7 ms·

We Can Cut Traffic Deaths in Half, but Nobody Wants To

26 points by ourmandave 4y ago

jlbbellefeuille 4y ago
Imagine if 25% or more of the working population could work from home? Less traffic, fewer accidents and fatalities. Remote work for the win! - “ NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data from 2012 to 2016 revealed that 24.2 percent of fatal accidents occurred during these peak commuting times. FARS data also shows that the deadliest time to commute is between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6 p.m., and Friday is the most dangerous day of the week, accounting for 20.5 percent of all accidents. Drivers are not the only ones at risk during these peak times, 26 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur between, 6:00 p.m. and 8:59 p.m., according to the NHTSA.” https://www.eastcoasttriallawyers.com/2021/02/car-accidents-rush-hour-traffic/ https://www.eastcoasttriallawyers.com/2021/02/car-accidents-... “ Road crashes are preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. In the U.S., substantial crashes occur during the rush hour period. The rush hour represents the period of the day during which the density of humans and vehicles in the road environment is highest. In the U.S., the rush hour period is bi-modal, occurring in the morning and the afternoon, at times that vary by state and urban–rural status. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the rush hour period and fatal and non-fatal crash injuries. Selected articles were limited to peer-reviewed full-text articles that measured crash injury as an outcome and rush hour as either a predictor, covariate, stratification, or a control variable. A total of 17 articles were identified for systematic review and nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. Across the selected studies, the rush-hour period signified the period of “peak traffic flow.” During the rush hour period, aggressive driving behavior, truck driving, bicycle riding, and precipitation were associated with increased crash events or crash injuries. Across the nine studies included in the meta-analysis, the effective sample size was 236,433. The rush-hour period was associated with a 28% increased risk of fatal crash injury (Pooled RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11–1.45) and the morning rush hour period was associated with 36% increased crash injury risk (Pooled RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.13–1.59). The rush hour period, though less commonly studied as a predictor of fatal and non-fatal crash injuries, represents an important domain in need of crash injury prevention attention. The knowledge of the pattern of crash injuries, as it varies across countries, states, regions, and county can inform policy and intervention, in the presence of competing public health needs” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457521004930 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... “ Crash-related fatality studies reveal that drivers increase their risks for deadly car crashes at certain driving times. The deadliest time of the day to drive is in the late afternoon and early evening hours. In 2016, there were 6,201 car crash fatalities between 4 pm and 6:59 pm, busy after-work rush hours, followed by 6,067 fatalities between 7 pm and 9:59 pm. Although a high number of drivers on the road during these times makes accidents more likely, busy morning rush hours between 7 am and 9:59 am had only 3,345 deadly accidents.” https://www.sgklawyers.com/blog/2019/02/deadliest-driving-times/ https://www.sgklawyers.com/blog/2019/02/deadliest-driving-ti...
markus92 4y ago
The article is mentioning tons of technological measures you can take in the car, but a far more effective way to go about this is infrastructure. As someone from Europe, driving in the US is shockingly dangerous at times. High-speed unprotected left turns at higher speeds are so commonplace, lack of merge lanes on 45mph roads isn't that great either. Something like Vision Zero and making the roads a bit more forgiving can also go a long way in reducing traffic deaths. No need for new tech in new cars.
- adwww 4y ago
  Even just 4 way stops. Staggering the exits, oblique angles, or roundabouts would be far safer than trusting that every driver pays attention to every red light.
  - tzs 4y ago
    Accidents due to drivers running red lights or stop signs are way down on the list of causes of serious accidents in the US, behind speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, reckless driving, and weather on most lists I've seen of accident causes.
    - adwww 4y ago
      Interesting. I remember seeing 1/3 of fatalities involved a signalised intersection, although in fairness I can't find an international comparison.
- ftyers 4y ago
  One of the things I love in Mexico is the "topes", they're like sleeping policemen, but lot bigger, and you basically have to slow down unless you want to mess up your suspension. I think some of them are implemented by local communities as well, which is pretty cool.
  - drdunce 4y ago
