9 ms·

Reducing risk of automotive death

67 points by rozim 7y ago

crispinb 7y ago
What about reducing your chances of killing other people? As a somewhat jaded motorcyclist (though not in the US) I'm unsurprised to see no mention of us in the article. Not sure of the US stats, but in Aus the biggest dangers to motorcyclists are (a) other drivers not seeing us [1] then (b) our own stupidity. Not much for anyone but motorcyclists to do about (b), but I would make some appeals to car drivers: Think about motorcyclists at junctions - we're not actually invisible, and what you miss seeing is primarily a function of your own inculcated habits of observation. Don't tailgate motorcycles. It's frightening and forces us to deploy more attention behind us than is safe. On undivided roads, stay to your side of the road on bends, even if there are puddles or potholes. Thanks. [1. known here in Australia as a SMIDSY - 'sorry mate I didn't see you']
- lemming 7y ago
  I don't know what the stats are in Aus, but in NZ that turned out not to be true: https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-point-of-truth-document-reveals-the-real-facts-about-motorcycle-safety/ https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-po... Take the received wisdom that car drivers cause the majority of motorcycle accidents. No they dont. It turns out, motorcyclists are solely or primarily responsible for the crashes theyre involved in 56% of the time. Though, if the crash involves another vehicle, its more likely the other road user was at fault.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    My a & b weren't intended to be ranked though clumsy phrasing did suggest it. The situation is contested & difficult in Australia, because so much of the data comes from our traffic cops, who are poorly trained in crash investigation by international standards. I don't have refs handy, but I've seen widely disparate stats here - official (police-derived) ones generally put more of the 'blame' on motorcyclists than do university studies. I actually did a course at Queensland uni on traffic accidents many years ago, and it was a minefield of unreliable data and motivated interpretation. I've no idea whether NZ is better or worse in that respect. In any case, whether car drivers are the cause of the majority or minority of cases, shouldn't they wish to make efforts to avoid killing other road users?
  - temporaryvector 7y ago
    Taking a look at that report, it seems to be missing an important statistic when it comes to motorcycle crashes. What is the fatality and serious injury rate when comparing when the motorcyclist is at fault vs when the other vehicle is at fault. An accident involving just a motorcycle, intuitively, seems a lot less likely to be fatal to a properly geared person. Often times such an accident will be because of operator error and result in a low-side crash. Crashing into something on the road could result in serious damage, but that's a lot less likely than losing traction and falling off. If I recall correctly, the Hurt report supports this. Similarly, in a two-vehicle accident where the motorcyclist is at fault, the motorcyclist is likely to see it coming and attempt to prevent it in some way. Additionally such a statistic will also include motorcyclists low-siding and then their motorcycle (or them) sliding into a vehicle. Overall, it seems believable to me that while a in majority (56% isn't even that much more) of motorcycle crashes the rider is at fault, if we take a look at only fatal crashes and crashes resulting in serious injury, cars will bear the majority of the responsibility. All that said, I also find that report to be a bit alarmist and disingenuous with statistics, particularly when compared to the Hurt and the MAIDS reports. I would assume this was done in the interest of "scaring" riders into safer behaviors and not with any malicious intent.
  - newsbinator 7y ago
    Not directly related to motorcycles, but I've been a pedestrian in countries like Thailand, China, Bulgaria and Georgia. I've never felt more like cars were actively trying to mow me down than when I lived in Auckland, NZ.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fiblye 7y ago
I have to wonder how much legal alcohol limits reduce/increase death rates. Go to any sufficiently large party and there'll be some guy who's drunk after an all nighter and ready to hop in his car, asserting that it's okay because he's not drunk anymore. The dude's still drunk, but once you get worn out and start coming down, you just kind of feel done. It seems to me (in my uninformed view) that legal limits let these guys feel like they have some leeway and they're probably legally safe to drive (which, honestly, they might even be). It plants an idea that there's a reasonable threshold of drunkenness in which driving is still okay, which I don't think is a good idea. I'm not generally a supporter of zero tolerance policies, but I think leaning that way is possibly better. As a person who almost never drinks, I feel pretty off and goofy halfway through one beer. I'd probably be under the BAC limit but there's no way I'm fit to drive. I don't have confidence in my drunk driving abilities, but plenty of people do and they think they have a legal basis for it.
- harrisonjackson 7y ago
