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

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#661

Post by WesternWind » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

WesternWind wrote: post #225

kjksf wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to look at kilometers driven per person, not just ownership. Americans drive far far more than most other industrialized nations. https://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/fact-file-americans-...

American roads could also be a lot safer.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90771003/american-roads-are-desi...

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#662

Post by throwaway0a5e » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 12:47 AM UTC

daedalus_j wrote: post #605

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice. Get caught in a DUI? You simply never. drive. again... Ever. No 2nd chance. Hurt or kill someone as a DUI? Mandatory minimum jail time. The difference is that this encourages personal responsibility and has personal consequences, rather than attempting to police the entire population for the bad deeds of th…

> Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice.

Every jackboot says this but in reality it does nothing because everyone thinks they're good and won't get caught.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#663

Post by rufus_foreman » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 12:53 AM UTC

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…

>> When a plane or train crashes, we stop everything and redesign the entire network to prevent this from happening again

There was a train crash less than a month ago that killed 4 people and injured 150, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Missouri_train_derailment.

It was at a crossing that didn't have warning lights or crossing gates. Which is a known issue and has been for many decades.

We are not going to stop everything and redesign the entire rail network to prevent this from happening again, because it would cost too much. Even if saving lives and preventing injuries was the only priority, there are better ways to spend money than improving railroad crossings in rural areas.

The current mileage death rate for motor vehicles is around 1.5 deaths per 100,000,000 miles driven. Marginal improvements in that have to be cheap to be cost-effective, there are many ways to save lives and prevent injuries in America if you have money to spend.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#664

Post by frosted-flakes » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 12:54 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #273

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…

> 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. My summary is different: if thousands of people die because the government specifically puts them in harm's way but doesn't give them the best available protection against…

> You can't design perfect roads that will magically prevent all accidents.

Sure you can. They are called cycle roads, for bikes. Cars kill people, bikes don't. If American cities were designed with bicycle and train transport in mind, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#665

Post by jrkatz » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 12:59 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #624

jrkatz wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lock their car and take them to the police station and let them contact someone from there. But don't force them to pay a fine or go to court if they haven't caused harm. Supposing at least some drunk drivers are aware they are drunk but fully convinced they will not harm anyone, this improves their worst case scenario substantially. Before, losing their license; now, getting even closer to home before calling a ri…

> the common consensus is that certainty of punishment is the primary deterrent against criminal activity. There is no such thing as "certainty of punishment". There isn't even "certainty of punishment if you get caught", since our society is not a sane society in this respect and lets people who do cause harm, up to and including murder, off the hook for all manner of insane ideological reasons. That said, I didn't…

I'm sorry, I should have been clear. The 'certainty of punishment' bit should be understood as a probability. The gist of it is that a person considering criminal behavior isn't worried about the severity of the punishment `S` in isolation, but also the likelihood (read: 'certainty') `C` thereof. Simplistically the deterrence model is `C*S`. An extremely severe punishment (execution!) with zero or effectively zero chance of getting caught provides no deterrence. There's more to it - for example doubling severity does not double deterrence in general - but that's the gist of it.

My little thought experiment supposes a person who is drunk evaluates, before deciding to get in the car, the potential outcomes of drunk drive, while entirely convinced they won't harm someone. (I suspect most drunk drives are entirely convinced they won't harm someone, although it is obvious to anybody else there is at least a _chance_ they will.) Today, getting caught with whatever nonzero probability results in a punishment of some severity. By the model we're assuming above, this produces a nonzero amount of deterrence. If we shift away from punishing drunk drivers, the severity drops to zero. If a drunk's options are to call for a ride from the bar or try to drive home, and getting caught at the latter only mean they'll have to call for a ride from some location between the bar and home, driving is the rational choice after all, _so long as they are convinced they won't hurt anybody_.

I was being too circumspect. The point of my scenario is to highlight that decriminalizing drunk driving will likely increase the amount of drunk driving, at least among the population of drunk drivers who are overconfident in their abilities. That in turn will increase the danger drunk drivers present to the rest of us.

