Hacker News Reader

Comment by casey2 | Hacker News Reader

To put this in perspective 22.54 per 100,000 would die due to motor vehicles in the same year that Slotin died. The average car (especially on US roads) is much more deadly and can become deadly in a blink, much faster than plutonium.

How many people died of not just plutonium, but all criticality events? Less than 22, total (most of those Soviet). There is little reason to believe that even if these were household materials that they would be more dangerous than cars in the USA.

View on HN

> To put this in perspective 22.54 per 100,000 would die due to motor vehicles in the same year that Slotin died.

This is an incorrect perspective. If the same number of people as those driving cars had been playing with enriched uranium or plutonium, the casualties would have been much worse.

That's because there are more people who drive cars than people who handle plutonium. A more sensible statistics would be the number of death per hour of usage (which might still be in favor of handling plutonium).

You're comparing a small number of objects handled by expert technicians in highly controlled environments against a large number of objects driven by average people in much more chaotic environments.

By the same logic, many more kids have died of chocking on toys than of radiation poisoning by plutonium, so we really should give kids plutonium to play instead of toys.

Did you not realise how ridiculous your comparison was?

Whilst I agree with your conclusion that cars are involved in more loss of life, I don't think it's fair to only look at criticality events and ignore other radiation based deaths. Also, it's the drivers, not the cars that cause the danger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_acc...

> it's the drivers, not the cars that cause the danger

"People kill people, not guns".

You can kill me by throwing a person at me at 30mph; but it's easier to kill me by throwing a ton of iron at me at 30mph.

If you're right, then there are no driving accidents, and all injuries result from negligence or incompetence. In fact, the driving environment is so complex and chaotic that accidents are inevitable, even for the competent and attentive.

It's recommended to not call them "accidents" anymore as that implies a completely unpreventable incident which carries no blame. Road Traffic Incidents or Road Traffic Collisions are the preferred neutral terms.

The vast majority of RTCs are indeed due to the inattention of a driver or not looking sufficiently (e.g. not taking care to move your head so that the A-pillar does not obstruct your view of pedestrians/cyclists etc).

I would consider accidental RTCs to be mainly due to either mechanical failures (which could be argued is due to lack of maintenance) or previously unknown medical issues.

It's interesting the difference in use of language between RTCs and shooting incidents. News reports will often make no mention of the driver and will make statements such as "car hits a building", but to use the same style with shootings would be risible e.g. "multiple bullets hit man resisting arrest". Of course, the car industry has been exerting control over media reporting of RTCs for about a century now, so it's very ingrained.

> It's recommended to not call them "accidents" anymore

Perhaps I've misread you; you seem to be asserting what I said you were - that there are no accidents.

Also, why the passive voice? Who makes this recommendation?

[Edit]

> The vast majority of RTCs are indeed due to the inattention of a driver

Arguably, all RTCs are the result of inadequate attention from someone or other. But attentive, well-trained drivers have collisions too. Perhaps their attention lapsed? They're human - human attention wanders, they're not focused 24/7 on the task, because they're not machines.

Cars are all very well on roads that carry light traffic. But not many roads are like that nowadays: most driving environments are way too complicated for even an expert to negotiate completely safely.

There are too many cars.

Well, it depends on exactly how you define accident. In general, it would mean an unintended consequence, but arguably, driving whilst drunk and hitting something may be unintended, but not surprising - I wouldn't classify that as an accident as it was preventable and a known consequence of driving under the influence. If a careful driver suddenly has a heart attack and loses control, then I would classify that as an accident.

Reporting recommendations:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/05/17/its-cras...

https://road.cc/content/news/media-guidelines-launched-repor...

https://www.rc-rg.com/guidelines

> Arguably, all RTCs are the result of inadequate attention from someone or other. But attentive, well-trained drivers have collisions too. Perhaps their attention lapsed? They're human - human attention wanders, they're not focused 24/7 on the task, because they're not machines.

I'd say most of them. It's possible to be driving along with a clear road ahead and have a person or object suddenly appear in front of you. I recall a case where a child was riding a bike on the pavement (sidewalk in the U.S.?) and for some reason lost control and fell into the road. The driver had been adhering to the speed limits and was paying attention but unfortunately was unable to stop in time and the child ended up dying.

There's lots of edge cases with driving which is why there's a bunch of recommendations regarding speed and leaving space so that when something unexpected happens, there's more chance for a careful driver to be able to stop or avoid the incident.

And yes, I totally agree about too many cars.

> on the pavement (sidewalk in the U.S.?)

Pedantically (i.e. according to the Highway Code) the part reserved for pedestrians is the 'footway'; the part for carriages ('things with wheels', roughly) is the carriageway.

I suppose that between them they comprise the pavement.

I've taken to referring to them as carriageway and footway; it's unambiguous, and it even makes sense if you're shouting across the Great Pond.

You're right, but it just sounds funny and old fashioned to my British ears

Hah! I guess that, despite being a British driver, you must be unfamiliar with the Highway Code.

Yes, it sounds stilted to me too.

Well, I'm not a British driver, but am a British cyclist. I'm very familiar with some parts of the Highway Code (not so much the motorway sections), but those terms just aren't commonly used, whereas pavement and road generally are.

> to use the same style with shootings would be risible e.g. "multiple bullets hit man resisting arrest".

Except that media use a different, equally bad construction. The so-called "cop-speak". <https://fair.org/home/copspeak-7-ways-journalists-use-police...>

> Suspect/subject

Those aren't the same. A suspect is someone who has been charged, or who is being questioned under caution, because he might be charged. The example given was of a man arrested for possessing a knife - therefore a suspect - who was shot by police. Since a policeman shooting a civilian isn't usually charged or cautioned on the spot, it's not surprising that there is no suspect in the shooting case.

You left out the part that said, "an arrest prosecutors later deemed “illegal”". He wasn't a suspect, he was profiled and murdered by the cops.

Numerous "self driving" cars have been in crashes. I believe under defined law it could be considered industrial accident when that occurs but is still open for litigation and definition.

A better comparison might be fatalities among NASCAR drivers during races - i.e. professionals operating in a dangerous environment using tools engineered for safety.

Google claims a total of 29 drivers have died during races, so the number of deaths in comparable, but I don't know how the total person-hours compare between NASCAR drivers and nuclear materials handling worldwide.

The difference is that the Newtonian physics of driving a car are mostly intuitive and that cars serve an obvious purpose making the risk both understandable and acceptable.

Handling highly radioactive materials serves no obvious immediate purpose and the dangers are very abstract until you get it wrong.

I think the driving risks are common but not exactly obvious. I've never hydroplaned when running.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com