bright paint and reflectors surprises me; people driving their cars right up on them does not.

When my hometown put in their first traffic circle, they incorporated a pedestrian tunnel under one of the entry/exit points. Within the first two weeks, a driver got confused going around the circle for the first time, went over the edge, and dropped their car 8+ feet into the pedestrian tunnel. Fortunately, there were no pedestrians in the tunnel at the time and the driver was ok. They added a guardrail along that edge of the circle.

There were also people going the opposite direction around the circle from the intended flow. And drivers ping ponging between lanes as they went around the circle unsure what lane they should be in, including a cop car I personally witnessed doing it multiple days in a row. And cars that would just plow straight through the middle of the circle until they packed it with brick planters, flowers, and an art installation.

Even if 99.9% of drivers are attentive and safe, 0.1% is a lot of chaos and accidents. I would hope designing for that 0.1% gets a disproportionally weighty amount of attention.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    For a country that is so incredibly carcentric, USA really seems horrible at driving cars, as someone (fortunately) looking in from the outside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    I think because it's so car-centric lots of people have to be able to drive to hold a job or go to school. So it's seen almost more like a "right". Compared to my friends in London or Sydney were the view seems much more that proficiency should be worked towards and licensure earned.

    There is probably some parallel to gun culture, though that actually is a "right" here. A person who has no business around weapons can still buy enough to kit a small army. Beat their spouse? Meh, they can still own guns. Road rage? Psh, that's no reason to pull their drivers license or their guns.

    Also, I was 13 when I got a license to drive. My state had the lowest age I am aware of for kids who lived in rural areas and didn't have school bus service so they could drive themselves to school. So yeah, 13 years old and I drove a car from home into the city of 300k people to get to my school. The only accident I have ever been responsible for was wiping out a mailbox when I slid on some ice. Motorcycle license at 15 years old after a short written test and riding the bike about six city blocks. I'm technically a successful example of the low age limits and I think it was fucking stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This is true, every time I drive just a few miles, i witness dozens of traffic violations. Rolling through stop signs, turning illegally into the wrong lane, running red lights, etc. When I was a teenager there were traffic cops, today you'll see people break the law right in front of a cop and the cop does nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    I think it's because it's car centric the complacency set in so fast than their logical thinking can course correct. The whole place is made just for car and no other mode of transport, it train people to not ever think about others and doing thing their way, as driving are so easy it barely challenge anyone to make a conscious move.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    There's a lot of variation by locale, too. In Arkansas, for example, at one point the age to start driving was 15 and there were effectively zero other qualifications for obtaining a license.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It’s not really about being bad drivers. It’s about being anti-education.

    Even just teaching people general critical thinking and risk evaluation would get them thinking “Gee, upturning this 8-ton metal vehicle would be really bad. Maybe I won’t risk that yellow light a block away.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder what the field of study is called that prepares people for this kind of traffic management/design job and...

    Civil engineering, and traffic engineering specifically.

    whether is includes average driver/distracted driver/lowest common denominator design considerations.

    Sort of, but not really. I'm sure there are some traffic engineers somewhere that do research on distracted driving, and their findings get turned into recommendations about signage placement and such. But I think most engineers actually doing the road design 'assume' drivers are mostly rational actors and are not overtly defensive in their design. Instead, they wait until crash data collected after the fact forces the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    most engineers actually doing the road design 'assume' drivers are mostly rational actors and are not overtly defensive in their design. Instead, they wait until crash data collected after the fact forces the issue.

    This is absolutely wild to me. I'm an engineer, mechanical background, related to traffic in the air rather than on roads, and we have SO MANY REMINDERS pushing the idea of proactive safety measures and mistake-proofing any potential safety hazards. From industry standards to regulatory body and customer requirements, to internal procedures, backed by tools and specific courses in engineering coursework. Folks would be in jail if they acted like this, like, "yeah, that plane door might fly open if some idiot goes at it the wrong way but *shrug, we'll tweak the design once someone actually does it and kills a planeload of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago

    Don't get me wrong: traffic engineers aren't out there designing whatever they want with reckless disregard for [driver] safety. In fact, I would say that they're probably more conservative than other types of engineers in terms of following established practices (especially since civil and especially traffic engineering is often more about customizing known-"good" designs to the circumstances of the site, rather than trying to innovate/improve performance the way a mechanical engineer working on a new airplane design might be).

    The trouble is, the established practices themselves are wrong and bad in a lot of ways, in particular that they have a very 1950s view of what the goal of the engineer is (moving cars as fast as possible) and don't take enough consideration of the ways that an urban street is very different than a rural highway.

