FWIW if I were dictator, I would focus on just the worst ~2.5% of drivers, and after that would focus efforts on shifting the entire bell curve over, which is to say basically try to shift culture to care about driving more
"Democrats tend to lean away from more law enforcement due to equity concerns, while Republicans have become distrustful of more government control, even if traffic enforcement."
I can kind of understand the latter perspective, if it's putting more restrictions on the non-16%, rather than severely punishing the 16% (which of course takes us back to the former group). But what I don't understand is why the bottom 2.5% are insurable. I'd be willing to bet that there is some government regulation that keeps insurance companies from denying such drivers or making insurance unaffordable for them.
I don’t fully understand the insurance industry, but my guess is that the rest of us pay for those incompetent 2.5 bottom feeders. This is also one reason I think traffic calming measures like bollards or concrete barriers are a stronger solution. Let those people continue to hit those and damage their own cars.
It is a well-researched and written piece but I wonder if you aren't treating all offenders like it is a question of skill, and therefore missing the intentional. What I mean is that the guy zipping in and out of traffic, causing others to slam on their brakes, may never be IN the accidents they cause. There's little enforcement, especially in high traffic times and areas, so their objectively high level of skill that risks so many is not likely to be rewarded with the necessary legal consequences. We can punish and retrain the 16% and you make a good argument for doing so but you are more likely to die from that guy on the tail of the car in the left lane, both traveling 90 in a 55 zone than someone pulling out of a parking spot at 10, while they fiddle with their GPS.
I guess I mean “skill” issue is only part of it, a big part with young inexperienced drivers. But what you are talking about is very important part of the conception, too. Road rage and people who just don’t care are a massive problem. They may have good “skill” to navigate through driving crazy like a Fast and Furious movie, but that doesn’t really matter to the end goal of safety. So point taken, agree.
I agree with the general argument here, but as someone who passed on my fourth attempt in the UK, I don't think dangerous driving is a skill issue.
It requires more skill to undertake someone driving twenty over the limit to race ahead of the lane merger than it takes to pootle along at the speed limit. It takes skill to consistently drive a few feet behind another driver, intimidating them into changing lanes, all without crashing on the first attempt. It takes skill to race through every light a few seconds after it turns red and swerve around the corner without hitting a curb.
Failing three times drummed into me a lot of edge cases I needed to be aware of. While there are a lot of drivers who are more technical skilled than me, I may be in the upper percentile of safe drivers because I'm relaxed, observant, and not in a hurry.
The divers test numbers are just a proxy to illustrate the point. But it’s certainly not a 100% correlation to the concept itself.
All the stuff you are describing is yes a skill. The 16% concept is not just about skill, but also will. The will to actually drive safely and not like a dangerous a-hole. That’s why they are dangerous drivers, not because of their capability (though the other end of the spectrum that is true e.g. seniors people losing their abilities). This is why I bring the most ire to the people who choose to drive like that. They can do better! They don’t care.
Public transport, good urban design; these are just the best options by a distance. Self driving cars are at best a limited solution. Realistically they’re an unhelpful distraction from even better solutions.
One of the things this shows is the extent to which framing the self-driving around average drivers is not useful. Being better than an average driver is not useful.
The biggest factor on your insurance is have you had crashes, this is because the same small pool of drivers have most of the crashes.
The question individual people will need to get to is whether they’d be moving to a lower risk pool by using self-driving cars. Self driving cars as a blanket recommendation aren’t useful until they’re better drivers than effectively everyone.
Anyone who fudges the average driver issue is wrong and should be immediately qualified out. It’s a complex debate, and if they haven’t grasped that much the rest of their analysis is doomed.
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying about the urban form. I just think self-driving cars helps get us there. We’ve known the ills of sprawl for decades now and still have to fight tooth and nail at every single community meeting. Self-driving is just one more shell in the arsenal.
FWIW if I were dictator, I would focus on just the worst ~2.5% of drivers, and after that would focus efforts on shifting the entire bell curve over, which is to say basically try to shift culture to care about driving more
Ya, the extreme end would save us from a lot of destruction. My hope is that self-driving cars will change expectations to force more off the road.
