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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#781

Post by Thlom »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #773
lelandbatey wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would hope that such crosses instead prompt folks to change such intersections so that they will prompt fewer deaths. Maybe then we can have a rule: if we rebuild the road and we see a drop in deaths, then maybe we can remove the sign with crosses. Better yet, replace the intersection with a bus-only, bicycle-only, or rail as public transit, and then that set of crosses is permanently retired.

Sometimes there isn't much you can do. One I grew up near is a T intersection, between three farm fields. The road that butts into the other crests a hill, and the other road is right behind the crest of that hill, about 20-30 meters. There is a T intersection sign on the hill before you reach the top, but some people didn't see it or heed it. If you're following the speed limit with a dry road, it's probably safe ev…

Replace the T with a roundabout and reduce the speed limit significantly 200 meters before the roundabout.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#782

Post by refurb »

epistasis wrote: post #130
mywittyname wrote: post #105

"We" don't ignore them. Every major government has a body dedicated entirely to automobile safety. In the USA, this is NHSTA - National Highway Safety & Transportation Administration. They maintain an information system of traffic fatality statistics in the USA, called FARS (fatality analysis reporting system). This system is used to determine new safety devices and standards for vehicles and to test their effectiven…

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…

I can't agree with your assessment at all. Deaths are rising, yet what changes are happening?

Deaths per miles driven have never been lower (2nd table). You can't just add up the negative impacts (deaths) without adjusting for positive impacts (miles traveled).

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit...

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#783

Post by sooheon »

notch656a wrote: post #779
sooheon wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm pretty sure it makes more sense to measure deaths per capita. If poor urban planning made people's commutes 2x longer, would it suddenly be half as bad for someone to die?

If people start driving twice as much and die twice as much, I would not report the roads as being anymore dangerous.

I don't care if a meter of road is dangerous, I care if the amount of driving necessary to live in a city is likely to get me killed. Or if I'm liable to be killed while walking. Deaths/distance is a limited metric that has no bearing on societal cost. Deaths/value is the appropriate cost benefit analysis.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#785

Post by [deleted] »

vineyardmike wrote: post #546
briffle wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a few friends that think the stats I show them are a complete lie and fabrication, but the truth is: more people from pistols than 'assault rifles'. In fact, in the US, more people die from knives than rifles. (not just the 'assualt ones' Heck more people per year in the US die of 'hands, fists, and feet'. [0] But guess what is always in the news, and talked about by politicians on both sides, until their cons…

The banning of assault rifles is because it’s easy and doesn’t detract from peoples lives at all. Assault rifles are for assault and we don’t need more assault. So why have them? Because a few people think it’s cool to own? Pistols and other Guns aren’t very effective at stopping deaths, but they’re perceived to be good defense, so banning them en mass is less palatable. NYC banned pistols once because it was often t…

[deleted]

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#786

Post by tmnvix »

tzs wrote: post #737
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…

Are you talking about pedestrian deaths when you mention car risk for your children? If so, good news. Those have been going down. Since 1975 pedestrian deaths of under 13 year olds have steadily declined by more than an order of magnitude. For 13-19 year olds the decline hasn't been as big, but is still over a factor of 3 [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...

Could be that the reduction has come at the cost of children's freedom of movement?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#787

Post by notch656a »

epistasis wrote: post #762
tzs wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about pedestrian deaths when you mention car risk for your children? If so, good news. Those have been going down. Since 1975 pedestrian deaths of under 13 year olds have steadily declined by more than an order of magnitude. For 13-19 year olds the decline hasn't been as big, but is still over a factor of 3 [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...

Up until 2020, car deaths were the biggest cause of child death. In 2020, there was a spike in firearm deaths that overtook car deaths: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 Fortunately, I'm able to live my life without being forced to own a gun, and am allowed to keep my children out of homes that have guns in them. But Im not allowed to build a life that isn't centered around transporting my child by c…

If you're operating on these kind of statistics I think you need to consider the age and race of your child. If you go by likelihood of death, a 19 year old black male (covered by the chart you cited) has a wildly different chance of firearms related death than a 4 year old white child (for that child, they're more likely to die by swimming pool) [0]. In fact the choice to include 18 and 19 year olds at prime age for gang related violence on a study on a decision on what to do with younger children is in fact either a naive or intentionally biased approach.

