Just ban all personal cars from city centers, replace every 5 banned cars with 1 electric taxi and make it free for people with a public transportation subscription.
Boom, every single "cars in city" problems solved. I'm sure that even with 100% state subsidised taxi rides it would still be a net positive if you consider costs of health, pollution, accidents, insurances, &c.
This is definetely the way to move forward, but here in Berlin it would be political suicide for now. The steps to take (some of which are already being taken):
- Introduce good bike lanes, narrowing down streets. Give bikes more priority in traffic rules (can't really be done in Berlin since they are federal rules).
- Introduce an inner city car toll. Offset losses to businesses that absolutely require it through tax breaks. (construction, delivery drivers, taxis etc.)
- Close down non-essential streets completely during most hours (4-6am free for deliveries etc.). Reduce parking/make drivers pay for parking.
At the same time, you need to make it easier for people to switch:
- Reduce prices of public transport for residents. In Berlin they want to introduce a yearly ticket for 365€, that is perfect.
- Increase availability of public transport, and make all busses electric.
- Introduce large parking spaces at key points in the far suburbs of the city. Parking there costs a fee that also works as a day ticket for public transport. Express busses take you to the city centre/other key infrastructure points.
Some of these are already being worked on in Berlin, otherwise I know are on the agenda and being discussed. In Berlin specifically though, some points might not be legal. Inner city toll for example might be prohibited by federal law.
E: One important point I forgot: Cars account for 25% of all emissions in Berlin. On the local level, getting rid of cars is the best thing we can do to combat climate change.
They did that. 2€ per hour. One of the reasons I don't have a car. But I would rather walk two hours to the office and two hours back before I go by tram / public transport. There are many reasons/problems but one is: it is overcrowded and I don't like people. I go by bike or ebike instead.
2€ per hour isn't remotely high enough, and doesn't come close to covering the actual costs of all that real estate that a parking spot uses up. Rates as high as 20€ per hour are likely necessary for the most popular neighborhoods.
The cost of parking needs to be high enough such that you can remove a lot of spots and convert them to other uses (i.e. protected bike lanes, commercial loading zones), and still keep multiple free spots per block so that people willing to pay the high prices don't need to drive around to find spots.
If I could pay 20€ per hour maybe I would advocate for the same thing. Let's build more (underground) parking decks which could be afforded by more than the richest 1%?
I think the point is that perhaps only the richest 1% actually need to own their own private automobiles. With good enough alternatives, it is possible to push car ownership up out of the middle class, and that's ultimately what's needed.
Otherwise, the whole thing is just half measures that make it harder for poor people to get around.
I definitely felt like Berlin was way behind Paris on bike lane quality, but I did appreciate the number of intersections that have been half blocked by pillars, to make streets less conducive to any other kind of through traffic.
I rented a Vespa while I was there, which was a great way to get around, but I was blown away by how many times cars sped by me in a hurry from behind. It’s rare to ever see a car get going >30mph (~50kph) in San Francisco, whereas some Berlin streets felt more like freeways. I wouldn’t have enjoyed being on a bicycle in some of those situations.
> This is definetely the way to move forward, but here in Berlin it would be political suicide for now.
It's definitely a political suicide in most cities in the world, but it's probably the best way to get out of the madness we lowered ourselves into while retaining most of the mobility.
replace every 5 banned cars with 1 electric taxi and make it free
That will massively increase the number of cars on the roads city center. Most cars in cities spend most of their time parked. Offer a free taxi service and those cars will be rolling 24/7. Plus since the service will be so popular that there will basically always be someone waiting for a ride, drivers will be incentivized to driver faster so that they can get more fares (and thus more money).
If people who would have driven their own car now take a taxi instead the math doesn't work out unless the taxis have to drive five times the average trip length for making pickups.
The idea being that free taxi service might provide incentive to some people who weren't previously driving.
Why bike when there's a free convenient taxi? Even those who drive might take more trips into town if they don't have to worry about driving in traffic and parking.
Correct. In no way should single occupancy vehicle trips even be subsidized, let alone free! Taxis should be the most expensive option. Trains and buses should be much cheaper, if not free.
