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

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

#111

Post by benatkin » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

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 -…

> 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?

I think "almost all" would have to include the various use of the word accident when the fault hasn't been fully determined. I've been following Project Zero for years now and that is a big part of our shtick. And that certainly is not shifting the blame from the pedestrian to the driver. It is merely removing a harmful assumption.

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

#112

Post by nzmsv » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:58 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…

By the same token though, everyone on this discussion is jumping to "we must reduce speeds in cities" without doing any analysis of whether the collision would be survivable at the lower speed they are proposing. They just assume they don't need to because they have the moral high ground.

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

#113

Post by nzmsv » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

dml2135 wrote: post #65

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".

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.

Cars are heavy things and can kill you even if they move at 5mph: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/22/anton-yelchin-d...

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

#114

Post by Karrot_Kream » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #100

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is so car dependent that it's very politically fraught to make it harder to get a driver's license. Not allowing a person to drive in much of the US is a matter of equity; people that can't drive can't make it to their jobs, can't buy their groceries, etc. What that means of course is that the US usually just knowingly increases the risk of non-drivers because of its brittle dependence on cars, and thus disinc…

I dunno, some of this is also the fact the US people are huge babies about certain things, like being able to walk places. For example, there was a reddit thread from an American flabbergasted that people in the UK will actually go on 30-minute-long walks down to their local shops. Is a 30 minute walk really that absurd?

It's a set of interrelated issues. Much of the US is zoned/regulated to be friendly to drivers and not pedestrians. For an egregious example, most of Downtown LA (so not the suburbs) you can walk for 30 minutes and maybe only see 5 different stores. Because of this, American culture has stopped talking about walking. As such for a lot of Americans, walking for 30 minutes to get somewhere is absurd culturally, but driving 30 minutes to go to a store is much more acceptable.

You can see the effect even more when it comes to recreational hobbies and sports. Americans don't really just walk or bike around. Walking and biking/cycling are usually specific activities, so most Americans buy special exercise clothing or exercise gear to go (by car) to specific spots friendly for walking and cycling to perform their recreational activities and come back. Walking is still a popular casual activity in urban areas but in a lot of suburban areas there aren't even the sidewalks in place to make it safe to walk around. Most Americans only really dress/prepare for the walk from their house to the car and from the car to the store/office/destination, then back if they're not specifically out to perform their recreational athletic hobbies.

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

#115

Post by TeaDrunk » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #100

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is so car dependent that it's very politically fraught to make it harder to get a driver's license. Not allowing a person to drive in much of the US is a matter of equity; people that can't drive can't make it to their jobs, can't buy their groceries, etc. What that means of course is that the US usually just knowingly increases the risk of non-drivers because of its brittle dependence on cars, and thus disinc…

I dunno, some of this is also the fact the US people are huge babies about certain things, like being able to walk places. For example, there was a reddit thread from an American flabbergasted that people in the UK will actually go on 30-minute-long walks down to their local shops. Is a 30 minute walk really that absurd?

Depending on region, a 30 minute walk can be dangerous to one's health due to hot, humid temperatures or smoke inhalation.

(Besides that, a 30 minute walk can be inconvenient- the stuff you're buying might not support being carried for 30 minutes. I tried to get a friend to consider giving up a car-based life and they asked me how they're going to move their stuff for LAN parties and gun hobby related activities.)

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

#116

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #48

Spivak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this isn't an act of god that no one could have possibly foreseen. This is system designed by humans that we have 100% control over.

This is the key point of the research and the tool I built, and clearly I still have some work to do on making this clear on my site: The objective is not to shift blame from one party to the other, even if its shifting from VRUs to drivers. The important thing is that we emphasize that all car crashes have a cause and known solutions ! Nearly all news articles miss this point, and tend to place blame (even inadverte…

FWIW, one way in which you lost me early on was framing it as VRU vs driver. I don't see it in such simple terms. There are road users. It is not always the pedestrian that is killed. Sometimes it is another driver. And pedestrians can absolutely be the cause of a wreck where the driver dies. Not to mention, someone can be a VRU now, and a driver in a few minutes, then a VRU again.

