23 ms·

Why are cars killing more pedestrians?

142 points by blue_devil 7y ago

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
> 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. It’s not such a mystery then.
- willis936 7y ago
  An interesting side effect of the new safety regulations for cars is that their weight has increased. A base VW golf weighs 3,000 pounds and has huge blindspots where the roll-over-ready columns are. The safety regulations only maximize safety for drivers in the event of an accident. They do nothing to minimize the chance of accidents or the deadlines of accidents to pedestrians. Science lagged legislation.
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    It's probably both fashion and crash safety, but car design really has gone astray with the heavy-handed "aggressive" styling and tiny windows everywhere. Where's the elegance?
    - Pxtl 7y ago
      Rear windows have shrank to almost nothing with the rise of backup cameras, but backup cameras are probably one of the few inventions that actually increase pedestrian safety over driving safety.
  - Pxtl 7y ago
    I though the giant blindspot columns were airbags?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
MichaelMoser123 7y ago
i wonder if it helps that cars make less of a noise in an urban environment these days (especially electric/dual ones)
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Probably not much impact yet because there are so few EVs relative to ICEs. But, I've almost stepped in front of a few Teslas that "snuck up" on me in parking lots (typical US open parking lot with no pedestrian access - you just walk through a sea of cars and hope they're all paying attention).
Tharkun 7y ago
The solution is simple: fewer, slower and smaller cars.
- antihero 7y ago
  Genius
- play2computers 7y ago
  actually it's even simpler: don't let humans drive. Even today's rudimentary driverless systems are already vastly superior to humans in terms of events per mile driven. (i.e. pedestrians killed)
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    Not by a long shot. Come to my city and see if Autopilot can handle it at rush hour with road side construction sites and double parked cars. A law abiding driver that's paying attention to the road has miles more cognitive ability for safe driving than any autonomous system to date.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Bicycles would be a good replacement if infrastructure would be there.
Razengan 7y ago
This must be the fourth or fifth article/discussion against cars that I've seen on HN in the last couple days, and the second on the front page right now. Is someone trying to push something here?
- gherkinnn 7y ago
  You might be on to something. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    Where is the commercial gain from these articles? What product is being sold?
    - Razengan 7y ago
      Just to guess possible answers to your question: Electric, self-driving cars? Reduction of parking lots to make room for something more lucrative? Generating support for getting cities to pay for new mass transit systems? New taxes on vehicle ownership?
      - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
        That seems a stretch to me. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of submarine articles posted here, I just don't see this being one of them.
- fouc 7y ago
  I wouldn't read too much into it. It is a common pattern in HN that a popular post on a topic will cause a spate of postings on the same topic by other HN readers. That's simply because HN readers will often do some additional web surfing on that topic, and then share back some HN worthy discoveries. It's a virtuous cycle.
- Lio 7y ago
  Cars are very dangerous things. They are used to kill an awful lot of people every day without much comment at all. I've read a lot of articles about agressive or dangerously incompetant drivers in the UK, I have never once seen someone given a lifetime driving ban. Drivers no mater if they were serving a temporary ban, were uninsured, on drugs, on the pavement (sidewalk) or reading their phones they always get the chance to get their licence back once they've paid a small fine or occationally got out of prison. That goes for repeat offenders too. Maybe startups using technology to provide alternatives such as electric bikes, scooters, self-driving cars would have some value to society.
known 7y ago
In US car accidents killed more people than all wars combined
- Razengan 7y ago
  Not just accidents, "road rage" (which seems to be a largely US phenomenon) leads to murders or grievous violence too.
  - pagnol 7y ago
    The other day I discovered a book which discusses the use of motorized vehicles as weapons at length: https://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 https://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/08... As someone who does a lot of cycling, I'm used to road rage directed at me in the form of punishment passes mostly.
chiph 7y ago
> The post-crash investigation indicated that she had probably been watching the singing contest The Voice on her phone. It's not just the drivers that are being distracted by their phones - pedestrians are as well. Every time I drive downtown, I'm having to make allowances for people with a total lack of situational awareness because they're walking around heads-down. I'm not singling out the pedestrians - the drivers are equally at fault. Like the guy in the GL450 on I-85 last night who couldn't stay in his lane at 70mph because he was checking his phone.
- okasaki 7y ago
  >I'm not singling out the pedestrians - the drivers are equally at fault. Distracted walking isn't a crime, so surely it's not equal.
  - hodgesrm 7y ago
    It is if somebody gets killed. Recently a guy wearing headphones and listening (apparently) to his cell phone walked across the street against the light and directly in front of my car. He was completely oblivious that there was a light and didn't even hear me slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      If you had to slam on your brakes or make an emergency stop you were probably going too fast for the environment.
      - geggam 7y ago
        You don't have sidewalks on streets with speeds of 50mph or more ? Here in AZ if you walk in front of a car and get hit, it is your fault. Legally. Arizona law does say that at no time, even when entering a crosswalk, should a pedestrian step out so quickly in front of a vehicle that a vehicle does not have time to come to a full stop. https://www.breyerlaw.com/blog/pedestrian-accident/rules-of-the-road-for-pedestrians/ https://www.breyerlaw.com/blog/pedestrian-accident/rules-of-... Note we also have a "Stupid motorist law"
maxaf 7y ago
Cars don’t kill pedestrians; drivers kill pedestrians. This is a case of lopsided stakes: pedestrians have everything to lose in case of car-on-ped collision, while drivers will merely have their day’s schedule derailed. The fundamental problem here is that drivers simply don’t care, and fail to operate their vehicles with due compassion towards vulnerable road users. An attentive driver who accelerates modestly and takes the time to become sure of his surroundings will not collide with anything: pedestrian, cyclist, another vehicle, or street furniture. I believe strongly in robust mechanisms for keeping drivers responsible. Unfortunately, at least where I live, the justice system is completely impotent and unwilling to punish drivers for causing serious bodily harm or death. A system of heavy fines or imprisonment targeted at drivers would have resolved the inattention issue quicker than a typical driver can make a three-point turn. A year’s worth of income, or one year of imprisonment, for any car-on-ped collision would do the trick.
- ses1984 7y ago
  What makes you ask sure that punishment would actually serve as an effective deterrent?
  - maxaf 7y ago
    Do you want to spend a year in prison for running over a pedestrian? Does anyone else?
    - ses1984 7y ago
      Do people think of the punishment when the commit the crime? Do you have data on it?
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    Well, if we take a license away from anyone who texts and drives there will be less unfit drivers on the road. It's likely not enough but heavy penalties for texting when driving would help even if it doesn't deter anyone until the get caught.
- gear54rus 7y ago
Scapeghost 7y ago