No, let’s assume the total trips are the same, so 2 per person in the city or whatever. Taxi’s still need to get to the start and end of each trip unlike cars which just park, that added distance increases total miles driven.
There would still be incentive to drive faster. Given that the service has a fixed income side, the only way to optimize its profitability is getting the expense side down. Driving faster to make more tours with less cars is the most obvious way to do this, therefore drivers will be incentivized to go faster.
I don't like this idea of "free car rides" at all, I believe it would actually make things worse.
There is a cost vs. convenience trade off between public transport and cars, i. e. public transport is much cheaper, but you have to walk the last mile. Making cars as cheap as public transport would destroy the incentive to use public transport and most people would switch to car travel instead. Also, as others have pointed out, cars are parked most of the time (like 95% of the day), so replacing 5 cars with 1 taxi is unlikely to lead to a reduction, combined with the new incentive (see above) to use cars instead of bikes, buses, trains, etc., most of the problems involved would actually get worse.
> Just ban all personal cars from city centers, replace every 5 banned cars with 1 electric taxi
This wouldn't help, as I mentioned in another comment here. Taxi drivers are one of the most dangerous, obnoxious and self-absorbed drivers in this town.
Also the city mulls over increasing the base rates for taxis which are already prohibitively expensive.
Compared to dumping metric tons of toxic gases and particles right next to where we live/work/sleep as well as moving 2 tons vehicles to displace 1 person ? Using 50% of the streets to park cars that move 30 min per days ?
Just because we're used to something doesn't make it less insanely dumb. ICE / personal cars would never be allowed if created today.
I sympathize. I commute on a bike and wish more people would do it. The reality, however, is that cities are built around personal transportation being a thing.
What you've suggested is just shoehorning something in (centralized government-run personal transportation) apparently without any thought of how it would actually impact commute time traffic, or whether other infrastructure enhancements would be more ideal.
For public transit to work it has to scale to the number of people who actually need it. In most cities it does not. Adding electric taxis at a ratio of 1 to 5 commuters makes absolutely zero sense. Adding electric taxis at a ratio of 5 to 5 commuters still makes no sense. It's just a dumb idea.
^ I'm not going to refute an argument you haven't made. Your hypothesis is that "what we have sucks" (true), your conclusion "therefore literally anything I just pulled out of thin air is better."
Your conclusion is not supported by facts presented. If you would be so kind as to justify your assertion it would be a lot more interesting to think through it and you might convince me. But as-is, what you've put forth is lazy and poorly thought out.
We both can't backup our claims with real data but I feel like what we have right now is the worst possible solution in almost every aspects. Personal cars, personal insurances, personal parking spots, none of that make sense. It's a massive waste of resource, money and space that has a gigantic effect on everyone living in a city.
It would also be a huge incentive for people to start looking into other types of transportation.
You'll never get back where you started since most cars are parked in front of an office / house / whatever 95% of the time using space for no reason whereas taxis are always moving.
Moving cars are the problem, since they are what causes congestion and accidents. Cars sitting in parking garages don't run over people or cause traffic jams.
What you gain in parking, you lose in congestion. Now most trips are 'deadheading' where the trip to pick up the passenger is as long as the trip the passenger wants to take. Doubles traffic, approximately?
What the article doesn't mention: the "SUV" was a Porsche Macan, a compact SUV that's smaller than most german station wagons and about the size of an average family van.
They just say 'Porsche SUV', and most people think it's the more common Porsche Cayenne.
Indeed. I'm not quite sure what I think of the ban. But if there is a ban it should be based some combination of weight and engine size and not whether the car is considered an 'SUV' or not.
Agree with this. Another factor is that even if you don't go under, the grill is higher up. If the impact is centered on the legs or pelvis you might have serious damage, but will most likely live. If the impact's near the chest or head, there's a lot of delicate vital organs.
The increase in trucks and SUVs is a major reason why pedestrian fatalities has increased so much over the past decade. (Though the auto industry has tried to shift the blame to cell phones.)
Completely agree. The fact the you can drive a truck down a narrow pedestrian street to deliver a couple of 50x50x30 cm boxes is insane. But there does need to be an exception where people can apply for a permit on a case by case basis for deliveries that are necessary and cannot be brought in any other way.