There are lots of good reasons to make roads safer, lots of methods for doing so, and none of them require making drivers the villains.

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

#117

Post by yodelshady » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:11 PM UTC

That's actually pretty amazing work.

Being super preachy, as a cliched straight white etc etc... after riding a bike I sort of get complaints about -isms, emotionally, in a way I wouldn't without.

Everyone has already concluded that you deserved it. Whatever happened. It does not matter if you were wearing hi-vis, or had a light, or were in a bike lane, or the nearest bike lane is 5 miles away and on the pavement for some reason, or were 3.1 ft from the kerb or 2.6. If you were stopped at a red light and are now sprawled in front of it because a van didn't, you're clearly lying. If a motorist jumps a set of temporary lights and hit you when you had the green, you're clearly lying. You deserved it, always and forever, is the only argument you need to know, the rest is window dressing.

Now we wonder why kids don't get exercise.

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

#118

Post by Tarrosion » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

A few months ago I wrote a short Twitter rant about a Boston Globe article that described a pedestrian being struck by a driver really poorly.

Thread: https://twitter.com/evanjfields/status/1387131251811831812/

Article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/27/metro/woman-28-seriou...

To my surprise, this tool finds no problems with the article and gives it a B.

(I'm really tickled by the tool, like the idea, but based on a totally not rigorous sample, seems like the tool leans a bit too much into sort of sentence structure analysis and elides some semantics?)

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

#119

Post by MauranKilom » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #62

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…

Calling them "editorial anti-patterns" because they don't frame the discussion how you would like it to be framed is... well, an antipattern in itself.

Let me be clear: Your goal of improving road safety is laudable, and the aspects your tool highlights are conceivably a way to achieve that. But priming visitors to expect "editorial anti-patterns" and then instead presenting "insufficiently biased-to-the-pedestrian" snippets is dishonest.

While there are recommendations in there I fully support (e.g. "highlight systematic problems"), I am particularly put off by repeated suggestions like "the driver hit the cyclist": Unless the driver itself physically made contact with the cyclist, this is between inaccurate and confusing. It sounds like a fist fight broke out when the fundamental happening was someone being injured by sudden contact with a vehicle.

You can still involve the driver in the sentence if needed, but please don't advocate for confusing reporting in the name of unconditionally blaming individuals.

Also, suggestion for an addition: If you want to improve road safety, you could also recommend report on the maintenance status of the vehicle (e.g. were the brakes well-serviced?).

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

#120

Post by what_is_orcas » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #60

ihaveajob wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with using "accident" as the default term is that it preempts any evidence-finding, implying that it was nobody's fault. If someone shoots their gun randomly and someone gets hurt by just being there, nobody will call it an "accident", but somehow if the weapon is a car, the driver gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of the facts.

Of course if there is evidence that the driver deliberately tried to kill someone, nobody will call it an accident. I would imagine that the vast majority of car deaths are indeed accidental, not murders. This seems to contrast with the situation of gun deaths. No?

There's a few really busy streets in my neighborhood where people regularly go 10-20 MPH over the speed limit.

Not surprisingly, there are quite a few hit-and-runs on those streets.

While it's probably the case that the folks who are speeding are just being selfish ("I want to minimize my time on the road") but they are doing so at the cost of safety. The equivalent w/r/t guns might be that someone was firing their gun willy-nilly, with little regard to their surroundings. If someone died in such a scenario, yes, it would have been an "accident" but we would also assign fault to the shooter (gross negligence, manslaughter, I am not a lawyer so I don't know the exact terminology).

The reality is that cars are EXTREMELY dangerous and yet Americans don't tend to think of them that way, and we definitely don't drive them (as a society) with that mindset.