4 ms·

FTA: "Fortunately, American roadways are safer than ever, with highway fatalities at historic lows. Roads can be dangerous, but the perception of roads getting

FTA: "Fortunately, American roadways are safer than ever, with highway fatalities at historic lows. Roads can be dangerous, but the perception of roads getting increasingly dangerous is a false one." ... "Published Jul 23, 2014" And then: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-sharply-2015 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-shar...

dom0 9y ago
> American roadways are safer than ever Well, even then, the US still has somewhere around 3-4 times more deaths on the roads per capita than other western countries.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kej 9y ago
  Per capita, or per miles driven? My limited experience is that people in the U.S. drive a lot more in general, so per mile driven would be a more meaningful measure of road safety.
  - dom0 9y ago
    IIRC it's still like 30-40 % higher when considering distance.
- athenot 9y ago
  Some of this may be due to the skillset to obtain a license in most states in the US is a quick written test and a 15 minute driving test in a parking lot, whereas other countries require actual studies, hand-on road instruction, and about 30x more cost ($32 for Georgia vs ~$1000 for many European countries).
- snarf21 9y ago
  To be fair, distracted driving is a larger problem for fatalities than speeding. Also, I think we probably have far more than 3-4 times the people who drive and the corresponding roadways than most other western countries. It would be interesting to know what the ratio of deaths per driving regularly capita is for all western countries.
Throwaway23412 9y ago
To be fair, that has more to do with everyone now having mini super-computers in their possession distracting them than with speed limits.
kej 9y ago
And even at the historic lows, numerous studies suggest fatality rates would be even lower if we'd stuck to the national 55/65 speed limits.
- paulcole 9y ago
  55? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!
  - zeroer 9y ago
    You jest, but given that the average lifespan is about 622k hours, I think you can have a serious moral argument about whether it's better to kill one person or make a million people late by an hour.
    - Neliquat 9y ago
      Ooo, this will be a good one for the ethics panel. How many of those million people could have saved, or ended a life in that time? Its a juicy one.
      - zeroer 9y ago
        I think the argument rests on the fact that on net, people generally do positive things with their time. If the break-even point isn't 1 million people, where is it? 622k? 100 billion? 3^^^3? This is Eliezer Yudkowski's dust speck argument all over again. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/
- falcolas 9y ago
  In my experience, all this does is create a dangerous speed differential between the people who go 80 regardless of the posted speed limits, and the people who follow the speed limits with room to spare. And it's the large differentials in speed which create the most dangerous conditions and accidents. Even rigorous enforcement can't catch everyone, and the high speeds quickly become the norm; with people going 65 the dangerous exceptions.
bsder 9y ago
> Almost half of passenger vehicle occupants killed were not wearing seat belts. Research shows almost one in three fatalities involved drunk drivers or speeding. One in 10 fatalities involved distraction. Someone has a pretty big axe to grind when they have to lump speeders in with drunk drivers in order to get the statistics they need... I suspect that the number is almost the same even if you remove the non-drunk speeders from it. (I'm being a little snotty and disingenuous--I suspect that the issue is that the number of non-drunk, speeding fatalities is almost nil and that drunk and fatality almost always implies speeding as well). And I still can't believe how many people die because they won't put on a bloody seat belt. Sheesh. So, what we know is that using electronic devices in cars is more dangerous than speeding. So, we clearly need to remove the cellular towers near highways, right?
- ptaipale 9y ago
  Indeed. Looking at the local accident statistics and investigation reports where I live (Finland), it is easy to see that small breach of speed limit is fairly negligible as a cause for accidents. In some part of accidents it is one contributing factor, but there are quite large groups where speed limits are not relevant at all: - suicides (somewhere between 10 % and 20 %) - spontaneous deaths (around 10 % of traffic deaths, driver dies of old age or similar; they are included in statistics even though the accident was not actually cause of death) - gross negligence (at least 30 %: the driver is severely drunk, does not have a license, the vehicle has not passed inspection and the driver is trying to escape the police at 160 km/h on a 50 km/h zone; sometimes you have all these at the same time!) - freak observation errors (at a rail crossing, just drive under the train)

