[HN Gopher] Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes ___________________________________________________________________ Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes Author : oftenwrong Score : 429 points Date : 2022-07-21 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.strongtowns.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.strongtowns.org) | eesmith wrote: | > In fact, if we ask safety officials, as a group they officially | blame driver error and reckless driving for fatal car crashes. In | other words, don't look at them. | | My understanding changed radically when I read about Sweden's | "Vision Zero". Quoting Wikipedia: | | ] In most road transport systems, road users bear complete | responsibility for safety. Vision Zero changes this relationship | by emphasizing that responsibility is shared by transportation | system designers and road users | youamericanloo wrote: | well, because we can. I mean, we have some mental buffer to | accept the conseuqences.. check deep inside! | | I think reacting to amtrak crash makes sense since it moves on | rails! how on earth something moving on rails could possibly | crashes? doesn't make sense... but cars are different.. if you be | honest with yourself you should always wonder how on earth we can | get to a point without an accident with cars! think about that.. | sorry this is just harsh reality. | umvi wrote: | I think there's another reason too we "ignore" car crashes: loose | coupling with politics. | | Say a DUI driver kills a random family of 5. Is that going to | make national headlines? Probably not. Very little to be gained | politically. It doesn't really enrage us because we love and | celebrate alcohol too much to be capable of villainizing it like | guns. So as a result, it doesn't spread very far on social media. | | Now say a raging incel shoots 5 people at a mall (2 die, 3 are | injured). Is that going to make national headlines? You bet. It | easily enrages at least half of us since guns are a wedge issue. | Hence, it spreads like wildfire on social media. As it's | spreading, it is further coupled to politics whenever people use | the story to further political goals like mobilizing peers to go | out and protest, drum up support for a preferred candidate, and | more. | | You won't see a public reaction to car accidents similar to guns | until the media decides either alcohol or cars are villains that | need to be eradicated from society. | Willish42 wrote: | I think the car deaths vs. gun deaths asymmetry with | representation in media can more reasonably be explained by how | "terrifying" that news is to viewers, more likely to get web | traffic and broadcast viewers, etc. | | Healthcare expenses is a similar political wedge-issue that | causes tons of deaths (Medicare for all, etc.) and doesn't get | nearly as much media coverage because it's less terrifying. | | You can see this even irrespective of how many deaths there | are, like when there's a really big fire/explosion/storm that | gets news coverage but casualties are zero or very low. Those | are more likely to get coverage than a single car crash that | killed more people | rootusrootus wrote: | > It doesn't really enrage us because we love and celebrate | alcohol too much to be capable of villainizing it like guns | | I hear a lot more ads on the radio informing me about all the | ways a DUI will screw over my life, even if I don't kill | anyone, but almost nothing about guns. | | Now, at a national level, sure, guns dominate. But I'd say the | larger differentiating factor is intent. The killer on a | shooting spree sparks terror in a way that a stupid drunk | driver does not, even if the latter is more of a risk. | Bhilai wrote: | Well, comparing guns and cars is just absurd. Many kinds of | restrictions like age limits, requiring a driver license, | requiring liability insurance, seat belt restrictions, speed | limits, NHTA safety regulations that car manufacturers have to | meet, speed traps by traffic police and so on... none of that | exists for guns. | cityofdelusion wrote: | Growing up, my state only had a multiple choice exam for a | license. The age limit is the only _real_ restriction you | listed. Everything else is just to keep the honest folks | honest. | S201 wrote: | In all fairness: | | * Age limits: There is a similar age limit to buy a gun as | there is to drive a car | | * Driver's license: Pretty much anyone with a pulse over the | age of 16 can get a driver's license and it's nearly | impossible to revoke permanently | | * Insurance: The legally required insurance limits in some | states is so low that it's effectively useless | Schroedingersat wrote: | This is just reframing the point of the article. Diffuse harms | are ignored unless they're useful for pushing an agenda. | eckesicle wrote: | Here's an interesting factoid: | | The annualized mortality rate of a US soldier is ~100 per | 100,000. | | The annualized mortality rate of the average US man between the | age of 25-34 is 177 per 100,000. (It's 199 per 100k for ages | 18-24). | lief79 wrote: | Interesting. | | Note, soldiers are initially filtered for health conditions. | It's not the same starting point. | theptip wrote: | What's the annualized mortality rate among US men fit enough to | pass the PFT (Physical Fitness Test)? | | (Put differently, I don't think there are any morbidly obese | people in the military which skews the comparison you're laying | out here.) | eckesicle wrote: | Yeah, of course this is probably the big differentiating | factor. | | It's part selection bias, part staying healthy, part not | being exposed to accident prone environments. | | Still though, as a lifestyle choice it's really safe. | smm11 wrote: | July 18, 2022: 196 Covid deaths in the USA | | 2020: 1909 deaths daily from heart disease in the USA | marsven_422 wrote: | wahern wrote: | > No NTSB team is going to mobilize to investigate those | tragedies. Nobody is going to seek the underlying causes or | ponder the multiple contributing factors. In fact, if we ask | safety officials, as a group they officially blame driver error | and reckless driving for fatal car crashes. In other words, don't | look at them. | | Perhaps a touch too hyperbolic? Here's what the NTSB has to say | about the matter: | | > The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent | federal agency, has the authority to promote motor vehicle | safety, determine the probable cause of motor vehicle-related | crashes, and make safety recommendations aimed at preventing | crashes. Over the years, NTSB has made recommendations to | NHTSA.... Below is a list of open recommendations. | | https://www.nhtsa.gov/ntsb-open-recommendations-nhtsa | ladyattis wrote: | It reminds me of how here in the US we often overuse signage and | other markings on roads to 'prevent' accidents but roads with | less markings that are obvious and direct tend to have less | accidents by comparison. I wonder if part of the problem with | American roads is the fact we assume people need information they | don't need or use. I know that roads here aren't actively calmed | by changing the quality of the road (roughness, width) and that | often people ignore or outright get confused by whatever signage | and markings are put up. | ArrayBoundCheck wrote: | A couple years ago I saw a video of a guy filming himself | talking to a road maintenance worker. In an angry tone he said | they didn't have enough pylons and noone can see them when they | drive uphill and they're causing accidents. The worker said | policy says to use 3 (or 5 or something) pylons. As the worker | was saying it you can hear someone slamming on their breaks. | The guy turning his camera and catches a guy who swerved into | the fence so he wouldn't hit the workers car or anything | | The guy filming immediately says (something like) "you see. | That's what I said". | | The problem is also policy is made for typical situations and | people are trained to ignore problems because its a pain in the | butt to deal with policy makers | | Under using is probably more common but I wouldnt be surprised | if some places used too many that people started ignoring it | | -Edit- I think it was this. Apparently my memory isn't very | good because I forgot all the cuts | https://youtu.be/sCEzEVJkO1U?t=20 Actually at 1m 18s guy says | "there's 5 cones". Maybe my memory isnt terrible lol | CapitalistCartr wrote: | My kid sister died in a car accident two weeks ago. Now I find | the numbers unfathomable. How can 40,000 families be suffering | like this, every year? | djmips wrote: | I agree, it's one of the things that I think of often... it's | not logical. My condolences to you and your family... :`( | closewith wrote: | I'm sorry for your loss. | notjustanymike wrote: | Because even 40,000 people is only a lot relatively. It is just | 0.012% of the American population and 0.00051% of the world | population. | magicalhippo wrote: | Still, it's an order of magnitude above what we see in Norway | for example, around 12 per 100k population vs around 1.8 per | 100k population. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in. | .. | | https://www.ssb.no/transport-og- | reiseliv/landtransport/stati... (car fatalities) | | https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/statistikk/befolknin. | .. (population) | notch656a wrote: | Fatalities are more usefully measured per mile not per | person. For instance, in many 3rd world countries the roads | are notoriously unsafe but the average person covers few | enough miles that their road fatality rate per capital | looks better. | | Note this applies to OP posted above you as well. | lkbm wrote: | The 40k is US, not worldwide. If you want a % of world | population, you should look at world traffic fatalities. | Balgair wrote: | I'm not saying you're wrong, but ... dude... have some | sympathy. | | To OP: Sorry for your loss. I can't imagine what it's like. | giraffe_lady wrote: | No even on that scale it is a lot of harm when you consider | it as it actually is. As the person you're responding to | notes, a preventable death touches many more than just the | individual killed. | | You can argue that this cost is worth bearing, but you can't | dismiss it as "just" .01% or whatever. Over a period of years | this is almost every family touched by unnecessary death: | people growing up without a parent, careers ended because of | disability, spiraling into depression or addiction because of | losing a child, all the second and third order effects of | grief and loss and suffering. | | Again, maybe it's worth it. Make a point for why it is | though, if you find it to be. Pointing at the numbers isn't | enough. | lief79 wrote: | Relatedly, that's just the fatalities. There are far more | none fatal injuries, some of which are permanently life | altering without bringing in the costs of health care in | this country. | rootusrootus wrote: | A couple thousand people die every day. About 90 from car | accidents. What fraction of the rest are preventable? | Probably most of them, if we're being honest. | [deleted] | Taylor_OD wrote: | Never owned a car of my own until two years ago. Our car has been | hit three times in the last two years. Once totaled on the high | way (another drivers fault) and twice while parked. Roughly 50K | in damages across the two cars and 3 months in the shop doing | repairs. We spent 20K on a new car after the old one was totaled | and insurance paid out a fraction of what a similar car would | cost. We've paid close to 2K in deductibles, way too much for car | insurance from a company that doesnt give a shit about us, and | close to 1k on car cameras and backup batteries. | | Thankfully we havnt been hurt but we got lucky. When the car was | totaled it was in heavy traffic going 40+ mph and caused a 4 car | pile up. I know people who have died in accidents or had their | kids die. My immediate family was incredible lucky to not be | killed by a drunk driver in a very bad accident early on in my | life. | | Driving sucks. | thecatwentup wrote: | Another anecdote on the other side of this: I've been driving | since I was 15 for many thousands of miles and have only been | involved in two incidents. Both my fault involving icy roads, | but both where so minor that only paint damage occurred (no | insurance involved). I live in the north-eastern United States | for reference. Edit: I wouldn't say that my driving style is | cautious either, I do drive attentively though. | whimsicalism wrote: | Where do you live? West coast or South? | drc500free wrote: | My money's on mid-west, honestly. | yreg wrote: | Is there no mandatory insurance to cover damages to others in | the US? | | In my country if I want to drive a car it has to have this | insurance so if I crash into someone all of the damage I do | to them is covered. | PebblesRox wrote: | It is mandatory but not everyone follows the rules. Our car | has been hit three times in the past 4-5 years and only one | of the drivers was insured. (One didn't even have a | license!) | gjs278 wrote: | meowtimemania wrote: | Where do you live? Driving should be safer, but being involved | in that many accidents in only 2 years seems really unlucky | theptip wrote: | > It is widely recognized that there is an epidemic of suicides | among current and former military personnel, especially those who | have been on active duty in a combat theater... There were 3,481 | combat deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since 9/11, there have | been over 30,000 military suicides. Over 20 soldiers a day take | their own lives. | | Pet peeve: while I really like the general point of the article, | I wish the author had actually provided statistics that support | the claim they are making here. 30k suicides sounds like a lot, | but what's the base rate in the general population? The numbers | provided don't actually tell you whether the rate of military | suicides is higher than civilian ones, and that kind of | undermines the point. To be concrete I'm looking for something | like "the base rate of suicide is X% chance per year, whereas | amongst soldiers it's Y% chance per year, suggesting a risk | factor of (Y-X)% caused by military service." | | A quick search finds some research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki | /United_States_military_veteran....) that suggests the rate of | suicide among veterans is 1.5x the base rate, which is | substantial. Using those numbers suggests that 10k of those | suicides quoted above were specifically attributable to military | service (and 20k would be "baseline civilian risk of suicide"). | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Roadside bombs were Iran-sourced, and played into political | actors desires to 1) stay in Iraq 2) invade Iran. Well and 3) | actors who want us out of Iraq. | | Suicides of soldiers work as a deterrent to military action. No | political actor wants that tool to be removed from their | toolbelt. They want their "Defense Department" to be deployable | at will with no hesitation from the American Public. | | Traffic deaths are a necessary evil of transportation, economic | activity, and the profits of the oil industry. | intrepidhero wrote: | This article presents one facet of automobile risk that is | interesting. Essentially there is no governing body tasked to | analyze and mitigates these risks to the same degree as with | public transport. Rather, general consensus (maybe not majority | but still some level of consensus) must be reached before safety | measures begin to see widespread adoption in a very distributed | system. | | > For auto crashes, we're talking about block level | interventions, the kind of fine-grained design details that | transportation departments are not able to perform. | | To point out an alternative, transportation departments, if | endowed with the authority, could mandate centralized control of | all motor vehicles. There is no technical (nor practical) reason | you couldn't turn over the whole thing to properly engineered | centralized computer control. It would be incredibly expensive | but it could certainly be done in such way to reduce the risk by | orders of magnitude. And that is exactly the kind of top down | intervention transportation departments are capable of | implementing, at least structurally, if not with their current | budget levels. | | And I think the question of _why_ we haven 't done this, and | probably won't any time in the foreseeable future, is a | fascinating way to explore our approach to risk. | Sevii wrote: | Centralized control of motor vehicles is tantamount to | centralized control of all human movements throughout the | country. Even if we could do it, I don't think we should. | | Right now driving is a situation where you take your life into | your own hands and have to accept some risk. But in return you | have the ability to go anywhere anytime. | | Centralized control inverts that. Now you need permission to go | anywhere. Does the government approve people like you going to | a particular neighborhood? It becomes trivial to enforce | basically anything you want. Especially, since people will not | have any other options. | | Digitization enables new levels of control that we haven't | really explored ethically. In the 1980s building a central | automobile control system was unthinkable because it was | impossible. Today it could be accomplished in a couple decades. | So now we have to answer the question of 'do you have a right | to go wherever you want on the public roads without government | oversight?' | TylerE wrote: | NHTSA? | Spooky23 wrote: | It does, but as Strong Towns is wont to do, they do so in a way | that aligns with their agenda in a borderline disingenuous way. | | Every traffic fatality is documented and investigated by a | trained police officer. The techniques are trained, data | collection is standardized, and transportation planners have | access to the information and use it to guide engineering | processes. | | Does the NTSB investigate car accidents? Mostly no, but they | have the authority to investigate bus accidents and other | livery vehicles like limousines. And the USDOT/FHA extensively | regulates motor carriers with a scientific approach that | removes bad operators. That's because of the law and resource | limits - but that doesn't mean society closes its eyes and | ignores everything. | | For all of the vague critique of transportation departments, | they are evolving and improving safety on the roads imo. | There's no question that the roads I drive on today are safer | by any measure than the roads I was driven on as a child in the | 80s. | | Strong Towns is like the EFF. They have a compelling message, | but slather enough bullshit to undermine it. | sonofhans wrote: | > There is no technical (nor practical) reason you couldn't | turn over the whole thing to properly engineered centralized | computer control. | | This is an extraordinary claim for which IMO you must provide | extraordinary proof. I see zero evidence that this is | technically possible today, regardless of expense or politics. | It would be at-minimum a decades-long effort to computerize | every car and develop central control for them. | | Putting aside the tech, we're talking about a world where many | people refuse to get vaccinated due to mistrust of government. | How on earth will you talk these people into government- | controlled vehicles? | | From my POV, the answer to "why" is not a mystery: (a) it's | literally not possible, (b) most people would be vehemently | against it. | intrepidhero wrote: | Mythbusters set up radio control for cars all the time. | There's a GPS, compass, and accelerometer in your pocket. The | FAA seems to be pretty good at directing airplanes through | airports. USAF has pilots operating drones on the other side | of the world. It seems like all the tech is extant. It'd be | hugely expensive like I said.... | | But that claim wasn't really the point I was trying to make. | Pick some other more plausible (but still radical) safety | measure we could take with cars. Way more stringent | licensing, speed limiters, self-driving, or massive increases | in public transport. | | > (b) most people would be vehemently against it. | | Why is that? 40,000 people die in the US every year. Why | don't we allocate more resources to solving that? That's the | question I think is interesting. | bobthepanda wrote: | FAA still relies on humans, particularly for super manual | areas like takeoff and landing. And ATC is notoriously | stressful, overworked and understaffed. We'd need a lot | more bodies to manage all road traffic. | | There is a world of difference between the reliability you | need for a one off experiment, and the reliability you need | for something expected to operate 24/7/365, in all weather | from -40C to 40C, in a complex real world environment, and | where legal liability gets involved in the case of an | incident. | LAC-Tech wrote: | I think my years of cycle commuting has made me a better driver*. | I operated for so long under the assumption that if I get hit, I | could easily die, so its become second nature to not assume a car | wont yield evening I have right of way. Saved my ass a few times. | | * well it's also probably to blame for my excessive head checking | and poor parking skills, but swings and roundabouts. | dukeofdoom wrote: | quality of life improvements make it so most people are okay with | the risk. just like skiing, let people decide what risks they | want to take. covid has emboldened the authoritarians. stop | trying to tell other people how they should live. | chasd00 wrote: | > covid has emboldened the authoritarians | | this is an important point. When the lockdowns and things were | being talked about i thought it would never happen. I thought | there's no way people will stand for it. I was shocked how many | people would just do what they're told. I think it surprised a | lot of people in power and now they're seeing how far they can | push it before the people push back. I wonder what the response | would be if someone in power just went on TV and said they were | mandating no more driving between the hours of 9Am and Noon | across the nation. I bet 60-70% of the people would comply with | no more reason than "that's what they told me to do". | | To re-iterate, covid has emboldened the authoritarians | bpye wrote: | What about other people that don't drive, pedestrians, | cyclists, etc. They are also paying the cost of increased road | traffic deaths, except they are no part in the cause. | jmyeet wrote: | I have a simpler explanation: people collectively are quite | willing to let thousands of people they don't know when the | alternative is any form of even mild inconvenience to themselves. | | Sensible gun regulations like red flag laws for those with mental | issues or convictions for domestic violence or even just | background checks? Well that might make it slightly more | difficult to buy a gun so that's a "no". | | More than a million Americans died of Covid, at a peak of over | 3,000 a day. For reference, that's basically a 9/11 every day. | Mask mandates to reduce transmission rate? Getting vaccinated to | hopefully reach herd immunity? Nope. | | American corporations routinely outsource activity to other | countries that frequently use effective if not actual slave labor | or otherwise horrible working conditions? Nope, we're OK with | that too. | | How easily we trade convenience for the lives of people we don't | know says a lot about human nature. | sk8terboi wrote: | elil17 wrote: | The NTSB actually does investigate car crashes. Typically police | do the actual footwork but if the cause is unknown NTSB agents | will put boots on the ground. Unfortunately most of the causes | are shared across many cases (speeding, distracted driving, drunk | driving), so the cases end up getting lumped together into | reports which can include tens of thousands of cases. | | However, they are performing root cause analysis. For distracted | driving, for example, they break it down into distractions by | other occupants, distractions by moving object inside vehicle | (such as a fly), cell phone use (with hands), cell phone use (no | hands), using component integral to vehicle (climate or audio), | using component integral to vehicle (other), smoking, and many | more. | | The problem is that decision makers don't do anything about it. | flaque wrote: | Human error isn't a root cause. | | Why were they able to speed on that road? Why did they feel | safe being on their phone? | | Every software engineer understands intrinsically that blaming | the user does not improve outcomes. You cannot get folks to | click the right button by putting "you must click the right | button" into the terms of service, and then suing the users who | click the wrong one. | kiba wrote: | There's just more opportunities for things to go wrong when you | give million of people across all walk of life the ability to | control deadly vehicles and forced them to do it as a matter of | daily routine. | | In contrast, public mass transit just have less things that can | go home. Trains can be really safe if we wanted it to be. | chociej wrote: | I think Strong Towns would suggest they should include the | infrastructure involved as a point to analyze when determining | root cause. For example, if a driver was speeding, could the | street or road have been built in a way that better discouraged | speeding? | slifin wrote: | Cars are glorified and incredibly ingrained in culture | | Some people can't even imagine walking anymore and are blind to | even how much road furniture and infrastructure they litter | everywhere | | Some of the biggest structures we have are roads created in the | last 100 years | | Absolutely crazy | cityofdelusion wrote: | I think the real issue is that people are just incredibly lazy. | My area isn't "walkable", but its what I could call "walkable | enough" -- you can get a meal and a hair cut and lots of kids | could walk to school. Of course, the sidewalks are empty here. | Just an occasional cyclist. Even areas around here that are | much more walkable like a grouping of shops, people all seem to | prefer driving shop to shop! We're talking like maybe 100 meter | walk max. Cars are the default, and if you suggest walking, you | get looked at like you're nuts. | | These same people don't even like cars or driving. I think they | just like a comfy seat and air conditioning. | | The car is basically a mobile sofa to the population. Shove | them into the crappy cars of the 60s and 70s with no A/C and I | think they start walking a bit more. | rootusrootus wrote: | It just comes down to time. I can drive to the store in 5 | minutes, or walk there in 20. Then I have to carry it home. | You can call that lazy, but there are only 24 hours a day and | a third of them are spent sleeping, a third working, and so | that last third is precious. | rootusrootus wrote: | Cars are arguably one of the most important inventions in | recent history. So much of what we have today would never have | happened if we still had to walk everywhere. | dannylandau wrote: | I had two friends that were killed in a car crash inside city | limits. One guy was turning left, and the other guy going 90 | miles an hour in a 40 mile zone. Happened around midnight. Hit | them perpendicular, and killed two friends and critically injured | driver who survived and is recovering. | | Have become much more sensitive about car crashes and speeding as | a result obviously. Forces you to re-assess your life. | | Realistic solution - Install speeding cameras everywhere, and | most intersections. And levy heavy fines if a person is speeding | 20 miles above speed limit, possibly even revoking driver's | license in that case. | ladyattis wrote: | Another thing we can do is force city and state government | transportation departments into rebuilding roads as they wear | down into more actively calming roads. Making them narrower, | put in raised pedestrian walkways (basically turns the | intersection into one speed bump for cars), reduce the signage | and markings to the essentials, and even make residential or | high density roads physical rougher as to make it feel worse to | drive fast. All these could help with residential/non-highway | accidents. | leroy_masochist wrote: | My theory of why we ignore car crashes as a source of deaths | boils down to a basic reality of American politics: old people | vote. | | I'm a volunteer firefighter in a rural town in the Northeast. We | handle a fairly large area and go to about 80 motor vehicle | accident calls a year, of which about 20-25 require patient | extrication and about 5-8 involve one or more fatalities. | | More of these MVAs involve a non-intoxicated elderly person who | made a driving error than involve an intoxicated driver (that's | including people who nod off on heroin, not just drunks). | | If we had a clear-eyed view of risk mitigation, we'd make people | over, say, 75 take a comprehensive vision and neuromotor exam to | keep their drivers licenses current but we don't, because old | people vote. | rootusrootus wrote: | Nationally, close to 30% of all traffic fatalities are caused | by drunk driving. About 20% of all fatalities are elderly. | ip26 wrote: | There's more to it, elderly who can't drive wind up stranded & | isolated which is a problem in itself. If we look the other way | when they slowly become unfit to drive, we aren't forced to | solve those other problems. