Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

algorithmsoup.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#71

Post by giantg2 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #49
konschubert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you accidentally kill somebody on a bike you’re likely to serve prison time for manslaughter. The sad reality is that people recklessly kill cyclists and barely get a slap on the wrist.

Yes, it is amazing when the driver says, "I just didn't see him!" and that is accepted as a reasonable explanation. I think it is because the overwhelming number of drivers (in the US) haven't ridden a bike since they were children. A judge and most of the jurors fall into that category, and they empathize with the driver, as they could imagine themselves doing the exact same thing that the driver did.

I do agree that empathy plays a big part.

However, just like with drivers, often times the cyclists have negligent (or reckless) factors against them as well, which is often used to downplay the contribution of any reckless or negligent actions of the driver. For example, about 20% of cyclist-vehicle fatalities involve cyclist DUI. About 60% of cyclist fatalities are not wearing a helmet despite recommendations and applicaible laws. That's why most cycling-vehicle deaths are handled in civil cases - a lower burden of proof and you can still get a payout even if the cyclist had some level of contributory negligence depending on the state.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#72

Post by lsllc »

jcgrillo wrote: post #48
mysterydip wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally almost happened to me on a trip last week. Driving on I95 and two people were headed to change to the same lane, one slow from the left and one flying up on the right (across three lanes). They see each other and react at the same time, the one on the left going back to their lane but the one on the right, with their angle and excess speed, overcorrects and starts to fishtail. Their car is then pointing dir…

The "flying by on the right" thing feels like a recent (within the last ~decade?) phenomenon. Am I imagining it?

There's a total lack of "lane discipline" (as Clarkson would say) in the US. In fact I'd argue that it's not a lack of discipline, but just a lack of understanding of how you should drive on a highway.

People tend to migrate to the "fast" lanes (the left), so you naturally end up with people either passing on the right or tailgating them. Of course, you should always be in the right lanes except for passing.

I do wonder if let's say there's someone in lane 3 of 4 going slower than the limit and you can pass them safely on the right in lane 1 that it's probably safer to just do that (assuming you're not flying along!) than moving over 3 lanes to the left, passing then moving 3 over back to the right.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#73

Post by toast0 »

screye wrote: post #38
alexwhb wrote: post #16

While the methods in this post may not be a super accurate depiction of reality.. I did find it entertaining. Additionally I agree generally with the point the post is making. It is shocking to me that we accept so whole heartedly the risk associated with driving when, comparatively, it is shockingly unsafe relative to other modes of transportation. In the US somewhere around 41,000 people die per year from traffic a…

> ballpark of 32x safer That number (edit: rail deaths) feels too high. Other than major train collisions/derailments, is it even possible to die because of trains ? > In 2022, more than two-thirds (69 %) of these fatalities in the EU were caused by 'accidents to persons by rolling stock in motion', typically involving persons who are unauthorised on the railway tracks and are hit by a running train. Together with le…

> That number (edit: rail deaths) feels too high. Other than major train collisions/derailments, is it even possible to die because of trains ?

Pedestrians and others are struck by rail vehicles regularly. Additionally, where rails come into contact with other pathways, they are a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists and sometimes even cars when railway is poorly designed or implemented.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#74

Post by margalabargala »

silverbax88 wrote: post #5
codeflo wrote: post #3

Why would you add the lost life expectancy to the length of the trip? That doesn’t make any mathematical sense to me. Edit (this might be wrong, see Edit 2 below -- I'm leaving this as is because otherwise, some of the responses don't make sense): I noticed that the calculation is wrong even within the article's own logic. Supposedly, this calculates "the expected length of the trip (including dead time) at different…

Agreed, risk of injury does not factor into how long the trip would take given faster speeds. This article is an exercise in narrative nonsense.

> This article is an exercise in narrative nonsense.

I don't think the article intended to be taken entirely seriously.

It's narrative nonsense, but I would argue that it's entertaining narrative nonsense.

I think it also serves a larger point, not about "optimizing trip speeds" but about putting into easily-digestible context exactly how dangerous driving a car can be.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#75

Post by techdmn »

jcgrillo wrote: post #48
mysterydip wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally almost happened to me on a trip last week. Driving on I95 and two people were headed to change to the same lane, one slow from the left and one flying up on the right (across three lanes). They see each other and react at the same time, the one on the left going back to their lane but the one on the right, with their angle and excess speed, overcorrects and starts to fishtail. Their car is then pointing dir…

The "flying by on the right" thing feels like a recent (within the last ~decade?) phenomenon. Am I imagining it?

Unpopular opinion: People fly by on the right because someone else is camping in the left lane. The disclaimer is that with too much congestion the whole thing breaks down, and some people are determined to drive like idiots regardless, but it's worth examing why the right lane is open when the left lane isn't.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#76

Post by giantg2 »

konschubert wrote: post #61
giantg2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok...? I'm seeing a lot of emotional comments that are not following the comment chains on this post. Are you meaningfully engaging in the conversation or trying to hijack them?

I am fairly emotional about this but I don't think my comments are off-topic or unfair. I find it incredibly frustrating how we as a society have accepted the high number of traffic deaths as a fact of nature. Imagine we had the technology to reduce childhood cancer rates by 50%, but chose not to use it. Traffic accidents kill more children than cancer. And we have the technology to reduce them: GPS-based speed limit…

"I am fairly emotional about this but I don't think my comments are off-topic or unfair."

