5 ms·

Highways are "relatively" safe? Relative to juggling chainsaws, maybe. After disease, cars are the leading cause of death in just about any country wealthy enou

Highways are "relatively" safe? Relative to juggling chainsaws, maybe. After disease, cars are the leading cause of death in just about any country wealthy enough to have cars. Drivers need all the help they can get from automation, even if it backfires now and then. The fact that any idiot who can spell his own name is allowed to hurtle through crowded streets with a two ton killing machine and no failsafes of any kind is clearly absurd.

pchristensen 17y ago
After disease, cars are the leading cause of death in just about any country wealthy enough to have cars No, they're far down the list. Less than 2% of all deaths are from auto accidents, fewer than influenza and pneumonia and 20x less than cardiovascular diseases. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
- showerst 17y ago
  Everything above auto-accidents on your list is a disease, so technically he's right =P
  - pchristensen 17y ago
    Oops, let me rephrase. While car accidents are the leading non-accident way to die, you're 45x more likely to die from a disease.
- diN0bot 17y ago
  automobile accidents is the first non-disease on the list, so i think the original claim is correct, even if the lack of statistics blow it out of proportion. IMHO, people underestimate the risk of death and injury from driving. while inciting fear is not really a good educational tactic, i can understand the frustration. my response is to wear a helmet whenever i go for long highway rides. and to avoid transportation as much as possible. (*obviously not for everyone) edit - disease effects a different crowd than motor vehicles, which i think is part of the risk/cost evaluation.
- extension 17y ago
  2% is exactly the proportion I was trying to convey and it's plenty to make my point, which is that an automated system would surely be scrapped for killing half that many people, even though it would be saving millions of lives. Systems that become safer by scaling back automation are anomalies. In general, efforts are better spent improving the automation. The man vs machine dichotomy is contrived anyway. We personify and blame machines as a scapegoat. I prefer to think of automated systems simply as tools, extensions of human capability. Tools don't screw up, we screw up making them or using them.
noss 17y ago
I remember seeing some statistics on traffic accidents from a swedish government department. And here it is (sadly all in Swedish): http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/2B5A6B25-2026-470C-A8BD-0E45AF95FAAA/13558/200912671.pdf http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/2B5A6B25-2026-470... Page 51-51 has graphs of fatalities ages 1-15 years. Page 71-72 has graphs of fatalities ages 16-24 years. Page 117 has graphs of fatalities ages 25-44 and 45-64 years. The green area labelled "Fordonsolyckor" are those that are traffic accidents. Summary: At young ages, traffic accidents are a large part of all deaths, but after 45 years of age, the reason of death is dominated by cardio-vascular diseases.

pchristensen 17y ago

After disease, cars are the leading cause of death in just about any country wealthy enough to have cars No, they're far down the list. Less than 2% of all deaths are from auto accidents, fewer than influenza and pneumonia and 20x less than cardiovascular diseases. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

showerst 17y ago
Everything above auto-accidents on your list is a disease, so technically he's right =P
- pchristensen 17y ago
  Oops, let me rephrase. While car accidents are the leading non-accident way to die, you're 45x more likely to die from a disease.
diN0bot 17y ago
automobile accidents is the first non-disease on the list, so i think the original claim is correct, even if the lack of statistics blow it out of proportion. IMHO, people underestimate the risk of death and injury from driving. while inciting fear is not really a good educational tactic, i can understand the frustration. my response is to wear a helmet whenever i go for long highway rides. and to avoid transportation as much as possible. (*obviously not for everyone) edit - disease effects a different crowd than motor vehicles, which i think is part of the risk/cost evaluation.
extension 17y ago
2% is exactly the proportion I was trying to convey and it's plenty to make my point, which is that an automated system would surely be scrapped for killing half that many people, even though it would be saving millions of lives. Systems that become safer by scaling back automation are anomalies. In general, efforts are better spent improving the automation. The man vs machine dichotomy is contrived anyway. We personify and blame machines as a scapegoat. I prefer to think of automated systems simply as tools, extensions of human capability. Tools don't screw up, we screw up making them or using them.

noss 17y ago

I remember seeing some statistics on traffic accidents from a swedish government department. And here it is (sadly all in Swedish): http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/2B5A6B25-2026-470C-A8BD-0E45AF95FAAA/13558/200912671.pdf http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/2B5A6B25-2026-470... Page 51-51 has graphs of fatalities ages 1-15 years. Page 71-72 has graphs of fatalities ages 16-24 years. Page 117 has graphs of fatalities ages 25-44 and 45-64 years. The green area labelled "Fordonsolyckor" are those that are traffic accidents. Summary: At young ages, traffic accidents are a large part of all deaths, but after 45 years of age, the reason of death is dominated by cardio-vascular diseases.