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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#941

Post by jjav »

chriswarbo wrote: post #766
jjav wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that makes sense statistically, because those are thousands of ostensibly independent events Not only that, but in the case of a plane or train crash, the passengers were completely powerless to do anything about it. So it's a death that's imposed on them by the event. In a car, the driver has nearly all the agency to do something about it and not be part of a crash. Car crashes don't just suddenly happen to pe…

I've never owned or driven a car, yet they're around me every day, putting my life at risk (both short-term, that they may crash into me; and long-term, since I'm forced to breathe their emissions) Whilst pedestrians should avoid risky behaviour, we're still largely powerless; e.g. I recently had an encounter with a motorist reversing out of their driveway without looking, and I've twice had motorists drive down the…

At the same time, it's not possible to eliminate all risk from life. Even if all cars disappeared overnight, pedestrians are still getting killed by cyclists for example. And with cars gone there would be a huge increase in cycling, thus cycling-involved deaths.

In such a world (where cars disappeared) would we be having this thread about a need to now ban all bicycles?

To some extent there will always be some risk, just need to find ways to minimize it while balancing utility.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#942

Post by pkulak »

kortilla wrote: post #847
pkulak wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what other area of society do we tolerate extremely dangerous behavior (40,000+ deaths a year) because to not would be an inconvenience? Lol, heart disease wipes out an order of magnitude more people every year and we do absolutely nothing to stop people from eating and drinking themselves into obesity. But I guess you’re cool with it as long as it’s just suicide and a strain on our healthcare system?

You just gave three examples of people endangering their own lives only, not my family. I'm not "cool" with it, really, but it's a whole different discussion.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#943

Post by clairity »

mwint wrote: post #578
clairity wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i'd take that further a say never have a gun, concealed or not. the chances, even with great training, practice, and discipline, to use it in a way that harms only the perpetrator and no one else, especially not yourself, is fantastically small (much less than lightning strike chances).

my veteran friend who trains others on firearms and has a license to carry would say the same thing.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#944

Post by jjav »

xputer wrote: post #735
jjav wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet this very simple, very desirable concept is illegal in the US except for a few tiny islands. I don't see how it can be illegal? HOAs have extreme power and already impose all kinds of overbearing rules on people subject to them. So you could surely get together with a few hundred likeminded people and build a neighborhood where the HOA prohibits cars.

Oh boy you are in for a treat. Google parking minimums and single family zoning. And watch some videos from this channel: https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ

Agreed, but that's an increase in scope of the requirements/desires.

I still think it'd be possible to build a neighborhood where the HOA bans driving cars. Yes, it'll still need roads for emergency access (which you'd want anyway, fire trucks and ambulances do need to get in when needed).

If there are minimum parking space rules in the area that's a bit annoying but shouldn't be a showstopper. Just because the parking needs to be present doesn't mean it needs to be used for that purpose, so the HOA can still ban cars. You can then use that driveway for projects, play space, etc.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#945

Post by clairity »

zip1234 wrote: post #639
clairity wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speed increases the severity of collisions, but generally doesn’t cause them (most of what we classify as speed-related is really recklessness, which is also typically a misassessment of risk). distractedness, recklessness, and impairment are the overwhelming causes of collisions, with a small additional portion caused by vehicular homicide/suicide, mechanical failure, and environmental factors.

Regardless of semantics, there are known road design and electronic/mechanical techniques that can prevent or discourage speeding, regardless of the reason for speeding. The faster a vehicle is going, the more momentum it has, which correlates with risk of death in the event of crash.

the point is that there's no reason to target speeding specifically. you want to target distractedness, recklessness, and impairment to reduce accidents, thereby obviating the problem with speed exacerbating injury and death.

i'm all for narrowing lanes and adding trees to streets as traffic calming measures in urban neighborhoods, but that's because it increases attentiveness, rather than reduces speed per se. speed governors, on the other hand, are bad because they could prevent a driver from speeding up to evade a collision.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#946

Post by vineyardmike »

robswc wrote: post #911
vineyardmike wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think its rather arrogant to think that we have perfected government to the point that we can willingly disarm ourselves of one of the most effective forms of defense...

I think it’s arrogant to think a few privately owned guns can actually compare to the massive armory of the US government.

Also, it’s funny that when people actually fight back against government abuse (George Floyd protests) the gun owning demographic seems to find it wrong to be violent despite claiming guns are meant to be used against the government.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#947

Post by vineyardmike »

bluGill wrote: post #906
vineyardmike wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You obviously have no idea what an assault rifle is, just made an assumption from the name. An assault rifle is a normal rifle that because of a few cosmetic features looks like a military gun. None of those features make it more deadly than any other gun.

> more deadly than any other gun.

Any other gun is still plenty deadly that my point stands.

But a lot of headlines talk about banning assault rifles so I used that term.

There’s a somewhat valid claim that pistols are good for self defense because they’re easy to carry. Will anyone use it for self defense? Statistically no. But the perception is there. Rifles, cosmetically altered or not do not have such a feature.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#948

Post by californical »

notch656a wrote: post #850
californical wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that alternatively, considering how approximately every death of a bicyclist or pedestrian, or car driver, is all caused by someone driving an enormous 5,000lb machine irresponsibly, we should redesign our cities in such a way that most people don’t need to drive those cars in the first place for most trips. And if you do need to drive a car, you have much less congested and smaller streets for those trips. T…

That sounds pretty nice to me. There's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation here IMO. We should privatize all the roads and let the free market dictate what people like, and I think a lot of people would fall back to bicycles and walking more if they actually had to pay private tolls wherever they drove.

I like your thoughts… I don’t agree about privatization (since the private companies would be a guaranteed monopoly and we see how well that works with internet…), but maybe something similar could also be accomplished by making car registration fees proportional to number of miles driven and size of vehicle, to pay for road damage. Charge 2¢ per mile per ton of vehicle weight or something. Exempt mass transit (busses).

Average 2 ton car pays 4¢ per mile, or $400/year at 10k miles.

Drive a big unnecessary truck, might be 10¢ per mile in road maintenance.

Since road damage is exponential relative to vehicle weight, bikes and pedestrians are basically negligible and we could just round that to $0. Motorcycles under 300 lbs could be small flat rate.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#949

Post by vineyardmike »

thrown_22 wrote: post #612
vineyardmike wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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? People who think this should have a grizzly bear run at them at least once. Having seen it from a car I became pro-minigun instantly.

This is such a ridiculously specific situation most people won’t ever be in.

It’s such a small portion of the population that would have such a need for a gun that it can be handled as a special case in laws. No reason the rest of society can’t be safe.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#950

Post by bergenty »

kamranjon wrote: post #655
bergenty wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how you’re even comparing American roads to European roads. I spent 3 months in Europe and all I took away from that is how well planned and well thought out American roads are. I just took them for granted.

Just spent 3 months traveling across the United States and then 3 months traveling across Europe and now I’m super curious what part of Europe you visited and what part of the US you are from?

I was in Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and then Italy. I think Denmark and Sweden had the best roads. German autobahns we’re great but getting close to any population center meant I’ll planned junctions showed up again. Not to mention there is no parking anywhere, a real nightmare on a road trip.
Post reply on HN