“Can you name the truck that has four-wheel drive, smells like steak and seats 35?”

In 1998, The Simpsons joked in regards to the Canyonero, an SUV so big they were obviously joking. At the time, it was absurd to think anyone would drive something that was “12 yards long, two lanes wide, and 65 tons of American pride.”

In 2024, this joke shouldn’t be removed from reality.

And our reality is that more pedestrians and cyclists are being killed on US roads than at any time within the last 45 years – over 1,000 cyclists and seven,500 pedestrians in 2022 alone.

Vehicle size is an enormous a part of this problem. A recent article by urban economist Justin Tyndall found that a rise within the front end height of about 10 centimeters increases the likelihood of a fatal pedestrian accident by 22%For female pedestrians and folks over 65 years of age, the chance increases by 31%, and for kids by 81%.

It's hard to argue against physics, so it's somewhat logical responsible cars for the rising variety of road deaths. In fact, Tyndall estimates that a cyclist hit by a pickup truck fairly than a automotive is 291% more more likely to die.

Yet automotive manufacturers have long claimed that if everyone simply obeyed the principles of the road, nobody would die. The size of the vehicle is irrelevant to this claim.

My discipline, Traffic engineeringis analogous. We underestimate our role in perpetuating poor outcomes and the role that higher engineering can play in creating safer communities and streets.

Millions of road deaths

How bad are the negative consequences? The United States has been tracking the variety of car-related traffic deaths since 1899. As a rustic, we now have reached the brink 1 million deaths in total in 1953, 2 million in 1975, and three million in 1998. While data from recent years has not yet been released, I estimate that the whole variety of traffic fatalities within the United States will surpass 4 million sometime within the spring of 2024.

How a lot of them are pedestrians and cyclists? The analysts were unable to differentiate between the variety of pedestrians and cyclists killed. within the early yearsbut based on subsequent trends, I estimate that about 930,000 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed by cars within the United States.

How a lot of these deaths will we blame on big cars or bad roads? The answer is: only a few.

As I show in my recent book, “Killed by a traffic engineer: The illusion that our transport system is based on science must be destroyed”, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration describes the error of road users as “critical reason” behind 94% of accidents, injuries and deaths.

The crash data proves this.

Police investigate accidents and inevitably look to find out which road users – including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists – are primarily at fault. This is straightforward because in almost every accident, the road user's fault appears to be the apparent problem.

This approach helps insurance firms determine who has to pay. It also helps automotive manufacturers and traffic engineers justify all these deaths. Everyone – except the families and friends of those 4 million victims – goes to sleep at night with the great feeling that badly behaving road users just must be higher taught or higher enforced.

But the mistakes made by road users are only the tip of the iceberg of the issue.

Who creates dangerous roads?

When traffic engineers excessively wide road that appears more like a highwayand a speeding driver is involved in an accident in Canyonero, the motive force will probably be accused of speeding in the following accident data.

When traffic engineers poor zebra crossings with large gapsand someone crosses the road on a red light and is hit by the speeding Canyonero driver, the official accident report will blame one or each of those road users.

And when automotive manufacturers construct gigantic vehicles which might be easily double the speed limit and fill them with annoying touchscreensaccident data will still blame road users for nearly every bad thing that happens.

These are the sorts of systemic conditions that result in many so-called road user errors. But should you look beneath the surface, it becomes clear that many human errors represent the standard, rational behavior of typical, rational road users given the transportation systems and vehicle options we offer them with.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that our underlying crash data gives a free pass to everyone but road users themselves. Everyone wants a data-driven approach to road safety, but today's standard view of crash data absolves automakers, insurance firms, and policymakers who set vehicle safety standards of responsibility for the rise in size of those ever-larger cars and light-weight trucks.

It also absolves traffic engineers, planners and politicians of the blame for making a transportation system during which, for many Americans, The only good selection to get from A to B is the automotive.

Understanding road behaviour

Car manufacturers wish to sell cars and earn a living. And if larger SUVs seem safer to potential customers and at the identical time far more profitableIt is straightforward to see how the interaction between road users and automotive manufacturers – whose decisions are apparently rational – has developed into an arms race in terms of SUVs.

Even if these vehicles less safety for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers of oncoming vehiclesThis aspect is ignored in the present data-driven approach to road safety.

This cannot all be fixed without delay. But in the event that they proceed as before, automotive manufacturers and traffic engineers will proceed waste money At Campaigns responsible the victims or billboards high above the road, urging drivers to watch the road.

A greater start line can be to revamp the United States' supposedly data-driven approach to traffic safety by reinventing our understanding of the crash data on which it’s all based.