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | (Un)friendly reminder that it's tautologically impossible for the | general public to be bad at a subjective task like risk | assessment or a subjectively assessed task such as driving | because the general public is what sets the baseline for the | subjective assessment. | ilaksh wrote: | What's required are actually very significant structural changes. | Veterans suicides are the result of war, which is mass killing | normalized by false mythology. And it not enough to just say | that's a bad idea, the problem is deeply rooted in the core | global paradigm which is fundamentally uncivilized. You can't | just say that hegemony is bad, you need an alternative, which is | a very difficult task. | | The problem with traffic deaths is again, structural. You are | mixing 3000 pound vehicles, most of which contain only one | passenger, with pedestrians in the same space. You have humans | driving them. | | The solution is small autonomous vehicles completely separated | from pedestrians. This is very hard, but possible, and the | materials wasted on oversized vehicles that are underutilized, | office buildings that are mostly empty, incredibly poor density, | etc. can also be used for that purpose. | | Cities should actually be entirely redesigned. | languagehacker wrote: | I think J.G. Ballard said everything that could be said about | this in his 2004 Academy Award winning film "Crash" | woodruffw wrote: | This is a really excellent read, and neatly summarizes a thought | that flashes through the back of my mind whenever someone tells | me that public transit is unsafe. | | If over 100 people died each day on public transit, we'd have | banned it by now. But we accept it in our automotive culture, | _while simultaneously_ handwringing over every incident that | happens on public transit. | js2 wrote: | It's like a form of the Dunning-Kruger effect where everyone | believes they're in control of their fate in a car, but not on | public transit. People must think they're exceptional drivers | and that they can dodge any accident. | pbuzbee wrote: | If I've learned anything from watching "Idiots in Cars" | videos on Reddit, it's that you can go from "driving | normally" to "in an accident" much faster than you think. | Most people have very little experience reacting to imminent | accidents on the road. Overall that's a good thing, but it | certainly seems naive to think that simply being an attentive | driver is enough to keep you out of accidents. | djmips wrote: | It's a good thing, because yes getting injured or killed in | a car accident is horrible but it's not a good thing that | they don't have any training at all. If driving was | something done only in industry there would be proper | training and a lot more safety precautions. I think about | this every time I walk down this narrow sidewalk in my town | that's 4 feet from the roadway. A friend of mine was | recently in the crosshairs of a straying van and he was | only saved by the luck of a telephone pole intervening. | rustybelt wrote: | Yes, but if half of all accidents involve idiots, not being | an idiot is a legitimate way to reduce your risk of being | in an accident. Meaning drivers do have some control over | their level of risk behind the wheel. | scrumbledober wrote: | half of all accidents involve an idiot, but there only | has to be one idiot in a two car collision. | rustybelt wrote: | Reduce risk, not eliminate it. Do idiots and non-idiots | have the same risk of getting into an accident? | hackernewds wrote: | That's because you believe you won't be affected since you're | driving. While transit would be someone else's responsibility. | Same standards apply to why autonomous driving has to clear a | much higher bar than beating the averages. | TylerE wrote: | The difference is _control_. | | While a careful, attentive driver in a well-maintained vehicle | certainly isn't immune, their risk is much lower than someone | who drives tired, drunk, or high in a car with bald tires and | bad brakes. | userbinator wrote: | Control, freedom, personal responsibility. Public transit | offers none of that compared to driving. Thus it should be no | surprise that many find it better to die or be injured as a | result of one's own actions, than those of some faceless | bureaucracy, regardless what the actual rates are. | neuralRiot wrote: | I'd say that it is blame rather than control. We tend to | focus more in finding the responsible to point the finger at | rather than the cause. If 1000 drivers die in car accidents | it's easy to shift the responsibility at themselves but if 2 | die on an Amtrak derailment, the responsible is Amtrak or | American Airlines, Airbus, Boeing or whatever. | black_puppydog wrote: | So how do the pedestrians that make up a sizeable part of | road deaths control the situation then? | TylerE wrote: | By doing things like not walking in the middle of the | street at night in a poorly lit area wearing dark clothes. | Has happened several times times in my town recently. | [deleted] | throwaway0a5e wrote: | The same way drivers do. Avoid the handful of behaviors | that seem to lead to the bulk of the deaths. Be attentive | and maintain situational awareness. Cross your fingers. | otikik wrote: | But the drunk driver can still invade your line on a split- | second and frontal-crush you. | | If you're in a bus instead of a car, you will be much more | protected against that kind of thing. | wahern wrote: | > While a careful, attentive driver in a well-maintained | vehicle certainly isn't immune, their risk is much lower than | someone who drives tired, drunk, or high in a car with bald | tires and bad brakes. | | You could have just stopped at "control". That's the | fundamental dynamic by which we can explain this differential | public sentiment--a _sense_ of control or lack thereof, | independent of whether that control actually exists, or | whether that control translates to reduced risk. You went off | the rails trying to link it to some objective reality; it 's | unnecessary, and in any event even the best of drivers takes | on more risk while on the road than riding passenger rail. | | Control also figures into notions of ethics and justice. | We're much more willing to accept losses when we attribute | the proximate cause to "nature", "god", "chance", etc. But | our moral calculus shifts dramatically when the decision of a | particular person or group can be fingered (reasonably or | not) as a primary factor. You already subtly did that by | insinuating blame upon many traffic victims. (I'm not saying | the insinuation was improper or impermissible... we all | frequently do that; it's a staple of public discourse and | even personal reflection. Just highlighting the extent to | which notions of control color our views.) | roughly wrote: | What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, | narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in | control, because they're operating the motor vehicle, yet | on the macro scale, they're operating a motor vehicle | because of a whole host of other decisions outside their | control. For most people, they don't have the option to not | operate a motor vehicle and still live where they do, work | where they do, etc. Likewise, the road construction and | design operates a powerful influence on how they drive and | how others drive around them, as well as how safely they | can navigate to their destination - this too is out of | their control. Regulations on the construction and | maintenance of vehicles they and others on the road drive | are also out of their control, but affect the environment | in which the driver operates, and rules around who can | drive and under what conditions similarly are not in the | driver's control. The driver of the car exhibits control | over only the narrowest and most immediate circumstances of | their condition, and yet that veneer of control is | sufficient for the majority of observers to put the blame | nearly entirely on the driver for the outcome of their | trip, absolving or ignoring the numerous other systems and | decisions made which put them in circumstances in which | accidents are alarmingly frequent. | | The article covers suicide, and here too the veneer of | control at the point of action hides the entire complex | environment in which someone dies of suicide - the social, | economic, and political landscape that creates the | conditions in which a former service member takes their | life is not strictly personal, but we insist on treating it | as such, because at the point of action, it is indeed the | individual who commits the act. | zip1234 wrote: | It is definitely a veneer of control. People's brains and | senses have all kinds of strange blind spots that make it | a more dangerous activity than it seems. The whole | 'zoning out' while driving down a stretch of road for | example. | ericmay wrote: | If only we could take this further. What's more in | "control" than driving? Walking and riding a bike. That's | ultimate control. | whakim wrote: | Yes, but the GP wasn't talking about some objective | notion of "control" - they were talking about some | subjective "feeling" of control and how that translates | to perceptions of risk and danger. Driving a car feels | like you're in control because you're the one doing the | driving and are isolated from your environment even | though (as a sibling comment notes) you're at the mercy | of a huge number of factors that you don't perceive. | That's why folks don't perceive driving as risky. | (Consider airplanes as a contrasting example - extremely | safe, but you certainly don't feel "in control".) In that | context, cycling doesn't feel like you're "in control" | because you're surrounded by large multi-ton vehicles | moving significantly faster than you. Walking in urban | areas feels safe because of the incredible amount of | infrastructure that exists to support pedestrians and the | normalcy of walking in those areas. | danaris wrote: | This is why, when I have to visit a city, I much prefer | to park my car at the first convenient opportunity and | walk. Having a car is pretty straightforward and | definitely a must in the rural areas where I live (sadly, | public transit is effectively nonexistent), but driving a | car in a city is difficult and often terrifying, | specifically because of the limited control (you're stuck | going _forward_ at a particular speed, and if you realize | too late that the GPS /map/printed out directions/copilot | navigator was indicating _that_ street to turn on, you | just have to keep going and hope that you can loop back | around somehow without losing too much time...or you risk | permanent /exorbitantly expensive damage to your car, | someone else's car, and/or one or more humans). | gottastayfresh wrote: | Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient. Control ends | where convenience begins (that's not to say its totally | accurate, but the phrase looks nice). | ericmay wrote: | > Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient | | Strictly by design and active and reinforced choice. Not | for any other reason. Period. | kelnos wrote: | Exactly. There are many places in the world where getting | around by transit is much faster and more convenient than | driving. It's just rare to find a place in the US where | this is the case. | egypturnash wrote: | When I am on a bike I am definitely not in control of all | the people in cars around me, especially the ones who are | drunk, are assholes, or are badly-programmed robots who | barely know what a "bicycle" is. | ericmay wrote: | Which would be true of any form of transit, including | driving or riding a bus or walking down the street. So | I'm not following your point here. | kipchak wrote: | You're unfortunately either more vulnerable to other | cars, less able to take action to avoid them or some | combination of both. A motorcycle for example is nimble | enough to attempt to avoid a collision but is more | vulnerable if a collision occurs, while a bus might be | sturdier/larger but your presence can't avoid a collision | at all. | | As a group the safest option would be smaller vehicles, | but individually each person is better off (in terms of | safety during a collision) with something larger. | thehappypm wrote: | Wow, could not agree less! In a bike you're at the mercy | of the bikers and drivers around you, with laughable | safety features to protect you. | thehappypm wrote: | Yep. We don't fear things under our control. Do I fear | driving my car? No, because I can control my safety (to an | extent, anyway). I can drive defensively. I can stay | focused. I can avoid dangerous intersections. I wear a seat | belt and have a big safe SUV. | | Mass shootings are terrifying because there's no sense of | control. | | Animals are scary (spiders, snakes) because we can't | control them. | | Disease is scary when we can't control it (cancer); less | scary when we can cure it, even something like appendicitis | seems tame because most hospitals can get it under control. | It's also why COVID is less scary to the general public, as | it gets more under control (via vaccines and treatments and | prior infection immunity). | mwint wrote: | > Mass shootings are terrifying because there's no sense | of control. | | For anyone here concerned about this, it doesn't take | very much money in HN-terms to become reasonably well | trained. You can: | | 1) Carry your own weapon, following your state's laws in | all but a few. 2) Learn to use that weapon very well, but | more importantly: 3) Learn to use cover and move | defensively or offensively 4) Learn to administer basic | medical attention to yourself and others 5) Learn to read | people and know when something might be about to happen. | | After enough training, you will at least probably not | freeze in an active shooter scenario. Even if you're not | into carrying your own weapon, doing some training will | teach you how insanely hard it is to hit any moving | target (or anything at all when the adrenaline is going). | | Re. 5), many people in my state carry and I never used to | notice them. Now I can pick out who is and isn't, and | usually how long they've been doing it (newbies will | subtly check their weapon is secure every time they | move). | | The Secret Service is trained the same way; someone not | used to carrying who is about to do something bad will | send off all kinds of weird body language signals. | | ---- | | No, you don't need to learn this because shootings are | exceedingly rare. But if you're nervous, learning these | things will give you a sense of understanding about the | threat, and the basic tools to do something to keep your | loved ones safe in that one-in-a-hundred-thousand- | lifetimes event. | clairity wrote: | no, if you want to survive a mass shooting, you don't | need to do anything, _especially_ not buy a gun, and your | likelihood of not dying by mass shooting stays the same, | basically zero. your chances of dying by gun increase | much more simply by having one than you could ever hope | to reduce the risk of dying by mass shooting by having | one. if you were in the exceedingly unlikely scenario of | a mass shooting, brandishing a gun increases your | likelihood of dying in that situation several-fold, | rather than materially increasing your chances of | stopping the mass shooter or even saving your own life. | powerhour wrote: | And if the rhetoric is true and stolen guns are | disproportionately represented in violent crimes 6) learn | to secure your gun when it is not in use so it doesn't | get (easily) stolen, FFS. | chasd00 wrote: | > We don't fear things under our control | | yeah, this is it. This is why people will drive through a | blizzard in the middle of the night but will have a panic | attack trying to board an airplane. In their car they | feel in control but in an airplane they feel helpless and | at completely dependent on the pilot/crew/airplane. | kelnos wrote: | > _No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, | anyway)._ | | Part of the problem is that this control is much more of | an illusion than most people realize. In any car crash | where there's at least two vehicles involved, often one | driver is at fault, and the other is (or others are) more | or less an innocent bystander, who may have been | exercising all the care and attentiveness in the world. | That person was certainly not able to control their | safety in that situation. | | And even when not involved in a crash, I don't think it's | reasonable to say that one's safe outcome was caused even | _mostly_ due to their control over their vehicle. Much of | it can be attributable to luck, traffic conditions, and | the imperfect, but often sufficient, control that | _others_ were exercising over _their_ vehicles. | | But I do agree with you that the _perceived_ threat | /seriousness of these various bad things does have a lot | to do with the _perception_ of individual control, | whether or not individuals actually do have much control | over them. I know a surprising number of people who get | anxious flying on a plane, but don 't think twice about | getting in a car, despite there being a higher | probability of injury or death from a car trip. | | Something I just realized: I feel like _passengers_ in a | car are also similarly not that concerned about the | possibility of crashes, even though they are not actually | in control of the vehicle. My first thought would be that | they presumably know and trust the person who is driving, | but that doesn 't explain why people feel safe in taxis. | I guess maybe people _do_ feel less safe in taxis, | though. | smileysteve wrote: | Your details really erase control though; | | To stick to the legal ones; | | Tired. 40% of Americans report not getting 8 hours of sleep a | night. An only partially intersecting group reports they are | regularly tired during daily activities. Is a driver's self | actualization of tired accurate? | | Attentive; bad news, most drivers aren't attentive, hence | we're still seeing deaths from texting while driving. Self | actualization doesn't exist here either. Add in passengers | (children, dogs, friend, partner) - deep thoughts on work, | relationships - combined with doing something that is mostly | mundane. | | Poor Maintenance. Brakes, nails in tires, low air pressure in | tires, tires not suited for climate, other cars leaving oils | on the roads, poor road maintenance, unexpected or untrained | weather, check engine light (25%), potholes impact tie rods | and steering, worn shocks, uneven loading. Very few drivers | do this or pre-drive check every drive. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Poor Maintenance. Brakes, nails in tires, low air pressure | in tires, tires not suited for climate, other cars leaving | oils on the roads, poor road maintenance, unexpected or | untrained weather, check engine light (25%), potholes | impact tie rods and steering, worn shocks, uneven loading. | Very few drivers do this or pre-drive check every drive. | | Your list started off good and then quickly went straight | to bad faith BS. | | Nobody is getting in a crash because their worn out gas cap | is causing the emissions system to pop a code. | | Furthermore, it's pretty clear from the statistics | available and the widely varying conditions across the US | with regard to vehicle inspections, weather and road | conditions that these factors pale compared to human | judgement related causes. | djmips wrote: | Not to derail but the lack of control of self driving cars | could be one reason there is a big reaction when someone dies | as a result of an accident. | edmundsauto wrote: | Do you mean this is an actual important difference, or that | it is a difference in how it's perceived? | | My gut is public transit is still safer than even the most | attentive and sober driver. So it's the feeling of control | that determines perception rather than an actual materially | different risk profile. | woodruffw wrote: | Sure. I also won't claim that driving is dangerous, in the | abstract: human beings take all kinds of risks, lots of them | for fun, and I'm not interested in restricting others' | behavior _on that basis_. | | It's merely thought provoking: every HN thread on transit | will have the same half-dozen comments about violence and | danger on public transit, when the reality is that two orders | of magnitude more deaths occur each year on our highways. | giraffe_lady wrote: | > human beings take all kinds of risks, lots of them for | fun, and I'm not interested in restricting others' behavior | on that basis. | | No but we do have a strong, though admittedly weakening, | tradition of restricting the fun of others when the danger | posed is not solely to themselves. For example building and | setting off bombs is fun as hell but we're not allowed to | do it because it's pretty unhealthy for the neighbors. | | Driving cars is pretty dangerous not just for the driver | but also for other people around _who have not necessarily | consented to being put in danger_. When pedestrians and | children are routinely getting killed (as they have been in | my city this summer) we should shift the danger assessment | a little away from the skydiving end of the spectrum and a | little more to the backyard bombs zone. | cgriswald wrote: | You can build and set off bombs. It's just heavily | regulated. | | However, many people haven't really _consented_ to | driving. They drive out of necessity. Where they live and | work is only marginally in their control and there are no | other transport options. When I was poor, I would have | loved to not have to pay for insurance, gas, maintenance, | and the vehicle itself. I couldn 't really afford it. But | without it, I couldn't get to work to eat. There weren't | other options. When I made a little more money I could | finally afford to live close to work and public transport | was an option. The trip was 5 minutes by car, over an | hour by bus. | | I'm on board for heavily regulating driving and shifting | that danger assessment as you suggest. But first I think | there is a moral obligation to provide alternative modes | of transportation. (This should not be interpreted as | excusing drivers from their obligation to be skilled and | safe.) | giraffe_lady wrote: | Yes, agreed. Driving at least in the american context | should be understood as basically bimodal: at one end a | regressive tax on the poor and at the other a luxury that | allows the wealthy to live in the segregated enclaves | they value. | | Both ends need to be addressed and it will make for a lot | of changes in the middle too. But there's no solution | that doesn't involve completely rewriting transportation. | cgriswald wrote: | People feel better protected in their cars. They're in a | private rolling cage with all kinds of safety features and | a built-in ability to get away from danger. They can also | avoid more dangerous areas, practice defensive driving, and | otherwise mitigate their chances of being one of those | statistics. | | Being confronted by a knife-wielding drug addict on public | transit is just a scarier proposition all around even if | the numbers suggest it shouldn't be. And it feels _random_ | where death in a car doesn 't, even though for the victim | it often is. | dwighttk wrote: | >the reality is that two orders of magnitude more deaths | occur each year on our highways. | | What is the throughput of highways vs public transit? I | wouldn't be surprised if it was two orders of magnitude | greater person hours on roads in non public transit. | masterj wrote: | > What is the throughput of highways vs public transit? | | Regardless of what the US does, throughput is much higher | on public transit than it is on highways. You can fit so | many more people on buses and trains than in automobiles. | | For the actual numbers, compare deaths-per-passenger-mile | in-city and deaths-per-passenger-mile between cities | (highways vs buses, trains, etc), and you will see huge | difference in fatality rate. | trothamel wrote: | You're right. According to | https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles , in the | US in 2020, there were 4,935 billion passenger-miles on | highways, versus 32 billion passenger-miles on transit. | | The highway mileage includes 306 billion passenger-miles | on non-transit buses. | | Amtrak (6 billion passenger miles) isn't considered | transit. | clairity wrote: | the difference is the illusion of control. you can't talk | yourself past raw statistics that way. you might make a | marginal difference in risk, but the bulk of the risk is | beyond personal control. even with attentiveness, if you're 1 | of 100 drivers on the road, you're at best controlling for 1% | of that one risk. | | and i'd argue attentiveness (anti-distractedness) is the most | important mass mitigation we could make, but it's also | practically impossible to maintain over a driving lifetime | and nearly as impossible to enforce (without significant | rights violations). | rustybelt wrote: | Are you arguing that drivers don't have any control over | their level of risk on the road? Sure they can't eliminate | 100% of risk, but not speeding and not driving drunk | absolutely influences a driver's likelihood of being in an | accident. | clairity wrote: | no, speeding hardly changes risk at all, but _reckless_ | driving certainly can, but that's beside the point. the | point is that changing your own behavior (i.e., | "control") has a negligible _marginal_ effect on | _reducing_ your overall risk. nearly all of the practical | risk is external and therefore out of your control | (unless you manufacture additional risk by being | distracted, reckless, and /or impaired). | | you can't really lower risk, which is what "control" | implies. that's simply a falsehood some folks choose to | believe that's unsupported by a basic application of | stats & probability. | rustybelt wrote: | A quick google is telling me that 26.8% of drivers who | were killed or severely injured had alcohol in their | bloodstream. Assuming that's true, then wouldn't never | drinking and driving reduce your risk of death or serious | injury by around 26.8%? That seems like a substantial | reduction that is completely in the control of the | driver. | clairity wrote: | no, you have to get _everyone else_ to stop drinking and | driving, not just yourself, to get that sort of | reduction. | TylerE wrote: | No you don't. Over 50% of crashes are single car | accidents. I suspect, but don't have proof for, that that | percentage is even higher in alcohol-related crashes (eg | driver nods off and drives into a ditch/telephone pole | rustybelt wrote: | How? The 26.8% is just drivers with alcohol in their | system. If I never drink and drive, I will never be part | of that group. That means the raw rate of traffic | fatality or severe injury is 26.8% lower for people like | me (non drunk drivers.) | zip1234 wrote: | Speeding doesn't change risk? When 'speed was not a | factor' in a crash, it just means that the involved | drivers were not driving above the post speed limit. It | doesn't mean that the drivers were driving a safe speed. | In fact, clearly they were not. | clairity wrote: | speed increases the severity of collisions, but generally | doesn't cause them (most of what we classify as speed- | related is really recklessness, which is also typically a | misassessment of risk). distractedness, recklessness, and | impairment are the overwhelming causes of collisions, | with a small additional portion caused by vehicular | homicide/suicide, mechanical failure, and environmental | factors. | TylerE wrote: | It's way way higher than 1%. 