    I don't like the disrupting the flow of traffic idea. Accidents happen in places where the flow is disrupted. E.g. junctions, give ways, reasons to stop. It's like making a knife blunt to make it safer, in reality it makes it way more dangerous
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The author's goals are noble but the paths they advocate for to get there are based on ignorance at best. The NHTSA doesn't care about pedestrians because Europe does and by proxy that covers basically everything in the US except trucks. Speeding stats are basically useless given the state of speed limit compliance in the US. Current breathalyzers suck for a variety of reasons though if the OEMs start adding them they might suck less due to incentive alignment. Seat belt interlocks are fine and probably the only politically tractable thing on the list. Wanna make roads safer? Reduce the number of interactions between traffic of differing speeds, reduce the speed differences at which interactions happen and where possible modify these interactions to reduce accident frequency (e.g. roundabouts vs n-way stops). And before a certain group of jerks gets annoying, my definition of traffic is "all road users".
- francisofascii 4y ago
  No, many of these fatal accidents are because people are driving too fast. The point is if we did actual speed enforcement, the speed demons would not get away with driving like maniacs. But nobody wants actual speed enforcement.
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    >many of these fatal accidents are because people are driving too fast because is not a word i agree with in this sentence. If what you say is actual truth then we should reduce the speed limit to 30mph everywhere, including highways, to reduce head-on collision deaths. Because speed is the most important factor right? It cant be how we hand out drivers licenses like candy and blame everything but the driver's decisions and awareness in critical moments. Failure to reduce speed before taking dangerous actions is the issue. Not going fast in general. If you want to enforce top-speed as a means of indirectly controlling the risk of people failing to reduce speed appropriately.. then you need to set the top-speed to the safest speed for all driving activity. It is barbaric that we keep pulling over people going fast on an empty road and pretend that is helping enforce people to stop making blind turns and lane merges at unsafe speeds
  - markus92 4y ago
chaosbutters314 4y ago
something not noted, i want software that tells people theyre driving slow in the left lane and need to move over. People, including me speed, and having to swerve around slow drivers in the left lane increases the risk of driving. we have "lane assist" which is great, but take it one step further to identify drivers in the wrong lane.
- cupofpython 4y ago
  This is an enforcement issue. People need to get pulled over for blocking / hogging the passing lane. I believe New Jersey actually enforces it a bit. I was often warned to avoid the left lane because police would use passing lane laws as an excuse to target my out-of-state plates. Could have also been complete hearsay though
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    I'm not gonna hold my breath. We don't even pull over people for stopping at clover leafs (which is way more egregious and dangerous than being the slow guy in any given lane).
    - cupofpython 4y ago
      yeah im pretty sure the cars will be driving themselves before we figure out how to enforce the road in ways that truly make sense
- drdunce 4y ago
  I think a lot of these measures lull people into a false sense of security and promote a habitual lack of attention. This means if they're going to be there they need to be bullet proof. I'd personally scrap lane assist. The attitude to driving now seems to be, press the go pedal and unless an alarm is sounding, I don't have to think. Something else will switch my wipers on and off, headlights, tell me if I'm out my lane, brake if someone is in front, beep when i'm about to hit a wall etc. so why look ...all until it doesn't or they encounter a situation there isn't a sensor for.
jimmaswell 4y ago
This is one of the options for the anti-drunk-driving technology in question: https://dadss.org/touch-technology https://dadss.org/touch-technology Pretty interesting and noninvasive. I'd hate not to be able to drive with gloves in the winter though, but I suppose any brand new car will have a heated steering wheel?
- runnerup 4y ago
  There are situations where it’s legal and necessary to drive drunk (e.g. backwoods camping accident requiring hospitalization, escaping a violent situation, etc) The innovation is more overcoming the societal hurdle of deciding that driving away from these emergencies should no longer be technically possible. Interlocks merely follow from that.
Kharvok 4y ago
Autonomous driving solves for all of these problems.
- drdunce 4y ago
  I think Elon said we'll definitely have that next year right?
- Tarragon 4y ago
  It actually has to actually work to have a chance to solve these. Then... * Breathalyzer - I'll give you this one * Seat Belt interlock - seatbelts save lives just as well in an autonomous vehicle * Speed - Speed kills passengers and pedestrians just a well in an autonomous vehicle