The secret is to ask why. Why did these road users behave as they did? Why did they not follow the principles that were set for them? Bad road user behaviour shouldn’t be excused, but should you dig slightly beneath the surface of the accident data, a really different story emerges.

Finding out which road user made the most important mistake could also be helpful for law enforcement and insurance firms, but it surely does little to assist traffic engineers, planners, politicians or automotive manufacturers determine what they’ll do higher. Worse, it prevents them from realising that they is likely to be doing something improper.

When you switch on the tap to get a glass of water or wash your face, you most likely don't take into consideration what's in your water – aside from water. Depending on where you reside and whether you’ve got a water softener, your water may contain dissolved minerals like calcium and magnesium. And these minerals can play a job in keeping certain contaminants, like lead, out of your water.

The more minerals are dissolved, the “harder” your waterBut is difficult water actually good or bad for you?

As Engineering Researcher Anyone who studies water quality knows the positive and negative effects that soft and hard water can have on all the pieces from the water supply to the human body.

What is difficult water?

Hard water is water that comprises dissolved minerals resembling calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese. Soft water comprises lower concentrations of those minerals.

Hardness is measured in calcium carbonate (CaCO₃), which serves as a reference point for comparing different minerals.

The amount of those minerals in a city’s water supply varies by region. It depends each on where the water comes from and the way it’s treated.

Communities that get their water from wells reasonably than surface waters resembling lakes, streams, rivers and reservoirs often begin treating hard water. As groundwater travels through the soil to a well, it picks up minerals. At the identical time, harder water could also be present in areas where forms of rock and sediment usually tend to dissolve in water.

Impact on water pipes and distribution

Water that is simply too hard or too soft can damage the pipes and result in health and aesthetic problems.

Because hard water has the next mineral concentration, minerals can construct up in pipes, causing clogged pipes in homes and public water systems. Hardness also results in more deposits in higher temperaturesdue to this fact, water heaters are liable to mineral deposits. In areas with hard water, water heaters have a shorter lifespan.

But hard water may help too. While minerals from hard water can clog pipes, a skinny layer of mineral deposits in water pipes can protect you from absorbing toxins which may enter from the pipe itself. Water without minerals can play a job in pipe corrosion because with out a thin, protective mineral layer, the water can begin to eat away on the pipes and release metals from the pipes into the water. When you drink this water, you’ll be able to absorb metals like lead, copper and iron.

While water that is simply too soft or too hard can have different effects on water pipes, pipe corrosion and blockages are usually not only attributable to chemical aspects, but additionally by hardness. So there isn’t any specific level of hardness that may be a cause for concern. Water treatment plants take the suitable measures to regulate to different levels of hardness.

Effects on skin and hair

Whether you utilize hard or soft water when washing may have noticeable effects in your skin and hair.

Hard water is more Let your skin dryThe minerals in hard water draw moisture from the skin and form deposits that clog pores.

Hard water may strip moisture from hair, causing it to turn into dry and rough. Dry hair is more liable to frizz, tangles and breakage. Mineral deposits may form on hair and scalp, clogs the hair follicles and results in dandruff and slowed hair growth.

Many households have their very own Water softening systems. A water softening system may help with dry hair and skin and buildup. However, lots of these systems capture calcium and magnesium and replace it with sodium, a mineral that doesn’t contribute to water hardness, to lower the general hardness. Increased sodium levels in water is usually a problem for people on a low-sodium weight-reduction plan.

General health advantages

Apart from aesthetic elements and concerns about water heating, drinking hard water actually good for you and doesn’t cause any serious unwanted side effects.

For example, the additional magnesium and calcium you eat in hard water can a delicate solution to digestive problems and constipation.

In addition, researchers have found positive correlations between the hardness of drinking water and Bone Health. Since Calcium is a vital mineral within the bonesPeople in areas with calcium-rich drinking water can have higher bone mineral density and be less susceptible to osteoporosis.

Researchers have also found that drinking hard water is related to Reducing mortality related to cardiovascular diseases. Magnesium helps regulate your heart muscles, while calcium keeps the sodium-potassium balance in check in your heart muscles, which it needs to operate.

Whether you’ve got hard or soft water, don't worry an excessive amount of. Water treatment plants take appropriate measures to make sure clean water for the communities they serve.

To learn more in regards to the water hardness in your area, you’ll be able to contact your local water treatment plant and find out about their specific water treatment process. Private well owners can contact their state government to find out about testing recommendations for his or her area.

A Chatbot becomes hostile. A trial version of a Roomba vacuum cleaner collects images of users in private situations. A black woman is incorrectly identified as a suspect based on facial recognition software, which is generally the case less accurate at identifying women and other people of color.

