4 ms·

> They just do. On roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed? On roads blockaded so motor vehicles can't access? That's what "stopped up for cars" means.

by msla 4y ago

ericmay 4y ago
It’s just not a problem. And even if it were a problem it pales in comparison to the deaths and societal cost to driving. You’re thinking about 99.99999% problems and sacrificing common problems (kids being run over etc.).
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > You’re thinking about 99.99999% problems and sacrificing common problems (kids being run over etc.). Kids being run over is not a common problem, by any standard. You'd struggle to argue that it even qualified as "rare". It's more along the lines of "unheard of". The 2016 census reports the population of 0-19 year olds as 81,880,000. According to this article in US News ( https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2018-12-19/car-crashes-guns-killed-the-most-us-children-and-teens-in-2016 https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2018-12-19/... ), "motor vehicle crashes" are the leading cause of death in that age group. There were 4,074 such fatalities in 2016, making for an annual death rate of 0.005%. Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash. (Assuming 19-year-olds are "kids".) But "motor vehicle crashes" include cases where the child who died was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed, or where they were a passenger in a vehicle that was hit, or where they were driving a vehicle that crashed, or where they were driving a vehicle that was hit. NHTSA tells us that in 2016, there were just over 7,000 non-vehicle-occupant fatalities from motor vehicle crashes among all age groups combined. ( https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812456 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... ) This is about 19% of the total number of traffic fatalities for that year; if we apply that figure to our teen-and-under deaths, the number of kids getting run over in 2016 would be 770 out of almost 82 million kids. In other words, the annual rate of this problem occurring is estimated at 0.000009; it is, in your terminology, a 99.9991% problem. That's still about 90 times as common as a 99.99999% problem, but I have a sneaking suspicion you were just making that number up. To a first, second, third, and fourth approximation, kids in the United States don't get run over.
  - foepys 4y ago
    You only talk about fatalities but people can get hit by cars without dying and be still in urgent need of an ambulance (often so they don't die later).
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      It's not going to change the conclusion unless you believe that death is a very rare outcome of being struck by a car. Think about it. Do you personally know of any occasion on which a child was run over? In what sense could it be a "common problem"?
      - foepys 4y ago
        I have myself witnessed a child being hit by a car and a few years back one died in my city. Both in school zones where cars sped through illegally. I'm in Germany with only 1/4 of the US car fatality rate per person.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    If you were focusing on the numeric aspect of "kids getting run over" you largely missed the point. That you missed the point is reinforced by you focusing on the exact number of kids ran over versus general death of kids in car crashes, for example. > Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash. And I bet that 770 kids dying each year from being directly run over occurs 70x more often than someone dying because a doctor can't make it to the hospital in time. Really optimizing for an unimportant detail at the expense of the entire system.
- msla 4y ago
  > It’s just not a problem. From the other comments in the thread, it's a huge problem, and it's one that kills.
humanistbot 4y ago
You can have roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed, but have exceptions for ambulances in emergencies. They turn the sirens and lights on and everyone pulls over to make way.
- msla 4y ago
  > You can have roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed, but have exceptions for ambulances in emergencies. So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies. That kind of thing kills people.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Cars kill people. You're focusing on minor, insignificant details and creating an environment where more people die than otherwise would. How many people die at the hospital waiting for a doctor? You know they have attending physicians and emergency room staff who work there right? > So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies. You might as well say "so doctors will be stuck in traffic jams on the way to the hospital, these things kill people".
    - msla 4y ago
      Your shifting of the focus concedes all of my points. Thank you. Also: > You know they have attending physicians and emergency room staff who work there right? They don't do anesthesia, they don't do surgery, they are, in general, not specialists. Don't try to make points in a realm you know nothing about.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > They don't do anesthesia, they don't do surgery, they are, in general, not specialists. When was the last time you were in a hospital ER or ICU? I've been there off and on for the last few weeks and months. Broadly saying that physicians that specialize in anesthesia, surgery, or other specialties are not staffed at a hospital or emergency room is factually incorrect. It's also not a problem in the first place with the context in this thread. If a specialist was required to be X minutes away from the hospital incase they were on call they'd live or be within X minutes away from the hospital regardless of the mode of transportation. On top of that, any emergency would necessitate emergency hospital staff being on-site to stabilize the patient while a specialist arrives and reviews the case anyway. I bet more doctors die every year in car crashes going to emergency calls like the one you are conjuring up than patients who die as a result of a doctor being late. Doubling down on this irrelevant point is bizarre, and even more so when you fail to imagine that maybe we could find a solution for this non-problem anyway.

