Live data from Hacker News

Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

strongtowns.org

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#681
post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any such accidents in real life? Do you have any statistics on ejected people causing other accidents? What about when people were saved because they were flung from a car? Like when the car catches fire, falls off a bridge, goes into the river, goes into another lane to be smacked by a truck?

I don't feel like arguing because you're "not even wrong" [0] and I don't have time to educate you or find references you'll find compelling. I would be happy to do so if you want to spend several hours educating me on compiler internals, but I think that probably that's the last thing you want to do today. I hope you do wear your seatbelt, or at least never get into an accident if not. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

You could ask your parents if any of the scenarios they reconstructed were about cases where the person was better off being ejected. Getting trapped in a burning car is a real risk.

https://www.cleveland19.com/story/26647201/neighbrs-watch-a-...

I always wear my seatbelt. Longer than anyone else, probably, because I was doing it more than a decade before the law required it.

I did a course on compiler internals once. It wasn't well received, I'm still not sure what went wrong. I don't really want to bore anyone :-)

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#682
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. But each individual death from car accidents is not enough to trigger the same response in cities, planners, and civil engineers.

I used to think this was very dumb and irrational. but eventually I came to think that the statistical death toll doesn't capture the full impact of a problem. how people feel about it is just as important, if not moreso.

yes, driving is pretty high on list of dangerous things we do. but in my whole life I've only known two people that died in crashes and one who was lucky to survive. I take appropriate precautions, of course, but it isn't something that I think about every time I get in a car. on the other hand, if a few guys flew another plane into a skyscraper, I'd be thinking about that every time I got on a plane for a while, even though I'd still be way more likely to die on my way to the airport. doesn't really make sense, but that's how humans are.

the things that make us happy, sad, or fearful are pretty arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. it's not unreasonable to optimize for the things people actually care about. or at least it's not less reasonable than a more "scientific" approach. either way, your goal is to improve the lives of a bunch of intelligent apes.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#683

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?

All of them?

I can't think of any engineering area which has a mandate of guaranteeing it will be 100% impossible to have an accident with the product, or it doesn't get built. Can you?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains are a tough sell, at least in the western US. So much wide open space, trains are slow, high speed trains too expensive to justify given the sparse population.

I remember once doing the math and finding that there are many times when our local light rail is less efficient than just putting four people in a sedan. When the train is full, though, it's unbeatable.

EVs throw another wrench into that math since they're so much more efficient than ICEVs.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains are a tough sell, at least in the western US. So much wide open space, trains are slow, high speed trains too expensive to justify given the sparse population. I remember once doing the math and finding that there are many times when our local light rail is less efficient than just putting four people in a sedan. When the train is full, though, it's unbeatable. EVs throw another wrench into that math since the…

Not to mention, eventually the whole grid should be mostly renewable rendering questions of efficiency more-or-less moot.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#687

We don't ignore them - we just accept that risk Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics 0.00000003% chance of dying if you drive a kilometer to the yoga studio. Want to make it less risky personally? Drive less, or drive a safer car. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks

> Want to make it less risky personally? Drive less, or drive a safer car.

In addition, avoid doing the things that cause most accidents. Don't drive impaired (sleepy, drunk, etc), pay attention, get some car control training (not required in the US so most people don't).

It'll never get you to zero risk of course, but you can have far lower chance of car crashes than the national average if you make all these choices.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#688
post #665
post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ch…

> 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.

And just that last clause makes it clear that, at least at that time and place, that person is not going to be deterred by reasonable incentives against reckless behavior, because their judgment is impaired.

Basically, your solution (which is also, as you point out, the solution in place in our current society), is to put unreasonable incentives in place--unreasonable from the point of view of the person, because, in your hypothetical, they're 100% convinced they won't harm anyone, so to them this whole "don't drive drunk" thing seems like an unreasonable restriction. It might be reasonable from the point of view of society, but that very view of "society" is not really compatible with a free society of free and responsible adults. More on that below.

> I gather you think reaction is morally preferable to prevention in such cases. Is that a fair assertion?

The only moral principle I have stated is that one should not impose punishments on people who have not caused actual harm. But I did imply a corresponding moral responsibility for the people themselves: that they should exercise reasonable judgment when making choices. People who either will not or cannot take on that responsibility are not going to be deterrable by the kinds of reasonable incentives I am proposing.

Your position seems to be, basically, that in our current society, most people fall into the latter category: they either will not or cannot take responsibility for exercising reasonable judgment--for example, by making it an ironclad rule for themselves that if they are going to go someplace where they might get drunk, they have a plan in place in advance to get home without having to drive. If most citizens of our supposedly free society can't meet that standard, we have a much worse problem than drunk driving.

> Since it's a situation drunk drivers make for themselves I'm happy to punish it.

I don't disagree that being in a situation where you "need" to drive drunk is self-inflicted; I basically said the same thing just above. My point is broader: that our society seems to assume that most adult citizens, if not prevented by various nanny-state laws, will make such errors of judgment frequently enough for it to be a problem. Either that assumption is false, in which case our society is imposing huge restrictions on people that are not justified; or, even worse, that assumption is true, in which case I think our society is doomed.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has this concept of "black spots" too. However, they are ironically named "safety corridors." We get a nice sign [0] to mark the death zone and then traffic continues unabated. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/04/inflated_traffic...

I had assumed that every city I've ever lived in was doing the rest of the work too, sending out engineers to asses the reasons for the higher than average deaths and making changes like adding stop lights, clearing anything obstructing people's view, or adjusting speed limits. Seems defeatist (or more cynically, exploitative) to just throw up a sign and extract more money from speeders. I mean, I want to know when I…

There's a lot of inertia in the system to design that which gets approved from above, as the article says, rather than to solve local issues locally. You can definitely do it - there are examples across the different states of various design choices - but federal funding may be contingent on following the existing rules.

This relates to a general issue with society(in the US, and to varying extents in other industrialized countries) that has gradually crept up over time: in the post-war period, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy was normalized across many institutions. The rules were necessarily kept simple and strict, using a small amount of data, so that they could be followed accurately. When an exception was needed you talked to an appropriate contact and hoped you were listened to. It was under this system that you got things like the interstates, redlining and urban renewal projects, because there was arbitrary power to decide what was built where and all you had to pass to get a shovel-ready project was a routine checklist.

Then computerization took over and every bureaucracy started adding more complex data models and rulesets. More choices appeared, forms got bigger, more rounds of approvals were added and everyone lost track of who to talk to when things went wrong. You are more likely to be addressed as a categorical minority(e.g. gender or ethnicity) but aren't allowed to be singularly exceptional because there's too much automation in the way.

And when we look at the state of road infrastructure now there's absolutely a case of that phenomenon: The design premise remains locked in "first design for cars at speed" and then other modes are the exceptions that are harder to access: you have to make exceptions to have less parking space, exceptions to add bike paths, exceptions to try a different intersection design and so forth. Major cities are undergoing reform to a lot of these rules, but at varying rates and levels of pessimization. Once you have an established rule, it's not a career-ender to follow it blindly, so you have to take a risk to not follow it.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#690
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…

This is one of the reasons that the things I work on most of the time (healthcare-associated infections) are so insidious.

At any given institution rates are usually quite low, and infections a rarity. But when you project that up to every ICU or hospital in the country, you suddenly get something that causes more deaths than drunk driving.

Post reply on HN