Is there such a thing as being too safe? Jeff Kaufman writes that buses are much safer than cars, by about a factor of 67 but buses are not very popular and one of the main reasons is that if you look at situations where people who can afford private transit take mass transit instead, speed is the main factor. According to Kauffman, we should look at ways to make buses faster so more people will ride them, even if this means making them somewhat more dangerous. Kauffman presents some ideas, roughly in order from "we should definitely do this" to "this is crazy, but it would probably still reduce deaths overall when you take into account that more people would ride the bus": Suggestions include not to require buses to stop and open their doors at railroad crossings, allow the driver to start while someone is still at the front paying, allow buses to drive 25mph on the shoulder of the highway in traffic jams where the main lanes are averaging below 10mph, and leave (city) bus doors open, allowing people to get on and off any time at their own risk. "If we made buses more dangerous by the same percentage that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars," concludes Kauffman, "they would still be more than twice as safe as cars."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @11:27AM
Let's copy even the shitty stories that were on slashdot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @11:45AM
Yeah. This one was bad enough the first time...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @11:49AM
But I ride the bus.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @02:59PM
Why do you read that shit site? Stop hurting yourself you little turd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:08PM
This site is exactly the same except the here articles are posted about a day or two later and posting a comment causes you to go through two page loads instead of happening inline with where you were reading. For a site that was supposed to be better than Slashdot, it didn't make it. For a site that was going to be better than Slashdot Beta, it is, but beta is dead now, so this site no longer needs to exist.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Monday March 21 2016, @06:54PM
So I have this funny story...
AC says that /. is better than SN! He uses arguments such as page loads and posting speed to prove his point beyond a shadow of a doubt! But then, surprise of surprises, AC the troll completely forgets to mention the differences in privacy, advertising, and community that represent SN as a much better place for a person to comment on a news story.
So I guess the big reveal in my funny story is that I should mod AC as a troll instead of refuting his superficial and meaningless arguments :/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:01PM
Wait, what? Is it really true that a bus in America has to open their doors whenever it stops at a railroad crossing? What's the rationale of this ruling?
Also, does the above quote mean that they have to stop at each and every railroad crossing? There are of course railroad crossings where mandatory stopping makes sense, just as there are street crossings where mandatory stopping makes sense. But that can be handled with stop signs, just as it is done for streets (I guess the same is done for streets in the US, right?)
However I would not consider such changes as "making buses less safe" but as "removing rules that don't really add to the safety of buses".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:03PM
[quote]Wait, what? Is it really true that a bus in America has to open their doors whenever it stops at a railroad crossing? What's the rationale of this ruling?[/quote]
Ooh, ooh, I know this one!
Apparently it varies from place-to-place - in some cases it's only for ungated crossings.
But anyway, the rationale for opening the doors and stopping is to give the driver a chance of hearing a train coming.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:05PM
Yes, busses *must* stop by railroad crossings. I live near an active commuter rail crossing with working gates, busses always stop. This adds a total of about 15 seconds to the bus route. I'd focus on signal timing before changing this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:40PM
It also causes big traffic delays.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:22PM
By 'big traffic delays', do you mean the accumulated 15 seconds of everyone tailgating?
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:50PM
I'm not sure what "on the shoulder of the highway" means (that's my English lacking; the only shoulder I know is where the arms are attached), but I'd say in a traffic jam your speed is not limited by how fast you are allowed to drive, but by how fast you can drive.
In American English, the "shoulder" of a roadway is the part that is paved but not part of a travel lane. It can be anywhere from non-existent to a width equal to a full travel lane. In some cases - especially highways, which is where it becomes relevant to this story - the shoulder is often a full lane wide and serves as an emergency/breakdown lane.
The real solution here is to have separate bus lanes on which normal cars are not allowed; there will not be any traffic jam on those bus lanes, and therefore the buses can drive at standard speed without making it less safe.
I suspect that very few people in the US would respect this (and changing social norms so that they begin to do so would require a massive ticketing effort by the police), and the traffic jam would simply spread into the "bus-only" lane.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:52PM
Where I'm from, the shoulder is the flat but unpaved area between the pavement and the railing|soundwall|ditch|woods|dropoff|rock outcropping.
