7 ms·

> Nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in U.S. traffic accidents in 2017, the latest year data were available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety

by mfer 7y ago

> Nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in U.S. traffic accidents in 2017, the latest year data were available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That was up 35% from 2008 I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit. This is where the material from the college engineering ethics course I was required to take kicks in. It's stuff like this we should pay attention to. > At 20 miles an hour, the cars struggled with each test, AAA found. The child was struck 89% of the time, and all of the cars hit the pedestrian dummy after making a right turn. The systems were generally ineffective if the car was going 30 mph. The systems were also completely ineffective at night When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving. I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it.

magicalhippo 7y ago
> I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit. Not just drivers. Plenty of pedestrians which just walk straight across the road with their eyes firmly fixed on their screens and earbuds protecting their ears from the sounds of the world around them.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Last I checked from CA SWITRS data, that was not the case. Car/bike, Car/pedestrian collisions had cars be at fault in at least 2/3rds of the time.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    At least where I'm from, cars by default at fault if they hit a pedestrian. I'm not saying they account for the majority, but I do see a lot of very close calls on a regular basis due to pedestrians behaving as if they're alone in the world.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      At least where I'm from... Out of curiosity, where is that? This seems like a much better policy than I've seen...
      - magicalhippo 7y ago
        That'd be Norway.
    - cesnja 7y ago
      That's because the other party made a decision (maybe uninformed, but nevertheless) to command a two-ton killing machine when there's no need for it.
      - magicalhippo 7y ago
        In the same way that the pedestrian who carelessly walks into the road without sensing their surroundings makes a decision (maybe uninformed, but nevertheless) to step in front of said two-ton killing machine.
        cesnja 7y ago
        The difference here is that you are framing the driver as the victim, when it's just the opposite.
- benj111 7y ago
  How well can you hear the outside world from your car? Should all drivers be required to drive convertibles without stereos so they can hear the sounds of the world around them?
- ghaff 7y ago
  I know I'm somewhat of an outlier but I really don't like wearing earphones when I'm out and about. I don't even like walking in the woods with them in. I certainly don't like wearing them anywhere there's traffic or other potential hazards. Just makes me feel cut-off from the environment.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  People should pay attention to the world around them, but keep in mind that the pedestrians aren't the people doing the activity that causes the damage.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    In the same way that if I stick my hand in the table saw, it's not me causing the damage. Of course drivers who can't pay attention to the things they should pay attention to don't really deserve to drive. But physics is physics, and there's a limit to how fast a driver can react and a car in motion can stop. And a lot of pedestrians at least here seem to not keep that in mind when roaming about.
- megaremote 7y ago
  Oh yes, forgot about all those cars killed by pedestrians.
- cesnja 7y ago
  You are legally allowed to drive over a pedestrian if he does that, right?
- asdff 7y ago
  If you hit someone hard enough to kill them then you were definitely speeding and/or not paying attention. Even going 45mph, which is the highest speed road around me where you'd encounter a crosswalk wile driving, you still have plenty of time to slam on the brakes and bleed speed to a nonfatal speed. Probably takes 1 second to go from 45mph to 20mph. When drivers kill people in my town, it seems like it's mostly hit and runs which should give you a hint on who was at fault.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    A car going at 1mph can kill you. Hit and runs, speeding... that's something else entirely.
JJMcJ 7y ago
Another factor is increased number of trucks and SUVs. Pedestrians are struck higher in their body and are less likely to slide off the hood, but are instead underneath the vehicle.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  Do you have a source that indicates that the observed increase was attributed to trucks and SUVs?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Not the OP but this article agrees with the OP: And more Americans than ever are zipping around in SUVs and pickup trucks, which, thanks to their height, weight and shape are between two and three times more likely to kill people they hit. SUVs are also the most profitable cars on the market, for the simple reason buyers are willing to pay more for them. As with speeding, there appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle at work: the increased presence of large cars on the road makes them feel more dangerous, which makes owning a large car yourself feel more comforting. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision-course-pedestrian-deaths-rising-driverless-cars https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision...
    - petre 7y ago
      I think it's a vicious circle. People want to feel safe on the road, so they buy a SUV or a truck because it's less likely to get smashed and squashed in a car crash. This is probably also why "sport futility vehicles" like the BMW X6 or the Mercedes GLW Coupe have appeared: they are cramped inside and their off road performance is utter crap (too heavy, built for the road).
      - JJMcJ 7y ago
        Marketing studies show that people who buy SUVs are both more scared of the road, and have more doubts on their own driving skill.
unsignedchar 7y ago
> I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. Probably the lack of proper incentives; we need pedestrian safety ratings and fatality statistics to be front and center like crash-test ratings
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  Well, people don't buy cars because the car won't kill the pedestrians they hit in a crash; they buy cars that won't kill the driver in a crash. What we need is to change the incentives further down the pipe; for instance, if we eliminate vehicular manslaughter as a criminal category.
  - lutorm 7y ago
    That's exactly why it has to be mandated. Occupant safety might be a selling feature, but not killing others has to be a required one...
stefan_ 7y ago
It just needs basic engineering. If fucking electric scooters have geofenced speed limits (and drones much longer even) there is zero excuse for cars exceeding speed limits.
- codazoda 7y ago
  Fun fact, Utah has Prima Facia speed limits. This means it's legal to exceed the posted limit when it's safe to do so. You'll get a ticket anyway, but you can make the argument. If all cars went the speed limit then cities, towns, and counties would lose speeding ticket revenue. I suspect the money would cause attempts to force safe speeds to fail. On the flip side there's a certain amount of freedom inherent in being allowed to speed. So, it seems like there might not be enough support, on any side, to make this feasible. Around here, going the speed limit typically means going slower than the rest of traffic. If all of our cars forced us not to speed, I wonder if speed limits would naturally increase to safer limits. I also wonder how much of what I just said is a result of Prima Facia speed limits here.
  - lutorm 7y ago
    CA too. I'm not sure how likely it is to get you out of a ticket though.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Speed limits in cities and towns where pedestrians are walking are already typically the highest safe speed limit, or even higher. The odds of a car-pedestrian collision resulting in a fatality increase dramatically in the gradient from 20 to 40 mph, and people love to speed in cities and towns where the limits are usually 25 or 30 mph. Limited-access highway speed limits are a different story of course and a lot of highways still have old 55 or 65 mph speed limits that are set for fuel efficiency due to the 1970s oil crisis, not necessarily the maximum safe speed.
- ggreer 7y ago
  Why would anyone buy a scooter that has a geofenced governor? Scooter rental companies might do that, but then they'll have more competition from modes of transportation that don't have such restrictions (such as rental bicycles). I couldn't see lots of people buying a car with a built in governor, especially since speed limits are a joke in many places in the US. Also, such a device would be a hazard in a life threatening situation (such as escaping a disaster or driving a family member to the hospital).
dkarl 7y ago
> When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving. > I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it. When you're improving on nothing, everything is an improvement. That is, until marketing hears about it and starts hyping the hell out of it, and then then it's worse than nothing. This is true for all features, not just safety features. I doubt QA was asked to evaluate how the technology compared to the marketing.
megaremote 7y ago
And 2.5million people are injured or disabled every year.

