Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

About 30,000 Americans die in car crashes every year. That's about ~400,000 Americans killed by other Americans in their cars since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's pretty clear that the emotional appeal is what people seem to care about ("someone wants to kill us") and it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying.

Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars? Oh, nobody cares about that, cars are freedom, cars are what we went to war to protect.

View on HN

What you call emotion, I call justice, and I think that matters.

Consider, without any emotion, the issue of murder versus suicide. What are the negative impacts of those acts? From the point of view of that person's friends and family and society at large, leaving aside emotion or notions of justice, the impact of the acts is the same: loss of that person, loss of their financial and emotional support. In fact, the impact on family and friends is often worse in cases of suicide because insurance policies often have an exemption for suicide.

Yet, almost nobody thinks murder should be legal while quite a few people think suicide should be legal. If we just mechanically consider "a death is a death" and count up the monetary impact of each case, we have no way to explain or justify why people feel this way.

So you agree that the general lack of prosecutions for vehicle caused fatalities is a failure of justice?

The only difference between murder and suicide is if the person who dies chose to die.

We don't prosecute people for "fatalities". We prosecute them for homicide and manslaughter, which are offenses in which the prosecution must prove intent to commit harm.

Meanwhile we do in fact prosecute car fatalities when they are caused by recklessness, and, of course, when they're caused intentionally.

You engage me in a semantics debate in a condescending tone and then are wrong. Manslaughter does not require 'intent to commit harm'.

Yes, there are prosecutions of reckless/negligent drivers. However, the fact remains:

1) Most traffic fatalities are the result of human error.

2) Most traffic fatalities do not result in prosecution.

I can't find numbers to back up #2 but this semi-anecdotal evidence is telling:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so...

This quote in particular makes my point:

> “We as a society have chosen to drive these big cars," said Joe McCormack, Assistant District Attorney for the Bronx. It’s his job to prosecute traffic crimes. "And we also as a society have chosen not to criminalize every single small mistake that just has a dramatic consequence because you're driving a car,” he said.

I think it's actually you who have decided on the semantic debate, since the reason we don't charge lots of people with felonies for killing people with cars is pretty apparent from the comment I just wrote.

I also don't think you read my comment carefully.

As a reset: here's what the state must prove in a manslaughter case:

    First, the defendant unlawfully killed someone;

    Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by
    adequate provocation:

    a) the defendant intentionally killed someone; or

    b) the defendant killed name of victim recklessly with extreme
    disregard for human life; and

    Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or
    terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might
    arouse a reasonable and ordinary person to kill someone.

Maybe you'd rather look at a vehicular manslaughter statute? Here you go, California's:

    To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
    prove that:
    1. The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic
    beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an
    alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood
    alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/drove under the influence of (an
    alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence
    of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/
    drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when
    under the age of 21);
    2. While driving that vehicle under the influence of (an alcoholic
    beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an
    alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed
    (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful
    act that might cause death);
    3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/
    [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross
    negligence;
    AND
    4. The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of
    another person.

This describes only a tiny percentage of vehicular fatalities.

Again: we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.

I didn't intend to engage in a semantics debate and I did read your comment carefully. You might carefully re-read your comment to see how I got that impression.

> we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.

We usually don't prosecute for intentional errors. That is precisely the problem: we are far to lax with incompetent/reckless drivers. Do you think that if the costs associated with causing injury/death due to your own 'errors' were higher, we wouldn't see more careful drivers?

You asked why the lack of criminal prosecutions for automobile fatalities wasn't a "failure of justice". I answered, and answered again, and now answer yet again: because our system of justice generally avoids prosecuting people for things that aren't crimes.

Your argument appears to be:

1) We don't prosecute people for things that aren't crimes.

2) Thus our system and standards for prosecuting people for things that are crimes is just.

I don't see the step from 1) to 2). I would guess you are making the following assumptions that I would disagree with:

a) We do a adequate job of enforcing the current laws. (Prosecutions tend to be fairly rare due to low priority and lack of investigative resources)

b) The current laws on the books are just. (The standards for recklessness are weighted toward DUIs and tend to exclude other types of intentional misconduct.)