If it's between 2 pieces of roadway that have traffic going in opposite directions, it's called the median.
It's where you pull off to if your vehicle is having problems.
It's supposed to be for emergencies only.
If you get up a lot of speed on it and somebody ahead has a conked-out car and wants to pull over, things can get hairy.
.
...and, as for "More Dangerous":
Frida Kahlo was in a bus accident at age 18. [wikipedia.org]
So, "More dangerous"?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday March 20 2016, @01:11AM
So, "More dangerous"?
Yes, because the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Especially if you have to go back to 1925 for your anecdote.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:53PM
Is it really true that a bus in America has to open their doors whenever it stops at a railroad crossing?
Yep. Also commercial vehicles carrying haz-mat.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 19 2016, @05:54PM
>Very bad idea. Since the driver is involved in the paying...
Really? I don't ride the bus that often, but when I have there has usually been an automated pay station next to the driver, who isn't directly involved at all except to make sure you actually pay. In which case the driver doesn't need to pay any attention except to listen for a nice clear chime indicating you've paid, and stop and tell you to get off if it doesn't sound.
I agree with getting on and off while moving though seems like most buses would be really treacherous for that. Gotta love that old London bus design! It would be nice at stoplights, etc. though - if the bus is stopped, the doors could be open.
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:02PM
I'm middle class, live in a dense city, own a car, and I'd still rather take the bus than drive. Of course, I'd also rather ride my bike than take the bus (or drive), but that's a separate thing.
The problem with the bus is that it's schedule is unpredictable. Only the most popular routes run every 10 minutes (or less) so if you're on a less popular route you could be waiting 20-30 minutes for a bus. Nextbus does a great job to mitigate this, but it still means that I need to be ready at least 30 minutes earlier than if I was driving/walking/biking to make sure I catch the bus, otherwise I'm going to be late. I'd much prefer to be on my own schedule, for me that freedom is provided by bicycle, but for many who have longer commutes it's provided by a car.
For what it's worth though, I wouldn't try to cram more busses on my route. The current headways are reasonable, particularly for the price of the bus fare.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:45PM
I think that realistically, unless all of the buses were converted into an absurdly complex rapid-transit system, there aren't many changes that would improve ridership beyond the people already choosing to ride. Beyond that, it comes down to whether a person in traffic would much rather be driving a car or riding on a bus.
The "we'll just make it more dangerous" aspect of the article also ignores something really crucial: most measures reducing "bus safety" would increase the risk of negative impacts on the people that aren't riding the bus. For example, hopping on/off the bus at will doesn't take into consideration the severe psychological harm it would cause a driver to run the individual over; the highway shoulder intersects off-ramps, so a bus that's continuing to go straight would run the risk of hitting any cars that decide to take the off-ramp at the last minute and fail to notice the bus...things like that.
Also, I get the feeling that the author's motivation isn't so much an urge to save the environment (not sure if it even makes sense, given most buses use fossil fuels & a growing % of cars are electric or hybrid) as it is the same kind of impulse that makes some people want to push their lifestyle preferences on others.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:27PM
Why Buses Need to Be More Dangerous
Or, to put it another, more accurate but less thrilling, way:
Why it would be nice if buses could go a bit quicker, even if it meant they were slightly less safe overall
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:27PM
Funnily enough, that entire headline would fit except for "overall".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:41PM
Why require the buses to stop. Just think how much more exciting it would be jumping on and off a moving bus. Why require passengers to ride on the inside? Let passengers ride on the roof and hanging on the outside like other 3rd wold countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:17PM
like the cable cars in San Francisco
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfcablecar_at_lombardst_cropped.jpg [wikimedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by bart on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:48PM
Here in the Netherlands pretty much all highway shoulders are being used by public transport buses during congestion.
You can still buy a ticket in the bus, and the driver is pretty much always driving while doing the transaction :-)
And stopping for a railroad, what nonsense. There's this barrier in front or at least a red light that is supposed to tell you not to drive when there's a train coming.
So we're 100% there dude :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:01PM
Never underestimate the stoneage-ness of parts of the US rail system. Automated safety systems - while ubiquitous in the Netherlands - are probably not universal there.
