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

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#571

Post by Fricken » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:17 PM UTC

clint wrote: post #232

WalterBright wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wearing a seatbelt is an individual choice, and should not be a crime. P.S. Growing up, my dad had the dealer install seatbelts in the family wagon before he picked it up. We never moved an inch unless everyone was buckled up. Nobody else, and I mean nobody else, had seatbelts in their car at the time. P.P.S. Seatbelts also saved my life.

Not wearing a seat belt is dangerous to others when you're catapulted through your windshield at 90mph into traffic. This is not the clear-cut case you want to make it out to be.

Is there any evidence that an ejected car occupant injured a bystander even once?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#572

Post by 988747 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:17 PM UTC

throwaway6734 wrote: post #455

porknubbins wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the author seems to state that there are many more traffic deaths than commercial transport deaths as if the point is self evident but I do not see it. From my perspective its a minor miracle that there aren't more traffic deaths. We let any private individual drive up to a 20,000 something pound vehicle with pretty minimal licensing requirements (in most places in the US). The news story is that it mostly goes o…

my personal theory is that people's overconfidence in their ability as drivers and underestimating the risk of driving ends up making the process much safer than if people were more grounded in reality

It's not even about confidence. It's a matter of being in control. When you drive you can do something about whether or not you crash. When you are a passenger in a plane or train you are completely helpless.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#573

Post by BitwiseFool » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:19 PM UTC

SwetDrems wrote: post #278

What other engineering field has acceptable death rates? We design roads EXPECTING people to die on them. Insane.

>"What other engineering field has acceptable death rates?"

I'd say virtually all of them, in some form or fashion. Everything has a tradeoff. There is an acceptable death rate electrocution, if there wasn't we wouldn't allow our homes to have electricity.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#574

Post by Fricken » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:20 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #183

jiveturkey wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because your death becomes an externality that others have to pay for.

Everybody is entitled to one free death.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#575

Post by colpabar » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:20 PM UTC

spankalee wrote: post #421

colpabar wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an extremely cynical american, my view is that we don't do anything because guns are a big industry in america, and industry controls our government in all the places that matter. But my point was more that we only ever talk about gun violence when a very specific type of gun violence occurs, and pointing out the incidents that constitute the bulk of the aggregate number usually gets you called a racist.

Quoted post unavailable.

If you only care about the black lives ended by white cops, you might not care about black lives.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#576

Post by vel0city » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:21 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #415

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This maximum would barely change your time to destination Yes it would. The drive from LA to San Francisco is about 300 miles on Interstate 5. Much of this highway is completely straight, with excellent visibility through an unpopulated desert. When sparsely trafficked (as it is much of the time), it is safe to drive 80+ MPH on I5 for hours at a time. At 80 MPH, this is a 3 hour 45 minute drive. At your proposed 60…

Gonna go ahead and say the unthinkable here... so what? The person driving fast endangers themselves and everyone else around them. In what other area of society do we tolerate extremely dangerous behavior (40,000+ deaths a year) because to not would be an inconvenience? Guns, I suppose. But I'm not a huge fan or our polices around those either.

In a controlled access highway (no intersections, no pedestrians, no other kinds of traffic but cars going the same direction) with people paying attention and everyone going roughly the same speed the overall safety doesn't really change from 60 to 70 to 80mph. Texas raised the speed limits on a lot of back country highways to 90MPH. Guess what happened to the fatality rate. Practically unchanged.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#577

Post by notch656a » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:23 PM UTC

yreg wrote: post #533

whimsicalism wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live? West coast or South?

Is there no mandatory insurance to cover damages to others in the US? In my country if I want to drive a car it has to have this insurance so if I crash into someone all of the damage I do to them is covered.

Most people have insurance but the ones doing the crashing disproportionately do not, either because their prior crashing resulted in a requirement for expensive bonded insurance or because their habit of crashing made their insurance prohibitively expensive. I think some places also won't insure drivers who don't have a license, which also correlates well with drivers who get drunk and crash into things.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#578

Post by mwint » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:24 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #485

mwint wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

no, if you want to survive a mass shooting, you don’t need to do anything, especially not buy a gun, and your likelihood of not dying by mass shooting stays the same, basically zero. your chances of dying by gun increase much more simply by having one than you could ever hope to reduce the risk of dying by mass shooting by having one. if you were in the exceedingly unlikely scenario of a mass shooting, brandishing a…

Never brandish a gun. Proper training means going from deep concealment to shots on target in a few seconds, maximum.

Your cited statistic is one reason open carry is a Bad Idea; it puts you first in line to be eliminated. Concealment, all the way.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#579

Post by tinco » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:24 PM UTC

SilverBirch wrote: post #401

namesbc wrote: post #314

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...

Well done, you've specified a superset of self driiving without delivering any economic benefit. Oh, and every road in Europe is now a hazard because you've designed new cars with absurdly low speed limits. But no I'm sure your baselesss opinion on speeds is best.

You do realize in general persons on the road have a positive impact on the economy if they survive their travel right?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#580

Post by robotresearcher » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 11:24 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #404

profile53 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wearing a seatbelt is also a choice to force the healthcare system to support the person for 50 years after they break their neck in a preventable way. The choice is individual but the consequences are societal.

One of the things I don't like about free health care is it comes with the notion that the government should force you to do things to reduce those costs.

No it doesn't. The US government doesn't force military vets and retirees to quit smoking and eating donuts.

I don't think a single one of the many countries with socialized health care for all does this.

They may pay for education and awareness of the risks of smoking, and they may highly tax cigarettes to dissuade you. But they don't force you.