Re: [carfree_cities] Pedestrian and bicycle accident rates increase with hybrids
- On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Jym Dyer wrote:
>I have been saddened to discover that there are absolute assholes
> =v= At this point it seems that all I can do is speculate about
> what underlies the increased collision rate, but that scenario
> doesn't make sense to me. If one is driving a hybrid because
> of its perceived virtuousness, it seems that one would also try
> to drive virtuously. Also, some hybrid drivers don't really
> care about the Earth, they're just trying to save gas money
> and/or geeking out on the whiz-bang technology.
driving hybrids here--weaving, speeding, screeching round turns, and
behaving just like the worst of the worst SUV daddy's-money types.
I didn't expect that.
And they still take up too damn much room.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In email@example.com, "mdh6214" <matt@...> wrote:
>When I looked at a Prius I was told that Toyota will be moving all of their dials to a high center-dashboard position in the future. The sales rep (an unlikely source of scientific information) said that "research" had found that it was easier on the eyes to look to the side rather than looking down to see the gauges and kept the driver's head up so that at least your peripheral vision can still watch the road. He said it was much safer than asking a driver to look down. I don't know whether that is the case or not, I never saw the research. It certainly was unusual.
> (3) The "energy monitor" in a Toyota Prius is in the worst possible place: in the center of the dashboard, about there the radio typically is. Are drivers ignoring the road because they're busy staring at how many miles per gallon they're getting?
I imagine it also makes it easier to use the same center console for right-hand and left-hand drive vehicles.
Any incidence of a car running into a pedestrian on a city street is another reason to remove cars from city streets. With fewer pedestrians in rural areas and on limited-access highways, there will be a lot fewer accidents between vehicles and pedestrians.
- Back in the 90s, Gerald Wilde of Queens Univ. in Ontario developed a theory
called "target risk." It refers to the fact that a driver has a certain
level of risk he is willing to subject himself, and if a change in road
design or car design gives him more than his target, he will 'expand' his
driving in some way that translates the improvement into a benefit. For
most drivers, speed is increased, which provides the benefit of the saving
of time. Also, risk, itself, is a benefit for those who feel that a
certrain amount make them "feel more alive."
Likewise, I think there is a "target virtue" at work, so that a person will,
likewise, increase speed or other forms of risk when their feelings about
virtue+driving rises. And considering the amount of attacks that have been
leveled at cars and driving, virtue is a worthy commodity. Cyclists usually
mutter something about 'saving the planet' when whizzing through red lights,
for instance. The well-documented increases in driving distances for those
in improved-mileage cars is another. I call such efficiencies "reduced
BTW, a recent book -- Ladd, Brian, _Autophobia: Love & Hate in the
Automobile Age_ (2008) -- does an excellent job documenting the anti-car,
anti-roads/freeways writing worldwide (lots in German) literature.