  - Tarragon 4y ago
    In fact to the speed point I've had a dream that working autonomous vehicles would reduce average speed. This improves efficiency and safety across the board. Don't laugh, it could work... When your car is an extension of your living room or office do you mind slightly longer travel times? Sure you have to leave 10 minutes earlier but you can just pick up your console game in your car.
- yucky 4y ago
  The best part of autonomous driving is how it stops "the poors" from being able to own vehicles. /s
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    I assume you included the /s to poke fun at the people who a) want to kick the poors off the roads b) want a bunch of stuff that will have the same net effect but simply haven't yet figured it out.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Yeah, it's just a general current I've noticed running through HN comments where people are so trapped in their bubble they have no idea how life operates for most people outside of it.
nickysielicki 4y ago
Not mentioned in the article, but the best solution isn’t mentioned: the FCC can mandate that consumer cell phone radios refuse to operate at over 25mph. Totally within their power, technically trivial, and would save thousands of lives a year. This is one of my favorite arguments when people make arguments that some draconian measure is necessary to save lives. It’s extremely unpopular because nobody wants to go without Waze or Spotify in their car, but it would be extremely effective at saving lives. Every technology in this article is easily circumvented by people who can do basic work on their cars. Modem hacking is out of their wheelhouse, however.
- davrosthedalek 4y ago
  So nobody in a car can use their phones, even passengers? Technically certainly possible, but not sure that will fly. And if, it will be fun to drive around all the cars going 25 on the highway because they have an important call.
- KMnO4 4y ago
  If we’re going way overboard, then I think a more effective solution is to just force all manufacturers to limit cars to a max speed of 25 mph. More effective and equally unlikely to happen.
- melling 4y ago
  That’s because he was using data to support his argument rather than making up solutions. “Fitting intelligent speed assistance on every new vehicle as standard could eventually prevent a fifth of road deaths.” How many little lives would we save by removing cell phones? Personally, i think Waze is a great tool. How much does using it increase my chances of dying?
  - nickysielicki 4y ago
    There’s a ton of data to back up the idea that cell phone usage while driving is resulting in accidents. The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? I’m not actually saying I want this, it’s just an effective counter-argument when people claim that we should ban ie: smoking because it would save lives.
trainsarebetter 4y ago
take a train?
diogenescynic 4y ago
We could cut opiate deaths or gun deaths or heart disease in half but nobody wants to either. Too much money to be made and too many people taking their cut. It reminds me of the book Disaster Capitalism.
ShockTohp 4y ago
Of course no one wants to do this. No one wants to not be able to drive their car because an ignition lock circuit failed and now won't unlock. And car electronics fail constantly as it is, no need to add more failure states that lead to a vehicle becoming unusable.
- fargle 4y ago
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin [1] I don't need to rationalize technical reasons for believing this. Driving drunk is already illegal; the over-prevalence of it is an enforcement and sentencing issue. The same could be said for many several other driving and personal safety issues. I will outright state that given the choice between my expected delta mortality rate due to driving in southern CA with vs. without a speed-governed, breathalyzer equipped, government regulated mandated vehicle law - I'd take the risk as is. 100%, every time. Giving the government or other large bureaucracy this level of control over anything has a much larger negative side. Yes! I am willing to die for liberty. Even more willing to have a tiny bit higher chance of getting killed on the road for liberty. [1] yes, yes, interesting history, but it's still just as applicable in this case: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
- EliRivers 4y ago
  The rates of failure of those is tiny. So tiny that I don't think it's a real reason. I think that people who say that's the risk they don't want to take actually just don't like having to take safety measures, but if they say that out loud they realise how ridiculous they sound so they come up with something like that instead.
oversocialized 4y ago
camgunz 4y ago
The first comment on the article was "Germany has fewer deaths per capita and doesn't do any of this", but it's probably also the case that more Americans are driving more often than Europeans, because Americans have to drive to do practically anything. Are you tired? Have you had 2 drinks? Did someone just shout insults at you? Do you have a cold? None of this matters, because you need to drive 20 minutes to get toilet paper.

