Hacker News Reader

Comment by KBme | Hacker News Reader

Yes! This will save at least 3 lives a year! Even one life counts!

There are about 40 traffic deaths per year in Amsterdam.

Someone else commented here that when hit by a car at 50 kph, there's a 20% chance of survival, and at 30%, there's a 90% chance of survival. So in the best case, this might save 35 lives per year. Not to mention the reduction in noise, pollution, and damage to vehicles. I think that's easily worth it.

Just in the UK it's like 5 road deaths a day or so. A pedestrian being killed by a car every single day. I've also read they've somewhere reduced speeds.

I posted a graph in another comment here about the drastic effects such a small speed change has for survival rate.

This can have a huuuge impact.

Do you want impact? Take tobacco out of the streets and you´ll see impact. This is just another free solution to an almost non existent problem.

5 deaths a day in the uk is almost nonexistent?

Keep in mind the massive number of minor and serious injuries that accompany that stat.

Now wondering if this will actually substantially benefit motorists: insurance premiums are proportional to the cost of accidents.

That would be good too. Let's do both!

It would be interesting to know the financial cost of those deaths. Years of tax not paid, medical bills for the maimed etc.

It would seem likely to be a massive economic drain, quite apart from the sheer waste.

Here in NZ for a road toll of 300, 4000ish serious injuries and 30k minor injuries, the cost was $4.6 billion in 2019.

That doesn’t cover lost tax take etc. Reducing that number down is obviously helpful.

https://www.transport.govt.nz/about-us/news/social-cost-of-r...

When it’s your life it makes a world of difference. Public space is shared space, the car lobby has tricked you into believing it’s primarily for cars, but it’s wrong. Free up your mind, drive slowly, be kind.

Kindness is not a matter of speed. Kindness is a matter of comprehension with a bit of investment into creating cities for everyone. I want cars to be there, maybe it's just me, but why my desires are lesser than yours?

Because your desires kill people. They will rightly continue to be disregarded.

Cities are not a place for me live anymore. Airbnb, Uber, Uber-eats, delivery robots, security cameras everywhere, gentrification, poverty...

It's ok if you guys feel this is normal but for me it´s too much. Cities were vibrant places to share experiences that today are a complete mess of zombies taking pictures for the trendy social network. And this is just one more drop to make cities more soulless and "2030 ready" for people who does not really exist. I cannot say this is useless, it's just another politically correct decision to deal with. Too much already for me at least.

This is a real "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" argument.

Wait, reducing the numbers of cars in the city makes it _more_ soulless? How on earth does that work?

Like, was an important part of your urban experience traffic noise, or the sound of ambulance sirens going to pick up a dead pedestrian? I'm genuinely a bit baffled by where you're coming from here.

You got cause and effect completely backwards. The "soulless" cities are the cities full of cars and asphalt. The nice cities are the ones where people can use the city, where communities gather outside, there are markets, people eating by the curbside, kids playing. Where the city isn't dominated by the cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2tOye9DKdQ

It goes far beyond directly saving lives. Cities with slower traffic are more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, which is good in itself, but also encourages more active transport. More active transport means a healthier population which is also good. Reduced noise levels also is a consequence of slower traffic, which has plenty of benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com