…
Over a 15-year period, 6,253 cars crashed into 7-Eleven storefronts in the U.S. – an average of 1.14 per day.
7-Eleven apparently fought in court to withhold that data from the public.
“They have not been producing that information for many, many years,” Rogers said, “and that’s what’s important about this case - getting this information out about how frequently this happens.”
Rob Reiter is co-founder of the Storefront Safety Council. He was retained as an expert by Carl’s attorneys in this case.
“If you install bollards, you pretty much solve that problem,” he said of the danger.
Reiter advocates for safety bollards or protective barriers being placed in front of storefronts – especially those with parking lots that face the front door.
…
Seems like one of those facts that uses the law of large numbers to fake a point.
Like how if you have 50 people in a room, there’s a 97% chance that two people share a birthday, therefore certain birthdays are more likely.
6,253 sounds like a lot, but there are a lot of storefronts, too. How many of them happened at the same store? How many were a result of drunk driving vs driver error vs some other confounding factor? Ar 7-11 stores more likely than other storefronts to be the scene of a crash?
Bollards are cheap, so by all means put them in the requirements. Or point the parking away from the storefront.
Bollards are cheap, so by all means put them in the requirements.
Ya. If people are getting hurt way too often and a reasonable investment would prevent a commensurate number of injuries, maybe it’s OK to use raw numbers to shock the company/legislators and action.
I would def give you that “X preventable injuries could be avoided for [$Y]/[$Z per injury]”, and some context on how much could be done if that money were spent another ways, would be good.
If people are driving with appropriate skill and care, the number driving into large, well-lit buildings should be approximately zero per year. It sounds like you’re willing to excuse a lot of bad driving
If people are driving with appropriate skill and care,
Then there would be a lot of road laws and protection devices that become obsolete.
No true Scotsman fallacy. Have you met other drivers?
Half of them are arguing with their spouses, texting, masturbating, arguing, road raging, or sleeping at any one moment.
The other half are the REALLY bad drivers who are doing all 6 at the same time.
Mate, you’re agreeing with him. He’s saying lots of drivers are terrible.
Yeah but that’s kind of like saying if I had a billion dollars paying rent wouldn’t be difficult for me.
Especially in the US where we have nearly 10x the traffic fatality rate of countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Korea, etc.
I’d say there are likely some sneaky factors in play as well, though - drunk drivers are probably most likely to be driving to a home or to a 7/11 to get more booze/snacks.
We also used to get high outside the 711 in my neighborhood. But the storefront wasn’t facing the parking lot, and I wasn’t driving. We hung out there because it was within walking distance and it was open late.
Aren’t 7/11 usually located on gas station? That also a factor I suppose.
The odds aren’t that crazy. There’s about 12k 711 stores. More than 1 gets hit per day.
I’d play that lottery.
Yes, usa is overrun with deadly machines. So it’s no surprise when they crash into buildings, murder children, etc. It’s just big numbers, y’all! It’s like two people having the same birthday! Isn’t that neato? It’s just math! Nothing to see here. \s \s \s
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. What does 7-11 putting in bollards have to do with murdering children?
won’t anyone stop that one car, i mean how hard could it be, at this point someone had to have gotten the license plate
If we know he strikes every day there’s a limited distance he can travel between crashes - that should help narrow down our search
Maybe drivers simply didn’t see the building. These stores need to be painted with high-viz paint! You can’t blame drivers for these stores being invisible! /s
These buildings are lay-in-wait ambush predators. They stalk their prey, then bam, car accident. They never see it coming.
7-Eleven released a statement that read in part: “We are heartbroken by this tragedy…. It is important to note that this unfortunate accident was caused by a reckless driver who pled guilty, and this store followed all local building codes and ordinances.”
“Of course it’s not 7-11’s fault, anyone but us”
Sounds like an argument in favor of mandating bollards to me.
This isn’t a 7/11 specific problem. In my area coffee shops tend to be the most common hit, and many of them seem to be a case of someone putting their car into the wrong gear and driving forward when they meant to reverse.