  A friend once brought a breathalyzer to a party - we were all quite disturbed to find how impaired we felt while still under the legal limit.
- temporaryvector 7y ago
  Legal alcohol limits are a guideline and not a solid rule. Ideally, they were designed with the idea that personal responsibility would play a role in your decision to drive after having a beer. After all, you can have zero alcohol in your system and still be impaired in some way like other drugs, sickness, donating blood, lack of sleep, etc. This is why DUI arrests usually involve some judgement on the side of the police officer, and they can make the decision that you're driving impaired even if you are under the legal limit. I am ambivalent on the idea of reducing legal limits. For one, it's never been easier to avoid driving drunk, with Uber and the like, and anecdotally it seems that the propaganda against drunk driving is working, with it becoming largely unacceptable among younger people these days (although this would be purely anecdotal, I have no evidence either way). Additionally, seeing how I don't drink, any reduction to the legal limit wouldn't really affect me much. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of zero tolerance laws and I think they always do more hard than good, and additionally I don't believe that farther reducing the limit will have any effect on drunk driving. I also don't much like the idea of farther restricting the decision making power of police officers, there needs to be a balance here: enough restrictions to prevent abuse but also enough freedom to allow officers to account for circumstances and not turn them into law-enforcing robots. Increasing police budget to get better enforcement of existing laws would be another approach but doesn't seem like a good use of money. I think the most cost effective way of reducing impaired driving related fatalities has been, and will continue being, education and public transport when it comes to urban areas. Ride hailing apps and self-driving vehicles will eventually do the rest. One kind of legislative change I'd consider taking a look at is reducing or removing penalties for sleeping in your car, particularly in rural and suburban areas. Letting someone sleep it off in their car is far better than them driving drunk, and I think any fears of homeless people setting up camp in their cars, which is the origin of many such laws, is vastly exaggerated.
ars 7y ago
If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to "Table 1" which summarizes the whole thing into action steps. The rest of the article is basically describing where the data came from. Another good thing to read is the text near "Figure 1".
- janwillemb 7y ago
  Link to the table: https://peterattiamd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200209-cause-strategy-freeway-intersections-rural-weekly-email-table-1-1536x551.png https://peterattiamd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200209-c...
- digitalengineer 7y ago
  You read my mind! This must be some sort of SEO optimized writing. The ‘meat’ of the article is at the bottom. All the rest is explaining how a certain situation came about, how it was measured and whatever else the author can dig up...
adrianN 7y ago
In addition to the sensible measures explained in the article you should also do the thing they excluded from the analysis upfront: drive less. Move closer to your job, move closer to a train station, move to a country with proper public transport. Factor in car dependence when choosing a new job or a new home.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Being a drunk pedestrian is one of the leading causes of dying in a vehicle accident. Just because you're not in a car does not make you immune. In some ways it make you more vulnerable. Studies have shown that pedestrians should wear helmets when walking to increase their rate of survival, but good luck getting that to happen.
  - esoterica 7y ago
    NYC has both a lower overall traffic fatality rate and a lower pedestrian fatality rate than the country as a whole. Moving to a less car-dependent area is good for your transportation safety.
  - newsbinator 7y ago
    > Studies have shown that pedestrians should wear helmets when walking to increase their rate of survival My instant reaction to that is negative, because it feels like treating the symptoms, not the cause. Person A: people keep slipping and hitting their heads on this oily floor Person B: studies have shown people should wear helmets if they want to increase their rate of survival
    - jedberg 7y ago
      To be fair wearing a bike helmet or a motorcycle helmet is "treating the symptoms" too. Most of those accidents result in injury because the bike was hit by a car.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > drive less a lot of fatalities on the road are pedestrians, though. Even if you don't drive you subject yourself to the risk of being hit by a car pretty much every single time you go out.
finaliteration 7y ago
A good piece of advice I read or heard when I first started driving was, “never trust a turn signal”. This has saved me a few times when someone had their right turn signal on but kept moving forward rather than turning right at an intersection where I was about to pull out and turn left.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  "A turn signal indicates there is a working bulb in there". Also: Yield to the road, not to the lane.
