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

Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#261

Post by KptMarchewa »

kjksf wrote: post #212
googlryas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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_vehicles_... 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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#262

Post by chris_va »

flaque wrote: post #96

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 redesi…

To play devil's advocate, we already employ hundreds of thousands of "cities, planners, and civil engineers" continuously to battle these distributed deaths.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#263

Post by seabea »

jiveturkey wrote: post #174
CodeAndCuffs wrote: post #155

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 infl…

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.

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).

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#264

Post by lief79 »

eckesicle wrote: post #243

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).

Interesting.

Note, soldiers are initially filtered for health conditions. It's not the same starting point.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#265

Post by theptip »

eckesicle wrote: post #243

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).

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.)

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#266

Post by lovich »

WalterBright wrote: post #228
wizofaus wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

> 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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#267

Post by distant_hat »

giantg2 wrote: post #10
jandrese wrote: post #3

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 autonomo…

"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.

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.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#268

Post by lovich »

WalterBright wrote: post #253
Arrath wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not going to happen.

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

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#269

Post by recursive »

panzagl wrote: post #179
epistasis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> 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?

> 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.

Post reply on HN