by mfer 7y ago

magicalhippo 7y ago

> I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit. Not just drivers. Plenty of pedestrians which just walk straight across the road with their eyes firmly fixed on their screens and earbuds protecting their ears from the sounds of the world around them.

scarejunba 7y ago
Last I checked from CA SWITRS data, that was not the case. Car/bike, Car/pedestrian collisions had cars be at fault in at least 2/3rds of the time.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  At least where I'm from, cars by default at fault if they hit a pedestrian. I'm not saying they account for the majority, but I do see a lot of very close calls on a regular basis due to pedestrians behaving as if they're alone in the world.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    At least where I'm from... Out of curiosity, where is that? This seems like a much better policy than I've seen...
    - magicalhippo 7y ago
      That'd be Norway.
  - cesnja 7y ago
    That's because the other party made a decision (maybe uninformed, but nevertheless) to command a two-ton killing machine when there's no need for it.
    - magicalhippo 7y ago
      In the same way that the pedestrian who carelessly walks into the road without sensing their surroundings makes a decision (maybe uninformed, but nevertheless) to step in front of said two-ton killing machine.
      - cesnja 7y ago
        The difference here is that you are framing the driver as the victim, when it's just the opposite.
benj111 7y ago
How well can you hear the outside world from your car? Should all drivers be required to drive convertibles without stereos so they can hear the sounds of the world around them?
ghaff 7y ago
I know I'm somewhat of an outlier but I really don't like wearing earphones when I'm out and about. I don't even like walking in the woods with them in. I certainly don't like wearing them anywhere there's traffic or other potential hazards. Just makes me feel cut-off from the environment.
InitialLastName 7y ago
People should pay attention to the world around them, but keep in mind that the pedestrians aren't the people doing the activity that causes the damage.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  In the same way that if I stick my hand in the table saw, it's not me causing the damage. Of course drivers who can't pay attention to the things they should pay attention to don't really deserve to drive. But physics is physics, and there's a limit to how fast a driver can react and a car in motion can stop. And a lot of pedestrians at least here seem to not keep that in mind when roaming about.
megaremote 7y ago
Oh yes, forgot about all those cars killed by pedestrians.
cesnja 7y ago
You are legally allowed to drive over a pedestrian if he does that, right?
asdff 7y ago
If you hit someone hard enough to kill them then you were definitely speeding and/or not paying attention. Even going 45mph, which is the highest speed road around me where you'd encounter a crosswalk wile driving, you still have plenty of time to slam on the brakes and bleed speed to a nonfatal speed. Probably takes 1 second to go from 45mph to 20mph. When drivers kill people in my town, it seems like it's mostly hit and runs which should give you a hint on who was at fault.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  A car going at 1mph can kill you. Hit and runs, speeding... that's something else entirely.

