7 ms·

"The roads are safer" is not true. It's more dangerous to drive right now. There is no sense in either of these stories which it's safer to be on the roads. So

"The roads are safer" is not true. It's more dangerous to drive right now. There is no sense in either of these stories which it's safer to be on the roads. Something like "the roads are killing fewer drivers" would be true.

xwdv 6y ago
Roads don’t kill drivers. The roads are exactly the same. Drivers kill drivers. There are more dangerous drives on the streets with empty roads.
- daveFNbuck 6y ago
  The drivers aren't necessarily more dangerous. They might just be driving more dangerously with less traffic. It's easier to die going 80 on the freeway than if you're stuck in gridlock. I think we can at least agree that the statement "the roads are safer" is false.
  - annot888888 6y ago
    Rush hour isn’t gridlock everywhere Plenty of places are increased traffic but not bumper to bumper This is all rounding numbers that have been rounded already to smooth out uniqueness of a given locale Water is wet level conclusion that using math correctly by math rules to debate a topic that’s locally unique and out of view for people in far flung regions. My individual odds of dying in an accident haven’t changed much. Safer or worse in some aggregate measure isn’t that useful to me today or tomorrow. Still gonna do as I do.
- robbrown451 6y ago
  In this usage, "road" means more than the asphalt. It includes the cars on it as well as objects that could be crashed into, such as light posts, nearby trees, etc. If it is a road without a guardrail next to a cliff, it includes the ground at the bottom of cliff, since that is probably what's going to kill you, not the road itself. You could express it in a way that would be correct to all the pedants out there, but it might be a long convoluted sentence.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Actually, that's the funny thing: drivers don't kill drivers. Not even collisions kill drivers. It's just that some people, post-collision, have their heart stop. So really, if you think about it, their own heart killed them. We should mark them all as suicides, honestly.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Inertia kills drivers
nostrademons 6y ago
We're not sure about that conclusion either. One other possibility is that the population currently driving on the roads right now is more prone to accidents than the population currently staying home, and so fatality rates per mile driven have gone up. Perhaps they have older cars without the latest safety features, or their cars have prior accident damage that wasn't fixed, or they skew younger with less driving experience, or they're rushing to get to their jobs, or people are out for joyrides. In that case, fatality rates among drivers staying home have dropped (to zero) and fatality rates among other drivers have probably dropped (less to collide with), but because of Simpson's Paradox overall fatality rates have gone up. You can't know which is a better explanation unless you have data with more granularity than is typically provided by the press.
- daveFNbuck 6y ago
  My point is that none of the data we have support the conclusion that the roads are safer.
  - anewdirection 6y ago
    Except for the fact; less people are dying on them.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  or as another poster suggested, people might be driving more accident prone routes right now. my commute to work is a 20 mile point-to-point drive down an interstate. aside from merging, there's not much that can go wrong. a trip to the nearest grocery store is a one mile drive through a dense area of the city with many pedestrians and awkward intersections. the per mile risk of the grocery run is much higher.
ken 6y ago
These reports only say "motor vehicle fatalities", not whether the drivers are the ones at risk. In my experience, there are a lot more pedestrians blindly walking or running across the roads in the past couple months. The drop to nearly zero traffic lulled people into a false sense of security. People are treating every road like a giant sidewalk.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Heaven forbid pedestrians take advantage of one of the biggest public resources in their community! (Not advocating careless jaywalking, just pointing out the car-centric mentality makes me sad)
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The whole jaywalking thing is idiotic. Let pedestrians walk. I live in San Francisco where pedestrians are going to be everywhere and it's really not that much harder. In the UK, you can just cross any non-motorway at any time and it's about whether the situation is safe. Well, fewer fatalities total, fewer fatalities per mile driven, etc. etc. Genuinely don't think non-highway road crossing needs to be excessively regulated. Human beings will self-organize and the exceptions will not cause significant economic damage. More freedom and less regulation, please.
shanecleveland 6y ago
And that is exactly what the story is saying, which is why organ donation is down. The story does not say the roads are safer. You are drawing that conclusion yourself or being led to it by other commenters here. The words "safe" and "safer" are not present in the article.

