Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#91

Post by graylights » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 2:51 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #74

revelation wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, lets do all of that. But there is plenty of low-hanging fruit. Maximum of 20 mph everywhere you have pedestrians, certainly in any city or city center - the simple reasoning being that higher speed only reduces time to travel some distance linearly , but the forces at work in a potential collision increase quadratically . So this is a complete no-brainer tradeoff that is directly reflected in survival rates for…

This sounds like an argument for introducing a separate class of "city car" to the USA. On a highway, I want a big comfy car that can be efficient at 55-65 MPH, and protect me in a collision at those speeds. In a city, I don't really need that.

That big comfy car that protects you from highway collisions accomplishes that by shifting the impact toward the smaller car. It doesn't increase overall highway safety, just steals it from others in your favor.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#92

Post by moron4hire » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 2:52 AM UTC

kaliblack wrote: post #86

sukuriant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely fair. Maybe in some of the cases; but, I've seen people do some really, really, REALLY unwise things as pedestrians that they're lucky someone was paying a huge amount of attention so they weren't hit. The most pressing example in my mind is a woman cross the street in the middle of a rain shower, within 15 yards, probably much less (my mind's eye paints the memory as 'the edge of my car was here…

It's your responsibility as a driver to pay full attention and avoid crashes. Isn't that hour 1, day 1 of driver education?

get back to me after you've been driving every day for ten years and we will see what your interpretation of "full attention"means. you can't be 100% vigilante 100% of the time.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#93

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 2:53 AM UTC

Crito wrote: post #36

ansimionescu wrote: post #2

In Romanian 'car crash' is called literally 'accident' [0]. Something that's always baffled me is how friggin' thin the metal plates that make up the car are. Why the fuck does a whole industry consider this normal?! [1] Edit: thanks for the info (and for the downvotes 0: http://translate.google.com/#en/ro/car%20crash 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCXFsQ6kKQ

Car crashes are often called "accidents" in America too. I found it interesting and insightful when my driving instructor back in highschool spent a good 10 minutes ranting about there not being any such thing as a car 'accident' (students mentioning the word "accident" later in the course were scolded, to drive home the point). Obviously you can dream up scenarios that you might be able to really call an accident, b…

[deleted]

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#94

Post by DougWebb » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 2:53 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #87

nostromo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the solution to unsafe roads is to throw everyone that is at-fault in an accident in jail. I understand the frustration cyclists have with auto traffic, but we've seen a million times that harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome. And we have a habit in the US of using prison as the answer for every malady. Instead, I think the answer is better road design, separating cars and cyclists u…

When people decry using the prison system as a cure-all, it's usually for things like drugs or mental illness. In essence, why punish people for things that either don't harm others, or aren't their fault? You're applying this to a serious crime, at least manslaughter if not murder. If prison isn't appropriate for that, what is prison appropriate for? I imagine an argument could be made that prison is never the right…

and you are at fault

That's the tricky phrase. How do you prove fault in a car collision, to the same degree that's required for a charge and conviction of manslaughter or murder?

In New Jersey, we have "no-fault" laws for insurance, which basically means that when there is an accident there's no way to prove that either party is more at-fault than the other, so legally neither is at fault. In practice, both parties are treated as if the accident is their fault, and both are penalized with higher insurance rates at minimum.

My concern with any law that holds drivers responsible for deaths in accidents they're involved in by charging them with manslaughter or murder is that the same logic will be applied: every driver in every accident where someone dies will go to jail, unless they're rich enough to bend the rules and escape the charge. That's unfair, because many accidents really are accidents, and many people who die in accidents are at least as responsible as the people who survive.

Besides, there are already additional penalties for drivers in these situations. Their insurance pays out substantially to the victims or their families, and the driver's insurance rates go up, potentially to the point that the driver is no longer insurable and they can't drive anymore. So the article is wrong in saying that drivers can get away with murder with no consequences.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#95

Post by DougWebb » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #37

tokenadult wrote: post #25

The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher.[1] That said, the article makes a very interesting claim about attitudes that we should all follow to the end of the article for further discussion here: "There’s an open secret in America: If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. As long as you’re sob…

Your edit is an important point: As far as I am aware, there are no safety standards or ratings for how likely a vehicle is to injure occupants of other vehicles, let alone unprotected pedestrians or bicyclists. If anything, the focus on occupant safety to the exclusion of others has supported the "race to the top" in terms of vehicle mass and size.

I don't know this for certain, but I think there are at least some safety standards. One thing I've noticed while driving around my town is that school buses have an odd design. In most vehicles the tires are placed fairly close to the corners of the vehicle, which I assume increases stability and improves maneuverability.

But in school buses the tires are set far back from the corners, especially the rear tires. In a large bus the tires are 5-10 feet from the rear bumper. School buses also tend to have a very high ground clearance. I assume that these design features are for safety: if the bus hits a child while starting to move, either backward or forward, the driver will have a lot more time to react to the thud against the bumper before the tires reach the child. It takes a moment for the driver to notice the thud and move his foot from the gas to the brake; if the tires were at the corners that moment is all it would take for the bus to roll over the child.