30% of crashes involve a drunk | driver. 30% of the drivers on the road are not drunk. | clairity wrote: | and it's orders of magnitude higher than 100 drivers on | the road with you. you're doubling down on a | misunderstanding of risk. you have no control over most | of the situations and circumstances that cause | collisions, injury, and death. you not drinking and | driving doesn't make all the other drunk drivers sober up | miraculously. your "control" has quite marginal effects | at best. | goodpoint wrote: | Where is the _control_ when you get hit by a car as a | pedestrian or cyclist or car driver? | | This is an excellent example of biased thinking. | yongjik wrote: | I don't understand. What control do I have over a | tired/drunk/high truck driver running a red light into an | intersection I'm passing in? | | I can be actually assured that no drunk driver will smash | into my seat in a subway (the chance might not be zero but | it's astronomically low). You may say it's not "control" | because I didn't personally force all those drunk drivers out | of railroads, but then again, I can't force them out of | public roads either. | ModernMech wrote: | For one, you can choose the routes you take. Accidents | aren't evenly distributed across every mile of road. Some | roads are are just statistically safer than others. | Accidents also aren't evenly distributed across all times | of day and weather conditions. By choosing not to drive at | those times and in those conditions, you can lower your | risk profile. | | Moreover, the route you drive most is your commute to work, | so you can choose where you live to minimize travel time | and intersections. There's one intersection on my way to | work, so I guess theoretically what you describe could | happen. But the accident statistics for that particular | intersection show that practically no accidents have | occurred there. Therefore most of the time I spend driving | is going to be quite safe compared to the aggregate stats, | and that's by choice. | | Delivery driver routes are usually optimized for right | turns for this reason. My dad was a UPS driver for 30 years | and went without an accident the entire time, not even one | that wasn't his fault. You'd think statistically he would | have gotten into one over the million miles or so he drove | on and off the job, but I think that just goes to show that | defensive driving and route planning actually works. | | No form of travel is absolutely safe. The best you can do | is control what you can and hope for the best. | cdkmoose wrote: | Bu can you be assured that a drunk/tired/* train engineer | doesn't run a signal and crash into another train? | TylerE wrote: | You can assure that you don't drive drunk. | | You can't assure your bus driver didn't pop a few pills | before they came on shift. | yongjik wrote: | You assure your bus driver doesn't have a habit of | popping pills by making them go through rigorous | certification, give them decent wages, and punishing them | harshly when they do pop pills. | | You may object it's not perfect, but nothing is, and it | does work. In fact, it works exactly the same way you can | assure that your brake pad won't suddenly give way in | front of a bus coming from your left. | Spooky23 wrote: | There's risk mitigation there in the form of training and | testing. | toyg wrote: | You also can't be sure a random guy is not going to come | from a side street on a red light at 90mph and T-bone you | because he was answering a whatsapp and didn't notice the | lights. | | I ride a motorbike. As part of training I was repeatedly | told to wear protection not because of my riding skills, | but because of _everyone else 's_ lack of skills. | googlryas wrote: | You can't assure it, but again, you can control your own | actions to help mitigate the danger of others being | reckless. For example by driving defensively, scanning to | the left and right when passing through an intersection, | etc. | willcipriano wrote: | Part of riding a motorbike (cycle here) is also driving | defensively is it not? I don't assume people are going to | stop at a given intersection, I take a look at their | current speed and project it forward before determining | if it's safe for me to go. If someone is going at a high | rate of speed towards a stop sign or red light, I don't | pull out just because I have the "right of way" I assume | they are going to do something stupid. | | Another example: On the highway I get myself into a | position where I have plenty of stopping distance for the | car in front of me, but also behind me in case I need to | stop rapidly myself. | toyg wrote: | Yes, but let's be honest: none of us has 360o eyes, and | very few have split-millisecond reflexes. You control for | the front, meanwhile somebody hits you from the rear; you | look to the sides, and someone brakechecks you; and so on | and so forth. You can reduce chances, but not eliminate | them. Statistically, by the simple fact that you are | sharing the road with hundreds of other (often terrible) | drivers, the chance that one of them will fuck you up is | incredibly higher than the chance of that happening on a | public-transport vehicle in dedicated lanes (or even | rails) driven by someone whose job is to safely move such | vehicle from A to B every day. | foepys wrote: | You will never be able to look into every intersection, | even very open ones. You will never be able to look out | for cars traveling 50kph/30mph unless you literally stop | before entering every intersection. | | You also don't have any control over how far behind other | cars are. The only thing you can do is to drive faster or | to let them by by stopping or changing lanes. The latter | is highly dangerous in fast flowing traffic on single | lane roads while the first will almost never help as the | other car actively wants to go faster. | | Being in absolute control is you can drive as defensively | as you want, in the end a distracted idiot can take you | out and the only thing you can do is minimize the risk. | xyzzyz wrote: | > I don't assume people are going to stop at a given | intersection, I take a look at their current speed and | project it forward before determining if it's safe for me | to go. | | While I sympathize with your overall sentiment (and | indeed, as a fellow motorcyclists, I know _a lot_ about | defensive driving /riding), I have never seen people | consistently drive the way you describe, ever. For many | intersections in the cities (probably most), you simply | cannot see if someone is actually going from a side road | until you're so deep in the intersection that you have no | chance of stopping before it if you notice someone. | | Imagine you're driving here: | | https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5703087,-122.3952816,3a,7 | 5y,... | | There's a side road on in front of you. Imagine there is | a car going same speed as you, on a crash trajectory | (i.e. it is exactly as far from the intersection as you | are). Where's the first moment you see it? | | Most likely, around here: | | https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5703156,-122.3959313,3a,7 | 5y,... | | where you're around 20 feet from the intersection of your | routes. If you begin braking immediately as you notice | the other car, you need to be going slower 15 mph if you | want to avoid a crash. If you add any amount of time to | actually judge the speed of the other car and its | intention of stopping, you need to be going less than 10 | mph. Needless to say, nobody actually does that, people | don't slow down to 10 mph in locations like above. | willcipriano wrote: | First I must say, in the city I'll park my car at the | outskirts and take public transit so I admit it's | situational. I don't like driving with so many | unpredictable pedestrians running around, you could end | up in prison because someone had a few too many drinks | and fell into the road. | | But in your example I'd have a good chance to prevent a | collision. I'd already have my foot on the brake due to | the crosswalk there. I will have brought my speed down | that I will be able to stop should someone suddenly | appear within it. A kid could pop out from between those | two cars on the right chasing a ball, so you need to have | a stopping distance of perhaps 2 - 3 feet maximum, | depending what vehicle of mine I am driving that's | probably 20 - 25 mph maximum. 25 mph is the speed limit | there so I probably wouldn't even get tailgaters at that | speed, but I don't care if I do. That intersection is a | good place for a rolling stop, where you bring the car | down to perhaps 5mph before you proceed, mostly because | of the sidewalks on both sides and the risk of kids | running around or riding bikes. That's a residential | street, there should be no need to move quickly down it. | | In addition to all that my car has a top of line | collision avoidance system, side curtain airbags, a high | crash rating, etc. I always wear my seatbelt and keep my | kid strapped in with a age appropriate booster seat. | | I'm not saying I'm perfect but being careful can reduce | your personal risk considerably. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Not only is what he described simply not realistic, it's | likely far more unsafe than "driving normally" because | the behavior violates the expectations of many/most other | drivers and when people are thrown into situations that | violate their expectations things get weird. | | "But he should have been using a reasonable following | distance" makes for easy low effort internet points but | internet points won't get you out of a hospital bed. | hgomersall wrote: | The point is, every driver you interact with might be | drunk or distracted. In a collision with a drunk in a | car, I'd rather be in a bus. | googlryas wrote: | Sure, but you would probably rather be driving a car if | your bus driver was suicidal that morning. | hgomersall wrote: | How many suicidal bus drivers have we had? I mean ever. | TylerE wrote: | https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dz5kk/bus-driver-china- | kill... | | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37328824 | | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- | xpm-1995-04-08-me-52192-... | | http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/12/tt | c-d... (Not a suicide, but it's on topic) | egypturnash wrote: | I just searched for "bus driver suicide" and it was a | pretty even split between stories about drivers _saving_ | people who were trying to kill themselves, and drivers | killing themselves. The latter was very much largely | happening in solitary ways, except for one dude in China | who drove his bus into a lake. | dahart wrote: | This goes straight to the article's point that we tend to | care about things that don't actually matter as much when | they _seem_ worse. The hypothetical bus driver suicide | seems bad if he takes out other people with him, it's | easy to imagine being a passenger with no control and | meeting a terrifying doom. Let's just nevermind that it | almost never happens, and forget that suicide car drivers | is a much, much more likely occurrence in the real world. | And bad drivers accidentally taking out people near them | happens _way_ more often than anything to do with | suicides. You're far less likely to be killed on a bus | than in a car, hands down. Wanting to drive a car instead | simply highlights our flawed emotional thinking. | jeromegv wrote: | Even if that happened, how many people can seriously be | injured in a bus accident in a city? Not talking of bus | going through mountains and losing breaks | TylerE wrote: | Hundreds. Imagine a bus veering off into a busy sidewalk. | googlryas wrote: | Everyone on the bus, if the bus driver decides to drive | the bus off a bridge into a river | 1270018080 wrote: | It was critical for your train of thought to skip the | part where other drivers kill you. | wbsss4412 wrote: | The difference is really just the perception of control. | UncleMeat wrote: | This is true. | | But there are two cars in many fatal wrecks. A family friend | was killed going to the supermarket by a car running a red | light and hitting him in an intersection. A few weeks ago a | semitruck slammed into stopped traffic at full speed on 95-S | at the Georgia/Florida border. Nothing can be done by a safe | driver to prevent that. | tshaddox wrote: | I'd love to see studies that attempt to control for | attributes related to "driver skill" or "driver | responsibility" that you could objectively test yourself on, | so that you could more accurately predict your own risk and | compare it against the risk of alternatives like public | transit. It's not really good enough to say "I don't drive | drunk, and I'm pretty sure I'm a more skilled driver than | average, therefore I can discard all studies on the risks of | injury of driving versus public transit." | rustybelt wrote: | I don't think you can completely discard all comparisons, | but people are intuitively right to recognize that if they | don't engage in risky behavior (like drunk driving) they're | less at risk of being in an accident. To argue otherwise is | basically saying driving drunk is no more risky than | driving sober. | tshaddox wrote: | > but people are intuitively right to recognize that if | they don't engage in risky behavior (like drunk driving) | they're less at risk of being in an accident. To argue | otherwise is basically saying driving drunk is no more | risky than driving sober. | | Sure, that's why it's important to know how risky | automobiles are if you discard the cases of drunk drivers | injuring themselves. I suspect drunk drivers injuring | themselves accounts for a very small portion of | automobile injuries, but we need to see the data. | | It's not enough to say "I don't drive drunk, and driving | drunk is very dangerous, therefore automobile risk | estimates don't apply to me." You could make the same | argument about driving blindfolded. | rustybelt wrote: | A quick google says that 26.8% of drivers killed or | severely injured in a car accident had alcohol in their | system. Not drinking and driving significantly reduces | your risk. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | The fact that we rarely if ever see such data sets is a | strong data point by itself. | | Insurance cost (data is widely available) goes down with | age and you can extrapolate from that to safety but it only | falls fast initially and the rest is largely a reflection | of how driving habits change with age. | | Occasionally someone like Tesla or Volvo will trot out some | cherry picked data that boils down to "yes the very safe | demographics who buy our very safe cars die less than the | peasants". | | Other than those two there's not much. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Yet we push millions of people on the roads when they are | still dead tired, at once, massively increasing risk factors | from multiple sides. Heck, many of them rely on coffee to be | anywhere close to a careful and attentive driver. | | You might want to elaborate on your definition of control. | ErikVandeWater wrote: | I'd say the difference is density of deaths. | | When people die in regular road accidents, it's just a few at | a time. Not compelling enough for even a mention in national | news coverage. When a plane or train crashes, it's hundreds | simultaneously. Often with a good debris field too. Good | enough to lead with. | toyg wrote: | You say control, I say _guilt_. Society loves to attribute | systemic problems to individual wickedness, because it | empowers the judgemental elements while requiring no actual | effort. | | As you say, careful drivers are not immune. But as long as | someone, anyone, involved in the accident can be condemned as | sinful (in many cases the sin of being tired from overworking | forced on them by societal pressures), it can be explained | away. | tialaramex wrote: | > But as long as someone, anyone, involved in the accident | can be condemned as sinful (in many cases the sin of being | tired from overworking forced on them by societal | pressures), it can be explained away. | | And indeed if we look at railway safety this is exactly | what we saw. Originally, railway companies would say well, | yes two passenger trains collided, killing a hundred | people, but conveniently for us both drivers died in the | collision so we'll blame _them_. The problem wasn 't us, | the railway company, who are great, it's those awful | drivers, who fortunately are now dead so no need to | investigate further. In fact, since there's no body to | examine we can confidently declare that one of the drivers | was _drunk_. Which explains why we 've told his widow that | she won't be receiving one penny from the death-in-service | fund. | | Eventually (this kept happening, because of course it did) | coroners weren't talking this bullshit, and they said it | seems like the problem isn't these lone drivers who are | conveniently dead, it's the company hiring them. If the | drivers aren't good enough, the company should get better | drivers. If instead the problem is elsewhere (e.g. maybe | it'd be a good idea to invent _signals_ so that you know if | a train just around the corner has broken down so that your | express doesn 't hurtle into it at full speed...) that's | something for the railway company too. This didn't | magically fix things overnight, but it did push back | against the useless "blame the driver" narrative. | | Modern safety agencies, focused on a blameless "Learn from | the past, prevent future accidents" model have improved | things considerably, but that did not happen automatically, | somebody had to call the corporate entities on their | bullshit. Maybe we should call individual private car | owners on their bullshit too. | | One trend I _don 't_ like is people who resist the word | "accident". It's an accident unless you think it was done | on purpose. Accident prevention is a thing. We can, and | should, prevent accidents. | libraryatnight wrote: | This extends in so many directions. I hear people speak | this way about the homeless, the addicted, the laid-off, | the sick. Cancer? Begin the list of things the person did, | consumed, didn't do that could have caused it (no shortage | of headlines to feed the lists). Homeless? Must have acted | irresponsibly and made stupid choices. It's sort of hand in | hand with the "It can't happen to me" mindset. I remember | my wife telling me - during the George Floyd trial - one of | her co-workers interrupted when someone referred to him as | a man and said "He was a drug addict" like that should end | the conversation, like that exempted him from being human, | like some of her favorite celebrities weren't drug addicts. | | "To the dumb question 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers | to return the reply: 'Why not?'" - Christopher Hitchens, | from Mortality. | digdugdirk wrote: | I find many of the issues brought up about public transit being | unsafe revolve around the people you might encounter on public | transit (drug users, homeless, mental illness, etc.) and the | waiting around/walking to public transit stops (muggings, | thefts, etc.) | | I've never had any issues myself, but have absolutely been | exposed to those issues while taking transit. I've also | witnessed those issues increase during/post lockdown. | | I have no solutions, just pointing out a different angle on the | "unsafe" issue mentioned above. I'd love to hear if anyone has | any experience or ideas to reduce this perception of a lack of | safety. | woodruffw wrote: | Right: public transport puts you _in media res_ , exposing | you to the other people around you. That's overwhelmingly | average folks trying to go between work, home, and errands, | but it's also the occasional disturbed person. | | I will not deny that you'll find all kinds of antisocial | behavior on public transit. What I'll say is this: that it's | fundamentally a civic issue and not a public transit issue, | and that even _with_ all that behavior we still see nowhere | near the amount of death and disfigurement that people | experience on America 's roads on a daily basis. | | To make it pithy: we incorrectly prioritize the _feeling_ of | environmental safety over statistical safety. The reality is | that the inebriated homeless guy on the subway is _much_ less | likely to harm you or take your life than the inebriated | driver in the next lane. | kelnos wrote: | Yeah, this is a good point. I don't think I've ever heard | anyone express fear when getting on an SF Muni bus or train | that they're going to be injured or killed in a crash. The | only safety-related complaints are exactly what you said: | drug users and people with mental illnesses on the bus, or | sketchy characters hanging around transit stops. Years ago, | my partner witnessed someone walk right by her, inches away | from her, stop a few feet away, and suddenly punch someone in | the face, right out of the blue. I would be much more afraid | of that kind of thing happening to me than anything else. | aidenn0 wrote: | IMO there's only really 2 underlying issues people have with | public transit: | | 1. In nearly all of the US (maybe everywhere except parts of | NYC?) it is a worse experience than driving (requires | planning, takes longer, can't carry more than one or two bags | with you). | | 2. It is declasse. | | I think #2 is at least partly a result of #1. Also note that | #1 is true even for most cities in the US, because cities in | the US are unbelievably car friendly compared to cities in | e.g. western Europe. I don't see any public-transit solution | that doesn't involve intentionally making the car experience | worse, and that's going to be a tough sell to voters. | woodruffw wrote: | > I think #2 is at least partly a result of #1 | | And vice versa. As I said in a thread yesterday[1]: we | justify our continuing neglect of public transit by | claiming that "polite society" avoids it, which in turn | fulfills the prophecy. | | [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32165783 | aidenn0 wrote: | That's _partly_ it, but the status quo in the US is of | the car infrastructure being so good that driving in the | US is a better experience than taking public transit in | many places with excellent public transit. Therefore #1 | will remain true as long as we don 't downgrade (either | intentionally or via neglect) the car infrastructure, and | taking things away from people is always harder than just | not giving it to them in the first place. | PaulsWallet wrote: | > 2. It is declasse. | | "A developed country is not a place where the poor have | cars. It's where the rich use public transportation" - | Gustavo Petro | giraffe_lady wrote: | Right, it's not not necessarily about safety it's about | needing to feel safe. | | A big problem on this honestly is that news media focuses | disproportionately on interpersonal crime compared to almost | all other kinds of harm that can be done. Combined with | generally decreased newsroom budgets, this has led to firmer | reliance on, and less questioning of, direct police releases. | We basically just let the cops tell us what to worry about, | and they predictably tell us to worry about the things that | get more funding for police. | | We've mostly decided that, while these things aren't good per | se, they are downstream of other incentives and requirements | that _are_ good, or at least inevitable. I don 't agree, but | I also don't think there's much value in a "what could be | different" conversation without having a "why is it like this | at all" conversation first. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | What we really need is a holistic approach to a lot of these | issues. Ending the violent prohibition of drugs, building and | providing housing for the homeless, better and more | accessible mental health programs, denser cities, better | transit, etc. We don't have a politics in the US that fully | articulates the dynamic interconnectivity of all the issues | and aggressively pushes for a set of solutions. | treeman79 wrote: | Doesn't San Fransisco do all of those? They spend a huge | amount on it anyway. And being one the dirtiest cities | possible. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | No city can adequately fund these programs, and San | Francisco certainly doesn't build housing for the | homeless, have an enlightened drugs policy or have | adequate mental health care. San Francisco and other | coastal cities mainly differentiate their policies by | treating the homeless populations there with malignant | neglect instead of outright hostility, which leads to the | phenomenon you see where 10-12 cities bear the brunt of a | national homelessness crisis. Because San Francisco is | one of them, you also see a bunch of entitled tech bros | whining about how they have to see a homeless person | sometimes on HN. | | I will admit that, by American standards, SF has pretty | good public transit though. | whimsicalism wrote: | I feel like SF is one of the most permissive places to do | drugs in perhaps the entire world. Even if there are laws | on the books, they are not really enforced. | | I am not coming from a perspective of pro-law & order, | just a commentary on drug law & enforcement here. | kelnos wrote: | I'm really tired of this "SF is the dirties city" trope. | Yes, there are areas that are incredibly dirty, but those | areas are something like 5% of the city, and most of | those areas are concentrated in a few specific | neighborhoods. Most of the city is fairly clean (but to | be sure, it's no Singapore) and reasonably well- | maintained. | | I've been in areas of Manhattan that would rival SF's | dirtiest areas, but I wouldn't claim that NYC is a "dirty | city". | | I'm more worried about the threat of violence from | mentally-unstable people on SF's streets, though that's | something that's also concentrated in a relatively small | number of places (unsurprisingly often coinciding with | the dirtiness). | Avicebron wrote: | I saw about 5 between the bart station and Berkeley | campus on my way to get a curry, and I wouldn't even | consider that dirty relative to driving a few blocks down | towards the freeway...(I know it might not technically be | "SF" but you know what I mean) | woodruffw wrote: | > I've been in areas of Manhattan that would rival SF's | dirtiest areas, but I wouldn't claim that NYC is a "dirty | city". | | I've lived here my entire life, and I would :-) | | As much as I'm a booster for NYC (and immensely proud of | our public transit), we're also a very dirty city | (partially for historical planning reasons, resulting in | no alleyways or trash disposal consideration). | | It's also gotten worse during the pandemic, in no small | part thanks to drivers: people have stopped moving their | cars for street cleaning, resulting in accumulations of | trash and dirt that then clog the drains, worsening our | floods (and damaging the subways further). | rr888 wrote: | > I wouldn't claim that NYC is a "dirty city". | | NYC is a filthy city. I think most people that live here | and love it would agree. | [deleted] | Aunche wrote: | There are plenty of crazy, dangerous people on the road too. | Psychologically, you feel more separated than them, even if | they may be statistically be more dangerous. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I definitely feel safer on public transit. I live in an | upper class neighborhood and I'm not sure if there's much | more dangerous in this world than an entitled, distracted, | moderately wealthy person driving an SUV that has places to | go. | | I leave the actual wealthy out of this because they just | pay someone else to drive. | HideousKojima wrote: | They can't mug me or grope me or blast music on their phone | 3 feet away from me though. To be fair occasionally there | will be idiot drivers blasting their bass so loud it | vibrates nearby cars, but that's far less common than | inconsiderate assholes blasting music on their phones on | public transit. | mrep wrote: | Yeah, basically every girl I have ever dated avoids | public transit at all cost because of assholes/creeps. | whimsicalism wrote: | These sorts of things can be self selected. I know plenty | of women who take public transit. The dividing line tends | to be whether they grew up in a city or moved from the | suburbs (and of course affluence). | scrumbledober wrote: | I was thinking something similar. It's easy for me to | argue for public transportation as a 6 foot tall man with | martial arts training. I still get a little uncomfortable | catching a late night bart ride sometimes... | goodpoint wrote: | Try visiting Japan or South Korea or even central Europe. | Avicebron wrote: | Yes, these are clearly not universal human issues if | somewhere like Japan can maintain clean, relatively safe, | efficient public transportation. It should be obvious we | should be looking outside of the US as to why certain | societies are able to solve this issues and others are not. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Because these societies incentivize individuals to behave | and conform for the better of the group, while iterating | on their systems. The same way the US has iterated on | their car-centric culture. | | Take the money and incentives away from building roads, | cars, parking lots, traffic safety etc. and stick them | into systems which are safer by default, incentives for | people to keep things clean and not cause a fuss. | rr888 wrote: | > why certain societies are able to solve this issues and | others are not. | | You mean by enforcing a racially homogenous society which | does not allow poor (or anyone really) people from other | parts of the world? | [deleted] | redox99 wrote: | I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. I've only | been to Japan out of those, and public transport might be | fast and clean, but it is much less comfortable and a much | worse experience than driving a nice car. | | Unless I'm in a hurry I rather have a comfortable private | ride, than a less comfortable quick ride packed around | strangers. | ratsmack wrote: | >... while simultaneously handwringing over every incident ... | | And then there's those Tesla accidents that must happen | thousands of time a day, because they're always in the news. | edmundsauto wrote: | My concern with auto driver accidents is they may be systemic | rather than semi-random. Ie, it's an attackable vector that | can be repeatedly exploited versus the some stochastic human | error. | woodruffw wrote: | I don't have a bone to pick there, but an observation: much | of that news seems to be driven by a certain prominent car | CEO claiming that his cars are (1) safer, and (2) capable of | self-driving (beyond a bit of driver assistance). | | "Trains are safer" is a fact, but it's not a common part of | messaging around why we should all take trains more often. | The messaging there usually boils down to convenience, | economic, and ecological arguments. | smegger001 wrote: | I wish the train was more economical then I could take the | train more but it is not economical (on the west coast of | the US). I live approx half way between Seattle WA and | Portland OR and there is a train station within walking | distance of my home. every time I have checked the price of | a Amtrak ticket to either city it was significantly cheaper | to drive and pay for parking then to buy a single train | ticket. | cscurmudgeon wrote: | This is a bad way to look at it. | | We should ask how many more people would die each day without | cars. | | Somehow, this basic analysis is absent in all of the car-hate | posts. | | Not considering pros and cons fairly is a not an honest | approach. | | You can't claim to be objective by just looking at negatives | and proclaiming cars are bad overall. You need to sum up the | negatives and positives (assuming an utilitarian view). | | Otherwise, just accept all car hate is based on subjective | emotions. | | It is not like car users are cackling evil Captain Planet | villains. Most of us are not rich enough to live near work and | schools. | | That brings me to a related issue car haters miss: Bike- | friendly cities should be designed for everyone, not just for | wealthy white cyclists | | https://theconversation.com/amp/bike-friendly-cities-should-... | eneumann wrote: | The car-hate posts can be quite emotional for a number of | (valid) reasons, but understand that reducing cars and car | trips doesn't happen in a vacuum. No one is arguing to | instantly and immediately eliminate every vehicle out there. | It's part of a larger process to replace personal vehicles | with transit, walk-ability, bike-ability, and generally car- | free or car-reduced places where people live. | standardUser wrote: | "wealthy white cyclists" | | What in the ever-living fuck are you even talking about? | anotherrandom wrote: | Biking is the ideal solution. There is one significant | downside, though: the practicality of biking is limited by | region and time of year+day. In most places in the Southern | portion of the US (regardless of coast), biking any | significant distance between the hours of 8am to 9 pm is | basically saying "I want heatstroke" for nearly 1/2 of the | year | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Because that question is practically impossible to answer. | You can't extrapolate current circumstances and draw a | conclusion from there. The best you can do is compare with | other countries, disregard any non-related-yet-ultimately- | significant and draw a fairly weak conclusion from there. | | Most of those conclusions would not be in favor of cars, | either. Especially not in light of environmental damage. | cscurmudgeon wrote: | It is not impossible. Car haters like to think it is | impossible. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Try it. I assure you, almost any angle you take can be | poked through. | | Cars shine in large, low density zones. For good reasons. | Most anti-car people are not in favor of removing cars in | these zones or removing cars altogether, so arguing here | is moot. | | Other places, whether removing a large amount of cars is | beneficial or detrimental is decided either by culture, | or by reinvestment options. And then, you're _still_ | stuck only comparing rationalities, with actual numbers | being far harder to judge. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Yes, a very well written piece with good points and reasoning. | It isn't just that the long tail of casualties falls below some | threshold of attention. Large specialist organisations capable | of industrial warfare or building industrial society cannot | deal with human effects on an industrial scale. We tried it in | the Northfield experiment [1] (mass psychotherapy for war | trauma). | | [1] https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Northfield_experiments | [deleted] | jandrese wrote: | Imagine how angry people would be if at the end of an article | about a train crash that killed 4 people the author included an | anecdote about how there were 900 train fatalities in the | previous year compared to 1.3 million car fatalities. | pessimizer wrote: | > 900 train fatalities | | And 600 of them were trespassers walking on the tracks, then | the vast majority of the remaining were people who tried to | beat the train at a crossing. The number of dead passengers | was _6_ and the number of dead train workers was _11_ , if | I'm reading this correctly: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home- | and-community/safety-topics... | jfengel wrote: | Or self-driving cars. Every incident is Big News, while | ignoring the fact that 40,000 people die every year in traffic | accidents (and 4.8 million injuries) -- in the US alone. | | People are of course famously bad at putting statistics into | context. | UncleMeat wrote: | I'll never forget driving across Georgia on Jan 1st a bunch | of years ago. They've got signs up that say to drive safely | and show how many traffic fatalities there have been in the | state that year. On a random day it just looks like a number. | | But driving on the highway and passing a sign that said how | many people had died _today_ doing precisely what I was doing | at that moment was affecting. | [deleted] | intrepidhero wrote: | It's not just that people are bad at statistics (we are | though). It's also that we place value on individual agency. | Getting into a self-driving car (or onto a train) means | giving up some of my agency and because of that I have higher | expectations of safety from the self-driving car (or train | driver) than I would if I had retained that agency. I don't | think that's weird or unreasonable. | | We do need to get better at statistics and realizing that | when we take on risk, we rarely are the only person impacted | if something goes sideways. When I take the wheel of a car I | become a risk myself and to others and I need to place as | much value on their agency as my own. | djmips wrote: | I completely agree that we put a lot of value into personal | agency but I do think it's a bit unreasonable. Agency when | driving is only perceived. You could have a heart attack | and smash into pedestrians. Your car could fail | mechanically. You could be rear ended by a large truck. You | could be killed by a drunk or inattentive driver. Your | agency can not entirely prevent that. Also you may be in | the top percentile in driving but like everything, everyone | thinks they are a great driver so you can't take how you | feel and generalize it to the population. | | I'm not arguing that self driving cars are solved but maybe | they aren't quite as bad as people feel. We need proper | statistics. | intrepidhero wrote: | That's a great point. Often the perceived agency is an | illusion. | simion314 wrote: | >People are of course famously bad at putting statistics into | context. | | We can\t , current self driving is limited in many ways and | Tesla is notorious for having the driver save the day | multiple time in 30 minutes and Elon is not publishing this | incidents. I can't stand the fanboys coming up with fake | stats that only 5 people ddied this month in a Tesla where in | fact you have video evidence of more people would have died | if the driver would have not saved the AI, | | A Tesla employee should leak the data and we should then talk | about stats, do Tesla saves the driver more then the driver | saves the car. (i know that in reality FSD does not mean what | the words imply and OP probably had no idea that there are no | real FSD cars around that drive with no limitation so we can | do real statistics) | criley2 wrote: | The accident rate for "self-driving cars" (a nebulous term | including both actually autonomous cars like waymo cars as | well as driver-attention-required cars operating under the | false advertising of "full self driving") is higher than | human operated cars. | | Currently "self driving cars" get in twice as many accidents | as humans do per million miles driven. | belorn wrote: | It wasn't that long ago that a driver instructor illustrated | in a video how often they needed to correct the self-driving | car in order to drive legal. It was multiple corrections per | minute in a busy city. | | In term of statistics, the error rates of human drivers are | still lower than current self-driving technology. This is why | the only certified fully self-driving mode is limited in | Germany to operate at speed of less than 30 km/h, only on | highways with congestion, and then outside any construction | zones. | Spivak wrote: | Assuming people are ignorant en masse says more about your | understanding of people than the people. | | Not all self driving car accidents make the news -- self | driving car accidents that any human diver could have easily | avoided make the news. Statistically safer something | something miles driven means nothing to the family of someone | who died in a completely avoidable accident. | | Until self driving cars reach the point of handing emergency | situations -- storms, ice, obstacles, children, other | accidents, sudden lane changes, tire blowouts -- better than | humans and stop punting anything less than ideal conditions | back to the driver it's pointless to talk about safety. | sixQuarks wrote: | Every time I bring this up when Tesla bashing is going on | here, I get downvoted. The hate for Elon here blinds people | to statistics | Gordonjcp wrote: | Self-driving cars aren't safer than humans, though, and I | doubt they ever will be. | | All the real love for self-driving cars seems to be in the | US, where they are basically competing with completely | untrained drivers and a strong drink-driving culture. | | No self-driving car on the road today would even come close | to passing a UK driving test. They wouldn't last the first | five minutes. | WalterBright wrote: | It's because we feel we can control the circumstances of the car | crash. We cannot feel in control of airliners. We're hapless | baggage. | Ottolay wrote: | Generally agree, although I think it is largely an illusion. | Many people die in car accidents they did not cause. | WalterBright wrote: | > Many people die in car accidents they did not cause. | | True, but that doesn't disprove the fact that most people are | a party to the accident they are in, regardless of who was at | fault. | | For example, if someone is driving with an insecure load, I | give them a very, very wide berth. There's a word for it - | defensive driving. | EddieDante wrote: | Yog-Sothoth must be fed if we're going to keep it contained | within the Pentagon. Auto crashes and mass shootings provide a | plausibly deniable supply of human sacrifices. | orionion wrote: | Does the 10k/year rise in last 7 years correlate to rise in ev | use? | | Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... | | 2014 32,744 | | 2015 35,485 | | 2016 37,806 | | 2017 37,473 | | 2018 36,835 | | 2019 36,355 | | 2020 38,824 | | 2021 42,915 | | How Many Electric Cars Are on the Road in the United States? | https://www.treehugger.com/how-many-electric-cars-are-on-the... | CodeAndCuffs wrote: | I was a cop for several years. I worked hundreds of crashes, and | a few fatalities. | | If cars had a max speed limit of 85 mph, and required the | seatbelt to be engaged to work, we'd cut our fatality rate in | half. | | Most nations' DUI laws consider a 0.05 BAC as illegal. In most US | states 0.08 is presumed under the influence, 0.06 - 0.079 is | considered no presumption either way, and under .06 is considered | not under the influence. My alcohol tolerance is fairly average, | but after some off the cuff experiments with whiskey and a | preliminary breathalyzer, I shouldn't drive at a .055. My wife | shouldn't drive at a .03 | | Something like 80% of fatal crashes involve either alcohol, no | seatbelt, or excessive speed, but not wearing a seatbelt is like | a 50 dollar ticket, and a secondary offense, in many | jurisdictions. | sebazzz wrote: | > If cars had a max speed limit of 85 mph, and required the | seatbelt to be engaged to work | | Wait, wearing a seatbelt is not mandatory? | rascul wrote: | > Wait, wearing a seatbelt is not mandatory? | | Not in New Hampshire. | | The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has | published this document I have found with some statistics | from 2018. I'm not sure if there's newer stuff published. It | might be interesting to look at. | | https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/. | .. | dmead wrote: | They are, but cars will function without them being used. | GuB-42 wrote: | At least in Europe, there is a very annoying beep if you | don't wear the seatbelt. You can still drive, and there are | ways to disable it, but most people just wear their | seatbelt. | | I don't think it is mandatory, but it counts in the | EuroNCAP score, and since it is one of the easiest safety | feature to implement, they all have it. | 14 wrote: | You are right there are ways to disable it easiest being | a seatbelt delete that clips into the buckle and disabled | the annoying beep and you can clip into that should you | choose. Who would choose to not wear a seatbelt is | strange to me but I also rode a motorcycle so we are dead | meat anyways if something goes wrong. | VectorLock wrote: | My brother does this and it drives me crazy when I'm a | passenger in his car, I can't fathom how he just deals | with it. | toast0 wrote: | The beeps in the US are not that annoying. Ding ding ding | ding ding for 30?seconds at start up, again when you put | it into drive, and then again when you hit a certain | speed (around 7-10 mph) and/or periodically. It's not | pleasant, but it's tolerable when I'm moving cars around | between my house and my barn. Yeah, I probably should | still buckle up, but it's not critical for sub 15 mph, | private road driving for a minute or two. | | My first car didn't have a seatbelt reminder, and it | needed a bit of time to warm up, so I got in the habit of | starting it and then buckling, and 20 years of driving | with seatbelt reminders hasn't trained me to switch the | order. | mantas wrote: | It was fun when people were sitting on engaged seatbelts | to prevent the beep :) | jjcm wrote: | Legally it's required, but I think their point is it should | be required by hardware. Right now most new cars just beep at | you, but you can still operate them. | cmckn wrote: | Or people just buckle the belt and then sit on top of it. | As insane as that is, I've seen plenty of grown ass adults | do it. An older person I knew went so far as to find a | seatbelt at a junkyard, cut the buckle off, and leave it in | the holster permanently. | andorov wrote: | You can buy clips that prevent the beeping. | | The top result is also a bottle opener... | https://www.amazon.com/seat-belt-buckle-alarm- | stopper/s?k=se... | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | We never pushed for it politically because it wouldn't | change anything but it would piss people off. You can | simply buckle the seatbelt with nobody in the seat, then | sit down, and the requirement is defeated. | | On the other hand, a _mandatory breathalyzer_ for ignition | would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving | drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we | should make them mandatory for all cars. | skeeter2020 wrote: | >> We already have them for people with DUIs, so we | should make them mandatory for all cars. | | Yes, because the idea that every single person should now | start doing what historically only a reprehensible | convicted drunk driver was required to do will go over so | well. | rootusrootus wrote: | > On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for | ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from | driving drunk. | | That would do nothing accept waste countless man hours of | productivity, consume a great deal of money, and ensure | that the next generation of politicians would be | Libertarians. | toast0 wrote: | > On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for | ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from | driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, | so we should make them mandatory for all cars. | | I don't drink often, and I have never and would never | drink and drive, but please no. Mandatory breathalyzers | for everyone is an immense expense and a huge | inconvenience and I suspect would be easily bypassed by | those who choose to drink and drive. And I don't want to | live with the consequences of making it hard to bypass | such a device, because it likely makes working on a | vehicle nearly impossible. | trashtester wrote: | > On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for | ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from | driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, | so we should make them mandatory for all cars. | | People who frequently drive under the influence tend to | have a strong habit. Those would just keep driving an old | car if such a device is introduced in new cars. | | For most other people, such a device would be seen as a | very annoying. | | For it to have the desired impact,it needs to be fitted | in all old cars, and then we're adding a significant | expense on top of the annoyance. | | Now, MAYBE if the device can be used to reduce insurance | fees, it might be doable, but only in countries without | public healthcare. | drdec wrote: | FYI, one of the recent giant bills that passed in the US | requires automakers to implement passive systems which | detect impaired drivers. | bumby wrote: | May be a feasible solution, but it can also become an | avenue for grift that disproportionately affects those on | the low socioeconomic spectrum. | | You'll likely need to get it routinely calibrated (which | costs money) and similar to my experience with smog | tests, there will always be ways to find something small | to charge for. | | Not saying it's a deal killer but it would be wise to | consider and mitigate second order effects. | officeplant wrote: | Had a friend dumb enough to drive drunk a few times and | get multiple DUI's resulting in a breathalyzer in his | hopped up WRX. I will never forget the pure frustration | of him dealing with stalling out a manual car and having | to grab the breathalyzer while also trying to get started | again. I wish he would have had to deal with that for | years instead of 6 months, but at least he cleaned up his | act. | asveikau wrote: | My understanding is that many people drive above the | legal limit for DUIs and do not get caught. DUI | prosecution is somewhat the story of selective | enforcement. | | What would piss people off is coming into contact with | the fact that they're driving illegally. I think many | drivers