There are way too many people living in the city right now.
Complete disagree as a matter of principle, and I don't see what one has to do with the other. Much of the traffic in city centers aren't caused by the people living in the city centers, but by people living outside the city wanting to get into the city. I fail to see how Forcing people to spread out into the suburbs will solve the problem. If the city infrastructure cannot handle the people living there, the focus should be on fixing the infrastructure.
I seem to remember Top Gear discussing some EU rules making all newer cars higher at the front (making them ugly). Not sure about the rule, but perhaps it's also makes them less safe for pedestrians. Possibly the rule was for truck/trailer collision safety.
Hmmm. For context, a Porsche Macan seems to weigh about the same as a Tesla Model 3. If "heavy Porsche SUV"s like this are too dangerous for city streets, I don't see how electric cars can belong there either - and Greenpeace's co-option of this event (mentioned in another article) to push for electrification seems exceedingly dubious.
The Model X is considerably heavier, and in most configurations also has much more rapid acceleration. It'd likely be more dangerous to pedestrians. The reason I'm comparing to the Model 3 is because that's how far down you have to go in Tesla's range to find something as light as the Macan. (Oddly enough, the Kona Electric which is technically an SUV does seem to be a similar weight - probably because SUV is such a broad marketing term that it includes relatively small cars.)
The real answer is that we need rigorous pedestrian crash safety testing. Right now we only evaluate automotive safety based on how well occupants inside the car are protected, which is absurd.
We also need to grade vehicles on how well they protect pedestrians, cyclists, and occupants of other vehicles, and if they don't pass the tests they can't be sold.
In Europe they have had pedestrian crash testing since 2010. The US does not currently have a standard that I'm aware of.
Though because a good amount of cars are global designs, this has influenced the American market. Definitely agree that it should be a consideration everywhere.
I'm a little confused. The article talks repeatedly about large SUVs:
> German politicians are demanding regulations to keep large SUVs (sport utility vehicles) out of inner cities
> "We need an upper limit for large SUVs in city centres,”
The article further elucidates:
> Following the incident, several politicians and traffic experts called into question the rising popularity of the vehicles - characterized by their broad shape and several off-road features
So it seems that SUVs are being particularly targeted, seemingly because of their features.
So, looking up the measurements [0], it seems that the Porche Macan is just under 4.7m long and 2m wide. By my standards (Oz) that's a pretty large vehicle!
If the Macan is a too large, that would mean that practically all family cars are too large.
The groups that have been quoted in the article were demanding a 'large SUV ban' even before this accident. Now they are using this accident to promote their agenda, conveniently leaving out that it wasn't a 'large SUV' that caused it. 'Porsche SUV' just sounds like a large SUV, because the Porsche Macan is relatively new and not as well-known as the Porsche Cayenne. The Cayenne is probably the most hated vehicle in Germany, at least in those circles.
It’s more about the height of the front grill than the total weight. Cars outweigh humans so much in a collision that increasing weight is not important. However, vehicle shape makes a real difference in low speed collisions.
My mx5 is 4m by 1.7m. I don't think anyone would advise if of being a large car. But the Madan is.7m longer and.3m wide and that is large by your standards?
Makes sense for reporters to play it safe I think, as what the car did is a clearly observable fact. Wording it like "The driver drove his car into the sidewalk" portraits the sense the driver deliberately performed the action. While other circumstances might be a play. Better to wait for official investigation to clarify this.
It doesn't matter if it's deliberate action or not, cars do not drive themselves into accidents. The same logic, the car not driver, used for subject of the ban. Ban reckless driving and dangerous behavior.
SUV ban won't stop accidents like these. At best they will achieve less injuries because the cars being drove into pedestrians gonna get smaller.
> portraits the sense the driver deliberately performed the action.
Agreed, it's more likely that the driver lost control of their vehicle. The car has was not an autonomous vehicle, so it has no agency here: it did not do anything at all.
