Nice video! My only comment is that reducing congestion shouldn't be the priority, rather providing mobility in conjunction with health and safety. We'll always have traffic, but we need active and less polluting options that serve and move more people (regardless of if it reduces congestion)
Just wondering, do traffic deaths/accidents not create the congestions by blocking roads either for investigation or removing the debris. I would argue that in your example: conflictpoints are a subcategory of safety Less safety causes accidents which causes traffic death/accidents which causes congestion. I would also argue to add the near traffic accidents too cause they also make people respond differently. Ofc. Looking at conflictpoints is only 1 safety measure, there are many more safety measures like the breaklight notifying the driver behind of you breaking, which is a problem with current law with EV's, not all countries/states have their law adjusted to EV's. The definition was something like: "the breaklights should turn on when the driver is pushing the breakes", some EV's have breakless driving so the driver never touches the breaks, though they should always work.
Recently in my town, there has been a lot of discussion about a dangerous 4-lane road through downtown after a cyclist got killed and a middle schooler got hit and received severe brain damage. Because of this, I've recently heard tons of testimony from people who, although they are within walking and biking distance of downtown, will still choose to drive there because they feel unsafe crossing the road. The wider road generates more traffic than it facilitates, full stop, while also harming people throughout the town.
This is an important observation. A lot of times, when people talk about "induced demand", they just talk about things like the additional lanes attracting more business or residents or pulling traffic off other roads. But an important part of induced demand is that the additional lanes themselves reduce the efficiency of trips that people were already making. Another example is left turns. Every lane you add makes it harder to make left turns. This causes backups when cars try to make left turns, inducing demand not in trips or miles but just in time and space spent on the road. Doubling lanes does not double capacity, even in the absence of bottlenecks.
During the pandemic and the lockdowns an even worse detail became obvious: Roads in the US and Canada are basically "protected by congestion" - with less cars they were even more dangerous.
It’s a harder thing to track, but part of that is the makeup of who that traffic was. In addition to the essential workers, which would largely be made up of the general population, the other people on the roads were the anti-social people who wouldn’t wear masks, who wouldn’t stay home during the lockdowns, and who, by virtue of being sociopaths/psychopaths, already didn’t abide by other laws that were an inconvenience to them. Ergo, the roads had fewer “normal” people on them and more aggressive drivers/anti-social drivers who make up the majority of dangerous drivers to begin with. That tilted the risk factor toward the dangerous side while the over all number of vehicles on the roads went down. But as I said, that’s incredibly difficult to actually measure objectively, because it’s not like there’s a camera or radar or sensor you can lay across the road that tells you if the driver going past is a psychopath or not, so it takes _a lot_ more data and analysis to be able to conclude how much impact that had/has.
@@babybirdhomeBut could it be argued that the more time you spend in your car, in your home, at work, the more anti social you become? Starting at the start of your life? The more selfish and self sentered you become? The less time you spend around your neighbors and strangers, the less they matter to you?
@@knosisoften cities have no vision to follow through Vision Zero; take for instance LA who, in 2019 recieved an increase of "pedestrian deaths jumped more than 80% between 2015 and 2017 and have outpaced motorist deaths every year since 2010" (LAist, "At A City Hall 'Die-In', Protesters Demand Safer Streets And Bold Action From LA Leaders") despite enacting a Vision Zero plan in 2015.
I really don't understand why there are some many multi lane, high speed roads in the USA that have drive-ways connected directly to it. I also don't understand why so many crossroads have straight and through traffic on green at the same time.
Because when buisinesses saw that there were large groups of potential customers on these roads, they wanted to take advantage, and there was no regulation to stop it. So the roads became stroads and the businesses gained.
We do, but more transit is not a fix for congestion. For every car Transit takes away, a new car that didn't drive before will come in to fill that space. The only ways that are permanant fixes to traffic is mixed use - ie bringing stores and jobs closer to where people live. and increasing street network connectivity, more connected street networks distribute traffic such that the traffic doesn't concentrate in 1 location and can dispurse over a larger area thus reducing average delay.
I’d revisit this. You’re more likely to conclude, post COVID, that our streets were actually LESS safe with less congestion. It’s not congestion, but it’s actually road design.
I think this video is making the classic "correlation does not equal causation" mistake. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely in favor of making roads safer and re-dedicating car space to other forms of transportation. But congestion and car deaths both also strongly correlate to total number of lane miles in a city, which is the more likely culprit.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Nice video! My only comment is that reducing congestion shouldn't be the priority, rather providing mobility in conjunction with health and safety. We'll always have traffic, but we need active and less polluting options that serve and move more people (regardless of if it reduces congestion)
But if you can tell politicians that your new rail line will ALSO help with congestion, that'll make them WAY more likely to actually build it
Just wondering, do traffic deaths/accidents not create the congestions by blocking roads either for investigation or removing the debris.
I would argue that in your example: conflictpoints are a subcategory of safety
Less safety causes accidents which causes traffic death/accidents which causes congestion.
I would also argue to add the near traffic accidents too cause they also make people respond differently.
