
Reducing risk of automotive death - rozim
https://peterattiamd.com/the-killers-on-the-road-reducing-your-risk-of-automotive-death/
======
adrianN
In addition to the sensible measures explained in the article you should also
do the thing they excluded from the analysis upfront: drive less. Move closer
to your job, move closer to a train station, move to a country with proper
public transport. Factor in car dependence when choosing a new job or a new
home.

~~~
lnsru
I love your advice. I also hate driving very much. But current city planning
isn’t for pedestrians. Distance to office is 2 miles, it takes me 40 minutes
to walk there, 20 minutes by car and at least 45 minutes by bus and subway. I
would love to have an office, I can reach without driving in 30 minutes, but
it is extremely seldom and expensive case.

Let’s talk about vacation. Going to neighbor warm country costs 200€ by car,
180€ by plane (plus rental car) or 540€ by a night train. I’ll take night
train once to experience this, but other times I’ll take the car.

My factor now for choosing a new job is days I can work from home and 99% time
it is zero. Companies suffer heavily from “general wants to see his army”
syndrome (in Germany?). Home office could reduce driving easily by at least
20%, but companies have no benefit from it. Office rent will be paid anyway.

~~~
carlmr
>Companies suffer heavily from “general wants to see his army” syndrome (in
Germany?).

Can confirm this. But I've usually been able to get 1 day working from home a
week. (I think home office is a Denglish word btw, not sure if others will
understand)

~~~
reificator
> _(I think home office is a Denglish word btw, not sure if others will
> understand)_

Native English speaker here: Generally `home office` would refer to the actual
office room rather than the concept of working from home.

That said, I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary until you pointed it
out, it does feel like a natural way to say it. I think people will understand
fine.

~~~
carlmr
I've heard Americans say Handy for phone, public viewing for outdoor sports
events and home office, if they've spent enough time in Germany. So I guess
Germanisms can spread. I used home office as well and I was told "we don't say
that here",that's why I pointed it out.

------
abhiminator
Crazy how relevant this article is to what I have been reading this past week.
I was recently doing some research into reducing my personal existential risk,
and I concurred putting more energy into reducing/mitigating the baseline risk
factors in automotive crashes and road safety in general is a worthwhile
effort.

Also recommend reading this insightful article on LessWrong by an anonymous
user [0]; has a few decent actionable steps one could take to reduce the risk
on the road, aside from a nice collection of most risky habits one should
AVOID doing to reduce their road death risk exponentially.

Additionally, I'm considering using local public transport more, and even
thinking of moving to cities with better, safer public transportation as
there's a MASSIVE difference in fatality rates of folks using private vehicles
v/s folks using public transportation. [1]

And, QUIT using motorbikes. Exponentially higher chances of a fatality on a
two-wheeler than on four wheels. [2]

[0] [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-
avo...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avoid-dying-
in-a-car-crash)

[1] [https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-
safet...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/car-bus-safety-
research/514670/)

[2] [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-
drive/culture/commutin...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-
drive/culture/commuting/why-i-quit-riding-motorcycles/article4405613/)

------
finaliteration
A good piece of advice I read or heard when I first started driving was,
“never trust a turn signal”. This has saved me a few times when someone had
their right turn signal on but kept moving forward rather than turning right
at an intersection where I was about to pull out and turn left.

~~~
gHosts
Watch the front wheels.... The car will go where they are pointing, and you
will spot movement sooner.

That said, please remember your own turn signals are to announce your
intention, not applaud your action.

------
rl3
> _Do not speed._

If only it were that simple. I'd argue that on U.S. roads, there's definitely
a culture of speeding, and in many circumstances drivers who fail to speed end
up slowing traffic, often provoking the ire of other drivers, who in turn
reduce safety even further via way of tailgating, unsafe passing, road
games/road rage—all of which is a huge distraction unto itself for everyone
involved.

On most roadways I find other drivers will expect you to go 5mph over the
posted limit. On expressways, this is usually as high as 10-15mph for all but
the right-most lane.

I feel like driver education here tends to emphasize not speeding over
maintaining traffic flow and respecting the passing lane. Combine that with a
bunch of aggro pricks behind the wheel, and it's a recipe for disaster.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane#Misuse_and_common_practice_in_the_United_States)

~~~
jfoster
If you teach people to "maintain traffic flow", the aggro drivers will be
dictating all driving.