I gather you think reaction is morally preferable to prevention in such cases. Is that a fair assertion? In general, I bet we agree there is some amount of risk to myself that I must tolerate to afford others their freedoms, and have just landed at different risk tolerances. I try to take need into account when drawing my line in the sand. "Does anybody _need_ to drive drunk?". Since it's a situation drunk drivers make for themselves I'm happy to punish it. How do you draw your line?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#666

Post by alar44 » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

AlwaysRock wrote: post #315

Never owned a car of my own until two years ago. Our car has been hit three times in the last two years. Once totaled on the high way (another drivers fault) and twice while parked. Roughly 50K in damages across the two cars and 3 months in the shop doing repairs. We spent 20K on a new car after the old one was totaled and insurance paid out a fraction of what a similar car would cost. We've paid close to 2K in deduc…

I've been driving for 23 years, in the north, where we have icy roads and blizzards 6 months out of the year. Been in one accident in my entire life.

I like driving.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#667

Post by freedomben » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #284

dmead wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, but cars will function without them being used.

At least in Europe, there is a very annoying beep if you don't wear the seatbelt. You can still drive, and there are ways to disable it, but most people just wear their seatbelt. I don't think it is mandatory, but it counts in the EuroNCAP score, and since it is one of the easiest safety feature to implement, they all have it.

US cars are the same way. If you move faster than 5 mph (which is really slow) and aren't wearing the seat belt, the car will start with uncomfortable beeping. It eventually climaxes to a nigh unbearable screech.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#668

Post by daedalus_j » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #662

daedalus_j wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice. Get caught in a DUI? You simply never. drive. again... Ever. No 2nd chance. Hurt or kill someone as a DUI? Mandatory minimum jail time. The difference is that this encourages personal responsibility and has personal consequences, rather than attempting to police the entire population for the bad deeds of th…

> Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice. Every jackboot says this but in reality it does nothing because everyone thinks they're good and won't get caught.

Well, then we just have to accept is as a cost of doing business and not try to stop it, because the same could be said about anything short of a full all-knowing surveillance state. People commit murder because they think they're good and won't get caught. Some don't. Better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent be convicted though. So we just have to decide how far down "convicted" really means, and if I need to ask the tech gods in the sky for permission to start my car every time I want to go somewhere I'm feeling rather convicted...

Personally I'd rather live in a world with consequences than live in the lowest-common-denominator big-brother world.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#669

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #541

naasking wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We know, though, that there are certain patterns and behaviors that contribute to car accidents. For example, we know that speeding was a factor in something like a third of all car deaths. And I’m pretty confident that’s an underestimate, because there are lots of roads where the speed limit almost certainly should be slower and speed would not be indicated in the accident report, even though it was a factor. (I als…

> If we regulated automobiles the same way we regulate aircraft, every single automobile would have a speed governor installed.

With regards to airplane speed limits in FAR 91.117, the responsibility is entirely on the pilot. There are no speed governors to prevent the pilot from busting this reg and it’s somewhat common for pilots to struggle with this in their first jet transition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.117

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#670

Post by bee_rider » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #463

unsupp0rted wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People shouldn't really drive 300 miles in individual private vehicles. Apart from the chance of accidentally killing oneself or others, it's hugely inefficient. If we changed an interstate full of cars to high speed trains (or hyperloop or whatever) which depart every half hour, it'd be safer, cheaper, cleaner... you name it.

So what should I do? Take a train? Doesn't go there. Bus? Again. Fly? That's not more efficient. Maybe grandma just doesn't need a visit from her grandkids. Instead, I bought an electric car. I bet it compares quite favorably to a typical bus. And grandma does like to see her grandkids, let me tell ya.

I expected to see better performance from the bus, but it is surprisingly poor:

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

Haven't dug into their sources, but I assume this is because buses often run with low utilization. Anyway the answer is trains, the answer is always trains in public transit.