13 ms·

The whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still

• jbkiv 6y ago
  You are so right. Too much confusing and scattered information in the US. Do some reading on UPS training for their UPS drivers, No turn left, optimization,...
• amelius 6y ago
  Some tips: Dress like a motor-cyclist. Wear a helmet and airbag suit. This is probably also useful when traveling by airplane. I have no data on the effectiveness, however.
  • pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    People who feel safer can take greater risks, thus safety equipment can create negative returns.
    • macleginn 6y ago
      This theory (known in literature as ‘risk compensation theory’) has been debunked. See some references here: https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168482304 https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168482304
      • amelius 6y ago
        To be fair, it seems the debunking applied to people who were obliged to wear safety gear, not to people who were more cautious than average people.
        • macleginn 6y ago
          If you are more cautious to begin with, you do not need to compensate for anything, so the theory does not apply.
          • amelius 6y ago
            But what if you are overly cautious and this bothers you and wearing safety gear makes you feel more normal?
      • pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        tl;dr I would not use that link as evidence to say risk compensation is debunked. Interesting, I'd certainly say it applies to me - I dive more in volleyball if I have my kneepads; I tackle harder in football when wearing shin-guards, the moreso with ankle protection; drive far more cautiously on a motorbike than in the metal, crumpled-zoned protection of a car; etc. ... That tweet leads to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" which concludes: >"Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour." // So, risk averse people wear helmets. Some of the support in the review comes from results like helmet wearers obeying traffic laws: the issue seems much more nuanced and complicated than that. FWIW, risk compensation doesn't require that the entire risk is negated (or even over-compensated) so statistics on accident occurrence and severity alone - for example - would not be sufficient to prove if the effect is real: take my car driving, no matter how much I exhibit riskier driving in a car - short of being a lunatic - it's not going to make it more dangerous than motorbike riding because of all the other people on the road. [This post relies on part on past activities and experiences!]
• nradov 6y ago
  The most relevant research on car brands and models is probably the IIHS driver death rate data. It's not perfect since the populations are self selecting (cars aren't assigned to drivers at random) but within a particular vehicle class if you see a huge difference in death rates then that's probably meaningful. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
  • nostrademons 6y ago
    An interesting instance of the self-selection problem seems to show up if you select small 4-door 2017 cars. The Nissan Juke 2WD has a death rate of 12; the 4WD version of the same car has a death rate of 65. I have trouble believing that there's a significant difference in the cars themselves, so it seems likely that people who would buy a 2WD small SUV are a significantly different demographic than those who would buy a 4WD small SUV.
    • kcolford 6y ago
      I think it's more relevant how much each group drives. Everyone I know who drives a lot espouses how important 4WD/AWD is, whereas the people who barely drive at all aren't willing to pay so much more for it.
      • hansvm 6y ago
        I've always found it a bit amusing how common this belief is, especially in snowier areas. Most people would be safer without 4WD/AWD -- less likely to oversteer around a curve, and less likely to drive aggressively because of a false belief that AWD will help you stop faster or have better control of your vehicle in low-traction conditions. It's still a really nice feature that has its uses, but most people I talk to about it (admittedly a small subset of people who use AWD) greatly overestimate its safety benefits.
        • sokoloff 6y ago
          The likelihood to oversteer depends on whether the 2WD alternative is front or rear wheel drive. RWD is more likely to oversteer on acceleration in slippery, turning conditions.
• dublinben 6y ago
  You're right that there aren't meaningfully significant differences between car brands. Driving itself is just very dangerous. Other forms of transportation like buses, trains, and airplanes are orders of magnitude safer.[0] If you want to make yourself safer, avoid driving as much as possible. [0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
  • YetAnotherMatt 6y ago
    For almost everyone 18-40 year old, driving less is one of the healthiest decisions you can make. A little nitpick: Motorcycling, cycling, and walking are all significantly worse than traveling by car. If this interests you, it's possible to find a lot more interesting research by searching for "microlife" and "micromort".
    • hangonhn 6y ago
      Can you explain more about the walking part? Is it because pedestrians get hit by cars a lot? Otherwise it seems walking should be incredibly safe.
