7 ms·

Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA exp

by scrose 6y ago

Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA experiences the equivalent of over 100 Boeing 747 plane crashes a year(and rising), counting only deaths due to traffic crashes. The number spikes significantly higher when you factor in people with severe injuries who will never fully recover(think: losing arms, legs, brain damage,etc..). Assuming speed limits stay the same, but deaths and injuries continue to rise, at what point would you say we have a ‘bad balance’ and should adjust? What is your ‘balance’ based on? Is there some ratio of VMT(vehicle miles traveled) to occurrences of deaths and dismemberment that you keep in mind?

throwawaysea 6y ago
Deaths and injuries don’t “continue” to rise. They’ve been falling dramatically since the 80s. They’ll continue to do so because of safety technologies like rear cameras, blind spot monitoring, lane departure detection, etc. My balance is based on my personal values and risk assessment. I don’t fear injuries or death when I get on the road. Nor do I fear it when walking or on my bicycle. Overall the system is pretty safe and I like my modern conveniences. My point is simply to say that perfect safety isn’t a realistic or desirable goal since the returns for the risks are high.
- scrose 6y ago
  I’m not sure why you put “continue” in quotes when my comment never included the word continue. You are correct that deaths for motor vehicle occupants are going down due to safety features specifically designed to keep the occupants safe. But car related deaths for people outside of cars is trending up and is getting grimly close to double what it was just a little over 10 years ago[0][1] [0] https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-idUSKCN1TI231 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-...
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "... my comment never included the word continue." Second line from the bottom of your original comment, you do.
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    Your exact comment, in full (emphasis mine): >Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA experiences the equivalent of over 100 Boeing 747 plane crashes a year(and rising), counting only deaths due to traffic crashes. The number spikes significantly higher when you factor in people with severe injuries who will never fully recover(think: losing arms, legs, brain damage,etc..). >Assuming speed limits stay the same, but deaths and injuries _continue_ to rise, at what point would you say we have a ‘bad balance’ and should adjust? What is your ‘balance’ based on? Is there some ratio of VMT(vehicle miles traveled) to occurrences of deaths and dismemberment that you keep in mind?
    - scrose 6y ago
      Apologies! I gave a hypothetical scenario as part of a question, that also unfortunately happened to be true when accounting for occupants outside of vehicles. I didn’t mean for you(or the OP) to interpret the scenario as me stating it as a matter of fact and quote it in a rebuttal. I’ll try and make hypotheticals like that a bit clearer in the future to avoid confusing people.
giantg2 6y ago
Speed is not the real issue. You can see that many high-speed roads have reasonable fatality rates (autoban vs. US interstates). Also, speed limits on highways in the US have been rising in recent years, mostly due to enhanced specs and safety of vehicles. Fatalities have also be declining during that time as well. In my opinion, the real difference if the intelligence of the driver when it comes to laws, vehicle dynamics, and decision making. The US driver's test is a joke. You can see that other countries (think EU members) have tougher tests and fewer fatalities per mile, while in some cases also having higher speed limits.
- zip1234 6y ago
  Speed is always the issue. How many cars crash into each other going 0?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It may be a necessary precursor, or even contributing factor, in accidents but it doesn't explain the difference in fatalities per million miles between countries with strict tests and lenient tests. Thus, suggesting that another variable is at play when determining the cause (not precursor) of the accident. But if speed is the issue and you are insinuating that a speed of 0 solves the issue, then how do you propose we move from one point of space to another? You have injuries and fatalities with other modes of transportation as well.
    - zip1234 6y ago
      I'm not advocating 0 speeds. However, simply investigating every single crash and then making changes to road design for safety would be a start.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        They already do extensive road safety studies for speed limits, lights, signs, etc. I believe fatal accidents are required by law to be extensively investigated. The less serious ones usually receive some investigation (they want to cite someone). Most of the time accidents are caused by driver error, such as inattention, not knowing the law, or simply making bad decisions. The laws and road design are usually sufficient if the driver is doing their duties correctly and responsibly.

by scrose 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

Deaths and injuries don’t “continue” to rise. They’ve been falling dramatically since the 80s. They’ll continue to do so because of safety technologies like rear cameras, blind spot monitoring, lane departure detection, etc. My balance is based on my personal values and risk assessment. I don’t fear injuries or death when I get on the road. Nor do I fear it when walking or on my bicycle. Overall the system is pretty safe and I like my modern conveniences. My point is simply to say that perfect safety isn’t a realistic or desirable goal since the returns for the risks are high.

scrose 6y ago
I’m not sure why you put “continue” in quotes when my comment never included the word continue. You are correct that deaths for motor vehicle occupants are going down due to safety features specifically designed to keep the occupants safe. But car related deaths for people outside of cars is trending up and is getting grimly close to double what it was just a little over 10 years ago[0][1] [0] https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-idUSKCN1TI231 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-traffic-deaths-...
- giantg2 6y ago
  "... my comment never included the word continue." Second line from the bottom of your original comment, you do.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  Your exact comment, in full (emphasis mine): >Planes also promise fast travel times, but if a plane crashes, we heavily investigate the cause and figure out a solution so it doesn’t occur again. The USA experiences the equivalent of over 100 Boeing 747 plane crashes a year(and rising), counting only deaths due to traffic crashes. The number spikes significantly higher when you factor in people with severe injuries who will never fully recover(think: losing arms, legs, brain damage,etc..). >Assuming speed limits stay the same, but deaths and injuries _continue_ to rise, at what point would you say we have a ‘bad balance’ and should adjust? What is your ‘balance’ based on? Is there some ratio of VMT(vehicle miles traveled) to occurrences of deaths and dismemberment that you keep in mind?
  - scrose 6y ago
    Apologies! I gave a hypothetical scenario as part of a question, that also unfortunately happened to be true when accounting for occupants outside of vehicles. I didn’t mean for you(or the OP) to interpret the scenario as me stating it as a matter of fact and quote it in a rebuttal. I’ll try and make hypotheticals like that a bit clearer in the future to avoid confusing people.

giantg2 6y ago

Speed is not the real issue. You can see that many high-speed roads have reasonable fatality rates (autoban vs. US interstates). Also, speed limits on highways in the US have been rising in recent years, mostly due to enhanced specs and safety of vehicles. Fatalities have also be declining during that time as well. In my opinion, the real difference if the intelligence of the driver when it comes to laws, vehicle dynamics, and decision making. The US driver's test is a joke. You can see that other countries (think EU members) have tougher tests and fewer fatalities per mile, while in some cases also having higher speed limits.

zip1234 6y ago
Speed is always the issue. How many cars crash into each other going 0?
- giantg2 6y ago
  It may be a necessary precursor, or even contributing factor, in accidents but it doesn't explain the difference in fatalities per million miles between countries with strict tests and lenient tests. Thus, suggesting that another variable is at play when determining the cause (not precursor) of the accident. But if speed is the issue and you are insinuating that a speed of 0 solves the issue, then how do you propose we move from one point of space to another? You have injuries and fatalities with other modes of transportation as well.
  - zip1234 6y ago
    I'm not advocating 0 speeds. However, simply investigating every single crash and then making changes to road design for safety would be a start.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      They already do extensive road safety studies for speed limits, lights, signs, etc. I believe fatal accidents are required by law to be extensively investigated. The less serious ones usually receive some investigation (they want to cite someone). Most of the time accidents are caused by driver error, such as inattention, not knowing the law, or simply making bad decisions. The laws and road design are usually sufficient if the driver is doing their duties correctly and responsibly.