Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Road safety tips from Sweden

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#41

Post by yoda222 »

icc97 wrote: post #5

90% of the article is about forward/backward facing child seats. But also the article spells out the the paper it was based on falsely claimed there was a significant difference between them and was retracted, restudied and agreed to not be statistically significant. Then it goes on to say, that Sweden does use rear-facing seats as though that somehow proves that there is a statistical significance. Seems like the ar…

> Then it goes on to say, that Sweden does use rear-facing seats as though that somehow proves that there is a statistical significance

The studies you are referring to (the retracted and the non conclusive one) are two studies based on past data on real road. They did compare existing numbers and yes, there was no statistical significance due to the reduced sample (according to the article, I didn't check personnaly ;-) ).

If the article had stopped there on that part, you would be correct. But there was more. You missed the part about the sled test study (There is a direct link to the study in the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217519/)

And that study is statistically significant for all but one type of injury:

> The best RF restraints (RF EURO) clearly outperformed the best FF restraints (FF EURO) when comparing injury measures. There were statistically significant differences at all injury measures except chest 3ms clip

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#42

Post by Numberwang »

jlarsson89 wrote: post #36
bjoli wrote: post #21

We also don't hand out driver's licenses left and right to anyone with the ability to find the correct pedals. From what I have seen in the states, you average bad swedish driver would be an american interstate wunderkind.

On the other hand plenty of people that really should have theirs taken away don't get theirs taken away, like old people with clear mental issues or people with bad eye sight that affect their ability to see people crossing roads etc.

Do you have numbers on these people causing a lot more than the average of accidents? Taking away driving licenses for old people is a big thing to do, especially if there is no need for it.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#43

Post by jlarsson89 »

croon wrote: post #39
jlarsson89 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand plenty of people that really should have theirs taken away don't get theirs taken away, like old people with clear mental issues or people with bad eye sight that affect their ability to see people crossing roads etc.

I don't think that detracts any from the initial point. Step one is still to initially only award licenses to competent drivers. That more can be done is (I suspect) a perpetual truth.

I agree, but to live up to that system those that are no longer competent should have it taken away. As far as I know(I don't drive) there is no need to ever re-take the theory test which has been revised a number of times since many people took their license in the first place or pass any kind of medical to have it renewed.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#44

Post by andrewaylett »

We've got our toddler a Hauck seat, and we're very happy with it: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01HGH89JI

He moved into it from a baby seat, so he's never regularly used a front-facing seat. He can still see out well enough to see what's going on, and to comment when we don't go the way he's expecting. He's three at the moment, and we fully expect to keep him rear-facing until he's four.

Our older children had to move into a front-facing seats earlier because there wasn't really a choice. But there is now, and I know a couple of other people who have also gone down this route.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#45

Post by jlarsson89 »

Numberwang wrote: post #42
jlarsson89 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand plenty of people that really should have theirs taken away don't get theirs taken away, like old people with clear mental issues or people with bad eye sight that affect their ability to see people crossing roads etc.

Do you have numbers on these people causing a lot more than the average of accidents? Taking away driving licenses for old people is a big thing to do, especially if there is no need for it.

I have anecdotal evidence of old people with dementia driving and not having any idea where they are or what they are doing. https://www.thelocal.se/20170809/swedish-experts-call-for-ne... claims that they do recall licenses, but evidently not as thoroughly as they should.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#46

Post by croon »

jlarsson89 wrote: post #43
croon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that detracts any from the initial point. Step one is still to initially only award licenses to competent drivers. That more can be done is (I suspect) a perpetual truth.

I agree, but to live up to that system those that are no longer competent should have it taken away. As far as I know(I don't drive) there is no need to ever re-take the theory test which has been revised a number of times since many people took their license in the first place or pass any kind of medical to have it renewed.

> As far as I know(I don't drive) there is no need to ever re-take the theory test which has been revised a number of times since many people took their license in the first place or pass any kind of medical to have it renewed.

That is correct. However, this is also true in the US. So since neither requires retaking any tests upon renewal, Swedish drivers (assuming initial premise to be correct) will always be better than their US counterparts, on a proportional decline over time on a graph.

I agree that there might be something to do there, but it is again not invalidating the initial statement.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#47

Post by TomK32 »

ed_balls wrote: post #31
sjwright wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why anyone would want that. At no time in the two decades I've been driving a car, I've never, ever, ever thought to myself "This seatbelt is annoying, I wish I didn't have to use it." I don't even recall ever thinking that as a child passenger.

There are 2 reasons - Health issues - trouble breathing. - getting stuck in the car that's on fire, drowning etc. (yes I know you are better of with the seatbelt)

We have a few decades of statistics that tell use that wearing a seatbelt and not getting flung out of a car during an accident is much saver than getting stuck in the car. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/jul/1...

Seatbelts save lives, it's a fact you can't get around. When they developed and tried them, they realized how good seatbelts are and decided that every car should have them, not patent fee for any manufacturer.

Or just don't buy an electric car...

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#48

Post by jakeogh »

acdha wrote: post #34
jakeogh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not dependence, it's preference. Americans (and most everyone else) like to control their 4-vecor.

In many places it’s dependence. If everything you need requires traveling miles without good sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. and the population density is too low for public transit, a car is a requirement.

I'm trying to not pick one thing and run with it, so I'll kinda ignore the miles without sidewalks thing, so consider bike lanes, if it's rural, why bother? Bike lanes make sense (kinda) in a high car density only.

Have you considered that some people deliberately don't live in cities structured around that because they consider not using (or paying for the infrastructure of) public transit a good thing?

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#49

Post by jakeogh »

abelsson wrote: post #33
jakeogh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not dependence, it's preference. Americans (and most everyone else) like to control their 4-vecor.

Having spent quite a bit of time in the US, I've noticed that getting somewhere there takes about the same amount time as home (which happens to be Sweden, hence me clicking the link). As an anecdotal example, some common times for me were about as follows: Going to work, 15 minutes. Grocery store, 5 minutes. Larger shopping mall, 30 minutes. The difference is that in the US that time is spent driving, while home it'…

I can get anywhere in my local city in the time it takes me to jump in my car and drive there. Comparing that with walking to a bus stop and waiting for it to get near my destination is not even remotely close, _and I wouldn't want to even if it was faster_. Talking about speed (while important) ignores the ability to instantly change your plan.

Your experience might work in a closely spaced situation (hence your odd comparison of moving at a magnitude difference velocity), where most people pick the same mall and live close to eachother, but that's not how large countries work.

Re: Road safety tips from Sweden

#50

Post by ed_balls »

TomK32 wrote: post #47
ed_balls wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 reasons - Health issues - trouble breathing. - getting stuck in the car that's on fire, drowning etc. (yes I know you are better of with the seatbelt)

We have a few decades of statistics that tell use that wearing a seatbelt and not getting flung out of a car during an accident is much saver than getting stuck in the car. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/jul/1... Seatbelts save lives, it's a fact you can't get around. When they developed and tried them, they realized how good seatbelts are and decided that every car should have them, not paten…

Not sure why the downvote. I'm just presenting BS arguments that people have for not using it. I'm fully aware it's a bad idea.
Post reply on HN