Somewhat related, and infuriating, news that this reminded me of: US Diplomat's wife flees the UK and hides behind diplomatic immunity after killing 19 year old in a head on collision: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ddm5ia/us_diplomats_wife_flees_the_uk_and_hides_behind/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ddm5ia/us_diplom...
- dazc 7y ago
  I guess the word 'allegedly' is appropriate since she has, thus far, not been proven guilty of anything?
  - Lio 7y ago
    > The US Embassy confirmed the incident involved "a vehicle driven by the spouse of a US diplomat assigned to the United Kingdom" and that the family has left the UK. No one is denying she did it. They had her in custody. She was released on the previso that she would not leave the country. Turns out that the sort of person that flees the scene of an accident is also the sort of person that doesn't stick around for the full investigation.
    - dazc 7y ago
      As someone who was once accused of killing a dog as a result of speeding/drink driving, I'm hoping I never have to appear in your court? I was guilty as hell until it turned out I hadn't been drinking, wasn't speeding and the dog suffered only a few bruises and a bit of embarrassment for his owner who had a tendency to wildly exaggerate. The owner was warned not to let her dog run off the lead near to traffic in future.
      - Lio 7y ago
        Not sure how your personal story is relavant here. Are you saying you think we'll later find out that no one was killed or that the US Embassy is wrong in admitting that a diplomat's wife was invloved in a hit and run collision? Both of these things appear to be facts beyond dispute. It is a crime in the UK to leave the scene of a traffic collision even if the collision was not your fault. Legally you must wait for the police and you must provide care to others involved including calling the emergency services.
holri 7y ago
70 people are killed EVERY DAY in Europe in traffic accidents. I wonder why this extremely unsafe technology is not forbidden.
mjw1007 7y ago
For good reasons, parents thoroughly indoctrinate small children with the idea that it's their job to keep out of the way of cars; if they step into the road they're being Very Naughty Indeed, and cars are an uncaring force of nature that can't be expected to slow or keep out of the way. It's a shame there isn't an equally strong indoctrination campaign in the other direction when those same children become old enough to drive, to say that it's their job not to hit people under any circumstances.
- codingdave 7y ago
  Not where I live, in Utah. Here, people constantly stop, and block traffic, if kids are anywhere near crossing a street. It is very sweet, but terribly dangerous, as it teaches kids exactly the opposite of what you are saying. They grow up here thinking that cars will stop. Kids run into the street all the time. I go blocks, or sometimes miles, out of my way to avoid driving anywhere near elementary schools at the times kids are going to or leaving school because I fear how often they simply run out in front of you. The education that is needed is more universal - cars will crush people. Whether you are behind the wheel or not, do what is needed to respect that fact and avoid anyone getting hurt.
- muzika 7y ago
  As a parent of 4 I am shocked to see some kids run into the road without looking out for cars first. More parents should “indoctrinate” their kids about safety. You can’t control other people’s/driver’s actions, but you can teach your kids about basic safety.
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    Absolutely you can. My worry is that once this idea has been thoroughly instilled in children's heads when they're small, it's still there when they're older and in charge of dangerous machinery, so somewhere deep down they believe that avoiding death-by-car is naturally the pedestrian's job. I don't suggest this is a reason not to put the idea there in the first place, rather that we should work as hard as possible to get to a situation where once they're driving they behave as if they believe the responsibility is all theirs.
Aloha 7y ago
I think that vehicle designs have evolved in a couple ways over the last 15 years in negative ways: 1. More Vertical space on the front of the vehicle - making it harder to see pedestrians right in front of you, this is particularly the case for large trucks and SUV's. 2. Reduced greenhouses in modern cars (all the windows are smaller, meaning its harder to see anything around you) 3. Vehicles in general are taller, higher and wider in the front and rear. There are also other human factors in play, like more distracted driving from smart phones, and more complex infotainment systems in the vehicle.
mellosouls 7y ago
Conjecture: the obsession with "safety" cams has led to a massive decrease in road policing by officers and a corresponding decline in the correction of poor and unsafe driving.
colechristensen 7y ago
Answers to the title question: * Transition away from physical controls to touchscreen controls in new cars * American's love affair with the automatic transmission * Car-unfriendly "progressive" movements and the return of population towards city centers It seems like people have very little actual interest in making things better but only interest in blaming something they have a built-in bias against or promoting a technology they find interesting. The article completely failed to mention manual transmissions in America and the rest of the world while wondering loudly why it is so different here and the prevalence of touch-screens not just on phones in cars. Automatics are much more popular in the US and having a manual transmission forces you to pay much more attention to driving and simply occupies both hands more often especially inside cities. One thing emphasized way too little is the responsibility of the pedestrian for not getting hit – the feeling of entitlement to right of way leading to people just not paying attention to cars or expecting behavior instead of watching for it. I grew up around farm machinery often with little visibility and it teaches you to pay attention to what is going on around you a lot more. Not just in a way of being ready to react because there are circumstances where reacting is impossible, but in knowing what movements a machine is capable of and what the operator intends to do as well as if the operator knows you are there at all. This is one of the primary reasons I think robot cars will go absolutely nowhere. It is impossible to come up with a theory of mind for a robotic car. As a pedestrian all you usually need to know the intentions of a driver (or vice versa) are an instant of eye contact. We are evolved to use tiny signals to decide intent and many people are barely aware of this. That kind of information just can't be reliably exchanged with a machine. And people just aren't expecting the kinds of things which will happen when people start to believe robots with super fast reaction times will do anything not to hit pedestrians. Pedestrians will start running into the street without a care (or as a cheap thrill) The article missed a lot and spent too much time on the wrong topics.
- GordonS 7y ago
  > American's love affair with the automatic transmission I don't agree with your point here. I switched to auto boxes around 10 years ago, and (if anything) they free me up a bit to be more aware of my surroundings, because I don't have to spend any of my attention on using a clutch and gear stick. Fully agree about touchscreen controls though - if controls are physical and tactile, I can easily use them without diverting my eyes from the road.
balfirevic 7y ago
There was an interesting comment on this topic by gok two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153030 It cites a study [0] claiming almost all of additional pedestrian deaths happen at night, while daytime fatalities haven't increased much. [0] - https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes...
gerbilly 7y ago
Texting while driving, that's why. From here I sit on the porch, I can see that about 2/3 of drivers text while driving. I'm convinced that no amount of campaigning, punishment, or scare tactics will suffice to stop it. It is just how driving is done nowadays, and everyone feels they can do it safely (but they can't). There's no going back so if you're on a bike, or a pedestrian, watch out! Driving is sacred in our societies. Whenever a driver kills a pedestrian or a cyclist in my town, there aren't even any charges laid 99% of the time. Personally I think smartphones have been a net loss to society, for this and many other reasons.
- taneq 7y ago
  And while walking.
  - whywhywhywhy 7y ago
