Some Night-Shift Workers May Have a 300% Higher Risk of Car Crashes
showme.missouri.edu
showme.missouri.edu
It's not obvious to me that ride-share services would be materially safer here. It seems like many of the same concerns for night-shift workers in other jobs would also apply to ride-share drivers, added to the propensity for the flexibility of those jobs to increase the number of people driving ride-shares in addition to other full-time employment.
Assuming ride share means Uber and such. AFAIK, drivers treat it as job.
I would love to see a general audit of night shift work and ongoing plans to keep it at an absolute minimum, but that's probably too utopian a project to see in this country any time soon :/.
The crime committed when two people form a lopsided employment relationship isn’t really against either of them (because clearly each is deriving sufficient utility); it’s against us.
We don’t want to be employed in this manner so we prevent the existence of these things.
Some people also prefer to work for less than minimum wage because they are on the wrong side of an information asymmetry. And yet they cannot. Because they have not sinned against themselves or their employer but against us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_work#/media/File:Child_L...
I don't want that to come back either.
> Maybe they like having sunlight in their free time instead of their work time.
With a real night shift (3rd shift) your body would strongly want to sleep through all the good sunlight anyways. And if you do stay up for it, well good luck enjoying any part of the day.
Anyways to some it all up, maybe PP should check out https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674238091
I'd say our default 9-5 workschedule is toxic.
I worked 3rd (11-7) and then 2nd (3-11) shifts a couple years ago. You don't end up 'having sunlight in...free time instead of work time' unless you are sacrificing sleep for it on 3rd shift.
I had a short commute and was able to get reasonable sleep most of the time, in about a year I made 1 driving decision I'd call 'bad', and that was just pulling out somewhat aggressively in front of light traffic (I started taking a route that didn't have that decision after that).
There was about 18 months where I lived in the same house as him and literally never saw him. He would leave before I returned from school and arrive home after we were asleep. In the mornings, we'd be off to school again before he woke up. Combined with him having to work 3 of 4 weekends a month, it was hard on all of us. He did what he needed to provide for us and I am grateful but I'm more grateful that he's enjoying a decent retirement today.
I switched to 2nd because the sleep schedule isn't offset during off time, but it would be a lot harder if that meant not seeing your family much of the time.
Sleeping during the morning isn't that great, you need really good blinds and sometimes ear protection because it's loud out there.
If we were build to work during the night, we would have headlights instead of eyes was a pretty good union slogan during my time.
I'm happy I moved on but would think it would be better for everyone to not work during the night as during the day.
Its a "use-equipment-at-all-costs" method praying on the social weak and un-educated.
By no means is this only "run this large piece of capital equipment most efficiently".
Many nearby places closed in part because workers had no way to arrive without a bus.
You don't seem to realize that jobs are not always in dense areas.
If the job is at a giant factory of some sort outside the city, I would like to see some sort of shuttle between the factory and a transit station. I am not sure how safe park-and-rides are during that last mile, but housing for commuters ought to be in areas dense enough to not require cars, even if the commuters are doing some sort of reverse commute.
Often not an option, as grave/swing shift often has the end that isn’t in common with day shift facing reduced frequency or no service on public transit lines.
He is no position to afford to take a taxi to get to work, regular public transit does not run at the hours he commutes, and even if he worked a 9-5, there is no public transit that will get him from the town he lives into the town he works in.
And no, he can't remotely afford moving closer to work. Being poor is very expensive.
The better way to deal with shift work is to be ultra mindful of diet and exercise since night work messes with metabolism and hormones in general. Or stop doing night shift but thats a long term solution and usually you're doing that shift work for actual economic reasons.
That's independent of still being expensive in an absolute sense.
Now, prices are almost identical in most regions.
And, as you alluded, when you're working a crappy night-shift job, you can't afford either one.
public transport was available for those times, but occasionally I’d drive as it tended to be faster - especially on the way in.
One morning I was driving back home and it was really sunny, no AC in the car, and the traffic ground to a halt on the m25. I closed my eyes and woke when the car behind beeped me for not moving forward.
Fortunatly it was stoped traffic rather than sluggish traffic.
It was the day shifts that needed a taxi - 1130-2330 for example was too late to get the last train. Work provided a taxi at those times (and on Christmas Day / Boxing Day)
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
That's not the answer.