are unaware of being above legal limits and would | probably be angry when confronted with it. | | I guess playing devil's advocate... There's probably some | odd scenario where driving above the limit for an | emergency circumstance could be justifiable. So perhaps | the car should not be disabled in this way. | namesbc wrote: | Cars should have a regulator installed by the manufacturer to | limit speed to 20mph on roads with people, and to 60mph on | grade separated highways. | | This maximum would barely change your time to destination, but | it would save thousands of lives per year. | | - 20mph: 90% survival rate | | - 30mph: 60% survival rate | | - 40mph: 20% survival rate | | https://www.betterstreetschicago.org/blog/chicago-speed-came... | rootusrootus wrote: | Given how low the actual rate of fatalities is compared to | miles driven, you are proposing that we _significantly_ lower | the bar for when we think government intervention is the | right answer. | notatoad wrote: | the government already owns the roads and enforces speed | limits. speed governors are already required for scooters | and e-bikes in many jurisdictions. | | requiring cars to have the same limiters as scooters if | they want to access the government-owned roads is not a | huge change in scope. | rootusrootus wrote: | Even a Tesla can't reliably figure out what the speed | limit is sometimes. I don't know that I want a governor | that may suddenly decide I can only do 25 mph on the | interstate. | lupire wrote: | MontyCarloHall wrote: | >This maximum would barely change your time to destination | | Yes it would. The drive from LA to San Francisco is about 300 | miles on Interstate 5. Much of this highway is completely | straight, with excellent visibility through an unpopulated | desert. When sparsely trafficked (as it is much of the time), | it is safe to drive 80+ MPH on I5 for hours at a time. At 80 | MPH, this is a 3 hour 45 minute drive. At your proposed 60 | MPH, this would be a 5 hour drive. | | >but it would save thousands of lives per year. | | How many lives do you think would be saved by capping speeds | to 60 MPH on I5? If alcohol or distracted driving are not | factors, I would say probably close to zero. As a fun aside, | the fatality rate on the unrestricted German Autobahn is | about half the fatality rate across all US highways. | | I completely agree about lower speed limits in cities, | however, where pedestrian deaths are the main concern. While | I don't think a governor in the car would be practical or | safe (what if I'm rushing because of a medical emergency?), | automated enforcement would serve the same purpose. | pkulak wrote: | Gonna go ahead and say the unthinkable here... so what? The | person driving fast endangers themselves and everyone else | around them. In what other area of society do we tolerate | extremely dangerous behavior (40,000+ deaths a year) | because to not would be an inconvenience? Guns, I suppose. | But I'm not a huge fan or our polices around those either. | Shaanie wrote: | Don't forget alcohol, and arguably smoking and being | obese. | pkulak wrote: | Those doesn't endanger other people though. | [deleted] | ineedtosleep wrote: | > How many lives do you think would be saved by capping | speeds to 60 MPH on I5? If alcohol or distracted driving | are not factors, I would say probably close to zero. | | Amazing how you'd think it's actually close to zero. So | many dangerous situations are removed once speeding is at | least attempted to be removed from the equation. | | To name two: reaction times are increased, stopping | distances are reduced. I probably know what you'd say next: | the driver is distracted. Not the speed's problem. To which | I'll say, yeah of course the driver's distracted -- it's | because the driver's human and will never be paying | attention to the road 100% at all times. | | IMO driving speeds, and how a community feels about it, are | huge indicators on how hostile and how selfish a community | can be. | nonameiguess wrote: | Amusingly enough, though I didn't witness this and can't | verify he was telling the truth anyway, my ex-wife | claimed that when she went to traffic school, the | instructor there told the class the number one cause of | traffic accidents on Texas highways was cars going too | slow. But I suppose you could argue it's really the | opposite even in those cases, that all of the people | cutting you off, deciding to get onto a highway doing 20 | MPH, doing 40 in the passing lane, or randomly slamming | on the brakes because they get spooked by a plastic bag | or something, wouldn't be causing accidents if everyone | else was also driving really slowly, and the accidents | that did happen would be less deadly. | | Although, as far as I understand, fatalities on highways | are somewhat rare anyway, with most vehicular deaths | happening at intersections. After all, it's the stopping | force that kills you, and two vehicles doing 80 and 60 in | the same direction will collide with less force than one | doing 40 and one crossing the path in a perpendicular | direction, or two going 20 and hitting head on. | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | In the several trips my wife and I have taken between East | Bay and SoCal, it's been hard to maintain 80+ mph. Between | interchanges, construction, slower drivers, trucks passing | other trucks, and so on, we're lucky to hit an average of | 70mph. | | On the flip side, cruising at 60+mph is totally doable, and | while it is ~40+ minutes slower in theory, we only need to | stop for gas once at lower speeds, which shaves off ~10-20 | minutes. | | Also, fighting through traffic takes the same regardless, | so it's usually better to adjust when we're driving than | trying to drive faster. | unsupp0rted wrote: | People shouldn't really drive 300 miles in individual | private vehicles. | | Apart from the chance of accidentally killing oneself or | others, it's hugely inefficient. | | If we changed an interstate full of cars to high speed | trains (or hyperloop or whatever) which depart every half | hour, it'd be safer, cheaper, cleaner... you name it. | rootusrootus wrote: | So what should I do? Take a train? Doesn't go there. Bus? | Again. Fly? That's not more efficient. Maybe grandma just | doesn't need a visit from her grandkids. | | Instead, I bought an electric car. I bet it compares | quite favorably to a typical bus. And grandma does like | to see her grandkids, let me tell ya. | cobaltoxide wrote: | > How many lives do you think would be saved by capping | speeds to 60 MPH on I5? | | The speed limit was in fact 65 MPH until 1995. | hintymad wrote: | What if occasionally you need to accelerate to a higher speed | to avoid an accident? | kleer001 wrote: | Then you won't get there and the accident will be less | fatal. | kfarr wrote: | What if that were a fecetious argument proposing a | situation that does not happen in real life that people | bring up when speed governors are discussed? | nostromo wrote: | It happens all the time. People regularly speed up when | passing to limit time in oncoming traffic lanes. | | Limiting speed in such a scenario could reasonably lead | to a fatal accident. | lsh123 wrote: | Staying home on the couch: 100% survival rate | drdec wrote: | Until someone drives into your house | fipar wrote: | A sedentary lifestyle will increase the chances of | circulatory diseases though, so close to 100% survival | rate, but not there :) | SilverBirch wrote: | Well done, you've specified a superset of self driiving | without delivering any economic benefit. Oh, and every road | in Europe is now a hazard because you've designed new cars | with absurdly low speed limits. | | But no I'm sure your baselesss opinion on speeds is best. | Drunk_Engineer wrote: | Europe is now mandating intelligent speed limiters, so I | don't know what you are getting on about. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | No, they are not. Cars must alert the driver if they are | exceeding the speed limit, but there is no forced | limiting. | | https://jalopnik.com/no-europe-didnt-just-force- | automakers-t... | Drunk_Engineer wrote: | Many expect the EU to eventually remove override | capabilities as the systems become more widespread. | not-so-jerry wrote: | Not sure if you are implying this or not, but how would | lowering the BAC limit prevent fatal crashes? | | Figure 3 in this report shows a somewhat normal distribution | around .15 g/dl and the mode being around .17 g/dl: | https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... | | This is already ~2x the legal limit. | admax88qqq wrote: | > Something like 80% of fatal crashes involve either alcohol, | no seatbelt, or excessive speed | | This is the crux of the issue on why we as a society ignore car | crashes and panic about train/plane crashes. | | I'd wager it mostly comes down to filtering out things we feel | we have control over stressing about those we don't. | ajmurmann wrote: | I think you are definitely on to something here. For the | alcohol and speeding I wonder how many of the fatalities are | people other than the person speeding or drunk. I am not even | thinking about passengers, but people in other cars, | bicyclists or pedestrians. | lupire wrote: | melling wrote: | Nobel Prize winner John Nash, and his wife, both died as | backseat passengers when their driver lost control, hit the | guardrail, and they were thrown from the car on the way | home from the airport. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.#Death | | Needless to say we should wear seatbelts even in the | backseat of an automobile. | tifik wrote: | Yep I believe that is a pretty well established cognitive | bias called Illusion of Control [1]. Going down the rabbit | hole of cognitive biases is a fascinating journey, and lot of | them are relevant when driving a car. | | One I found especially interesting is specifically about how | improving safety features may not reduce accidents as much as | it could, because when people feel safer, they tend to take | greater risks [2] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_ | eff... | MichaelCollins wrote: | Refusal to drink and drive is not an illusion. I've been | refusing to do that successfully my entire life. | gffrd wrote: | Like sharks: so few fatal interactions, but so much large- | scale hand-wringing about shark attacks. | | I'd double-down on that same wager ... | JoeAltmaier wrote: | A Patrol officer I knew said once "I never unbuckled a dead | man" | koheripbal wrote: | It's a nice zinger, but obviously false. | robotresearcher wrote: | The quote is not "No one ever unbuckled a dead man". | bee_rider wrote: | There were around 42k traffic deaths in 2021 (a 16 year | high apparently) and around 610k patrol officers | | https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early- | estimate-2021-tra... | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/751015/number-of- | police-... | | So, assuming every fatality is wearing a seat belt and is | handled by a cop ('optimistic' assumption for it to be | 'obviously false'), it would still be around a 7% chance | per year for a cop to "unbuckle a dead man." So this isn't | obviously false, depending on the career length. For | example, after 10 years, assuming independent probability | of such an encounter per year, .93^10 ~= .48. | unsupp0rted wrote: | They unbuckled plenty of people who'll never walk/turn their | heads/poop normally without chronic pain again though. | | Cutting fatalities by 50% is a good start, but the other 50% | aren't walking away from car accidents trouble-free, with or | without seatbelts in play. | WalterBright wrote: | Not wearing a seatbelt is an individual choice, and should not | be a crime. | | P.S. Growing up, my dad had the dealer install seatbelts in the | family wagon before he picked it up. We never moved an inch | unless everyone was buckled up. Nobody else, and I mean nobody | else, had seatbelts in their car at the time. | | P.P.S. Seatbelts also saved my life. | Arrath wrote: | An individual choice that can endanger others when e.g. you | cannonball through your own windshield and hit someone, or | cause follow on accidents as people swerve out of your way, | etc. | WalterBright wrote: | Not going to happen. | lovich wrote: | Well that's a bold statement, guess the rest of us are | just wrong and there are no externalities associated with | not wearing a seat belt | WalterBright wrote: | First off, the physics are you are going to be thrown | into whatever your car hit. Second, I've never, ever | heard of a flying body hurting someone else. | ok_dad wrote: | My parents were both in vehicle accident reconstruction | for just such things and I don't even know how to count | how many times I watched a car accident reconstruction | (dummies in crash test vehicles) end in a dummy being | thrown in any direction you could imagine. It might not | hit a person but it will hit a car in the other lanes and | cause accidents. | | You're out of your element here, stick to compilers for | once. | bendbro wrote: | > It might not hit a person but it will hit a car in the | other lanes and cause accidents | | A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing ok_dad to | speculate wildly about the deadly consequences of car | fired human projectiles. | | We definitely need to ban butterflies. | WalterBright wrote: | Do you know of any such accidents in real life? Do you | have any statistics on ejected people causing other | accidents? | | What about when people were _saved_ because they were | flung from a car? Like when the car catches fire, falls | off a bridge, goes into the river, goes into another lane | to be smacked by a truck? | jahewson wrote: | It's a that like asking for all the data on how many | people spread polio? Zero! Aha, thus proving the vaccine | does nothing! | WalterBright wrote: | Um, there are lots of polio statistics. | jahewson wrote: | Well, that's because almost everyone wears a seatbelt. | bendbro wrote: | Rube Goldberg called and he wants his accident back | bendbro wrote: | Yes, you survive 2 tons of steel smashing into you only to | die against .1 ton of perfectly aimed flesh. I wonder what | the odds of this are? Just kidding, I'm not Wiley E Coyote | so I don't waste time worrying over comically unlikely ways | to die. I do however spend time worrying about people with | comically detached models of physical reality. | cityofdelusion wrote: | This seems so incredibly unlikely that it is going to need | some kind of citation. Deer hitting cars is a drop in the | bucket in terms of human mortality and must be several | orders of magnitude more common than flying unbuckled | humans. | BrianHenryIE wrote: | Graphic car safety ad about seatbelts: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epTdI-9V6Jk | WalterBright wrote: | When I drive I don't move unless my passengers buckle up. | When I'm the driver, it's my rules. | CodeAndCuffs wrote: | Its a choice that effects others. When you get ejected from | the crash and hit someone else's car. When we have to shut | down the interstate north and south bound for 3 hours to do a | full reconstruction. When we have to do a death notification. | | Dealing with a dead body isnt a big deal. Your mind kinda | puts it in the pile of "just evidence". Working the fatality | is easy. The hard part is the death notification. Having to | find the family member, either waking them up at 2 am or | knocking on the door in the middle of an otherwise normal | afternoon. Its not like brain surgery gone bad. There was 0 | warning of this happening. Noones prepaered for it. | | Death notification is a full day of training in our academy. | Noone deserves to learn their loved one died on the news or | thru a rumor or over the phone. You have to tell them in | person. | | And you have to be blunt. Anything less just makes it harder | to cope. "There was a crash, he didn't make it" leaves their | mind to fabricate a weak lie, like maybe he didn't make | avoiding the crash, and he's just hurt. This just makes the | pain last that much longer | | "Sir, I'm sorry to tell you that your son was killed in a | motor vehicle crash". | | If you want to make dumb decisions, that's fine, but don't | try to justify it with this isolated "well it's my choice" | nonsense. Your choice effects others, and I can still | remember the reaction of every single death notification I've | done. The viet nam vet trying to pass a tractor trailer on | his motorcycle, and the way his wife screamed. Having to tell | a Dad who's son was touring a college, that his sone was the | only one in the car not in a seat belt. Having to wake a | mother up at 2 in the morning to tell her her son is dead, | and not having an answer to "How do I tell his little sister" | | Individual choices generally effect more than the individual | ArnoVW wrote: | Yup. Also, that's the Good scenario. What if you are | unfortunate, and don't die, but just become paraplegic? | Aside from the financial impact on society (unless you are | a millionaire, you'll end up needing help) you'll spend the | rests of your life regretting your choice of not wearing a | seatbelt. | | I somehow suspect that we should just call them "freedom | belts" and enshrine them in the constitution. | thereisnospork wrote: | >Individual choices generally effect more than the | individual | | One of the fundamental principles of this country is that | individual choices are up to the individual unless they | present _onerous_ effects on others. Simply, any choice can | be construed to have externalities, much like anything can | be considered interstate commerce if you squint at it | strongly enough. To say nothing of the logical incongruity | of allowing people to ride motorcycles. | | Of course if you don't wear your seatbelt you're an idiot, | but this doesn't feel like an epidemic reaching a | reasonable threshold, e.g. being deleterious to national | security. | WalterBright wrote: | I don't envy your job. I'm sure it is tough. I respect you | for taking on such a difficult task. | | However, people still have a right to be stupid with their | own life. It's not nonsense. | | For example, Wilbur and Orville Wright were quite aware | that they stood a high chance of dying in their airplane | experiments. Neil Armstrong figured that he had a 1:3 (or | something like that) chance of dying going to the moon. The | people who free climb have a very high death rate. | | They all have the right to decide for themselves what is | worth doing and what isn't. If you've got family depending | on you, you should think about them before taking stupid | risks. It's your right and your responsibility and your | decision. | campbel wrote: | As long as you're held accountable for your body flinging | into others and injuring them, sure. | WalterBright wrote: | Fair enough. | profile53 wrote: | Not wearing a seatbelt is also a choice to force the | healthcare system to support the person for 50 years after | they break their neck in a preventable way. The choice is | individual but the consequences are societal. | WalterBright wrote: | One of the things I don't like about free health care is it | comes with the notion that the government should force you | to do things to reduce those costs. | pkulak wrote: | The alternative is letting people die on the street who | may not be able to pay. No developed country will ever | have a health care system that shifts 100% of costs to | the individual. | [deleted] | clint wrote: | Not wearing a seat belt is dangerous to others when you're | catapulted through your windshield at 90mph into traffic. | This is not the clear-cut case you want to make it out to be. | WalterBright wrote: | If you're catapulted through your windshield, you're going | to hit whatever you drove into, not traffic. | Arrath wrote: | If you hit a giant wall, sure. | | In the other case, a violent roll over accident will | happily eject you from a side window and off on a happy | trajectory towards whatever might be in that direction. | | Forward through the windshield is hardly the only way to | be ejected. | WalterBright wrote: | You're going to fall out in the direction you (and the | car) are travelling/rolling. | vel0city wrote: | You're going to be thrown out in some additive vector of | where you were going and where the other car influenced | your car to go, depending on what other impacts you're | getting pre-ejection. That can easily be into another | car, into other traffic, etc. | myroon5 wrote: | whatever you drove into could be traffic | jiveturkey wrote: | Who cares if you kill yourself through your own negligence? | There shouldn't be a fine at all for seatbelts. DUI, OTOH, | should be treated even more harshly than it is. | vel0city wrote: | Who cares? Loads of people. My wife lost a coworker from an | auto accident, one that they probably would have survived had | they been wearing their seatbelt. She was a single parent to | a small child. Losing his mom at such a young age probably | made a big difference to him. It probably had significant | impact on her mom, who now has a complicated custody battle | with an abusive deadbeat dad and massively different life | having to try and take care of her grandson. | | She had a lot of friends, I'm sure they cared about her. My | wife cared about her. My wife's other coworkers also cared. | | Its incredible how selfish so many people are on this site. | Is there nobody you care about? | notch656a wrote: | Won't someone think of the children? | greedo wrote: | Because your death becomes an externality that others have to | pay for. | goatcode wrote: | Should we treat all behaviors that are associated with a | significantly increased mortality rate the same way, or | should we pick and choose depending on the political and | social context at the time, like we do with seatbelts? | scoopertrooper wrote: | Few other behaviors associated with increase mortality | can also turn you into a missile. | | https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42 | goatcode wrote: | Be that as it may, that wasn't the point I was replying | to. | scoopertrooper wrote: | Is not missiling into another person a form of | externality? | goatcode wrote: | Perhaps, but that's not what the comment was addressing. | If it were, your point would not address living after | having become a missile. | wizofaus wrote: | I would say we generally do exactly that, when the | threshold is significant enough and it's a behavior that | has no beneficial/ safe level (we tax and restrict | cigarettes heavily, but not so much overconsumption of | food etc. Arguably we should/could have penalties for | failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost | certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary | lifestyles). | goatcode wrote: | >Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to | get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly | better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles | | This is my point: we pick and choose, and we're subject | to the whims of society, when it comes to what we deem | unacceptable. Citing a collective norm that potentially | could have been influenced by societal ebbs and flows is | not an objective argument, ever. | wizofaus wrote: | Absolutely - regulation is hard. I wonder if there are | successful instances of government using big-data/ML to | determine where, when and in what manner it makes sense | to apply it. And would people vote for governments that | relied solely on that for what legislation to enact... | colinmhayes wrote: | Generally yes. That's why sugar taxes are needed and | popular with economists. | goatcode wrote: | What would you say should be the threshold for increased | mortality that would subject a given behavior to heavy | taxation and regulation? | SoftTalker wrote: | Cyclists take note. | californical wrote: | Riding a bicycle is incredibly safe. It's cars that are | dangerous, around bicyclists and pedestrians alike (and | even other car drivers). | notch656a wrote: | Bicycle deaths per mi is like 6x of cars. Maybe bicycling | around cars is a big reason for that, but we're measuring | against the reality there is not the world we want to | move towards. | | I'd say bicycling should be outlawed before driving | without a seatbelt is (although I'd prefer both be | legal). | | https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety- | studies/Documents/SS1901.... | valeness wrote: | What are you insinuating precisely? | kyleamazza wrote: | Because your body tumbling around in your car during a crash | can kill passengers, or be catapulted onto the street causing | another accident/injury from someone trying to avoid it | mauvehaus wrote: | First, you're welcome to move to New Hampshire if you feel | this way and drive around with your seatbelt unbuckled. | You're also welcome to ride your motorcycle without a helmet | there. | | Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in | the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so | that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as | possible until it comes to a complete stop. If the first | impact of a crash throws you out of the position required to | drive the car, you're no longer capable of controlling the | vehicle in such a way that reduces the severity of or | prevents further impacts. As some of these further impacts | stand to involve persons not involved in the initial impact, | it follows that wearing a seatbelt stands to protect them as | well as you. | | Third, We are in absolute agreement that DUI should be | treated more seriously. | ghastmaster wrote: | > Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep | you in the driving position for the entire duration of the | crash so that you can maintain as much control of your | vehicle as possible... | | I largely agree with this sentiment, however, practically | speaking I doubt it matters much. Any impact hard enough to | significantly displace you would likely render you useless | at operating the vehicle if you are wearing a seatbelt. The | forces at work during crashes are stronger that most people | realize. | | I read hundreds of traffic accident reports every day. If | you must traverse the roads, wear your seatbelt, don't ride | a motorcycle, and avoid excessive speeds. A large portion | of the reports I see with deaths are single vehicle | excessive speed loss of control, with a significant portion | of those not wearing their seatbelts. | | Driving is dangerous. Stay safe. | SheetPost wrote: | your body yeeted out of the car makes an even bigger mess and | could hurt/kill sb. | | so wear your damn seatbelt | nextstepguy wrote: | Because if you don't kill yourself, insurance will care | footing the bill to send you to the