    Feels like this has got a lot worse in my experience in the past 2 years, while walking to work in the city it feels like almost half of all people are holding their phone right up to their face. Don't get why it's gotten more common though, phones haven't changed beyond camera updates in years.
    - dota_fanatic 7y ago
      The software has changed as well as society's coupling to that software.
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    I think it's pretty legitimate to be distracted while walking around. Being distracted while operating heavy machinery, on the other hand, is kinda bad.
    - empath75 7y ago
      Even if it’s legitimate it could still impact your ability to see a car heading towards you and react to it.
fidla 7y ago
Texting
Fricken 7y ago
Almost daily HN covers some aspect of why everybody driving around in their own personal automobile is stupid. Cars kills and main people. Cars release particulate matter that's bad for our lungs. Cars promote sedentarism, that bad for our physical health. Car rubber washed off roads releases microplastics into the ocean. Cars are noisy, they cause congestion, and make our cities stressful, hostile and dysfunctional. Cars promote inequality. Cars and their associated sprawl cost us insane amounts of money. Cars are destroying the planet. There are reams of research to back this stuff up. There were massive reams of research to back it up 40 years ago. There are demonstrably better ways to do this. Why are we so fucking stupid?
- Filligree 7y ago
  We're the dumbest animals that could possibly build a technical civilization, because if we'd been any smarter then we'd have built it earlier, when we were dumber. It won't make you feel any better, but perhaps this was inevitable.
- oftenwrong 7y ago
  >Cars release particulate matter that's bad for our lungs. ...and our hearts! https://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways https://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-high...
- undersuit 7y ago
  Yes, because we love our cars. I mean literally, articles about autonomous driving always seem to have that one person who loves to drive and had a "you'll have to pry my dead hands off the steering wheel" mentality. And SNL wasn't making up a joke in the void when they made "The Mercury Mistress" sketch.
- Uhuhreally 7y ago
  couldn't agree more
- refurb 7y ago
  Because cars provide massive benefits that offset much of those downsides. It’s kind of like asking, why do we take chemotherapy for cancer when it makes people so sick? Because it can sometimes cure cancer, that’s why!
undersuit 7y ago
Our current vehicle are great for many things and the improvements to them have increased safety and reduced deaths of occupants, blah blah blah. Let's regulate these death machines to roads where they can be death machines, like highways, in the city you switch to driving an open air buggy whose seat belt is there to help you not slide out of a slippery plastic seat.
Pxtl 7y ago
Normally I'm the first to blame suburban sprawl for unsafe roads - an environment where you have to drive everywhere all the time breeds complacency... however, The fact that we're talking about decidedly non-suburban Europe, and that 2010 is identified as the local minimum, pretty strongly implies that the rise of smartphones and other touchscreen-based devices is the culprit.
abakker 7y ago
I agree that texting while driving is a key part of it, no doubt. But, I’d propose another one, too. New aerodynamic designs locate the A pillars in a place in most cars that eliminates huge swaths of my peripheral vision. Backup cameras also make up for increasingly awful side vision and rear vision. I drive an 1990s land cruiser a few weeks ago and the visibility was amazing. You didn’t need cameras because the hood was low, the windshield was flat and upright and the side windows weren’t tinted black. Old land rovers and pickups were the same.
- ronnier 7y ago
  > A pillars in a place in most cars that eliminates huge swaths of my peripheral vision Yes! There's a large area to the left and right of me where I can't see anyone which makes it particularly dangerous when turning a corner. On another note, I walk in Seattle a lot and I do my best to look for oncoming cars when crossing, I don't trust them to see me or even the red light.
- gomijacogeo 7y ago
  Agreed! A-pillars have gotten extremely thick over the last 10 or so years to accommodate airbags and the increased rake angle of the windshield brings the pillar much closer to the eye. In my vehicles (2008 & 2018), the left pillar blocks the destination of a left turn (intersections or twisty mountain roads) and the right pillar at intersections block traffic and pedestrians from the right. I bob and weave to try and compensate, but it's definitely more work.
rossdavidh 7y ago
So, it's an important problem, but the first thing I thought was, "are people walking more or less than they did 20 years ago?" Certainly where I live, there are more cyclists than there were 20 years ago, and while I could believe that pedestrianism does not necessarily go up or down in tandem with cycling, I cannot believe it has stayed exactly the same. Do we walk to places more than 20 years ago (perhaps because more people are unable to afford a car, as wealth inequality grows)? Or do we walk less, such that the increase in pedestrian deaths is even worse than this article suggests, indicating a downward spiral in which people walk less because it seems too dangerous, which makes drivers less aware that there are pedestrians to look out for, which makes people walk even less? This article doesn't say. It seems a pretty fundamental point to be leaving out of a discussion of pedestrian death rates. They don't even mention whether these rates represent an increase in per capita deaths, or just reflect population increases. Without turning pedestrian death rates into per-person-per-mile-walked kind of rates, I don't see how you can draw many conclusions at all.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  I believe these calculations are not as relevant for policy because practically you care that people keep dying from being hit by cars. Say, 10 people dead are 10 people dead. They are not less important when they account for 1% vs. 0.0001% of walking people, per mile/km or whatever, are they?
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    Sure, but the rate is what helps to figure out why the change. If the rate of pedestrian death per mile walked is actually going down, but they are walking lots more, then you want to keep doing whatever you're doing, to keep the rate going down. If the rate per mile walked is going up, you need to consider some sort of about face, changing what you have been doing before.
meerita 7y ago
I am quiet driver. I have horror stories every single day with pedestrians who cross the street in the wrong spots, giving you 0 secs to react. I cannot tell how many guys could I be killed them because they've crossed the street texting and using headphones. Pedestrians go really in distracted mode, that's why when I approach some areas, I go really paranoid and try to foresee anything.
- algaeontoast 7y ago
  It's even worse when you're on a bike and this happens. The number of times I've yelled at people who open doors or just meander into the bike lane and hit them or nearly hit them because they had headphones in is one too many...
  - meerita 7y ago
    I don't use a bike, but I comute on my escooter and it's insane the amount of people who uses the bike lane for whatever reason is. It's so insane. I had 3 accidents in the last 3 months made by pedestrians and 1 motorcycle woman who did it everything wrong.
    - algaeontoast 7y ago
      YES! The number of times I was almost hit by gas motor-scooters in the lane during traffic (while commuting with an electric scooter) was insane. I was mostly surprised by how slow most people ride their bikes. A meager 17mph even downhill on a dinky electric scooter is faster than most people ride their bikes, joggers also like to run in the bike lane at times...
effnorwood 7y ago
Like guns, they aren’t. It’s the operators and for cars specifically idiot monkeys on phones are the actual issue. For those too stupid to decipher this, the phones are also not the problem.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 7y ago