JJMcJ 7y ago

Another factor is increased number of trucks and SUVs. Pedestrians are struck higher in their body and are less likely to slide off the hood, but are instead underneath the vehicle.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Do you have a source that indicates that the observed increase was attributed to trucks and SUVs?
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Not the OP but this article agrees with the OP: And more Americans than ever are zipping around in SUVs and pickup trucks, which, thanks to their height, weight and shape are between two and three times more likely to kill people they hit. SUVs are also the most profitable cars on the market, for the simple reason buyers are willing to pay more for them. As with speeding, there appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle at work: the increased presence of large cars on the road makes them feel more dangerous, which makes owning a large car yourself feel more comforting. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision-course-pedestrian-deaths-rising-driverless-cars https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision...
  - petre 7y ago
    I think it's a vicious circle. People want to feel safe on the road, so they buy a SUV or a truck because it's less likely to get smashed and squashed in a car crash. This is probably also why "sport futility vehicles" like the BMW X6 or the Mercedes GLW Coupe have appeared: they are cramped inside and their off road performance is utter crap (too heavy, built for the road).
    - JJMcJ 7y ago
      Marketing studies show that people who buy SUVs are both more scared of the road, and have more doubts on their own driving skill.

unsignedchar 7y ago

> I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. Probably the lack of proper incentives; we need pedestrian safety ratings and fatality statistics to be front and center like crash-test ratings

InitialLastName 7y ago
Well, people don't buy cars because the car won't kill the pedestrians they hit in a crash; they buy cars that won't kill the driver in a crash. What we need is to change the incentives further down the pipe; for instance, if we eliminate vehicular manslaughter as a criminal category.
- lutorm 7y ago
  That's exactly why it has to be mandated. Occupant safety might be a selling feature, but not killing others has to be a required one...

stefan_ 7y ago

It just needs basic engineering. If fucking electric scooters have geofenced speed limits (and drones much longer even) there is zero excuse for cars exceeding speed limits.

codazoda 7y ago
Fun fact, Utah has Prima Facia speed limits. This means it's legal to exceed the posted limit when it's safe to do so. You'll get a ticket anyway, but you can make the argument. If all cars went the speed limit then cities, towns, and counties would lose speeding ticket revenue. I suspect the money would cause attempts to force safe speeds to fail. On the flip side there's a certain amount of freedom inherent in being allowed to speed. So, it seems like there might not be enough support, on any side, to make this feasible. Around here, going the speed limit typically means going slower than the rest of traffic. If all of our cars forced us not to speed, I wonder if speed limits would naturally increase to safer limits. I also wonder how much of what I just said is a result of Prima Facia speed limits here.
- lutorm 7y ago
  CA too. I'm not sure how likely it is to get you out of a ticket though.
- javagram 7y ago
  Speed limits in cities and towns where pedestrians are walking are already typically the highest safe speed limit, or even higher. The odds of a car-pedestrian collision resulting in a fatality increase dramatically in the gradient from 20 to 40 mph, and people love to speed in cities and towns where the limits are usually 25 or 30 mph. Limited-access highway speed limits are a different story of course and a lot of highways still have old 55 or 65 mph speed limits that are set for fuel efficiency due to the 1970s oil crisis, not necessarily the maximum safe speed.
ggreer 7y ago
Why would anyone buy a scooter that has a geofenced governor? Scooter rental companies might do that, but then they'll have more competition from modes of transportation that don't have such restrictions (such as rental bicycles). I couldn't see lots of people buying a car with a built in governor, especially since speed limits are a joke in many places in the US. Also, such a device would be a hazard in a life threatening situation (such as escaping a disaster or driving a family member to the hospital).

dkarl 7y ago

> When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving. > I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it. When you're improving on nothing, everything is an improvement. That is, until marketing hears about it and starts hyping the hell out of it, and then then it's worse than nothing. This is true for all features, not just safety features. I doubt QA was asked to evaluate how the technology compared to the marketing.

megaremote 7y ago

And 2.5million people are injured or disabled every year.