hospital. Maybe | insurances shouldn't cover people without seatbelts and have | the ambulance let them be injured at the scene. | WalterBright wrote: | Frankly, if the injured person wasn't wearing a belt, I | wouldn't award him medical damages regardless of who was at | fault in the collision. | bhahn wrote: | I would imagine that most auto insurance policies require | seatbelts (under some general safety baseline provision) | for coverage to be valid. | fumeux_fume wrote: | Believe it or not, cleaning dead bodies off the road everyday | has a cost. | powerhour wrote: | A cost borne by others, in fact. | notch656a wrote: | Forcing manufacturers to put in a seatbelt in cars is a | cost born by others for something many of them never | wanted, forced on them by people who legislate not only | having seat belts in their own car but installed in every | car. | seabea wrote: | If your accident involves more than one vehicle, the other | driver shouldn't need to live with your death on their | conscience (as it would for most people, regardless of | whether or not they were at fault). | wizofaus wrote: | Aside from the fact your own death is always going to impose | a cost on society, I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a | driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at | least some control of a vehicle in a collision, reducing your | chance of injuring others (both in and outside said vehicle). | cityofdelusion wrote: | Curious, is there actually evidence of this? I've been in a | few accidents and I can't think of how a seat belt would | maintain control. I feel that anything that would throw you | out of the seat is basically uncontrollable. My accidents | with any significant force all happened in the blink of an | eye. | vel0city wrote: | I've been forced to make swerving maneuvers which would | have been difficult to stay in my seat and in control | without a seatbelt. I was in a low speed rear end | collision which would have definitely jarred me out of my | seat and had me lose control after the fact, probably | would have caused me to roll into a busy intersection. | WalterBright wrote: | You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in your | death. | | > I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly | increases your ability to maintain at least some control of | a vehicle in a collision | | Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just | along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I | had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung | about totally out of my control. | Arrath wrote: | In my own accident, despite being slammed against the | driver's door by the impact, I was able to keep my foot | stabbed onto the brake pedal throughout the event thanks | to the belt keeping me more or less in the driver's seat. | WalterBright wrote: | There's no doubt that the belt played a role in reducing | your injuries. | wizofaus wrote: | But you'd then argue being able to keep your foot on the | brake doesn't help your chances of avoiding causing | injury/death to others? | WalterBright wrote: | If you're hit from the side, you were already traveling | forward. | wizofaus wrote: | Er, so? If you're hit hard from the side with no seat | belt, your whole body is likely to be thrown around and | keeping your foot on the brake is going to be far more | difficult. Sorry but this does seem like a pointless | discussion - if you were somehow able to prove that | seatbelts basically never helped drivers avoid causing | injuries/deaths to others then I'd agree a $50 fine is | probably sufficient. But given what I've seen in this | thread and elsewhere (including direct personal | experience), seatbelts most definitely do help with that, | and a fine + license suspension seems quite justified if | you're caught driving without one (in Australia the fine | is $550 plus a loss of 4 "demerit points" - lose 12 and | your license is suspended. Seems a bit soft to me - the | penalty for driving at 60k/h in a 50 zone is about the | same.) | WalterBright wrote: | > if you were somehow able to prove that seatbelts | basically never helped drivers avoid causing | injuries/deaths to others | | I'm not arguing it never happened. I'm suggesting it | doesn't happen often enough to be a major factor in | seatbelt laws. Laws addressing highly unlikely events | often don't take into account other effects. | | For example, when seatbelt laws were proposed, many | people reported that they were _saved_ from certain death | by being thrown from their car. For example, if the car | caught fire. Or the car went off a steep embankment. I | don 't recall _any_ anecdotes about thrown people causing | other accidents. | wizofaus wrote: | "Laws addressing highly unlikely events often don't take | into account other effects." Agree 100%, but I'm not | convinced you could call such events "highly unlikely". I | don't have enough data to say. | wizofaus wrote: | That would depend on the collision. The worst I've had, | the car I was driving was T-boned by another (their | fault). If I'd had no seat belt on I somewhat doubt I | would've been able to maintain control of the vehicle and | it very likely would have hit other cars. | pkulak wrote: | > You have a right to be stupid | | To _be_ stupid, sure. | lovich wrote: | > You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in | your death. | | Do you? I've not seen hide nor hair of that right defined | anywhere. | willcipriano wrote: | Certainly you have seen "My body, my choice". | | It isn't respected as it should be but I would consider | it a natural right to do what you will with your own | body. If you don't own that, what do you own? Bodily | autonomy is the core of all human rights if you think | about it. | anthonypasq wrote: | jumping off mountains is legal | wizofaus wrote: | Except when there are sufficient cases of people | seriously injuring or killing themselves, then the area | is typically fenced off/given restricted access. | WalterBright wrote: | Your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit | of happiness. | avianlyric wrote: | Seatbelts also protect other car occupants. When your car | goes from 80mph to 0mph, if you're not wearing a | seatbelt, you become a 80kg, 80mph meat missile bouncing | around the car. | | If someone else happens to be in that car with you. Then | it very likely you're gonna kill them. If multiple people | are not wearing a seatbelt, then the problems only | escalates from there. | | Sitting in the back doesn't changes the dynamics much | either. Car seats aren't designed to withstand a 60+kg | mass hitting them from behind at 80mph. They fold flat, | and anyone still sitting in them gets folded flat at | well, and that's all before you start worrying about what | happens when two skulls collide at 30-100mph. | WalterBright wrote: | I'm aware of that, and when I drive I require that all my | passengers buckle up. | dhc02 wrote: | Seatbelts don't magically stop major accidents from | happening. But they definitely keep minor accidents from | turning into major accidents. | | They don't keep you in control after you slam into | something head on or flip the car. | | They keep you in control after you clip a deer, or hit a | rock, or someone rear-ends you, or you swerve hard to | avoid something, and that can be the difference between a | good story and killing yourself or others. | WalterBright wrote: | Do they? I've been rear-ended, wearing a belt. There was | no possible way I could control the car under the g | forces. | | If you've got enough side forces to pull you out of your | seat, you've lost control anyway. | | BTW, race car drivers know to take their hands off the | wheel just before impact, as the front wheels hit they | can jerk the steering wheel hard enough to break your | arms. | | It's true that if you're going to do performance driving, | tightly belting yourself in will enable you to feel the | car better, and enable you to concentrate on driving | rather than trying to stay seated. But hitting something | is a whole 'nuther story. If you haven't been hit hard in | a car (I have), you're not in control. Belt or not. | You're just along for the ride. | lttlrck wrote: | I just saw this on Reddit. | | The driver would most likely have regained control had he | left his seatbelt on. SFW. | | https://reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/w4kyx3/oy/ | WalterBright wrote: | If he hadn't gotten out of his seat to dig in the back, | he wouldn't have had the accident. | | I'm sorry, this is not an argument for seatbelts. It's an | argument for keeping your eyes on the road. | GLGirty wrote: | In the linked article, Strong Towns doesn't say much about | the nature of these deaths, but in other articles, (e.g. | below) they explore how many of these killings are vehicle- | on-pedestrian deaths, and how we've normalized blaming | victims. | | https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/14/new-report- | ame... | flaque wrote: | There's an audio version of the same point here: | https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/the-drip-drip-drip-of-traf... | | A "best effort" summary of this article: if thousands of people | die in once place, it's one of the great tragedies in American | history. However if thousands of people die in thousands | different places, it is ignored and considered a fact of life. | | When a plane or train crashes, we stop everything and redesign | the entire network to prevent this from happening again. But each | individual death from car accidents is not enough to trigger the | same response in cities, planners, and civil engineers. | hanselot wrote: | Graffur wrote: | Thanks for the summary although it doesn't say _why_ | paulpauper wrote: | Like covid. THoussands of deaths daily became background noise | coding123 wrote: | Well, 2 years ago it did not. it was more of an "event". Now | that it's something we have decided we can't stop (in the | sense that we've done as much as we can without forcing more | things - the public has reach a hard limit) it's a lot like | car crashes. | googlryas wrote: | It makes sense because, for most of America, we have designed | our environment to be heavily dependent on the possibilities | cars open up for us. | | It is not the same with air or train travel. Those are useful, | but not necessary for almost all people. | bcrosby95 wrote: | It doesn't though. We accept unsafe intersection in America | that could be made a lot safer. I've also lived in 6 | different car dependent places in my life, and all of them | are amenable to biking, its just a scary proposition with the | current infrastructure. | | I think a lot of the deaths are put in the realm of "personal | responsibility" - we don't pursue safer options, even for | cars, because it's always someone's fault something bad | happened, rather than intrinsic to the design of the road. | | We create roads where people would feel safe going 65mph down | them, then slap a 35-45mph speed limit on it, and call it a | day. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _We accept unsafe intersection in America that could be | made a lot safer._ | | Related, Americans encountering a traffic circle, | presumably for the first time and with their brains turned | off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaQZUzJCNM | bostonpete wrote: | Makes sense, but that still doesn't explain why we ignore | tens of thousands of auto deaths per year but talk about one | Uber ATG death for 5 years... | googlryas wrote: | My guess is just because self driving cars are new and | rare. Once there are millions on the road, we will stop | getting reports about each individual accident involving | them. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | It's because self-driving cars have alternatives, like | automated trains or streetcars, that are safer and less | resource intensive. Self-driving cars aren't _just_ | competing against human-driven cars. Unless you think cars | are the only form of allowed infrastructure. | cupofpython wrote: | probably because self-driving has fuzzy accountability and | is the same driver in all vehicles. | | if a taxi driver crashes, youve got a bad taxi driver | somewhere you will probably never interact with. If a self- | driving car crashes, you've got possibly hundred of | thousands of potential accidents waiting to happen from the | same "bad driver" | | the regular car accident conversations have all been had. | what else is there to say? | Akronymus wrote: | > It makes sense because, for most of America, we have | designed our environment to be heavily dependent on the | possibilities cars open up for us. | | I disagree on "possibilities cars open up". | | If it is optional to use a car basically everywhere, then | sure, those are freedom. In the majority of the US you are | locked to HAVING to have a car. | kjksf wrote: | Tilting at windmills here but: US is not some unique country | designed for cars and other countries are not some car-free | utopias. | | Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehic | les_... | | US is 7th country on cars / people metric, below New Zealand | and just above Poland. | | Yet this is upteenth time I read that US is "designed" around | cars as if dependance on cars was some unique property of US. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > US is 7th country on cars / people metric, below New | Zealand and just above Poland. | | It doesn't really matter when US has 56 times the cars of | the first 6 countries combined. | | You're comparing San Marino (a small city) with the | entirety the US. It's just noise. | | Consider also that San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, | Liechtenstein and Malta are all very small and rich | countries. It is normal for the wealthy to own more cars | than necessary. Not so normal for tens of millions of | americans who live currently under the threshold of | poverty. | | I suspect the other countries could do with way less cars, | americans would still need more than they have (given the | lacking public infrastructure) but can't afford them. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Polish count includes millions of vehicles that does not | exist but were never "deregistered". | | Amount of active insurance policies is slightly below 27 | million: https://piu.org.pl/wp- | content/uploads/2022/04/ubezpieczenia-... | | That would rate us below Canada but before France. | | What's also interesting is that Poland is absolutely not | designed around cars. Most communist blocks were designed | for few times less cars. The main cities are still not | fully connected by highways. We have perfect size country | for high speed trains. | googlryas wrote: | Saying the US was designed around cars doesn't mean it is | _unique_ in that it is designed around cars. | | And the relevant metrics would probably be something like | miles driven and average speed, not the number of cars per | capita. Jay Leno or Jerry Seinfeld may have 1,000 cars each | but they can only die in a car accident once. Every in San | Marino owning a car doesn't mean anything if they only | drive it 15 mph through their city streets which were | mostly all designed before the advent of cars. | Findeton wrote: | Because you can walk in all cities and towns in Poland. | WesternWind wrote: | You have to look at kilometers driven per person, not just | ownership. | | Americans drive far far more than most other industrialized | nations. | | https://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/fact-file- | americans-... | windows2020 wrote: | America is huge and lots of it isn't densely populated. | nostrebored wrote: | Hence the claim it's designed for cars | WesternWind wrote: | Yeah but we commute by car way more. We used to have way | more railroads and public transit in the US. | chris_va wrote: | To play devil's advocate, we already employ hundreds of | thousands of "cities, planners, and civil engineers" | continuously to battle these distributed deaths. | [deleted] | notatoad wrote: | that assumes that city planners and civil engineers have a | goal of battling these distributed deaths. | | it's obviously a biased source, but "the war on cars" podcast | has an interesting episode with Jessie Singer where she | recounts her interviews with traffic engineers. A municipal | traffic engineer's only goal is to shield the jurisdiction | they work from from liability. as long as the industry | standard best practices are implemented faithfully, you | probably can't be sued. any attempt to do something different | from the status quo opens you up to liability. | masterj wrote: | This is addressed at length by StrongTowns in this book: | https://www.confessions.engineer/ | TheCoelacanth wrote: | Those people are generally more focused on making sure that | cars can go fast than on preventing deaths. | akira2501 wrote: | This person just missed the agency that _actually does this | already_. It's not the NTSB, it's NHTSA. There's a database | of every fatility that happens in a vehicle on American | roadways. You can download it. It's amazing. | | https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis- | report... | | Every fatal accident is documented. Often in incredible | detail. I'm annoyed that this is often overlooked. | Particularly in this case. | | And yes, drivers get blamed a lot, because drivers are most | often at fault. Drugs or alcohol and/or speeding are factors | in the majority of fatal accidents. This is already known. | | For an article that's attempting to so strenuously walk the | high road, the omission of these facts is bizarre to me. How | serious can they be? | rtkwe wrote: | The same pattern plays out all over the place. Diffuse deaths | are just background noise to life where singular events | breakthrough. Happens all the time with gun/heart | attack/car/pollution/etc. deaths. The last 2 years of COVID | proved that to me pretty definitively. | ccn0p wrote: | Covid deaths: Simple solution, lockdown, virtual learning, | 6-feet apart, cancel sports and after-school activities, miss | graduations, etc. All the mental fallout from this: Too | complex, just a way of life. Drip drip drip. | wrycoder wrote: | Well, those solutions don't really work because of the | contagiousness, so they are going out of favor. | | What is needed is effective prophylactics (beyond mRNA | vaccines) and effective treatment. But the effort spent on | that is, sadly, minimal. | bsder wrote: | Exactly. For example, how many buildings have UV | sterilized return air, now? | | A tiny, tiny fraction. And this would benefit us for way | more than just Covid. | Enginerrrd wrote: | Honestly, I don't think UV return air would work as well | as you think. The real solution is increased ventilation | rates. | | UV bulbs are expensive (and invisible unless you get to | poke around a buildings mechanical room.), they need to | be replaced typically ~annually (they won't be). If they | get dust on them, they don't work as well. Etc. etc. | | And here's the issue: To actually deal with high | concentration infectious aerosols you need to get that | air out of the room ASAP. (i.e. negative pressure rooms) | If you can sterilize the return air that's great, but | frankly I suspect dilution and air movement is going to | be the dominant effect in reducing infection chains. | MichaelCollins wrote: | I think opening up windows is the answer, but that would | mean accepting either a loss of climate control, or | greatly increased energy costs. (I'd prefer the former, | in all but the absolute hottest summer days or the | deadliest cold.) | staticautomatic wrote: | Generally those things are helpful but I think China has | pretty well demonstrated that there's no alternative | universe where fully locking everything down eliminates | Covid. | alex_young wrote: | China represents 18% of the world's population, yet 0.07% | of COVID-19 fatalities. Seems like there is some value in | their approach. | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | Like pretending there are no covid deaths? | alex_young wrote: | Surely they aren't covering up that many deaths right? | The US is 4% of the world population, and represents 16% | of the fatalities. If China had our rate of fatalities | that would indicate that they are hiding 4.3 million | deaths somehow. | pclmulqdq wrote: | 0.07% of reported COVID-19 fatalities. There are a lot of | incentives to keep the numbers down going up the chain in | the Chinese bureaucracy. This is the opposite of most | western countries, where the incentives are to over- | report. | nradov wrote: | There is no value in the Chinese approach. Protecting | people from infectious disease can't possibly justify | violating fundamental human rights, such as the right to | free assembly? | Nition wrote: | It worked for us in New Zealand. -\\_(tsu)_/- | | When we tried the same thing a second time it didn't | work, but that was due to people not following the rules. | hunterb123 wrote: | That's what the government says when they fail, they | blame the people. | | It's _your_ fault for not following orders, not _our_ | fault. | thrashh wrote: | That's like saying that your grandma was able to keep per | collection of 4 books perfectly sorted 100% of the time | so why can't a public library of 50,000 books? | paulryanrogers wrote: | Or at least not without perfect worldwide coordination. | And assuming there are no animal reservoirs | anthonypasq wrote: | its actually remarkable that people still believe this | after 2+ years | ansible wrote: | And if we hadn't done that stuff, we would have seen even | more than the 1M deaths we did experience. Things could | have gotten significantly worse as the hospitals filled up | and space was not available for Covid patients and all the | other people with heart attacks and other medical | conditions. | | Even as it is, the medical staff have been overworked and | extremely stressed. They've been quitting the medical field | in very high numbers: | | https://morningconsult.com/2021/10/04/health-care-workers- | se... | | Yes, because of the lockdown, we have paid a high price, | but don't just dismiss the higher price we would have paid | if no mitigations had been attempted. | WASDx wrote: | Also known as the preparedness paradox. | nradov wrote: | Wrong. Most of the non-pharmaceutical interventions were | pointless pandemic theater. You can find examples of | other countries that took less extreme measures and still | had lower death rates. | jscipione wrote: | The same goes for the vaccines and the FDA. | icedistilled wrote: | Example of the "the brave maverick comment" like the "the | brave maverick doctor" mentioned in this npr article | https://www.npr.org/sections/health- | shots/2022/07/19/1111794... | pdonis wrote: | _> A "best effort" summary of this article: if thousands of | people die in once place, it's one of the great tragedies in | American history. However if thousands of people die in | thousands different places, it is ignored and considered a fact | of life._ | | My summary is different: if thousands of people die because the | government specifically puts them in harm's way but doesn't | give them the best available protection against harm, | particularly when, in retrospect, the government's reasons for | putting them in harm's way were, to say the least, somewhat | contrived, we take it very seriously and we demand that the | government do better. | | But if thousands of people die because they individually made | serious enough errors of judgment that it ended up killing | them, we consider it a fact of life--because it is. No amount | of social engineering is going to be able to always protect | people from the consequences of their own poor choices. You | can't design perfect roads that will magically prevent all | accidents. | | What we _can_ do as a society is to at least give people the | proper incentives. Many people routinely ignore traffic laws | (the most common is probably speed limits). Why? Because they | can plainly see that many traffic laws are not there to | actually improve traffic safety, they are there to give | governments additional revenue sources (again speed limits are | the most common example). And that means people lose respect | for all laws, including those that actually _are_ there to | improve safety (such as seat belt laws). | | The way to fix all that is, first, to stop penalizing people | that haven't caused harm. If I'm speeding, but I don't cause an | accident, a cop should not be able to give me a ticket and | force me to either pay a fine or go to court. (Not to mention | that, during the time the cop has me pulled over just for being | X mph over the speed limit, event though I haven't caused harm | or even been driving outside the normal flow of traffic, how | many _other_ drivers that were doing the same thing have gone | whizzing by? Obviously enforcement of such laws is going to be | random, which just makes the incentive problem worse.) Even if | I 'm driving recklessly, or under the influence, but I don't | cause an accident, a cop should not be able to give me a ticket | and force me to either pay a fine or go to court. | | A cop _should_ be able to _stop_ someone who, in their | judgment, is driving in a way that endangers other drivers. | "Stop" here means pull them over, just as they would now, and, | if in the cop's judgment that person is, at that time, not | capable of driving safely (for example, if they fail a | breathalyzer), _don 't allow them to drive_. Ask them if there | is someone they know who can come pick them up. If necessary, | lock their car and take them to the police station and let them | contact someone from there. But don't force them to pay a fine | or go to court if they haven't caused harm. | | Second, many of the proper incentives can be better enforced by | private entities. For example, I mentioned seat belt laws (and | another poster, a former cop, mentioned them also). What if, | instead of having seat belt laws, your car insurance policy had | a rider that, if you were in an accident and were found to not | be wearing your seat belt, either your deductible becomes much | higher (say $10,000 instead of $1,000), or your coverage is | denied altogether? What if, instead of DUI laws, there were a | similar rider for having an accident if you were found to be | under the influence? That would give exactly the right | incentive, for people to _not cause harm_ due to those kinds of | errors of judgment. Even the law itself could be written the | same way: no penalty for simply not wearing a seat belt or | driving under the influence, but _if_ you cause an accident and | you are found to not be wearing a seat belt or driving under | the influence, you are presumed to be