Slashdot Mirror

The US has about 33,000-34,000 deaths a year from auto accidents, down from 40,000 at the begining of the decade.

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

And the rate of accidents per kilometer driven for the US is along the same rate as EU countries, higher than some, lower than others according to data from 2003.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

You should get your brakes checked.

From 50 km/h to 0 if you're five meters from the intersection when it changes? Not possible. Never mind brakes, you couldn't react to the light change fast enough to do it. And even if you and your brakes are paragons of halting, then it's a safe bet the guy and car behind you aren't.

A car going 30 mph travels 44 feet per second. (5,280 / 120 = 44). The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass. One of the calculators is here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/crstp.html. Just google 'vehicle stopping distance' and you have a choice of several calculators and you can look at the full formula, which is impossible to write correctly here. Assuming you have good tires, and all other things being equal, the stopping distance from 30 mph is 37 feet. Most studies on this issue assume it is fair to give a driver one second to determine whether to stop. First, you must recognize the yellow light, then assess the situation. Are you going downhill? Are the streets wet? Do you have a bowl of goldfish on the seat beside you? This is not trivial. Stopping on wet pavement requires twice the distance. Here's an article that says more or less the same thing: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/stopping-distances.htm.

The basic issue here is that it will take you at least two seconds to stop from 30 mph on dry pavement, four seconds if it is wet. It takes one second to react and one second to stop (though deceleration throws a curve on time here). But in terms of distance this means you absolutely must be MORE than 81 feet away from the stop light to stop at all. My car is 16 feet long. If mine is average, that means five car lengths are required to stop. If that yellow light is less than two seconds long and you are within 81 feet of the light, you will go through on red. You have no choice; the laws of physics dictate it.

The last time I was stopped by the State Patrol for this I said, "Look. It was pretty close. I was doing 40 mph on a hill and the streets were wet. Plus, I thought about it. If I had just slammed on the brakes, I might have been able to stop, but the extra half second cost me." He let me go.

The idea expressed here that you just 'stop on yellow' is ridiculous. If your vehicle is within that window close to the light, you cannot stop, ever. Adjust for wind speed. If you are ever given a ticket for this, vidceotape the intersection to prove tghe length of the yellow light, compute the calculations, and take it to the judge.

In our area, they can ticket you, but it does not appear as a moving violation on your driver's record so your insurance will not go up. There is also some sentiment that putting in these cameras results in more rear-end accidents because drivers become hypersensitive. It's definitely a money-making issue.

Yes, I generally try to do much what you describe -- although a "four second rule" just won't work in many situations I drive in -- people will just cut into the gap in front of you and cause you to slow down a bit more etc. until, at the limit, you've slowed traffic to a crawl such that a four second gap plus your added insurance for any tailgater(s) behind you leaves not much more than one car length between you and the car in front (i.e., the limit at which someone else can't "take" the gap ahead away from you causing you to slow down more). I think this limit works out to be about 3.5 miles per hour ignoring your additional "tailgater safety margin" (assuming that anything less than 20 feet between you and the driver in front prevents someone from cutting in and taking your "safety gap" away). Yes, I do know that I'm carrying this analysis to an extreme and that a rational person (as I assume you are) really wouldn't maintain the "four second rule" to this absurd level.

At 60 MPH, four seconds is 352 feet between you and the car in front of you - on dry pavement, some charts show the TOTAL stopping time (reaction plus braking) on dry pavement to be only 240 feet or 303 feet so your rule, while safe, seems to unnecessarily allow the car in front of you to stop instantly and you still to come to a stop 49 feet behind it.

Really, this is mostly about intersections with traffic lights and people who begin to tailgate you just as you're approaching the intersection.

Not really 300mpg as it's electric with a range of 120 miles. TFA says they may do a hybrid that does 130mpg (US I assume). Not too bad. If you want 4 wheels and better economy then the Loremo looks cool if it ever gets into production

http://evolution.loremo.com/

As for safety, the US has issues if their fatality rate is x3 the UK one

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

I don't suppose you see the irony of this.

If an American kid built a drone, and painted it in the colours of the American flag, you wouldn't think there was anything wrong with that, would you?

And what is all this talk of 'enemies'? Iran is not your enemy. Yes, the republican party try to whip up hysteria about supposed foreign enemies to distract voters from their failures at home - it's something that right wing governments the world over have done since the time of the Romans at least. Iran not only does not threaten America, Iran could not threaten America even if it wanted to.

Even the 'War on Terr'r' is a nonsense. Face it: car drivers in America kill fourteen times as many Americans every year as Al Quaeda have ever killed. Do you have a 'War on Cars'?

This guy has built some cool technology, and he's sharing it with you. He's not taking your technology, he's freely offering you his. Can you use it? Would it be 'unpatriotic' to use it?

