| ▲ | mrj a day ago |
| Well, it would be good for the rest of us on the road if people driving two tons of murder box are 0% impaired. I'm no angel but I have gotten more diligent... I'm just reacting to "the degree". The goal has to be zero degrees of impairment when a moment of inattention can kill. Also, my son was just hit by a driver while he was on a bike and in the bike lane. They claimed not to see him. He's fine thankfully but it's really scary to watch him ride off. |
|
| ▲ | wiml a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are some occupations where we aspire to that low level of risk. But it would mean that driving can't be an everyday activity for ordinary people. No driving if you haven't been getting proper sleep; no driving if jet lagged. No driving if your attention is impaired by grief, stress, or impatience. Or if your annual physical reveals a risk. Or if you've ever had psychological complaints. We should absolutely make transportation safer, but it's a continuum of tradeoffs. |
| |
| ▲ | mrj a day ago | parent [-] | | That's probably not the thing to tell a parent whose kid just made a dent and a black smudge on a MachE. I don't want to over index on the "think of the kids" argument, but we don't take driving seriously enough. Wikipedia says: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of preventable death for people aged 5–22, and the second most common cause for ages 23–67.
The linked article is astounding. The attitude in this thread is astounding, too. Because driving is ubiquitous and necessary in most of the US, we've become too accepting of the problems. Yes, if you're hitting the vape pen every day you should absolutely not be driving. Jetlagged? Take an Uber. Stroke risk? Give us the keys. | | |
| ▲ | wiml a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay, that was insensitive of me. But yes, what you say is the logical consequence (except I'm not kidding about grief and impatience). My point really is that if we want our kids not to get horribly injured or killed, we can't just focus on "other people" making bad decisions like driving drunk. We have to acknowledge that we've collectively built a system that requires people to put each other in danger with cars, and we have to think about how to change that. Cars bring a lot of benefits like autonomy and decentralization, how do we keep that but kill fewer people? | | |
| ▲ | Mawr a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Cars bring a lot of benefits like autonomy and decentralization, how do we keep that but kill fewer people? 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens This is a solved problem: look at the current state-of-the-art road design documents from the Netherlands. Apply. Problem solved. | | |
| ▲ | MichaelNolan a day ago | parent [-] | | Per 1 billion vehicle-km the US has 6.9 deaths and the Netherlands has 4.7 deaths. That’s obviously better much but I wouldn’t call it “problem solved”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... (Wikipedia links to itf-oecd.org/ where those numbers come
From) | | |
| ▲ | rixed a day ago | parent [-] | | My guess is better road design means less miles driven by cars (as opposed to other, safer vehicles) and therefore fewer accidents overall, even if car crash statistics remain the same. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ElectronCharge a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Buy a Tesla with FSD. No, it’s not L5 autonomy, but it’s already safer than the average human driver…and autonomous cars will only get better. |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The solution is to make the roads safer in general and/or reduce road use, not to take away people's keys for relatively tiny risk factors. And in particular for the Uber situation, if taking a taxi 10 miles causes 15 miles of taxi-driving, that's less safe than driving 10 miles with a small to medium impairment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sethammons a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 0% impaired? We know tired drivers are impaired. Should we require drivers to demonstrate 8hrs of sleep before operating a vehicle? What about people who do ok on less sleep? I think there are obvious issues with such a proposal and those issues transfer to THC usage. I would bet, if we could measure it, a large portion of fatal accidents would involve people who are not fully rested and had missed the 8hr target multiple times in the preceding week or two |
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's not really such a thing as 0% impaired. People fluctuate day to day, hour to hour, and have different baselines. |
| |
| ▲ | mrj a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure.. I just was addressing the goal makes sense that drivers are not impaired. Of course nobody is perfect. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | A goal like that is far enough from what is actually possible that I think it's not a good goal. Maybe a slogan. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sallveburrpi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Zero degree of impairment is only possible if we don’t have access to 2 tons of murder box.
I think the way cars dominate roads and our public spaces and how they are being used is inherently dangerous. I know this is going to get downvoted by people who cant imagine an alternative but it’s possible all the same. |
| |
| ▲ | the_gastropod a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I borderline want a conscription-style policy, where young adults are required to live in Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, DC, Seattle, or Chicago, car-free for a year. Americans’ inability to even imagine a world where a car isn’t the way to get around is really a problem. | | |
| ▲ | nradov a day ago | parent [-] | | Some of those cities you listed have rather high death rates for young adults for reasons unrelated to cars. |
| |
| ▲ | Nasrudith a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think you understand what "inherently dangerous" actually means. FYI murder requires intent, otherwise it is just manslaughter. Your indoctrination is showing by your turns of phrase. | | |
| ▲ | sallveburrpi a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Inherently means “qualities or traits that are intrinsic and fundamental, not added or external” So yea cars are inherently dangerous. I’m not sure who you think I’m indoctrinated by but around 3000 people are killed every year in my country by cars. Meanwhile around 200 people are murdered each year. I’ll give you one try to guess which one dominates the newspapers and public discourse. And you tell me something about indoctrination, real funny | |
| ▲ | rafabulsing a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cars are inherently dangerous, though. They're multi ton hunks of metal moving at high speeds. That's dangerous from literally any angle you can imagine. There are ways to make it less dangerous, sure. But they're never 100% safe. Which makes them, by definition, inherently dangerous. That's... What those words mean. | | |
| ▲ | sokoloff a day ago | parent [-] | | So long as you’re also willing to label swimming pools, grapes, and crayons as, by definition, inherently dangerous on account of not being able to be made 100% safe, then I’ll at least grant you a level of consistency in your argument. | | |
| ▲ | rafabulsing a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Swimming pools are absolutely inherently dangerous. Why do you think lifeguards are a thing? Like, really man? If you can't even recognize as dangerous the one activity that famously requires someone specifically trained to save people to be present, then I'm happy to end this conversation right here. It's clearly just a waste of time all around. I just hope there's no one in your life depending on you to judge what's safe and what's not. | | | |
| ▲ | Mawr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Comparing "100% safe" vs the danger cars represent is so ridiculous I have to question if you're kidding? We're talking 40,000 people killed every year in the US alone on account of traffic accidents. And you're talking about grapes and crayons? And swimming pools are pretty dangerous though? There are around 4,500 drowning deaths per year in the US, so on the order of 10x fewer than due to car accidents, but still quite a lot. | | |
| ▲ | sokoloff a day ago | parent [-] | | GP is the one who argued “not 100% safe” as evidence of inherently unsafe. I agree with you that it’s a comically wrong threshold, which is why I offered that series that was progressively more safe but never 100% safe as examples against that line of reasoning. | | |
| ▲ | rafabulsing a day ago | parent [-] | | Make the threshold "won't kill you 99.9% of the time, even if you have little to no training at that specific activity" then. Is that specific enough for you to engage meaningfully with the conversation at hand, and show why you think driving is at the same side of this threshold as eating grapes or using crayons? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Mawr a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Also, my son was just hit by a driver while he was on a bike and in the bike lane. Let me guess, the painted line on the road did not in fact prevent the vehicle from crossing into the bike lane? What we as a society consider acceptable cycling infrastructure is pathetic. |