I had to commute to the factory, and I felt my driving was dangerous in two ways. First, I would drive recklessly fast to get to my 6:00 AM shift start because company policy was that if you were late 3 times you were fired. Second, after my late shift ended, I would be driving home exhausted at night on quiet + dark 2-lane highways.
I probably had more near-miss accidents during this 3 month period than the next 15 years as a driver.
But it's wage theft. Part of it's they want you there early on the off chance you do some work for free. If you punish lateness extremely, the subordinate has to go to extreme lengths to avoid lateness, and that eats up their time in exchange for nothing. Especially with the idea of "no excuses", which is bizarre, because that leads to the logical conclusion that you should spend every hour outside of work commuting to and from work. Every hour. Because there's no excuses, and let's take for granted getting fired is unthinkably bad (it could be), then why not wake up an extra two hours earlier every day? Or four hours? You can't rule out the likelihood that there will be three accidents on the way to work, and there are no excuses, so the logical conclusion is you have to dedicate even more hours to commuting if you really don't want to be late.
In fairness to employers, however, there is such a thing as a slippery slope where if you don't insist on showing up on time it becomes a mess and work never starts.
And I do believe that being on time every time gives you dignity if you do it for your own sake, as an employee.
That's a stretch. It's not wage theft because you don't have to work before your shift starts. You could very well sit outside and browse HN before work starts.
Under "Waiting Time". If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you. There have been several cases recently. There was a case against Apple about whether the time spent waiting for them to frisk you counted as payable time, and I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot. I don't recall offhand what the decisions were, but they're easy to find if you're interested.
But you're not forced to be there. If you walk to the factory (or otherwise have a very predictable commute), you don't have to show up early at all.
Also, the source you provided doesn't really support your claim. The examples under "Waiting Time" are all instances where they have to be present, and are waiting for work (which appears randomly/sporadically) to arrive. This is different than having to show up to work at a precise time.
>I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot
I searched around and can't articles referencing this.
Besides the fact that you're changing the subject out of nowhere, this simply ignores the entirety of the original comment you were responding to, which addresses this in depth.
How is it changing the subject? The argument in your previous comment was literally "If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you". If you're not actually forced to be there, then that puts a giant hole in your argument.
>this simply ignores the entirety of the original comment you were responding to
The previous comment's argument was also "forced to be there".
Lots of places have legally mandated requirements of the number of people to be working at any given time so there's no leeway for someone being late, it's a 1:1 if you're late someone else has to stay longer.
I used to do panama shifts, swapping between days/nights every 2 weeks.
Perhaps they were matching that?
I highly recommend the book Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker (2018) [1]. It goes into great detail how driving while tired late at night is no different from driving drunk in terms of resulting fatalities -- yet driving while tired is entirely legal while drunk will lose your license.
It's also terrifyingly eye-opening in the number of hospital fatalities from sleep-deprived doctors, surgeons, residents, and nurses with their extremely long shifts.
This is a conversation America needs to be having. Thankfully there are hard-won limits on how many hours a day drivers and pilots can drive and fly... but it's a vastly larger problem than just those professions.
This area needs much more awareness (and tech-based "disruption" - especially in detection, but also in making CPAP treatment more affordable and accessible).
Edit: Of course, that only works for people who would own one. People working third shifts might not be common in that set.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/pu...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/7/21504023/apple-watch-ekg-...
> Blood oxygen monitors, or pulse oximeters, are considered Class II medical devices by the FDA. Generally, any company that wants to sell one in the United States has to submit documentation to the agency confirming that its product works just as well as other versions of the same product already on the market. There’s a workaround, though: if the company says that the product is just for fun, or for general “wellness,” they don’t have to go through that process. They can’t claim that it can diagnose or treat any medical conditions, but they can put it up for sale.
You might still use that as a cue that you should get tested for sleep apnea, but the watch itself isn't considered a medical device for measuring blood oxygen.
- Nasal breathing via a light-weight mask thing around your nostrils
- Heart rate and blood oxygenation via a pulse oximeter on a finger
- Physical orientation of the body (an acceleration sensor)
- Something around the chest that records contractions/expansions
Encouraging people to track their sleep would be awesome, but $130 is still completely out of reach for low wage workers. You can save up for a $400 phone or some other luxuries that bring joy into your life but $130 towards sleep tracking? Nobody will want to save towards that, and I'm not sure they should.
