Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#61

Post by InitialLastName » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #57

ecshafer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Who I can think to blame here: * The auto manufacturer for not having sensors to detect this. * The city for making car dependent areas * The city for making roads that have cars drive so fast by pedestrians, that the pedestrian can die if hit * The driver for not driving more reasonably * The city for not…

> If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Even 5 mph is too fast if the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant. In other words your statement boils down to "driver can stop unless they can't".

If the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant, but still possible, there's an engineer somewhere who designed a road irresponsibly.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#62

Post by chiefofgxbxl » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #8

I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. E.g. in the first article we should view the woman as a vulnerable road user, bearing no responsibility for being struck by a vehicle even though video evidence shows that she fell into the street.

Respectfully, I think you're demonstrating the sort of thinking the corpus of research surrounding this seeks to shine a spotlight on: blaming the victim, rather than focusing on safe and forgiving design.

Should our built environment be such that falling down in public should end your life? Do people deserve to die simply because they want to cross the street? Why do we design residential neighborhoods where parents are afraid of letting their kids play outside due to traffic? Do drivers of 4,000+ lbs of steel and glass bear greater responsibility than pedestrians and bicyclists.

In the article you mention with the woman falling into the street, the article makes no mention of street design. Further, emphasis is placed on the victim, but nothing is said of the driver.

- What is the speed limit on that road? Fast-moving vehicles will require faster reaction time and longer stopping distances. Maybe areas that mix traffic with VRUs need to be reworked.

- Did the driver appear to make any effort to stop? If so, why doesn't the article mention it if they already have video evidence? If not, did the driver not see the woman? Was the driver distracted?

- Did poor illumination contribute to this collision? (If so, that's a design element: street lighting).

> I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing.

I'm posting this to demonstrate my work and seek honest and meaningful criticism to improve the tool and help improve public discourse around a public safety matter that is killing 30k-40k people per year in the U.S., and injuring millions. You can avoid the underhanded and snarky quip.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#63

Post by InitialLastName » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #46

bluGill wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to make roads safer is to make better drivers. There is a lot of training and continuing education that can be done to make better drivers. It is far too easy to drive, and once you get your license it is very hard to lose it even as your body degrades to the point you cannot see. People think of bad driving tickets (mostly speeding) as just a price you pay to drive. I've never heard of someone getting a tail…

Let's say all that is true. How does using a computer program to reword all traffic accident reports as being caused by drivers solve this problem? Doesn't it just make people trust accident reports less?

People reading the news aren't the only people who use traffic crash reports. They are also used (and can subtly influence) the people who make decisions about road planning. The culture we have of blaming pedestrians/cyclists and exonerating drivers (when, to be clear, the drivers are the ones creating the danger) leads directly to planning decisions that perpetuate road conditions that would be unconscionably dangerous in any other engineering field.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#64

Post by AJ007 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #26

dymk wrote: post #9

This is neat, but something bugs me about the framing of the intended goal versus how you propose to get there. If the intent is to raise public awareness and to put pressure on leadership to make roads generally safer, why do almost all the corrections follow a pattern of shifting blame from the individual pedestrian onto the individual driver? Many of the suggested fixes are just their own form of counterfactual -…

One way to make roads safer is to make better drivers. There is a lot of training and continuing education that can be done to make better drivers. It is far too easy to drive, and once you get your license it is very hard to lose it even as your body degrades to the point you cannot see. People think of bad driving tickets (mostly speeding) as just a price you pay to drive. I've never heard of someone getting a tail…

The amazing thing is how many of the most egregious incidents involve drivers with suspended licenses or no licenses. At the moment, in the US, due to bail reform consequences are minimal unless someone is actual killed.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#65

Post by dml2135 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #57

ecshafer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Who I can think to blame here: * The auto manufacturer for not having sensors to detect this. * The city for making car dependent areas * The city for making roads that have cars drive so fast by pedestrians, that the pedestrian can die if hit * The driver for not driving more reasonably * The city for not…

> If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Even 5 mph is too fast if the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant. In other words your statement boils down to "driver can stop unless they can't".