The solution is greater detection and neutralization (fines, suspension &
jail) of aggro drivers, not ramping up the speed to the point where they are
no longer aggressive.

~~~
rl3
As much as I'd love living in a world where tailgaters had the book thrown at
them, a more realistic solution is just getting out of their way.

If it's a single-lane road and that isn't possible, then likewise going
slightly over the limit if it appeases them and defuses an otherwise unsafe
situation (assuming conditions warrant).

~~~
jfoster
Both. On an individual level, of course the sane thing to do is get out of
their way. Doesn't mean they shouldn't also have the book thrown at them.

------
axaxs
Fascinating, and well studied, but I don't buy the '1 in 10 distracted'. As
someone who has done tons of driving, I'd honestly put the number of
distracted drivers, specifically dicking with their cell phone, somewhere
between 1/3 and 1/2 of all drivers. And that's just my corner of the nation,
I'm sure it's more in others.

~~~
thdrdt
That's why in the Netherlands you are fined ~$250 for even holding a phone
while driving.

Holding a device while you are on a bike will cost you around $105.

This all because there was an increase in accidents when social media became
available everywhere.

~~~
ErikAugust
I was surprised by how many people in Amsterdam would text message on
bicycles. Many times without helmets on.

~~~
throwaway_se099
Cyclists in Amsterdam don't wear helmets as a rule -- YouTube is chock full of
videos of Amsterdam bicycle traffic, so you can see for yourself. Therefore,
it's not surprising that a texting cyclist wouldn't wear a helmet.

To be clear, texting on a bicycle is not a good idea, helmet or no helmet.

------
jedberg
> In particular, assume one person awoke today with the explicit instruction
> to kill you with their car.

My dad taught me this on day one of driving with my permit.

Assume everyone on the road is trying to kill you. Assume know one but you
knows the rules.

And as you drive more, you'll gain experience in identifying the behaviors
that are most likely to indicate someone who is about to try and kill you.

~~~
WalterBright
As a pedestrian I look at their eyes. If they're not looking at me, I get way
off the road.

~~~
jedberg
Yes! This applies to pedestrians as much as cars.

------
fiblye
I have to wonder how much legal alcohol limits reduce/increase death rates.

Go to any sufficiently large party and there'll be some guy who's drunk after
an all nighter and ready to hop in his car, asserting that it's okay because
he's not drunk anymore. The dude's still drunk, but once you get worn out and
start coming down, you just kind of _feel_ done. It seems to me (in my
uninformed view) that legal limits let these guys feel like they have some
leeway and they're probably legally safe to drive (which, honestly, they might
even be). It plants an idea that there's a reasonable threshold of drunkenness
in which driving is still okay, which I don't think is a good idea.

I'm not generally a supporter of zero tolerance policies, but I think leaning
that way is possibly better.

As a person who almost never drinks, I feel pretty off and goofy halfway
through one beer. I'd probably be under the BAC limit but there's no way I'm
fit to drive. I don't have confidence in my drunk driving abilities, but
plenty of people do and they think they have a legal basis for it.

~~~
temporaryvector
Legal alcohol limits are a guideline and not a solid rule. Ideally, they were
designed with the idea that personal responsibility would play a role in your
decision to drive after having a beer.

After all, you can have zero alcohol in your system and still be impaired in
some way like other drugs, sickness, donating blood, lack of sleep, etc. This
is why DUI arrests usually involve some judgement on the side of the police
officer, and they can make the decision that you're driving impaired even if
you are under the legal limit.