    Chuck Marohn of Stong Towns does a very good job of explaining it. He's got a book and long-form videos, but I like citing his "30 days of confessions" playlist of short videos. In particular, as someone working in aviation, you might be interested in "#8 Plane Crash vs. Car Crash", but I recommend watching them all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Local city made a new "safe" crossing for a priority cycle path where it crosses a local road with medium relatively slow traffic. The local road now has a mini very soft speed bump, lots of white and red paint and a sign saying you have to yield to the cycle path. On the cycle path they actually even put the "you have the priority" sign. None of this solves the issue of it being a for the cars super unexpected weird priority to give, and the view on the incoming cyclists being super obstructed by level difference and bushes. Not even mentioning distracted or drunk or foreign drivers. I tried emailing the city CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE responsible person about what a death trap they conceived there. He'd have none of it, saying it's super save now because of all the paint and the signs. Meanwhile, parallel street to this one actually already has a non-level conflict free crossing over the cycle path... Which they're closing to cars and thus sending more cars towards the super dangerous level crossing... I'll experience a very weird mixture of sadness and "I told you so" in a few months to a few years I think... At a similar crossing a bit further it already happened, car hit cargo bike with 2 kids in it (they were severily injured). The car driver "oversaw" them while visibility is better there than at this new crossing :( It's incredible how much traffic planners assume car drivers to be good drivers at all times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Tell the dude that if a cyclist dies in that crossing that you'll send a copy of the email chain to the local news outlets, so that they'll know he was on notice that it was dangerous and still did nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I consider trying to contact another person in the administration before it happens... It's just so stupid, the super expensive hard to build piece of infrastructure to make it safe is there already at the next parallel street (a concrete street bridge over a railway that runs right next to the priority cycle path, that bridge is wide enough so the cycle path also crosses underneath the street together with the railway). Yet for some to me really impossible to understand reason they choose to redesign the streets around it to guide more car traffic from the neighbourhood around it away from this safe crossing of the cycle "priority route" and towards the dangerous level crossing with it. Putting up the extra "you have priority" signs for the cyclists is just the crazy drop too much. Yeah, you have priority but you should be extremely fucking careful here anyway because you are crossing a street with cars that just drive straight for the 800m before it and 800m after it! Nothing but paint and signs in the middle of long straight street... especially at night or in fall/winter when there's often a thick low hanging fog in this city, cyclists should absolutely not be encouraged to blindly take their priority there!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    This will honestly be some guys excuse to get a lifted truck. Why can't they just put in jersey barriers like normal civil engineers. Even crazier idea, actually design bike infrastructure instead of some awkward mini barrier in the middle of a road

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I ride on this street fairly often. So let me tell you from direct experience: for Atlanta, this bike infrastructure is actually pretty damn good.

    Ironically, the next bike crossing over I-20 further East, at Bill Kennedy Way, has Jersey barriers and urbanists are complaining about them because they're done wrong. GDOT refuses to anchor them into the street properly (claiming bullshit about "maintenance problems" or something), so when cars hit them they get pushed into the multi-use path.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    To me, at least, jersey barriers seem like a temporary thing, something that belongs in a construction zone, but not the finished product. If I'm being nit picky, I want the separation to be low enough that a pedestrian can step over it, too.

    Best case scenario is obviously grade separation and distance between cars and bikes, but in a confined space, I dont think these barriers are horrible. Maybe the best move would be full-height barriers at the ends, and these low ones in the middle?

  • source
  • parent
  • 26 comments in c/youcantparktheremate@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    The article got it right:

    Painted bike lanes offer absolutely no physical protection for cyclists if a distracted driver drifts over the white line. While a car climbing a concrete divider looks like an infrastructure failure, it is actually the barrier successfully absorbing an impact that otherwise would have struck whoever was riding in the bike lane.

    I just hope that anybody found on top of one of those barriers has their license revoked. Give them the option to go to court to try to get it back. Maybe a kid ran into the street and they chose to hit the barrier rather than the kid. But, the presumption should be that if you're up on that barrier you're not a safe driver and shouldn't have a license.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    "we need better visibility of where we will face consequences for our traffic violations and where we can keep doing it"

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    We need better visibility so we don't kill people or put crews who have to deal with the fallout in danger.

    A higher barrier painted in reflective paint and generally more visible to drivers would be beneficial both to the pedestrians/cyclists, and other cars on the other side of that barrier (for safety's sake) than what is there now.

    Additionally high centered cars have to be removed which puts the crew removing them at risk. It is better to avoid this by making a higher/more visible barrier than it is to leave it like this and hope some idiot in a car doesn't actually crusha cyclist on the other side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I get what you're saying but my point is that there's a much bigger problem in the core of this: with or without barrier in normal circumstances your vehicle shouldn't be touching anything beyond your lane. The barrier isn't any less visible than the paint on the road, so either this is a problem on every stretch of road everywhere, or this is a problem with drivers (or both). Either way it's unacceptable.

