Re: Up to Speed
I REALLY do not like the title of this article, which is not actually Up to Speed (the name of the blog), but rather- Hybrids vs. Pedestrians. What a sick way to look at the issue! Since when do hybrid owners get tagged with being anti-pedestrian? The issue is not about one side or the other 'winning' anything. It's about finding reasonable traffic safety mechanisms.
Would every road in the country be safer for pedestrians if there were thick concrete barriers between the sidewalks and the roads? Yep, they probably would. Are we going to do that? No way.
Would every intersection in the country be safer for blind people if it had a beeping crosswalk signal instead of just a flashing light? Yep, probably would. Are all intersections ever going to have such a beep? No, they won't- but some of them will, because in certain areas the cost of installing the equipment and the noise pollution generated from the system are outweighed by the safety issues, due to the fact that many blind pedestrians use those particular intersections and would be substantially assisted by the beeps.
Would bell noises on quiet cars make hybrids significantly safer for blind pedestrians? Not necessarily. I suppose there's some chance that eventually studies will determine that such an idea has some merit, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated so far. Given the fact that the other types of tradeoffs I mentioned between reasonable safety restrictions are typically weighed against the amount of cost, inconvenience and trouble involved, why would it be any different this time? If the benefits are small and the annoyances big, reason will win through and the restrictions probably won't be adopted. I have no big issue with people spending money to study the problem, though I could wish that it wouldn't be public money that would probably be put to better uses elsewhere. Sigh.
|