This is at least better than a totally passive style, like "four people were killed", which is used just below that caption. In this case the headline writer does a better job than the author, using "crash" while TFA has: 1 x "collision", 5 x "incident", 8 x "accident". To be clear, "accident" is an inaccurate word in this context. It seems remotely possible although certainly not likely that a 42yo man could have the first seizure event of his life while driving near pedestrians, so that small aspect of this crash could have been accidental. However, he certainly didn't "accidentally" drive an SUV through a dense urban area. Using the inaccurate term is prejudicial.
I would not care to be struck by any vehicle, thank you, but IIRC, vehicles with higher front ends may be more dangerous to pedestrians:
studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also blamed SUVs for the higher death rate, concluding that "pedestrians are two to three times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than … by a passenger car."
Another angle to consider would be making pedestrian safety mandatory and setting standards, rather than waiting for vague promises from manufacturers.
Volvo created a “pedestrian air bag” years ago that inflated on the hood of the car when it detected what could be a pedestrian being struck.
They replaced that with systems that auto-brake at low speeds when they detect pedestrians or bicycles. Other manufacturers have this kind of tech too, but there are zero standards and no enforcement AFAICT.
> Volvo created a “pedestrian air bag” years ago that inflated on the hood of the car when it detected what could be a pedestrian being struck.
I wonder how effective that would be - given that a pedestrian hitting the hood could be coming from a ton of different vectors compared to the collision of a driver with a steering wheel, I wonder if you'd just end up throwing more energy and chaos into the collision.
I was amazed this weekend when Vilnius city center was closed for cars due to the yearly marathon taking place. The 6am-6pm closure felt great:
- All streets are free to walk, a sense of freedom
- No car noise, you start hearing other people foot steps which is weird
- A lot of people, not sure where they parked or have they used public transport but no one seemed bothered
I wouldn't be surprised that cars in city centers become things of a past.
Still ... Berlin is a very car-friendly city, with lots of parking space, large wide roads going on for long straight stretches. While the public transportation in Berlin is also great, as a foreign visitor, I like the fact that I can easily bring my car into all but the most central bits of Berlin. (And the Berlin metro-area is gigantic)
Yeah, I fail to see how the car being an SUV is a factor in the article. Would a smaller car have made a difference? It would have needed to be a lot lighter to be stopped by the traffic light. (the influence of mass being linear and that of speed being cubic)
I've seen numbers showing in pedestrian accidents, SUVs are twice as likely to kill the pedestrian than smaller cars. Nonetheless, I'd rather we just phase cars out of inner cities entirely.
SUVs also tend to have much more powerful engines.
If the accident was really caused by an epileptic seizure (as the media speculate), a smaller car with a less powerful engine wouldn't have accelerated as quickly as that Porsche Macan.
Look up "Bradsher Bars." They're designed to make sure in a collision with a car, the SUV frame will catch the car and not overtop it, which would be even worse for the car's occupants. BUt they also mean less crumpling because the bars have to connect directly with the frame.
As others have said elsewhere, it's the height that's particularly important. As I understand it, there are two reasons: taller vehicles are more likely to send pedestrians under the vehicle than over it, and the point of impact is likely to move from the legs (unpleasant but usually survivable) to the trunk (often not).
Obviously, a different mass would make a difference in a wide variety of situations. SUVs don't drive slower than other automobiles. Also, kinetic energy has velocity squared, not cubed.
It’s same political show playing people’s fears. Same insanity with disabling nuclear power plants (ready to be downvoted!). Jealous people now will vote for the good party proposing to punish the bad riches with SUVs. SUVs are also problem number one during climate warming, another reason to ban them according latest headlines in German newspapers.
I was believer of the democracy, but this behavior of politicians is just ugly. Play with fears, go with the trend punishing riches and save the poor! That’s the recipe to win next elections. This is easy way! Providing laws for working from home and reducing traffic is beyond competency of these people.
Plus don’t forget aging population, I am always scared when I see these 75+ years olds driving big powerful cars. In fact I have friends in this age group and I would like to see them in a taxi instead with their own cars.
That's not really a valid point - any child close enough to be invisible to a driver is far too close for the driver to avoid. A child more than a few feet away can easily be seen by the driver of an SUV, let alone a small oen like a Macan.