26 points by ourmandave 4y ago

Imagine if 25% or more of the working population could work from home? Less traffic, fewer accidents and fatalities. Remote work for the win! - “ NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data from 2012 to 2016 revealed that 24.2 percent of fatal accidents occurred during these peak commuting times. FARS data also shows that the deadliest time to commute is between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6 p.m., and Friday is the most dangerous day of the week, accounting for 20.5 percent of all accidents. Drivers are not the only ones at risk during these peak times, 26 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur between, 6:00 p.m. and 8:59 p.m., according to the NHTSA.” https://www.eastcoasttriallawyers.com/2021/02/car-accidents-rush-hour-traffic/ https://www.eastcoasttriallawyers.com/2021/02/car-accidents-... “ Road crashes are preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. In the U.S., substantial crashes occur during the rush hour period. The rush hour represents the period of the day during which the density of humans and vehicles in the road environment is highest. In the U.S., the rush hour period is bi-modal, occurring in the morning and the afternoon, at times that vary by state and urban–rural status. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the rush hour period and fatal and non-fatal crash injuries. Selected articles were limited to peer-reviewed full-text articles that measured crash injury as an outcome and rush hour as either a predictor, covariate, stratification, or a control variable. A total of 17 articles were identified for systematic review and nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. Across the selected studies, the rush-hour period signified the period of “peak traffic flow.” During the rush hour period, aggressive driving behavior, truck driving, bicycle riding, and precipitation were associated with increased crash events or crash injuries. Across the nine studies included in the meta-analysis, the effective sample size was 236,433. The rush-hour period was associated with a 28% increased risk of fatal crash injury (Pooled RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11–1.45) and the morning rush hour period was associated with 36% increased crash injury risk (Pooled RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.13–1.59). The rush hour period, though less commonly studied as a predictor of fatal and non-fatal crash injuries, represents an important domain in need of crash injury prevention attention. The knowledge of the pattern of crash injuries, as it varies across countries, states, regions, and county can inform policy and intervention, in the presence of competing public health needs” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457521004930 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... “ Crash-related fatality studies reveal that drivers increase their risks for deadly car crashes at certain driving times. The deadliest time of the day to drive is in the late afternoon and early evening hours. In 2016, there were 6,201 car crash fatalities between 4 pm and 6:59 pm, busy after-work rush hours, followed by 6,067 fatalities between 7 pm and 9:59 pm. Although a high number of drivers on the road during these times makes accidents more likely, busy morning rush hours between 7 am and 9:59 am had only 3,345 deadly accidents.” https://www.sgklawyers.com/blog/2019/02/deadliest-driving-times/ https://www.sgklawyers.com/blog/2019/02/deadliest-driving-ti...

markus92 4y ago

The article is mentioning tons of technological measures you can take in the car, but a far more effective way to go about this is infrastructure. As someone from Europe, driving in the US is shockingly dangerous at times. High-speed unprotected left turns at higher speeds are so commonplace, lack of merge lanes on 45mph roads isn't that great either. Something like Vision Zero and making the roads a bit more forgiving can also go a long way in reducing traffic deaths. No need for new tech in new cars.

adwww 4y ago
Even just 4 way stops. Staggering the exits, oblique angles, or roundabouts would be far safer than trusting that every driver pays attention to every red light.
- tzs 4y ago
  Accidents due to drivers running red lights or stop signs are way down on the list of causes of serious accidents in the US, behind speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, reckless driving, and weather on most lists I've seen of accident causes.
  - adwww 4y ago
    Interesting. I remember seeing 1/3 of fatalities involved a signalised intersection, although in fairness I can't find an international comparison.
ftyers 4y ago
One of the things I love in Mexico is the "topes", they're like sleeping policemen, but lot bigger, and you basically have to slow down unless you want to mess up your suspension. I think some of them are implemented by local communities as well, which is pretty cool.
- drdunce 4y ago
  I don't like the disrupting the flow of traffic idea. Accidents happen in places where the flow is disrupted. E.g. junctions, give ways, reasons to stop. It's like making a knife blunt to make it safer, in reality it makes it way more dangerous

