Additional errors are potentially produced from my own processing of the federal data, but those will be rooted out over time. Project being OS will hopefully help with that.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/
In fact, the author of the website "I mapped almost every.." might want to add references to the data sources for credibility and less of a "spam" look. How about an About page.
The splash photos on that website says it all.
So we're slowly forgetting that FTP and HTTPS aren't the same thing.
I was nearly killed by a driver who disregarded the law and the police officer intentionally disabled his bodycam when interviewing a key witness, never questioned me, let the driver off with no tickets for his violations, and submitted a report with factual inaccuracies. Crooked cops don't have an interest in reporting the truth.
Of course, the victim is most likely being transported away in an ambulance or even dead, so they got little say. And the offender can paint the story with their picture: "the sun was low and blinding", "the cyclist came in at high speed" (probably a third of the car..), etc.
So that's what the report will say.
Should they presume malice, and discount any reference to circumstance? What if the circumstances were actually causal (which one would hope so, otherwise there are far more murderous sociopaths than anyone would have guessed) how should we parse the difference, and how will we identify potential hazards?
Presumably, from the cyclist’s perspective, the story will almost always go like this: “I was riding my bicycle in the correct fashion, in the appropriate lane, equipped with proper safety equipment, and then BAM! They came out of nowhere,” because if they had an opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle, judge whether it’s being operated safely, see where the driver’s attention is focused, and evaluate whether the driver’s awareness has or has not been compromised by the prevailing conditions—one would hope they could have avoided the crash in that space of time.
But reporters use such sympathetic language describing the negligent driver.
It works the other way. Cyclists think all drivers are maniacs for similar reasons.
How is this surprising at all?
I think we should assume that stupidity is evenly distributed and mode of transport doesn't affect it much, just the results.
If you analyze patterns in wheel angle and rate of change of angle over time, I would suspect that drvers who are texting/'looking down a screen' are going to have very distinct series of 'abrupt' correction patterns.
Where that telemetry is available in cars post 2010's then it should absolutely be used in forensics.
Good data is needed as a few accident causes do tend to be common in certain road/location conditions and those can be fixed. For example while the total number of accidents on train crossing is low (15~20 fatalities per year) in Austria, all of them are the driver's fault and almost all (except for massive idiot drivers) can be fixed by installing automatic gates on all crossings.
It's apparently not a no-brainer here -- two of the lethal accidents I've witnessed [one involving ripping the door off a car with the help of some kind stangers, to get someone out of a literally flaming wreck] would have been entirely avoided by a simple traffic circle. The most grizzly one I remember could likely (it seems to me; I'm not a traffic...engineer?) have been avoided by not having a low-traffic on-ramp connect directly to a major highway, when there was a clearly-denoted on-ramp a quarter-mile away. Seeing another human with their head 20ft away leaves a bit of an impression on a child.
It's the same kind of logic that has most train tracks not put behind fences. In populated areas where lots of people roam around, putting a fence up next to the track helps keep people off the track. But in most of the country, the population is too sparse and people being on the track too infrequent for anybody to rationally prioritize putting fence up alongside all the track. Half a billion dollars worth of fence to save maybe a few dozen lives just isn't going to fly when there are schools to fund, old lead water mains to replace, bridges to repair, NASA probes to Uranus, etc etc.
I don't know what the exact figure is but there's a number where below that improvements won't be made.
It sounds bad but at the end of the day resources aren't unlimited - $1 spent on road safety improvements is $1 that can't go healthcare, law enforcement, schools, military etc.
At some point spending millions of dollars to probably save one life isn't worth it
The value of life in the United States
The following estimates have been applied to the value of life. The estimates are either for one year of additional life or for the statistical value of a single life.
- $50,000 per year of quality life (the "dialysis standard",[38] which had been a de facto international standard most private and government-run health insurance plans worldwide use to determine whether to cover a new medical procedure)[39]
- $129,000 per year of quality life (an update to the "dialysis standard")[40][39]
- $7.5 million (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Jul. 2020)[5]
- $9.1 million (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010)[41]
- $9.2 million (Department of Transportation, 2014)[42]
- $9.6 million (Department of Transportation, Aug. 2016)[43]
- $12.5 million (Department of Transportation, 2022)[44]
“This conventional terminology has often provoked misunderstanding on the part of both the public and decision-makers. What is involved is not the valuation of life as such, but the valuation of reductions in risks.”
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-03/D...
