Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

You might think so, but there are a surprisingly large number of ways a trip in a car can go wrong.

I feel like people should spend some time in Southeast Asia where families travel around on motorbikes five at a time with no helmets and smiles on their faces. I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.

Except our commutes to work / meeting would be 5x as long due to unpredictable travel patterns, causing us to achieve significantly less in any given 24 hour period.

(I remember my first trip to India (Mumbai) being 3 hours late to a meeting because I didn't account for the delays an basically unregulated road transport system can cause...)

I wouldn't say the traffic is any worse than the 401 in Toronto or any of the major freeways in LA. I can get all the way across Hanoi at rush hour in an hour tops on a $300 Chinese knockoff motorcycle that gets 2L/100km. Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here.

> "Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here."

It's a tradeoff for a wealthy Canadian traveling the world. It's a matter of necessity for most other people.

The level of privilege in these posts of yours is frustrating. People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.

> People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.

Given that the locals like to

a) make fun of my western helmet and gloves

b) don't bother to wear even the cheap local helmets available

c) take needless risks like running reds, driving drunk, and driving on the wrong side of the street

I'd have to disagree with this assessment.

It'd be nice if you all commented instead of mashing the downvote button. I believe there's a real psychological cost to being afraid of every little thing.

We're not talking about washing your hands with disinfectant every time you open a door, we're talking about car accidents here. Have you ever seen one? You're trying to be cocky and all, but you have no idea of what you are talking about.

And it's not only about my own personal risk, it's about people I know getting into accidents. Keep your 0.1% of fatal accident risk, assume you know 200 people and do the math to find out the chance than at least one of you will get into one. You'll be surprised, it's more than 80%.

Everybody dies and frankly I'm much more terrified of making it to 75 and getting Alzheimer's or prostate cancer than a quick violent death at 23.

I did, in fact I grew up in a Southeast Asian country where the primary mode of transport are scooters. From a young age I learned how to tuck myself in the "well" of a Vespa between my father and the handlebars so we can get from place to place.

It was scary then, it's still scary now. We didn't do it because it was safe or comfortable, we did it because cars were unaffordable, parking even more so, and you still had to get places.

Everyone knows someone who got into a motorbike accident, everyone knows someone who got injured this way. It is a transport mode of necessity, not something to be celebrated. It is also one of many reasons my family ultimately emigrated to the West.

It's not really about fear of dying, although I think it's good for people taking strangers' lives into their hands on a regular basis to be under more scrutiny. It includes drivers ripping off passengers in many ways, refusing passengers based on race or gender, and refusing to go to certain places. You really have to be extra careful about such systematic abuses.

> 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05%

Even with your own arbitrary numbers, you're casually talking about a 2x increase in the number of fatal accidents, which is not a small number to begin with in any country with significant car ownership.

Also, the real statistics indicate the difference is more like 5-10x that of Germany, per capita:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...

Car pooling messes with the numbers too much for me to be sure, but the fatality per vehicle rate is 15x in India compared to the US and 62x in Afghanistan.

>>> I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.

You do realize there's a reason wearing seat belts in most states is required by law?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Stu...

"A U.S. Department of Transportation study released today estimates that 1,652 lives could be saved and 22,372 serious injuries avoided each year on America’s roadways if seat belt use rates rose to 90 percent in every state. The new research report, based on 2007 data, also estimates that seat belts saved a stunning 15,147 lives that year. The study’s findings were released today as the Department launched its “Click It or Ticket” nationwide enforcement campaign."

>I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05%

A 0.1% chance of dying per ride would mean a 51% probability of dying within a year of daily commuting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com