- gHosts 7y ago
  Watch the front wheels.... The car will go where they are pointing, and you will spot movement sooner. That said, please remember your own turn signals are to announce your intention, not applaud your action.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  > “never trust a turn signal” I made the mistake of trusting a turn signal about 6 months ago. ALMOST got rear ended. I had to punch the gas and she had to slam on her brakes. She still had her turn signal on about a mile later...
axaxs 7y ago
Fascinating, and well studied, but I don't buy the '1 in 10 distracted'. As someone who has done tons of driving, I'd honestly put the number of distracted drivers, specifically dicking with their cell phone, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all drivers. And that's just my corner of the nation, I'm sure it's more in others.
- jedberg 7y ago
  1 in 10 cause accidents. Most of the distracted drivers will (fortunately) not cause an accident.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    That's an impossible number to calculate. Just today, in fair but flowing traffic, I noticed a vehicle braking constantly and erratically. The person behind them apparently had enough and swerved to my lane to pass them, nearly causing an accident that wouldn't have involved the other driver. Sure enough, it was a middle aged lady staring at her phone.
- finaliteration 7y ago
  I commute about 35-40 minutes both ways and it’s crazy to me how many people I see messing with their phones while driving at freeway speeds. It just makes me wonder: Do people not realize how dangerous it is? Or do they just not care? I honestly think it should be treated the same as driving while intoxicated (in my state it’s just a fine which I believe does nothing to deter people).
  - axaxs 7y ago
    Absolutely. To answer your question, both. I think people realize there is some inherent danger, but don't care. Partly because of the 'itll never happen to me' thought, and partly because humans have been driven to isolation so much as to see other drivers as not human, but merely obstacles. Depressing truth.
  - watwut 7y ago
bobowzki 7y ago
"one half of 1 percent" Is this a common way to write 0.5%?
- Stratoscope 7y ago
  It's not uncommon, especially when you include the "about" that was missing from your quote. Even more common is to say "about half a percent". Try them both out loud: "about zero point five percent" vs. "about half a percent". One rolls off the tongue much better than the other, is easier to understand, and doesn't introduce false precision.
  - bobowzki 7y ago
    Understood. What "confuses" me is that it doesn't say "about half a percent", it says "about half of 1 percent" which I find is a bit like saying "about half of 50" instead of "about 25".
- ladberg 7y ago
  Using percent values <1% can be a bit confusing for some people I think. I've definitely seen people see "0.01%" and interpret it as "one percent," so writing it out in words is a decent way to do it.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
Another thing that you can do is drive a late model SUV. The late model can proved things like lane keeping assistance, automatic emergency braking as well as thinks like automatic traction control and curtain air bags. The SUV’s large size means that the vehicle’s body can absorb more of the energy of an impact.
- speedgoose 7y ago
  Why a SUV though? They have a tendency to flip more easily.
- pintxo 7y ago
  Personally I would say if you need any of those features regularly you should not be driving a vehicle. Or at the very least stop using the atrocity which is the touch based navigation/in-car entertainment. (Had a rental Ford with a touch based radio/sat-nav. One could not manipulate the radio without the lane control having to act.)
jedberg 7y ago
> In particular, assume one person awoke today with the explicit instruction to kill you with their car. My dad taught me this on day one of driving with my permit. Assume everyone on the road is trying to kill you. Assume know one but you knows the rules. And as you drive more, you'll gain experience in identifying the behaviors that are most likely to indicate someone who is about to try and kill you.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  As a pedestrian I look at their eyes. If they're not looking at me, I get way off the road.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Yes! This applies to pedestrians as much as cars.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    Same for bikes.
Confusion 7y ago
It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  You can't out statistic physics. Energy goes up with velocity squared. A small reduction in velocity means a lot less energy involved which delivers better outcomes for all involved.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
    But on a freeway accidents generally happen between cars traveling in the same direction, so the effective velocity is much lower than the velocity of travel.
- fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
  I’ve always had this issue with speeding statistics: the assertion that “speeding causes accidents” usually sounds like a textbook case of base rate neglect. Especially considering that nearly everyone in the US drives 5-15 mph above the posted speed limit.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