> They just do. On roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed? On roads blockaded so motor vehicles can't access? That's what "stopped up for cars" means.

by msla 4y ago

> They just do. On roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed? On roads blockaded so motor vehicles can't access? That's what "stopped up for cars" means.

ericmay 4y ago

It’s just not a problem. And even if it were a problem it pales in comparison to the deaths and societal cost to driving. You’re thinking about 99.99999% problems and sacrificing common problems (kids being run over etc.).

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> You’re thinking about 99.99999% problems and sacrificing common problems (kids being run over etc.). Kids being run over is not a common problem, by any standard. You'd struggle to argue that it even qualified as "rare". It's more along the lines of "unheard of". The 2016 census reports the population of 0-19 year olds as 81,880,000. According to this article in US News ( https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2018-12-19/car-crashes-guns-killed-the-most-us-children-and-teens-in-2016 https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2018-12-19/... ), "motor vehicle crashes" are the leading cause of death in that age group. There were 4,074 such fatalities in 2016, making for an annual death rate of 0.005%. Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash. (Assuming 19-year-olds are "kids".) But "motor vehicle crashes" include cases where the child who died was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed, or where they were a passenger in a vehicle that was hit, or where they were driving a vehicle that crashed, or where they were driving a vehicle that was hit. NHTSA tells us that in 2016, there were just over 7,000 non-vehicle-occupant fatalities from motor vehicle crashes among all age groups combined. ( https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812456 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... ) This is about 19% of the total number of traffic fatalities for that year; if we apply that figure to our teen-and-under deaths, the number of kids getting run over in 2016 would be 770 out of almost 82 million kids. In other words, the annual rate of this problem occurring is estimated at 0.000009; it is, in your terminology, a 99.9991% problem. That's still about 90 times as common as a 99.99999% problem, but I have a sneaking suspicion you were just making that number up. To a first, second, third, and fourth approximation, kids in the United States don't get run over.
- foepys 4y ago
  You only talk about fatalities but people can get hit by cars without dying and be still in urgent need of an ambulance (often so they don't die later).
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    It's not going to change the conclusion unless you believe that death is a very rare outcome of being struck by a car. Think about it. Do you personally know of any occasion on which a child was run over? In what sense could it be a "common problem"?
    - foepys 4y ago
      I have myself witnessed a child being hit by a car and a few years back one died in my city. Both in school zones where cars sped through illegally. I'm in Germany with only 1/4 of the US car fatality rate per person.
- ericmay 4y ago
  If you were focusing on the numeric aspect of "kids getting run over" you largely missed the point. That you missed the point is reinforced by you focusing on the exact number of kids ran over versus general death of kids in car crashes, for example. > Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash. And I bet that 770 kids dying each year from being directly run over occurs 70x more often than someone dying because a doctor can't make it to the hospital in time. Really optimizing for an unimportant detail at the expense of the entire system.
msla 4y ago
> It’s just not a problem. From the other comments in the thread, it's a huge problem, and it's one that kills.

humanistbot 4y ago

You can have roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed, but have exceptions for ambulances in emergencies. They turn the sirens and lights on and everyone pulls over to make way.

msla 4y ago
> You can have roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed, but have exceptions for ambulances in emergencies. So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies. That kind of thing kills people.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Cars kill people. You're focusing on minor, insignificant details and creating an environment where more people die than otherwise would. How many people die at the hospital waiting for a doctor? You know they have attending physicians and emergency room staff who work there right? > So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies. You might as well say "so doctors will be stuck in traffic jams on the way to the hospital, these things kill people".
  - msla 4y ago
    Your shifting of the focus concedes all of my points. Thank you. Also: > You know they have attending physicians and emergency room staff who work there right? They don't do anesthesia, they don't do surgery, they are, in general, not specialists. Don't try to make points in a realm you know nothing about.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > They don't do anesthesia, they don't do surgery, they are, in general, not specialists. When was the last time you were in a hospital ER or ICU? I've been there off and on for the last few weeks and months. Broadly saying that physicians that specialize in anesthesia, surgery, or other specialties are not staffed at a hospital or emergency room is factually incorrect. It's also not a problem in the first place with the context in this thread. If a specialist was required to be X minutes away from the hospital incase they were on call they'd live or be within X minutes away from the hospital regardless of the mode of transportation. On top of that, any emergency would necessitate emergency hospital staff being on-site to stabilize the patient while a specialist arrives and reviews the case anyway. I bet more doctors die every year in car crashes going to emergency calls like the one you are conjuring up than patients who die as a result of a doctor being late. Doubling down on this irrelevant point is bizarre, and even more so when you fail to imagine that maybe we could find a solution for this non-problem anyway.