My idea if society wanted to tackle this issue would be for the government to step in and provide these smart watches to everybody, much like how some companies have giving fitbits to all their employees to promote more walking and awareness of sedentry. The US already spends $11k/person/year on healthcare, so a one-time cost of $130/person seems small and could even break even if it encourages people to be more active and helps with the obesity crisis.
Unfortunately because it would be the government promoting this, there will be people convinced that it's another device to spy on you through. I mean, it's a device constantly measuring your heartbeat and movement to see if you're sleeping or not. Some sherif would probably try to subpenea Garmin to see the heart rates of people suspected of a crime.
I naturally wake up at 11AM - 12 PM and have difficulty going to sleep before 3 AM. Having to wake up at 6:30 daily would be a comparable torture.
>According to researchers at the University of Missouri, people who develop this condition are also three times more likely to be involved in a vehicle accident.
They don't mention lack of light, but instead associate the higher crash rate with sleep disorders brought on by consistently working graveyard shifts.
This all went straight to hell when I ended up working a very long shift one day that extended well past my 10 AM working time. From then on, I was going to sleep more like 12-1AM and waking up at 9-10 AM.
Its difficult to explain to people who live in cities how different things are in the suburbs. There's no street lights or even Sidewalks where I live. There is No Public transportation in off-peak hours, none. And ride-share... with who--someone who lives miles away from you?? What about in the snow when its a bitch to just get your own ass in on time.
This the reality for millions and millions of people in the US.
My experience with early morning taxis (if they actually show up) and unlicensed taxis has been a lot better. But I've also resigned to being ok with paying an arm and a leg for airport parking because I trust myself to get enough sleep to drive safely.
I no longer work nights.
I don't know why this is surprising. Cognitive function is significantly impaired when you're sleepy.
This would mean (potentially) 200% higher risk, not 300%.
PS.: Further down a 300% additional risk is stated, but it's confusing at best.
After that we were working 12 hour days instead, in part due to workers saying enoughs enough
Sleep in the film industry is a big issue; years ago Heskel Wexler made a great documentary about it after his camera assistant died driving home, it's called "Who Needs Sleep"
I actually full on hallucinated.
1/3: A giant SUV (20' tall) was reversing onto the highway. I slammed on the breaks only to realize it wasn't there.
2/3: A bit later, a hundred foot tall heavy woman in a moo moo standing akimbo over the road. I recall telling myself to not look up as I passed underneath.
3/3: someone reversing their boat and trailer onto the road, but the boat was 20' tall (my mind had _something_ going on with giants I guess). By that point, I just drove through the illusion, and, after, realized just how scary that was.
Finally got home, and I recall aiming for my pillow and being asleep before hitting the mattress.
Mentally though, I was a bit of a mess. I was more or less whilst I was focusing on the thing I was working on, but as soon as I stopped, everything just felt muddy and unclear. I wasn't even sure I was going to find my way to a building I'd walked to multiple times a week for the last three years.
So you can have some 80 hour work weeks and 8 hour weeks.
Interesting point: it was on my way _in_ to work at the beginning of the shift, so I didn't attribute it to being on night shift. Now, looking back, I wonder if the wonky sleep schedule was nonetheless a contributing factor.
Also: the Fates have now decreed that I'm going to get in a wreck next week.
Primarily for the Adaptive Cruise Control, which makes sure you don't crash into another car. The systems to keep you in your lane are also useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver-assistance_sys...
300% of 1 = 3
How many night workers and how many car crashes?
Using percentages without context is a red flag for me for something possibly being wrong with the article.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index...
Loggers, oil and gas workers, roofers, police, and more, all have SIGNIFICANTLY higher chances of dying then the average person.
They do their job everyday.
The idea of 'significant' is subjective. Statistically, anything that is not random is significant.
You need points of comparison.
Significant in comparison to what?
Do the night shift workers have higher chances than these groups and therefore should people be overly concerned?
Is it about equal?
I'm asking for accuracy instead of outrage from the news media so people can decide for themselves because statistics is easily massagable for the less knowledgable to create maximum outrage.
That's all.
I believe the leading cause of death for young people is drug overdose.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inj...