abhiminator 7y ago
Crazy how relevant this article is to what I have been reading this past week. I was recently doing some research into reducing my personal existential risk, and I concurred putting more energy into reducing/mitigating the baseline risk factors in automotive crashes and road safety in general is a worthwhile effort. Also recommend reading this insightful article on LessWrong by an anonymous user [0]; has a few decent actionable steps one could take to reduce the risk on the road, aside from a nice collection of most risky habits one should AVOID doing to reduce their road death risk exponentially. Additionally, I'm considering using local public transport more, and even thinking of moving to cities with better, safer public transportation as there's a MASSIVE difference in fatality rates of folks using private vehicles v/s folks using public transportation. [1] And, QUIT using motorbikes. Exponentially higher chances of a fatality on a two-wheeler than on four wheels. [2] [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avoid-dying-in-a-car-crash https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avo... [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safety-research/514670/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safet... [2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/why-i-quit-riding-motorcycles/article4405613/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commutin...
emptybits 7y ago
Not in the article scope but something worth considering if automotive safety is truly a top concern... I'm under the impression that placing all occupants in rear-facing seats reduces fatalities. This extended claim is often made when reading about infant and child automotive safety. If true, all passenger vehicles going forward could be built this way. (And when Level 5 automated driving is available, drivers become rear-facing passengers.) Cars, vans, buses, ... starting now. OTOH, "the view is worse" sentiment may be culturally strong enough to cast a blind spot, so to speak, over such evidence.
rl3 7y ago
>Do not speed. If only it were that simple. I'd argue that on U.S. roads, there's definitely a culture of speeding, and in many circumstances drivers who fail to speed end up slowing traffic, often provoking the ire of other drivers, who in turn reduce safety even further via way of tailgating, unsafe passing, road games/road rage—all of which is a huge distraction unto itself for everyone involved. On most roadways I find other drivers will expect you to go 5mph over the posted limit. On expressways, this is usually as high as 10-15mph for all but the right-most lane. I feel like driver education here tends to emphasize not speeding over maintaining traffic flow and respecting the passing lane. Combine that with a bunch of aggro pricks behind the wheel, and it's a recipe for disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common_practice_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common...
- jfoster 7y ago
  If you teach people to "maintain traffic flow", the aggro drivers will be dictating all driving. The solution is greater detection and neutralization (fines, suspension & jail) of aggro drivers, not ramping up the speed to the point where they are no longer aggressive.
  - rl3 7y ago
    As much as I'd love living in a world where tailgaters had the book thrown at them, a more realistic solution is just getting out of their way. If it's a single-lane road and that isn't possible, then likewise going slightly over the limit if it appeases them and defuses an otherwise unsafe situation (assuming conditions warrant).
    - jfoster 7y ago
      Both. On an individual level, of course the sane thing to do is get out of their way. Doesn't mean they shouldn't also have the book thrown at them.
inamberclad 7y ago
Edit: I'm putting this up top because I misread, the aircraft advice mentioned is about helicopters in New York. It may be applicable there. Always flying a twin is highly debatable, and only really counts once you're up to transport category aircraft (which you all fly on, don't worry).
StreamBright 7y ago
Mandatory alcohol testing when you start up the engine would be a good start.
watertom 7y ago
All States need to pass laws that when walking along roads without sidewalks pedestrians must wear full bright reflective safety vests. I'm amazed at the people I see dressed in all black, schlepping down a two lane road with their back to traffic for they side the are walking on while wearing ear buds or headphones. I have outstanding night vision, but in the last 6 months I've narrowly missed clipping 3 different people. Even with high beams on it's amazing how easy it is for pedestrians to get lost in the background.
_pmf_ 7y ago
Three things I do: - avoid left turns like the plague - always have a good grip on the wheel, mostly 2 hands (easier when I had a less comfortable car) - when stopping at a turn, put your steering wheel in an angle that will cause you not to full on drive into opposite traffic if someone happens to rear end you (fun experience to be pushed through the corner with 80 km/h, narrowly missing oncoming car also going 80 km/h)
TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
I try to change the oil at least every 10,000 miles to prevent automotive death.

