6 ms·

I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing.

I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. E.g. in the first article we should view the woman as a vulnerable road user, bearing no responsibility for being struck by a vehicle even though video evidence shows that she fell into the street.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Yes, I do not think you bear responsibility if you collapse and someone strikes you with their car and then flees the scene.
- JackFr 5y ago
  Don’t be obtuse. A person collapses into the street and is struck by oncoming traffic - no one is to blame. It is an accident.
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    Who's being obtuse? It looks like neither you nor the parent comment assign blame to the woman that the driver struck. From here, it looks like you are in agreement. The parent comment didn't even say one way or another if the driver who struck the woman should get any blame...
  - ecshafer 5y ago
    If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Who I can think to blame here: * The auto manufacturer for not having sensors to detect this. * The city for making car dependent areas * The city for making roads that have cars drive so fast by pedestrians, that the pedestrian can die if hit * The driver for not driving more reasonably * The city for not having a barrier between the sidewalk and the road, China has these in a lot of areas, a curb with a hedge between the side walks and roads, or a fence. The pedestrian who collapses is the last to blame in my view.
    - ballenf 5y ago
      > If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Even 5 mph is too fast if the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant. In other words your statement boils down to "driver can stop unless they can't".
      - InitialLastName 5y ago
        If the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant, but still possible, there's an engineer somewhere who designed a road irresponsibly.
        kortex 5y ago
        Exactly this. The human-factors-engineering take is that these should be mutually exclusive: - a driver should be able to brake if a person falls suddenly (streets) - a person is isolated from/ is incapable of falling suddenly into oncoming traffic (roads) It's the same reason highways are fenced off, extended to streets and roads. A big part of the problem is America's reliance on stroads: too fast to be hospitable for non-drivers, insufficiently isolated to protect non-drivers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
      - dml2135 5y ago
        It is extremely unlikely that someone will be killed by a 5 mph collision, and it is certainly less likely than a 30 mph collision.
        nzmsv 5y ago
        Cars are heavy things and can kill you even if they move at 5mph: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/22/anton-yelchin-death-officially-ruled-as-accident https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/22/anton-yelchin-d...
    - Spivak 5y ago
      Yeah, this isn't an act of god that no one could have possibly foreseen. This is system designed by humans that we have 100% control over.
  - zip1234 5y ago
    Perhaps if she is struck then the drivers were going too fast? Maybe the speed limit should be lowered. Perhaps the street could be designed in a safer way to make this less likely to happen. Calling everything an accident is ignoring the actual causes.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    If I see a cyclist one of the things I do is slow down and give them space specifically because bicyclists do occasionally fall. A good chunk of my awareness is also assigned to evaluating how they're riding in order to anticipate any kind of problem. The fact that most motorists don't believe there's any kind of responsibility for everyone to behave similarly is a problem.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Changing your behavior gives the cyclists and the road users around you (other cars, pedestrians looking for a spot to cross, etc, etc) the impression that you're a skittish or novice driver and are uncomfortable with the situation. This puts them on alert that you might do something unexpected (you are presumably a novice after all). This takes attention away from all the other things that demand their attention and reduces overall situational awareness. The best favor you can do all other traffic is to be as predictable and unremarkable in your actions as possible so that they may reliably plan their actions around yours.
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        > you are presumably a novice after all I'm 49 and I've been driving since I was 16. You can absolutely react to hazards without appearing skittish, which also alerts other traffic to the hazard if they're paying close attention. Trying to drive like a robot all the time is something that actual novice drivers think makes them better drivers.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >I'm 49 and I've been driving since I was 16. My point is you look like a novice in the eyes of the other drivers because the only information they have is that you're having a harder time than everyone else passing the cyclist(s). >You can absolutely react to hazards without appearing skittish, which also alerts other traffic to the hazard if they're paying close attention. I agree
        5y ago
  - FabHK 5y ago