xwdv 6y ago

Roads don’t kill drivers. The roads are exactly the same. Drivers kill drivers. There are more dangerous drives on the streets with empty roads.

daveFNbuck 6y ago
The drivers aren't necessarily more dangerous. They might just be driving more dangerously with less traffic. It's easier to die going 80 on the freeway than if you're stuck in gridlock. I think we can at least agree that the statement "the roads are safer" is false.
- annot888888 6y ago
  Rush hour isn’t gridlock everywhere Plenty of places are increased traffic but not bumper to bumper This is all rounding numbers that have been rounded already to smooth out uniqueness of a given locale Water is wet level conclusion that using math correctly by math rules to debate a topic that’s locally unique and out of view for people in far flung regions. My individual odds of dying in an accident haven’t changed much. Safer or worse in some aggregate measure isn’t that useful to me today or tomorrow. Still gonna do as I do.
robbrown451 6y ago
In this usage, "road" means more than the asphalt. It includes the cars on it as well as objects that could be crashed into, such as light posts, nearby trees, etc. If it is a road without a guardrail next to a cliff, it includes the ground at the bottom of cliff, since that is probably what's going to kill you, not the road itself. You could express it in a way that would be correct to all the pedants out there, but it might be a long convoluted sentence.
renewiltord 6y ago
Actually, that's the funny thing: drivers don't kill drivers. Not even collisions kill drivers. It's just that some people, post-collision, have their heart stop. So really, if you think about it, their own heart killed them. We should mark them all as suicides, honestly.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Inertia kills drivers

nostrademons 6y ago

We're not sure about that conclusion either. One other possibility is that the population currently driving on the roads right now is more prone to accidents than the population currently staying home, and so fatality rates per mile driven have gone up. Perhaps they have older cars without the latest safety features, or their cars have prior accident damage that wasn't fixed, or they skew younger with less driving experience, or they're rushing to get to their jobs, or people are out for joyrides. In that case, fatality rates among drivers staying home have dropped (to zero) and fatality rates among other drivers have probably dropped (less to collide with), but because of Simpson's Paradox overall fatality rates have gone up. You can't know which is a better explanation unless you have data with more granularity than is typically provided by the press.

daveFNbuck 6y ago
My point is that none of the data we have support the conclusion that the roads are safer.
- anewdirection 6y ago
  Except for the fact; less people are dying on them.
leetcrew 6y ago
or as another poster suggested, people might be driving more accident prone routes right now. my commute to work is a 20 mile point-to-point drive down an interstate. aside from merging, there's not much that can go wrong. a trip to the nearest grocery store is a one mile drive through a dense area of the city with many pedestrians and awkward intersections. the per mile risk of the grocery run is much higher.

ken 6y ago

These reports only say "motor vehicle fatalities", not whether the drivers are the ones at risk. In my experience, there are a lot more pedestrians blindly walking or running across the roads in the past couple months. The drop to nearly zero traffic lulled people into a false sense of security. People are treating every road like a giant sidewalk.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Heaven forbid pedestrians take advantage of one of the biggest public resources in their community! (Not advocating careless jaywalking, just pointing out the car-centric mentality makes me sad)
renewiltord 6y ago
The whole jaywalking thing is idiotic. Let pedestrians walk. I live in San Francisco where pedestrians are going to be everywhere and it's really not that much harder. In the UK, you can just cross any non-motorway at any time and it's about whether the situation is safe. Well, fewer fatalities total, fewer fatalities per mile driven, etc. etc. Genuinely don't think non-highway road crossing needs to be excessively regulated. Human beings will self-organize and the exceptions will not cause significant economic damage. More freedom and less regulation, please.

shanecleveland 6y ago

And that is exactly what the story is saying, which is why organ donation is down. The story does not say the roads are safer. You are drawing that conclusion yourself or being led to it by other commenters here. The words "safe" and "safer" are not present in the article.