3 ms·

by all accounts, the cannonball teams seem to be pretty careful. do you know of any nonparticipants that have ever died in a cannonball run?

throwaway894345 6y ago
Have there been enough cannonball runners to even make for a statistically significant sample?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I dunno what "statistically significant" would mean in this context, but people have been doing it since the 1930s, though most of the runs have been in the last fifty years. they claim that no bystanders have been injured in the history of the run, and I can't find any evidence to the contrary. I don't think it's a good idea to go from one US coast to the other as fast as possible, but the pearl-clutching is a bit much.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Presumably you wouldn't argue that because there are zero bystander injuries or fatalities that it is actually perfectly safe (for bystanders), right? You would just argue that there haven't been enough runs to accurately assess its safety. If ordinary "safe" car travel results in one fatality for every ten thousand trips (assuming all trips are equal apart from the 'cannonball' variable for simplicity) and if there have only been 50 cannonball run trips, it's entirely possible that cannonball runs are twice as dangerous as a regular trip and we would still expect to see zero bystander incidents in those 50 trips. The question is "have there been enough cannonball runs to accurately assess safety?".
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > Presumably you wouldn't argue that because there are zero bystander injuries or fatalities that it is actually perfectly safe (for bystanders), right? of course not. let me explain my perspective in a bit more detail. first of all, these people are all experienced drivers in very capable, well-maintained vehicles. they have a network of scouts to help them avoid police and traffic. even if individual drivers don't care much about safety, there is a strong incentive to route around traffic because of how much time it costs. any sort of speed competition on public roads is inherently reckless, but I would honestly doubt if it's much riskier per mile than my morning commute on I-95. second, and if nothing else, it's cool to see what is essentially the state of the art when it comes to evading law enforcement. it's hard to get an honest test of this stuff without deliberately breaking the rules, and I'm glad someone is out there doing it so I can watch and learn safely from home. anyone thumbing their nose at the cops like this is going to get at least a little respect from me. finally, there just aren't that many people doing this. hard to say for sure but I'd guess the number of attempts per year is somewhere in the low to mid tens. it's sort of like complaining about the fuel efficiency on a new bugatti. you're not necessarily wrong, but they're only going to make 200 of them. who cares?
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        No doubt they're above average drivers, but TFA describes a mustang going 160 mph in the dark with a driver who hadn't slept in 24 hours and a bunch of gasoline in the back seat. I firmly believe that the speed limits are too low (unsafely so), but this is reckless even if drivers don't have makeshift gas tanks in their back seat. I can't believe their excellence at driving negates these additional risks--not even in the same ballpark, and I certainly don't think the observation that no bystanders have been killed/injured supports your position. > anyone thumbing their nose at the cops like this is going to get at least a little respect from me. Get an "ACAB" bumper sticker if "anti-police" is your schtick. Don't put innocent lives at risk.
0xffff2 6y ago
Characterizing participants in an event where the goal seems to be to drive across the country with the pedal literally to the metal for as much time as possible as "careful" sounds very strange to me.

throwaway894345 6y ago

Have there been enough cannonball runners to even make for a statistically significant sample?

leetcrew 6y ago
I dunno what "statistically significant" would mean in this context, but people have been doing it since the 1930s, though most of the runs have been in the last fifty years. they claim that no bystanders have been injured in the history of the run, and I can't find any evidence to the contrary. I don't think it's a good idea to go from one US coast to the other as fast as possible, but the pearl-clutching is a bit much.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Presumably you wouldn't argue that because there are zero bystander injuries or fatalities that it is actually perfectly safe (for bystanders), right? You would just argue that there haven't been enough runs to accurately assess its safety. If ordinary "safe" car travel results in one fatality for every ten thousand trips (assuming all trips are equal apart from the 'cannonball' variable for simplicity) and if there have only been 50 cannonball run trips, it's entirely possible that cannonball runs are twice as dangerous as a regular trip and we would still expect to see zero bystander incidents in those 50 trips. The question is "have there been enough cannonball runs to accurately assess safety?".
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > Presumably you wouldn't argue that because there are zero bystander injuries or fatalities that it is actually perfectly safe (for bystanders), right? of course not. let me explain my perspective in a bit more detail. first of all, these people are all experienced drivers in very capable, well-maintained vehicles. they have a network of scouts to help them avoid police and traffic. even if individual drivers don't care much about safety, there is a strong incentive to route around traffic because of how much time it costs. any sort of speed competition on public roads is inherently reckless, but I would honestly doubt if it's much riskier per mile than my morning commute on I-95. second, and if nothing else, it's cool to see what is essentially the state of the art when it comes to evading law enforcement. it's hard to get an honest test of this stuff without deliberately breaking the rules, and I'm glad someone is out there doing it so I can watch and learn safely from home. anyone thumbing their nose at the cops like this is going to get at least a little respect from me. finally, there just aren't that many people doing this. hard to say for sure but I'd guess the number of attempts per year is somewhere in the low to mid tens. it's sort of like complaining about the fuel efficiency on a new bugatti. you're not necessarily wrong, but they're only going to make 200 of them. who cares?
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      No doubt they're above average drivers, but TFA describes a mustang going 160 mph in the dark with a driver who hadn't slept in 24 hours and a bunch of gasoline in the back seat. I firmly believe that the speed limits are too low (unsafely so), but this is reckless even if drivers don't have makeshift gas tanks in their back seat. I can't believe their excellence at driving negates these additional risks--not even in the same ballpark, and I certainly don't think the observation that no bystanders have been killed/injured supports your position. > anyone thumbing their nose at the cops like this is going to get at least a little respect from me. Get an "ACAB" bumper sticker if "anti-police" is your schtick. Don't put innocent lives at risk.

0xffff2 6y ago

Characterizing participants in an event where the goal seems to be to drive across the country with the pedal literally to the metal for as much time as possible as "careful" sounds very strange to me.