According to this, the per capita death rate of the US and Jamaica are the same for vehicular accidents. There are some flaws in the statistics, which are commented on under the table. But this shows there is some evidence that would disprove your assertion about lack of road laws in Jamaica creates a safer environment. International Road Fatality Statistics Anyone able to find any actual studies about traffic laws and road safety?

Thats 12 murders and 13 road accidents, even if we believe the numbers that produced out of thin air with no citations. I see no reason to believe it because a politician says so - in case you did not know, it is not unknown for politicians to distort numbers, and these could be distorted in a number of ways.

Given how good Americans are at killing each other both by murder and in road accidents., the illegal immigrants contribution is not huge.

US death rates for both causes are very high by developed country standards. The numbers for Britain are approx 300 murders and 3000 accident victims, which even on a per-capita basis are much lower. The problem that needs to be solved lies elsewhere.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st atistics/stats-usa_indiv-states_per-capita_2002.ht m Arizona is apparently only the 13'th worst state. Just be glad you are not living in Wyoming.

We'd consider it wildly unacceptable if 1 in 10,000 people died over the course of 5 years.

Well, the number of people dying from auto accidents in the US is a little over 1 in 10,000. per year (see here. We tolerate that, primarily because driving is so useful to us.

Unfortunately, we can.

Greetings from Portugal,

fsmunoz

Touche. But car deaths directly kill over 40,000 people in the US every year, (Source) and the ancient city of Chernobyl, unlike cities beset with coal smoke, is still a writeoff.

Quite frankly it secretly delights me when I see these stereotypes involved in collisions with one another, because I know that after that "accident", everyone around me is now actually safer in their cars.

Now, I felt my meaning here was quite clear, if delivered with less tact than some might say was required. It's not the collision itself, or the direct injuries or deaths resultant from it that "delights" me so. It's the fact that two dangerous, life threatening people have temporarily or permenantly, stopped being a threat to other innocent people around them. I think everyone should be relieved when this happens. It's like two maniacs knifing one another to death in a barfight. Messy, disturbing, perhaps even tragic for friends and loved ones, but at least they won't kill anyone else. It's a good analogy, because like manaiacs, bad drivers kill and main people every day.

You have somehow taken this to mean that I take sadistic pleasure in all accidents. I don't. But when two grown adults, who have made a decision to put their lives and the lives of those around them in mortal danger for no good reason, end up killing or otherwise injuring only themselves, I'm afraid I'll have to say it couldn't have happened to a nicer pair.

Which is absolutely not to say that I would be happier if they died horribly; screaming in agony as the exposed marrow of their shattered bones slowly froze in the morning mist, or if their last breaths were of stagnant ditch water, as they lay trapped, contorted in a slowly sinking car. I certainly would not. What would make me happiest of all is if these two bozos simply totalled their respective death mobiles and walked away blinking without a scratch. That would be perfect. But if they die or are severly injured, to be honest, there's only so much sympathy I can have.

Fisher Price transmission, how very cute and educated.

I felt it was relatively witty. And I'll stand by it. I've heard lots of people tell me that automatic transmission is safer than manual, and that it enables the driver to pay more attention to the road. Yet the only people I know who have automatic transmissions are boy racers.

Now that is a personal observation. But it is the case that in the UK, where manual transmission pervades, per capita road deaths in 2003 were 5.81 per 100,000, while in the same year in the US, where automatic is the trasmission of choice, roads deaths were 14.75 per 100,000. [Source] Now that's just comparing two countries, but it would be interesting to compare stick vs shift on similar data.

Guess what, when you have a proven driving record your rates go down, when you get older you get better rates, being married gets you better rates, and various other indicators of being a responsible adjusted adult. Well I'm sorry you feel so threatend and wish to respond in such a childish manner.

You need to read my first post again. My main point there was that due to poor drivers, I have been in effect priced off the road, despite the fact that I am not one of these sterotypical reckless drivers. Consequent of this, and because of teh way insurance works, as you say, once I do start driving, i will be paying more insurance that these individuals. thus in effect, I am subsidising their behaviour. I do not feel threatened by this. I feel robbed.

My point is without knowing anything about the situation about the wreck in the parent post your immediate response is about how incompetant they both are.

Actually the original poster decribed the situation rather well. The first driver was reported

And your statement is complete BS.

Here is why:

there were 16,500 homicides in 2003

"Nearly 71 percent of the 2003 murders involved use of a firearm, with 13 percent involving knives or other cutting instruments. Blunt objects, hands and feet also were used."

there were 42,642 auto fatalities in 2002, 17,013 of which were alcohol related.

16,204 murders took place in 2002

according to wiki
there were on 2986 deaths on 9/11.

This means that every year roughly 5.5 times the number are murdered
(most by guns). Care to give up your second amendment rights?