No. You've shifted the goalposts. You began the thread by trying to argue that a lack of prosecutions for vehicular fatalities was evidence of injustice. But it isn't: it's evidence for the fact that most traffic fatalities don't involve conduct we recognize as criminal.

Now you'd like to litigate whether we should pass laws that criminalize more kinds of driver error. I'm not interested in that discussion, and I don't have to be, because it's not germane to the argument you made up thread, except in a Calvinball kind of way.

I'm not moving the goalposts, nor am I trying to litigate anyting. I'm simply trying to understand your argument and where we differ.

You think the current laws regarding driver culpability for errors are sufficient. Ok, fine. We've established a difference of opinion and don't need to argue it.

> You began the thread by trying to argue that a lack of prosecutions for vehicular fatalities was evidence of injustice. But it isn't: it's evidence for the fact that most traffic fatalities don't involve conduct we recognize as criminal.

From this I am going to assume that you also disagree that investigation and prosecution of traffic fatalities lack sufficient priority and resources.

If I am correct about this, then I now think the source of a disagreement is clear.

I thought the whole purpose of manslaughter was that it does not require the intent to commit harm? Apparently, it's actually based on culpability. Involantary manslaughter matches my original ideal of there being no intent. But there's also voluntary manslaughter in which case intention is present but there's some other mitigating factor that reduces culpability.

> Where is our war on cars?

We do have a war on car fatalities. It's been remarkably successful:

http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-cause...

That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...

The first graph shows that we have made driving far less dangerous over time. The second graph shows that driving has become far more popular over time, popular enough to outweigh this effect until the early 70s.

The recent improvement in car accident rates is pretty impressive.

If we force people to drive more by underfunding public transit then number of miles driven is going to go up due to public policy not personal choices.

Yet it is misleading to support the claim of a "war on traffic fatalities" with a graph that measures something else.

The first graph show we have made driving far less dangerous per mile.

The second graph shows the likelihood that any given person will die due to traffic.

I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I wouldn't bet on it being a large contributing factor.

You seem to be missing the point. The graph was posted to show evidence for a 'war on car fatalities' not a 'war on the dangers of driving'.

This is akin to announcing a 'war on cancer fatalities' but only caring about improving cancer treatments, not removing carcinogens on the environment.

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer?

I'm not missing your point, and cbr's reply makes it obvious that he isn't either. The prevalence of driving is a separate variable from how dangerous it is. Driving is far less dangerous and far more prevalent.

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

> Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer?

You certainly would have done an effective job of executing a 'war on car fatalities' which is what the harryh was claiming was demonstrated by the chart he posted.

While I agree that driving is safer than it used to be, the chart harryh posted doesn't actually show that. it just shows that driving is safer per mile.

Analogous to the point that cbr made: Without changing any of the risks of driving, I could make driving safer per mile by hiring a million drivers to drive 10MPH on a closed track year round.

While the above point is rather tongue-in-cheek, I do suspect that a significant part of the drop indicated in harryh's chart is due to changing driving patterns, particularly the increase in freeway driving.

I don't think eliminating all driving would be a good way to reduce traffic deaths (because it all of the other consequences that would have). However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'.

So your entire argument is centered around the semantics of "war on car fatalities"? In that case, there's not really anything for me to add, other than that I think you are taking a very uncharitable [0] view of the original post.

[0] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was 'uncharitable'?

You then 'charitably' missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by 'charitably' accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.

I'm pretty sure I understand your argument fine. Allow me to attempt a summary:

The original graphic shows that driving is less dangerous now than ever before. However, it does not take into account the prevalence of driving, which is also higher. Therefore, the original graphic is "misleading", because "traffic fatalities" is the combination of the danger of driving and its prevalence.

Given this current understanding of your point, my only argument now is that I believe that is an uncharitable view of the original post. I argue this because the view is entirely based on that singular interpretation of "war on traffic fatalities". A charitable approach is entirely based on attempting to view an argument with suspension of your own beliefs and interpretations in order to understand the other party's. Through such, common understanding can be worked towards.