Additionally, these numbers do not represent the threshold for whether a given proposal for roads is undertaken. They are used to inform the process, along with other relevant factors. That ‘Guidance’ like just above is interesting reading, they take time to point out that neither the economic data nor the risk data is perfect. (Perhaps that was obvious, but it’s good to know they recognize that fact officially in their analyses.)
The VSL for 2023 is 13.2 million, and one might assume based on the recent trend that it’s probably around ~$14M for this year. It’s good for our personal safety the higher their VSL estimate goes, but as parent noted, bad for our taxpayer pocketbooks, so we try to balance those forces. I know government processes can look bureaucratic and strange from the outside, and seem like a big machine we don’t control, but ultimately we do decide as a society how much we’re willing to pay to keep ourselves safe; public sentiment and tax/anti-tax pressures do have a massive influence in what gets done.
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
The price is far far less than whatever the price of a human life is. The reason they are not implemented is not cost, but because people here consider it their god-given right to drive as quickly and aggressively as they want.
As an amendment to this: People in many western countries tend to do this.
Writing from Germany with, e.g., speed limits on some high ways being a broken promise from the last election.
For example, saying that a particular individual's life is worthless is very different from saying they have no dependents.
One could argue all those people are insane, but there are a lot of them.
Sometimes it's the impatient person who is tired of waiting as the signal has been going for minutes and there's no other evidence of a train.
Sometimes it's the inattentive person following the car in front.
Gates help the third person most. I haven't seen many crossings without gates, but they're a lot easier to miss than a gate.
Protecting people from a train collision has benefits for the train system as well. A collision causes confusion and delay and may damage the rolling stock or even the rails and could cause injuries and the operators likely need PTO. So it's rational to reduce collisions regardless of opinions about the choices of the participants.
They are also not entirely safe because people are idiots and get stuck without understanding that they can actually push through the barrier.
Ones with nothing except signs to stop, look and listen. You're most likely to find this while hiking, as a footpath crossing.
Flashing lights and beeps.
Half barriers, which only cover half the road (one lane in each direction). These are my automatic. Drivers can't get trapped.
Full barriers. These all have CCTV, and the train won't get a "green" until the signaller has seen both barriers close, and that no one is in the middle. These are used in cities and other busy places.
We also still have some full barrier crossings operated by a signalman near me. There's something pleasing about that.
Most of the barriers I see in the US are one sided - they don't let you drive on to the tracks, but there's no barrier that prevents you from leaving.
I guess it goes to show that stupid finds a way.
Yes, some people are that dumb.
It’s hard to explain to people they can only ever be in a single accident in which they’re not wearing their seatbelt.
Mostly they proclaim it’s fine, because they’re never in any accidents, and they drive safe anyway.
There's tools like therapy, CISM, CBT, humor, and the support of your buddies. Too often there's drink, pills, and suicide. It's not a particularly widespread detail, but suicide is the largest killer of firefighters by a large margin. I think that is a symptom of putting too much work and pressure on too few people.
I have found CBT, exercise, fasting, and daily yoga help keep stress and depression at bay for me.
I also am lucky to be a volunteer, so I can afford to skip as many calls as I want after an upsetting call. The career folks I know have it much much worse, because they might be on a horrible call but if they want to get paid they have to keep working. They might have an entire 24hr shift with several troubling calls back to back.
I used to think all fire and ambulance should be paid career. However, there's an important side effect of a larger group of volunteers sharing the burden. If you see too much to handle, you can take off all the time you need to recover. You aren't trapped by the job into witnessing more than you can handle. My wife recently was on an ambulance call that troubled her. She has taken a few weeks off from ambulance to decompress.
That being said, volunteerism is seriously struggling in America. If you live in the 70% of America that is served by volunteers, it is likely your local is extremely understaffed. Too many companies only have a small handful of firefighters who still show up, and those heroes aren't "taking time off" to recover, because if they do, the engine doesn't move. Too much of the country is overly reliant on volunteers but isn't showing up to be a volunteer to share the load. It's a socialist program, but there aren't enough people showing up to share the work, so it's collapsing.
And just paying folks to do this full time comes with very real increased tax burden and acute trauma on those individuals. Paying career staff isn't cheap.
If you live in an area that is served by volunteers, please seriously consider volunteering yourself. A lot of people on this site are young and physically able to volunteer. Tech folks are often well situated to volunteer, as we are more likely to be financially stable, have flexibility to dip for a call if it's urgent, often work remote, and sometimes would really benefit from getting out in the sunshine and meeting folks. Also it's so rewarding to do something so real after a big day of mental labor.
