A Fire Department ambulance transporting a crash victim was struck by a vehicle. When another LAFD vehicle arrived to investigate, it too was involved in a crash.

While attempting to transport a car crash victim to a hospital on Wednesday morning, a Los Angeles Fire Department ambulance was struck by another vehicle, authorities said.

When a battalion chief arrived at the scene to investigate the crash, they were involved in another collision at the same intersection.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    58·
    3 days ago

    You could of course keep detailed statistics about what kind of crashes and where and causes and, based off that data, redesign each intersection that has a lot of risks, making your city safer.

    This is what they’ve been doing in the Netherlands, redesigning and rebuilding intersections all over the place over the past 30-40 odd years

    Most of them are roundabouts now, but all of them got better and safer and the risks of being in traffic have gone measurably down

    Then there is the United States of America. USA! USA! USA!

    • hanrahan@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      6 hours ago

      You could of course keep detailed statistics about what kind of crashes and where and causes

      I am sure they do

      and, based off that data, redesign each intersection that has a lot of risks, making your city safer.

      None of that though.

    • coyootje@lemmy.worldEnglish
      153·
      3 days ago

      Or, get this: make it so people don’t take the car. Most of the accidents that involve serious injury or death involve cars or some other fast, motorized vehicle. Why not make more bike and pedestrian infrastructure? I also live in the Netherlands and even here I’d say there are very different approaches based on which city/town you’re in. I really wish they’d make my city more accessible with public transport, there are certain routes where taking public transport to another part of town takes almost 2-3 times as long as taking a car. Why is that? Why not fund public transport and non-motorized traffic infrastructure even more?

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        20 hours ago

        Well yes, but…

        Sometimes people will need cars. I don’t think we should or even could limit car use to nothing. We still need ambulances, we still may need to transport something heavy to a far away location

        We should make short distance car travel hard and all travels by foot or bicycle easy, like in the Netherlands. You just pick up a bike and go wherever whereas in a car you’ll have to drive around for longer to get there.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.caEnglish
        12·
        3 days ago

        Or, get this: make it so people don’t take the car. Most of the accidents that involve serious injury or death involve cars or some other fast, motorized vehicle. Why not make more bike and pedestrian infrastructure?

        Of course, I agree. But living in North America, this would never work because NIMBYs would keep any politician who even makes that suggestion out of office.

        The fear of change, even if it offers unlimited freedom, safety, and convenience, has such a tremendous influence in our infrastructure’s design.

        I once asked a city planner why we don’t stop people from parking in bike lanes. His answer was that “we wouldn’t have bike lanes if we didn’t compromise”, stating that the pushback at the idea of removing on-street parking would basically kill the idea of safe cycling infrastructure. That’s the kind of small-minded BS we have going on here.

        • hanrahan@piefed.socialEnglish
          1·
          7 hours ago

          That’s the kind of small-minded BS we have going on here.

          Not just the US; Australia, NZ, UK, Canada