Good grief. Another tired, lengthy article attacking cars. Sorry but cars provide a lot of benefits, and are well worth the trade-offs in deaths. If you want to avoid deaths entirely, stay in your house. And even that might not keep you fully safe. But vehicle-related deaths are not even in the top 10 causes of unnatural death in the US, and making such a big deal out of it without considering the positives is absurd. Cars are fast, and in areas that are not ultra high-density, they save time relative to ANY alternative (walking, biking, buses, trains) and therefore drastically improve your quality of life. They don't require you to wait on someone else's schedule, especially given the often inconsistent timing of buses. They don't require you to risk sitting down on dirty seats (6-year-old girl stabbed by uncapped needle on bus: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden-two-bus-seats-9873386/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden...). They don't require you to expose yourself to violence (40 to 60 teens rob BART train: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...). They let you travel all over the land, including away from cities, and therefore give you a greater degree of freedom than the reach of fixed rails or transit systems that are limited to cities. Yes cars can cause deaths. So do a lot of other things. But the rate of vehicle-caused injuries/deaths has been dropping sharply since the 80s (see CDC data). It will continue to drop as backup cameras, lane departure prevention, collision detection, collision avoidance, and other assistance features become ubiquitous or required. Nothing is ever perfect, and this is the fundamental reason why efforts like Vision Zero are flawed. "Zero deaths" is not the goal, and generally any such absolute goal is unrealistic. We get massive benefits from fast, private point-to-point transport. Let's not forget that and work to retain those benefits, instead of damaging the benefits of vehicles with low speed limits and other 'road diet' suggestions.
- Noumenon72 7y ago
  Posts like this being downvoted is why we need reddiquette (don't downvote posts that contribute to the discussion) instead of the currently permitted system of "downvote to exclude any viewpoint you disagree with from others' view". The downvotes make the site appear to be populated by activists rather than people here for conversation.
0xDEEPFAC 7y ago
Visibility, visibility, visibility. All new cars, trucks, etc. are tall with very narrow windows for better collision safety. Not to mention American's latest obsession with hideous "cross-overs." As a result, its much harder to see in front of you and the extra clearance means you actually suck someone underneath the car instead of over. Also, is it just me or are cars just plain ugly these days (yuck) https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoque/2017/2017-range-rover-evoque-convertible-first-test-review/ https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoqu... https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-original-frente-al-mini-countryman-david-y-goliat/ https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-...
- SkyPuncher 7y ago
  > As a result, its much harder to see in front of you and the extra clearance means you actually suck someone underneath the car instead of over. I drive a crossover and I'm not sure where you get this idea from - let alone it being the issue. In can see much better out of my crossover than my sedan because I have a higher seating position and a smaller engine bay to look over. Height would really only be an issue in a parking lot if a child was hiding in front of a car.
  - 0xDEEPFAC 7y ago
    Not in a close radius to the hood. Think about the extreme example of a semitruck which undoubtedly can see far far ahead, but imagine now that you are taking a right turn at a light. I would disagree that its limited to children as a quick look right and then left might mean that much less of the person is visible and could possibly not catch your eye as you drive forward. https://imgur.com/gallery/PUfmP https://imgur.com/gallery/PUfmP disclaimer: I was almost hit on a green walk light on 6th av in NYC by a cross over speeding on a left turn... I had to jump
    - SkyPuncher 7y ago
      > Not in a close radius to the hood. How many accident actually stem from this. Even your own disclaimer has nothing to do with hood radius. That car that almost hit you was well out of "hood range" when he started to turn. Likely, it was either a failure to check the corner or you where in his A-pillar blindspot. Every single car in the world has an A-pillar blindspot. In my experience, the A-pillar blindspot is worse on smaller cars because it's closer to the driver and blocks more of his/her vision.
sfRattan 7y ago
Design of cars can be as much a safety issue as design of roads. The Honda Civic I drive will auto-play whatever audio my phone was last playing when it syncs via Bluetooth. It does so inconsistently, and somewhere between 30 seconds and 2 minutes after successfully syncing. Talk about a sudden and needless distraction. What engineer thought this was a good idea? I've taken to using a 5mm cord to connect my phone to the car speakers so I can control what plays and when it plays. Thankfully my phone still has a 5mm jack. Trying to anticipate what the user wants is obnoxious, but it becomes dangerous when the computer doing so is installed in a heavy metal box with an engine and the ability to move fast.
- analog31 7y ago
  Put the phone in airplane mode.
  - sfRattan 7y ago
    I usually turn the Bluetooth off when I'm done with it. The problem is when I occasionally forget, just like any human eventually will. If I need to remember to hit a switch on one computer to prevent another computer from unpredictably blasting audio whenever I use the second computer, that's a design and safety failure.
zenogais 7y ago
Cars aren't killing people though, it's the drivers of those cars. Such an odd headline. Better title: "Why are drivers killing more pedestrians?"
- licebmi__at__ 7y ago
  >Better title: "Why are drivers killing more pedestrians?" I disagree. That title lacks information and might lead to some people to think drivers are beating the pedestrians to death or maybe they're more prone to gun violence against pedestrians. Maybe, a better title could be: "Why are drivers who are currently driving a car, pedestrians currently walking on the street, by running them over with said car"
hotz 7y ago
I'm surprised that hardly anyone mentions pedestrians that cross roads without a care in the world. Pedestrians wearing earphones or just not paying attention. Easy to blame vehicles but there are multiple factors.
- elygre 7y ago
  The article is literally littered with thoughts on that.
sgarman 7y ago
I'm really disappointed to see all the one word or low effort answers here. It looks like most people didn't bother to read the article and are instead just trying to post their anecdotal responses to the title. Perhaps it's the title as a question which causes such poor responses.
carapace 7y ago
As a thought experiment, imagine that you could design a city from the ground up and try to invent a transportation network that doesn't have pedestrians and cars next to each other. - - - - I imagine you could have five separate interconnected networks: 1 Pedestrians 2 bicycles 3 personal cars 4 trucks and buses 5 light rail and inter-urban trains Add in e.g. Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language (like "Country City Fingers), and I think you would really have something.
yardie 7y ago
I don’t drive but I was referred this app by a friend called OnMyWay [0]. The premise is they pay you to drive and put the phone down. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/onmyway-drive-safe-get-paid/id1436132657 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/onmyway-drive-safe-get-paid/id...
jshaqaw 7y ago
Am easy start here in NYC - demand that serial driving offenders lose their licenses and face serious penalties if they violate than ban. If you systematically run red lights in this city you should face consequences. Until that happens a subset of awful people who don’t care will be deadly threats.
makecheck 7y ago
Pedestrians are very distracted (texting/phone/music) and drivers are very distracted (texting/phone/music). I’m actually amazed that I see people walk right into the street while looking at their phones the entire time, with either misplaced trust in their surroundings or dangerous obliviousness. Worse, drivers “seem” a lot angrier in recent years, and much more impatient. They’re likely to just go through, crosswalks be damned, missing people by a hair.
nullc 7y ago
And then, of course, there is Google Maps and Waze turning pedestrian lined residential access roads into high speed major arterials...