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

The author's goals are noble but the paths they advocate for to get there are based on ignorance at best. The NHTSA doesn't care about pedestrians because Europe does and by proxy that covers basically everything in the US except trucks. Speeding stats are basically useless given the state of speed limit compliance in the US. Current breathalyzers suck for a variety of reasons though if the OEMs start adding them they might suck less due to incentive alignment. Seat belt interlocks are fine and probably the only politically tractable thing on the list. Wanna make roads safer? Reduce the number of interactions between traffic of differing speeds, reduce the speed differences at which interactions happen and where possible modify these interactions to reduce accident frequency (e.g. roundabouts vs n-way stops). And before a certain group of jerks gets annoying, my definition of traffic is "all road users".

francisofascii 4y ago
No, many of these fatal accidents are because people are driving too fast. The point is if we did actual speed enforcement, the speed demons would not get away with driving like maniacs. But nobody wants actual speed enforcement.
- cupofpython 4y ago
  >many of these fatal accidents are because people are driving too fast because is not a word i agree with in this sentence. If what you say is actual truth then we should reduce the speed limit to 30mph everywhere, including highways, to reduce head-on collision deaths. Because speed is the most important factor right? It cant be how we hand out drivers licenses like candy and blame everything but the driver's decisions and awareness in critical moments. Failure to reduce speed before taking dangerous actions is the issue. Not going fast in general. If you want to enforce top-speed as a means of indirectly controlling the risk of people failing to reduce speed appropriately.. then you need to set the top-speed to the safest speed for all driving activity. It is barbaric that we keep pulling over people going fast on an empty road and pretend that is helping enforce people to stop making blind turns and lane merges at unsafe speeds
- markus92 4y ago

chaosbutters314 4y ago

something not noted, i want software that tells people theyre driving slow in the left lane and need to move over. People, including me speed, and having to swerve around slow drivers in the left lane increases the risk of driving. we have "lane assist" which is great, but take it one step further to identify drivers in the wrong lane.

cupofpython 4y ago
This is an enforcement issue. People need to get pulled over for blocking / hogging the passing lane. I believe New Jersey actually enforces it a bit. I was often warned to avoid the left lane because police would use passing lane laws as an excuse to target my out-of-state plates. Could have also been complete hearsay though
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  I'm not gonna hold my breath. We don't even pull over people for stopping at clover leafs (which is way more egregious and dangerous than being the slow guy in any given lane).
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    yeah im pretty sure the cars will be driving themselves before we figure out how to enforce the road in ways that truly make sense
drdunce 4y ago
I think a lot of these measures lull people into a false sense of security and promote a habitual lack of attention. This means if they're going to be there they need to be bullet proof. I'd personally scrap lane assist. The attitude to driving now seems to be, press the go pedal and unless an alarm is sounding, I don't have to think. Something else will switch my wipers on and off, headlights, tell me if I'm out my lane, brake if someone is in front, beep when i'm about to hit a wall etc. so why look ...all until it doesn't or they encounter a situation there isn't a sensor for.

jimmaswell 4y ago

This is one of the options for the anti-drunk-driving technology in question: https://dadss.org/touch-technology https://dadss.org/touch-technology Pretty interesting and noninvasive. I'd hate not to be able to drive with gloves in the winter though, but I suppose any brand new car will have a heated steering wheel?

runnerup 4y ago
There are situations where it’s legal and necessary to drive drunk (e.g. backwoods camping accident requiring hospitalization, escaping a violent situation, etc) The innovation is more overcoming the societal hurdle of deciding that driving away from these emergencies should no longer be technically possible. Interlocks merely follow from that.

