Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You could argue vision zero is fundamentally at odds with reality. Reality will never get to a point where everything is cut cleanly and nicely, and all the figures add up. Hell, we still get cases of polio lol. Plus the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Every small improvement in safety becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve. At that point, you have to question the opportunity cost of pursuing further improvements and whether those efforts would be better placed elsewhere in our city building.

We don't have cases of polio in Canada anymore. Anyways, what you have posited may sound reasonable - until you basically have to draw the line as to where "acceptable cost" lies - and that's where the status quo rears its' ugly head and "any additional cost" becomes untenable. Also, you have a case of moral hazard here - the cost of death and injury isn't borne by those who takes the risk of driving unsafely, nor by those who would suffer from the negative consequences roadway redesign for the sake of pedestrian safety.

AoD

 

[Undead]

We don't have cases of polio in Canada anymore. Anyways, what you have posited may sound reasonable - until you basically have to draw the line as to where "acceptable cost" lies - and that's where the status quo rears its' ugly head and "any additional cost" becomes untenable. Also, you have a case of moral hazard here - the cost of death and injury isn't borne by those who takes the risk of driving unsafely, nor by those who would suffer from the negative consequences roadway redesign for the sake of pedestrian safety.

AoD

I didn't say the cases were in Canada lol.

I stand by what I said even as a frequent pedestrian.

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[Leo_Chan]

So governments are to blame for car dependency?

 

[rbt]

So governments are to blame for car dependency?

In-so-far as they execute the wishes of the electorate: Aren't they to blame?

 

[crs1026]

Looking at life over the past 100 years, one sees that our society got incredible utility from the automobile and the internal combustion engine.

That may not be sustainable or prudent, from today forward and over the next 100 years, but that doesn’t mean we have to vilify the auto for getting us to this point.

We have to change, but we don’t have to be mean about it.

I imagine that riding in a dirigible was actually rather fun. But moving forward....

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

So governments are to blame for car dependency?

Actually the motor vehicle manufacturers, petroleum, road construction, etc. lobby groups.

 

[tsm1072]

So governments are to blame for car dependency?

If you watch his series on car-dependent suburbs, he does a good job at explaining how we got here and the problems it has caused. It's one of those problems where doing the thing that makes people happy in the short term, isn't a good thing in the long term.

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[lenaitch]

If you watch his series on car-dependent suburbs, he does a good job at explaining how we got here and the problems it has caused. It's one of those problems where doing the thing that makes people happy in the short term, isn't a good thing in the long term.

But isn't that human nature? The invention of a reasonably compact power source, the entrepreneurialship and production methods that made it accessible and the development of an energy source that made it work. I'm not sure that society of the early and middle part of the last century could be expected to accurately envision today and more than we can accurately envision 100 years from now.

Prior to widespread automobile use, the country was largely rural and many people lived and died within a half-days horse drawn wagon ride from where they were born.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure that society of the early and middle part of the last century could be expected to accurately envision today and more than we can accurately envision 100 years from now.

More than 450 years prior to an operating version being built; Da Vinci had a the notion of a helicopter.

His idea was wrong, in as much as he envisioned it being human-powered...........but his concept of an 'aerial screw' was essentially on point.

While I have genuine sympathy for the argument that one can't always see clearly into next year, let alone a century forward..........

I also tend to think that often owes to most people's lack of imagination and poor analytical skills as much as anything

 

[tsm1072]

But isn't that human nature? The invention of a reasonably compact power source, the entrepreneurialship and production methods that made it accessible and the development of an energy source that made it work. I'm not sure that society of the early and middle part of the last century could be expected to accurately envision today and more than we can accurately envision 100 years from now.

Prior to widespread automobile use, the country was largely rural and many people lived and died within a half-days horse drawn wagon ride from where they were born.

The issue isn't what was built pre-1950. Most of the bad, single use, car oriented development has happened since 1970. We definitely could have created policies that encouraged more sustainable and people friendly development, but it wouldn't have been popular with the "American dream" of having a cheap house on a cul de sac built and bought with money we don't have.

 

[lenaitch]

It could be argued that, in the minds of the population of the '70s (and I would argue that it pre-dates that, probably post-war) "people friendly" was just that; single family homes on cul-de-sacs.

 

[tsm1072]

It could be argued that, in the minds of the population of the '70s (and I would argue that it pre-dates that, probably post-war) "people friendly" was just that; single family homes on cul-de-sacs.

I agree, that's why I said: "It's one of those problems where doing the thing that makes people happy in the short term, isn't a good thing in the long term."

But it turns out that is not a sustainable development practice both economically and environmentally.

 

[crs1026]

I really don’t get why people who are advocating a move beyond the automobile (which I agree with) feel the need to rewrite the history of the last hundred years and vilify the automobile as part of making that happen. The auto enabled a massive growth in the efficiency of moving both people and goods, and permitted development over a much broader expanse of the continent than was possible with railways and horse drawn transport. The lifestyles and standards of living which were created (eg in the postwar suburban expansion) were better than anything ever seen before, for a much larger proportion of the population. The movement of the middle class to the outskirts of urban areas created space for new arrivals and opportunities to develop locales for incoming ethnicities in an era where our population growth depends on immigration.

I grew up in a suburban element with curvy streets and yes (right off our street) a cul-de-sac. It was (and is) a great place to live.... quiet, natural, clean. In later years, I lived in more urban urban settings, and certainly enjoyed them. But we seem to have pushed the pendulum over to a point where we are arguing that living in tiny boxes with minimal physical separation is good for you. Thanks, but I will keep my back yard a little longer.

The issue is - there is no room left to build any more of this type of community, the costs of servicing undense communities have risen, and the suburbs we have will need to be densified. And (barring EVs) the carbon limits have been exceeded. So I can agree that all this is drawing to a close. But I’m sure glad I lived where I have.

My current home is walking distance from the subway and shopping and services. It’s a modest house on (by urban standards) a large lot. Doesn’t mean I am wrong to enjoy the space while I still have it, or that I was wrong to have it in the first place. Just have to move with the times.

There is intense pressure in my neighbourhood to demolish such houses and build 4500 square foot single family homes (which the lot sizes will accommodate) when what we need is to build triplexes - same gfa, same loading on the lot, but three affordable family spaces rather than one $2M dwelling. The opposition to densifying the yellow zone is huge.

We aren’t making wise decisions about land use and lifestyles even where transit is abundant and automobiles aren’t essential. That’s not the automobile’s fault.

I may not own a car much longer, especially if the AV fanatics are correct. But I’m not going to apologize for any of it.

- Paul