Reducing risk of automotive death
peterattiamd.com
peterattiamd.com
a lot of fatalities on the road are pedestrians, though. Even if you don't drive you subject yourself to the risk of being hit by a car pretty much every single time you go out.
One was a woman pushing a baby carriage down the road. I stopped and asked her what if I hit her? She replied she'd sue me. I replied that wouldn't help her or her baby much if she was dead.
It's amazing.
Occasionally a car will be parked in a driveway such that it blocks the sidewalk where the sidewalk crosses the driveway. That's illegal but it happens sometimes.
Why not stop and ask if she needed a ride somewhere? You might even have made the world a better place than stopping to hurl abuse at a mother and child.
For bonus points, try slowing down and passing pedestrians when it is safe to do so.
I hope if you have kids you tell them not to play in the road, even if it would be the car's fault if they were hit.
I recall a public service commercial from the 1960s where they suggested that all parties on the road pay attention, even when they have the right-of-way. The catchphrase was "don't be DEAD right".
Yup. On the other hand, I did some foolish things on the road myself when I was younger, and got an angry lecture from a stranger. I didn't take it well at first, but eventually realized he was right and I changed my ways.
> your chances
Maybe. Or maybe offering her a lift would have raised her suspicion that I had something other than her welfare in mind, and my point would have been lost. As it happened, when I said that suing me wouldn't have helped if she was dead, her look of surprise at that indicated I had made a point.
I imagine the people who need a lecture in public are the same ones who do not receive feedback/advice very well.
This is a problem on the receiving end.
> "hey, this is a dangerous road to walk on, would you like a lift to the end?"
You are advising an adult male to offer a ride to an adult female who he is a stranger to? She doesn't know him from Adam and should NOT accept that offer.
Not walking in the middle of the road and not accepting rides from strangers are things people should be taught as children.
Besides, a world where well intentioned people self-censor themselves from being kind to strangers is a bit self-fulfilling isn't it?
Driving your 2 ton metal box in a way which doesn't endanger the lives of others, especially children, would also be a good lesson to teach to children. In fact since it is a vastly more real danger than "stranger danger" it probably do more good.
The situation was not dangerous, her actions were dangerous.
> Driving your 2 ton metal box in a way which doesn't endanger the lives of others, especially children, would also be a good lesson to teach to children
Absolutely. And this is NOT the case here.
> In fact since it is a vastly more real danger than "stranger danger" it probably do more good.
Why not both?
A situation cannot be simultaneously dangerous and not dangerous. Perhaps her actions caused the situation to be dangerous but surely you wouldn't hold that against her child?
I say this as someone who rides motorcycles, drives a car and even a Japanese import campervan, the driver of a vehicle is the one in charge of a potentially lethal machine. One of the first lessons you should learn as a driver is to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead, if you do that then the chances of having to swearve to avoid people walking in the lane or having to think about the consequence of killing a mother and child are practically nil. That is what I mean by driving responsibly.
Anyway, I fear the cultural gulf here is too great.
I didn't say that. I said her actions were dangerous. It was in response to your comment: > If I felt it was so dangerous that I needed to stop and offer unsolicited advice to someone I didn't know, I would feel responsible for their safety if I didn't offer them a lift.
If there is a sidewalk she can safely walk on, that is a not-dangerous situation, and and there is no need to offer her a lift. If she chooses to instead walk in the middle of the road, that changes the situation.
> the driver of a vehicle is the one in charge of a potentially lethal machine
Agreed. Again, there is nothing in this thread stating otherwise.
My point is that pedestrians need to walk responsibly as well.
> the chances of having to swearve to avoid people walking in the lane or having to think about the consequence of killing a mother and child are practically nil.
I think you are being too optimistic here.
You can get a ticket for "creating a hazardous situation" and judged as partially at fault even if the accident is technically the other party's fault. For example, behaving unpredictably like arbitrarily slamming on your brakes and getting rear-ended. I know this for a fact because it happened to a friend - she slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a dog, was rear-ended, and was shocked to be assigned 50% of the liability. The other 50% was assigned to the vehicle behind her for not keeping enough distance.
I don't think you'll find judges very sympathetic to that, nor to a person who wanders onto a freeway daring traffic to dodge him.
Besides, it simply is stupid to tempt fate, whether you're right or not. Being DEAD right is not a happy outcome.
How can you possibly call "I stopped and asked her what if I hit her?" abuse?
He didn't threaten her at all. He informed her that her previous actions could have gotten her and her child killed. Hopefully she listened and will be more careful in the future.
Studies have shown that pedestrians should wear helmets when walking to increase their rate of survival, but good luck getting that to happen.
My instant reaction to that is negative, because it feels like treating the symptoms, not the cause.