142 points by blue_devil 7y ago

> 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. It’s not such a mystery then.

willis936 7y ago
An interesting side effect of the new safety regulations for cars is that their weight has increased. A base VW golf weighs 3,000 pounds and has huge blindspots where the roll-over-ready columns are. The safety regulations only maximize safety for drivers in the event of an accident. They do nothing to minimize the chance of accidents or the deadlines of accidents to pedestrians. Science lagged legislation.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  It's probably both fashion and crash safety, but car design really has gone astray with the heavy-handed "aggressive" styling and tiny windows everywhere. Where's the elegance?
  - Pxtl 7y ago
    Rear windows have shrank to almost nothing with the rise of backup cameras, but backup cameras are probably one of the few inventions that actually increase pedestrian safety over driving safety.
- Pxtl 7y ago
  I though the giant blindspot columns were airbags?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

MichaelMoser123 7y ago

i wonder if it helps that cars make less of a noise in an urban environment these days (especially electric/dual ones)

alistairSH 7y ago
Probably not much impact yet because there are so few EVs relative to ICEs. But, I've almost stepped in front of a few Teslas that "snuck up" on me in parking lots (typical US open parking lot with no pedestrian access - you just walk through a sea of cars and hope they're all paying attention).

Tharkun 7y ago

The solution is simple: fewer, slower and smaller cars.

antihero 7y ago
Genius
play2computers 7y ago
actually it's even simpler: don't let humans drive. Even today's rudimentary driverless systems are already vastly superior to humans in terms of events per mile driven. (i.e. pedestrians killed)
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Not by a long shot. Come to my city and see if Autopilot can handle it at rush hour with road side construction sites and double parked cars. A law abiding driver that's paying attention to the road has miles more cognitive ability for safe driving than any autonomous system to date.
ChuckNorris89 7y ago
Bicycles would be a good replacement if infrastructure would be there.

Razengan 7y ago

This must be the fourth or fifth article/discussion against cars that I've seen on HN in the last couple days, and the second on the front page right now. Is someone trying to push something here?

gherkinnn 7y ago
You might be on to something. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  Where is the commercial gain from these articles? What product is being sold?
  - Razengan 7y ago
    Just to guess possible answers to your question: Electric, self-driving cars? Reduction of parking lots to make room for something more lucrative? Generating support for getting cities to pay for new mass transit systems? New taxes on vehicle ownership?
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      That seems a stretch to me. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of submarine articles posted here, I just don't see this being one of them.
fouc 7y ago
I wouldn't read too much into it. It is a common pattern in HN that a popular post on a topic will cause a spate of postings on the same topic by other HN readers. That's simply because HN readers will often do some additional web surfing on that topic, and then share back some HN worthy discoveries. It's a virtuous cycle.
Lio 7y ago
Cars are very dangerous things. They are used to kill an awful lot of people every day without much comment at all. I've read a lot of articles about agressive or dangerously incompetant drivers in the UK, I have never once seen someone given a lifetime driving ban. Drivers no mater if they were serving a temporary ban, were uninsured, on drugs, on the pavement (sidewalk) or reading their phones they always get the chance to get their licence back once they've paid a small fine or occationally got out of prison. That goes for repeat offenders too. Maybe startups using technology to provide alternatives such as electric bikes, scooters, self-driving cars would have some value to society.

known 7y ago

In US car accidents killed more people than all wars combined

Razengan 7y ago
Not just accidents, "road rage" (which seems to be a largely US phenomenon) leads to murders or grievous violence too.
- pagnol 7y ago
  The other day I discovered a book which discusses the use of motorized vehicles as weapons at length: https://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 https://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/08... As someone who does a lot of cycling, I'm used to road rage directed at me in the form of punishment passes mostly.

chiph 7y ago

> The post-crash investigation indicated that she had probably been watching the singing contest The Voice on her phone. It's not just the drivers that are being distracted by their phones - pedestrians are as well. Every time I drive downtown, I'm having to make allowances for people with a total lack of situational awareness because they're walking around heads-down. I'm not singling out the pedestrians - the drivers are equally at fault. Like the guy in the GL450 on I-85 last night who couldn't stay in his lane at 70mph because he was checking his phone.

okasaki 7y ago
>I'm not singling out the pedestrians - the drivers are equally at fault. Distracted walking isn't a crime, so surely it's not equal.
- hodgesrm 7y ago
  It is if somebody gets killed. Recently a guy wearing headphones and listening (apparently) to his cell phone walked across the street against the light and directly in front of my car. He was completely oblivious that there was a light and didn't even hear me slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    If you had to slam on your brakes or make an emergency stop you were probably going too fast for the environment.
    - geggam 7y ago
      You don't have sidewalks on streets with speeds of 50mph or more ? Here in AZ if you walk in front of a car and get hit, it is your fault. Legally. Arizona law does say that at no time, even when entering a crosswalk, should a pedestrian step out so quickly in front of a vehicle that a vehicle does not have time to come to a full stop. https://www.breyerlaw.com/blog/pedestrian-accident/rules-of-the-road-for-pedestrians/ https://www.breyerlaw.com/blog/pedestrian-accident/rules-of-... Note we also have a "Stupid motorist law"

maxaf 7y ago

Cars don’t kill pedestrians; drivers kill pedestrians. This is a case of lopsided stakes: pedestrians have everything to lose in case of car-on-ped collision, while drivers will merely have their day’s schedule derailed. The fundamental problem here is that drivers simply don’t care, and fail to operate their vehicles with due compassion towards vulnerable road users. An attentive driver who accelerates modestly and takes the time to become sure of his surroundings will not collide with anything: pedestrian, cyclist, another vehicle, or street furniture. I believe strongly in robust mechanisms for keeping drivers responsible. Unfortunately, at least where I live, the justice system is completely impotent and unwilling to punish drivers for causing serious bodily harm or death. A system of heavy fines or imprisonment targeted at drivers would have resolved the inattention issue quicker than a typical driver can make a three-point turn. A year’s worth of income, or one year of imprisonment, for any car-on-ped collision would do the trick.

ses1984 7y ago
What makes you ask sure that punishment would actually serve as an effective deterrent?
- maxaf 7y ago
  Do you want to spend a year in prison for running over a pedestrian? Does anyone else?
  - ses1984 7y ago
    Do people think of the punishment when the commit the crime? Do you have data on it?
- bluecalm 7y ago
  Well, if we take a license away from anyone who texts and drives there will be less unfit drivers on the road. It's likely not enough but heavy penalties for texting when driving would help even if it doesn't deter anyone until the get caught.
gear54rus 7y ago

Scapeghost 7y ago

Somewhat related, and infuriating, news that this reminded me of: US Diplomat's wife flees the UK and hides behind diplomatic immunity after killing 19 year old in a head on collision: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ddm5ia/us_diplomats_wife_flees_the_uk_and_hides_behind/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ddm5ia/us_diplom...

