Sorry - nerd in me but: He could have either gone straight or swerved right. He couldn't have swerved left?
I would guess that sharp enough movements would not have done something constructive, so if the vehicle was already coming right around a curve, or going fast enough, they could have let off a little to go "straight" or continued to go "right", but going left would have done nothing reasonable.
In the article, though, the driver phrases it as them being too close, and turning just meaning hitting one or the other, so perhaps they came out into the street and he was just going too fast.
I think some pretty unfortunate situation arose, maybe the children were also not careful enough, it doesn't really matter anymore. The driver had to make a decision in a split second. Probably he already instinctively did some action by the time he got to think about the situation, and the "decision" is a rationalization of a situation he was just as well victim of, where he also didn't have any control.
In USA, this assumption is usually wrong. Drivers who kill pedestrians are rarely punished, no matter what the circumstances. The only vehicular deaths that less often result in punishment are those of cyclists. Not coincidentally, we learn right at the beginning of TFA that the police report claimed the "boy was crossing the street on his bicycle" even though that was entirely a lie. This is a sort of code, written by a "normal" adult who empathizes with drivers and not with pedestrians, which other such "normal" adults can read and understand without having to think. Only extraordinary acts of driving cruelty, like killing a child in a suburban cul-de-sac or mowing down a parade, can break through the stupor of official carelessness and lead to consequences. When multiple automobiles are involved, LEOs and prosecutors can empathize with both parties, so justice isn't so uncommon.
The problem (or lack thereof, I suppose) is that there usually aren't any consequences to that lack of care. People drive terribly badly all the time and even still, death is quite uncommon. Think of the worst drivers you know. How many of them have killed people?
We all need to drive much more carefully. Would harsher penalties bring that about? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I certainly would not call it justice to destroy yet another person's life in retaliation for being stupid and unlucky at the same time. One death seems unjust enough for me. Adding more misery to the pile does not make me happier.
Speaking as a person who has mostly given up driving (I have driven less than once a year in the last decade), I would prefer simply to make licenses almost impossible to get. Most people are not able to take the task seriously enough, no matter what the risk, IMHO.
I'm having trouble imagining the environment that would give rise to such comments. Carelessness? Callousness? Either way, I don't want to be there. Ireland is nicer, and Denmark will be nicer yet.
Interestingly, I had thought that separated infrastructure would be the primary benefit, but even on roads with shared space, the drivers were _vastly_ more considerate than where I've lived in the US (all California), with the potential exception of Berkeley.
I'm also a cyclist, and rarely drive anywhere; but with two kids it's often easier. I definitely started driving more carefully as I've gotten older, had kids... I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly.
The big switch for me was getting rid of the urgency related to driving (I also became a safer cyclist for a similar reason, expect cars to do the wrong thing and they won't disappoint you).
The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. Anything that slows down the cars, is the thing at fault.
The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? Try and enjoy the time you have to yourself, rather than trying to end it so quickly.
That's called getting old.
>The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it?
If it wasn't a pretty good trade-off less people would do it. Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks?
Perhaps, though I prefer to think it's being more aware of the risks.
> Do you avoid swimming in the ocean because of sharks?
I don't think that's a good analogy. I can't control a sharks behavior, and I specifically try to ignore the idea of them when I'm surfing. But, if there's a shark sighting that day or week at my favorite beach, yes, I'll not get in the water.
In terms of driving, there's a lot more control you have over reducing the risk, than you do of a random shark getting you.
Also, shark attacks happen three orders of magnitude less frequently then automobile deaths. 30-40/year vs 30,000-40,000/year in the US; yes this is partly due to more people driving, but I'll take surfing to driving any day of the week.
As a counter-example, note the profound inability of most people to accurately gauge risk. Examples include: worrying about second-hand smoke outdoors, in parks, without caring about auto emissions; dedicating billions of dollars to fight terrorism and not more dangerous things like furniture tipping over; moving to the suburbs because they're perceived as safer for kids (less crime!), even when the longer commutes such a move requires put those same kids at more risk.
Also, it's worth noting that risk is displaced from people in cars to other road users when people choose to drive. If you think about what someone means when they say it's dangerous to cycle, walk, or ride a motorcycle, the usual reason is that you'll get hit by a car (though in the case of motorcycle it's a bit more complex, since single vehicle crashes are common)
I feel like I'm often in the minority on HN when I say this, but: roads (in car-heavy areas like the US) exist for cars.
I don't say that to mean "and therefore what happens to anyone else is their own fault."
I take that to mean: "and therefore proper safety requires building transportation infrastructure that properly separates modes of transportation that differ enormously in their speed, agility, and relative safety."
Building bike highways physically segregated from car highways: yes!
Painting white stripes on the side of the road that both cars and cyclists have to regularly violate: sadly, no.
But this means drivers giving up some of the speed/lanes to bicyclists etc.; there seem to be a lot of people who fight this.
