4 ms·

Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead t

Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would be a quite small fraction of the total car price, and letting people buy what they want to buy. It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it.

SECProto 5y ago
Cars&trucks cause a large majority of the pedestrians killed in walking-around-the-city accidents, though. Lumping those deaths in with highway deaths makes the statistic meaningless.
- taneq 5y ago
  Not if saving 5k pedestrians kills 10k highway drivers. (Numbers made up, I’m just saying you have to consider them.)
  - Chico75 5y ago
    Why would design changes that improve visiblity to avoid killing pedestrians end up killing more highway drivers?
    - ttyprintk 5y ago
      From other threads, one might conclude that animal accidents in rural areas inspire some apprehension about wedge-profiled designs. In USA, 1m out of the 6m auto accidents each year involve one car and one animal, with a human death rate of 200 per year.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  No. That would only be potentially true if people were proposing a law to limit the form factor of trucks that are driven in cities (and even if so, it would not be obvious; you'd have to look at the numbers). Since that isn't feasible, and all the proposed laws are about limiting the form factor of all consumer trucks, the average statics are the relevant ones. You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.
  - SECProto 5y ago
    Observation: bigger and heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants in any impact. Regulation: cars should be safer Impact: All vehicles continuously increase in size and weight year on year, decreasing the safety of older vehicles and non-vehicular road users
    - jessriedel 5y ago
      You have not responded to my rebuttal to what you said, you're just bringing up a different argument.
      - SECProto 5y ago
        Sure, I don't actually know what your argument is to rebut? I know many people who would like to buy a ford ranger sized truck, but manufacturers discontinued them a decade ago because fuel efficiency regulations disincentivized them.
TchoBeer 5y ago
>So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. >It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it. no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  Surely you can’t be serious
- jessriedel 5y ago
  > unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. Nope. "Deaths should always be prioritized over aesthetics" is a clearly bad rule because it is innumerate. You must always trade off how many deaths for the preferences of how many people. Otherwise all design of everything is dictated solely by safety. > no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made. No, you need to read about externalities and Pigovian taxes. The entire point of the proposed tax is that it does not require the car buyer to care about pedestrians whatsoever.
  - SECProto 5y ago
    Vehicle drivers decide what vehicles they buy, but pedestrians do not. The Regulations (or lack thereof) incentivize vehicles that kill more pedestrians
kiliantics 5y ago
Wow, 6k or 15% of deaths is not worth doing anything about... This is peak car-brain thinking. Pedestrians are the ones who should be the first to reach zero deaths IMO, since they weren't the ones who decided to drive around in a deadly machine in the first place and are usually completely innocent in their own danger.
- mike_d 5y ago
  What are your thoughts on pedestrian vs. train deaths? Obviously it is always the conductors fault and peak train-brain thinking? Commuting on a scooter I've seen more than my fair share of pedestrians on phones walking out into traffic and idiots on bikes blowing through red lights. Sometimes everyone involved can be at fault.
  - jolux 5y ago
    It's not even really their fault in those situations though, they're not walking faster than 3-4MPH. You're the guy driving a two thousand pound hunk of steel, not paying attention.
  - ttyprintk 5y ago
    2k of those 6k pedestrian deaths had alcohol in their system. Surely a train is a safer place for them.
stephencanon 5y ago
Pedestrians should get the benefit first though, because they are not the ones choosing to drive cars. I’m much more OK with drivers making choices that hurt themselves than I am with them making choices that hurt other people who never had the option of choosing.
zip1234 5y ago
Please price in externalities. Add in noise, total area it takes up, weight, and pollution.
megablast 5y ago
Only 6,000 dead?? Wow. Every year. How is this acceptable??

SECProto 5y ago

Cars&trucks cause a large majority of the pedestrians killed in walking-around-the-city accidents, though. Lumping those deaths in with highway deaths makes the statistic meaningless.

taneq 5y ago
Not if saving 5k pedestrians kills 10k highway drivers. (Numbers made up, I’m just saying you have to consider them.)
- Chico75 5y ago
  Why would design changes that improve visiblity to avoid killing pedestrians end up killing more highway drivers?
  - ttyprintk 5y ago
    From other threads, one might conclude that animal accidents in rural areas inspire some apprehension about wedge-profiled designs. In USA, 1m out of the 6m auto accidents each year involve one car and one animal, with a human death rate of 200 per year.
jessriedel 5y ago
No. That would only be potentially true if people were proposing a law to limit the form factor of trucks that are driven in cities (and even if so, it would not be obvious; you'd have to look at the numbers). Since that isn't feasible, and all the proposed laws are about limiting the form factor of all consumer trucks, the average statics are the relevant ones. You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.
- SECProto 5y ago
  Observation: bigger and heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants in any impact. Regulation: cars should be safer Impact: All vehicles continuously increase in size and weight year on year, decreasing the safety of older vehicles and non-vehicular road users
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    You have not responded to my rebuttal to what you said, you're just bringing up a different argument.
    - SECProto 5y ago
      Sure, I don't actually know what your argument is to rebut? I know many people who would like to buy a ford ranger sized truck, but manufacturers discontinued them a decade ago because fuel efficiency regulations disincentivized them.

TchoBeer 5y ago

>So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. >It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it. no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.

sgjohnson 5y ago
Surely you can’t be serious
jessriedel 5y ago
> unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. Nope. "Deaths should always be prioritized over aesthetics" is a clearly bad rule because it is innumerate. You must always trade off how many deaths for the preferences of how many people. Otherwise all design of everything is dictated solely by safety. > no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made. No, you need to read about externalities and Pigovian taxes. The entire point of the proposed tax is that it does not require the car buyer to care about pedestrians whatsoever.
- SECProto 5y ago
  Vehicle drivers decide what vehicles they buy, but pedestrians do not. The Regulations (or lack thereof) incentivize vehicles that kill more pedestrians

kiliantics 5y ago

Wow, 6k or 15% of deaths is not worth doing anything about... This is peak car-brain thinking. Pedestrians are the ones who should be the first to reach zero deaths IMO, since they weren't the ones who decided to drive around in a deadly machine in the first place and are usually completely innocent in their own danger.

mike_d 5y ago
What are your thoughts on pedestrian vs. train deaths? Obviously it is always the conductors fault and peak train-brain thinking? Commuting on a scooter I've seen more than my fair share of pedestrians on phones walking out into traffic and idiots on bikes blowing through red lights. Sometimes everyone involved can be at fault.
- jolux 5y ago
  It's not even really their fault in those situations though, they're not walking faster than 3-4MPH. You're the guy driving a two thousand pound hunk of steel, not paying attention.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  2k of those 6k pedestrian deaths had alcohol in their system. Surely a train is a safer place for them.

stephencanon 5y ago

Pedestrians should get the benefit first though, because they are not the ones choosing to drive cars. I’m much more OK with drivers making choices that hurt themselves than I am with them making choices that hurt other people who never had the option of choosing.

zip1234 5y ago

Please price in externalities. Add in noise, total area it takes up, weight, and pollution.

megablast 5y ago

Only 6,000 dead?? Wow. Every year. How is this acceptable??