Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#31

Post by sonofhans » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

intrepidhero wrote: post #12

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 abo…

> 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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#32

Post by woodruffw » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

ratsmack wrote: post #18

woodruffw wrote: post #2

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.

>... 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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#33

Post by yongjik » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #15

woodruffw wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#34

Post by TylerE » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #33

TylerE wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 the…

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#35

Post by j-bos » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #13

causi wrote: post #4

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.

How do veteran farmers compare to non-veteran farmers? (Or fishermen etc?)

This is a thought provoking question, thanks for that.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#36

Post by BlargMcLarg » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #15

woodruffw wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#37

Post by toyg » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #15

woodruffw wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#38

Post by eesmith » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

> 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

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#39

Post by userbinator » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #15

woodruffw wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#40

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #34

yongjik wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

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.

There’s risk mitigation there in the form of training and testing.