dom0 9y ago

> American roadways are safer than ever Well, even then, the US still has somewhere around 3-4 times more deaths on the roads per capita than other western countries.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kej 9y ago
Per capita, or per miles driven? My limited experience is that people in the U.S. drive a lot more in general, so per mile driven would be a more meaningful measure of road safety.
- dom0 9y ago
  IIRC it's still like 30-40 % higher when considering distance.
athenot 9y ago
Some of this may be due to the skillset to obtain a license in most states in the US is a quick written test and a 15 minute driving test in a parking lot, whereas other countries require actual studies, hand-on road instruction, and about 30x more cost ($32 for Georgia vs ~$1000 for many European countries).
snarf21 9y ago
To be fair, distracted driving is a larger problem for fatalities than speeding. Also, I think we probably have far more than 3-4 times the people who drive and the corresponding roadways than most other western countries. It would be interesting to know what the ratio of deaths per driving regularly capita is for all western countries.

Throwaway23412 9y ago

To be fair, that has more to do with everyone now having mini super-computers in their possession distracting them than with speed limits.

kej 9y ago

And even at the historic lows, numerous studies suggest fatality rates would be even lower if we'd stuck to the national 55/65 speed limits.

paulcole 9y ago
55? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!
- zeroer 9y ago
  You jest, but given that the average lifespan is about 622k hours, I think you can have a serious moral argument about whether it's better to kill one person or make a million people late by an hour.
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    Ooo, this will be a good one for the ethics panel. How many of those million people could have saved, or ended a life in that time? Its a juicy one.
    - zeroer 9y ago
      I think the argument rests on the fact that on net, people generally do positive things with their time. If the break-even point isn't 1 million people, where is it? 622k? 100 billion? 3^^^3? This is Eliezer Yudkowski's dust speck argument all over again. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/
falcolas 9y ago
In my experience, all this does is create a dangerous speed differential between the people who go 80 regardless of the posted speed limits, and the people who follow the speed limits with room to spare. And it's the large differentials in speed which create the most dangerous conditions and accidents. Even rigorous enforcement can't catch everyone, and the high speeds quickly become the norm; with people going 65 the dangerous exceptions.

bsder 9y ago

> Almost half of passenger vehicle occupants killed were not wearing seat belts. Research shows almost one in three fatalities involved drunk drivers or speeding. One in 10 fatalities involved distraction. Someone has a pretty big axe to grind when they have to lump speeders in with drunk drivers in order to get the statistics they need... I suspect that the number is almost the same even if you remove the non-drunk speeders from it. (I'm being a little snotty and disingenuous--I suspect that the issue is that the number of non-drunk, speeding fatalities is almost nil and that drunk and fatality almost always implies speeding as well). And I still can't believe how many people die because they won't put on a bloody seat belt. Sheesh. So, what we know is that using electronic devices in cars is more dangerous than speeding. So, we clearly need to remove the cellular towers near highways, right?

ptaipale 9y ago
Indeed. Looking at the local accident statistics and investigation reports where I live (Finland), it is easy to see that small breach of speed limit is fairly negligible as a cause for accidents. In some part of accidents it is one contributing factor, but there are quite large groups where speed limits are not relevant at all: - suicides (somewhere between 10 % and 20 %) - spontaneous deaths (around 10 % of traffic deaths, driver dies of old age or similar; they are included in statistics even though the accident was not actually cause of death) - gross negligence (at least 30 %: the driver is severely drunk, does not have a license, the vehicle has not passed inspection and the driver is trying to escape the police at 160 km/h on a 50 km/h zone; sometimes you have all these at the same time!) - freak observation errors (at a rail crossing, just drive under the train)