If they are going to demand that 7/11 needs bollards, then just about any business with a parking lot should need them too.
So if a car hit your house and the postman gets hurt you’d hold yourself personally responsible and pay all his costs and stuff?
Strawman, you’ve changed too much in your scenario to be taken seriously. This didn’t happen on residential property or to a federal on-the-job worker which would both have drastically different laws applied than a commercial property and their own employees and customers. You don’t even touch on 1.14 crashes per day over 15 years. Go fabricate fights somewhere else.
So if you owned a 7-11 store and some dude ran his car into it, it’s your fault?
Why do I have to argue any case except the article’s? Reductionism will make us all look like fools and we’ll deserve it.
Ok so if some bozo who can’t drive double-amputees a dude in front of a store, it’s the store’s fault. They should install safety measures. Noted.
You’re the second person to conveniently forget that this has happened statistically daily for 15 years.
At different locations. But even then, it’s the fucking driver’s fault. Every time. Unless cars are too hard for the general public and they should only be allowed for professionals, or banned entirely
Roughly 12,600 7/11’s in the US, so a 0.01% chance of any individual 7/11 getting a car on a given day, or a 1 in a thousand chance.
According to this https://slate.com/business/2022/06/car-crash-buildings-how-many.html about a 100 cars crash into buildings each day, so 7/11 makes up 1% of building crashes, but that tracks since a lot of people go to there for quick needs with distracted minds.
I don’t have much of a point, but the statistics don’t paint a some scary point that I think the lawyers are trying to make.
You are telling me that statistically speaking, a store is likely to be crashing into within 3 years of its most recent crash
Also a car bumping a wall or even breaking a window doesn’t seem like a real problem, feels like this is one of those ‘man chokes eating his shoe, shocking statistics show almost all Americans wear dangerous choking hazard shoes!’
Also bollards don’t change the situation significantly for the occupants of the car, the only statistic that’s actually interesting is how often do people outsidw the car get hurt when it happens - since they’re only talking about one tragic incident I’m guessing it’s a low number.
One of their primary sources of revenue
do you think it already happened today?
Yup
I a totally unrelated note, could anyone lend me their car?
On average, at least
It could be a case where 1 7-Eleven car crash per day is the median, but not the majority, with 0 and 2 or more combined being more than 50%, so they mean (but communicate poorly) that most days have 1 or more cars crash into 1 or more 7-Elevens, but they couldn’t say that most days have 1 car crash into a 7-Eleven. The only additional information that that would give above simply reporting the 1.14 average is that it’s not highly concentrated on a few days, like if 300 of the annual car crashes into 7-Elevens all happened on 7/11 when people jostle over free slurpees.
In short, “average” has too many meanings for its average use.
Where do you think they get the meat for the hot dogs? Seriously though 7/11 parking lots rival trader Joe’s
IMO, any confirmed case of “pedal confusion” in a driver should be followed by an irrevocable loss of the driver’s license for life, and a ban on driving anywhere, anywhen.
I would even gladly see an international registry to prevent people like these from moving to other countries and getting driver’s licenses there.
If you cannot tell which pedal is which, and maintain 100% control over which is getting pressed, you are a lethal threat to everyone around you. You cannot be allowed to drive, full stop end of story. There is no reality in which you could ever be “safe” behind the wheel.
And we have similar limitations for other people: those subject to medication-resistent grand mal seizures also cannot drive for much the same reasons, in that there is no way to prevent them from being a lethal threat once operating a vehicle.
Pedal confusion has to do with the person, not the size of vehicle that they drive.
@rekabis I wasn’t talking about pedal confusion, just the attentiveness needed for safety.
Size of vehicle makes the attention required to operate safely around other people higher. Both from risk due to vehicle bulk and mass, and the difficulty in being aware of your surroundings that a larger and higher vehicle has.
I wasn’t talking about pedal confusion
Then why respond to my comment? Because pedal confusion was 100% of the subject under consideration. All you did was add noise to the signal by bringing in something entirely unrelated to what I was talking about.