So, I think this is an example where the vehicle is designed explicitly to protect pedestrians, even though it probably makes the vehicle less stable and harder to maneuver.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#96

Post by graylights » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:06 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #87

nostromo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the solution to unsafe roads is to throw everyone that is at-fault in an accident in jail. I understand the frustration cyclists have with auto traffic, but we've seen a million times that harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome. And we have a habit in the US of using prison as the answer for every malady. Instead, I think the answer is better road design, separating cars and cyclists u…

When people decry using the prison system as a cure-all, it's usually for things like drugs or mental illness. In essence, why punish people for things that either don't harm others, or aren't their fault? You're applying this to a serious crime, at least manslaughter if not murder. If prison isn't appropriate for that, what is prison appropriate for? I imagine an argument could be made that prison is never the right…

Simple, "at fault" takes on a different meaning in driving. Often it's a cluster of mistakes that causes an accident, mistakes by either vehicle or even mistakes by someone not a part of the collision itself. If I'm 51% at fault should I go to jail?

But also everyone makes mistakes occasionally behind the wheel, most often nothing bad happens. And by everyone I mean every single driver without exception. That's why the law mostly operates with concept of Mens Rea, a guilty mind. Negligence only comes into play under a reasonable person standard and since we know those reasonable persons are also making same mistakes... it goes to civil court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Criminal_negligence :

"There is credible subjective evidence that the particular accused neither foresaw nor desired the particular outcome, thus potentially excluding both intention and recklessness. But a reasonable person with the same abilities and skills as the accused would have foreseen and taken precautions to prevent the loss and damage being sustained"

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#97

Post by WildUtah » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:10 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #48

tokenadult wrote: post #25

The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher.[1] That said, the article makes a very interesting claim about attitudes that we should all follow to the end of the article for further discussion here: "There’s an open secret in America: If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. As long as you’re sob…

I was recently in Beijing, where the supremacy of the automobile over the pedestrian is just about taken to its logical conclusion. The US puts cars on a high footing compared to pedestrians, with pedestrians restricted to crossing roads at certain points, generally better signaling and routes for cars, etc. Yet cars are still required to yield to pedestrians when e.g. turning or at a marked crosswalk. In Beijing, th…

It's ironic. Peking was considered a beautiful city of clean air (except dust storm season) full of bicyclists during the oppressive communist era.

Now in the time of industrial crony capitalism, it's famous as the most polluted capital in the world. The streets are dangerous and cars have replaced bikes making the powerful insiders even more oppressive against individuals because now they can kill people with impunity.

Surely this is better than communism, but unlike the Taiwanese the Red China capitalists have imported every Western vice tenfold.

Only during the Dèng era was Peking open to new ideas and businesses, full of pedestrians and bicycles free from fear, and able to look up to clear skies.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#98

Post by tzs » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:12 AM UTC

kaliblack wrote: post #86

sukuriant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely fair. Maybe in some of the cases; but, I've seen people do some really, really, REALLY unwise things as pedestrians that they're lucky someone was paying a huge amount of attention so they weren't hit. The most pressing example in my mind is a woman cross the street in the middle of a rain shower, within 15 yards, probably much less (my mind's eye paints the memory as 'the edge of my car was here…

It's your responsibility as a driver to pay full attention and avoid crashes. Isn't that hour 1, day 1 of driver education?

A driver paying full attention will still have that attention divided among several tasks. He should be monitoring what is happening behind the car. He should be checking the instrument panel. Even looking forward has subtasks. His forward scan should spend some time on things nearby, and some time looking far down the road.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#99

Post by DougWebb » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:12 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #58

trothamel wrote: post #31

In 2004, 42,836 Americans were killed in motor vehicle accidents. So this number actually represents a huge improvement. Something to realize is that potential replacements to cars are not that much safer. Highway travel is responsible for 7.7 deaths per billion passenger-miles. Mass transit is responsible for 5.4 deaths per billion passenger-miles. Given the less-direct routings used by transit, it's not totally cle…

I'd really like to see that broken down by type of transit, as well as deaths for transit passengers versus people killed in e.g. private cars involved in accidents with busses. My guess, and this is very much a guess, is that buses will be disproportionately dangerous, and a fair number of those killed by busses are in cars that collide with them. For one random example, the DC metro has seen 9 deaths in the past fi…

In my town and the towns around me (suburbs of NYC in New Jersey) there are a lot of deaths from people being hit by commuter trains. It's quite possible that we have more people dying that way than in traffic accidents, especially if you don't count deaths on the highways in the area which don't have any pedestrians.

The problem here is that the trains mostly run at ground level, and the stations are mostly completely open. It's very easy to walk around behind of or in front of the train while it's still in the station or approaching the station. We've had incidents where individuals or groups of commuters who just got off the train try to cross the track behind the train, assuming that the gates are down because the train hadn't left yet, only to be struck by a train arriving on the other track. There was a big public education campaign after the last incident like that, but the town had to resort to a police officer stationed there during rush hour handing out jay-walking tickets before people would stop trying to cross while the gates were down.

There's also a strong suspicion that a lot of these deaths are suicides, but that's pretty hard to prove.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#100

Post by bunderbunder » Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 3:14 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #88

sukuriant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely fair. Maybe in some of the cases; but, I've seen people do some really, really, REALLY unwise things as pedestrians that they're lucky someone was paying a huge amount of attention so they weren't hit. The most pressing example in my mind is a woman cross the street in the middle of a rain shower, within 15 yards, probably much less (my mind's eye paints the memory as 'the edge of my car was here…

I'd love to see some numbers on how many deaths are due to bad pedestrian behavior like that. Anecdotally, I've never encountered that sort of thing from a pedestrian while driving, but I've almost been run down several times by drivers not obeying the law while I was legally crossing the street with the right of way. All it would take is crossing the street at the wrong time with a walk signal without checking both…

I don't know if this really answers your question, but supposedly about half the times when a pedestrian gets hit by a car, the pedestrian is intoxicated at the time.

Anecdotally, there are few situations I find more stressful as a motorist than driving in the vicinity of a university on a Friday night.