Ofc. Looking at conflictpoints is only 1 safety measure, there are many more safety measures like the breaklight notifying the driver behind of you breaking, which is a problem with current law with EV's, not all countries/states have their law adjusted to EV's. The definition was something like: "the breaklights should turn on when the driver is pushing the breakes", some EV's have breakless driving so the driver never touches the breaks, though they should always work.
Recently in my town, there has been a lot of discussion about a dangerous 4-lane road through downtown after a cyclist got killed and a middle schooler got hit and received severe brain damage. Because of this, I've recently heard tons of testimony from people who, although they are within walking and biking distance of downtown, will still choose to drive there because they feel unsafe crossing the road. The wider road generates more traffic than it facilitates, full stop, while also harming people throughout the town.
This is an important observation. A lot of times, when people talk about "induced demand", they just talk about things like the additional lanes attracting more business or residents or pulling traffic off other roads. But an important part of induced demand is that the additional lanes themselves reduce the efficiency of trips that people were already making. Another example is left turns. Every lane you add makes it harder to make left turns. This causes backups when cars try to make left turns, inducing demand not in trips or miles but just in time and space spent on the road. Doubling lanes does not double capacity, even in the absence of bottlenecks.
As someone from LA who just visited Philly, I felt at home in how terrible and unsafe the roads were. Thanks Philly!
This is SO important, and you both state and illustrate it all so clearly and eloquently! Thank you! (Came here from LinkedIn, btw.)
During the pandemic and the lockdowns an even worse detail became obvious: Roads in the US and Canada are basically "protected by congestion" - with less cars they were even more dangerous.
It’s a harder thing to track, but part of that is the makeup of who that traffic was. In addition to the essential workers, which would largely be made up of the general population, the other people on the roads were the anti-social people who wouldn’t wear masks, who wouldn’t stay home during the lockdowns, and who, by virtue of being sociopaths/psychopaths, already didn’t abide by other laws that were an inconvenience to them. Ergo, the roads had fewer “normal” people on them and more aggressive drivers/anti-social drivers who make up the majority of dangerous drivers to begin with. That tilted the risk factor toward the dangerous side while the over all number of vehicles on the roads went down.
But as I said, that’s incredibly difficult to actually measure objectively, because it’s not like there’s a camera or radar or sensor you can lay across the road that tells you if the driver going past is a psychopath or not, so it takes _a lot_ more data and analysis to be able to conclude how much impact that had/has.
@@babybirdhomeBut could it be argued that the more time you spend in your car, in your home, at work, the more anti social you become? Starting at the start of your life?
The more selfish and self sentered you become?
The less time you spend around your neighbors and strangers, the less they matter to you?
Vision Zero is regrettably often synonymous with zero vision.
Tell me about it.
@@knosisoften cities have no vision to follow through Vision Zero;
take for instance LA who, in 2019 recieved an increase of "pedestrian deaths jumped more than 80% between 2015 and 2017 and have outpaced motorist deaths every year since 2010" (LAist, "At A City Hall 'Die-In', Protesters Demand Safer Streets And Bold Action From LA Leaders") despite enacting a Vision Zero plan in 2015.
I really don't understand why there are some many multi lane, high speed roads in the USA that have drive-ways connected directly to it.
I also don't understand why so many crossroads have straight and through traffic on green at the same time.
Because when buisinesses saw that there were large groups of potential customers on these roads, they wanted to take advantage, and there was no regulation to stop it. So the roads became stroads and the businesses gained.
I was unaware of this, excellent vid! We got a long way to go..
Yes we do
I love your approach. I say we need more public transportation!
We do, but more transit is not a fix for congestion. For every car Transit takes away, a new car that didn't drive before will come in to fill that space. The only ways that are permanant fixes to traffic is mixed use - ie bringing stores and jobs closer to where people live. and increasing street network connectivity, more connected street networks distribute traffic such that the traffic doesn't concentrate in 1 location and can dispurse over a larger area thus reducing average delay.
Fantastic video and commentary, very informative!
The narrator sounds like a stud
Much appreciated!
Lots of a different kind of a conflict of road rage too.
Thank you, great informative video with excellent production value.
Thanks! Don't forget to smash that subscribe button!
Great video! solid in depth dive into the issue.
great video, thank you!
Great video.
Should create a discord, great video!
thanks! we offer a discord for a certain levels of patreon supporters
I’d revisit this. You’re more likely to conclude, post COVID, that our streets were actually LESS safe with less congestion.
It’s not congestion, but it’s actually road design.
But that's not what he said. He said unsafe roads lead to congestion. He didn't say congestion leads to unsafe roads.
He does support your conclusion though, it's the road design that ultimately determines wether a road is safe or unsafe.
Redirecting (not reducing) demand is the name of the game. Reducing sounds negative making it harder to promote.
Helsinki has many car centric parts with 6 lane stroads
Correlation is not causation. That can't be emphasised enough in such a complex issue issue as the causes of road fatalities.
I think this video is making the classic "correlation does not equal causation" mistake. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely in favor of making roads safer and re-dedicating car space to other forms of transportation. But congestion and car deaths both also strongly correlate to total number of lane miles in a city, which is the more likely culprit.
To be picky, we haven’t proven that reducing congestion decreases time lost, since adding all those lanes for cars didn’t actually reduce congestion 😉
Road = Good ans Safe. Stroad = Bad, Dangerous.
*Trillions spent