at fault and you can | suffer increased penalties. | | In short: put the responsibility for individual accidents where | it belongs: on the individuals that _actually cause harm_. | sssilver wrote: | I don't understand why you're being downvoted. You have a | coherent and well presented point of view. Are downvotes | supposed to mean disagreement? If so, this community will | rapidly devolve into an echo chamber. | mjevans wrote: | Mostly agree, except: | | Design of separation can dramatically help. Isolate | pedestrians and low-barrier low mass slow motor devices from | higher mass, higher speed, vehicles. | | Dense cities should have an (or many) isolated vehicles only | layer(s), completely separated from pedestrians. | scrumbledober wrote: | definitely didn't expect to see anyone arguing against DUI | penalties in this thread... | PebblesRox wrote: | A problem with your insurance incentive is that it only works | for people who have insurance. It does nothing to deter | uninsured drivers. | | The risk of dying in a car accident isn't enough to stop some | people from driving recklessly. Why would a penalty that only | applies to the rare occasion when someone causes harm be any | better of an incentive for people who seem to already assume | they're not going to cause harm by their behavior? | jrkatz wrote: | > lock their car and take them to the police station and let | them contact someone from there. But don't force them to pay | a fine or go to court if they haven't caused harm. | | Supposing at least some drunk drivers are aware they are | drunk but fully convinced they will not harm anyone, this | improves their worst case scenario substantially. Before, | losing their license; now, getting even closer to home before | calling a ride. Does this incentivize drunk driving among | people unable to evaluate the danger they present to others | (e.g., drunks)? | | Obviously, this falls apart somewhat because those same | people probably drive drunk today thinking they won't get | caught. Nonetheless, the common consensus is that certainty | of punishment is the primary deterrent against criminal | activity. Certain non-punishment will change some of the | calculus. | ErikVandeWater wrote: | In addition, the extra expense associated with regulation to | make planes ultra-safe makes it unaffordable for some people. | Those people then go on to use a vastly less safe form of | transportation. | toss1 wrote: | This is confusing. You seem to be suggesting that we should | let the kind of barely-competent people who typically operate | & maintain automobiles with a minimum of attention also | operate aircraft systems with a similarly casual approach in | order to make it more affordable? | | The nature of aviation, where unplanned problems result in | unplanned non-optional landings in random locations (instead | of just pulling off the side of the road), would rapidly turn | aviation into the most dangerous transport mode. Aviation | would soon become unsustainable, and available to no one. | | How does making it less safe help anything? (note that I'm | not discussing the FAA's massive inefficiencies, many of | which I'm sure could be improved without compromising safety) | zamfi wrote: | Individual deaths can result in local change, perhaps mediated | by liability concerns. | | It's become the cynic's take to point out how quickly an | unprotected pedestrian crossing gets a traffic light after a | fatal accident there. | | The media makes the thousand deaths at once -- and its response | -- more salient than a thousand individual deaths. | | There is a decent bit of literature around the role of the | human and his/her purported error in a plane or train crash, | compared with the culpability of a negligent operator (i.e., | driving drunk) of a motor vehicle. Also, the FAA and NTSB have | a very broad mandate when it comes to regulating planes and | trains, while the NHTSA has traditionally not been willing to | impinge on individual rights, perceived or otherwise, in the | name of safety. | colpabar wrote: | This is totally off topic, but aside from the numbers being | lower, we do the _exact_ same thing with gun deaths. | jvm___ wrote: | Which baffles the rest of the world as we see the aggregate | number and are dumbfounded that nothing is done. | colpabar wrote: | As an extremely cynical american, my view is that we don't | do anything because guns are a big industry in america, and | industry controls our government in all the places that | matter. | | But my point was more that we only ever talk about gun | violence when a very specific type of gun violence occurs, | and pointing out the incidents that constitute the bulk of | the aggregate number usually gets you called a racist. | spankalee wrote: | If you're pointing it out in a way that gets you called | racist, you might be racist. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Which bulk of the aggregate number? The number 1 cause of | gun deaths in the US is suicides. | wrycoder wrote: | The question under dispute is what is to be done. | | Removing guns from law abiding citizens is preferred by one | vocal faction, rather than imprisoning criminals who use | them in committing crimes (and who usually don't possess | their guns legally). | | The other faction says that removing guns from law abiding | citizens actually increases crime[0]. | | [0] https://twitter.com/AnneMarieWTHR/status/15494841224978 | 43200... | briffle wrote: | I have a few friends that think the stats I show them are a | complete lie and fabrication, but the truth is: more people | from pistols than 'assault rifles'. In fact, in the US, more | people die from knives than rifles. (not just the 'assualt | ones' Heck more people per year in the US die of 'hands, | fists, and feet'. [0] | | But guess what is always in the news, and talked about by | politicians on both sides, until their constituents are | whipped in a frenzy, donating to their campaign, and can no | longer see the other side as humans anymore... | | [0] https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons- | are-m... | | [1] https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/ | 202... | bdefore wrote: | Neither the post you respond to nor anyone I've spoken with | make claim that assault rifles represent a significant | portion of gun deaths. That politicians gravitate to | 'banning assault rifles' is lazy governance. Much tighter | regulation of all guns would be making a difference. | MichaelCollins wrote: | I think politicians fixate on rifles because angry | constituents armed with rifles are what they _personally_ | fear the most. It 's not about the general population stats | at all. They don't really care about interpersonal/domestic | violence or random street crime being committed with pawn | shop revolvers or knives, even though these together | account for the overwhelming majority of murders. | m463 wrote: | there's one exception: some technologies have unusual | publicity. | | a gasoline car fire? not a peep. | | an electric car fire? the media goes crazy. | | also nuclear power. Fukushima got a lot of attention, but | radiation deaths linked to burning coal are significantly | higher but not touched by the media. | gillytech wrote: | How often do gas cars catch on fire randomly (and not under | the hood but under the passenger compartment as with EVs) | compared with spontaneous electric car fires? | | This is reminiscent of the Galaxy Notes that were exploding | in people's pockets some years ago. | Ancapistani wrote: | I've had it happen once, in a 1988 Toyota pickup. The (OEM) | radio wiring caught fire while driving at slow speed. | vel0city wrote: | There are tons of ICE car fire recalls. My sister in law's | car recently had a recall for the ABS system starting a | fire. A neighbor of mine had their house burn down in the | 90s from a car parked for several days in their garage from | what would later be a recall. Ford had a massive recall of | millions of cars because the steering column would catch | fire. | | I've owned multiple cars which have had some kind of recall | which resulted in a fire risk. Zero of them have been EVs. | | Sure, those aren't all starting in the passenger | compartment, but a lot of these battery fires aren't always | starting in the passenger compartment either. | mbostleman wrote: | COVID must be an exception then as 1000s died in different | places but the public was obsessed. Or the media was at least. | icedistilled wrote: | *1,020,000 died in the US and counting. | KptMarchewa wrote: | The same happened to nuclear energy, despite the fact that coal | kills 100x people yearly than total nuclear energy deaths. | nightfly wrote: | The disasters that happen when nuclear energy fails are | amazingly bad though. Even discounting immediate human | deaths, 80 square miles around Fukushima and 1,000 square | miles around Chernobyl are effectively ruined forever. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Coal is (probably) permamently destroying 510 million | square kilometers of Earth. Few square miles is amazingly | small price for a carbon free energy. | jiggawatts wrote: | Try 10,000 times more and you'd be closer, but that's | probably still an underestimate. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | I think that's a little uncharitable: If even a handful of | people (regardless of location) are harmed by causes that we | don't accept as normal, those are tragedies and we'll broadcast | news about that tragedy 24/7 and use enormous institutions to | move heaven and earth to eliminate that harm. If thousands of | people are harmed by causes that we do accept, that's life as | usual. That might be obvious, but it bears some thinking about. | | About 19 people in the US have been killed by Takata airbags in | the years since 2008, and we've spent $24 billion recalling | vehicles for repair, because that's a risk that we don't | tolerate. | | 100 people will die today in cars - probably more than 19 | people in the next hour, it's going on rush hour and people | will be tired and in a hurry - and it's just another Thursday. | Also, close to 19 veterans will commit suicide today. We accept | that as normal, and I feel strongly that we shouldn't; | consideration of that outcome should enter into the public | consciousness as we consider the ethics and justifications of | military recruitment and our involvement in conflicts across | the globe. | | Where the deaths happen doesn't really matter. I think it's | more about a human ability to name and blame an antagonist: | Takata. 9-11. Firestone. Putin. Covid-19. Katrina. | Comparatively, 'car culture', senelescence, social and cultural | reintegration, and other issues are diffuse to the point of | being pervasive and and human brains have a hard time running | the numbers on the risk analysis. | WalterBright wrote: | > ethics and justifications of military recruitment | | Putin's War shows what happens when you don't have a strong | military. | scrumbledober wrote: | it shows what happens when you don't have a strong military | and try to invade a neighbor... | vel0city wrote: | The invasion of Ukraine started in 2014, back when | Ukraine had practically no military. Putin escalated this | invasion due to the fact Ukraine had been building up its | army in response to key parts of its country being | occupied by a foreign invader. | | If Ukraine had a large military in 2014, I very much | doubt Putin would have invaded Crimea nor would there be | Russian troops in the Donbas. | WalterBright wrote: | Since my point wasn't obvious, let me explain. Ukraine | had a very weak military. If it was stronger, Putin would | never have invaded. | naasking wrote: | > A "best effort" summary of this article: if thousands of | people die in once place, it's one of the great tragedies in | American history. However if thousands of people die in | thousands different places, it is ignored and considered a fact | of life. | | But that makes sense statistically, because those are thousands | of ostensibly independent events that don't necessarily have a | single common cause, where the massacre of a thousand people in | one place _obviously_ has a single common cause. So of course | the natural reaction is to shrug in the former case, because | there 's no obvious connection between them. Of course, if you | can prove that those have a single common cause that can be | tackled, then it makes sense to tie them all together. | jacquesm wrote: | But these have a common cause. Cars. | buran77 wrote: | > So of course the natural reaction is to shrug in the former | case, because there's no obvious connection between them | | I don't think a common cause is what makes the difference, | and you see it with lung cancer due to smoking. | | The shock factor of plane crashes is brought on by them being | so rare, killing _a lot_ of people at once, and almost | guaranteeing those fatalities. This makes them shocking and | unforgettable, they get a reputation. | | On the other hand most people have been in a car crash of | some sort (a fender bender) and not only survived but walked | away without a scratch. Plus the stream of news about | individual crashes just desensitizes people even further. | thrashh wrote: | I think it's both. | | Honestly it's like a lot of problems where it's easier to | solve when it's one big thing as opposed to 1000 little | things. Imagine cutting one big expense out of your budget | versus having to cut 1% out of 500 things. One of those is | vastly easier. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Similarly, probably the most dangerous thing most people do | in their lives is eat (or overeat). It is far more | dangerous than smoking or driving or flying. | | However, overeating (and the consequences) are extremely | common and utterly unshocking. | | People engage in the risky behavior 3 or more times a day, | and have normalized the deaths they see resulting from it. | porknubbins wrote: | Yes the author seems to state that there are many more | traffic deaths than commercial transport deaths as if the | point is self evident but I do not see it. From my | perspective its a minor miracle that there aren't more | traffic deaths. We let any private individual drive up to a | 20,000 something pound vehicle with pretty minimal licensing | requirements (in most places in the US). The news story is | that it mostly goes ok. | kennywinker wrote: | Not sure 40k deaths per year and countless more severe | injuries, permanent disabilities, and financial | destitutions count as it going mostly ok | throwaway6734 wrote: | my personal theory is that people's overconfidence in their | ability as drivers and underestimating the risk of driving | ends up making the process much safer than if people were | more grounded in reality | iforgotpassword wrote: | Now I'm really curious for the reasoning behind that. | vineyardmike wrote: | Or everyone's overconfidence and underestimation means | there's no appetite for people to accept regulation and | change. _because I'm not the problem and I'm in control, | I shouldn't expect change_. Meanwhile when you fly, you | know you're at the hands of someone else, and you want to | control them as much as possible. | elihu wrote: | I could see that possibly being true. I mean, driving is | kind of weird; it seems to be mostly done with a part of | the brain that can operate automatically with little | conscious effort. It's sort of like playing the piano: if | I'm playing some piece that I know well I probably won't | screw up unless I actually try to consciously think about | what I'm doing, which is when things fall apart. | | That said, I think people should be reasonably safety- | conscious about vehicle maintenance, avoiding risky | situations, and avoiding things that could sabotage the | automatic-driving part of their brain, like doing other | things at the same time that require their attention and | their hands and eyes. | dionidium wrote: | We know, though, that there are certain patterns and | behaviors that contribute to car accidents. For example, we | know that speeding was a factor in something like a third of | all car accidents. And I'm pretty confident that's an | underestimate, because there are lots of roads where the | speed limit almost certainly should be slower and speed would | not be indicated in the accident report, even though it was a | factor. | | If we regulated automobiles the same way we regulate | aircraft, every single automobile would have a speed governor | installed. | | We also know that size is a significant factor, because of | physics. This is especially true anytime an accident involves | a pedestrian or cyclist. And here again, despite clear, | common sense evidence, cars are getting larger and heavier | over time, not smaller and safer. | kazinator wrote: | Clickbait. | | We do not ignore daily car crashes. Serious crashes are reported | to the police and investigated, just like train wrecks. | | The media does not ignore car crashes; bad ones are reported on | the news. | | Trains are large; train wrecks are often big accidents which are | newsworthy. If it's a passenger train, lots of people are injured | or dead. | | Freight train wrecks can have an environmental impact; chemical | spills leading to area evacuations and such. | | In 2013, in Canada, the Lac-Megantic rail disaster killed 47 | people and destroyed 13 buildings in a town. This was a 73-car | freight train carrying crude oil. If you can crash your car such | that 47 people die and 13 buildings are destroyed, you will have | likely garner the same attention. | | Trains run on rails, have right-of-way at crossings, and are | operated by professionals. Accidents which involve nothing but a | train (no obstruction of the railway) should not happen, which | makes such train accidents inherently more newsorthy/noteworthy | than traffic accidents. People want to know what went wrong in | the system and how it can be prevented. | SwetDrems wrote: | What other engineering field has acceptable death rates? We | design roads EXPECTING people to die on them. Insane. | phyzome wrote: | A potentially larger reason is that we've decided car deaths are | _acceptable_ -- perhaps because the alternative implicitly might | be some kind of impingement upon personal-car-culture, and that | is pre-decided as unacceptable. | tristor wrote: | The primary reason why I ignore car crashes is because I ensure | that I do the following things, all of which greatly reduce my | risk factor compared to the average: | | 1. I always drive attentively with both hands on the steering | wheel. | | 2. I completed on-track driving instruction in a race car, | multiple times, and also took training in evasive driving | maneuvers. | | 3. I constantly maintain situational awareness of what's going on | around and with my vehicle. | | 4. All of my vehicles are relatively new (less than 10 years old) | and impeccably maintained, and provided with the highest quality | tires available replaced on a regular cadence based on service | life. | | 5. I do not drive when I am overly tired, after having consumed | any alcoholic substance, or in adverse weather conditions. In any | of these situations, I either do not travel or I find an | alternate way to travel that doesn't incur the risks of driving. | | A simple example of #5 is that I was on a road-trip headed North | in the US, and we had a late-Spring snowstorm happen around mid- | day. I had originally planned to get a further 150 miles down the | road before stopping for the night, but I instead immediately | pulled off and booked a hotel room, and left again the following | morning after the roads had cleared and traffic had let up. Could | I have made it? Almost certainly. Was my vehicle equipped for the | weather? Yes, absolutely. Was it worth the risk? Not at all. A | hotel room was $120 for the night, which was cheap insurance | against possibly dying on vacation. | | If I get onto a public bus, or into a ride share, or a taxi, I | can't guarantee any of the above. The driver might have personal | issues causing them to have stayed up late the night before, and | then they had a few martinis to help them sleep, and started the | morning with heavy coffee drinking, constantly checking on the | status of their personal issues on their phone while they're | driving. The bus due to it being a public service may be | maintained at the margins of acceptable standards with tires and | other consumable maintenance items being used to the full extent | of their service life, rather than being replaced preventatively. | We've all seen the "gators" on public roads of tire treads ripped | off of truck and bus tires that were retreaded rather than | replaced, or shredded rubber from large tire blowouts. The bus | could be 17 years old with a spotty history and frame damage. All | of these things are out of my control. But I can control myself, | my driving, my vehicle, and ensure I always leave enough spare | tire capability to evasively maneuver. | | I'm nearing 40 years old and I've avoided HUNDREDS of accidents | that could have happened due to other drivers. I have never once | in my entire life been in an accident where I was at fault. In | fact, I've been in multiple accidents, all of which involved my | vehicle being entirely stopped and stationary and being rear- | ended by an inattentive driver, sometimes with me not even being | in the car when it happened. As long as I am actively moving down | the roadway, I consider my risk to be massively below the | national average, because I am a better driver than nearly anyone | else I've ever met and I drive better quality vehicles that are | maintained better than nearly any other vehicle on the public | roads. It's as simple as that. | 1123581321 wrote: | All drivers avoid many close calls. That's just inherent to | being on the road. | djmips wrote: | Even just #4 (the tire part) applied / enforced would help | tremendously. | tristor wrote: | Because I do a lot of the maintenance on my own vehicles, I | have many acquaintances who ask me car advice, and I always | tell people to buy the best tires they can afford, as it's | those 4 tires and wheels that are all that's holding your car | to the ground. I have recently moved cross-country, but the | previous city I lived in it was incredibly commonplace to see | vehicles on the highway doing 80+ MPH with horribly visibly | bald tires, or in some cases people rolling on 4 spares | (which are only certified to 55MPH). | | The average driver in the US has a very flippant attitude | towards maintenance and towards tires in particularly. Yet, | tires are one of the most important if not most important | safety items on your vehicle. | djmips wrote: | 40 years old eh? Perhaps it's time to start considering | retiring from driving to maintain your high standard. | tristor wrote: | Agreed, actually. I fully intend to stop driving after I | retire. It's actually a conversation I've had a few times | with my parents, and I'm heavily encouraging them to give up | driving. I wish we had better licensing standards in the US | at every level and that we forced aged-based retesting on | older drivers. I know that my mother (72) for instance | definitely should not be driving, but still does, although | mostly my father (65) does the driving. I'd prefer if neither | of them did. | | The flip side (and something I think Strong Towns would fully | agree with me on) is that most American cities are | constructed for cars and not for people, which means stricter | licensing standards and being more careful about licensing of | older drivers is somewhat of a non-starter if it means people | have no feasible way to get to the store or the doctor (or | for those below retirement age, to work). | | I also realize that my position is heavily privileged, both | by my ability to afford newer cars and impeccable | maintenance, my time and affordability of training, and that | I will likely retire early enough in age to not ever become a | road hazard due to my age. It is not lost on me that this | cannot apply to most other people, and I recognize I'm an | outlier in this way. I heavily support policies to increase | public transit options, and I hope that self driving cars | become a reality in my lifetime. We cannot build society's | policies based on our highest or lowest outliers, but need to | consider the reality of the normal person's experience. | CHB0403085482 wrote: | If USAians can ignore daily multi-death shootings, it can ignore | any tragedy. | sytelus wrote: | My favorite: Number of people die from cancer each year is same | as number of people died in World War II each year. How much | resources did we allocated to each? As former chimps, our ability | grasp probability and statistics is astonishingly limited. | badpun wrote: | It's not a fair comparison, because world population in 1940 | was just 2.3 billion. So, in relative terms, WW2 killed almost | four times as many people per year as cancer does. | | Not to mention that the goal of WW2 spending wasn't to improve | some abstract death prevention statistics, it was actually to | prevent madmen from taking over the whole world and turning it | into totalitarian hell. | noirbot wrote: | Isn't some of that skewed though? Most of the people who fought | and died in WW2 were 18-40 year old folks in the prime of their | life, or minorities killed in atrocities. My guess, and correct | me if it's wrong, but a lot of people who die from cancer are | generally unwell in other ways, or more elderly. It's also that | there's not just one "cancer" we have to fix, and we already | spend quite a lot of resources on studying and treating cancer. | darig wrote: | jandrese wrote: | The article focuses on trains, but the same thing could be said | for autonomous vehicles. When one crashes it is national news | because they are so rare. People who say autonomous vehicles | won't be viable until the crash rate is zero are setting the bar | far too high. The threshold should be fewer accidents and/or | fewer fatalities per million miles driven than human drivers. In | theory system improvements on the autonomous cars could further | reduce those figures, while reducing the accidents involving | human factors is very difficult. You can't change people that | much. Most of the foreseeable improvements are basically the same | ones you would need for autonomous vehicles anyway, like better | sensors around the car to detect obstacles. | giantg2 wrote: | "You can't change people that much." | | The point of licensing is to restrict the privilege to those | who can responsibly and competently preform the task. If they | can't conform to that, then they shouldn't be driving. Tougher | licensing and enforcement would drastically reduce