    > no one is to blame. It is an accident That is not the mindset with which aviation arrived at its amazing safety record.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    Imagine this were a workplace: some kind of suspended catwalk where accidentally falling off it is fatal. It would be an OSHA violation not to have guard rails to prevent this from occurring. Likewise, if this is a road where cars are moving too quickly to stop in time to avoid fatally hitting someone who falls onto the road, there ought to be a barrier between the pavement and the road except at designated crossing points.
karaterobot 5y ago
Yeah, this is a little odd to me. The app frames itself as a way to improve reporting, but the way it intends to improve it is by imposing an inherently less neutral position on the language used. There's no fact-checking going on here that would lead the program to decide the original report was incorrect and needed updating, except that it doesn't frame the story in the designer's point of view. An extremely postmodern app. It's possible (and not unlikely) that this is how more news will be processed in the future.
dml2135 5y ago
You're right that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral, but you are missing the point -- the reporting is not neutral to begin with. Take an example from the tool: - The SUV crashed into the woman. vs - The driver crashed into the woman. It is not that one of these statements is "neutral" while the other one is biased. In both cases, the author is making a choice of emphasis. What Vision Zero advocates is that the former's emphasis is the wrong one, and that ascribing more agency (not necessarily blame, but agency) to drivers is the right emphasis to take. But no one is saying that that the choice of words is not subjective either way.
chiefofgxbxl 5y ago
Respectfully, I think you're demonstrating the sort of thinking the corpus of research surrounding this seeks to shine a spotlight on: blaming the victim, rather than focusing on safe and forgiving design. Should our built environment be such that falling down in public should end your life? Do people deserve to die simply because they want to cross the street? Why do we design residential neighborhoods where parents are afraid of letting their kids play outside due to traffic? Do drivers of 4,000+ lbs of steel and glass bear greater responsibility than pedestrians and bicyclists. In the article you mention with the woman falling into the street, the article makes no mention of street design. Further, emphasis is placed on the victim, but nothing is said of the driver. - What is the speed limit on that road? Fast-moving vehicles will require faster reaction time and longer stopping distances. Maybe areas that mix traffic with VRUs need to be reworked. - Did the driver appear to make any effort to stop? If so, why doesn't the article mention it if they already have video evidence? If not, did the driver not see the woman? Was the driver distracted? - Did poor illumination contribute to this collision? (If so, that's a design element: street lighting). > I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. I'm posting this to demonstrate my work and seek honest and meaningful criticism to improve the tool and help improve public discourse around a public safety matter that is killing 30k-40k people per year in the U.S., and injuring millions. You can avoid the underhanded and snarky quip.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Calling them "editorial anti-patterns" because they don't frame the discussion how you would like it to be framed is... well, an antipattern in itself. Let me be clear: Your goal of improving road safety is laudable, and the aspects your tool highlights are conceivably a way to achieve that. But priming visitors to expect "editorial anti-patterns" and then instead presenting "insufficiently biased-to-the-pedestrian" snippets is dishonest. While there are recommendations in there I fully support (e.g. "highlight systematic problems"), I am particularly put off by repeated suggestions like "the driver hit the cyclist": Unless the driver itself physically made contact with the cyclist, this is between inaccurate and confusing. It sounds like a fist fight broke out when the fundamental happening was someone being injured by sudden contact with a vehicle. You can still involve the driver in the sentence if needed, but please don't advocate for confusing reporting in the name of unconditionally blaming individuals. Also, suggestion for an addition: If you want to improve road safety, you could also recommend report on the maintenance status of the vehicle (e.g. were the brakes well-serviced?).
015a 5y ago
To be fair: The model does not appear to automate remediation. It just highlights problems. Also: If all of this is done toward the goal of reducing vehicle-related pedestrian deaths, maybe the dictionary says that's technically a bias, but I have a hard time seeing the argument that its a reprehensible one. Pedestrians may bear some responsibility; the driver is not always at fault; at the end of the day, a pedestrian has never killed a driver. The point here isn't/shouldn't be about fault; its about underscoring a power imbalance. Have you ever heard the old saying: If the team succeeds, its everyone's success; if the team fails, its the manager's failure? Same thing. In situations of power imbalance, it is Good to bias fault toward power. As they say: with great power, comes great responsibility. Most drivers on American roads have zero sense of responsibility.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Yes, I do not think you bear responsibility if you collapse and someone strikes you with their car and then flees the scene.