dazc 7y ago
I guess the word 'allegedly' is appropriate since she has, thus far, not been proven guilty of anything?
- Lio 7y ago
  > The US Embassy confirmed the incident involved "a vehicle driven by the spouse of a US diplomat assigned to the United Kingdom" and that the family has left the UK. No one is denying she did it. They had her in custody. She was released on the previso that she would not leave the country. Turns out that the sort of person that flees the scene of an accident is also the sort of person that doesn't stick around for the full investigation.
  - dazc 7y ago
    As someone who was once accused of killing a dog as a result of speeding/drink driving, I'm hoping I never have to appear in your court? I was guilty as hell until it turned out I hadn't been drinking, wasn't speeding and the dog suffered only a few bruises and a bit of embarrassment for his owner who had a tendency to wildly exaggerate. The owner was warned not to let her dog run off the lead near to traffic in future.
    - Lio 7y ago
      Not sure how your personal story is relavant here. Are you saying you think we'll later find out that no one was killed or that the US Embassy is wrong in admitting that a diplomat's wife was invloved in a hit and run collision? Both of these things appear to be facts beyond dispute. It is a crime in the UK to leave the scene of a traffic collision even if the collision was not your fault. Legally you must wait for the police and you must provide care to others involved including calling the emergency services.

holri 7y ago

70 people are killed EVERY DAY in Europe in traffic accidents. I wonder why this extremely unsafe technology is not forbidden.

mjw1007 7y ago

For good reasons, parents thoroughly indoctrinate small children with the idea that it's their job to keep out of the way of cars; if they step into the road they're being Very Naughty Indeed, and cars are an uncaring force of nature that can't be expected to slow or keep out of the way. It's a shame there isn't an equally strong indoctrination campaign in the other direction when those same children become old enough to drive, to say that it's their job not to hit people under any circumstances.

codingdave 7y ago
Not where I live, in Utah. Here, people constantly stop, and block traffic, if kids are anywhere near crossing a street. It is very sweet, but terribly dangerous, as it teaches kids exactly the opposite of what you are saying. They grow up here thinking that cars will stop. Kids run into the street all the time. I go blocks, or sometimes miles, out of my way to avoid driving anywhere near elementary schools at the times kids are going to or leaving school because I fear how often they simply run out in front of you. The education that is needed is more universal - cars will crush people. Whether you are behind the wheel or not, do what is needed to respect that fact and avoid anyone getting hurt.
muzika 7y ago
As a parent of 4 I am shocked to see some kids run into the road without looking out for cars first. More parents should “indoctrinate” their kids about safety. You can’t control other people’s/driver’s actions, but you can teach your kids about basic safety.
- mjw1007 7y ago
  Absolutely you can. My worry is that once this idea has been thoroughly instilled in children's heads when they're small, it's still there when they're older and in charge of dangerous machinery, so somewhere deep down they believe that avoiding death-by-car is naturally the pedestrian's job. I don't suggest this is a reason not to put the idea there in the first place, rather that we should work as hard as possible to get to a situation where once they're driving they behave as if they believe the responsibility is all theirs.

Aloha 7y ago

I think that vehicle designs have evolved in a couple ways over the last 15 years in negative ways: 1. More Vertical space on the front of the vehicle - making it harder to see pedestrians right in front of you, this is particularly the case for large trucks and SUV's. 2. Reduced greenhouses in modern cars (all the windows are smaller, meaning its harder to see anything around you) 3. Vehicles in general are taller, higher and wider in the front and rear. There are also other human factors in play, like more distracted driving from smart phones, and more complex infotainment systems in the vehicle.

mellosouls 7y ago

Conjecture: the obsession with "safety" cams has led to a massive decrease in road policing by officers and a corresponding decline in the correction of poor and unsafe driving.

colechristensen 7y ago

Answers to the title question: * Transition away from physical controls to touchscreen controls in new cars * American's love affair with the automatic transmission * Car-unfriendly "progressive" movements and the return of population towards city centers It seems like people have very little actual interest in making things better but only interest in blaming something they have a built-in bias against or promoting a technology they find interesting. The article completely failed to mention manual transmissions in America and the rest of the world while wondering loudly why it is so different here and the prevalence of touch-screens not just on phones in cars. Automatics are much more popular in the US and having a manual transmission forces you to pay much more attention to driving and simply occupies both hands more often especially inside cities. One thing emphasized way too little is the responsibility of the pedestrian for not getting hit – the feeling of entitlement to right of way leading to people just not paying attention to cars or expecting behavior instead of watching for it. I grew up around farm machinery often with little visibility and it teaches you to pay attention to what is going on around you a lot more. Not just in a way of being ready to react because there are circumstances where reacting is impossible, but in knowing what movements a machine is capable of and what the operator intends to do as well as if the operator knows you are there at all. This is one of the primary reasons I think robot cars will go absolutely nowhere. It is impossible to come up with a theory of mind for a robotic car. As a pedestrian all you usually need to know the intentions of a driver (or vice versa) are an instant of eye contact. We are evolved to use tiny signals to decide intent and many people are barely aware of this. That kind of information just can't be reliably exchanged with a machine. And people just aren't expecting the kinds of things which will happen when people start to believe robots with super fast reaction times will do anything not to hit pedestrians. Pedestrians will start running into the street without a care (or as a cheap thrill) The article missed a lot and spent too much time on the wrong topics.

GordonS 7y ago
> American's love affair with the automatic transmission I don't agree with your point here. I switched to auto boxes around 10 years ago, and (if anything) they free me up a bit to be more aware of my surroundings, because I don't have to spend any of my attention on using a clutch and gear stick. Fully agree about touchscreen controls though - if controls are physical and tactile, I can easily use them without diverting my eyes from the road.

balfirevic 7y ago

There was an interesting comment on this topic by gok two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153030 It cites a study [0] claiming almost all of additional pedestrian deaths happen at night, while daytime fatalities haven't increased much. [0] - https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes...

gerbilly 7y ago

Texting while driving, that's why. From here I sit on the porch, I can see that about 2/3 of drivers text while driving. I'm convinced that no amount of campaigning, punishment, or scare tactics will suffice to stop it. It is just how driving is done nowadays, and everyone feels they can do it safely (but they can't). There's no going back so if you're on a bike, or a pedestrian, watch out! Driving is sacred in our societies. Whenever a driver kills a pedestrian or a cyclist in my town, there aren't even any charges laid 99% of the time. Personally I think smartphones have been a net loss to society, for this and many other reasons.