67 points by rozim 7y ago

What about reducing your chances of killing other people? As a somewhat jaded motorcyclist (though not in the US) I'm unsurprised to see no mention of us in the article. Not sure of the US stats, but in Aus the biggest dangers to motorcyclists are (a) other drivers not seeing us [1] then (b) our own stupidity. Not much for anyone but motorcyclists to do about (b), but I would make some appeals to car drivers: Think about motorcyclists at junctions - we're not actually invisible, and what you miss seeing is primarily a function of your own inculcated habits of observation. Don't tailgate motorcycles. It's frightening and forces us to deploy more attention behind us than is safe. On undivided roads, stay to your side of the road on bends, even if there are puddles or potholes. Thanks. [1. known here in Australia as a SMIDSY - 'sorry mate I didn't see you']

lemming 7y ago
I don't know what the stats are in Aus, but in NZ that turned out not to be true: https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-point-of-truth-document-reveals-the-real-facts-about-motorcycle-safety/ https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-po... Take the received wisdom that car drivers cause the majority of motorcycle accidents. No they dont. It turns out, motorcyclists are solely or primarily responsible for the crashes theyre involved in 56% of the time. Though, if the crash involves another vehicle, its more likely the other road user was at fault.
- crispinb 7y ago
  My a & b weren't intended to be ranked though clumsy phrasing did suggest it. The situation is contested & difficult in Australia, because so much of the data comes from our traffic cops, who are poorly trained in crash investigation by international standards. I don't have refs handy, but I've seen widely disparate stats here - official (police-derived) ones generally put more of the 'blame' on motorcyclists than do university studies. I actually did a course at Queensland uni on traffic accidents many years ago, and it was a minefield of unreliable data and motivated interpretation. I've no idea whether NZ is better or worse in that respect. In any case, whether car drivers are the cause of the majority or minority of cases, shouldn't they wish to make efforts to avoid killing other road users?
- temporaryvector 7y ago
  Taking a look at that report, it seems to be missing an important statistic when it comes to motorcycle crashes. What is the fatality and serious injury rate when comparing when the motorcyclist is at fault vs when the other vehicle is at fault. An accident involving just a motorcycle, intuitively, seems a lot less likely to be fatal to a properly geared person. Often times such an accident will be because of operator error and result in a low-side crash. Crashing into something on the road could result in serious damage, but that's a lot less likely than losing traction and falling off. If I recall correctly, the Hurt report supports this. Similarly, in a two-vehicle accident where the motorcyclist is at fault, the motorcyclist is likely to see it coming and attempt to prevent it in some way. Additionally such a statistic will also include motorcyclists low-siding and then their motorcycle (or them) sliding into a vehicle. Overall, it seems believable to me that while a in majority (56% isn't even that much more) of motorcycle crashes the rider is at fault, if we take a look at only fatal crashes and crashes resulting in serious injury, cars will bear the majority of the responsibility. All that said, I also find that report to be a bit alarmist and disingenuous with statistics, particularly when compared to the Hurt and the MAIDS reports. I would assume this was done in the interest of "scaring" riders into safer behaviors and not with any malicious intent.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  Not directly related to motorcycles, but I've been a pedestrian in countries like Thailand, China, Bulgaria and Georgia. I've never felt more like cars were actively trying to mow me down than when I lived in Auckland, NZ.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fiblye 7y ago

I have to wonder how much legal alcohol limits reduce/increase death rates. Go to any sufficiently large party and there'll be some guy who's drunk after an all nighter and ready to hop in his car, asserting that it's okay because he's not drunk anymore. The dude's still drunk, but once you get worn out and start coming down, you just kind of feel done. It seems to me (in my uninformed view) that legal limits let these guys feel like they have some leeway and they're probably legally safe to drive (which, honestly, they might even be). It plants an idea that there's a reasonable threshold of drunkenness in which driving is still okay, which I don't think is a good idea. I'm not generally a supporter of zero tolerance policies, but I think leaning that way is possibly better. As a person who almost never drinks, I feel pretty off and goofy halfway through one beer. I'd probably be under the BAC limit but there's no way I'm fit to drive. I don't have confidence in my drunk driving abilities, but plenty of people do and they think they have a legal basis for it.