It is extremely unlikely that someone will be killed by a 5 mph collision, and it is certainly less likely than a 30 mph collision.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#66

Post by praxulus » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #53

kazinator wrote: post #23

I don't think that "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet" or "impairment was not an issue" are examples of counterfactuals; the authors should crack open a dictionary look up what that word means in general use, and additionally how it is used in philosophy and science. If you have word from the police that the driver was not found to have any alcohol or if the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, those are simply facts…

Thanks for the feedback. There seems to be some conflict with how to define "counterfactual". Merriam-Webster defines it as "contrary to fact" [1], so that comes down to a statement being either true or false. But the way I'm using it (and the research my work is based off) aligns more with the Cambridge dictionary usage: "thinking about what did not happen but could have happened, or relating to this kind of thinkin…

Your counterfactual explanation makes sense in the helmet example, but I think most people wouldn't be able to figure out that connection without such an explanation. Even if it's correct, it's still confusing. For example, I can't figure out what the relevant counterfactual is in the alcohol example.

That's not to say that these are purely value-neutral facts, it still makes sense for them to be called out by this tool. I wish I had a better term for them though, rather than just complaining about the current label.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#67

Post by dgfitz » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

ecshafer wrote: post #31

JackFr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be obtuse. A person collapses into the street and is struck by oncoming traffic - no one is to blame. It is an accident.

If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Who I can think to blame here: * The auto manufacturer for not having sensors to detect this. * The city for making car dependent areas * The city for making roads that have cars drive so fast by pedestrians, that the pedestrian can die if hit * The driver for not driving more reasonably * The city for not…

> If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast.

Or they collapse mere seconds before the car strikes them making the __accident__ unavoidable.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#68

Post by dfxm12 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #30

whimsicalism wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do not think you bear responsibility if you collapse and someone strikes you with their car and then flees the scene.

Don’t be obtuse. A person collapses into the street and is struck by oncoming traffic - no one is to blame. It is an accident.

Who's being obtuse? It looks like neither you nor the parent comment assign blame to the woman that the driver struck. From here, it looks like you are in agreement.

The parent comment didn't even say one way or another if the driver who struck the woman should get any blame...

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#69

Post by karaterobot » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

markstos wrote: post #55

karaterobot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be inaccurate, unethical, and potentially libelous for any newspaper to construe the events of a potential criminal act (or any event, really) without doing any investigation to support that conclusion, and primarily in order to further an editorial agenda.

I've been employed as a newspaper editor and am familiar with libel laws and the ethics of journalism. What's been advocated for is accurate reporting, not conclusion-jumping. Currently there are headlines like this: "Car hits cyclist" Why is a victim a person but the actor is an inanimate object? They don't say "car hits bike". A more accurate headline would be "Car driver hits cyclist". The other way to improve rep…

> Why is a victim a person but the actor is an inanimate object?

To humanize the victim without ascribing blame, when blame is unknown. For the same reason you wouldn't have a headline that read "Alice killed Bob with her car": even though that may technically be true, it's needlessly critical. Needless from the perspective of an editorially neutral party, like a newspaper, but not from the perspective of an activist, like this website.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#70

Post by kortex » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #61

ballenf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Even 5 mph is too fast if the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant. In other words your statement boils down to "driver can stop unless they can't".

If the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant, but still possible, there's an engineer somewhere who designed a road irresponsibly.

Exactly this. The human-factors-engineering take is that these should be mutually exclusive:

- a driver should be able to brake if a person falls suddenly (streets)

- a person is isolated from/ is incapable of falling suddenly into oncoming traffic (roads)

It's the same reason highways are fenced off, extended to streets and roads. A big part of the problem is America's reliance on stroads: too fast to be hospitable for non-drivers, insufficiently isolated to protect non-drivers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad