Poll: Auto Accident Fatalities and Injuries

[Ernie]

It’s hard to imagine a future where self governing cars have carte Blanche to just mow people over and get away with it.

If they do, perhaps we could carry car-disabling firearms to fire upon any autonomous vehicles before they kill us.

Another use for firearms by non-resistant Christians.

[Ken]

When I went back to visit last summer, it did strike me how much fatter Texans are than Washingtonians. It is noticeable when you are out in public. At least it was in Waco.

Fun fact: people in Arkansas or Alabama (can't remember which) used to be the most obese in the nation in the 1990s.

But that rate now would be the lowest in the nation. It's spread everywhere.

Oklahoma, Louisiana and West Virginia currently have the highest obesity rates in the nation at over 40%. Not coincidentally they are also three of the poorest states. As those to things seem to go increasingly hand-in-hand. Colorado is the fittest state. Lots of interesting data here. Especially where they break it out by race: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html

[Josh]

Arkansas’s was something like 17%… considered way too high back then. Colorado is usually the lowest and it’s over 20% now.

(DC of course is a playground for the wealthy.)

[temporal1]

2026

2024:

I am a late comer to this thread. I am not going to read the 11 pages, so if someone else has said this, they are smart and right.

In 5 years there will be very little auto accidents. Self driving cars are already correcting the human error and when most all cars on the road are self driving in 5 to 10 years, the numbers will plummet. There is already concern from the auto insurance companies that they may not be needed any more. They will have to figure out some other way to scam us.

^^how is this aging?

As a "car guy" myself (and as far back as I can recall), and also someone who participates on half a dozen different automobile forums, the majority opinion among such people (and it isn't all just men, either - there are some really sharp "car ladies" too) is that
since the manufacturing drift toward battery cars is being forced, there is reason to be suspicious.

That is, if it were actually a good idea, one that will benefit everyone concerned, it would not be necessary to legislate it.

Back in the early days of automobile manufacturing, gas vehicles won out over battery vehicles, which actually had an earlier start. One of the big reasons for this, while much less extreme, still exists - capability to do distance travel. On a different front, public transportation in cities remained largely electric powered.

I think that until someone develops a wireless electrical power system for highway travel with actual ELECTRIC vehicles (with batteries as a backup, and for rural and other smaller roadways), the public opinion among those closest to the American cultural connection with road travel will continue to be on the resentful side, not appreciating the governmental interference in free market enterprise.

I also do not think that computer technology is ready to exceed the capacity of the human mind in dealing with the less-than-mundane driving tasks. Can these systems observe a vehicle or other conveyance (whether powered by an engine or motor, or by human power) that is approaching an intersection at right angles to it's path? Can it "keep in mind" that a moving object that was previously observed, but now out of view is still there, still approaching?

I WILL admit that some drivers need assistance. But making it even easier to ignore what is going on around you is not the solution. Things that create distractions are multiplying, and so drivers that engage with these devices are becoming less and less attentive. I think that this approach is attempting to solve the wrong problem (and if I were politically active, I would oppose it at every turn).

My father (auto body repair guy) used to say, “market success is offering a better product at a lower price”.
Gov plays havoc with this.

[Neto]

This Friday will mark one month since a member of our congregation was rear ended by another pickup at around 50 MPH. The driver of that vehicle was cited for 'distracted driving' - cellular telephone use. There were three or four others in that vehicle, NONE of whom saw the smaller PU ahead, stopped for a left hand turn (waiting for on-coming traffic to clear). The driver initially maintained that the vehicle he struck had pulled out directly in front of him. Another business truck, waiting to enter that roadway, had a dash cam running that clearly recorded the incident. Later the at-fault driver said that he didn't know where the other PU came from, that he'd only seen it when he was about 10 feet away. (This occurred in the daytime, between 4:30 and 4:45 PM. It was not raining, nor foggy.)

Fortunately the driver of the PU that was struck had his wheels straight, and he was not forced into oncoming traffic. Nor was he seriously injured, which is simply 'amazing' - a miracle, we would say.

As is common in rear-end collisions, his seat back broke, and he was thrown into the rear seat area of his small 4-door PU. (The tail gate of his PU was pushed right up against the back of the cab.) Seat belts, even shoulder belts, do not prevent this, and studies have been done to change seat frame designs to deal with the different forces exerted on vehicle occupants (especially those occupying the front seats) during this type of impact. (Children in car seats, especially forward facing, are very often killed in this type of accident.)