harrisonjackson 7y ago
A friend once brought a breathalyzer to a party - we were all quite disturbed to find how impaired we felt while still under the legal limit.
temporaryvector 7y ago
Legal alcohol limits are a guideline and not a solid rule. Ideally, they were designed with the idea that personal responsibility would play a role in your decision to drive after having a beer. After all, you can have zero alcohol in your system and still be impaired in some way like other drugs, sickness, donating blood, lack of sleep, etc. This is why DUI arrests usually involve some judgement on the side of the police officer, and they can make the decision that you're driving impaired even if you are under the legal limit. I am ambivalent on the idea of reducing legal limits. For one, it's never been easier to avoid driving drunk, with Uber and the like, and anecdotally it seems that the propaganda against drunk driving is working, with it becoming largely unacceptable among younger people these days (although this would be purely anecdotal, I have no evidence either way). Additionally, seeing how I don't drink, any reduction to the legal limit wouldn't really affect me much. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of zero tolerance laws and I think they always do more hard than good, and additionally I don't believe that farther reducing the limit will have any effect on drunk driving. I also don't much like the idea of farther restricting the decision making power of police officers, there needs to be a balance here: enough restrictions to prevent abuse but also enough freedom to allow officers to account for circumstances and not turn them into law-enforcing robots. Increasing police budget to get better enforcement of existing laws would be another approach but doesn't seem like a good use of money. I think the most cost effective way of reducing impaired driving related fatalities has been, and will continue being, education and public transport when it comes to urban areas. Ride hailing apps and self-driving vehicles will eventually do the rest. One kind of legislative change I'd consider taking a look at is reducing or removing penalties for sleeping in your car, particularly in rural and suburban areas. Letting someone sleep it off in their car is far better than them driving drunk, and I think any fears of homeless people setting up camp in their cars, which is the origin of many such laws, is vastly exaggerated.

ars 7y ago

If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to "Table 1" which summarizes the whole thing into action steps. The rest of the article is basically describing where the data came from. Another good thing to read is the text near "Figure 1".

janwillemb 7y ago
Link to the table: https://peterattiamd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200209-cause-strategy-freeway-intersections-rural-weekly-email-table-1-1536x551.png https://peterattiamd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200209-c...
digitalengineer 7y ago
You read my mind! This must be some sort of SEO optimized writing. The ‘meat’ of the article is at the bottom. All the rest is explaining how a certain situation came about, how it was measured and whatever else the author can dig up...

adrianN 7y ago

In addition to the sensible measures explained in the article you should also do the thing they excluded from the analysis upfront: drive less. Move closer to your job, move closer to a train station, move to a country with proper public transport. Factor in car dependence when choosing a new job or a new home.

jedberg 7y ago
Being a drunk pedestrian is one of the leading causes of dying in a vehicle accident. Just because you're not in a car does not make you immune. In some ways it make you more vulnerable. Studies have shown that pedestrians should wear helmets when walking to increase their rate of survival, but good luck getting that to happen.
- esoterica 7y ago
  NYC has both a lower overall traffic fatality rate and a lower pedestrian fatality rate than the country as a whole. Moving to a less car-dependent area is good for your transportation safety.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  > Studies have shown that pedestrians should wear helmets when walking to increase their rate of survival My instant reaction to that is negative, because it feels like treating the symptoms, not the cause. Person A: people keep slipping and hitting their heads on this oily floor Person B: studies have shown people should wear helmets if they want to increase their rate of survival
  - jedberg 7y ago
    To be fair wearing a bike helmet or a motorcycle helmet is "treating the symptoms" too. Most of those accidents result in injury because the bike was hit by a car.
ekianjo 7y ago
> drive less a lot of fatalities on the road are pedestrians, though. Even if you don't drive you subject yourself to the risk of being hit by a car pretty much every single time you go out.

finaliteration 7y ago

A good piece of advice I read or heard when I first started driving was, “never trust a turn signal”. This has saved me a few times when someone had their right turn signal on but kept moving forward rather than turning right at an intersection where I was about to pull out and turn left.

