There exist optimization criteria besides "reduce the number of deaths". In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.
In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.
Yeah but it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road. And that's the point. We want roads that drivers prefer for "enjoyment" (I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle) and roads that optimize for bicycle rider and pedestrian enjoyment. The drivers can stay on the driver roads and bicycle riders and pedestrians can stay on the bicycle and pedestrian roads.
it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road.
It is important for every road, but sometimes it makes sense to prioritize other traffic types (which is why the OP is reasonable in some circumstances).
Comments
There exist optimization criteria besides "reduce the number of deaths". In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.
Yeah but it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road. And that's the point. We want roads that drivers prefer for "enjoyment" (I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle) and roads that optimize for bicycle rider and pedestrian enjoyment. The drivers can stay on the driver roads and bicycle riders and pedestrians can stay on the bicycle and pedestrian roads.
It is important for every road, but sometimes it makes sense to prioritize other traffic types (which is why the OP is reasonable in some circumstances).
You are not a modal American in this regard.
Which drivers? Lorry drivers? Race car drivers? Soccer moms? Commuters? Motorcyclists? Regular cyclists? Jockeys? Draft-horse drivers?
I grant you that it certainly is a criterion for optimization, but I would call it important only for race tracks, not public roads.
Somewhere on the pareto frontier. You can do a good job for most of them.
Utility theory doesn't stop working off a race track.
Why? and in particular why drivers only?
Because I like it when people enjoy things. Do you not?
Where did I imply "drivers only"?
You only mention enjoyment of drivers in an article about shared roadways. Omitting cyclist is a statement I would argue.
I'm assuming it's ironic because it made no sense to me either.