Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That.

Max Whittaker for The New York Times

I used to think calling cars “death machines” was kind of extreme. Then my niece was hit by one.

NYTimes - continues

 

The author of this piece suggests the same changes I always held. Cars are too big and need to be reduced in weight and bulk. Speeds on roads with pedestrians need to be reduced. I support that and just enforcing the posted speed will do wonders on curbing pedestrian deaths. Nowadays you can drive 10-15 mph over the posted speed and it's no biggie.

The only thing that really changes the above issues is the current price of gas. And really I am one that always am happy to see the price is going up!

 

I feel like even with gas prices going up, people still drive alot

I am guilty of it, no other way to effectively get to work since public transportation blows in so cal


I technically CAN, van pool, but, I'm not about that life

 

I don't agree.
Cars are cars. They are heavy, large and if they hit you? Can injure or kill.
But they aren't death machines.
Statistically with so many vehicles, and so many pedestrians out in the same world, of course there are going to be accidents and tragedies.

Back when we had horses and buggies, Horses got spooked, coaches broke down, and people got injured or killed.
That didn't make horses or horse and coaches "death machines", it was just the reality of the world around us.

Plus self driving tech, is still in it's relative infancy. What it becomes in everyday common usage in 5-10-15 even 20 years remains to be seen. But to suggest that advances in technology won't make things safer? I think is just wrong.
Aspects of self driving vehicles are already making their way into mainstream vehicle safety systems and I believe making vehicles safer for everyone, driver and pedestrian.
Vehicles that can sense a person directly ahead and brake. Blind spot monitoring and warning systems, and various lane keep technologies...all, separately and in concert make vehicles safer for everyone.

Do they totally negate the simple reality of big machine and flesh and blood in the same environment and all the risks that creates? No. But I don't think anyone should expect that, it's never been so.

 

6000 pedestrian deaths a year. Is that more or less than the number of occupant deaths? Gun deaths? Compare please.

Side note, the article references many examples of bike accidents. Biking is a obviously unsafe activity in an urban area. I get that changes should be made to make it safer, but at present, if you’re a biker you should expect to be hit ... eventually. To expect otherwise is to ignore reality and statistics. I don’t know a single urban biker who hasn’t been hit. Not one.

 

as long as no one uses the brakes.... we should technically never collide. I love the message here!

 

AAA: Technology Won’t Save Pedestrians from Deadly Cars

A study by AAA found that car companies' new pedestrian detection systems — which are supposed to automatically slow down cars before they smash into a huming being — don't work very well. Photo: AAA

Car companies have made drivers and passengers safer during crashes but are still failing miserably at protecting the most vulnerable victims — the pedestrians they hit, according to a new study.

StreetBlogUSA - continues

 

am I the only one that finders humor in the legs of the dummy fully detached from impact....

 

This is just a quick "shoot at the hip" look;
Gun deaths in the US last year - 40000
2016 car deaths - over 37000

Regarding bike "accidents". BTW many bike riders call them crashes or collisions. Accidents refer to a whoops, where as a crash is an assault. MANY times an "accident" could have been avoided easily, which really pisses the bike rider off! And basically the bike rider is protecting themselves from an eventual assault on US roads. In many Euro cities there's very little use of helmets as there's very few collisions. Take a look at a video in Amsterdam;

 

Do you really want to open Frank Herbert's Dune sized can of worms that is a discussion of Cyclists vs. Automobiles?
Because to me, that's a slightly but significantly different discussion compared to Automobiles vs. Pedestrians.
Cyclists are not Pedestrians...they are not on foot.

And any discussion in my past experience just ends up with polarized view points and both sides going away insulted and hurt. Cyclists always feel not enough is done to protect and support them in their riding environment, and motorists usually feel cyclists don't respect the rules of the road consistently enough.

IMO....and trust me, I've been on both sides of the equation, Cyclists as a whole...community, do tend to cherry pick when and where they want rules followed and applied.
If there is an accident, injury or even tragically a death, then the cycling community usually responds with the cry that they need more bike lanes, laws, and enforcement of laws to protect them.

