Comment by jgeada | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgeada | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Define "accident". There are very few circumstances where correct attentive driving technique ends up as an "accident". Most so called accidents are not "accidental". It had a predictable causation chain caused by the driver's behavior. Personally, I hate that word, much prefer "incident".

Driving too close is not an accident. Driving too fast for the conditions is not an accident. Weaving around in traffic to gain a spot. Not looking at who is in the crosswalk before driving through it. Not yielding at a merge. Racing the lights to get there before it is red/or just after. Not having your brakes, tires, lights, suspension, etc in correct working condition. Driving too tired, or under the influence. Sure, most of the time nothing happens, so people get used to thinking these are how driving is done (and it is in the US). But just because one normally gets away with it does not mean these are not dangerous behaviors, and they're absolutely under the drivers control.

Not accident, incident.

Read up on "normalization of deviance" (wiki page is pretty light but it is a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance). Aviation has long recognized this and training emphasizes not getting caught in that behavioral trap.

Aviation is a great example of how a culture of safety can be built up. Driving culture in the US is markedly different. It's absolutely normalized to overtake a slow moving vehicle even when it's not safe and passing conditions are unclear, to be distracted and use your phone, to drive drunk, to drive along the shoulder of a crowded highway if you're in a hurry, to double park in an urban area if you "just need to stop and pick something up". The enforcement aspect is just the lagging edge of that. Hearing people talk, you'll casually hear "oh I accidentally bumped the car next to me in the parking lot while parking oops, I just reparked somewhere else." It shows; the US has the highest car crash incidence among developed nations by a long shot, with Canada a distant 2nd place.

The reason the US is considered a driving culture is only partially legislation and only partly infrastructure, it's due to a culture that treats driving as a loosely enforced activity where faults should be given the benefit of the doubt. This is the opposite of aviation where safety is emphasized in every part of the process and scary moments are encouraged to be reported anonymously through ASOS. Infrastructure is stressed as the ideal solution because it involves very little cultural change but due to a reluctance to raise taxes and aforementioned driving culture, people resist infrastructural changes which help non-drivers.

For aviation, I believe the fact that the "driver"'s life is at stake helps (also consider the perspective of the passengers). Comparing that to the imbalance between the drivers in a protective shell and the pedestrians on the road.

So drivers need more skin in the game. Perhaps amputation of a limb as a punishment for grievous injury / death of a pedestrian.

Pedestrian runs across the street and doesn't notice the oncoming car; driver starts to brake but the car doesn't stop in time. That is a very common type of accident that occurs even when the driver is going below the speed limit and is paying full attention. It is so common that drivers in suburban areas pay extra attention to the behavior of pedestrians, who very often run into the street for one reason or another.

Contrary to the popular narrative, not everyone who drives a car does so drunk, high, and/or too fast - a lot of people are actually very good drivers. Many (most?) of them do all of the recommended maintenance on the car in a timely manner. That doesn't mean that every driver has the reflexes of a racecar driver, and nor can you expect them to.

Blaming every accident on the driver by default and expecting jail time for anything with bad consequences is pretty toxic. Even the FAA doesn't do that for pilots.

Not a popular opinion, but in my mind every driver should at all times be prepared for a child to chase a ball onto a street. What that means in practice is a whole lot of inconvenience for drivers - but it is their responsibility and they should own it. Roads (other than motorways/expressways/etc) are not the exclusive domain of cars and people shouldn't assume that they are.

I will say this more directly than above: pretty much every driver going through a suburban neighborhood does prepare for a child to chase a ball into a street. Not all of those collisions are preventable, however. It takes time to engage the brake and it takes time for the car to stop after the brake is engaged. In that time, the car travels forward. In some cases, crushing a child. Even if the driver does everything right, a child still dies.

> pretty much every driver going through a suburban neighborhood does prepare for a child to chase a ball into a street.

Strongly disagree with this as a general statement. I live on a street near one of the several exits to my neighborhood. It’s not a sleepy street, but it’s also not a major road or anything overly busy. Being objective, I’d estimate that far less than 20% of drivers passing my house are truly prepared to stop for an unexpected obstacle and maybe ~2% are outright reckless (~50mph in a 35, DUI, fixated on phone, etc). The rest, and that’s most of us here, think they’re driving safe but are caught up in thoughts about their project at work, late for kid’s soccer practice, worried about a relationship, etc… and are mostly on autopilot for the conditions they routinely experience, but are not actively prepared for an outlier event.

pretty much every driver going through a suburban neighborhood does prepare for a child to chase a ball into a street

Where do you live? That's not how it is in my neighborhood, despite a 25mph sped limit that turns to a 20mph zone in front of my house (due to the proximity of a playground), drivers routinely drive 35+ mph. Neighborhood complaints have so far gotten a "Slow - Children" sign posted.

The one thing that helped for about a week was when they parked a radar speed trailer on the side of the street, it would flash a bright blue light when drivers exceed the speed limit by 5mph.

After they took away the trailer, cars started speeding again.

> pretty much every driver going through a suburban neighborhood does prepare for a child to chase a ball into a street

So why do most drivers appear to be much more cautious in a parking lot?

If drivers were truly taking more responsibility for the dangers they create for others, whenever they travel on a street alongside parked cars they would limit themselves to a speed that is at least unlikely to cause a pedestrian fatality (<30km limits are sometimes justified on this basis).

I mean, I get it - it would be incredibly inconvenient for drivers and as a society we have implicitly accepted the consequences of this convenience, but it doesn't abrogate the moral responsibility of drivers in my opinion. Just because everyone else does something doesn't make it morally okay.

That is a very common type of accident that occurs even when the driver is going below the speed limit and is paying full attention.

Do you have a source for this being a common source of pedestrian accidents?

Contrary to the popular narrative, not everyone who drives a car does so drunk, high

No one is claiming that.

and/or too fast

Ok, I'll make this claim, people routinely exceed speed limits, whether on 25mph residential streets or 65mph highways.

Blaming every accident on the driver by default and expecting jail time for anything with bad consequences is pretty toxic

The driver is in the 3000 lb vehicle, he should shoulder more responsibility. If drivers thought they'd face serious consequences if they hit a pedestrian, they'd manage to actually look for pedestrians instead of just giving a token glance. Try to cross on a walk signal in any busy town or city and you'll see how few drivers pay attention to pedestrians, I've actually been in the crosswalk and had to stop for a right-on-red turning car who didn't manage to see a person in the street in broad daylight.

Here you go: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/guide_statistics.cfm

> Roughly 68 percent of crashes resulting in a pedestrian fatality occurred at non-intersections in 2010

Also half of these pedestrian-driver crashes involve someone (pedestrian or driver) being inebriated, but they certainly do occur when the driver is paying full attention.

> I've actually been in the crosswalk and had to stop for a right-on-red turning car who didn't manage to see a person in the street in broad daylight.

I've been in the same position as you here, but I've had a lot more drivers wait for me. I've also seen drivers (particularly in Florida) acknowledge my existence by making eye contact before rudely turning directly in front of me. This particular piece of American car culture drives me crazy, too, but is not an indication of broad negligence or disregard for the lives of others.

I'm not sure how that backs up your statement that it's very common for a pedestrian to run across the street in front of a car that not only saw them and started braking appropriately, but was also going below the speed limit.

I said that it was common, and even happens when people are driving well. I think you may have misunderstood me.

> Define "accident".

An unintended adverse event.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com