JackFr 5y ago
Don’t be obtuse. A person collapses into the street and is struck by oncoming traffic - no one is to blame. It is an accident.
- dfxm12 5y ago
  Who's being obtuse? It looks like neither you nor the parent comment assign blame to the woman that the driver struck. From here, it looks like you are in agreement. The parent comment didn't even say one way or another if the driver who struck the woman should get any blame...
- ecshafer 5y ago
  If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Who I can think to blame here: * The auto manufacturer for not having sensors to detect this. * The city for making car dependent areas * The city for making roads that have cars drive so fast by pedestrians, that the pedestrian can die if hit * The driver for not driving more reasonably * The city for not having a barrier between the sidewalk and the road, China has these in a lot of areas, a curb with a hedge between the side walks and roads, or a fence. The pedestrian who collapses is the last to blame in my view.
  - ballenf 5y ago
    > If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast. Even 5 mph is too fast if the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant. In other words your statement boils down to "driver can stop unless they can't".
    - InitialLastName 5y ago
      If the collapse is shielded from view until the last instant, but still possible, there's an engineer somewhere who designed a road irresponsibly.
      - kortex 5y ago
        Exactly this. The human-factors-engineering take is that these should be mutually exclusive: - a driver should be able to brake if a person falls suddenly (streets) - a person is isolated from/ is incapable of falling suddenly into oncoming traffic (roads) It's the same reason highways are fenced off, extended to streets and roads. A big part of the problem is America's reliance on stroads: too fast to be hospitable for non-drivers, insufficiently isolated to protect non-drivers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
    - dml2135 5y ago
      It is extremely unlikely that someone will be killed by a 5 mph collision, and it is certainly less likely than a 30 mph collision.
      - nzmsv 5y ago
        Cars are heavy things and can kill you even if they move at 5mph: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/22/anton-yelchin-death-officially-ruled-as-accident https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/22/anton-yelchin-d...
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Yeah, this isn't an act of god that no one could have possibly foreseen. This is system designed by humans that we have 100% control over.
- zip1234 5y ago
  Perhaps if she is struck then the drivers were going too fast? Maybe the speed limit should be lowered. Perhaps the street could be designed in a safer way to make this less likely to happen. Calling everything an accident is ignoring the actual causes.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  If I see a cyclist one of the things I do is slow down and give them space specifically because bicyclists do occasionally fall. A good chunk of my awareness is also assigned to evaluating how they're riding in order to anticipate any kind of problem. The fact that most motorists don't believe there's any kind of responsibility for everyone to behave similarly is a problem.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Changing your behavior gives the cyclists and the road users around you (other cars, pedestrians looking for a spot to cross, etc, etc) the impression that you're a skittish or novice driver and are uncomfortable with the situation. This puts them on alert that you might do something unexpected (you are presumably a novice after all). This takes attention away from all the other things that demand their attention and reduces overall situational awareness. The best favor you can do all other traffic is to be as predictable and unremarkable in your actions as possible so that they may reliably plan their actions around yours.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      > you are presumably a novice after all I'm 49 and I've been driving since I was 16. You can absolutely react to hazards without appearing skittish, which also alerts other traffic to the hazard if they're paying close attention. Trying to drive like a robot all the time is something that actual novice drivers think makes them better drivers.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >I'm 49 and I've been driving since I was 16. My point is you look like a novice in the eyes of the other drivers because the only information they have is that you're having a harder time than everyone else passing the cyclist(s). >You can absolutely react to hazards without appearing skittish, which also alerts other traffic to the hazard if they're paying close attention. I agree
        5y ago
- FabHK 5y ago
  > no one is to blame. It is an accident That is not the mindset with which aviation arrived at its amazing safety record.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  Imagine this were a workplace: some kind of suspended catwalk where accidentally falling off it is fatal. It would be an OSHA violation not to have guard rails to prevent this from occurring. Likewise, if this is a road where cars are moving too quickly to stop in time to avoid fatally hitting someone who falls onto the road, there ought to be a barrier between the pavement and the road except at designated crossing points.