Addition to the question, it was a Porsche SUV so it's definitely more expensive than regular car. So the safety features didn't work in case (assumed driver got epileptic seizure?)
I think he's being sarcastic/putting up the opposing view points to his opinion? Phrasing seems like ESL speaker, so it might just be lost in translation.
What’s wrong about SUVs? People love them, carmaker produce them. Tax heavy cars and powerful cars more, people will stop buying them. Tax more fuel, people will think twice before driving these 2 miles in the city. Very simple regulation.
Looks like he was saying that it's stupid to go against a weirdly shaped group like SUV drivers. Yet there're some problems with driving that are not related wether the car is SUV or not.
It’s all about politicians and how to get elected again. One group shouts “Ausländer raus”, the other group wants to ban SUVs. Same useless crap. Try building more dense and comfortable cities, people don’t drive cars because it’s fun. Especially in the cities! It takes me same amount time to go to the office by foot as go using public transportation. With a car I am 3x faster. And that makes obvious choice.
Germany was the country of the eatates(Kombi) since they were the cars of the working class family man, economical and practical.
Don't know what changed in the last decade but they're a rare sight these days, everyone seems to only want SUVs of all sizes instead which are less practical and less economical than estates.
Heck, even Volvo's famous practical boxy estates are nearly vanished and replaced with its more expensive SUVs.
What happened to European drivers? Maybe it's the perceived "better safety".
Large SUVs used to be an upper-middle class distinction factor in Europe, but now everyone of every age seems to want SUVs (which eventually became cheaper). It's not a class thing anymore, you can get SUVs that cost as much as other types of car.
Honestly there are no reasons to buy one other than being part of the trend. I wish there were taxes on the volume of cars here in Europe. We're already cluttered with cars, we really don't need bigger ones.
You sit higher, and you see more - that's why people like driving SUVs. Problem is that lights from SUVs often blind people in sedans - they are often misconfigured or badly fixed.
> You sit higher, and you see more
To be honest, that was fulfilled by my smart ForTwo or my mothers Mercedes Benz A class, just as well as my now Hyundai Kona.
A common argument for SUVs by soccer mums that can't drive properly in traffic. No matter that cars are more expensive to run (fuel, tires, brakes etc.), far worse in every measurable driving experience (heavier, much higher center of gravity doesn't lead to much fun), but also more prone to rolling in case of accident (which can be deadly easily).
The fact that they can see more ahead in dense traffic gives them a feeling of more safety on emotional level. I would argue against this and nothing beats good driving skills, no matter what car is driven. Worst thing is, some guys also jump on SUV trend.
I don't know. That's crazy. In the last 5 years, the vehicle fleet has changed faster than it ever did before.
In my rural area, it's now SUV everywhere (not yet American-size SUV, but still... and I have no doubt it is coming) for the random people.
As far as farmers are concerned, it got even worse: after 60 years without using a single pick-up truck (despite their long-standing popularity in the USA, it absolutely never took off here), all of a sudden (it started sometime like 3-5 years ago) they all buy pick-up trucks (all double cabs of course). Yep, same farmers who like to whine and claim to barely survive on $400 a month, but agricultural subsidies do marvels apparently: no wonder they can afford $40k-50k useless cars when in my municipality a 1- or 2-people farm will get on average $40k-$60k subsidies each year; my neighbour got $80k subsidies last year, he bought a second pick-up truck.
What is left? Craftsmen/builders: either switched to pick-up too, or still use their big vans, and still drive like maniacs. 'Neo-rurals' (the contemporary version of hippies): they drive old smoking huge vans. Delivery men: vans, of course, but there are more and more of them, and well, they drive like delivery men...
So the large vehicles remained, but the small ones got replaced by larger ones.
And this is happening in a place where secondary roads are 2.5 to 3 meters wide! And it is a hill/mountain area, so those roads are very winding, the visibility rarely exceeds 50 meters. Just picture yourself the situations...
Add to this that with the generalisation of air-conditioning, cars are more and more airtight, and thus more and more soundproof (so drivers are more isolated from the environment); add also that car windows are more and more opaque, so that you cannot see through them what is coming on the other side.