taneq 7y ago
And while walking.
- whywhywhywhy 7y ago
  Feels like this has got a lot worse in my experience in the past 2 years, while walking to work in the city it feels like almost half of all people are holding their phone right up to their face. Don't get why it's gotten more common though, phones haven't changed beyond camera updates in years.
  - dota_fanatic 7y ago
    The software has changed as well as society's coupling to that software.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  I think it's pretty legitimate to be distracted while walking around. Being distracted while operating heavy machinery, on the other hand, is kinda bad.
  - empath75 7y ago
    Even if it’s legitimate it could still impact your ability to see a car heading towards you and react to it.

fidla 7y ago

Texting

Fricken 7y ago

Almost daily HN covers some aspect of why everybody driving around in their own personal automobile is stupid. Cars kills and main people. Cars release particulate matter that's bad for our lungs. Cars promote sedentarism, that bad for our physical health. Car rubber washed off roads releases microplastics into the ocean. Cars are noisy, they cause congestion, and make our cities stressful, hostile and dysfunctional. Cars promote inequality. Cars and their associated sprawl cost us insane amounts of money. Cars are destroying the planet. There are reams of research to back this stuff up. There were massive reams of research to back it up 40 years ago. There are demonstrably better ways to do this. Why are we so fucking stupid?

Filligree 7y ago
We're the dumbest animals that could possibly build a technical civilization, because if we'd been any smarter then we'd have built it earlier, when we were dumber. It won't make you feel any better, but perhaps this was inevitable.
oftenwrong 7y ago
>Cars release particulate matter that's bad for our lungs. ...and our hearts! https://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways https://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-high...
undersuit 7y ago
Yes, because we love our cars. I mean literally, articles about autonomous driving always seem to have that one person who loves to drive and had a "you'll have to pry my dead hands off the steering wheel" mentality. And SNL wasn't making up a joke in the void when they made "The Mercury Mistress" sketch.
Uhuhreally 7y ago
couldn't agree more
refurb 7y ago
Because cars provide massive benefits that offset much of those downsides. It’s kind of like asking, why do we take chemotherapy for cancer when it makes people so sick? Because it can sometimes cure cancer, that’s why!

undersuit 7y ago

Our current vehicle are great for many things and the improvements to them have increased safety and reduced deaths of occupants, blah blah blah. Let's regulate these death machines to roads where they can be death machines, like highways, in the city you switch to driving an open air buggy whose seat belt is there to help you not slide out of a slippery plastic seat.

Pxtl 7y ago

Normally I'm the first to blame suburban sprawl for unsafe roads - an environment where you have to drive everywhere all the time breeds complacency... however, The fact that we're talking about decidedly non-suburban Europe, and that 2010 is identified as the local minimum, pretty strongly implies that the rise of smartphones and other touchscreen-based devices is the culprit.

abakker 7y ago

I agree that texting while driving is a key part of it, no doubt. But, I’d propose another one, too. New aerodynamic designs locate the A pillars in a place in most cars that eliminates huge swaths of my peripheral vision. Backup cameras also make up for increasingly awful side vision and rear vision. I drive an 1990s land cruiser a few weeks ago and the visibility was amazing. You didn’t need cameras because the hood was low, the windshield was flat and upright and the side windows weren’t tinted black. Old land rovers and pickups were the same.

ronnier 7y ago
> A pillars in a place in most cars that eliminates huge swaths of my peripheral vision Yes! There's a large area to the left and right of me where I can't see anyone which makes it particularly dangerous when turning a corner. On another note, I walk in Seattle a lot and I do my best to look for oncoming cars when crossing, I don't trust them to see me or even the red light.
gomijacogeo 7y ago
Agreed! A-pillars have gotten extremely thick over the last 10 or so years to accommodate airbags and the increased rake angle of the windshield brings the pillar much closer to the eye. In my vehicles (2008 & 2018), the left pillar blocks the destination of a left turn (intersections or twisty mountain roads) and the right pillar at intersections block traffic and pedestrians from the right. I bob and weave to try and compensate, but it's definitely more work.

rossdavidh 7y ago

So, it's an important problem, but the first thing I thought was, "are people walking more or less than they did 20 years ago?" Certainly where I live, there are more cyclists than there were 20 years ago, and while I could believe that pedestrianism does not necessarily go up or down in tandem with cycling, I cannot believe it has stayed exactly the same. Do we walk to places more than 20 years ago (perhaps because more people are unable to afford a car, as wealth inequality grows)? Or do we walk less, such that the increase in pedestrian deaths is even worse than this article suggests, indicating a downward spiral in which people walk less because it seems too dangerous, which makes drivers less aware that there are pedestrians to look out for, which makes people walk even less? This article doesn't say. It seems a pretty fundamental point to be leaving out of a discussion of pedestrian death rates. They don't even mention whether these rates represent an increase in per capita deaths, or just reflect population increases. Without turning pedestrian death rates into per-person-per-mile-walked kind of rates, I don't see how you can draw many conclusions at all.

blue_devil 7y ago
I believe these calculations are not as relevant for policy because practically you care that people keep dying from being hit by cars. Say, 10 people dead are 10 people dead. They are not less important when they account for 1% vs. 0.0001% of walking people, per mile/km or whatever, are they?
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Sure, but the rate is what helps to figure out why the change. If the rate of pedestrian death per mile walked is actually going down, but they are walking lots more, then you want to keep doing whatever you're doing, to keep the rate going down. If the rate per mile walked is going up, you need to consider some sort of about face, changing what you have been doing before.

meerita 7y ago

I am quiet driver. I have horror stories every single day with pedestrians who cross the street in the wrong spots, giving you 0 secs to react. I cannot tell how many guys could I be killed them because they've crossed the street texting and using headphones. Pedestrians go really in distracted mode, that's why when I approach some areas, I go really paranoid and try to foresee anything.

algaeontoast 7y ago
It's even worse when you're on a bike and this happens. The number of times I've yelled at people who open doors or just meander into the bike lane and hit them or nearly hit them because they had headphones in is one too many...
- meerita 7y ago
  I don't use a bike, but I comute on my escooter and it's insane the amount of people who uses the bike lane for whatever reason is. It's so insane. I had 3 accidents in the last 3 months made by pedestrians and 1 motorcycle woman who did it everything wrong.
  - algaeontoast 7y ago
    YES! The number of times I was almost hit by gas motor-scooters in the lane during traffic (while commuting with an electric scooter) was insane. I was mostly surprised by how slow most people ride their bikes. A meager 17mph even downhill on a dinky electric scooter is faster than most people ride their bikes, joggers also like to run in the bike lane at times...

effnorwood 7y ago

Like guns, they aren’t. It’s the operators and for cars specifically idiot monkeys on phones are the actual issue. For those too stupid to decipher this, the phones are also not the problem.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 7y ago