Person A: people keep slipping and hitting their heads on this oily floor
Person B: studies have shown people should wear helmets if they want to increase their rate of survival
Let’s talk about vacation. Going to neighbor warm country costs 200€ by car, 180€ by plane (plus rental car) or 540€ by a night train. I’ll take night train once to experience this, but other times I’ll take the car.
My factor now for choosing a new job is days I can work from home and 99% time it is zero. Companies suffer heavily from “general wants to see his army” syndrome (in Germany?). Home office could reduce driving easily by at least 20%, but companies have no benefit from it. Office rent will be paid anyway.
Can confirm this. But I've usually been able to get 1 day working from home a week. (I think home office is a Denglish word btw, not sure if others will understand)
For example, there are tax advantages to having a home office (the room), versus having the entire value of your house be considered personal non-business consumption.
Native English speaker here: Generally `home office` would refer to the actual office room rather than the concept of working from home.
That said, I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary until you pointed it out, it does feel like a natural way to say it. I think people will understand fine.
Another part is just having the guts to ask for a remote job straight away and accept getting turned down dozens of times.
I literally have never driven as short a distance as 2 miles. It would never occur to me - I'd automatically walk or cycle. I think this comes from having come to car use relatively late in life. I relied on public transport or hitch hiking until my late '20s, and using my body to get around still feels much more natural to me than driving.
But you are right, I'll gladly help advocate public transportation to everyone so I can drive in peace on the roads.
I would love to live closer to work, but it's hard to find an OK job here as a developer.
Also recommend reading this insightful article on LessWrong by an anonymous user [0]; has a few decent actionable steps one could take to reduce the risk on the road, aside from a nice collection of most risky habits one should AVOID doing to reduce their road death risk exponentially.
Additionally, I'm considering using local public transport more, and even thinking of moving to cities with better, safer public transportation as there's a MASSIVE difference in fatality rates of folks using private vehicles v/s folks using public transportation. [1]
And, QUIT using motorbikes. Exponentially higher chances of a fatality on a two-wheeler than on four wheels. [2]
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avo...
[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safet...
[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commutin...
Also:
Yield to the road, not to the lane.
That said, please remember your own turn signals are to announce your intention, not applaud your action.
I made the mistake of trusting a turn signal about 6 months ago. ALMOST got rear ended. I had to punch the gas and she had to slam on her brakes.
She still had her turn signal on about a mile later...
If only it were that simple. I'd argue that on U.S. roads, there's definitely a culture of speeding, and in many circumstances drivers who fail to speed end up slowing traffic, often provoking the ire of other drivers, who in turn reduce safety even further via way of tailgating, unsafe passing, road games/road rage—all of which is a huge distraction unto itself for everyone involved.
On most roadways I find other drivers will expect you to go 5mph over the posted limit. On expressways, this is usually as high as 10-15mph for all but the right-most lane.
I feel like driver education here tends to emphasize not speeding over maintaining traffic flow and respecting the passing lane. Combine that with a bunch of aggro pricks behind the wheel, and it's a recipe for disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common...
The solution is greater detection and neutralization (fines, suspension & jail) of aggro drivers, not ramping up the speed to the point where they are no longer aggressive.
If it's a single-lane road and that isn't possible, then likewise going slightly over the limit if it appeases them and defuses an otherwise unsafe situation (assuming conditions warrant).
I honestly think it should be treated the same as driving while intoxicated (in my state it’s just a fine which I believe does nothing to deter people).
So they push boundaries progressively getting comfortable with more and more risk. Because there is no negative feedback and nothing happens. (Until it does).
Holding a device while you are on a bike will cost you around $105.
This all because there was an increase in accidents when social media became available everywhere.
To be clear, texting on a bicycle is not a good idea, helmet or no helmet.
My dad taught me this on day one of driving with my permit.
Assume everyone on the road is trying to kill you. Assume know one but you knows the rules.
And as you drive more, you'll gain experience in identifying the behaviors that are most likely to indicate someone who is about to try and kill you.
Go to any sufficiently large party and there'll be some guy who's drunk after an all nighter and ready to hop in his car, asserting that it's okay because he's not drunk anymore. The dude's still drunk, but once you get worn out and start coming down, you just kind of feel done. It seems to me (in my uninformed view) that legal limits let these guys feel like they have some leeway and they're probably legally safe to drive (which, honestly, they might even be). It plants an idea that there's a reasonable threshold of drunkenness in which driving is still okay, which I don't think is a good idea.
I'm not generally a supporter of zero tolerance policies, but I think leaning that way is possibly better.
As a person who almost never drinks, I feel pretty off and goofy halfway through one beer. I'd probably be under the BAC limit but there's no way I'm fit to drive. I don't have confidence in my drunk driving abilities, but plenty of people do and they think they have a legal basis for it.