These incidents are usually not just mishaps, but examples of more fundamental problems. As artificial intelligence and machine learning tools turn into increasingly integrated into day by day life, ethical considerations increase Privacy issues and race and gender Coding biases for the Spreading misinformation.

The general public is dependent upon software developers and computer scientists to be sure that these technologies are developed in a secure and ethical manner. As a sociologist And PhD student We are fascinated about science, technology, engineering and arithmetic education and are currently researching how engineers in many various fields learn and understand their responsibilities to the general public.

But ours current researchin addition to that of other scholarspoints to a troubling reality: the following generation of engineers often seems unprepared to cope with the social impact of their work. In addition, some seem apathetic in regards to the moral dilemmas their careers can present – ​​just as advances in AI exacerbate such dilemmas.

Aware but unprepared

As a part of our ongoing researchWe interviewed greater than 60 master's students in electrical engineering and computer science at a top engineering program within the United States. We asked students about their experiences with ethical challenges in engineering, their knowledge of ethical dilemmas in the sector, and the way they’d reply to scenarios in the longer term.

First of all, the excellent news: Most students recognized the possible dangers of AI and expressed concerns about it personal privacy and the potential to cause harm – like Racial and gender prejudice will be written into algorithms intentionally or unintentionally.

For example, one student expressed dismay on the environmental impact of AI, saying that AI corporations are “consuming more and more greenhouse energy, [for] minimal benefits.” Others expressed concerns about where and the way AI will probably be used. also for military technology and to supply fake information and pictures.

However, when asked, “Are you able to respond in worrisome or unethical situations?” students often said no.

“Clearly, no. … It’s kind of scary,” one student responded. “Do you know who I should go to?”

Another was concerned in regards to the lack of coaching: “I [would be] Deal with it without experience. …Who knows how I’ll react.”

Other researchers have also found that many engineering students I don't feel satisfied with the ethics training they receive. General training tends to deal with skilled codes of conduct slightly than the complex socio-technical aspects underlying ethical decision-making. Research suggests that even when faced with specific scenarios or case studies, engineering students often Difficulty recognizing ethical dilemmas.

“A box to check off”

Accredited engineering programs are required to “include issues related to professional and ethical responsibility” in a roundabout way.

Still Ethics training is never emphasized in formal curricula. A study evaluating undergraduate STEM curricula within the United States found that coverage of ethical issues varied widely across topics Content, quantity and seriousness of the presentation. Additionally an evaluation of scientific literature It has been noted about engineering education that ethics is usually viewed as a non-essential education.

Many engineering faculties express dissatisfaction While they meet with students' understanding, they report that they face pressure from engineering colleagues and students themselves to prioritize technical skills of their limited classroom time.

In a 2018 study, researchers surveyed over 50 engineering faculty and documented hesitation—sometimes even complete resistance – work towards incorporating public interest concerns into their engineering lessons. More than 1 / 4 of the professors they surveyed saw ethics and social impacts as problematic outside of “real” engineering work.

About a 3rd of the scholars we interviewed in our interview ongoing research Project share this apparent apathy toward ethics training and described ethics courses as “just a box to check off.”

“As an engineer, if I pay money for the ethics course, I get angry,” said one.

These attitudes sometimes extend to how students view the role of engineers in society. For example, one respondent in our recent study said that an engineer's responsibility “is just to create the thing, design the thing, and…tell people how to use it.” [Misusage] Problems are usually not their concern.”

One of us, Erin Cech, followed a cohort of 326 engineering students from 4 US colleges. This study, published in 2014, suggested that they were actually engineers less apprehensive throughout their studies about their ethical responsibilities and understanding the general public consequences of technology. When we followed them after college graduation, we found that their concerns about ethics didn’t resurface as these recent graduates entered the workforce.

Entry into the world of labor

When engineers receive ethics training as a part of their studies, it seems to work.

Together with engineering professor Cynthia Finelliwe’ve carried out a survey of over 500 employed engineers. Engineers who’ve received formal ethics and public good training at school are more likely to pay attention to their responsibilities to the general public of their skilled role and to acknowledge the necessity for collective problem solving. Compared to engineers who received no training, they were 30% more prone to have noticed an ethical issue of their workplace and 52% more prone to have taken motion.

Over 1 / 4 of those practicing engineers reported encountering a troubling ethical situation at work. Still, a few third said they never received training in public welfare, either during their training or during their careers.

The Gap in ethics education Raises serious questions on how prepared the following generation of engineers will probably be to navigate the complex ethical landscape of their field, particularly on the subject of AI.

Of course, the responsibility for the common good doesn’t lie solely with engineers, designers and programmers. Companies and legislators share responsibility.

But the individuals who design, test and refine this technology are the general public's first line of defense. We consider educational programs owe it to them – and the remaining of us – to take this education seriously.