SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Full moons and particularly "supermoons" have been linked to increased deaths of motorcyclists:
Distracted drivers, like those who text behind the wheel, are a danger to themselves and to others. Even a brief, momentary glance away from the road can result in life-threatening consequences.
Research published Dec. 11 in The BMJ [open, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j5367] [DX] points toward another potential distraction for motorists: the full moon, gracing the sky with its brightness around 12 times a year, and the dazzling supermoon, which comes into focus around once a year.
The researchers found that on nights illuminated by a full moon, fatal motorcycle accidents increased by 5 percent compared to nights without a full moon. On evenings when the supermoon decorated the sky, this increased to 32 percent. The study included data from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.
While this observational data cannot prove any firm conclusions, the researchers warn drivers of the risks of seemingly minor distractions, urging constant attention while driving at all times.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:57AM (6 children)
It seems likely that during a bright night, more people are out on their motorcycle.
Do nice temperature days also cause motorcycle accidents?
A quick look at the paper reveals no data considered about the number of people out riding in various conditions, just the number of accidents. Yet the paper is packed with fluff about how dangerous motorcycles are and how distractions are a serious threat...
A lot of fluff, for something so obvious overlooked. Maybe I am missing something?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:05AM (2 children)
Yes, like the drivers who hit things they didn't see..if only they had missed.
Corellation is not causation.
Full moons on clear nights are likely far more distracting, or maybe partially cloudy nights, where you get glimpses of the moon..
Sunny weekdays are dangerous as mkre old people are prepared to drive when they know it won't rain - which is also when motorcycles are more likely to be out.
Ho many of the vehicles that caused the accidents were driven by: old people, people on the phone, texting, etc etc.
No, it was the mooon!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:29AM (1 child)
Well the summary does not state it, explicitly, but they did not look at weather data at all. Astronomical moon phase is the only factor under consideration. I do not see too plausible an explanation why you'd expect a higher rate of "old people, people on the phone, texting" on the roads in full moon nights.
That said, I do see a plausible explanation, why you'd expect to see more motorcyclists out on full moon nights, and I concur, that puts a pretty large question mark behind those results. As a minimal check, it should not have been too hard to obtain total registered road accident numbers (all vehicles, all outcomes), and compare with those. If that does not show a similarly trend, then the results as published are very likely just ... a distraction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:29AM
I'd speculate that the opposite is true. Full moons reduce the chance of accidents, but more people drive motorcycles during this time due to more favorable driving conditions.
It's kind of like how people stop driving when road conditions get poor. For example, snow in the south. There might be less accidents in some areas, but not because the roads are safer, but rather because much less people are driving due to the unsafety.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
Also, during the winter months, clear nights are pretty strongly correlated with sub-zero temperatures, and hence icy roads.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:18AM
Note that they looked at the astronomical data, only, and did not factor in weather at all. (Not obvious from the summary)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:23PM
Exactly. They didn't even check for the cause of accident before they started blaming cell phones.
In fact I wonder if they even checked the weather to see if the moon was visible. I'm betting not.
Junk Science. Yet you can bet it will be quoted for years to come.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:08AM (15 children)
And this is exactly why we desperately need autonomous vehicles on the road. 1,000,000+ dead a year in almost always preventable collisions. Always caused by someone not paying attention or being "in a hurry" or momentary lapse in judgment... 1 MILLION dead every year. Yet we seem to worry so much over some "terrorists" -- we are doing much worse with a cell phone or "I need to pass this guy going 38 in 40 zone NOW" than any terrorists have ever done.
Dead is dead, no matter how.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Virindi on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:18AM (6 children)
The safety you crave comes by loss of control by the individual. That loss will have other, undesired effects.
But currently, the vast majority of people have a choice as to whether they want to take the risk of being on the road or not. And even if you are on the road, you could most of the time choose slower speed local roads which are less likely to have fatalities. You can live in an urban area and never ride in a car at all.
People who ride in cars are accepting the risk.
Of course, I'd like it if people were more responsible drivers, too.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:48PM (5 children)
Well...he's comparing efforts to secure against terrorists vs efforts to secure against car accidents. Both require some loss of individual control in order to prevent them. Society already agrees that this loss of control is necessary (ex: TSA), they just only seem to find it necessary where it provides the greatest cost to save the fewest lives...
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:08PM (4 children)
Probably because, for most, flying on an airplane is an infrequent occurrence, while driving or riding in a car happens daily. Also, before the TSA existed there was still screening to get on a commercial aircraft.