      • Gunax 6y ago
        My guess is that on a per distance basis, walking is more dangerous because of pedestrian-car collisions (aka getting run over). I think part of the dissonance is that intuitively I tend to compare on a time basis. I guess it depends on whether one is traveling to a destination (constant distance) or traveling for recreation (constant time).
      • UnFleshedOne 6y ago
        Might have something to do with the size of your signature (I think that's what they call it in military terms). Consider a spherical traveler following a certain path in a field of randomly moving projectiles. The chances of being hit with one depends on path length, your own size, and how long you stay on the field. Seriousness of the hit depends on your durability and speeds involved. Maybe pedestrians just spend a lot of time exposed (assuming they have to cover similar distance) and bikers are extra fragile.
• JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Drive the largest vehicle you can. When in a collision the momentum is converted to crushing force, you want to be in the less-crushable vehicle. Hey this may be an unpopular choice, but it is the one with the biggest safety impact! And that was the question.
  • kcolford 6y ago
    Correction: you want to be in the vehicle with the most crushable distance of material. That way the force is spread out more over time and there's less going through your body at any moment.
    • Someone 6y ago
      That’s not the entire story. If you value your health over that of all others, you will want to crush the car the others are driving in over its full length before the crushing of the parts of your own car where you are sitting starts. That’s where having the sturdier car can help. You also will want to be in the car that decelerates less briskly. That’s where, in collisions with movable objects, having the heavier car helps. A heavy car without crumple zones from the 1950s that could kill you when hitting a wall at 20 km/hour might still be the safer car in a head-on collision with a much smaller car with a few meters of crumple zone (cars from the 1950s were incredibly unsafe, so I think this would require extra-ordinary circumstances)
      • WWLink 6y ago
        I'm trying to be careful how I type this, but the point of crumple zones isn't just to make the car stop slower, but to keep parts of the car you really don't want to crush from crushing. If you crash into a wall at 20km/hr, it's a lot better if the engine bay gets smashed up, than if the compartment you're in collapses around you.
    • kube-system 6y ago
      Given enough mass, you won't experience any noticeable deceleration during a collision! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWToJxKYRSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWToJxKYRSc
• bcrosby95 6y ago
  Driving is already incredibly safe. Yes, it's the leading cause of death in those age categories, but there are 3-4 trillion miles driven each year in the USA. That comes out to 1 death every 100 million miles.
  • baxtr 6y ago
    I wonder what happens if you compare driving to other activities, by stretching them out to the 3-4 trillion miles - but in time and then compare death rates. E.g. taking swimming 2hrs per day (maybe equivalent to the 2-3 hrs spent in cars daily). Higher or lower death rates?
    • shoes_for_thee 6y ago
      This might have some useful info for you... https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html death rates per million hours of activity
      • baxtr 6y ago
        Thanks! That’s really a great source. I am so glad I asked. Highlights: - Fishing seems to be quite dangerous!!?? - Swimming is less dangerous than living (all other causes)!
        • ghaff 6y ago
          That the rate (not time based) for fishing is so high does seem a bit odd. I wonder a bit what all is being lumped in there. I assume it's because it's an activity that can involve water, boats, and sometimes alcohol.
          • shoes_for_thee 6y ago
            Any time you are operating in water, your mode of failure goes from falling to drowning. Rocks are slippery.
          • 6y ago
• andykellr 6y ago
  This reminds me of the fact that my grandmother who recently passed away at 96 refused to make left turns. She stopped driving years ago, but before she did, my father would always help her find a way to get to the pharmacy, the grocery store, church, and family and friends houses making only right turns. Sometimes she went miles out of her way.
  • MivLives 6y ago
    Your grandmother was onto something. UPS does the same thing: https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-efficiency-secret-our-trucks-never-turn-left-2011-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-efficiency-secret-our-tr...
    • ghaff 6y ago
      Not really the same thing. UPS is optimizing the efficiency of a multi-stop route given that making a lot of unprotected left hand turns (especially with a truck) can add a fair bit of time to a route.
    • jmilloy 6y ago
      Not at all. UPS does it to become more efficient, and that works because UPS has a lot of stops to make. But GP's grandmother did it to be safer even though it was usually less efficient.
    • loeg 6y ago
      They make lefts, but they do routing in advance and heavily prioritize routing using right turns. There is no hard and fast "zero left turns" routing policy or driver policy.