This one wasn't off-topic, but it didn't really add anything. One of your other ones was off-topic, switching from driver risks to cycling risks, which had nothing to do with the article or the preceeding comments.

"Imagine we had the technology to reduce childhood cancer rates by 50%, but chose not to use it."

This is literally the case with traffic deaths today. About 45% of traffic fatalities are due to not wearing a seat belt. The technology has existed for decades but people choose not to use it. This then overstates the risks in the high level stats for the people who do use seatbelts. The number of childhood fatalities not buckled in was about 30-35%, and childhood restraint misuse is between 80-90%. If we want to make improvements in child survivability, then we should start by utilizing the most effect safety systems for the biggest focused gains.

"Traffic accidents kill more children than cancer. And we have the technology to reduce them: GPS-based speed limiters, automatic breaking system, speed bumps, red light cameras."

There is resistance to this because of the overstated risks, feasibility of implementation, and questions of effectiveness. For example, red light cameras have been shown to increase accidents because of the funding contracts many use. It's odd that you leave off enhanced driver testing when this is one of the most universal benefits. That and stricter enforcement are some of the main causes for lower fatality rates in many European nations, even in unrestricted speed sections of roads.

"Yet we choose not to act because ... people think that would be too uptight?"

No, that's more of a strawman than reality.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#77

Post by jachee »

konschubert wrote: post #61
giantg2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok...? I'm seeing a lot of emotional comments that are not following the comment chains on this post. Are you meaningfully engaging in the conversation or trying to hijack them?

I am fairly emotional about this but I don't think my comments are off-topic or unfair. I find it incredibly frustrating how we as a society have accepted the high number of traffic deaths as a fact of nature. Imagine we had the technology to reduce childhood cancer rates by 50%, but chose not to use it. Traffic accidents kill more children than cancer. And we have the technology to reduce them: GPS-based speed limit…

> red light cameras

I’m all for everything else on your list, and I’m all in favor of protecting the children, but I draw the line at increasing the surveillance state. Big Brother gets to watch enough of what we do, already. Let’s not give him even more eyes.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#78

Post by konschubert »

giantg2 wrote: post #71
tasty_freeze wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is amazing when the driver says, "I just didn't see him!" and that is accepted as a reasonable explanation. I think it is because the overwhelming number of drivers (in the US) haven't ridden a bike since they were children. A judge and most of the jurors fall into that category, and they empathize with the driver, as they could imagine themselves doing the exact same thing that the driver did.

I do agree that empathy plays a big part. However, just like with drivers, often times the cyclists have negligent (or reckless) factors against them as well, which is often used to downplay the contribution of any reckless or negligent actions of the driver. For example, about 20% of cyclist-vehicle fatalities involve cyclist DUI. About 60% of cyclist fatalities are not wearing a helmet despite recommendations and a…

I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency.

If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red light, it is still 100% the driver's fault.

A kill is still a kill even if the victim didn't wear a bulletproof vest.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#79

Post by pseudo0 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #49
konschubert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you accidentally kill somebody on a bike you’re likely to serve prison time for manslaughter. The sad reality is that people recklessly kill cyclists and barely get a slap on the wrist.

Yes, it is amazing when the driver says, "I just didn't see him!" and that is accepted as a reasonable explanation. I think it is because the overwhelming number of drivers (in the US) haven't ridden a bike since they were children. A judge and most of the jurors fall into that category, and they empathize with the driver, as they could imagine themselves doing the exact same thing that the driver did.

It's because a driver can do everything right and still miss a cyclist. Humans aren't infallible, and driving is an extremely complex task. In many cases it's an issue of bad road design or cyclists not following the rules of the road. For a driver to be held criminally responsible they have to be negligent, eg. using a cellphone, speeding, distracted, etc.

From my own experience interacting with cyclists on the road, the riskiest situations I saw were ones the cyclist created. Eg. Running reds, doing 15+ mph on the sidewalk, lane-splitting, etc.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#80

Post by giantg2 »

bagels wrote: post #67
giantg2 wrote: post #17

This is idiotic. The penalty wouldn't apply to the trip if you didn't incur it (die) during the trip. Also, as they noted, there are a bunch of other factors. Some of those factors are equally or more important as the ones they are looking at, such as alcohol impairment (both about 30% of traffic fatalities). The biggest fatality risk factor is not being buckled in. About 45% of all occupant fatalities are people who…

I found the same thing when researching motorcycle fatality rates. Yes, they are dangerous, but something like 50% of fatalities involved a drunk motorcycle rider. I don't recall the stats for not wearing gear.

It really is surprising to dig into the stats around alcohol, drugs, and non-use of existing safety systems. We end up with a lot of discussions on all sort of new laws but a lot of the problem is that the existing laws and tools aren't used.

I was not aware of the 50% alcohol involvement in motorcycle fatalities, but it doesn't surprise me. About 35% of all vehicle fatalities involve drunk driving, 50% of all pedestrian deaths involve either the driver or pedestrian being drunk, and 20% of cyclist fatalities invovle drunk cyclists (I assume alcohol is a factor for many other cyclist desths too). Then we have 45% of traffic fatalities that don't wear a seatbelt, about 35% of child fatalities did not use restraints, and 80-90% of child restraints are misused. I'm not sure about motorcycle accidents, but 60% of cyclist fatalities did not use a helmet.

The drunk driving and not properly restraining kids are really the biggest issue since it affects others. Things like not wearing a helmet, cycling DUI, and not using a seatbelt are a little more Darwinian in thier punishment.

Post reply on HN