jacquesm 7y ago
"A turn signal indicates there is a working bulb in there". Also: Yield to the road, not to the lane.
gHosts 7y ago
Watch the front wheels.... The car will go where they are pointing, and you will spot movement sooner. That said, please remember your own turn signals are to announce your intention, not applaud your action.
loco5niner 7y ago
> “never trust a turn signal” I made the mistake of trusting a turn signal about 6 months ago. ALMOST got rear ended. I had to punch the gas and she had to slam on her brakes. She still had her turn signal on about a mile later...

axaxs 7y ago

Fascinating, and well studied, but I don't buy the '1 in 10 distracted'. As someone who has done tons of driving, I'd honestly put the number of distracted drivers, specifically dicking with their cell phone, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all drivers. And that's just my corner of the nation, I'm sure it's more in others.

jedberg 7y ago
1 in 10 cause accidents. Most of the distracted drivers will (fortunately) not cause an accident.
- axaxs 7y ago
  That's an impossible number to calculate. Just today, in fair but flowing traffic, I noticed a vehicle braking constantly and erratically. The person behind them apparently had enough and swerved to my lane to pass them, nearly causing an accident that wouldn't have involved the other driver. Sure enough, it was a middle aged lady staring at her phone.
finaliteration 7y ago
I commute about 35-40 minutes both ways and it’s crazy to me how many people I see messing with their phones while driving at freeway speeds. It just makes me wonder: Do people not realize how dangerous it is? Or do they just not care? I honestly think it should be treated the same as driving while intoxicated (in my state it’s just a fine which I believe does nothing to deter people).
- axaxs 7y ago
  Absolutely. To answer your question, both. I think people realize there is some inherent danger, but don't care. Partly because of the 'itll never happen to me' thought, and partly because humans have been driven to isolation so much as to see other drivers as not human, but merely obstacles. Depressing truth.
- watwut 7y ago

bobowzki 7y ago

"one half of 1 percent" Is this a common way to write 0.5%?

Stratoscope 7y ago
It's not uncommon, especially when you include the "about" that was missing from your quote. Even more common is to say "about half a percent". Try them both out loud: "about zero point five percent" vs. "about half a percent". One rolls off the tongue much better than the other, is easier to understand, and doesn't introduce false precision.
- bobowzki 7y ago
  Understood. What "confuses" me is that it doesn't say "about half a percent", it says "about half of 1 percent" which I find is a bit like saying "about half of 50" instead of "about 25".
ladberg 7y ago
Using percent values <1% can be a bit confusing for some people I think. I've definitely seen people see "0.01%" and interpret it as "one percent," so writing it out in words is a decent way to do it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

Another thing that you can do is drive a late model SUV. The late model can proved things like lane keeping assistance, automatic emergency braking as well as thinks like automatic traction control and curtain air bags. The SUV’s large size means that the vehicle’s body can absorb more of the energy of an impact.

speedgoose 7y ago
Why a SUV though? They have a tendency to flip more easily.
pintxo 7y ago
Personally I would say if you need any of those features regularly you should not be driving a vehicle. Or at the very least stop using the atrocity which is the touch based navigation/in-car entertainment. (Had a rental Ford with a touch based radio/sat-nav. One could not manipulate the radio without the lane control having to act.)

jedberg 7y ago

> In particular, assume one person awoke today with the explicit instruction to kill you with their car. My dad taught me this on day one of driving with my permit. Assume everyone on the road is trying to kill you. Assume know one but you knows the rules. And as you drive more, you'll gain experience in identifying the behaviors that are most likely to indicate someone who is about to try and kill you.

WalterBright 7y ago
As a pedestrian I look at their eyes. If they're not looking at me, I get way off the road.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Yes! This applies to pedestrians as much as cars.
- pintxo 7y ago
  Same for bikes.

