We had trees, they ripped them out in the name of safety.
"A drink driver might swerve off the road" killed so many old growth trees in the US.
"A drink driver might swerve off the road" killed so many old growth trees in the US.
I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.
Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases.
Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count.
This problem ruins a lot of really nice things.
Not much of a realistic fix, is it?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075139.h...
Mass transit will NOT reduce auto transit: any driver who chooses to take mass transit will be replaced by a new driver on the road.
Civilized countries already solved this problem.
So if you're just building out transit while keeping road capacity the same (less common with dedicated bus lanes or light rail, because space for those is often created by converting former car lanes, but with "other off-grade transit" modes you need to make a conscious effort of reducing road capacity if reduced car usage is your goal), it's entirely possible that public transport use increases, while passenger miles travelled by car remain the roughly same long-term.
Driving isn't intrinsic. Transportation is important but has multiple solutions.
Unless they were distracted by a phone, the radio, a passenger, putting on make-up, etc.
Or fatigued.
It isn't that accidents are impossible but the impact speed if you were doing 30 mph is livable. If you were drunk doing 60 mph it wouldn't be.
But without trees they might run into someone walking or on their porch/front yard.
Historically we measured efficacy by measuring fatalities. If you treat all deaths as equal your minimizing function will be narrow viewed.
1. Save drunk drivers but kill trees
2. Save drunk drivers but kill innocents
3. Let the drunk driver die before they kill anything/anyone else
I will always pick 3. I don't understand where the sympathy for this reckless behaviour comes from
No shot those reasons would justify millions in tree removal fees.
However the huge budgets for roads could do it trivially.
You underestimate the impact of measuring fatalities as the only way of verifying success of transportation policy...
Certainly if other benefits were weighed properly it might not happen but if you ignore the upsides... (certainly we historically ignored shade for pedestrians).
In the wider area, this part Winter had multiple trees fall. Not tree limbs, entire trees. One came down in front of a minivan carrying a local bus driver & his supervisor. I've got pictures.
I'm a pedestrian: I own neither a car nor a bike. But I understand why some trees are removed. I don't think the trees here are not watered deeply enough, so they don't have a deep hold on the ground.
I mean that we removed healthy trees in the name of safety.
Certainly verifying the health of trees and removing those that aren't healthy is a good thing.
My point is removing all trees within X distance on a non-highway was common practice.
Certainly clearing for highways is good as well.
Could have easily hit a person, a traffic pole, another car on sideways.
I don’t understand the argument why trees are at fault here.
Trees are the ultimate carbon capture, they produce oxygen and humidity, they provide shade, something beautiful to look at. They bring in birds and tree dwelling animals like squirrels.
Trees are a magical invention by nature.
That’s why we feel amazing walking in a neighborhood with trees.