7 ms·

You conveniently ignore pedestrian fatalities, which are headed off the chart thanks to modern "safer" vehicles. From the same article you referenced: https:/

You conveniently ignore pedestrian fatalities, which are headed off the chart thanks to modern "safer" vehicles. From the same article you referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#Pedestrians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Afforess 5y ago
That graph also correlates perfectly with smartphone adoption. Drivers are more distracted and pedestrians less aware of their surroundings than in the past.
oblio 5y ago
Tall SUV and trucks + smartphones. One battle at a time.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  Tech companies have the power to end the smartphone problem overnight. Just takes Apple and Google disabling the screen of any phone moving faster than 5mph. Passengers would be inconvenienced, but basically every phone-related crash would be prevented.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    People on buses, trains, ferries, and planes would also be inconvenienced.
    - Amezarak 5y ago
      Yes, they would have to return to pre-2010 life while being transported. Not exactly a huge cost compared to the number of lives saved when it’s almost entirely entertainment.
      - SR2Z 5y ago
        Yes, we should severely inconvenience people who are _doing the right thing_ by taking public transit so that bad drivers who can't stop checking their phones won't main/kill themselves and others.
        Amezarak 5y ago
        Going without a smartphone on transit is not a severe inconvenience. It’s a very minor one. Just a few years ago nobody even knew they needed one. Snapchat was not worth my cousin's life.
      - canadianfella 5y ago
        Go live in Singapore if you don’t value individual freedom of choice.
    - asdff 5y ago
      Google and Apple are already tracking the bus/train/ferry through their mapping software. Wouldn't be hard to set up a crude geofilter and guestimate whether a user was on transit or not. Some transit agencies even integrate directly with the phone's wallet system, so you could measure that a fare was paid concievably.
      - culopatin 5y ago
        Not in most of the world where the buses or trains are running disconnected from a public network
  - syshum 5y ago
    YOu assume that only drivers are the problem with cell phone More than a few pedestrians walk and use their phone, walk right out in the traffic, or other situations (some hilarious walking right into poles and getting laughed at on the internet. I know in a few nations this may be a hard concept, but here in the US, it is absolutely NOT true that "pedestrians always have the right of way"... no no no
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Pedestrians always have the right to not be run over.
      - mwint 5y ago
        “Right” is a strange word here, but there are absolutely cases where pedestrians have no right-of-way over cars. In these cases, you can be run over and you (or your family) will have no legal recourse against the driver. Zero, nada, zilch. So in the legal sense, it is not true that a pedestrian always has the right to exist at any point on the earth without being run over. In a moral sense, perhaps every driver has an obligation to try not to run over pedestrians. That might create a “right” in some moral/ethics frameworks, but it doesn’t exist as a legal concept in my state.
        MikeTheGreat 5y ago
        If you don't mind sharing some examples I'd love to hear them, out of curiosity more than anything. Which situations (and in which country/countries) do pedestrians not have right-of-way over cars?
        chrismcb 5y ago
        In America, at least in same States, pedestrians only have a right of way in a sidewalk or crosswalk. I all also add, stepping in front of a moving vehicle means having to obey the laws of physics.
dv_dt 5y ago
Iwould think you would need to separate the rate of car-v-pedestrian accidents from injury-rate-given incident. You might even have to break down speed of incident to really understand if modern vehicles were actually safer or not.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Per that link, pedestrian fatalities had a sudden break in trend and skyrocketed right when motorcyclist deaths stopped climbing and flattened. Wouldn't you expect the hypothesis of new vehicles increasing ped deaths show up in motorcycle fatalities too? It seems much more plausible from this baseline data that the introduction of the smartphone is more relevant: the skyrocketing happened at the precise time the smartphone took off, and smartphone ubiquity naturally wouldn't affect motorcyclist fatality (while new vehicle shapes would). Of course, there are myriad other potential explanations, including the trend towards urbanization and walkable cities over the last decade and a half, but I don't see how you can conclude that the pedestrian fatality graph is useful evidence of the greater dangers of newer vehicle designs.
atatatat 5y ago
Which begs the real question: shouldn't we have continued to allow "driving a car well if you're going to be driving one" to have been a natural selection point...?