  • kube-system 6y ago
    At what point does the risk of the extra miles on the road outweigh the risk mitigated by avoiding left turns?
    • wutbrodo 6y ago
• dangus 6y ago
  The way to make yourself safer is to move to one of the few American cities and towns with walking and transit-oriented development. Seriously! You'll spend a fewer hours in the car risking car accident death. A family can easily downsize to one car or less. You'll also spend more time getting light exercise by walking to the bus/train, walking to the store, walking for enjoyment. You'll also save from no longer buying an expensive, depreciating asset. Sure, maybe your housing cost is higher in a city like this - but your house doesn't lose value like a car. It's also more pleasant to live in. I love the rural areas, and I love the cities, but the suburbs are just the worst of both worlds.
  • ghaff 6y ago
    I think it's hard to generalize that living in Manhattan without a car is safer and healthier than living in, say, Vermont with one--especially if you rent cars for weekend and other vacations. Depends of course on location, lifestyle, commute, etc.
    • dangus 6y ago
      Yes you’re right, and a big factor I didn’t think of is pollution. The car accident death rate may be low enough that it’s really not worth mitigating against. But also, I don’t mean Manhattan specifically. When I say “city” maybe you are thinking high rises. A neighborhood with predominately 2-4 story buildings can be incredibly walkable. You just have to stop designing everything to accommodate cars ahead of all else.
      • ghaff 6y ago
        Manhattan is certainly an extreme case. Though I'd argue that, in the US, there are a small number of cities where you can live carless without any real compromises. Of course, my definition of compromise may be different from yours; if I lived in the Bay Area I'd be regularly going to mountains/ocean/etc. on weekends. Even a couple I know who live in SF without a car are regularly doing short-term and long-term car rentals in addition to walking, Muni, and Uber. I'm not sure they really are in a car less than they would be if they owned one.
• glomph 6y ago
  Drive less.
• ghaff 6y ago
  Speaking purely from personal experience. Driving while impaired in some way certainly is more dangerous. (Drugs and alcohol but also just fatigue.) Driving too fast for conditions. Bad weather, especially snow. I'd say in general that highway driving was probably safer than secondary roads--again assuming not excess speed. One of the things I like about greater work flexibility these days is that I rarely have to drive in snow. I just stay home.
• komali2 6y ago
  Riding motorcycles means I'm often playing the percentages game. When we turn we're sacrificing our finite amount of traction for either more speed or a more aggressive turn. If I lean off the bike, I get some traction back. So how much am I willing to sacrifice in the name of fun, while still leaving wiggle room for suddenly encountering a tar snake or something in the middle of my turn? Little things. Motorcyclists in white helmets get hit slightly less, so I wear a white helmet. 50% of Motorcycle fatalities involved dwi level BACs, so I obviously don't drink, but then another 40%ish of the remainder involve any amount of alcohol at all, so I simply don't get on the bike if I've even one drink in the past several hours. Rain adds risk, night adds risk. Choose one and I'll ride. Both, no. Majority of accidents happen at intersections, so every single green light has me slowing to look both ways. I watch behind me at reds. I don't get in the middle of intersections to make a left turn, I wait in the turning lane. The first person I bought a bike from gave me fantastic advice: if you have to think about it for a second, just don't do it. Thinking about that narrow pass on the freeway? Let it go, you can pass in a couple seconds after the gap widens. Thinking about gunning through the yellow? Relax. Just stop. Etc. I can't speak for cars but so many things are measured for motorcycles. Where our heads hit the ground, what our gear does for us, where we crash. There's also tons of videos from GoPro mounts of many kinds of crashes we get into. Over time you can build a sort of risk management software inside your brain I think.
  • WWLink 6y ago
    "if you have to think about it for a second, just don't do it. Thinking about that narrow pass on the freeway? Let it go, you can pass in a couple seconds after the gap widens. Thinking about gunning through the yellow? Relax. Just stop. Etc." That totally applies to driving a car as well!
    • arkades 6y ago
      It's not thinking that gets me into accidents - it's not thinking that gets me into accidents. That also applies to driving. edit: Unintentional. I meant, it's not those situations where I think for a second and make a bad call - it's those situations where I act without thinking at all.