But as a motorist?
I do think too often many (not all) but many cyclists don't follow the rules from their side.
Too often they sail through the 4 way stop at the bottom of the hill because they don't want to brake and lose momentum. Too often they cut across lanes or across streets casually, at their impulsive discretion and risk.
Too often they go out at night wearing dark clothing with bicycles lacking illumination.

And all that is a generalization, and probably unfair. But it is what I've seen.

But I think Automobiles vs. Pedestrians and Automobiles vs. Cyclists, maybe the same dance, but it's a different song.
The challenges in improving safety in both situations are different.

In both of course I would say, it's the driver of the 3000 lb metal machine that has the primary responsibility for being safe and acting safe.
But in both I would also say, it should be a shared responsibility in action from both pedestrians and cyclists.

 

The original article referred to both pedestrians and cyclists, somewhat verse automobiles. Many times I also see, and sometimes do cross a 4-way stop sign without fully stopping, but if you get out of your car and watch cars going through the intersection, you will notice practically NO ONE stops! And if you were able to judge and observe their speed crossing the intersection, you will notice they are doing about the same speed as the bicyclist happen to do. Furthermore if a bicyclist did happen to have a traffic error, more than likely who ends up on the losing end is the bicyclist.

Basically that is all I hear about bicyclist doing "bad things" on the road. Me, I personally hate "salmon riders". These are bicyclists going against traffic, including bike lanes. This really sets them up for being creamed from an unsuspecting driver.

I wonder, what do you think is worst? All the bad things you mentioned the cyclist doing, or a motorist on their cellphones? I know what I think is worst!

 

Here's another example of the difference between an "accident" and down right stupidity! This woman left the UK as a wanted criminal! Should be interesting how the UK and the US handle this. One thing going for the woman is the Brexit mishandling. Got a feeling the UK is going to be weaken by this and looking for support anywhere.

 

Well, it's NOT my observation that vehicles don't stop at 4 way stops. Hey, you almost HAVE to do so, otherwise one of the possibly other 3 vehicles will hit you. So at least in my observation vehicles do usually stop and respect a 4 way stop. Now do they always take their turns correctly?- That's a different story.

Like I said, I've been in discussion that were Cyclists vs. Motorist debates before, and they are almost useless. I tend to avoid them.
Motorists tend to define the cyclists as carefree applicators of high speed self propulsion, often breaking or ignoring any and all traffic laws possible in an effort to maintain gained momentum and not have to stop.
And Cyclist tend to define motorists as unaware operators of "death machines" routinely ignoring or oblivious to the presence of Cyclists in their midst.

And neither are right.

My position is as stated.
In this world...and environments SHARED by Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists, I think it has to be a SHARED responsibility for safety.
The safest condition is when everyone is aware, alert, and following the law.
That includes Pedestrians looking up from their cell phones and being aware of the environment they are passing through.
That includes Cyclists following the traffic laws applicable to them, even if it means stopping when they "think" they could just keep pedaling through.
That includes Motorists, looking out for both pedestrians and cyclists, and realizing the operation of their vehicle has the greatest chance of causing injury, damage and/or death if a mistake is made.

 

amen

when or if drive too close to the bike lane (which I believe is a law here in CA, to give bikers distance), they get bent out of shape. but as Fitchet already mentioned, they do as the please in regards to stop signs and what not

 

Agreed on all points. The thing is there's far more drivers on the road and far more drivers vs cyclists/pedestrians violating the rules of the road. Practically EVERYONE of the drivers are going over the posted speed and/or on their phones. Yes you got bicyclists getting through a 4-way stop as quickly as they can. Really if you think about it, the best way for the cyclist to get through our fictitious intersection is to time it, so they are crossing with a car next to them. That's the way I like to do it.

Really as a driver, I'm FAR more concerned with drivers on their phones than a cyclist at our fictitious intersection. One happens just about any part of the day and the other hardly ever happens.