To a significant extent, you can design away stupid. Look at the concept of poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) in manufacturing processes: arranging things in a way that minimizes the possibility of common errors. And note that its inventor originally called it baka-yoke (idiot-proofing) but that bluntness rocked the boat a bit too much.
Having separate paths for bikes and motor vehicles, and appropriately controlled intersections to take that into account, is a proven life-saver.
@futatorius@drkt_ basically every (successful) safety feature in anything is an example of designing away stupid (plenty of examples where it designs *in* stupid too, though). And just as important, designing away tired/distracted. Everyone makes mistakes, even when they’re not idiots. It’s this isn’t it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy/_of/_hazard/_controls
I think there’s been a semantic misunderstanding -
I’m saying that people are going to be stupid and you should design an intersection that accounts for it. I don’t think that’s ‘designing away stupid’ because the stupid is still present. It has merely been limited or entirely contained, but I don’t want to have a semantic argument. Just understand that we agree, and the book I reference says almost exactly what you both said.
@drkt_@futatorius gotcha. In your example “designing away stupid” sounds like it might be… well… eugenics. Very much happy to agree that that doesn’t work.
You can’t design away stupid, but if this is a regular problem then the intersection is designed stupid and you need to design a better one.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/201978334-killed-by-a-traffic-engineer
To a significant extent, you can design away stupid. Look at the concept of poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) in manufacturing processes: arranging things in a way that minimizes the possibility of common errors. And note that its inventor originally called it baka-yoke (idiot-proofing) but that bluntness rocked the boat a bit too much.
Having separate paths for bikes and motor vehicles, and appropriately controlled intersections to take that into account, is a proven life-saver.
@futatorius @drkt_ basically every (successful) safety feature in anything is an example of designing away stupid (plenty of examples where it designs *in* stupid too, though). And just as important, designing away tired/distracted. Everyone makes mistakes, even when they’re not idiots. It’s this isn’t it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy/_of/_hazard/_controls
@[email protected] also replying to you
I think there’s been a semantic misunderstanding -
I’m saying that people are going to be stupid and you should design an intersection that accounts for it. I don’t think that’s ‘designing away stupid’ because the stupid is still present. It has merely been limited or entirely contained, but I don’t want to have a semantic argument. Just understand that we agree, and the book I reference says almost exactly what you both said.
@drkt_ @futatorius gotcha. In your example “designing away stupid” sounds like it might be… well… eugenics. Very much happy to agree that that doesn’t work.