[lexusgx]

These are good points, but we have to remember that the car industry is backed by a powerful lobby that makes car ownership particularly convenient. I argue that it's _too_ convenient at the current point in time.

The problem that makes vehicles incompatible with other modes of transportation (mostly cycling, but increasingly walking) is that cars are increasingly made "safer" at a social cost -- namely, visibility of pedestrians/cyclists and vehicle mass (and therefore momentum). Cars are much heavier today than before, and they have worse visibility of the road than before. This is to make the driver safer, and it comes at the cost of the safety of non-car drivers around.

Cyclists and pedestrians have (almost) no voice when it comes to regulation of automotive safety. There isn't even a notion of "whole community safety" when automotive safety is discussed. The only thing that seems to matter is whether the driver is protected, and this has created a safety imbalance. In the rare moments that something is done, we focus mostly on driving speed.

I think we can do more.

We should be asking ourselves: Is there an engineering solution to ensure that foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic can peacefully coexist to move people around as effectively and harmlessly (environment, other people, etc) as possible?

[itsoktocry]

>we have to remember that the car industry is backed by a powerful lobby that makes car ownership particularly convenient.

Why is everything a government conspiracy to decide things against the better judgment of the people?

Have you considered that people in America just really love cars?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Following your comment I think it is important to point out that it is not an either or type of scenario. Both could easily be true. There are powerful interests attempting to ensure that their business model remains viable ( if necessary, at the cost of other modes of transportation ), there are various ideological interests that see future as carless or largely the same ( just powered by different technology ), there are various cultural influences, decades of advertising and geographical considerations. In other words, people of America preferences ( if there is such a monolith ) are considered, but I am relatively certain they are not a primary driver. At best, they are one of many factors.

[judge2020]

Cyclists and pedestrians do have a voice, but only in places where they exist and account for a sizable amount of the population. Why suburban and rural living is so popular has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but it's the fact of the matter, so: cities that are extremely spread out will end up predominantly car-dependent, while cities with extremely dense populations like large metros will end up accommodating for their pedestrians and cyclists in road design.

[adrianN]

Cyclists and pedestrians don't account for a sizeable amount of the population in places where there is no infrastructure for them. Build cities designed for them and they will magically appear.

[QuesnayJr]

I used to live in Texas, which should be perfect for biking (it's very flat), but the reality is that it's too dangerous. The serious bikers would travel in packs for safety.

[zaroth]

Newer cars have PAEB, it’s even becoming part of crash test standards. IIHS standards added it in 2019.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-ratings-address-pedestr...

EVs have noise makers installed to make fake engine noise because it also has shown to cut down on pedestrian impacts.