I still ride a bicycle but only because I am fairly suicidal. I don't see families going for a Sunday bike ride with children any more.
Naturally, the officials' discourse are the opposite of what is going on and what they do about it. Same way that they always claim they want more train transportation but in fact shut down railroads, build bypass roads over the former tracks, and launch projects of new speedways.
I wish people's first thoughts when a tragedy happens wasn't to have the government ban something. This ban idea came up because one person driving an SUV killed some pedestrians in a horrific accident. What actually happened there? Would the same accident not have happened if the same person was driving an economy car rather than an SUV? Was it the great size of the SUV that made the accident happen? What was the root cause of the accident? Could something be done to make it safer for pedestrians in the future, whether it's from SUVs or smaller cars, that didn't involve banning one entire class of vehicles?
The article mentions these discussions. One point it makes is that a smaller car would likely have been stopped sooner, while the SUV plowed through a traffic mast, bollards, and a construction fence.
Cars are also safer for pedestrians than taller, wider SUVs, as well as SUVs being better at minor offroading.
There may be sound environmental reasons for restricting SUVs in city centres, but all types of motor vehicles are just as capable of harming pedestrians if misused, driven carelessly, or the driver suffers a medical event. This could just have easily been a garbage truck, delivery van, taxi, or private car and the result would have been the same.
The solution that will really improve safety is advanced AEB (autonomous emergency braking) which can detect pedestrians and cyclists, lane departure, etc and automatically apply the brakes to prevent a collision or reduce its severity.
A bottle over the head is just as capable of killing as a nuclear bomb, at least according to your logic. Yet everyone has rather clear preferences when confronted with that choice.
You're twice a likely to die when hit by an SUV than average, according to the statistics being quoted here in Germany. Cutting pedestrian casualties in half is about 30 years worth' of other technological progress we've made. And unlike pie-in-the-sky technology, it is an actual, current, option.
So let's ban them until such a silver-bullet (plus electric propulsion) are available. If the technology is so obvious, it's just a short hiatus and won't even inconvenience anybody for too long.
Trucks in Europe are designed to prevent things going under the truck, with mandatory under-run protection bars. You definitely would not want to end up underneath one!
There was a similar tragic incident in Glasgow in 2014 involving a bin truck, where the driver suffered a seizure. Several pedestrians killed and many injured.
> There may be sound environmental reasons for restricting SUVs in city centres, but all types of motor vehicles are just as capable of harming pedestrians if misused,
Yes, indeed. Berlin taxis are in no way big SUVs but are probably the most dangerous vehicles I deal with every day.
Some of the drivers seem to have a particular beef with cyclists and scooter drivers (sub-50cc scooters are very popular in here). I had multiple situations where I needed to run away because a taxi driver tried to ram me.
This happened 200m from where I live. It was pretty bad. I think they initially considered this might have been a terrorist attack and they basically sent everything with wheels and sirens to the scene. I'm not joking. Dozens of police vehicles; fire trucks, and ambulances. The whole area was blocked for traffic most of the night.
It's not yet clear completely what happened but knowing the street and local situation, I can make an educated guess that this guy was looking to make it past the green/orange light for the pedestrian crossing, swerved left to avoid some traffic/obstacles near the construction site on his side of the road before the crossing and then lost control before plowing over the traffic light (destroyed completely) into four people waiting to cross. One possible reason for him having to swerve left may have been some traffic emerging from the side road (no traffic light there). This would be hard to see if you are driving way too fast. Also there's a construction site with some scaffolding right before that crossing; which further reduces visibility. They had an temporary traffic light there for a few weeks recently but it was removed again.
The problem is not SUVs as such but a culture of unsafe driving being OK and the police looking the other way as a matter of policy (because car lobbies).
The accident happened 150m from a police station on the same street. If the driver knew that; he apparently did not care and in all likelihood was speeding anyway. Cars in Berlin jump red lights, double park, and speed throughout the city with a very low chance of getting caught. So, this is not unusual. On an average bike ride through the city you'll see all of that happening multiple times. Most crossings with traffic lights don't have cameras. I've never seen a speed camera in Berlin; I'm not even sure there are any at all. The local culture is "it's all fine". Drivers behave accordingly. Also, the fines are pretty low if you do get caught compared to other countries.
