481–490 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally those things are helpful but I think China has pretty well demonstrated that there’s no alternative universe where fully locking everything down eliminates Covid.
China represents 18% of the world's population, yet 0.07% of COVID-19 fatalities. Seems like there is some value in their approach.
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…
In addition, the extra expense associated with regulation to make planes ultra-safe makes it unaffordable for some people. Those people then go on to use a vastly less safe form of transportation.
The nature of aviation, where unplanned problems result in unplanned non-optional landings in random locations (instead of just pulling off the side of the road), would rapidly turn aviation into the most dangerous transport mode. Aviation would soon become unsustainable, and available to no one.
How does making it less safe help anything? (note that I'm not discussing the FAA's massive inefficiencies, many of which I'm sure could be improved without compromising safety)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally it's required, but I think their point is it should be required by hardware. Right now most new cars just beep at you, but you can still operate them.
We never pushed for it politically because it wouldn't change anything but it would piss people off. You can simply buckle the seatbelt with nobody in the seat, then sit down, and the requirement is defeated. On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.
That would do nothing accept waste countless man hours of productivity, consume a great deal of money, and ensure that the next generation of politicians would be Libertarians.
I'm a volunteer firefighter in a rural town in the Northeast. We handle a fairly large area and go to about 80 motor vehicle accident calls a year, of which about 20-25 require patient extrication and about 5-8 involve one or more fatalities.
More of these MVAs involve a non-intoxicated elderly person who made a driving error than involve an intoxicated driver (that's including people who nod off on heroin, not just drunks).
If we had a clear-eyed view of risk mitigation, we'd make people over, say, 75 take a comprehensive vision and neuromotor exam to keep their drivers licenses current but we don't, because old people vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. We don’t fear things under our control. Do I fear driving my car? No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). I can drive defensively. I can stay focused. I can avoid dangerous intersections. I wear a seat belt and have a big safe SUV. Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. Animals are scary (spiders, snakes) because we can’t control them. Disease is scary when we can’…
> Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. For anyone here concerned about this, it doesn’t take very much money in HN-terms to become reasonably well trained. You can: 1) Carry your own weapon, following your state’s laws in all but a few. 2) Learn to use that weapon very well, but more importantly: 3) Learn to use cover and move defensively or offensively 4) Learn to administer basic medic…
My kid sister died in a car accident two weeks ago. Now I find the numbers unfathomable. How can 40,000 families be suffering like this, every year?
Because even 40,000 people is only a lot relatively. It is just 0.012% of the American population and 0.00051% of the world population.
To OP: Sorry for your loss. I can't imagine what it's like.
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…
> 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. But that makes sense statistically, because those are thousands of ostensibly independent events that don't necessarily have a single common cause, where the massacre of a…
I don't think a common cause is what makes the difference, and you see it with lung cancer due to smoking.
The shock factor of plane crashes is brought on by them being so rare, killing a lot of people at once, and almost guaranteeing those fatalities. This makes them shocking and unforgettable, they get a reputation.
On the other hand most people have been in a car crash of some sort (a fender bender) and not only survived but walked away without a scratch. Plus the stream of news about individual crashes just desensitizes people even further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you arguing that drivers don't have any control over their level of risk on the road? Sure they can't eliminate 100% of risk, but not speeding and not driving drunk absolutely influences a driver's likelihood of being in an accident.
no, speeding hardly changes risk at all, but reckless driving certainly can, but that’s beside the point. the point is that changing your own behavior (i.e., “control”) has a negligible marginal effect on reducing your overall risk. nearly all of the practical risk is external and therefore out of your control (unless you manufacture additional risk by being distracted, reckless, and/or impaired). you can’t really lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars should have a regulator installed by the manufacturer to limit speed to 20mph on roads with people, and to 60mph on grade separated highways. This maximum would barely change your time to destination, but it would save thousands of lives per year. - 20mph: 90% survival rate - 30mph: 60% survival rate - 40mph: 20% survival rate https://www.betterstreetschicago.org/blog/chicago-speed-came...
Staying home on the couch: 100% survival rate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. We don’t fear things under our control. Do I fear driving my car? No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). I can drive defensively. I can stay focused. I can avoid dangerous intersections. I wear a seat belt and have a big safe SUV. Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. Animals are scary (spiders, snakes) because we can’t control them. Disease is scary when we can’…
> Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. For anyone here concerned about this, it doesn’t take very much money in HN-terms to become reasonably well trained. You can: 1) Carry your own weapon, following your state’s laws in all but a few. 2) Learn to use that weapon very well, but more importantly: 3) Learn to use cover and move defensively or offensively 4) Learn to administer basic medic…