Most impact testing has been for front collision, and while that is important as well, inattentive driving is a major cause for both types of collision. Our current family car has an automatic braking function that engages the brakes when it senses a vehicle in front of it, but approaching a stationary vehicle at 50 MPH is much more than these systems can deal with.

[JohnH]

Most impact testing has been for front collision, and while that is important as well, inattentive driving is a major cause for both types of collision. Our current family car has an automatic braking function that engages the brakes when it senses a vehicle in front of it, but approaching a stationary vehicle at 50 MPH is much more than these systems can deal with.

A vehicle with full self driving like Tesla or similar systems such as BMW's "Hands Off" available in Europe would prevent this from happening; it simply won't approach something stationary without giving enough time to stop.

There is a case to be made that all vehicles need to have this technology. For a Tesla, it adds about $8000 in cost to a vehicle that has a base price of $40,000. Compared to the cost of accidents, that is reasonable. In any case, considering how dangerous vehicle accidents are and how many people die, it seems to me like a reasonable safety measure, particularly for motorists who think the most important activity when driving is to be staring at their phone.

Alternatively, law enforcement could simply start impounding one's vehicle and permanently suspending one's licence when one engages in dangerous activity, like is done in some other countries. Australia's fatality rate remains half of America's.

[JohnL]

I think whatever is done needs to be both at grassroots and local law enforcement level. When I travel I notice that different regions have different problems. Some regions have a lot of drunk drivers. Some have roads that are straight and seem to attract speed demons. Some areas have mountain and tourists that don't know how to drive on the curvy roads. Pretty much that's where the local part comes into play. Top down laws at a national level won't address the local concerns adequately.
Then there's the distractions of cell phones and billboards.

[JohnH]

I think whatever is done needs to be both at grassroots and local law enforcement level. When I travel I notice that different regions have different problems. Some regions have a lot of drunk drivers. Some have roads that are straight and seem to attract speed demons. Some areas have mountain and tourists that don't know how to drive on the curvy roads. Pretty much that's where the local part comes into play. Top down laws at a national level won't address the local concerns adequately.
Then there's the distractions of cell phones and billboards.

Ah yes, the bogeyman of The Tourist person from The City who is the only real threat to the holy way of life of the mountain.

[ken_sylvania]

Most impact testing has been for front collision, and while that is important as well, inattentive driving is a major cause for both types of collision. Our current family car has an automatic braking function that engages the brakes when it senses a vehicle in front of it, but approaching a stationary vehicle at 50 MPH is much more than these systems can deal with.

A vehicle with full self driving like Tesla or similar systems such as BMW's "Hands Off" available in Europe would prevent this from happening; it simply won't approach something stationary without giving enough time to stop.

There is a case to be made that all vehicles need to have this technology. For a Tesla, it adds about $8000 in cost to a vehicle that has a base price of $40,000. Compared to the cost of accidents, that is reasonable. In any case, considering how dangerous vehicle accidents are and how many people die, it seems to me like a reasonable safety measure, particularly for motorists who think the most important activity when driving is to be staring at their phone.

Alternatively, law enforcement could simply start impounding one's vehicle and permanently suspending one's licence when one engages in dangerous activity, like is done in some other countries. Australia's fatality rate remains half of America's.

Ah, yes, like in this incident in Walnut Creek, CA.
https://abc7news.com/post/tesla-autopil ... /13144903/

The Tesla driver was so fortunate that his Tesla refused to approach the stationary fire truck....

[barnhart]

It wouldn't surprise me to find the overall data to show automated driving is marginally safer but there are deeper issues that concern me. When a human driver caused death or injury he, and his insurer and employer, must stand to account for it. This cloaks the driving experience with a certain amount of care and concern because of legal accountability which stands even when people abandon ethical accountability.

However if the equipment, software, profit and control all belong to a few people or their shell companies, accountability will quickly errode. Especially once the beneficiaries gain access to the political machinery and grant themselves legal protections.

We can have self driving cars next week if Congress grants Musk and all Tesla beneficiaries total and permanent immunity from all damages. It's just a matter of a software update to grant permissions. The question is who gets sued when they drive over somebody's children. This will most certainly happen and when it does it is small comfort to the grieving to assure them the data says this is safer in the long run.

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.