So any loss of autonomy with air travel by the TSA is of low effect in practice on people's lives.
On the other hand, letting one or a handful of central authorities have command over all automobiles would have a large practical effect. As per the previous story about MTG, these authorities would be put under increasing pressure to use that power to solve people's pet problems. Sure, criminal vehicles would be insta-stopped, so car chases would be eliminated. But then there will be route algorithm tweaking to reduce congestion, and they will start trying to "nudge" people about where and when they go places. It won't be long after that before it is in full social engineering mode. While you may still nominally retain the ability to go anywhere at anytime, the overlords will do everything they can to force you to conform to their idea of where you should go and when. Sure they try to do that already (like with toll roads and HOV restrictions) but the scope of tinkering will be greatly expanded.
And that is a significant loss of individual autonomy compared to current society.
Maybe if autonomous vehicles were forbidden to be connected to the internet, and open source. But we all know that's not going to happen. The company that sells you the car (and the government) is going to be the one in ultimate control of where it goes and when. And you'll pay extra for the privilege of being under their control.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:37PM (2 children)
Of course you missed the most obvious objection: There is precious little real world evidence that having all vehicles (or even a substantial part of them) being autonomous will actually save lives. Its all guess work.
This is simply assumed by looking at accident records for the microscopic number of autonomous vehicle hours. Yet if you look at the AVERAGE driver on the road today, you will find an equally microscopic number that have been involved in fatal accidents.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:15PM (1 child)
When arguing against the idea that everyone will be safer in a padded cell, the strongest argument is not that padded cells are not as safe as you think. One can always work on making a safer padded cell.
Making that argument allows the discussion to be shifted to something which, in my opinion, is not the most important factor.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 14 2017, @01:56AM
Say we have really smart AI driving and it behaves like I do. If I see a dog in a difficult turn, I run the dog over so not to increase risk of a crash. However, if I see a child, I do whatever it takes to save her and would crash my car, if necessary, let alone take additional risk.
The question is, if people would buy cars that value car owner life less than others in certain situations; even if people themselves do the same. I will definitely not. I can and do risk my life for others, but only on my own choice - not some bloody corporate engineer.
I think autonomous cars will be legislated down our throats.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:55PM
Having autonomous cars is not the same as having cars that are controlled by an external authority. Neither does an autonomous car have to be controlled or controllable by a central authority (indeed, I would claim that a car that is controlled by a central authority is not really autonomous), nor is a car that is controlled by a central authority necessarily autonomous (indeed, hackers can take over non-autonomous cars today [wired.com] so it is not much of a stretch that there's a backdoor for central authorities, too).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:44AM (3 children)
How about just automate the human completely, why even have humans?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:59AM (1 child)
Our oligarchical overlords have their engineering department on it, and their beancounters and lawyers collaborating on the cost benefit analysis for when the majority of humanity just aren't worth the money any more.
Don't worry, based on current estimates there are at least 5-10 years before the majority of humans become obsolete. Just hope you aren't in that group after the analysis starting running humans in the red...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:59AM
That ship sailed some time ago.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:03AM
According to Karl Marx, workers would own businesses and enjoy all the benefits. It is obvious now he meant corporate executives.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:51PM (2 children)
This is why we desperately need decent driver education and severely punish people for engaged in reckless driving. Autonomous vehicles are hardly necessary to cut the fatalities down to a huge degree.
In crashes, the reasons pretty much always break down to some combination of inattention, drugs and car maintenance. Cases where that isn't the case are more or less negligible. But, we don't send people to jail over DUIs typically until they've already been given several chances, but that DUI is pretty much always just the one time they were caught these people usually are driving dozens of times under the influence before they're caught.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:07PM (1 child)
Driverless Cars Could Reduce Traffic Fatalities by Up to 90%, Says Report [sciencealert.com]
Teaching a driverless car is a copy-and-paste operation. Teaching humans means teaching some normal folks along with complete idiots. And good drivers still get distracted and can't react in tens of milliseconds like a computer can, and people still do drive drunk despite knowing it's wrong.
DUI consequences vary [wallethub.com]. But even if there was a 10 year minimum sentence for being caught the first time, people would still do it, endangering everybody on the road.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:50PM
Your cited study is pretty much guesswork science at best. Did you actually read it, or trace it back to the source?
Clue: There is no study. It was all speculation dating from 2015, when there were 48 such cars on the road world wide.
Lab rat cars in controlled conditions with an unknown (and tightly guarded secret) number of human interventions.