Dangerous drivers should not be allowed to drive. Not rocket science.
You’d think it could be that easy! But apparently our policymakers disagree.
"Democrats tend to lean away from more law enforcement due to equity concerns, while Republicans have become distrustful of more government control, even if traffic enforcement."
I can kind of understand the latter perspective, if it's putting more restrictions on the non-16%, rather than severely punishing the 16% (which of course takes us back to the former group). But what I don't understand is why the bottom 2.5% are insurable. I'd be willing to bet that there is some government regulation that keeps insurance companies from denying such drivers or making insurance unaffordable for them.
I don’t fully understand the insurance industry, but my guess is that the rest of us pay for those incompetent 2.5 bottom feeders. This is also one reason I think traffic calming measures like bollards or concrete barriers are a stronger solution. Let those people continue to hit those and damage their own cars.
i really like this piece and i'm proud to have played even a little part in it. lmk if you want to talk more!
Hey, thanks! Appreciate your hard work on the topic. Sure, always looking for some collaborations here on Substack.
I'm far more worried about the careless or reckless than the unskilled.
Yes, true. With phones, sometimes it turns into both.
It is a well-researched and written piece but I wonder if you aren't treating all offenders like it is a question of skill, and therefore missing the intentional. What I mean is that the guy zipping in and out of traffic, causing others to slam on their brakes, may never be IN the accidents they cause. There's little enforcement, especially in high traffic times and areas, so their objectively high level of skill that risks so many is not likely to be rewarded with the necessary legal consequences. We can punish and retrain the 16% and you make a good argument for doing so but you are more likely to die from that guy on the tail of the car in the left lane, both traveling 90 in a 55 zone than someone pulling out of a parking spot at 10, while they fiddle with their GPS.
I guess I mean “skill” issue is only part of it, a big part with young inexperienced drivers. But what you are talking about is very important part of the conception, too. Road rage and people who just don’t care are a massive problem. They may have good “skill” to navigate through driving crazy like a Fast and Furious movie, but that doesn’t really matter to the end goal of safety. So point taken, agree.
I agree with the general argument here, but as someone who passed on my fourth attempt in the UK, I don't think dangerous driving is a skill issue.
It requires more skill to undertake someone driving twenty over the limit to race ahead of the lane merger than it takes to pootle along at the speed limit. It takes skill to consistently drive a few feet behind another driver, intimidating them into changing lanes, all without crashing on the first attempt. It takes skill to race through every light a few seconds after it turns red and swerve around the corner without hitting a curb.
Failing three times drummed into me a lot of edge cases I needed to be aware of. While there are a lot of drivers who are more technical skilled than me, I may be in the upper percentile of safe drivers because I'm relaxed, observant, and not in a hurry.
The divers test numbers are just a proxy to illustrate the point. But it’s certainly not a 100% correlation to the concept itself.
All the stuff you are describing is yes a skill. The 16% concept is not just about skill, but also will. The will to actually drive safely and not like a dangerous a-hole. That’s why they are dangerous drivers, not because of their capability (though the other end of the spectrum that is true e.g. seniors people losing their abilities). This is why I bring the most ire to the people who choose to drive like that. They can do better! They don’t care.
Public transport, good urban design; these are just the best options by a distance. Self driving cars are at best a limited solution. Realistically they’re an unhelpful distraction from even better solutions.
One of the things this shows is the extent to which framing the self-driving around average drivers is not useful. Being better than an average driver is not useful.
The biggest factor on your insurance is have you had crashes, this is because the same small pool of drivers have most of the crashes.
The question individual people will need to get to is whether they’d be moving to a lower risk pool by using self-driving cars. Self driving cars as a blanket recommendation aren’t useful until they’re better drivers than effectively everyone.
Anyone who fudges the average driver issue is wrong and should be immediately qualified out. It’s a complex debate, and if they haven’t grasped that much the rest of their analysis is doomed.
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying about the urban form. I just think self-driving cars helps get us there. We’ve known the ills of sprawl for decades now and still have to fight tooth and nail at every single community meeting. Self-driving is just one more shell in the arsenal.