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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#301

Post by icedistilled »

mbostleman wrote: post #171
flaque wrote: 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…

COVID must be an exception then as 1000s died in different places but the public was obsessed. Or the media was at least.

*1,020,000 died in the US and counting.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#302

Post by ghastmaster »

mauvehaus wrote: post #247
jiveturkey wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if you kill yourself through your own negligence? There shouldn't be a fine at all for seatbelts. DUI, OTOH, should be treated even more harshly than it is.

First, you're welcome to move to New Hampshire if you feel this way and drive around with your seatbelt unbuckled. You're also welcome to ride your motorcycle without a helmet there. Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible until it comes to a complete stop. If the first…

> Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible...

I largely agree with this sentiment, however, practically speaking I doubt it matters much. Any impact hard enough to significantly displace you would likely render you useless at operating the vehicle if you are wearing a seatbelt. The forces at work during crashes are stronger that most people realize.

I read hundreds of traffic accident reports every day. If you must traverse the roads, wear your seatbelt, don't ride a motorcycle, and avoid excessive speeds. A large portion of the reports I see with deaths are single vehicle excessive speed loss of control, with a significant portion of those not wearing their seatbelts.

Driving is dangerous. Stay safe.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#303

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

jjcm wrote: post #271
sebazzz wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If cars had a max speed limit of 85 mph, and required the seatbelt to be engaged to work Wait, wearing a seatbelt is not mandatory?

Legally it's required, but I think their point is it should be required by hardware. Right now most new cars just beep at you, but you can still operate them.

We never pushed for it politically because it wouldn't change anything but it would piss people off. You can simply buckle the seatbelt with nobody in the seat, then sit down, and the requirement is defeated.

On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#304

Post by naasking »

flaque wrote: 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…

> 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.

But that makes sense statistically, because those are thousands of ostensibly independent events that don't necessarily have a single common cause, where the massacre of a thousand people in one place obviously has a single common cause. So of course the natural reaction is to shrug in the former case, because there's no obvious connection between them. Of course, if you can prove that those have a single common cause that can be tackled, then it makes sense to tie them all together.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#305

Post by WalterBright »

Ottolay wrote: post #281
WalterBright wrote: post #213

It's because we feel we can control the circumstances of the car crash. We cannot feel in control of airliners. We're hapless baggage.

Generally agree, although I think it is largely an illusion. Many people die in car accidents they did not cause.

> Many people die in car accidents they did not cause.

True, but that doesn't disprove the fact that most people are a party to the accident they are in, regardless of who was at fault.

For example, if someone is driving with an insecure load, I give them a very, very wide berth. There's a word for it - defensive driving.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#306

Post by tshaddox »

rustybelt wrote: post #209
tshaddox wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see studies that attempt to control for attributes related to "driver skill" or "driver responsibility" that you could objectively test yourself on, so that you could more accurately predict your own risk and compare it against the risk of alternatives like public transit. It's not really good enough to say "I don't drive drunk, and I'm pretty sure I'm a more skilled driver than average, therefore I can d…

I don't think you can completely discard all comparisons, but people are intuitively right to recognize that if they don't engage in risky behavior (like drunk driving) they're less at risk of being in an accident. To argue otherwise is basically saying driving drunk is no more risky than driving sober.

> but people are intuitively right to recognize that if they don't engage in risky behavior (like drunk driving) they're less at risk of being in an accident. To argue otherwise is basically saying driving drunk is no more risky than driving sober.

Sure, that’s why it’s important to know how risky automobiles are if you discard the cases of drunk drivers injuring themselves. I suspect drunk drivers injuring themselves accounts for a very small portion of automobile injuries, but we need to see the data.

It’s not enough to say “I don’t drive drunk, and driving drunk is very dangerous, therefore automobile risk estimates don’t apply to me.” You could make the same argument about driving blindfolded.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#307

Post by goatcode »

colinmhayes wrote: post #297
goatcode wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we treat all behaviors that are associated with a significantly increased mortality rate the same way, or should we pick and choose depending on the political and social context at the time, like we do with seatbelts?

Generally yes. That’s why sugar taxes are needed and popular with economists.

What would you say should be the threshold for increased mortality that would subject a given behavior to heavy taxation and regulation?

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#308

Post by Graffur »

flaque wrote: 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…

Thanks for the summary although it doesn't say _why_

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#309

Post by eckesicle »

theptip wrote: post #265
eckesicle wrote: post #243

Here's an interesting factoid: The annualized mortality rate of a US soldier is ~100 per 100,000. The annualized mortality rate of the average US man between the age of 25-34 is 177 per 100,000. (It's 199 per 100k for ages 18-24).

What's the annualized mortality rate among US men fit enough to pass the PFT (Physical Fitness Test)? (Put differently, I don't think there are any morbidly obese people in the military which skews the comparison you're laying out here.)

Yeah, of course this is probably the big differentiating factor.

It's part selection bias, part staying healthy, part not being exposed to accident prone environments.

Still though, as a lifestyle choice it's really safe.

Re: Why we ignore thousands of daily car crashes

#310

Post by [deleted] »

chris_va wrote: post #262
flaque wrote: 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…

To play devil's advocate, we already employ hundreds of thousands of "cities, planners, and civil engineers" continuously to battle these distributed deaths.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN