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.
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.