Roughly 14 times the number of people die in auto accidents per year,
(alot of them related to alcohol). Care to outlaw drinking? What about
cars?

I am not willing to give up the second amendment, nor do I think alcohol
or driving should be outlawed. Neither am I willing to let the government
have carte blanche in trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments because of
terrorists.

You forgot to mention that Victoria has the lowest road toll in all the sates in Australia. And the Australian road toll http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/pdf/rfa2004.pdf is significantly lower than the US toll. http://www.driveandstayalive.com/media%20section/0 40129_press-release_safety-on-american-roads.htm

The USA had an annual rate of 14.8 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared to 7.99 in Australia.

Having driven all over the world (30 countries+) I find Australia is a lot stricter on enforcement but also has very safe roads. Chandi

Number of persons killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the U.S. in 2002: 43,005.

"Oh no, there are cars everywhere..."

In US? Probably 5 or so thanks to the Anthrax thingy (and a lot of people didn't even want their mailman on their property, not to mention their mail!)

And how many died from car accident?

Probably about 150,000. Historical sources are here and here. Oh, and there were about 10,000,000 people injured in crashes since 9/11...

I am interested in a citation for the 32,000/yr killed under saddam. a link or book/article reference?

Unreferenced it's a pretty vague statement really. I mean, I could say that in 2003 more than 42,000 people were killed under President Bush, and be perfectly factually correct.

More specifically in 2003 more than 42,000 people were killed on the road under President Bush.

Who knows what the 32,000 figure actually means.

Jedidiah.

32,480 highway deaths vs. 55 shark attacks? How "significant" _are_ the shark attacks? It appears that in Florida the shark attacks actually _are_ significant - bear with me while I do some ball-park estimating.

Rough Facts:
(1) There are approximately 16 million people in Florida.
(2) 31 of the 55 shark attacks were in florida (see grandparent post).
(3) In 2002 there were 3132 highway deaths in Florida. (source)
(4)The average american adult spends 101 minutes per day driving.(source)
(5)The average american spends 19 minutes per day engaged in "leisure exercise.(source)
*for our purposes, lets pretend that (4) and (5) apply to the population of Florida as well.

Approximations/Guesses:
Let's pretend that in Florida 5% of the leisure exercise that goes on is swimming, and that a 20% of that swimming is done in the ocean as opposed to pools, lakes, etc.
Assumptions:
(6) 1/20 of all leisure exercise in Florida is swimming.
(7) 1/5 of all swimming is done in the ocean (shark territory).

With a Little Algebra,
Using (1),(3), and (4),
There are about 5.3e-9 (5.3*10^-9) deaths per driving minute in Florida. Or inversely 188 million minutes of driving time occur per highway death.

Using (1),(2),(5),(6), and (7),
There are about 2.8e-08 shark attacks per ocean-swimming minute. Or inversely 36 million minutes of ocean-swimming time occur per shark attack.

But wait! That means per minute of activity, in Florida, you are more likely to be attacked by a shark than die in a highway accident, if the facts, assumptions, and generalizations used are correct.

Alright so that sounds impossible - let's change our guesses. What if 20% of all leisure exercise is swimming (a ridiculously high estimate), and what if a full 1/2 of all swimming is done in the ocean. Then by the same calculations there are 2.8e-9 deaths per ocean-swimming minute. Even with these very high estimates the per-minute chances of shark attack are within a single order of magnitude to highway deaths.

Yes, I have made some unsupported generalizations and some unsupported guesses, but even so I think it is safe to say that in florida the statistics are so "lopsided" (32,480 highway deaths vs. 31 shark attacks) not because swimming is any less dangerous than driving (in terms of shark attacks vs. fatal accidents), but because people just drive a whole lot more than they swim.

Well, indeed, historically states have done a lot more horrible things to a lot more people than terrorists.

If I can turn around your argument, you are worried about this `new' problem of terrorism, but terrorism isn't new, it is just newly high profile in America. As you point out, terrorism is and has been much closer to me. Litter bins in the streets here are designed to be blocked off, I wondered why when I moved here (Edinburgh) in the mid 80s, until I saw that they did it when there was a risk of bombs (eg political, royal or diplomatic events). I shared a flat with someone with family in Locherbie (fortunatly a different part). When I visited the USA a decade or so ago I found the lack of basic security at US airports suprising and vaguely worrying.

Consider the size of the risk. In the very worst year for terrorism in the US, 3000 people died. In the next year 42,000 people died on US roads. Are you 14 times as worried about that than terrorism? How draconic would measures against road accidents have to be before you objected?

The important thing to remember is that if we overreact, if we live in fear, if we start to dismantle our way of life, then we are not acting against terrorism, we are dancing to the terrorists' tune. This is what they want us to do.

If you know of a better solution than is currently being designed, than I would be interested to hear it.

I always liked the rule of law.