Sad, isn't it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday March 19 2016, @02:38PM
The US is the 3rd largest country by land mass and has one of the most developed rail systems in the world. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to install and monitor all the crossings throughout the entire country?
Even if you just restrict it to actual urban areas, that's still a huge amount of money. But we already tend to do that. Unfortunately, people and cars still wind up being struck by trains because people are fucking stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:25PM
In the United States, buses are largely confined to urban areas. Intercity buses are a rarity, and they mainly travel by expressway. Hence adding barriers to the level crossings in rural places would have little effect on bus travellers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by devlux on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:46PM
Hey for fun you should catch a bus in Latin America sometime!
Standing room only, and the bus DOES NOT STOP EVER! Unless you're in a cross country tour bus with things serious amenities like AC, it will only ever slow down to let you on or off. Otherwise, you're standing there squashed in like a sardine in a can. The bright side is that in most cases in latin america, the bus IS the fastest way to get from point a to point b and also the cheapest. Even faster than airtravel once you factor in delayed flights and getting to the gates*. I rode from Guayaquil to Montanita EC, 3hrs for $3USD a couple years back. It was lots of fun!
*only exception I've found to the airplane rule was LAN http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/ [latamairlinesgroup.net] always on time and their coach class puts American Airlines first class to shame.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:46PM
Not ancient Rome, modern Rome.
You purchase bus tickets at tobacco shops, then you can board through the back door. There is a validator near the back door. From time to time the driver will stop the bus to determine that everyone's ticket has been validated, if you don't have a validated ticket you get cited.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:57PM
Additionally, Roman buses are not just 67 times safer than driving in Rome, but approx. 10000 x
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:57PM
From time to time the driver will stop the bus to determine that everyone's ticket has been validated, if you don't have a validated ticket you get cited.
Stopping the bus to validate tickets? That just made them less than more efficient. But a very Italian thing to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:03PM
Like danger = probability x damage. So even if you double one but split the other to one third, you're still way ahead. A practical example that comes to mind (dunno if the facts are right though) is forcing bike helmets. Apparently when you do that fewer people will run bikes, which leads to an overall decrease in health of people.
Great submission in my opinion, large effect, as buses used everywhere, everyday.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:09PM
I tried commuting on the bus when I lived in the bay area. I tried it exactly once. 1.5 hours one way from los gatos to HP in cupertino on the bus versus 20 minutes by car or motocycle. It was some kind of brownian motion route. When I lived in new york, on the other hand, bus and subway were great.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:13PM
SCSI
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:36PM
No, the truly unsafe bus is USB. As far as I know, there have been no exploits through manipulated SCSI devices. Something you cannot say about USB. [srlabs.de] Note in particular this quote:
USB = UnSafe Bus.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:00PM
(Score: 2) by ledow on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:40PM
The assertions are just plain wrong.
Given away by the one item, where buses should be allowed to pass slower-moving traffic. That slower moving traffic is THE CARS! We're not choosing cars because they are faster, quite obviously!
I don't use buses, or trains, or any public transport. Not because I want to burn up the atmosphere, or be a dick, but because they don't fulfill my needs.
Buses - they travel on the same roads as me. They aren't noticeably slower (some bus drivers are downright dangerous!). They do stop all the time. A bus that doesn't stop all the time means you can't get on the damn thing. As they travel on the same road, there is no advantage unless that road has a hard shoulder or bus lane they can use (hard shoulder = emergency lane for stopping on a motorway in case of a breakdown, by the way). And you can get that same advantage by a) not having bus lanes or b) opening up the hard shoulders to normal traffic when there's not a breakdown. We already do the latter. And reserving an entire lane for buses doesn't make the buses noticeably faster unless the entire route is a bus lane, and unless opening that up as a second/third normal lane wouldn't just alleviate all the traffic anyway.
Besides that, the routes are fixed. There is no bus that goes even close to my workplace. The buses that go in that direction take roundabout routes by popular places (i.e. traffic-heavy places), and make me change buses several times to get close to where I want to go. They also are subject to the same breakdowns, traffic, and problems as ordinary vehicles (because most places DON'T have those special exceptions listed above). So we're already at a loss. And then you add in that I can't load lots of stuff on the bus without carrying it and finding a space for it. I can't invite a passenger for free. I can't use them out of hours. I have to sit next to lots of smelly, noisy, moving people who constantly disturb the journey. You get the idiots who run for the bus and so it waits for them to catch up. You get the idiots without the correct change, or the wrong Oyster card and so delay every stop. You get the screaming kids and the old ladies.