I am ambivalent on the idea of reducing legal limits. For one, it's never been
easier to avoid driving drunk, with Uber and the like, and anecdotally it
seems that the propaganda against drunk driving is working, with it becoming
largely unacceptable among younger people these days (although this would be
purely anecdotal, I have no evidence either way). Additionally, seeing how I
don't drink, any reduction to the legal limit wouldn't really affect me much.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of zero tolerance laws and I think
they always do more hard than good, and additionally I don't believe that
farther reducing the limit will have any effect on drunk driving. I also don't
much like the idea of farther restricting the decision making power of police
officers, there needs to be a balance here: enough restrictions to prevent
abuse but also enough freedom to allow officers to account for circumstances
and not turn them into law-enforcing robots.

Increasing police budget to get better enforcement of existing laws would be
another approach but doesn't seem like a good use of money. I think the most
cost effective way of reducing impaired driving related fatalities has been,
and will continue being, education and public transport when it comes to urban
areas. Ride hailing apps and self-driving vehicles will eventually do the
rest.

One kind of legislative change I'd consider taking a look at is reducing or
removing penalties for sleeping in your car, particularly in rural and
suburban areas. Letting someone sleep it off in their car is far better than
them driving drunk, and I think any fears of homeless people setting up camp
in their cars, which is the origin of many such laws, is vastly exaggerated.

------
crispinb
What about reducing your chances of killing other people?

As a somewhat jaded motorcyclist (though not in the US) I'm unsurprised to see
no mention of us in the article. Not sure of the US stats, but in Aus the
biggest dangers to motorcyclists are (a) other drivers not seeing us [1] then
(b) our own stupidity.

Not much for anyone but motorcyclists to do about (b), but I would make some
appeals to car drivers:

Think about motorcyclists at junctions - we're not actually invisible, and
what you miss seeing is primarily a function of your own inculcated habits of
observation.

Don't tailgate motorcycles. It's frightening and forces us to deploy more
attention behind us than is safe.

On undivided roads, stay to your side of the road on bends, even if there are
puddles or potholes.

Thanks.

[1. known here in Australia as a SMIDSY - 'sorry mate I didn't see you']

~~~
lemming
I don't know what the stats are in Aus, but in NZ that turned out not to be
true:

[https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-
po...](https://www.rideforever.co.nz/news-and-reviews/new-single-point-of-
truth-document-reveals-the-real-facts-about-motorcycle-safety/)

 _Take the received wisdom that car drivers cause the majority of motorcycle
accidents. No they dont. It turns out, motorcyclists are solely or primarily
responsible for the crashes theyre involved in 56% of the time. Though, if
the crash involves another vehicle, its more likely the other road user was
at fault._

~~~
temporaryvector
Taking a look at that report, it seems to be missing an important statistic
when it comes to motorcycle crashes.

What is the fatality and serious injury rate when comparing when the
motorcyclist is at fault vs when the other vehicle is at fault.

An accident involving just a motorcycle, intuitively, seems a lot less likely
to be fatal to a properly geared person. Often times such an accident will be
because of operator error and result in a low-side crash. Crashing into
something on the road could result in serious damage, but that's a lot less
likely than losing traction and falling off. If I recall correctly, the Hurt
report supports this.

Similarly, in a two-vehicle accident where the motorcyclist is at fault, the
motorcyclist is likely to see it coming and attempt to prevent it in some way.
Additionally such a statistic will also include motorcyclists low-siding and
then their motorcycle (or them) sliding into a vehicle.

Overall, it seems believable to me that while a in majority (56% isn't even
that much more) of motorcycle crashes the rider is at fault, if we take a look
at only fatal crashes and crashes resulting in serious injury, cars will bear
the majority of the responsibility.

All that said, I also find that report to be a bit alarmist and disingenuous
with statistics, particularly when compared to the Hurt and the MAIDS reports.
I would assume this was done in the interest of "scaring" riders into safer
behaviors and not with any malicious intent.

------
Confusion
It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from
these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve
speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I
would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.

~~~
VBprogrammer
You can't out statistic physics. Energy goes up with velocity squared. A small
reduction in velocity means a lot less energy involved which delivers better
outcomes for all involved.

~~~
fiddlerwoaroof
But on a freeway accidents generally happen between cars traveling in the same
direction, so the effective velocity is much lower than the velocity of
travel.

------
ars
If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to "Table 1" which
summarizes the whole thing into action steps.

The rest of the article is basically describing where the data came from.

Another good thing to read is the text near "Figure 1".

~~~
janwillemb
Link to the table: [https://peterattiamd.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/200209-c...](https://peterattiamd.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/200209-cause-strategy-freeway-intersections-rural-
weekly-email-table-1-1536x551.png)

------
emptybits
Not in the article scope but something worth considering if automotive safety
is truly a top concern... I'm under the impression that placing all occupants
in rear-facing seats reduces fatalities. This extended claim is often made
when reading about infant and child automotive safety. If true, all passenger
vehicles going forward could be built this way. (And when Level 5 automated
driving is available, drivers become rear-facing passengers.) Cars, vans,
buses, ... starting now.

OTOH, "the view is worse" sentiment may be culturally strong enough to cast a
blind spot, so to speak, over such evidence.

------
_pmf_
Three things I do: \- avoid left turns like the plague \- always have a good
grip on the wheel, mostly 2 hands (easier when I had a less comfortable car)
\- when stopping at a turn, put your steering wheel in an angle that will
cause you not to full on drive into opposite traffic if someone happens to
rear end you (fun experience to be pushed through the corner with 80 km/h,
narrowly missing oncoming car also going 80 km/h)

------
inamberclad
Edit: I'm putting this up top because I misread, the aircraft advice mentioned
is about helicopters in New York. It may be applicable there.

Always flying a twin is highly debatable, and only really counts once you're
up to transport category aircraft (which you all fly on, don't worry).

------
TheGrassyKnoll
I try to change the oil at least every 10,000 miles to prevent automotive
death.

------
StreamBright
Mandatory alcohol testing when you start up the engine would be a good start.

------
bobowzki
"one half of 1 percent"

Is this a common way to write 0.5%?

~~~
Stratoscope
It's not uncommon, especially when you include the "about" that was missing
from your quote. Even more common is to say "about half a percent".

Try them both out loud: "about zero point five percent" vs. "about half a
percent". One rolls off the tongue much better than the other, is easier to
understand, and doesn't introduce false precision.

~~~
bobowzki
Understood. What "confuses" me is that it doesn't say "about half a percent",
it says "about half of 1 percent" which I find is a bit like saying "about
half of 50" instead of "about 25".

------
watertom
All States need to pass laws that when walking along roads without sidewalks
pedestrians must wear full bright reflective safety vests.

I'm amazed at the people I see dressed in all black, schlepping down a two
lane road with their back to traffic for they side the are walking on while
wearing ear buds or headphones.

I have outstanding night vision, but in the last 6 months I've narrowly missed
clipping 3 different people. Even with high beams on it's amazing how easy it
is for pedestrians to get lost in the background.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Another thing that you can do is drive a late model SUV. The late model can
proved things like lane keeping assistance, automatic emergency braking as
well as thinks like automatic traction control and curtain air bags. The SUV’s
large size means that the vehicle’s body can absorb more of the energy of an
impact.

~~~
pintxo
Personally I would say if you need any of those features regularly you should
not be driving a vehicle. Or at the very least stop using the atrocity which
is the touch based navigation/in-car entertainment.

(Had a rental Ford with a touch based radio/sat-nav. One could not manipulate
the radio without the lane control having to act.)

