Traffic engineers build roads relying on outdated research, faulty data
Traffic safety critics argue that U.S. roads and vehicle regulations prioritize fast car travel and large SUVs over the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers themselves. Commenters highlight outdated engineering standards, politically distorted impact studies, and weak safety ratings that ignore how vehicle size, road width, and speed limits drive fatalities, while pointing to European-style design, better bike infrastructure, and stricter emissions and size rules as proven alternatives. Others push back that people actively choose big cars and fast roads, emphasizing trade-offs between safety, personal freedom, and realistic transit options.
Value and Bias of Traffic Studies
- Some argue post-hoc safety, congestion, and business-impact studies are used mainly to block safety projects, whereas earlier road widenings faced little scrutiny.
- Others counter that today virtually all major road projects get intense review and NIMBY pushback, making it “amazing” anything is built.
- Several posters claim study results often reflect the sponsor’s agenda, whether pro-car, pro-development, or pro-bike.
Bike Lanes, Traffic Calming, and Road Design
- Strong disagreement over bike lanes: some see empty or underused lanes and call them failures; others say poor design, lack of connected networks, and unsafe “stroads” explain low usage.
- Supporters note local bike counters showing real use and argue that well-designed “mobility lanes” can move more people per lane than car lanes.
- Traffic calming (bollards, chicanes, curb extensions) is defended as a proven way to reduce deaths and speeding; critics see it as unwanted obstruction imposed by “anti-car” activists.
Driver Behavior vs. Infrastructure
- Many describe rampant speeding, tailgating, phone use, and dangerous driving; some conclude education/enforcement are insufficient, so roads must be physically designed to limit speed.
- Others stress individual responsibility and “user error,” pointing to reckless cyclists and motorcyclists as well.
Vehicle Size, CAFE, and Externalities
- Significant concern over SUVs and pickups: higher front ends linked (in one cited study) to higher pedestrian fatality risk; calls to regulate hood height, weight, and pedestrian impact.
- Debate over CAFE and tax structures that make large vehicles relatively cheaper and safer for occupants but more dangerous and costly for everyone else.
- Counterpoint: many simply prefer big vehicles for comfort and utility; attempts to constrain choices are framed as paternalistic.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety and Data Disputes
- Some emphasize rising pedestrian/cyclist deaths since ~2010, pointing to in-car screens and smartphone distraction.
- Others scrutinize the article’s framing, noting that per-capita pedestrian and cyclist death rates were higher in the late 1970s–early 1990s, and question singling out SUVs as the primary culprit.
Politics, Power, and Process
- Multiple examples of safety-oriented “road diets” with strong local support being blocked by single officials or organized opposition.
- Broader disagreement over whether current policy constitutes a “war on cars” or, conversely, a heavily subsidized car-centric system that crowds out safer, higher-throughput modes.