Kharvok 4y ago

Autonomous driving solves for all of these problems.

drdunce 4y ago
I think Elon said we'll definitely have that next year right?
Tarragon 4y ago
It actually has to actually work to have a chance to solve these. Then... * Breathalyzer - I'll give you this one * Seat Belt interlock - seatbelts save lives just as well in an autonomous vehicle * Speed - Speed kills passengers and pedestrians just a well in an autonomous vehicle
- Tarragon 4y ago
  In fact to the speed point I've had a dream that working autonomous vehicles would reduce average speed. This improves efficiency and safety across the board. Don't laugh, it could work... When your car is an extension of your living room or office do you mind slightly longer travel times? Sure you have to leave 10 minutes earlier but you can just pick up your console game in your car.
yucky 4y ago
The best part of autonomous driving is how it stops "the poors" from being able to own vehicles. /s
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  I assume you included the /s to poke fun at the people who a) want to kick the poors off the roads b) want a bunch of stuff that will have the same net effect but simply haven't yet figured it out.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Yeah, it's just a general current I've noticed running through HN comments where people are so trapped in their bubble they have no idea how life operates for most people outside of it.

nickysielicki 4y ago

Not mentioned in the article, but the best solution isn’t mentioned: the FCC can mandate that consumer cell phone radios refuse to operate at over 25mph. Totally within their power, technically trivial, and would save thousands of lives a year. This is one of my favorite arguments when people make arguments that some draconian measure is necessary to save lives. It’s extremely unpopular because nobody wants to go without Waze or Spotify in their car, but it would be extremely effective at saving lives. Every technology in this article is easily circumvented by people who can do basic work on their cars. Modem hacking is out of their wheelhouse, however.

davrosthedalek 4y ago
So nobody in a car can use their phones, even passengers? Technically certainly possible, but not sure that will fly. And if, it will be fun to drive around all the cars going 25 on the highway because they have an important call.
KMnO4 4y ago
If we’re going way overboard, then I think a more effective solution is to just force all manufacturers to limit cars to a max speed of 25 mph. More effective and equally unlikely to happen.
melling 4y ago
That’s because he was using data to support his argument rather than making up solutions. “Fitting intelligent speed assistance on every new vehicle as standard could eventually prevent a fifth of road deaths.” How many little lives would we save by removing cell phones? Personally, i think Waze is a great tool. How much does using it increase my chances of dying?
- nickysielicki 4y ago
  There’s a ton of data to back up the idea that cell phone usage while driving is resulting in accidents. The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? I’m not actually saying I want this, it’s just an effective counter-argument when people claim that we should ban ie: smoking because it would save lives.

trainsarebetter 4y ago

take a train?

diogenescynic 4y ago

We could cut opiate deaths or gun deaths or heart disease in half but nobody wants to either. Too much money to be made and too many people taking their cut. It reminds me of the book Disaster Capitalism.

ShockTohp 4y ago

Of course no one wants to do this. No one wants to not be able to drive their car because an ignition lock circuit failed and now won't unlock. And car electronics fail constantly as it is, no need to add more failure states that lead to a vehicle becoming unusable.

fargle 4y ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin [1] I don't need to rationalize technical reasons for believing this. Driving drunk is already illegal; the over-prevalence of it is an enforcement and sentencing issue. The same could be said for many several other driving and personal safety issues. I will outright state that given the choice between my expected delta mortality rate due to driving in southern CA with vs. without a speed-governed, breathalyzer equipped, government regulated mandated vehicle law - I'd take the risk as is. 100%, every time. Giving the government or other large bureaucracy this level of control over anything has a much larger negative side. Yes! I am willing to die for liberty. Even more willing to have a tiny bit higher chance of getting killed on the road for liberty. [1] yes, yes, interesting history, but it's still just as applicable in this case: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
EliRivers 4y ago
The rates of failure of those is tiny. So tiny that I don't think it's a real reason. I think that people who say that's the risk they don't want to take actually just don't like having to take safety measures, but if they say that out loud they realise how ridiculous they sound so they come up with something like that instead.

oversocialized 4y ago

camgunz 4y ago

The first comment on the article was "Germany has fewer deaths per capita and doesn't do any of this", but it's probably also the case that more Americans are driving more often than Europeans, because Americans have to drive to do practically anything. Are you tired? Have you had 2 drinks? Did someone just shout insults at you? Do you have a cold? None of this matters, because you need to drive 20 minutes to get toilet paper.