4 ms·

> because humans suck horse testicles at driving. Hardly. We drive hundreds of billions of miles every month and trillions every year. In the US alone. You'

> because humans suck horse testicles at driving. Hardly. We drive hundreds of billions of miles every month and trillions every year. In the US alone. You're more likely to die from each of the flu, diabetes or a stroke than a car accident. If those don't get you, you are either going to get heart disease or cancer, or most likely, involve yourself in a fatal accident; which, will most likely be a fall of a roof or a ladder.

michaelt 2y ago
Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? IMHO it kinda is. It's 13x as many people as died in 9/11
- timewizard 2y ago
  > Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? No. It's 1.25 per 10,000 per capita. Most people understand the risk ahead of time and yet still choose to drive. They clearly don't think it is. > It's 13x as many people as died in 9/11 And 50x 9/11 many people die of accidental self inflicted injury. This is an absurd metric.
  - Peanuts99 2y ago
    The US car fatalities per mile is double than the UK. It would at least be useful to ask why that might be. That's 40,000 people a year who have their lives cut short.
    - Qwertious 2y ago
      It's street design. If you prioritize car throughput at any cost, even safety, then your streets will be less safe.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      The UK is far more serious about impaired and drunk driving than the US is. The majority of those people who had their lives cut short cut it short themselves and didn't take anyone with them. Likewise, that 40k includes 6k pedestrians and 6k motorcyclists. You can't just take the 40,000 figure and do _anything_ with it because there are so many peculiar modes of accidents which /dominate/ that data set.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - consteval 2y ago
    > yet still choose to drive Obligatory “almost nobody in the US chooses to drive” comment. Driving in the US is a lifeline. It’s closer to food and shelter than a product or action. Remaining economically afloat in the US without a car is extraordinarily difficult. Many people, especially poor people, would much rather lose their job or health insurance than their car.
- dagw 2y ago
  Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? The only meaningful way to say is to compare it to other countries. Pr vehicle mile it is a lot more than many Western European countries and Canada, and a lot less than Mexico.
Mawr 2y ago
"1000C is not that hot, the Sun is hotter!" If you have to reach that hard to make your point, it's not a great point. Adding to the sibling's statistic of 40k deaths a year: > Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, representing 20% of all deaths. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637963/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637963/)
Ukv 2y ago
Worldwide stats from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi...: > Approximately 1.19 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes. > Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years. Falls from a ladder/roof do not come close to that as far as I've been able to find. They'd be a subset of falls from a height, which is a small subset of unintentional falls/slips, which is still globally under road accident deaths. It's true that diabetes, strokes, heart disease, flu, etc. do cause more deaths, but we're really into the absolute biggest causes of death here. Killing fewer than strokes is the lowest of low bars. I think there's also the argument to be made in terms of years of life lost/saved. If you prevent a road accident fatality, chances are that person will go on to live many more healthy years/decades. If you prevent a death by stroke, flu, or even an at-home fall, there is a greater chance that person is already in poor health (to have potentially died from that cause) and may only be gaining a few extra months.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Initially, I was enthusiastic about FSD because it really would have a positive social impact like curing malaria if it worked. But, like curing a dread disease, it's often a long, difficult grind and not something that will for sure work by the end of this year for the last 10 years. No pharma company would get away with that hype.
- timewizard 2y ago
  > Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years. That's not telling you what you think it is. A lot of those deaths are that person in a car on their own. Usually involving drugs or alcohol. It intentionally folds in "deaths caused by others" and "death caused by self" into the same category. It's not an appropriate statistic to base policy on. > If you prevent a road accident fatality, chances are that person will go on to live many more healthy years/decades. Chances are that person is going to kill themselves in a vehicle again later as you have failed to examine MODE of accident. Your analysis is entirely wrong.
  - 2y ago

michaelt 2y ago

Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? IMHO it kinda is. It's 13x as many people as died in 9/11

timewizard 2y ago
> Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? No. It's 1.25 per 10,000 per capita. Most people understand the risk ahead of time and yet still choose to drive. They clearly don't think it is. > It's 13x as many people as died in 9/11 And 50x 9/11 many people die of accidental self inflicted injury. This is an absurd metric.
- Peanuts99 2y ago
  The US car fatalities per mile is double than the UK. It would at least be useful to ask why that might be. That's 40,000 people a year who have their lives cut short.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    It's street design. If you prioritize car throughput at any cost, even safety, then your streets will be less safe.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    The UK is far more serious about impaired and drunk driving than the US is. The majority of those people who had their lives cut short cut it short themselves and didn't take anyone with them. Likewise, that 40k includes 6k pedestrians and 6k motorcyclists. You can't just take the 40,000 figure and do _anything_ with it because there are so many peculiar modes of accidents which /dominate/ that data set.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- consteval 2y ago
  > yet still choose to drive Obligatory “almost nobody in the US chooses to drive” comment. Driving in the US is a lifeline. It’s closer to food and shelter than a product or action. Remaining economically afloat in the US without a car is extraordinarily difficult. Many people, especially poor people, would much rather lose their job or health insurance than their car.
dagw 2y ago
Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? The only meaningful way to say is to compare it to other countries. Pr vehicle mile it is a lot more than many Western European countries and Canada, and a lot less than Mexico.

Mawr 2y ago

"1000C is not that hot, the Sun is hotter!" If you have to reach that hard to make your point, it's not a great point. Adding to the sibling's statistic of 40k deaths a year: > Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, representing 20% of all deaths. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637963/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637963/)

Ukv 2y ago

Worldwide stats from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi...: > Approximately 1.19 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes. > Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years. Falls from a ladder/roof do not come close to that as far as I've been able to find. They'd be a subset of falls from a height, which is a small subset of unintentional falls/slips, which is still globally under road accident deaths. It's true that diabetes, strokes, heart disease, flu, etc. do cause more deaths, but we're really into the absolute biggest causes of death here. Killing fewer than strokes is the lowest of low bars. I think there's also the argument to be made in terms of years of life lost/saved. If you prevent a road accident fatality, chances are that person will go on to live many more healthy years/decades. If you prevent a death by stroke, flu, or even an at-home fall, there is a greater chance that person is already in poor health (to have potentially died from that cause) and may only be gaining a few extra months.

Zigurd 2y ago
Initially, I was enthusiastic about FSD because it really would have a positive social impact like curing malaria if it worked. But, like curing a dread disease, it's often a long, difficult grind and not something that will for sure work by the end of this year for the last 10 years. No pharma company would get away with that hype.
timewizard 2y ago
> Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years. That's not telling you what you think it is. A lot of those deaths are that person in a car on their own. Usually involving drugs or alcohol. It intentionally folds in "deaths caused by others" and "death caused by self" into the same category. It's not an appropriate statistic to base policy on. > If you prevent a road accident fatality, chances are that person will go on to live many more healthy years/decades. Chances are that person is going to kill themselves in a vehicle again later as you have failed to examine MODE of accident. Your analysis is entirely wrong.
- 2y ago