How Engineers Deflect Criticism of Their Dangerous Designs

As people who’ve tried to make their neighborhood streets safer for walking and biking can tell you, engineers are amazingly adept at shutting down dissent.

Chuck Marohn at Strong Towns — an engineer himself — knows the drill inside out (it inspired this classic animation from 2010). In a new post, he explains:

Transportation engineers can be intimidating. They are hard to oppose. When a member of the general public shows up at local meeting to express concern over a project — for example, their quiet local street being widened as if it were a highway — they more often than not find themselves verbally outgunned by the project engineer.

There are a handful of ways engineers deflect criticism. Chief among them is to resort to quoting industry standards. Having a huge budget and all the clout that comes with it doesn’t hurt either. There are, however, a number of reliable threads that I’ve heard engineers use time and again.

This last summer I wrote a series that looked at child pedestrians being killed in automobile collisions, the finale of which included this line: The engineering profession — with a growing number of notable exceptions — employs a systematic approach to design prioritizing the fast and efficient (but not safe) movement of automobiles over everything else. As a general rule, engineers show a conscious indifference to pedestrians and cyclists, misunderstanding their needs where they are not disregarded completely.

That post from last summer was picked up by an engineering thread on Reddit, where engineers offered a series of predictable defenses. From “the standards won’t allow it” to “it’s the politicians’ fault” to “you’re not an engineer so you wouldn’t understand,” Marohn broke down the comments into five categories. Check out his full post to see them all.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Cyclelicious writes about how bikes are helping people cope with natural disasters all over the globe right now. And The Urbanist reports on why some Seattle bus routes are using the shoulder of highways.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

FHWA Endorses Engineering Guide for Walkable Urban Streets

|
Urban streets serve a much different purpose than rural ones: They’re for walking, socializing, and local commerce, not just moving vehicles. Unfortunately, American engineering guides tend not to capture these nuances. That can lead to a lot of problems for cities. Wide roads appropriate for rural areas are dangerous and bad for local businesses in […]

So You Have a Complete Streets Policy. Now What?

|
A growing number of communities across the country now have complete streets policies — somewhere in the neighborhood of 280, if you want to get specific. But now comes the hard part: implementing those policies on real streets. Complete streets policies represent a complete 180 from the way transportation planning has been done in 99 […]

Feds Propose Major Rule Changes to Eliminate Barriers to Safer Streets

|
Applying highway design standards to city streets has been a disaster for urban neighborhoods. The same things that make highways safer for driving at 65 mph — wide lanes, “clear zones” running alongside the road that have no trees or other “obstacles” — make surface streets dangerous and dreadful for walking, killing street life. The one-size-fits-all approach to […]