karaterobot 5y ago

Yeah, this is a little odd to me. The app frames itself as a way to improve reporting, but the way it intends to improve it is by imposing an inherently less neutral position on the language used. There's no fact-checking going on here that would lead the program to decide the original report was incorrect and needed updating, except that it doesn't frame the story in the designer's point of view. An extremely postmodern app. It's possible (and not unlikely) that this is how more news will be processed in the future.

dml2135 5y ago

You're right that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral, but you are missing the point -- the reporting is not neutral to begin with. Take an example from the tool: - The SUV crashed into the woman. vs - The driver crashed into the woman. It is not that one of these statements is "neutral" while the other one is biased. In both cases, the author is making a choice of emphasis. What Vision Zero advocates is that the former's emphasis is the wrong one, and that ascribing more agency (not necessarily blame, but agency) to drivers is the right emphasis to take. But no one is saying that that the choice of words is not subjective either way.

chiefofgxbxl 5y ago

Respectfully, I think you're demonstrating the sort of thinking the corpus of research surrounding this seeks to shine a spotlight on: blaming the victim, rather than focusing on safe and forgiving design. Should our built environment be such that falling down in public should end your life? Do people deserve to die simply because they want to cross the street? Why do we design residential neighborhoods where parents are afraid of letting their kids play outside due to traffic? Do drivers of 4,000+ lbs of steel and glass bear greater responsibility than pedestrians and bicyclists. In the article you mention with the woman falling into the street, the article makes no mention of street design. Further, emphasis is placed on the victim, but nothing is said of the driver. - What is the speed limit on that road? Fast-moving vehicles will require faster reaction time and longer stopping distances. Maybe areas that mix traffic with VRUs need to be reworked. - Did the driver appear to make any effort to stop? If so, why doesn't the article mention it if they already have video evidence? If not, did the driver not see the woman? Was the driver distracted? - Did poor illumination contribute to this collision? (If so, that's a design element: street lighting). > I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. I'm posting this to demonstrate my work and seek honest and meaningful criticism to improve the tool and help improve public discourse around a public safety matter that is killing 30k-40k people per year in the U.S., and injuring millions. You can avoid the underhanded and snarky quip.

MauranKilom 5y ago
Calling them "editorial anti-patterns" because they don't frame the discussion how you would like it to be framed is... well, an antipattern in itself. Let me be clear: Your goal of improving road safety is laudable, and the aspects your tool highlights are conceivably a way to achieve that. But priming visitors to expect "editorial anti-patterns" and then instead presenting "insufficiently biased-to-the-pedestrian" snippets is dishonest. While there are recommendations in there I fully support (e.g. "highlight systematic problems"), I am particularly put off by repeated suggestions like "the driver hit the cyclist": Unless the driver itself physically made contact with the cyclist, this is between inaccurate and confusing. It sounds like a fist fight broke out when the fundamental happening was someone being injured by sudden contact with a vehicle. You can still involve the driver in the sentence if needed, but please don't advocate for confusing reporting in the name of unconditionally blaming individuals. Also, suggestion for an addition: If you want to improve road safety, you could also recommend report on the maintenance status of the vehicle (e.g. were the brakes well-serviced?).

015a 5y ago

To be fair: The model does not appear to automate remediation. It just highlights problems. Also: If all of this is done toward the goal of reducing vehicle-related pedestrian deaths, maybe the dictionary says that's technically a bias, but I have a hard time seeing the argument that its a reprehensible one. Pedestrians may bear some responsibility; the driver is not always at fault; at the end of the day, a pedestrian has never killed a driver. The point here isn't/shouldn't be about fault; its about underscoring a power imbalance. Have you ever heard the old saying: If the team succeeds, its everyone's success; if the team fails, its the manager's failure? Same thing. In situations of power imbalance, it is Good to bias fault toward power. As they say: with great power, comes great responsibility. Most drivers on American roads have zero sense of responsibility.