Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dncornholio 1639 days ago
> Yes, that's my point. When cars are vastly safer, maybe it's not so bad to let moderately worse drivers be on the road.

Tell that to the pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle drivers and see what they will say.

2 comments

Are those excluded from the safety numbers now?! That seems like a terrible omission if so.
Car safety ratings in the USA do not test for safety of people outside of the car. Otherwise the vast majority of modern pickups and SUVs would not pass those tests, primarily due to the increased hood heights. See NHTSA[0] for info.

Andrew Gounardes, a NYS senator, attempted to push through a bill that would require additional ‘pedestrian safety’ ratings be posted for vehicles for sale in the state[1]. But otherwise, I don’t know any other state that has any safety ratings for people outside of the vehicles in the US

[0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings

[1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S4307

Right but the important thing here is whether they are included in fatalities per 100 million miles driven. And they are.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the USA are up higher than they were since the 90s[0]. Just because it’s now safer to be a driver or occupant in a car doesn’t mean everyone is safer as a result.

[0] https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotl...

They're still a somewhat small fraction though. The average crash kills more occupants than pedestrians, by a lot.

What I'm getting at is that while we should improve car vs pedestrian design, I don't think pedestrians are a reason to say teens shouldn't drive.

> They're still a somewhat small fraction though

Feel free to cite some sources and specify what you mean by a small fraction... The United states is large and I can point to several areas where pedestrian and cyclist injuries and fatalities are not a small fraction. They tend to be where people are allowed to walk and bike and not just areas where it's only legal or feasible to drive.

> The average crash kills more occupants than pedestrians

In the United States, that is by design. Besides a handful of primarily coastal cities, you cannot legally or feasibly bike or walk in many places.

> I don't think pedestrians are a reason to say teens shouldn't drive.

I can't find anywhere in this thread that anyone was making a claim that teens shouldn't be able to drive. I believe people were saying we shouldn't allow people who are, statistically speaking, the least capable of driving safely to drive just because they'll be safer if they crash. We shouldn't lower our already extremely low bar for driving standards just because cars are getting bigger and occupants are more likely to survive when they run into a person or a tree.

I'd be perfectly fine with a driving age of 16, as long as the license was limited to vehicles that were under a specific size/weight and our driving standards and tests were greatly improved... With states like Georgia moving ahead with allowing anyone to get a license only with parental approval[0], I have no faith in things getting any better.

[0] https://www.complex.com/life/2020/04/georgia-drops-driving-t...

As a part-time pedestrian I completely agree.