Confusion 7y ago

It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
You can't out statistic physics. Energy goes up with velocity squared. A small reduction in velocity means a lot less energy involved which delivers better outcomes for all involved.
- fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
  But on a freeway accidents generally happen between cars traveling in the same direction, so the effective velocity is much lower than the velocity of travel.
fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
I’ve always had this issue with speeding statistics: the assertion that “speeding causes accidents” usually sounds like a textbook case of base rate neglect. Especially considering that nearly everyone in the US drives 5-15 mph above the posted speed limit.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

abhiminator 7y ago

Crazy how relevant this article is to what I have been reading this past week. I was recently doing some research into reducing my personal existential risk, and I concurred putting more energy into reducing/mitigating the baseline risk factors in automotive crashes and road safety in general is a worthwhile effort. Also recommend reading this insightful article on LessWrong by an anonymous user [0]; has a few decent actionable steps one could take to reduce the risk on the road, aside from a nice collection of most risky habits one should AVOID doing to reduce their road death risk exponentially. Additionally, I'm considering using local public transport more, and even thinking of moving to cities with better, safer public transportation as there's a MASSIVE difference in fatality rates of folks using private vehicles v/s folks using public transportation. [1] And, QUIT using motorbikes. Exponentially higher chances of a fatality on a two-wheeler than on four wheels. [2] [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avoid-dying-in-a-car-crash https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avo... [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safety-research/514670/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safet... [2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/why-i-quit-riding-motorcycles/article4405613/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commutin...

emptybits 7y ago

Not in the article scope but something worth considering if automotive safety is truly a top concern... I'm under the impression that placing all occupants in rear-facing seats reduces fatalities. This extended claim is often made when reading about infant and child automotive safety. If true, all passenger vehicles going forward could be built this way. (And when Level 5 automated driving is available, drivers become rear-facing passengers.) Cars, vans, buses, ... starting now. OTOH, "the view is worse" sentiment may be culturally strong enough to cast a blind spot, so to speak, over such evidence.

rl3 7y ago

>Do not speed. If only it were that simple. I'd argue that on U.S. roads, there's definitely a culture of speeding, and in many circumstances drivers who fail to speed end up slowing traffic, often provoking the ire of other drivers, who in turn reduce safety even further via way of tailgating, unsafe passing, road games/road rage—all of which is a huge distraction unto itself for everyone involved. On most roadways I find other drivers will expect you to go 5mph over the posted limit. On expressways, this is usually as high as 10-15mph for all but the right-most lane. I feel like driver education here tends to emphasize not speeding over maintaining traffic flow and respecting the passing lane. Combine that with a bunch of aggro pricks behind the wheel, and it's a recipe for disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common_practice_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common...

jfoster 7y ago
If you teach people to "maintain traffic flow", the aggro drivers will be dictating all driving. The solution is greater detection and neutralization (fines, suspension & jail) of aggro drivers, not ramping up the speed to the point where they are no longer aggressive.
- rl3 7y ago
  As much as I'd love living in a world where tailgaters had the book thrown at them, a more realistic solution is just getting out of their way. If it's a single-lane road and that isn't possible, then likewise going slightly over the limit if it appeases them and defuses an otherwise unsafe situation (assuming conditions warrant).
  - jfoster 7y ago
    Both. On an individual level, of course the sane thing to do is get out of their way. Doesn't mean they shouldn't also have the book thrown at them.

inamberclad 7y ago

Edit: I'm putting this up top because I misread, the aircraft advice mentioned is about helicopters in New York. It may be applicable there. Always flying a twin is highly debatable, and only really counts once you're up to transport category aircraft (which you all fly on, don't worry).

StreamBright 7y ago

Mandatory alcohol testing when you start up the engine would be a good start.

watertom 7y ago

All States need to pass laws that when walking along roads without sidewalks pedestrians must wear full bright reflective safety vests. I'm amazed at the people I see dressed in all black, schlepping down a two lane road with their back to traffic for they side the are walking on while wearing ear buds or headphones. I have outstanding night vision, but in the last 6 months I've narrowly missed clipping 3 different people. Even with high beams on it's amazing how easy it is for pedestrians to get lost in the background.

_pmf_ 7y ago

Three things I do: - avoid left turns like the plague - always have a good grip on the wheel, mostly 2 hands (easier when I had a less comfortable car) - when stopping at a turn, put your steering wheel in an angle that will cause you not to full on drive into opposite traffic if someone happens to rear end you (fun experience to be pushed through the corner with 80 km/h, narrowly missing oncoming car also going 80 km/h)

TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago

I try to change the oil at least every 10,000 miles to prevent automotive death.