Another issue is that Berlin does not seem to have safety very high on the agenda when doing construction work. The road in question went through a lengthy and expensive reconstruction project that took something like five years that was only finished a few years ago. This was a great and missed opportunity to make the road safer. This crossing definitely was poorly designed. You have two roads crossing each other there without traffic lights and then a traffic light right after the crossing just for the pedestrian crossing.
> What if you have a large family, and need a large vehicle?
You get a van.
If I read the article correctly, the measure would be targeted at SUVs only. I doubt the mayor of Berlin-Mitte was thinking about vans when talking about banning "tank-like cars".
Recently I visited a historical hydro power plant, which is still operational. The operators were in the process of adding huge shields and fences around the flywheels due to safety regulations to protect visitors. Apparently they had been only fenced off by a rope and the faith in humans‘ self preservation instinct for the last 100 years. However, when i saw those fences, it struck me as very odd why this is not mandatory on every road. The amount if kinetic energy of those flywheels is certainly comparable to a 1-2 ton car moving at 30+ km/h.
Presumably this means the new "malicious vehicle barriers" on the bridges will soon have killed more people than the terror attacks they are "preventing repeats" of.
Apparently post-9/11 security theatre pushed so many people out of planes and into long distance driving that the additional road deaths overtook the 9/11 death toll in a few months.
You can't protect the mentally ill, the careless, the ignorant or the foolish from themselves.
How about those idiots who take selfies close to cliff edges?
If that is how you feel why not fence of high mountains to prevent mountaineers from falling to their death?
Why not fix child locks to vehicles driving in safari parks so the passengers cannot jump out and be eaten by lions? That wouldn't protect them from charging elephants though.
Exactly. My point is about the double standard we face in our society. In public places we sometimes see over the top health & safety regulations but other potential dangers are being quietly accepted. I am not arguing for more regulation.
This is somewhat a logical reaction, when realizing that a smaller car would have reduced the fatalities.
In this regard I believe there is going to be an inflection point in the adoption of autonomous driving. As soon as autonomous driving is becoming safer than the worst human drivers, there should logically be calls following to ban "non-computer-assisted human driving", especially within densely populated cities.
Similar of how gas stoves without flame failing device have been banned.
We can significantly reduce the number, and severity, of accidents like this with advanced AEB (autonomous emergency braking) systems. It's much easier to implement AEB which can respond to lane departure, pedestrians in the vehicle's path, etc than to go all the way to fully autonomous driving, which remains an unsolved AI challenge.
In Europe, AEB is mandatory on all new vehicles receiving type approval from 2020. In the US, it will be implemented on all new private vehicles from 2022.
"You can't just say: SUV is basically more dangerous than [other types of vehicles]," accident researcher Siegfried Brockmann from the Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft (Association of the German Insurance Industry) told DPA.
Speed and the type of collision would have more influence than weight, he added. In the Berlin incident, however, the traffic light mast might have stopped a smaller car."
Small car or large car, both will do damage to people. Yes it’s harder to stop a large car, but a person or persons will not stop the travel of a small car either.
I’m not a fan of those monstrosities but I think banning them is a psychological overreaction to this incident.
>Am I the only one seeing a problem with someone driving on the sidewalk? Did this somehow become acceptable?
You're not the only one agreeing that driving on the sidewalk is/was unacceptable. But the article mentions the following which may indicate that this was not deliberate:
>>It is thought that the driver could have had a medical emergency, such as an epileptic seizure according to the latest police findings, causing him to accelerate at a fast speed.
Ein dicker, fetter SUV und der Direktor der Deutschen Umwelthilfe am Steuer! Das passt ja nun auch nicht so wirklich! Wie sagt man: Sie predigen Wasser und trinken Wein! So sind sie, unsere auch so tollen Saubermänner, die uns als Vorbilder verkauft werden!
Boom, every single "cars in city" problems solved. I'm sure that even with 100% state subsidised taxi rides it would still be a net positive if you consider costs of health, pollution, accidents, insurances, &c.