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

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#981

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:10 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #811

thecatwentup wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another anecdote on the other side of this: I've been driving since I was 15 for many thousands of miles and have only been involved in two incidents. Both my fault involving icy roads, but both where so minor that only paint damage occurred (no insurance involved). I live in the north-eastern United States for reference. Edit: I wouldn't say that my driving style is cautious either, I do drive attentively though.

Kind of similar for me but my cars tend to get hit now and again a lot whilst parked. One time almost written off because it was hit at high speed and the offender kept on going despite leaving several piece of his own car at the scene. The police couldn't do anything because, well, I was insured so 'they can deal with it'.

[deleted]

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#982

Post by glogla » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #935

glogla wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is why people who repeatedly crash while drunk are not in prison to protect rest of the society.

Given that vehicles are trivial to get and licensing does nothing to stop driving, you have a fair point. IMO probably better to drop the licensing schemes and then execute / imprison those who recklessly crash into others.

Not sure about execute, but in my mind driving drunk is like firing a gun blindly - you might not kill anyone this time but it is dangerous as hell and you should definitely not be doing it. I think it should be taken more seriously.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#983

Post by oliwarner » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #928

oliwarner wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the safest road-user countries[1], train incidents make the news, while most car accidents don't. We know trains (and planes) are outstandingly safe by design, and we know cars are driven by idiots and lawbreakers. Just as we intuitively expect that going to war, seeing and doing what needs to be done will have an enduring effect on people's mental health. We expect that from all higher-stress jobs. It's the…

The point is that any sensible society wouldn’t continue with a transportation infrastructure that costs more and is vastly more deadly. The drip drip is deaths with no one doing anything to make it safer.

As many die at the barrel of a gun in the US, with countless more injured and intimidated.

Perhaps it's not a sensible society.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#984

Post by franciscop » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #849

franciscop wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, I drove for 7-8 years (not that much though) and my major "accident" was with a thin and curvy tree that was on a dead spot of the rear mirrors while backing up. Was in 3 close calls where the results would have been much worse. In motorbike in contrast, you touch a wet patch or a gravel bit and it slides right away, 2 minor accidents like that for a total of ~8 weeks driving motorbikes (minor since I knew…

> In motorbike in contrast, you touch a wet patch or a gravel bit and it slides right away Not a motobiker, but I find this part strange - I see people who commute daily on scooters, sports bikes and choppers too and they don't mind mild rain and wet roads much. They do drive slightly slower through city (and on highways too), but not more than 10kmh less. If its anything similar to bicycle then you just take care on…

Ah sorry, yes ofc you can drive daily on scooters and deal with the rain and wet roads. With rain/gravel on a motorbike you def need to go more than 10kmh slower. I've had my car slide a couple of times under rain, and a few more under gravel/sand on the floor, and on the car it just moves a meter or two and that's it, normally no issue at all. However on the motorbike that same sliding means you are going down. That's all I mean, that the car is a lot safer than the motorbike for small incidents. Probably also for major accidents, but luckily I haven't been in those.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#985

Post by bluGill » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #932

bluGill wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Semi auto high caliber rifle capable of holding a magazine over 10 rounds. Happy? Don't split hairs. Actually, I'm not sure why I get sucked into these discussions time after time. Nothing will ever change without a constitutional amendment. The left needs to make its peace with that.

Semi auto with a folding stock, bayonet mount, or one of several other things that make it look ugly.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#986

Post by Thorrez » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #839

Thorrez wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What evidence is there that the attrition we see from car accidents is actually a net-loss for society? What does "attrition" mean? People killed in car crashes? How could that not be a net loss? Your second sentence says "furthermore" to introduce the idea of the cost of safety measures, so that seems to imply the first sentence isn't considering the cost of safety measures.

> What does "attrition" mean? People killed in car crashes? Yes > How could that not be a net loss? Is every human a net-positive to society? Obviously an objective measure is impossible to establish, but I doubt everyone is a net-gain. How random are car-related deaths? Is this actually a problem?

In general I think society is based on the idea that everyone's life has inherent worth, and thus their rights should be protected. If we start designing systems based on the idea that some people's lives have negative worth and if they die it'll be beneficial society, that flies in the face of the idea of inherent worth. It seems to me that if society says certain people's lives have negative worth so their lives don't need to be protected because their death will benefit society, that could progress into society saying that it's ok to actively kill those people.

Yes, the US does today in fact actively kill some people with the death penalty. Though it does have a lot of checks in the process to avoid making the determination wrongly. It's a very expensive and thorough process. I'm against the death penalty because it goes against the idea of the inherent value of human life. If you live in a society where jails are very primitive and can't stop determined prisoners from escaping, then the death penalty could make sense to prevent prisoners escaping and then hurting others. We have jails that can hold people though.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#987

Post by BrianHenryIE » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #660

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphic car safety ad about seatbelts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epTdI-9V6Jk

That's like the car equivalent of D.A.R.E. It's so farcical it does more harm than good.

Anecdotally, drink driving is more common in California than in Ireland, maybe because I grew up with ads like these on TV:

https://youtu.be/xtJqw--DGl8

And a cursory search says:

> threat-based road safety communications that target affective (fear) and cognitive (perceived efficacy) mechanisms can positively affect driving behaviours

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-016-3227-2

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#988

Post by kevincox » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 9:25 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #777

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.

Perhaps you're focusing a lot on the roads themselves, and less on what's around the roads, or even the deliberate lack of road. More often than not EU designs will put main roads apart from the activity centers, and have shared ways or slower ways inside dense areas. From a car POV it is subobtimal and ill thought out, while from people's point of view it's pretty great in general.

Of course making roads more pleasant and safe so that half of the would-be drivers become walkers or cyclists is one of the best things you can do you improve the expertof the remaining drivers.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#989

Post by nephanth » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #495

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like pretending there are no covid deaths?

Surely they aren't covering up that many deaths right? The US is 4% of the world population, and represents 16% of the fatalities. If China had our rate of fatalities that would indicate that they are hiding 4.3 million deaths somehow.

Why wouldn't they? It's not like they aren't used to covering up deaths

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#990

Post by nephanth » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #337

m463 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's one exception: some technologies have unusual publicity. a gasoline car fire? not a peep. an electric car fire? the media goes crazy. also nuclear power. Fukushima got a lot of attention, but radiation deaths linked to burning coal are significantly higher but not touched by the media.

How often do gas cars catch on fire randomly (and not under the hood but under the passenger compartment as with EVs) compared with spontaneous electric car fires? This is reminiscent of the Galaxy Notes that were exploding in people's pockets some years ago.

You realize a gas car contains a tank full of highly flammable and explosive liquid that it uses in small quantity to create small explosions thousands of time in a second?

Of course they catch fire. what's surprising is that they don't do it more, but that's the result of ~150 years of evolution.