311–320 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1] Car crashes where the top 1-2. I am willing to bet most of those involved DUI, and therefore negligence, and shouldn't be classed as "accidents" #CrashNotAccident.
I don't have statistics to back it up, but I would be willing to bet money that at least 95% of crashes are from negligence with slightly less than 5% being from a sudden unexpected mechanical failure (Such as a tire exploding), with less than 1% being something you could truly call an "accident". The usual counter-argument is that the use of the word "accident" is a statement of intent, and outside of extreme road r…
Less than that. There have been many studies done about the efficacy of vehicle "safety" inspections on making roads safer and they range from "no effect" to "positive effect about as big as the noise threshold". There was some Danish meta-study I thought I had bookmarked but can't seem to find that spells it all out.
That said, I 200% disagree with the overall opinion of your comment. Typical human behavior is not negligence. Systems should take into account normal, error making, humans and not expect perfect "behave like a computer humans". Behaving normally, even if that means not checking your blind spot as well as you should 1/100 times is not negligence. Furthermore there's only so much situational awareness a person with two eyes facing the same way can have. As another commenter points out you're gonna be in for a near miss at best if the time you're checking your blind spot is the same time traffic in front of you starts coming to an emergency stop.
How about F1 cars?
Here is a summary of improvements: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/149628/history-of-safety-d...
Here is a quite scary crash that Fernando Alonso walked away from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x45fLUTHCuk
The basic idea is the car is designed to be completely destroyed except for the survival cell for the driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also worth considering is that anything after 2018 likely has intelligent crash prevention features. In addition to modern cars being much safer in a crash, the benefits of avoiding collisions altogether have to be worth it. I’ve been driving a car with the pre collision warnings, lane departure warnings, etc since 2017 and it has saved me at least once. There’s a concern about moral hazard with the new technologies,…
> Also worth considering is that anything after 2018 likely has intelligent crash prevention features. In addition to modern cars being much safer in a crash, the benefits of avoiding collisions altogether have to be worth it. I expect they're a net gain for the public, but that for an individual who's conscientious and never drives under the influence, tired, or distracted, that they're only marginally useful at bes…
Possibly even negatively useful if you consider that the car they come in has significantly reduced visibility compared to it's '00s counterpart.
Is passenger side small overlap really a common form of collision? I would imagine since everyone drives on the right side of the road, most higher speed small overlap collisions would be on the driver side. Perhaps car manufacturers were right not to optimize for passenger side small overlap collisions? Frankly though, this is an area where I don’t think it is all that harmful for the metric to become the target, si…
Passenger side small overlap seems like something that would happen when someone tries to pull into your lane. As you say, the average delta-V for that collision is going to be much lower than the driver's side collisions (passing on the right, or crossing the center line)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that's an accurate description of VW's cheat. VW knew the parameters of the test (stationary car, no steering input, prescribed throttle inputs, etc). And they configured the car to pass the test. Water-heater engineer knew the parameters of the test (number and location of probes). And he configure the water-heater to pass the test. Same-same. In both cases, an engineering team willfully committed fraud…
The differences are not pedantic at all. The differences are extremely significant. The VW engineers designed the car to do different thing while being tested vs used by consumers. While being tested, the emissions system was on. While being used by consumers, the emission system was entirely disabled . The water heater engineers designed the water heater to do the same thing while being tested vs used by consumers.…
I think the difference between what they did and this is only a difference in degree and not kind though, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The likelihood to oversteer depends on whether the 2WD alternative is front or rear wheel drive. RWD is more likely to oversteer on acceleration in slippery, turning conditions.
No argument here. That was my regional bias slipping in -- RWD is incredibly uncommon in the cold places I've lived except for pickups, and most people are aware of the potential dangers of RWD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fishing" might include "working on an industrial-scale fishing boat", which is a notoriously dangerous line of work.
For some, "fishing" means "getting drunk on a boat, with no real intent of seeing a fish." Alcohol is a very common factor in boating accidents, somewhere between 15-50% depending on which source you look at. (I think the higher end of that range is likely closest to the truth.)
Airline pilots have sometimes been caught, most flights just aren't long enough for you to be sober at both ends yet drunk during the flight - but for the crew of a tramp freighter so long as they sleep it off before they come into port nobody will know - unless there's an accident and suddenly everything is happening with unseemly haste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that there aren't meaningfully significant differences between car brands. Driving itself is just very dangerous. Other forms of transportation like buses, trains, and airplanes are orders of magnitude safer.[0] If you want to make yourself safer, avoid driving as much as possible. [0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
Why are buses safer? They drive on the same roads as cars.
This is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used? The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla. "For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) " Note the words "above poor." But in the bullet points danluu uses a different scale that doesn't match this prose,…
Most of this is based on the IIHS data; 2012 is the last time a new type of test was added (small overlap), so it's what's being used to make this comparison. Almost all the cars mentioned in the article have likely improved since then, but the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. What the test results indicate is that rather than…
How would anybody possibly be able to characterize Tesla’s approach to improve safety today based on looking only at a test of one car eight years ago? You said it yourself: “improve” — the word implies a measurable delta in the data. But if the data is a static single value, there is no delta to work with.
And there’s no rule stating that this is the issue that a blog post must cover.
It’s a blog. The author is free to choose and cover any issue they please.
It’s just not a worthy issue to make claims about, if your data is so limited that you are (he is) trying to derive manufacturer behavior by looking only at a single car model year as a snapshot in time. It’s simply ridiculous to try to conclude anything from such data. And then to cover that up by presenting the results on twitter as a table that highlights the false conclusion... just dishonest imho.