Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters.
Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.
You are being sarcastic - but this mindset change should happen in American cities if we are to move towards a sustainable future. We should have regular roads for bicyclists and pedestrians and "car lanes" on some roads, "truck lanes" on others etc.
Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
I think “attempted manslaughter” is just “reckless endangerment” or similar. Manslaughter means without intent; you can’t very well attempt to do something without intent.
There are two different axes: the severity of the punishment, and the predictability of receiving that punishment. Severity, applied spuriously, doesn't really provide a meaningful deterrent. A less severe sanction, applied predictably and reliably, does.
If the way you operate a motor vehicle causes a death, you should be charged. If there were a meaningful risk of jail time for bad driving (including driving tired, speeding, driving recklessly, etc), people would either drive less, or would drive more carefully.
At what margin is this true? Is the claim that at all margins, harshness of punishment never has any effect on violent crime? It seems unlikely to me that people would not adjust their behaviour with respect to a type of crime, between it being unenforced vs punished by death.
Typically the claim comes up when discussing crime; one side usually advocates for harsher penalties for violent criminals and the other side argues that harsh penalties are ineffective and cruel—and usually some stuff about how the criminals can’t help it, they’re a product of their environment, etc. Typically, in my country at least, the side arguing for softer penalties tends to overlap a lot with the folks who are most likely to advocate for severe driving penalties. This seems like a contradiction to me, so I’m curious about how people reconcile this.
Not the person you’re responding to, but typically this mindset is about punishment more than deterrence. It won’t reduce the incidence of bad outcomes, but some people feel better knowing that judicial vengeance will be meted out.
Fair enough, but do those people hold the same attitude about punishing violent criminals? Seems like there’s a lot of overlap between the “we shouldn’t punish violent offenders” and the “reckless drivers should be punished” people, but maybe I’m misreading the situation.
Yes, there's still a categorical difference between "there should be some consequences for recklessly killing someone" and "jailing people forever is the only right response to a violent crime".
So you agree that there is some degree of punishment that is acceptable for violent criminals? And I don’t think any serious person thinks jailing forever is the only right response to violent crime; the much more defensible position is “jailing until they are rehabilitated”, but this isn’t about punishment, it’s about protecting society. As it happens, rehabilitating prisoners is extremely hard and expensive, so sometimes we have long sentences and other times we let violent offenders out to further victimize their communities.
Banning doesn't solve the problem. It just obscures one of the symptoms.
Motorcycles _and_ pedestrians equally take an unfair share of the mortality associated with vehicles. Which hints at a broader infrastructure and design problem, that makes it very much seem like "automated" cars are thrown into this mess without any design changes with the hope that they will also obscure the underlying error.
Aside from that, even my 650cc motorcycle got 52mpg most days. Yes, absurd power to weight ratio, but also absurd fuel efficiency and reduced lane occupancy. Very green.
Or, you know, hold drivers accountable for the carnage they cause. This is much less a problem in Western Europe. It's almost wholly cultural in the US...
We build shit transportation infrastructure, force everybody to drive, don't build enough housing (forcing longer commutes), and then people like you complain that cars aren't given enough leeway?
That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.
Motorcycles aren’t viable in many places due to weather, and they aren’t practical for most people (people with kids, pets, large items, etc to transport).
I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.
Electric cars are the only viable, general purpose solve for climate change as it pertains to personal transit. We aren’t going to get everyone to start (motor)cycling or taking public transit over the coming decades, but EVs are a drop-in replacement for most personal transit use cases.
> I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.
Oh, of course we can practically implement road safety for everyone:
- limit inner-city speeds outside of major influx roads to 30 km/h
- build dedicated bicycle and bus lanes in cities
- build dedicated pedestrian lanes (not an issue in urban Europe, a bit of an issue in rural areas though)
- enforce speeding and distance-keeping regulations
- make sure the quality of the roads and pedestrian ways is acceptable (i.e. no potholes, even surface) to minimize accident risk
- keep heavy haul traffic on highways wherever possible, prevent toll evasion
- build out public transport to reduce the amount of individual traffic
- provide elderly citizens with taxi vouchers or other forms that ensure their mobility without having them drive themselves
- get old vehicles outside of historical preservation interests off the road to increase the amount of cars with up-to-date safety features
- enforce regular technical check-ups (Germany, for example, requires one every two years) so that vehicles in dangerous condition get taken off the road and owners of vehicles in barely-roadworthy condition also get the hint
Countries that prioritise safe infrastructure for bicyclists like the Netherlands fare significantly better in road accident statistics [1] over countries that just say "fuck it, cars first" like the US.
Those things improve safety, and we should certainly do them, but that’s likely not enough to bring all modes of transit into parity with regard to safety.
We can get near parity though - in the end it's probably a classic pareto distribution problem. The last 20% of traffic fatalities will be really hard, I agree, but we can reduce the utter majority of traffic accidents very very easily.
Agreed, although I think by and large we’ve already progressed a good ways into the 80%; however, the variance is huge because some jurisdictions take safety very seriously and others ignore it to the extent allowed by national law.
Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? They’re not as efficient as weight would imply, because aerodynamics dominate when you’re not speeding up/slowing down.
And yes, motorcycles transport two people at the most - but for real, look outside a window and count how many car drives are made by single-occupants. In the UK, for example, it's 60% [1].
You'd be surprised. They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.
Something like a CBR300F is about half the emissions of a hybrid and a grom can get lower, but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.
> They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.
Still more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than someone riding a full-blown SUV to work solo.
> but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.
Not everyone drives a Kawasaki Ninja H2 R with 310 hp or whatever the top record is these days. Per German ADAC, the average motorcycle consumes 2-3 liters/100km [1], whereas the average car is at 7-8 liters/100km [2].
You can buy electric scooters nowadays that can drive a lot farther than any car with the same battery. If one was big on emission reduction, one would ban all cars and only allow scooters.
With streets crowded with scooters during rush hour I think we'd have a lot more minor accidents/injuries, but far, far fewer deaths, right? What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?
> What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?
For one, more strictly enforce technical fitness and some form of age requirements. An awful lot of people don't care much about the roadworthiness of their vehicle, and many don't care about technological advances like anti brake-lock systems in newer models as well.
The other major contributor to motorcycle (or bicycle) accidents is road conditions like potholes, dirt and especially oil contamination, bumpiness in roads... a car doesn't care much (unless it's one of those super-flat sports vehicles), but a cyclist can easily lose control.
Aerodynamic drag is cD multiplied by cross section. By virtue of about a quarter the cross section of an average passenger vehicle, motorcycles are far more efficient. Don't even get me started on road wear being a function of weight to the fourth power, thus motorcycles effectively cause negligible road wear.
For what it's worth, I've never driven a motorcycle and probably never will, for danger.
I don’t bike to work for the reason you mentioned, even in the bike lane. The health benefits aren’t worth the amortized risk. Cars treat bike lanes as passing lanes way too often. If it’s not physically separated it’s not for me.
Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.