In the mean time, this super-human technology can to this day be brought to a stand still [nerdist.com] by one guy and a paint roller and a quart of cheap white paint.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:31PM
> 1,000,000+ dead a year in almost always preventable collisions.
Thank $Deities for that!
At the micro- level, it sucks for people involved.
At the Macro- level, humans are becoming too good at surviving, and avoiding the giant plagues and constant fights that used to keep the population from growing too fast.
(Score: 5, Funny) by lx on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:49AM (6 children)
Werewolves are terrible drivers.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:07AM (2 children)
So werewolf hunters are *very effective* at their jobs, using motor vehicles.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:57AM (1 child)
Not if you also factor in the dropbears casualties; drop bears are far more common in Oz than werewolves and you know that.
Then, don't forget the raise-beers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:17AM
Had a drop bear attack a tent once. Never had one attack me on a motorbike. Not sure they travel far from camping areas.
Haven't seen a correlation of dropbear attacks and full moons, either, but I suspect they are under-reported (owning to the lack of survivors)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 5, Funny) by theluggage on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:58AM
Not as bad as vampire motorcyclists that don't show up in your mirrors!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)
I thought the logical explanation was that werewolves lose the immense self-control required not to kill the Harley and tuned-exhaust-sportbike riders.
Or maybe they can find those preys from much farther compared to the effort of hunting cagers and lover-lane couples.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:04PM
the immense self-control required not to kill the Harley and tuned-exhaust-sportbike riders.
Maybe there's a geographical area factor at play here, but I've lived in several places around the US, and I've never noticed sportbike riders to have ridiculously loud exhausts. I've seen a few that were probably louder than stock at idle, and did get pretty loud at full-throttle, but nothing even close to the Harley riders that actually don't have mufflers installed, which seems to be the norm for Harleys.
Harley riders do piss me off a lot because of the noise, but I really can't say I've ever been highly annoyed by any sportbike. A few of them do drive very recklessly, but they stay out of the way, and they're never nearly as loud as the Harley owners.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:12AM (4 children)
We must ban the moon. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.
Now pass me the Doritos while I start to draft this legislation...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:32AM
Sure. What did you think, why we'll be going there, again?!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:52AM (1 child)
May I suggest the correct title "War on The Full moon"!
Godspeed to the WTF Act!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:01PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:17PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:36PM
How do those figures compare with the corresponding figures for automobiles? You can see the moon from a car too.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
and the dazzling supermoon, which comes into focus around once a year.
What the hell is this bullshit? There's nothing "dazzling" about the "supermoon", and there's nothing "super" about it. Can anyone actually tell the difference between a "supermoon" and a regular full moon if they're not otherwise aware of it? No. Niel DeGrasse Tyson was right in his latest Twitter rant: this "supermoon" stuff is bullshit. Humans can't tell the difference when the moon is a mere 10% brighter. We'd barely be able to tell the difference if the "supermoon" was right next to a regular full moon somehow, but there's certainly no way they can tell the difference on different nights, just by memory. The human eye isn't that accurate.
And then this:
On evenings when the supermoon decorated the sky, this increased to 32 percent.
This just proves the problem is that motorcyclists go out more on these nights because of news reports about a so-called "supermoon", and with more of them on the road at night, more of them are involved in crashes.
This study's conclusions are total bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:00PM
How in the hell is this "offtopic"? The study itself is wrong, as I proved; this couldn't be more on-topic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:24PM (3 children)
How many of the crashes involved sportbikes? I've seen plenty of dumb sportbike drivers. You hear them as they are next to you and zooming off at some insane speed. At least you can hear the Harley, before it's right next to you. Admittedly perhaps a bit on the loud side usually, but it's definitely much easier to notice them. I also haven't seen a Harley rider doing anywhere near the same stupid stuff I've seen many sportbike riders doing.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:00PM
Yeah, organ donors on their crotch rockets.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CoolHand on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:26PM (1 child)
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:13PM
Tomorrow, I want you to take that R2 unit to Anchorhead and have its memory erased. That'll be the end of it.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)
....darker nights lead to longer-lived motorcyclists? Could this be a type of vampirism? Correlation and not causation says, sure, whatever sells the papers!
Seriously, you'd think a bit of moonlight would improve visibility both for and, more importantly, of the biker.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:00PM
Might be related to the well known effects of full moons on behavior - people tend to do more stupid and crazy shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:39PM
You've got it all backwards, it's not the (full) moon causing the accidents.
It's the accidents' spilt blood causing the moon to enlarge! First to full, then to supermoon.
Want more moon? Kill motorcyclists!