• ohples 6y ago
  > Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1] Car crashes where the top 1-2. I am willing to bet most of those involved DUI, and therefore negligence, and shouldn't be classed as "accidents" #CrashNotAccident.
  • BurningFrog 6y ago
    Also a lot of suicides there.
  • Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    I don't have statistics to back it up, but I would be willing to bet money that at least 95% of crashes are from negligence with slightly less than 5% being from a sudden unexpected mechanical failure (Such as a tire exploding), with less than 1% being something you could truly call an "accident". The usual counter-argument is that the use of the word "accident" is a statement of intent, and outside of extreme road rage scenarios, nobody intends to cause a crash. However, the creation of an unsafe situation, such as texting while driving, is often absolutely deliberate. Didn't check your blind spot before making a lane change? That's not an accident, that's negligence. TBH, I'm not even sure if any crashes could really qualify as an "accident".
    • elihu 6y ago
      People don't have perfect reflexes, physical coordination, and situational awareness. Someone could be checking their blind spot at the exact moment the person in front of them slams on their brakes. Someone could move their foot over from the gas and for no particular reason completely miss the brake pedal, or sneeze at the exact wrong time, or be stung by a hornet they didn't know was in the car, or simply not react fast enough. Humans are fallible and make unintentional mistakes. It's surprising that humans are as good at driving as we are and that most of us aren't making catastrophic mistakes on a regular basis.
    • catalogia 6y ago
      > TBH, I'm not even sure if any crashes could really qualify as an "accident". There are some. One that comes to mind is a freak rock falling off a truck in the opposing lane coming through your windshield. Possible negligence on the part of whoever loaded the truck, but for the victim it may as well be a lightning strike on a clear sunny day. Falling trees or things like that could do it too. However, I think "car crashes aren't accidents" is probably close enough to the truth that it makes sense to use as a mantra in drivers ed (as my drivers ed teacher did.)
• AgloeDreams 6y ago
  You are spot on. What's really interesting is when companies publish death rate numbers. In everything I've seen, most low-cost car models suffer on safety, generally due to lower cost construction, materials, or cheaper safety/avoidance systems. Volvo obviously has historically been the best at reducing mortality, Tesla is seeming to be beating them but I don't know how many of the numbers actually match reality, that's not clearly published. To better test this it's about time we added a sixth star, for sure. Left Turns across traffic are generally the highest danger factor, notably for motorcyclists. Many states in the US are replacing traffic lights with roundabouts and are removing two-lane passing zones. Oh and SUVs are markedly LESS safe. They are more prone to rollover, less likely to avoid an accident, stop slower, and generally have less safe body structure.
  • Marsymars 6y ago
    > Oh and SUVs are markedly LESS safe. They are more prone to rollover, less likely to avoid an accident, stop slower, and generally have less safe body structure. But they're also heavier, and there exist cheap, heavy SUVs, while cheap cars are generally lighter.
    • AgloeDreams 6y ago
      Weight increases mortality in all accidents. Either by increasing the likelihood of the other driver being injured or by increasing the amount of force impacted on crumple-zones in single car accidents. All modern safety studies have shown this and only recently has any SUV gotten a pure 5 star award. SUVs are less safe than equally priced cars. Also most SUvs cost much more than cars with similar wheelbases.
      • Marsymars 6y ago
        Yes, but empirically, lots of people don't care about increasing the likelyhood of the other driver being injured.
• mdorazio 6y ago
  NHTSA has a fairly good repository of research, although it doesn't cover everything you're looking for [1]. It's been a while since I reviewed the statistics, but I recall that highways are significantly safer than high-speed undivided "surface streets". Intersections, and specifically left turns at them are also more dangerous than other road areas. There is also some scattered research like [2] on related topics, for example showing that overtaking accounts for relatively few total accidents, but has an outsized percentage of fatalities (as you would expect due to the collision dynamics). [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research https://www.nhtsa.gov/research [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235214651630391X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235214651...
• laegooose 6y ago
  [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/americans-causes-of-death-by-age-cdc-data/ https://usafacts.org/articles/americans-causes-of-death-by-a...
• nsgi 6y ago
  Also, when people think about the risk of driving they forget the additional risk to their health from in-car air pollution