I'm also sorry that you feel that I have been uncharitable to you. I honestly do believe your argument is entirely centered around the semantics of "war on traffic fatalities". The information you provided in your graphic is very good, and the point you are making is not wrong. I didn't have any issues at all until your response to cbr's original post, which is where I feel you began arguing semantics over content. I feel this way because cbr was also not wrong, and if anything was an equally good summary as what I stated above. And yet you still seemed to take an issue with it.

Your suggestion that I should have reinterpreted what harryh said, does not makes sense given the context of the post he was responding to:

> Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars?

My main point, and reason for making the distinction between metrics is explained here:

"However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'."

It's as if we were successfully making cancer less deadly, but at the same time more people were living long enough to get cancer that there were more cancer deaths. We'd still be making the kind of progress we care about in working against cancer fatalities, even though there are more of them. And a suggestion that reduce longevity so that fewer people would die of cancer would be missing the point.

Would a suggestion to stop contaminating the ground water and air with carcinogens also miss the point?

Obviously, it is a bad idea to maximize the wrong metric. In the case of cancer, just measuring survival rates is a bad metric, but so is measuring cancer deaths per capita. A better metric is to measure the per-capita deaths due to cancer within specific age groups.

This a very dishonest argument. Fatalities per km travelled is the standard metric of safety for a good reason.

Are you against hospitals too? Deaths in hospitals have skyrocketed since they were invented.

You are being a pedantic jerk. Read this:

http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Here are some more reasonable discussions of the issue:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/a-m...

> You are being a pedantic jerk

"DH0. Name-calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement"

> Are you against hospitals too? Deaths in hospitals have skyrocketed since they were invented.

"DH1. Ad Hominem."

Good job, you've hit the bottom of the disagreement heirarchy. In my mind my responses are all on the level of DH4 and DH5. If I have failed to do that, please provide specific examples because I strive to disagree well and wish to improve.

> Here are some more reasonable discussions of the issue:

Neither of those are discussions of the issue at hand, which is the number of deaths due to cars. Nowhere, except in replies that attack a strawman argument, was the safety of driving a point of debate. I have even stated elsewhere that I agree that driving has gotten safer (though I do dispute that fatalities per distance is an ideal metric for measuring that since it is also affected by usage patterns in addition to safety).

I have made solid, non-pedantic points about the effect of using different metrics and what types of interventions will show up in those metrics.

If you are talking about traffic safety (say vs air travel or between countries), fatalities per distance is one of several applicable metrics (fatalities per trip being another).

If you are talking about traffic deaths, as a overall source of risk (say vs terrorism) then fatalities per capita is a more correct metric.

This is not a pedantic point, this is a very important point that is key to the discussion that you seem to be avoiding.

The 60% drop since 1972 looks pretty good to me.

It looks less good when you compare our numbers vs. those of other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

We have higher traffic related death rates per capita than any other 'first world' country, including coutries with similar geograhpy such as Canada and Australia.

We have higher traffic related death rates per distance than any other 'first world' country (other than New Zealand, but still including Canada and Australia)

Interesting! I wonder why that is? I don't have a good hypothesis.

I don't know. If I were to guess, I would blame some combination of the large number of urban areas in the US that are pedestrian-unfriendly and the US's relatively lax punishment of DUIs. In Canada for example, a DUI is a felony. As a non canadian citizen, you will be bared from entering Canada for 5-10 years after receiving a DUI anywhere.

> The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks.

I was interested if this is true, and on the face of it it is. 2996 people died in 9/11, in 2001 (the entire year) 37,795 people died in car accidents (source: NHTSA), or an average of 3149/deaths per month.

Injuries are also higher from accidents than 9/11 for the month of Sept. 2001.

This is an argument that gets wheeled out a lot, and I'm afraid I don't see the logic in it at all. More Americans died in car crashes in December, 1941 than were killed at Pearl Harbor, too; are you going to assert that, therefore, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor was not a problem?

> it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying

I think it does, it's just that people are simply not aware of the numbers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com