In the volunteer service you don't ever have to do something if you don't feel comfortable with it. If you show up to a call and you don't want to go inside the building you don't have to. Plenty of work is needed outside of a structure fire. If the call comes and you're too tired or busy, no big deal. I only make ~20% of my local calls, and that is high for my company. I've said "no way" to my officer before, and he reconsidered or found someone else.
You also don't have to be in "perfect shape". I thought they were going to be making me do crazy fitness tests to join like in the movies. Then I realized, we are so desperate for help we'll take anyone if your doctor will sign a form saying you're fit for duty. We've got members who are 200lb overweight, members who weigh 100lb, need glasses, some are 14, and some members who are over 70. Some can't wear an air pack so they do fire ground support work outside. Kids under 18 and folks who haven't yet gone to fire school aren't legally allowed inside a structure fire anyway. If you want to show up and put on gear, we've got work for you. There's so much work, it's so hard, and so few show up that anyone who does is a help.
It can be extremely rewarding to be a first responder in a small town. We only have 4k residents in my local, and I like getting to meet them and help them.
After just a few years I can't go to the grocery store without waving to half a dozen people. My calendar is filling up with invites to backyard BBQs, music jam sessions, a pie baking competition club, DnD games, a computer club, and a lifting club, all discovered through just meeting cool local folks. Between volunteering and regularly visiting our local busy coffeeshop at peak "sit around and chat" times, I'm feeling connected to a community in a way I thought only happens in movies and TV.
Definitely reach out to me if you ever want to talk about it. I'll happily answer any questions you have. I will say I'm kicking myself for not joining sooner. For eight years I was next to an amazing firehouse and never knew!
EMT, Paramedic, trainer of both.... my understanding is that CISM has been largely discredited. Maybe its a misapplication, a "lock you all in a room until everyone has talked/cried about it", but still.
Thankfully, in the PNW, many many departments have contracts with therapists. Some near me even have mental health professionals as full time employees.
The other, perhaps bigger reality for me is this:
It's not the trauma calls that get to you - in the end we're all just blood and tissue. It's the emotional calls. The CSA calls. SIDS. Elder neglect.
While it seems obvious, is this not similar to the ratio for all people in the age group that are firefighters (roughly 20-50 ish)?
Most people 40 years of age do not suddenly drop dead, so they’re much more likely to die by suicide.
That strategy was less effective for calls where the patient was declared dead on scene, and so no treatment was possible. I still remember each of those calls. Fortunately, I was never traumatized by them, in a PTSD sense. Rather, I learned the lesson of realizing how easily I, or one of my loved ones, can simply disappear one day; so I learned to make sure they all know that I love them, and to not take their presence in my life for granted.
How many Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows? I’d wager almost every single person who answers in the affirmative really just thinks it’s the funnier answer.
I wish those people pushing this, were doing it just for the lulz. But mostly they are serious.
LLMs are very good at mixing information to produce bullshit.
Others believe it, or at least continue to believe, because they find a community and connection with other believers.
Now try to use data that flawed to make assumptions over a lifespan about human health. About the only studies I truly believe are the ones where people are at a facility and all food is provided to them and tracked.
We were allowed out - I had a full time job, but couldn't eat or drink any food not provided by the center (we took a radio-isotope tracer with food, and had to collect our poop). It was quite interesting :_)
I find that most of the dismissal around FFQs is pretty vague and seems to come from a group of people who find the consensus in nutrition research inconvenient for them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slate_Star_Code...
The margins of error on online opt-in polls are massive.
Some records, like those involving child abuse, don’t show on their calls for service website at all, so that’s an entire group of data that we the public just don’t get to know about.
Government data is notorious for being dirty and inaccurate.
The claim that only 1 out of 5 deaths is even recorded on this map is sobering.
At least in the Indiana, the quality of this data... varies widely. Coordinates don't always match reality, the street names can't always be geocoded, sometimes the timestamps don't even parse as valid dates.
I talked to a city staffer here whose job largely involves cleaning up this data. But not in a permanent sense. They are using the aggregate data handed down from the state, and they are cleaning a local copy. Then next year or next month, they get more data and have to re-merge or re-do their fixes because their fixes aren't upstream, and have originated from another jurisdiction.
The whole system needs improvement!