And the cost? Depending on the route it can be no cheaper than the petrol. So the car is a one-off cost that allows me to spend roughly the same amount as I would on a bus (But I probably HAVE to have a car anyway, for shopping, leisure, etc. so the cost of the car is pretty much already out of the picture). I'm sure the bus burns less fuel, but then you have the profit, cost of the bus, cost of the infrastructure and drivers, etc. that has to come from taxes or bus fares. So actually, in the long run, even if it was a viable method and I happened to live and work on the same popular route, it would cost me more. In London, the max price is £4.50 for a day's travel on as many buses as you like. Over 4 weeks (20 days) of commuting, I wouldn't spend £90 in petrol. Not even close. Probably half in fact. So unless I can get a pretty lucky route and work somewhere I could probably cycle to quite easily anyway, I'm losing money even taking into account maintenance and other costs. (P.S. I only spent that much on petrol commuting when I was literally going from one end of the city to the another, a round trip of tens of miles, taking over an hour and a half even by motorway for most of the way... but my employer compensated me, and there is NO WAY that any bus would ever do that journey quick enough that I could ever have used it - even the Tube - subway - couldn't compete and that only needed one change of line).
But it's also the time that kills. Even if the speed of a bus was faster than a car, the stop-starts, the weird routes, the changing of buses, etc. just to get close to where you want, plus the walk to the stop and the walk from the stop at the other end, plus WAITING FOR THE RIGHT DAMN BUS TO ARRIVE, it means that it's not actually that much faster for the passengers at all, averaged out. Whereas with a car, it's roughly the same speed, but door-to-door and ready whenever you want.
The reason I don't use a bus has very little to do with their overall average speed on the moving part of a journey. In fact, I'm not at all sure that I could argue against scrapping buses entirely, opening up the roads, and just putting the money into subsidised taxi services in the real busy areas instead. And I hate taxis - and trains - even more than I hate buses. Mostly for the same reasons (there's never one around when you want one, they are subject to the same problems still, the stop-starts and loading are what kill the journey time, and you have to GET TO WHERE THEY ARE before you can use them).
Sorry, but even if my car cost more, was slower, and is more polluting, I still need to get to work on time - and that means waiting 20 minutes for a bus to come, and then stop-start all the way to somewhere vaguely in the direction of my workplace is a nonsense. And if you cost that time at my normal working rate, on top of the bus cost, it can easily be 2-3 times more expensive than just driving a car.
And I don't even drive a car anywhere where I know there's going to be traffic as I hate traffic jams just as much (and don't get me started on traffic lights ON roundabouts....). Buses - and other public transport - just don't make sense for the majority of people, but sometimes you have no choice (e.g. the very centre of Central London, etc.). There's a reason we have 35m cars registered in the UK, and 30m working adults. Because you need a car, whether for personal or business, and few people can use public transport as an option. And even those that can would prefer things to "just work better" for cars rather than the buses etc. that they have to catch. My girlfriend only uses public transport because (get this!) she works in a huge hospital in London, and there is NO STAFF PARKING.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rich on Saturday March 19 2016, @06:09PM
Their buses are the main method of transport on the island, they're ubiquitious, cheap, and fast. Especially when there was head-on traffic, I perceived fast as in "James Bond car chase down the edges of some mediterranean cliff"-fast. I couldn't really understand how it works, but in the evening, all the buses are back in the central station in Valetta, undamaged. It probably has something to do with an elaborate protection device that usually has the size of a small refrigerator, is mounted above the head of the daredevil driver and consists of a meticulously modeled Jesus-child and mother Mary in an appropriate environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:46PM
Bay Area buses got less safe last year...after the Google car ran into one.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:02PM
Emergency bus breaking is dangerous for passengers. Therefore some bus drivers in Russia simply ram cars that violate safety and courtesy rules. Improves bus speed, safety, and usability...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT_17qtMyho [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW3AnGfxDI [youtube.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.