Afforess 5y ago

That graph also correlates perfectly with smartphone adoption. Drivers are more distracted and pedestrians less aware of their surroundings than in the past.

oblio 5y ago

Tall SUV and trucks + smartphones. One battle at a time.

Amezarak 5y ago
Tech companies have the power to end the smartphone problem overnight. Just takes Apple and Google disabling the screen of any phone moving faster than 5mph. Passengers would be inconvenienced, but basically every phone-related crash would be prevented.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  People on buses, trains, ferries, and planes would also be inconvenienced.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    Yes, they would have to return to pre-2010 life while being transported. Not exactly a huge cost compared to the number of lives saved when it’s almost entirely entertainment.
    - SR2Z 5y ago
      Yes, we should severely inconvenience people who are _doing the right thing_ by taking public transit so that bad drivers who can't stop checking their phones won't main/kill themselves and others.
      - Amezarak 5y ago
        Going without a smartphone on transit is not a severe inconvenience. It’s a very minor one. Just a few years ago nobody even knew they needed one. Snapchat was not worth my cousin's life.
    - canadianfella 5y ago
      Go live in Singapore if you don’t value individual freedom of choice.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Google and Apple are already tracking the bus/train/ferry through their mapping software. Wouldn't be hard to set up a crude geofilter and guestimate whether a user was on transit or not. Some transit agencies even integrate directly with the phone's wallet system, so you could measure that a fare was paid concievably.
    - culopatin 5y ago
      Not in most of the world where the buses or trains are running disconnected from a public network
- syshum 5y ago
  YOu assume that only drivers are the problem with cell phone More than a few pedestrians walk and use their phone, walk right out in the traffic, or other situations (some hilarious walking right into poles and getting laughed at on the internet. I know in a few nations this may be a hard concept, but here in the US, it is absolutely NOT true that "pedestrians always have the right of way"... no no no
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Pedestrians always have the right to not be run over.
    - mwint 5y ago
      “Right” is a strange word here, but there are absolutely cases where pedestrians have no right-of-way over cars. In these cases, you can be run over and you (or your family) will have no legal recourse against the driver. Zero, nada, zilch. So in the legal sense, it is not true that a pedestrian always has the right to exist at any point on the earth without being run over. In a moral sense, perhaps every driver has an obligation to try not to run over pedestrians. That might create a “right” in some moral/ethics frameworks, but it doesn’t exist as a legal concept in my state.
      - MikeTheGreat 5y ago
        If you don't mind sharing some examples I'd love to hear them, out of curiosity more than anything. Which situations (and in which country/countries) do pedestrians not have right-of-way over cars?
        chrismcb 5y ago
        In America, at least in same States, pedestrians only have a right of way in a sidewalk or crosswalk. I all also add, stepping in front of a moving vehicle means having to obey the laws of physics.

dv_dt 5y ago

Iwould think you would need to separate the rate of car-v-pedestrian accidents from injury-rate-given incident. You might even have to break down speed of incident to really understand if modern vehicles were actually safer or not.

wutbrodo 5y ago

Per that link, pedestrian fatalities had a sudden break in trend and skyrocketed right when motorcyclist deaths stopped climbing and flattened. Wouldn't you expect the hypothesis of new vehicles increasing ped deaths show up in motorcycle fatalities too? It seems much more plausible from this baseline data that the introduction of the smartphone is more relevant: the skyrocketing happened at the precise time the smartphone took off, and smartphone ubiquity naturally wouldn't affect motorcyclist fatality (while new vehicle shapes would). Of course, there are myriad other potential explanations, including the trend towards urbanization and walkable cities over the last decade and a half, but I don't see how you can conclude that the pedestrian fatality graph is useful evidence of the greater dangers of newer vehicle designs.

atatatat 5y ago

Which begs the real question: shouldn't we have continued to allow "driving a car well if you're going to be driving one" to have been a natural selection point...?