3 ms·

Blood is running down the streets (just not literally). Traffic deaths are the top killer for kids under 15 in NYC; these aren't even people driving! They are k

Blood is running down the streets (just not literally). Traffic deaths are the top killer for kids under 15 in NYC; these aren't even people driving! They are killed by others, and often at speeds that are very, very likely to kill upon basically any collision. If you value science and data, you can tell from a mile what an enormously stupid idea it is to have multi-ton cars roaming cities at even 20mph. Physics tells us it's deadly, everything tells us people are incompetent and unfit to drive, and the statistics bear out the very, very high expected costs. I'd argue it can only be ignorance that would make you look at the tremendous body of evidence, both theorethically and statistically, and conclude > People are not suicidal. They'll drive at whatever speed is safe and comfortable for them.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
Something's always going to be the leading killer. If gang warfare picked up, would traffic suddenly be safer?
- revelation 12y ago
  But that's what I'm saying? If the market is happy tomorrow, you might expect Yahoo to pick up some steam, but of course that doesn't make it any more of a viable company. Indeed the relative comparisons are at the heart of the problem. They come so natural to humans. Everybody drives daily, how dangerous can it be? This very poster attests to the fact that he feels perfectly safe in a multi-ton steel vehicle moving at 65 mph, propelled forward by repeated explosions (well, that part is a bit hyperbole). So while society tells you it's perfectly safe and why don't you think about those terrorists thousands of miles away, just looking at the absolute numbers for traffic related mortality tells us that the problem is very freaking huge.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    > the absolute numbers for traffic related mortality tells us that the problem is very freaking huge Certainly not. We keep track of statistics by vehicle-mile for a reason.
    - markvdb 12y ago
      The most important figure to monitor though is not mortality/car-distance, but traffic mortality/population. Let me rephrase that in plain English. Care about creating a safer car driving environment, but care even much more about your loved ones surviving traffic in good health. In addition to lowering mortality/car-distance, one can reduce traffic mortality/population in two significant ways: shifting traffic from car to safer means of transport, and lowering total car-distance. This holds true both on individual and society level. I'm going to deliberately provocate now by comparing to a very sensitive number. Just hoping it will wake up at least someone. Improve road infrastructure safety to Dutch standards? Prevent over four 9/11's per year (12850 deaths). Improve transportation culture to Dutch standards? Prevent up to eight 9/11's per year (24007 deaths). data sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

thaumasiotes 12y ago

Something's always going to be the leading killer. If gang warfare picked up, would traffic suddenly be safer?

revelation 12y ago
But that's what I'm saying? If the market is happy tomorrow, you might expect Yahoo to pick up some steam, but of course that doesn't make it any more of a viable company. Indeed the relative comparisons are at the heart of the problem. They come so natural to humans. Everybody drives daily, how dangerous can it be? This very poster attests to the fact that he feels perfectly safe in a multi-ton steel vehicle moving at 65 mph, propelled forward by repeated explosions (well, that part is a bit hyperbole). So while society tells you it's perfectly safe and why don't you think about those terrorists thousands of miles away, just looking at the absolute numbers for traffic related mortality tells us that the problem is very freaking huge.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > the absolute numbers for traffic related mortality tells us that the problem is very freaking huge Certainly not. We keep track of statistics by vehicle-mile for a reason.
  - markvdb 12y ago
    The most important figure to monitor though is not mortality/car-distance, but traffic mortality/population. Let me rephrase that in plain English. Care about creating a safer car driving environment, but care even much more about your loved ones surviving traffic in good health. In addition to lowering mortality/car-distance, one can reduce traffic mortality/population in two significant ways: shifting traffic from car to safer means of transport, and lowering total car-distance. This holds true both on individual and society level. I'm going to deliberately provocate now by comparing to a very sensitive number. Just hoping it will wake up at least someone. Improve road infrastructure safety to Dutch standards? Prevent over four 9/11's per year (12850 deaths). Improve transportation culture to Dutch standards? Prevent up to eight 9/11's per year (24007 deaths). data sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...