Under teenage years, your kid is much more likely to die by assault by firearm than by suicide/accident by firearm [1]. It is not easier to fight off an assault while you are unarmed.

Under age 5, by your rationale you probably also never went to a house or anywhere else with a swimming pool, which at that age is as likely to kill your child as a gun. Operating based on this, a good case could be made a household without teenagers may be safer with a gun (assuming you are the owner and you don't assault children, and you either store the firearm on your person or secured in a safe) for protection against assault, while those with teenagers have to counter the risk of suicide by either not owning a gun or putting it in a secure safe. But then again, teenagers are still yet more likely to die by (firearm) assault than (firearm) suicide, so perhaps even they are better off if their guardian can defend them against armed assailants.

As a final note, assuming you do actually take your children places: your hosts probably lied. Not all of them did, but a few probably did, especially if you left the Bay area. Even the ones that are 'honest.' They knew that you would be uncomfortable about firearms in the house, and they themselves would be uncomfortable if their friend found out, so they simply locked them up somewhere in their house where they would never be found or could be accessed and then told you there weren't any there. I don't have the study off hand, but a well researched study I came across showed only ~30% of people truthfully inform guests with children about guns in their house.

[0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2201761/suppl_fi...

[1]https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#788

Post by Doxin »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #773
lelandbatey wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would hope that such crosses instead prompt folks to change such intersections so that they will prompt fewer deaths. Maybe then we can have a rule: if we rebuild the road and we see a drop in deaths, then maybe we can remove the sign with crosses. Better yet, replace the intersection with a bus-only, bicycle-only, or rail as public transit, and then that set of crosses is permanently retired.

Sometimes there isn't much you can do. One I grew up near is a T intersection, between three farm fields. The road that butts into the other crests a hill, and the other road is right behind the crest of that hill, about 20-30 meters. There is a T intersection sign on the hill before you reach the top, but some people didn't see it or heed it. If you're following the speed limit with a dry road, it's probably safe ev…

Traffic calming measures is how you tackle things like that. Adding a sharpish S-curve to the roads approaching the T should remove enough speed to make it safer. Won't even need a sign.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#789

Post by diordiderot »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #773
lelandbatey wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would hope that such crosses instead prompt folks to change such intersections so that they will prompt fewer deaths. Maybe then we can have a rule: if we rebuild the road and we see a drop in deaths, then maybe we can remove the sign with crosses. Better yet, replace the intersection with a bus-only, bicycle-only, or rail as public transit, and then that set of crosses is permanently retired.

Sometimes there isn't much you can do. One I grew up near is a T intersection, between three farm fields. The road that butts into the other crests a hill, and the other road is right behind the crest of that hill, about 20-30 meters. There is a T intersection sign on the hill before you reach the top, but some people didn't see it or heed it. If you're following the speed limit with a dry road, it's probably safe ev…

Speedbumps are inexpensive and last a very long time.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#790

Post by jacobolus »

noasaservice wrote: post #733
dcsommer wrote: post #594

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...

And the liberal response is to decrease the speed for a road that was previously 45mph, down to 30mph. Of course, the road is perfectly straight, downhill, has a center turn lane, and a multiuse pathway to the side. There's absolutely no reason for 30mph, other than for enhanced revenue generation aka cop theft.. Basically the city I lived in is going anti-car, which would be cool... if it weren't for ALSO de-priorit…

> absolutely no reason

There is a very good reason:

> Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve...

And this understates the difference, because at lower speed those collisions are also much less likely to occur at all.

If you could systematically reduce the speed on all urban/suburban streets to no more than 20 mph (actual driving speed, not posted limit), it would be a huge safety win for humans living in those places.

It would also make the environment much calmer, quieter, and less stressful.

Post reply on HN