we need to also think of the fact that the vast mojority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg, this doesn't make sense for the environment, we need to go lighter and smaller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
>It started as a coalition between farmers' organizations groups and bicyclists' organizations, such as the League of American Wheelmen.
Also:
>the vast mojority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg
The total number of cars in the world is estimated at around 1.5 billion. The population is around 8 billion. In fact, the vast majority of people do not own a car. This article focuses largely on road construction in less developed countries, such as Nepal.
...safely, at sustainable speeds 10-15x faster than they would be otherwise capable while solving the last mile efficiencies at the same time.
Increasing the lifetime and repair/upgrade-ability of those vehicles would probably do more for the environment than anything else.
The US has some of the most bonkers bike lanes I’ve ever seen; my favorite is a bike lane sandwiched between a main travel lane and a high-speed right-turn slip lane.
Bins, rubbish, man holes, street signs, uneven surfaces etc etc ruin bike lanes.
Bikes are great when your development pattern is Netherlands-like: Not dense enough for serious public transport to the home, or to do everything on foot, yet not so light that many trips go past 10 miles. I bet there's a few large metro areas that could support this, but in a lot of the country, it's not about unsafe lanes.
The modern suburban arterial often has light cycles measured in a few minutes, which adds up if you're hitting a bunch of them.
Dedicated bike infrastructure, even at high volumes, does not require coming to a full stop, so while the top speed might be lower, the average is more competitive than it appears. And grade separating a bike lane is a lot easier than a whole suburban road.
A lot more people in this world live in the tropics than the frigid north.
Motor vehicles are the most dangerous things we interact with on a daily basis.
The US doesn't even factor in safety of non-occupants in safety requirements.
Modern cars are safer than older cars, but they are still very dangerous.
He also missed the fact that "Other and Non specified" categories include ICD codes that directly specify falls. Just falls from or to various circumstances that aren't covered by the basic W codes.
It's a bad chart, "They appear not to," would be more accurate, but I tend to think this chart was made with appearances as a priority over accuracy and understanding.
Those statistics also include pedestrians who got hit, and motorcyclists who met the end of their road. Those two together are 32% of the total. Again, is the vehicle at fault here, or risky behavior? Which are we trying to measure?
At face value, you are right, though; however, it's still pretty close and the rate of change suggests a crossing. In either case, I know which hazard I would consider more pertinent to avoid in my own daily life. You can drive defensively and just not drink, you can't exactly climb a ladder defensively no matter how sober you are.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622...
Most studies that look at it show that fault is about equal in bike/car collisions. Given that, it's worth looking to see what the outcome is - and for the same trip, you'll be safer in a car.
Hardly. Self-inflicted injury leading to death is the #3 leading cause of death in the US. Mostly, that's ladders and falls that kill you. Suicides are more common than car accident fatalities. _YOU_ are the most dangerous thing you interact with on a daily basis.
The flu is more common. Emphysema is more common. So is Alzheimer's.
Most car accidents are single vehicle accidents where the driver was drunk or impaired.
Again, _you_ are dangerous to yourself. Which makes sense, you have to be around yourself all the time, so you _would_ be the most likely cause of your own death.
> The US doesn't even factor in safety of non-occupants in safety requirements.
The vehicle can never be made safe for these circumstances. The road and pedestrian walkways _can_ be, though.
This is not true at all. Vehicles have been getting taller and heavier, which has led to worse outcomes for pedestrians and cyclists. We could be going the other direction, but instead we're continuing to make it worse without regulation.
[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v... [2] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s... [3] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/higher-point-of-impact-make...
[1] https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/05/the-changing-mix-... [2] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/10/23/suvs-a-...
That seems unlikely to be true. Most fatal car accidents are single vehicle, but I doubt that most car accidents are single vehicle. It wasn’t immediately obvious how to search for reliable data there (since many single vehicle minor accidents would likely go unreported into a reliable/authoritative database).
Among fatal crashes, I found data to state that the majority of single car fatals involved excessive speed or alcohol, but not data to say that single car alcohol-related fatals were a majority of fatal crashes or of overall fatalities. The data I did find suggested that around 1/3 of car crash fatalities were alcohol-related (though some sources were as low as an 1/8th).
Isn’t that saying that if you combine all other accidental injuries it edges out cars. So cars are almost as dangerous as all the other things put together? Why are cars broken out into their own category from all the other things? Is it because they are incredibly dangerous?
> The vehicle can never be made safe for these circumstances. The road and pedestrian walkways _can_ be, though.
Pedestrian crash safety standards exist, in Europe, for example. As a result, some European cars offer active pedestrian safety systems that are stripped from North American equivalents. Cars certainly can be designed for passive and active pedestrian safety, and they are notably safer in areas where this is a requirement.
People do on average ver small distances, so speed isn't worth it