After all, you can have zero alcohol in your system and still be impaired in some way like other drugs, sickness, donating blood, lack of sleep, etc. This is why DUI arrests usually involve some judgement on the side of the police officer, and they can make the decision that you're driving impaired even if you are under the legal limit.
I am ambivalent on the idea of reducing legal limits. For one, it's never been easier to avoid driving drunk, with Uber and the like, and anecdotally it seems that the propaganda against drunk driving is working, with it becoming largely unacceptable among younger people these days (although this would be purely anecdotal, I have no evidence either way). Additionally, seeing how I don't drink, any reduction to the legal limit wouldn't really affect me much. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of zero tolerance laws and I think they always do more hard than good, and additionally I don't believe that farther reducing the limit will have any effect on drunk driving. I also don't much like the idea of farther restricting the decision making power of police officers, there needs to be a balance here: enough restrictions to prevent abuse but also enough freedom to allow officers to account for circumstances and not turn them into law-enforcing robots.
Increasing police budget to get better enforcement of existing laws would be another approach but doesn't seem like a good use of money. I think the most cost effective way of reducing impaired driving related fatalities has been, and will continue being, education and public transport when it comes to urban areas. Ride hailing apps and self-driving vehicles will eventually do the rest.
One kind of legislative change I'd consider taking a look at is reducing or removing penalties for sleeping in your car, particularly in rural and suburban areas. Letting someone sleep it off in their car is far better than them driving drunk, and I think any fears of homeless people setting up camp in their cars, which is the origin of many such laws, is vastly exaggerated.
As a somewhat jaded motorcyclist (though not in the US) I'm unsurprised to see no mention of us in the article. Not sure of the US stats, but in Aus the biggest dangers to motorcyclists are (a) other drivers not seeing us [1] then (b) our own stupidity.
Not much for anyone but motorcyclists to do about (b), but I would make some appeals to car drivers:
Think about motorcyclists at junctions - we're not actually invisible, and what you miss seeing is primarily a function of your own inculcated habits of observation.
Don't tailgate motorcycles. It's frightening and forces us to deploy more attention behind us than is safe.
On undivided roads, stay to your side of the road on bends, even if there are puddles or potholes.
Thanks.
[1. known here in Australia as a SMIDSY - 'sorry mate I didn't see you']
https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-po...
Take the received wisdom that car drivers cause the majority of motorcycle accidents. No they dont. It turns out, motorcyclists are solely or primarily responsible for the crashes theyre involved in 56% of the time. Though, if the crash involves another vehicle, its more likely the other road user was at fault.
In any case, whether car drivers are the cause of the majority or minority of cases, shouldn't they wish to make efforts to avoid killing other road users?
What is the fatality and serious injury rate when comparing when the motorcyclist is at fault vs when the other vehicle is at fault.
An accident involving just a motorcycle, intuitively, seems a lot less likely to be fatal to a properly geared person. Often times such an accident will be because of operator error and result in a low-side crash. Crashing into something on the road could result in serious damage, but that's a lot less likely than losing traction and falling off. If I recall correctly, the Hurt report supports this.
Similarly, in a two-vehicle accident where the motorcyclist is at fault, the motorcyclist is likely to see it coming and attempt to prevent it in some way. Additionally such a statistic will also include motorcyclists low-siding and then their motorcycle (or them) sliding into a vehicle.
Overall, it seems believable to me that while a in majority (56% isn't even that much more) of motorcycle crashes the rider is at fault, if we take a look at only fatal crashes and crashes resulting in serious injury, cars will bear the majority of the responsibility.
All that said, I also find that report to be a bit alarmist and disingenuous with statistics, particularly when compared to the Hurt and the MAIDS reports. I would assume this was done in the interest of "scaring" riders into safer behaviors and not with any malicious intent.
I've never felt more like cars were actively trying to mow me down than when I lived in Auckland, NZ.
The rest of the article is basically describing where the data came from.
Another good thing to read is the text near "Figure 1".
OTOH, "the view is worse" sentiment may be culturally strong enough to cast a blind spot, so to speak, over such evidence.
Always flying a twin is highly debatable, and only really counts once you're up to transport category aircraft (which you all fly on, don't worry).
Is this a common way to write 0.5%?
Try them both out loud: "about zero point five percent" vs. "about half a percent". One rolls off the tongue much better than the other, is easier to understand, and doesn't introduce false precision.
I'm amazed at the people I see dressed in all black, schlepping down a two lane road with their back to traffic for they side the are walking on while wearing ear buds or headphones.
I have outstanding night vision, but in the last 6 months I've narrowly missed clipping 3 different people. Even with high beams on it's amazing how easy it is for pedestrians to get lost in the background.
(Had a rental Ford with a touch based radio/sat-nav. One could not manipulate the radio without the lane control having to act.)