Good grief. Another tired, lengthy article attacking cars. Sorry but cars provide a lot of benefits, and are well worth the trade-offs in deaths. If you want to avoid deaths entirely, stay in your house. And even that might not keep you fully safe. But vehicle-related deaths are not even in the top 10 causes of unnatural death in the US, and making such a big deal out of it without considering the positives is absurd. Cars are fast, and in areas that are not ultra high-density, they save time relative to ANY alternative (walking, biking, buses, trains) and therefore drastically improve your quality of life. They don't require you to wait on someone else's schedule, especially given the often inconsistent timing of buses. They don't require you to risk sitting down on dirty seats (6-year-old girl stabbed by uncapped needle on bus: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden-two-bus-seats-9873386/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden...). They don't require you to expose yourself to violence (40 to 60 teens rob BART train: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...). They let you travel all over the land, including away from cities, and therefore give you a greater degree of freedom than the reach of fixed rails or transit systems that are limited to cities. Yes cars can cause deaths. So do a lot of other things. But the rate of vehicle-caused injuries/deaths has been dropping sharply since the 80s (see CDC data). It will continue to drop as backup cameras, lane departure prevention, collision detection, collision avoidance, and other assistance features become ubiquitous or required. Nothing is ever perfect, and this is the fundamental reason why efforts like Vision Zero are flawed. "Zero deaths" is not the goal, and generally any such absolute goal is unrealistic. We get massive benefits from fast, private point-to-point transport. Let's not forget that and work to retain those benefits, instead of damaging the benefits of vehicles with low speed limits and other 'road diet' suggestions.

Noumenon72 7y ago
Posts like this being downvoted is why we need reddiquette (don't downvote posts that contribute to the discussion) instead of the currently permitted system of "downvote to exclude any viewpoint you disagree with from others' view". The downvotes make the site appear to be populated by activists rather than people here for conversation.

0xDEEPFAC 7y ago

Visibility, visibility, visibility. All new cars, trucks, etc. are tall with very narrow windows for better collision safety. Not to mention American's latest obsession with hideous "cross-overs." As a result, its much harder to see in front of you and the extra clearance means you actually suck someone underneath the car instead of over. Also, is it just me or are cars just plain ugly these days (yuck) https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoque/2017/2017-range-rover-evoque-convertible-first-test-review/ https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoqu... https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-original-frente-al-mini-countryman-david-y-goliat/ https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-...

SkyPuncher 7y ago
> As a result, its much harder to see in front of you and the extra clearance means you actually suck someone underneath the car instead of over. I drive a crossover and I'm not sure where you get this idea from - let alone it being the issue. In can see much better out of my crossover than my sedan because I have a higher seating position and a smaller engine bay to look over. Height would really only be an issue in a parking lot if a child was hiding in front of a car.
- 0xDEEPFAC 7y ago
  Not in a close radius to the hood. Think about the extreme example of a semitruck which undoubtedly can see far far ahead, but imagine now that you are taking a right turn at a light. I would disagree that its limited to children as a quick look right and then left might mean that much less of the person is visible and could possibly not catch your eye as you drive forward. https://imgur.com/gallery/PUfmP https://imgur.com/gallery/PUfmP disclaimer: I was almost hit on a green walk light on 6th av in NYC by a cross over speeding on a left turn... I had to jump
  - SkyPuncher 7y ago
    > Not in a close radius to the hood. How many accident actually stem from this. Even your own disclaimer has nothing to do with hood radius. That car that almost hit you was well out of "hood range" when he started to turn. Likely, it was either a failure to check the corner or you where in his A-pillar blindspot. Every single car in the world has an A-pillar blindspot. In my experience, the A-pillar blindspot is worse on smaller cars because it's closer to the driver and blocks more of his/her vision.

sfRattan 7y ago

Design of cars can be as much a safety issue as design of roads. The Honda Civic I drive will auto-play whatever audio my phone was last playing when it syncs via Bluetooth. It does so inconsistently, and somewhere between 30 seconds and 2 minutes after successfully syncing. Talk about a sudden and needless distraction. What engineer thought this was a good idea? I've taken to using a 5mm cord to connect my phone to the car speakers so I can control what plays and when it plays. Thankfully my phone still has a 5mm jack. Trying to anticipate what the user wants is obnoxious, but it becomes dangerous when the computer doing so is installed in a heavy metal box with an engine and the ability to move fast.

analog31 7y ago
Put the phone in airplane mode.
- sfRattan 7y ago
  I usually turn the Bluetooth off when I'm done with it. The problem is when I occasionally forget, just like any human eventually will. If I need to remember to hit a switch on one computer to prevent another computer from unpredictably blasting audio whenever I use the second computer, that's a design and safety failure.

zenogais 7y ago

Cars aren't killing people though, it's the drivers of those cars. Such an odd headline. Better title: "Why are drivers killing more pedestrians?"

licebmi__at__ 7y ago
>Better title: "Why are drivers killing more pedestrians?" I disagree. That title lacks information and might lead to some people to think drivers are beating the pedestrians to death or maybe they're more prone to gun violence against pedestrians. Maybe, a better title could be: "Why are drivers who are currently driving a car, pedestrians currently walking on the street, by running them over with said car"

hotz 7y ago

I'm surprised that hardly anyone mentions pedestrians that cross roads without a care in the world. Pedestrians wearing earphones or just not paying attention. Easy to blame vehicles but there are multiple factors.

elygre 7y ago
The article is literally littered with thoughts on that.

sgarman 7y ago

I'm really disappointed to see all the one word or low effort answers here. It looks like most people didn't bother to read the article and are instead just trying to post their anecdotal responses to the title. Perhaps it's the title as a question which causes such poor responses.

carapace 7y ago

As a thought experiment, imagine that you could design a city from the ground up and try to invent a transportation network that doesn't have pedestrians and cars next to each other. - - - - I imagine you could have five separate interconnected networks: 1 Pedestrians 2 bicycles 3 personal cars 4 trucks and buses 5 light rail and inter-urban trains Add in e.g. Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language (like "Country City Fingers), and I think you would really have something.

yardie 7y ago

I don’t drive but I was referred this app by a friend called OnMyWay [0]. The premise is they pay you to drive and put the phone down. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/onmyway-drive-safe-get-paid/id1436132657 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/onmyway-drive-safe-get-paid/id...

jshaqaw 7y ago

Am easy start here in NYC - demand that serial driving offenders lose their licenses and face serious penalties if they violate than ban. If you systematically run red lights in this city you should face consequences. Until that happens a subset of awful people who don’t care will be deadly threats.

makecheck 7y ago

Pedestrians are very distracted (texting/phone/music) and drivers are very distracted (texting/phone/music). I’m actually amazed that I see people walk right into the street while looking at their phones the entire time, with either misplaced trust in their surroundings or dangerous obliviousness. Worse, drivers “seem” a lot angrier in recent years, and much more impatient. They’re likely to just go through, crosswalks be damned, missing people by a hair.

nullc 7y ago

And then, of course, there is Google Maps and Waze turning pedestrian lined residential access roads into high speed major arterials...