fatalities. | We already see this in many European nations with stricter | enforcement and licensing. | distant_hat wrote: | The thing is in the US driving is essential to having any | sort of life for the most part leaving tiny enclaves like NYC | aside. And freedom is an important part of US ethos. | Autonomous cars as long as they are better than humans would | be accepted by a range of people especially by elderly etc | because what they want is to get from point A to point B, not | necessarily to drive. | giantg2 wrote: | Coincidentally, the more rural the area, the less dangerous | a driver would be to others and the easier the practical | test would be. It's most dangerous in the more populated | areas because of the concentration of drivers, pads, and | things makes it more likely they would hit something. | jandrese wrote: | In the US it is easier to invent autonomous vehicles than | take away grandma's drivers license. | giantg2 wrote: | The trouble that many elderly face with smartphones leaves | me a little skeptical that autonomous cars are really a | solution to that specific problem. | rootusrootus wrote: | > The threshold should be fewer accidents and/or fewer | fatalities per million miles driven than human drivers. | | Those of us who drive defensively strongly disagree with this | metric. The "average driver" is extremely skewed towards a | relatively small subset of drivers who cause most of the | wrecks. Not coincidentally, the same people who can't afford a | fancy autonomous car anyway. | belorn wrote: | We can start by putting the autonomous vehicles to the driver | license test to see if they can just pass the lowest standard | of driving, ie the quality of a novice driver. If they can't do | that without instructor needing to step in then just like the | novice they shouldn't be allowed on the roads without a | licensed driver to oversee them. | | That is the bar that autonomous vehicles need to reach. Crash | rate of zero is not required, through if it is higher than the | average driver then it might be worth to make the license | requirements higher. | jandrese wrote: | This doesn't seem like a very high bar to pass. Around here a | drivers test involves a short stint on a low speed closed | course with a few intersections and then a parallel parking | test. Our current self driving systems should have no trouble | with that once they are informed what you expect. | belorn wrote: | I guess every country has their own set of expectations and | rules for what qualify for operating a car in a safe | manner. | | Where I live the practical part of the driver exam is 30m | of driving in mixed environment, usually involving a number | of environments (based on what the driver inspector can | find that day). Those involve city driving, country driving | and on-off to the highway, with a number of events such as | driving in areas where there are | pedestrians/cyclists/children, crossing railway, lane | changes, roundabouts, passing construction work, and so on. | Just like with a driver instructor the car has double | controls, but if the inspector has to take control of the | car to prevent an accident then its an automatic fail and | the person has to retake the test at a later date. Minor | failures can be accepted, through the basic concept is that | a person who can't drive around for 30 minutes without | causing an accident shouldn't be on the road. | olivermarks wrote: | Talk to any racing driver and they will spell out the importance | of seatbelts for safety and to maintain control position. For | many years there were TV spots explaining why you wouldn't be | disfigured if you wore one. In modern cars those films could play | repeatedly on the dashboard if you failed to buckle up or sat on | top of the buckled belt. | | Once people understand why something is essential they will do | it, but we have to keep fresh generations of drivers informed and | involved imo. | mywittyname wrote: | "We" don't ignore them. Every major government has a body | dedicated entirely to automobile safety. | | In the USA, this is NHSTA - National Highway Safety & | Transportation Administration. They maintain an information | system of traffic fatality statistics in the USA, called FARS | (fatality analysis reporting system). This system is used to | determine new safety devices and standards for vehicles and to | test their effectiveness. | | And they are a powerful organization. A car cannot be sold in the | USA without NHSTA approval. At the tap of a keyboard, they can | cost a company billions of dollars. They power reaches far beyond | the USA as well. Not too long ago, the NHSTA issued a recall that | bankrupted the largest producer of airbags in the world. | | I'd say the USA focuses a lot on reducing automotive fatalities. | zucker42 wrote: | US DOTs have people devoted to safety no doubt, but they also | endorse road and city designs which have safer alternatives. | epistasis wrote: | I can't agree with your assessment at all. Deaths are rising, | yet what changes are happening? | | And in particular the NHSTA doesn't give a damn about those | outside of the car. | | The very greatest threat to the life of my children is cars. It | would be easy, trivial almost, to fix this by legalizing | building for houses and businesses that don't allow cars, but | are served only by public transit. Yet this very simple, very | desirable concept is illegal in the US except for a few tiny | islands. | | We prioritize cars over life in nearly every single aspect of | law. We modified law to make drivers not culpable for the death | they inflict on others, because if drivers had to pay for the | damage they caused, we would not be driving at all. | partdavid wrote: | "Not doing what I think should be done for my particular | interest and priorities" isn't the same as "Ignoring." At | all. | | By all means, continue to advocate, but the idea that "we" | ignore car crashes is risible. | mywittyname wrote: | > Deaths are rising, yet what changes are happening? | | https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early- | estimate-2021-tra... | vehementi wrote: | > I can't agree with your assessment at all. Deaths are | rising, yet what changes are happening? | | More than one factor affecting a phenomenon can exist. They | can be making changes to make things safer, while other | things can be working against them. It's like saying "I don't | believe harm reduction is helping: people still die from ODs" | panzagl wrote: | > It would be easy, trivial almost, to fix this by legalizing | building for houses and businesses that don't allow cars, but | are served only by public transit. | | Is that all? Just move everyone in the country? What do you | consider non-trivial? | recursive wrote: | > Just move everyone in the country? | | You've misunderstood. | | No need to move everyone in the country. People buying | these new houses would be moving. As you're probably aware, | people that buy new houses _already_ regularly move into | them. And it certainly wouldn 't be everyone. | masterj wrote: | Safety regulations for the people inside the vehicles. Next to | no regulations to protect those obligated to exist alongside | them. Ex: No regulations for how a pedestrian body will react | in a crash with an SUV | Apreche wrote: | You are correct that they are powerful, but they wield that | power rarely. | | Imagine if Superman was real. There he is standing on a street | corner. Vastly powerful. Invincible to everything except | kryptonite. Cape flowing majestically. Someone robs a bank | right there across the street. He sees it. He hears it. And he | stands there and watches, doing nothing. That's the NHSTA. | rootusrootus wrote: | > You are correct that they are powerful, but they wield that | power rarely. | | Define rarely? They issued over a thousand recalls in 2021. | Schroedingersat wrote: | Those bodies routinely enforce road widening and other measures | in residential areas that make things grossly more dangerous. | | They also have explicit tradeoffs between the changes they make | and deaths, proving the article's point. | | Plus the guidelines often prioritise speed as an end goal | rather than caring about throughput, or the fact that it should | be a quiet residential street. | | Plus the destruction of transit. | | Spending just as much as safe, accessible transport would cost | on road widening projects and barely keeping deaths under a | high self-declared threshold isn't prioritising safety. | partdavid wrote: | Yeah, "we" don't ignore them _at all_. I 'm not sure I'm able | to articulate all the costs and efforts around road safety, but | I'm quite certain it's... real high. Not just the directives of | the NHSTA and the effort required to comply with them (crash | testing and research, etc.), but _most_ law enforcement | activity (and the support laws and codes restricting driving | activity), driver education and licensing (on passenger and | carrier levels), road maintenance including pervasive safety | features like guardrails, breakaway posts, collision barriers, | road re-grading, safety signals. | | Maybe the reason it could seem to someone like "we" do is | exactly because it is _so_ pervasive. It 's second nature to | get used to all the safety measures that surround us on the | road. It's not that we ignore the danger of road accidents or | their consequences: it's that the attention we pay to it is so | constant it becomes background noise--humans notice novelty, | not stuff we're used to. | nemild wrote: | On a related note, a few years ago, I went through an entire year | of top headlines in the New York Times (top few pages), and | mapped them against actual death rates: | | https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html | | It's obvious that these would be different, but it was especially | glaring just how much we focused on intentional deaths in our | media coverage. It also makes sense that this is newsworthy (aka | profitable), but it leads to some terrible inferences and | decisions if that's all we see. | narush wrote: | I _highly_ recommend consuming more of the content put out by | Strong Towns [1]. If I were to summarize their message, it's that | in the past 100 years, we've engaged in a large-scale experiment | to design our places around cars. This is bad for safety, bad for | the economy, and (most importantly!) bad for us people that live | in these places! Content and education-wise, they are my favorite | non-profit :) | | If you're looking for audio: their podcast [2] is great (this | article came out yesterday as a podcast, and I listened to it | while I was biking... and then got angry at all the cars driving | around me, lol). | | If you're looking for something longer-form, I'd recommend | reading Confessions of a Recovering Engineer [3]. It's literally | fantastic, and changed the entire way I think about the suburbs | and cities. I grew up in a suburb and recently moved to the city, | and had this deep, under-thought feeling that the walking/biking | (and the livability that came from it) was why I loved cities so | much. This book helped me understand why I felt that way, what | specifically is wrong with how we build place currently - and | also practical things I could do about it! | | Not to be dramatic, but that book took me from pretty much | _never_ thinking about place to: volunteering for a local bike | advocacy group, biking twice as much, and literally being a more | friendly neighbor. Effects not guaranteed, but I can't recommend | this book highly enough if you're interested in this sort of | thing. | | P.S. I am totally unaffiliated with Strong Towns. I just really | like them :) | | P.P.S. If you're looking for some interesting drama, check out | the lawsuit they are currently engaged in [4] with the Minnesota | Board of Licensure. IANAL, but it kinda just seems like the | engineering licenses boards are trying to shut down his speech | because he points out that maybe letting only-technical engineers | totally design our spaces isn't really the best idea! | | P.P.P.S. Donate here [5]! | | [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/ | | [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/podcast | | [3] https://www.strongtowns.org/book | | [4] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/2/21/the-latest- | upd... | | [5] https://www.strongtowns.org/membership | alice_zero wrote: | Seconding this, a large number of current social problems can | be attributed to the way our cities is built. Homelessness | (land use is inefficiently prioritizing single family homes and | parking lots), public health (car dependency encourages minimal | walking), and human connection (shared spaces become less | appealing when they're not <10 minutes outside your doorstep). | The places we live in has been structured in a manner unlike | any other time period in human history and it's simply accepted | without question. It takes a bit to wrap your head around but | if you go in willing to suspend prior beliefs, it's definitely | worth it if you want to understand why the world is the way it | is in certain parts of the world. | | Of course there are going to be caveats and cars will always | have a use. What matters is that people have a choice of | convenient public transport rather than cars being the only | option that's practical. | chroem- wrote: | You can't conduct commerce on a bike. Anti-car policies are | also closely coupled with inflated housing prices, since they | effectively reduce the available housing supply by requiring | employees to commute from within public transit distance of | their job. | narush wrote: | I'd highly recommend reading Confessions of a Recovering | Engineer before debating my communication of it. There's a | lot more depth to the arguments than the one-sentence summary | a novice (me) can give :) | | Namely, Strong Towns isn't anti-car! In fact, they explicitly | arguing _against_ removing cars from city centers in most | cases, for reasons related to those that you mention. If I | remember correctly, many towns tried to do this in the 70's | or something, and most of them failed; cars are still | required in most cases. | | That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are | very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to | put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people! | | Again, highly recommend engaging with the source material | rather than taking my word for it. I've been consuming and | parroting (sometimes badly) their content for months - they | have been thinking about these questions for literally | decades! | chroem- wrote: | > That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are | very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to | put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people! | | That's a semantic argument that doesn't address the real | problems that skimping on commuter infrastructure can | cause. San Francisco and Seattle have both achieved some of | the highest housing prices in the nation thanks to chronic | underinvestment in highway infrastructure. | narush wrote: | Check out the book! You'll get a lot from it I think -- | even if it's just a better understand of a different | viewpoint :) | chroem- wrote: | No thank you: I don't care for content that's searching | for evidence to support a preconcieved position. There is | too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in this space. | | I already get enough of their content on HN to recognize | dogma when I see it. Quite frankly, it's a circlejerk | where everyone else is wrong unless they follow the ST- | scene's ideologically-founded prescriptions, and if you | post evidence to the contrary you'll often get shouted | down. | multiplegeorges wrote: | > There is too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in | this space. | | And rejecting other viewpoints out of hand isn't | dogmatic? | chroem- wrote: | cianmm wrote: | Thanks for the book recommendation! I've ordered it. | cianmm wrote: | Anti car policies need to be paired with pro sustainability | and livable city policies. You can't do just one or the | other, both need to happen close to simultaneously. We need | to strongly discourage car use and encourage sustainable | transportation while strongly safeguarding it for those who | truly need it, rather than those who just want it. | | You can conduct many types of commerce, maybe most types of | commerce by bike. You can't do things like say transporting | more than two sofas, or large scale building materials, but | if the goal is to reduce car usage as much as possible you'd | be surprised how much you can do with a good cargo bike. | | With an electric bike most people could easily do a 15km | commute within 40 minutes especially where provided safe | cycling infrastructure. And with no need to store and | transport all of these cars despite them only being used for | two hours a day you can use all of that space to build more | housing. | | People who want to live outside of population centres and | thus feel the need to own a car but need to commute into | population centres can instead commute to large scale park | and ride for public transit. Maybe they can also charge their | cars there too, maybe even for free with ownership of a | transit pass. | | And the best part about strongly discouraging car ownership | and usage while strongly encouraging sustainable transport is | that it frees up space on the road for busses, emergency | services, cyclists, pedestrians, and those who need vehicles | for transporting goods or for accessibility reasons. | | Finally, consider that housing prices in areas with | sustainable transport options might be higher because people | want to live where they can safely walk and cycle surrounded | by trees and plants. Make that possible for anybody who wants | it and we'll have a cheaper house prices, healthier | populations, less climate change, safer societies, and just | generally a nicer time. | gringoDan wrote: | If cars were invented today, they would be illegal. | | We give 16-year-olds minimal training, then entrust them with the | control of a 3,000 lb. weapon for the rest of their lives. You | can be an awful driver, but even if you get into multiple | accidents, your license will rarely be taken away. | | If cars had not been invented, we would have designed 20th | century cities around people, rather than the automobile. We'd | have a robust public transportation network that would all but | eliminate the need for cars, at least in cities and suburbs (see | Japan). | | Between the death toll and the alienation from living in places | designed for cars, I'm not sure if the car has been a net | positive for society. | causi wrote: | Human response is never in actual proportion to reality. For | example, veterans have a suicide rate lower than farmers, | fisherman, construction workers, maintenance workers, and | engineers. | the_jeremy wrote: | I don't think you are correct on engineers. General suicide | rate in the US in 2019: 16.8/100k[0]. Suicide rate of veterans | in the US in 2019: 31.6/100k[0]. Suicide rate of engineers in | the US in 2016: 23.2/100k [1]. | | [0]: https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/data- | sheets/2021/2021-N... [1]: | https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/84275 | Willish42 wrote: | I didn't realize aggregated info on this type of thing was so | readily available. TY for including references! | ithkuil wrote: | How do veteran farmers compare to non-veteran farmers? (Or | fishermen etc?) | j-bos wrote: | This is a thought provoking question, thanks for that. | [deleted] | wyager wrote: | Because it's worth it. The question is why we don't ignore other | causes of death that are also worth it. | Blackthorn wrote: | While in retrospect The Dark Knight was almost comically heavy | handed and clumsy, the Joker's speech about "the plan" was pretty | solid and holds up. | intrasight wrote: | We don't ignore them - we just accept that risk | | Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics | | 0.00000003% chance of dying if you drive a kilometer to the yoga | studio. | | Want to make it less risky personally? Drive less, or drive a | safer car. | | https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks | elwell wrote: | It's not spinning the roulette wheel; the skill/sobriety/self- | control of the driver has a lot of influence on the probability | per kilometer. | kminehart wrote: | It sure would be nice if we could just "drive less". | Unfortunately the cities we live in, at least in the US, are | designed such that it's the only option we have. That's a huge | focus of the website / book in the OP called, "Strong Towns." | avianlyric wrote: | What about all the pedestrians that are killed by vehicles | (which is rapidly trending up)? Do just have accept that even | those that don't benefit from car must still suffer the | consequences of cars? | giantg2 wrote: | The engineering side is good to look at. We should also be | looking at the education/credentialing side too. Many incidents | are drivers making poor choices, not knowing the laws, or not | understanding vehicle dynamics. Stricter licensing would be a | good way to reduce incidents regardless of the redesigns. | Arguably, that would be the fastest and cheapest route to | effective change. | malauxyeux wrote: | We've got strict credentialing here in France for obtaining | your first license and we're well below the US in traffic | deaths. | | It may be part of the picture, though I still witness plenty of | dangerous/aggressive/stupid driving here. | | One thing we do have going for us, I believe, is "no permit" | cars. These are tiny cars with tiny engines that don't require | a permit to drive. | | Many (most?) drivers with revoked licenses still need to drive. | And they can still legally drive a "no permit" car. It's | believed anyway that this serves as a security valve for | keeping drunk drivers out of heavy, more deadly vehicles. | | Of course, driving a "no permit" car under the influence is | still illegal. | chasd00 wrote: | i was in Paris and Southern France for two weeks a little bit | a go. As a US driver, the chaos of your mopeds makes driving | pretty harrowing haha. Still, i was impressed. In all the | driving I did over those two weeks I didn't see a single | accident. In the US I would have seen at least two being | cleaned up on the highways. | malauxyeux wrote: | I wonder if the harrowing bit isn't a strength. | | When you're driving in North America, even in a city | center, it often feels like there's nothing to do except | watch the car in front of you and the next light. I wonder | if that makes drivers disengage and not notice dangers. | | In contrast, things tend to be a lot denser and less | regular here. Maybe that keeps peoples' heads on the road. | multiplegeorges wrote: | Yeah, every driver should have to re-do a driving test every 5 | years to maintain a license and if they are convicted of a | moving violation they should have to re-do the test within a | year of that violation, in addition to the 5 year test. | | Driving is a privilege, not a right. | kiba wrote: | Or we could just get rid of the need to drive cars. The best | part is no part. | Ottolay wrote: | On a personal level, this reminds me of a concept called | normalization of deviance. [1] | | Every time we do something which we know may be risky, but we do | not have a catastrophic result, we further reduce the perceived | risk that the catastrophic result will occur to us. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance | pessimizer wrote: | I think it's just because car crashes aren't a wedge issue, so | they don't politically matter. We certainly don't ignore car | crashes on local news, where they make a great space filler. | | Amtrak (and train travel in general) certainly is a wedge issue | ("Amtrak Joe"), so we fixate on the only thing interesting that | ever happens with it (crashes.) We can then discuss the state of | it, whether we should shut it down or expand it, whether flying | is safer, etc. | dbrueck wrote: | No need to overcomplicate it: we ignore it because it's not | _that_ common. | | I mean, for every one person that dies in a car accident in the | U.S., 16 die from heart disease and look at how good we are | (collectively) at not really tackling that as a source of deaths! | indymike wrote: | The answer here is that the convenience of being able to jump in | a car, and get to your destination quickly is worth the risk of | occasionally being injured or dying on the way to most people. | You also have to compare against what came before the car: horses | and walking, both of which may have been perilous in comparison | with DC Beltway traffic on the way home from work. Ah... never | mind - braving the elements and bears might be better than the DC | Beltway at rush hour. | codemonkey-zeta wrote: | That's not the alternative strongtowns advocates for. You can | have _more_ convenient and _more_ safe municipalities at the | same time. I recommend the "stroads" essay on their site (as | well as the others too). Strongtowns really provides a very | compelling thesis when you consider the whole of their | proposals. | dontcontactme wrote: | Another factor is that people are more afraid of scary things | when they feel like they can't control them. Driving makes people | feel like they are in control, which makes drivers underestimate | their chances of crashing. This is the same reason that airplane | crashes and autonomous vehicle crashes are also huge news events: | if people feel like crashes are being caused by something they | can't control, that scares them. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | I want to make clear that I agree completely, but I've been | injured in two car crashes in my life. Once, I was a pedestrian | and crossing the street in a crosswalk with a signal when an | old lady drove into me and then drove off. We had made eye | contact while I crossed, but for whatever reason she decided to | start driving nonetheless. The other time, I was stopped at a | red light and someone arguing with their partner rear ended me. | Incidentally, I caused minor injuries to others in a similar | crash when I was a teenager. Clearly, there was no element of | control to the injured parties in any of those three stories. | | It'd be really nice if we could figure out how to convey to | people that they don't have any significant control over their | safety when driving, so that we can finally start making | rational attempts to drive down the number of motorist and | pedestrian deaths. | kfarr wrote: | Yes, the feeling of control is an illusion. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-21 23:00 UTC)