I'm a driver. In the past, I've been a cyclist. At other times, a pedestrian. I mean to say, I'm not saying this from the perspective of a guy who drives and has never cycled and can't empathize with people who live a different way. If my current living situation allowed me to resume cycling, I'd be happy to! But-
As a driver, in NYC, bikes on the roads are incredibly dangerous to everyone involved (though, admittedly, mostly the bikers). You can't drive in the city for a day without seeing bikers regularly violating the rules of the road: wrong ways up one-way streets, jumping onto sidewalks, etc. Generally, just acting like cars when they want to, like bikes when they want to, like pedestrians when they want to.
That's not why I'm against sharing the road with them! That's why I'm in favor of heavily enforcing existing laws on bike usage, with a merciless iron fist until people who ride bikes act like they understand that they're meatbags riding around in a pinball machine of 1-ton iron rockets.
I'm not even against sharing a road with them because enough of them exemplify the above that all of them, as a result, are unpredictable, and unpredictability is the most dangerous thing on the road. I kind of imagine the enforcing, iron fist, etc. will take care of that eventually, too, if we actually do it.
I'm against it because they're vulnerable little meatbags. A slight hiccough on the road between two iron rockets means someone's paying out an insurance premium and getting some fender repairs. The same accident with a bicyclist ends in a trip to the hospital, if not a funeral home. One person's dead, and the other is carrying the moral (and possibly legal) weight of a murder, because someone thought it was a good idea to play tag in a busy factory. My opinion may not hold across all locales: certainly I've been in cities that had far less busy roads, with far fewer and smaller cars (Europe), where this same statement does not ring true. But in NY it does!
I'm sorry. If the cost of removing that ridiculous situation of danger is a short-term lack of bicycle commuting while we build responsible infrastructure, I'm OK with that. But for what it's worth, I'm also OK with kicking in my tax dollars to build that infrastructure.
I'm not anti-bike, just anti-this ridiculously unsafe road interaction.
I made the specifics of my concerns very clear. You ignored the entire post for the sake of superficial contradiction. You look very smart on the internet; kudos.
I think that's exactly the point OP is making. We have this culture of driving two-ton machines around with little care. It's so culturally institutionalized that when things inevitably go wrong, we sweep it under the rug even though we'd harshly punish a similar level of negligence in a different context.
It would be interesting for a sociologist to do a study of police reports on deaths of cyclists in traffic. Whenever the report didn't include a picture of a mangled bicycle, the sociologist could interview witnesses to see if they would mention a bicycle without being prompted to do so. We might find that mischaracterizing pedestrians as cyclists is a very common thing.
It goes on with the drivers themselves, but you have covered that well. I'd just add that if you are operating a 2 ton machine and kill someone doing it out of recklessness or a lack of due care (which is the case in the vast majority of deaths, even collisions), of course there needs to be a penalty or it goes on. Killing someone with a gun because you left a bullet in and knocked the trigger is a lot more dramatic but not very much different. Not even a criminal penalty necessarily, but maybe just a 5 year driving ban. Right now in most countries it is basically impossible to lose your license, ever. If you do, you just drive on because the penalty for driving without is laughable.
The final component are the car manufacturers, or more generally vehicle standards. Why exactly do cars need >70hp motors? I've driven a transporter fully loaded approaching 3 tons up the Tourmalet with that kind of engine. It did just fine. Nobody chauffeuring their breed the mile to school in the inner city needs a car an iota more powerful. And the engine is just the first thing in a long long list of issues. I don't think there is any other machine out there with a similar level of risk and damage caused that is so severely lacking in the most basic safety devices or generally designed and engineered with blatant disregard for these factors.
To see this, open this thread in an incognito window. Your comments will probably disappear. I'm replying to the comment above yours because I can't reply to your comment.
I second that.
>Speaking as a person who has mostly given up driving (I have driven less than once a year in the last decade), I would prefer simply to make licenses almost impossible to get. Most people are not able to take the task seriously enough, no matter what the risk, IMHO.
Which just screws over anybody in a rural area
I actually live in a rural area. But I can see your point because I can't convince my wife to give up her car. We live about 2 km outside of a small town, so it's still close enough to walk to the grocery store, bar, restaurant, etc. We're also about 2 km from the bus terminal. It costs about $25 round trip (each) to get to the nearest city and we'll go every month or two. Expensive, but still quite a bit cheaper than a car.
There are more rural locations than this so I can see the need (especially if you are a farmer, or something similar). Dangerous driving is more or less accepted in society, but if you depended on your license and had it routinely removed (as opposed to fines) when you acted poorly, I think it would go a long way to improving the situation.
But we also need to improve support for people who choose not to drive. I grew up in Canada and it is much harder to live the lifestyle I live now. Not impossible, but you have to give up a lot more.
If roads get safer (straighter, wider, slower?, better road markings) they pay less attention, meaning that risk ultimately remains the same.
There is apparently some evidence for this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
He probably had at least an instinctual understanding of how maneuverable his automobile was.
The problem really isn't what happened in the moment where the decision had to be made, but what led to that situation.
Could the driver have driven more slowly, did the kids cross without looking, was he looking at his radio right before this happened? The answers to those questions seem much more important than the 100ms he had to decide when the kids were right in front of him.