Traffic deaths are preventable, not inevitable accidents. The article argues that the US's high traffic fatality rate compared to other developed nations is a direct result of prioritizing car speed and convenience over safety. This manifests in roadway designs that encourage speeding, lax traffic law enforcement, and a cultural acceptance of risky driving behavior. By contrasting the US approach with European countries that have implemented systemic changes leading to drastically lower fatality rates, the author emphasizes that safer streets are a matter of political will and prioritizing human life over car-centric design. Choosing different design standards, stricter speed limit enforcement, and investing in safer infrastructure are all deliberate decisions that could significantly reduce traffic deaths.
Transit agencies are repeatedly lured by hydrogen buses despite their significant drawbacks compared to battery-electric buses. Hydrogen buses are far more expensive to operate, requiring costly hydrogen production and fueling infrastructure, while battery-electric buses leverage existing electrical grids. Hydrogen technology also suffers from lower efficiency, meaning more energy is wasted in producing and delivering hydrogen compared to simply charging batteries. While proponents tout hydrogen's faster refueling time, battery technology advancements are closing that gap, and improved route planning can minimize the impact of charging times. Ultimately, the article argues that the continued investment in hydrogen buses is driven by lobbying and a misguided belief in hydrogen's potential, rather than a sound economic or environmental assessment.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that hydrogen buses are an inefficient and costly alternative to battery-electric buses. Several commenters point out the significantly lower lifecycle costs and superior efficiency of battery-electric technology, citing real-world examples and studies. Some discuss the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry as a driving force behind hydrogen adoption, framing it as a way to preserve existing gas infrastructure. A few offer counterpoints, suggesting niche applications where hydrogen might be viable, like very long routes or extreme climates, but these are generally met with skepticism, with other users arguing that even in these scenarios, battery-electric solutions are superior. The overall sentiment leans heavily towards battery-electric as the more practical and environmentally sound option for public transit.
Summary of Comments ( 41 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43964304
Hacker News users discuss the societal choices that influence traffic fatalities, agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters highlight the Netherlands as a successful example of prioritizing safety through infrastructure design and stricter traffic laws. Some discuss the trade-offs between convenience and safety, acknowledging that implementing effective changes often requires accepting some inconveniences. Others point out the role of lobbying by car manufacturers and the historical prioritization of car-centric infrastructure, arguing that these factors have contributed to higher fatality rates in places like the US. A few commenters mention the impact of driver behavior and education, while others emphasize the importance of automated safety features in vehicles. The overall sentiment is that reducing traffic deaths requires a systemic approach focusing on engineering, enforcement, and education.
The Hacker News post titled "Traffic Fatalities Are a Choice" (linking to an article in Asterisk Magazine) generated a moderate number of comments, with a general theme of agreement that societal choices significantly influence traffic fatalities. Many commenters discussed the trade-offs between safety and other priorities like convenience, speed, and cost.
Several compelling comments elaborated on specific choices affecting road safety. One commenter highlighted the difference between American and European approaches to pedestrian safety, noting European cities' prioritization of pedestrians through infrastructure design and stricter traffic laws, leading to lower pedestrian fatality rates. This commenter argued that the higher pedestrian fatality rate in the US is a direct consequence of prioritizing vehicle throughput over pedestrian safety.
Another commenter focused on the impact of car-centric urban planning. They argued that the design of many American cities necessitates car ownership and promotes longer commutes, inherently increasing the risk of accidents. They suggested that prioritizing alternative forms of transportation and walkable neighborhoods would naturally reduce reliance on cars and subsequently decrease traffic fatalities.
The idea of risk acceptance and societal normalization of traffic deaths was also a recurring theme. Some commenters argued that a certain level of traffic deaths is implicitly accepted as the cost of personal mobility and convenience. This acceptance, they argued, prevents more radical changes to infrastructure and policy that could drastically reduce fatalities but might also inconvenience drivers or increase costs.
One commenter pointed out the role of lobbying by the automotive industry in shaping traffic regulations and infrastructure development, sometimes in ways that prioritize profit over safety. This commenter suggested that understanding the influence of such lobbying is crucial for advocating for policies that prioritize road safety.
A few comments touched on the limitations of purely engineering solutions. While acknowledging the importance of safer vehicle designs and road infrastructure, some argued that human behavior plays a significant role in traffic fatalities. They emphasized the need for driver education, stricter enforcement of traffic laws, and a cultural shift towards greater road safety awareness.
While generally agreeing with the premise of the article, some comments also cautioned against oversimplification. They acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting that factors like driver error, weather conditions, and unforeseen circumstances also contribute to traffic fatalities. They argued for a nuanced approach that recognizes the multifaceted nature of the problem.