    Yes, adding a barrier that causes accidents that wouldn't have happened without it is stupid. But fixing the barrier visibility alone is just going back to ignoring the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    This solution doesn't solve the problem and causes a worse problem. But you're worried about ignoring the problem?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    No, by definition the solution only causes new problems when it effectively prevented the original problem from happening. I agree that it can be improved to not cause those new problems. What makes me sad is that there's people out there who actually think this is causing a worse problem than the one it fights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You are wrong. Softening roads, removing roadside obstacles, increasing speeds. Those created problems. When people had concerns about dying because they drove like idiots we created a much more dangerous situation. I'd argue that fucking up your car on a speed bump is better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Georgia is one of the most car dependent states in the country.

    The main problem is, it's also likely one of the easier states to get a driver's license in (a lot of southern states are like this in my experience and I've held a driver's license in 5 states).

    So I agree (to a certain point) with people who think these drivers should learn to drive. But, I also recognize that 1. we are unlikely to fix that problem in a timely manner for a state ranked 5th most car dependent in the states. A lot of people will die or be grievously injured while we get all those drivers who pose a risk to themselves and others properly trained.

    1. We can do something to better protect the cyclists using bike lanes. But, making it more hazardous for them in the name of protection ain't it.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    To be fair my original comment was just pointing fingers and making a joke at the sad point we're at, but not really trying to think much about what's the best way to actually deal with it in the real world.

    If I put some thought into it I would potentially agree with you or come up with a counter argument but we're not really disagreeing that much so I'll just save those neurons for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    Mario Kart shortcut users IRL.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago*

    Because the concrete barriers sit extremely low to the ground, neighbors argue that aggressively driving or distracted motorists simply cannot see them until it is too late.

    Those are not "extremely low". People just aren't watching where they're driving.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago*

    These need a 1m vertical section where the top is rn

    Or something

    That car got kinda far across

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Manc classic from when Youtube was actually a place to share videos https://youtu.be/i_Cw0QJU8ro

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Good for the economy and good for the automotive repair industry.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago*

    The driver of the car in the photo should lose their license... (Unless they were just swerving to avoid some other reckless driver or similar 😅)

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Viewed as a good thing because nobody has gotten hurt yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Viewed as a good thing because if it wasn't for the physical barriers obviously bikers and pedestrians would have been killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    This is something that's likely to hurt a pedestrian though.

    The barrier needs to be higher if cars are able to high center themselves on it. All it takes is one person getting crushed by a vehicle that high centers on that thing. Which clearly nobody thought about when they read my comment.

    Nice assumption guys. Nobody thought about the physics of what happens when that vehicle ends up falling on someone? Not one person looked at the photo in that article and went "what happens to the people who might be in the bike lane on the other side when a vehicle does this"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Cars actually killing people without a barrier vs cars possibly killing them with. Seems like a good enemy of perfect scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    You aren't arguing in good faith here. I'm not arguing against the barrier. I'm saying the barrier should be more robust.

    You can feel however you want to feel about this, but I'm betting you saw my original comment and made an assumption about what I meant and now you're doubling down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    This was the first time in our thread you've mentioned that, so yes I'd agree it could always be safer. You didn't say that though, you said:

    Viewed as a good thing because nobody has gotten hurt yet.

    Which I and it looks like many others thought you meant you didn't want the barrier there at all. Need to be clearer if you have a point to make like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The second comment made it pretty clear that the barrier height was the problem. But you either didn't read that or ignored it in favor of arguing. You didn't ask any questions. You made an assumption and then ignored the further clarification. That's on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    sigh some people will never own up and admit they made a simple mistake. It was a miscommunication man. Just be clear in the future. We aren't mind readers. If you don't include information we won't know about that information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 7 comments in c/fuckcars@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 67 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I’m of the opinion that if this is a problem for a driver, they have no business behind the wheel.

    Based on my short visit to Atlanta several years ago, this includes a lot of Atlanta drivers.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 3 months ago

    In a statement provided to WSB-TV, ATL DOT engineers stopped short of blaming the barriers, explicitly stating that the available evidence points to simple driver error. In the city’s view, the infrastructure isn’t the problem—motorists simply need to pay better attention and stay in their designated lanes.

    Based ATLDOT

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 3 months ago

    Can't park there, mate

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Next they are gonna ask the city to send a message to their phone whenever they get close to any road obstacle.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    These deadly low driving standards should mandate the use of more barriers. Knowing the way things work, the big truck makers will create a bigger deadlier vehicle to cope with this.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Comment thread on original page:

    Get off your phone!

    You cannot “get off your phone” if you need it for direction to your destination.

    How under-30s actually think.

  • source