"Why the rules of the road aren't enough to prevent people from dying"

[Coluber42]

Interesting article from FiveThirtyEight about speed limits and traffic fatalities:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-rules-of-the-road-arent-enough-to-prevent-people-from-dying/

This article discusses fatalities specifically. I'd be interested in data on nonfatal accidents as well, where I'd guess you'd find a wider variety of factors and behaviors. For the most part we don't seem that interested in reducing fender benders, but they add up to a huge overall cost as well. And an accident that is a fender bender between two cars might very well be fatal or at least a serious injury if one party is a bicyclist or pedestrian.

It's hard to get non-cyclists to be too concerned about bike safety, but maybe overall road safety could be an easier sell. After all, almost everyone knows someone who has been seriously injured or killed in a car accident.

[choke]

I'm sure that lower speed limits in some places, along with better routing of traffic would be a help.

I think the larger problem in this country is our lax standards when it comes to the licensing of drivers. I spent a couple of years in Germany where it is the opposite and I was absolutely appalled at how bad the vast majority were at driving when I returned to the US. While I'd always thought that many here don't do a good job at driving a vehicle before living there, it was far more apparent after spending time around mostly good drivers.

Frankly I think it would take a radical change to many aspects of the entire system to really have a huge effect. I likely have better odds of getting the winning Powerball ticket than I do of seeing that happening.

[Dead Man]

Is there a problem though? When do we decide it's "safe" out there, and stop trying to change laws? When only 600 people die every year? 60? 6? 0?

Should we sacrifice more liberty for even more safety, when we're already the safest we've ever been since the dawn of man?

I think 700 dead cyclists a year is the figure that gets passed around. That's 14 per state (obviously some states will have more or less than others). How many here in Oregon, with a super middle-of-the-road population representation? Wikipedia says there's 16,000 bike commuters in Portland, which makes up about a quarter of the state's total population... there's definitely a lot higher concentration of riders in Portland than in the rest of the state.... but probably not THAT much.. I know there's bike riders all over this state, so I'll just go with a 1/5th representation guesstimate... that'd be like 51,000 cyclists in Oregon.

What are we calling "cyclist?" oh man, this is just not knowable. But if I use the 51,000 figure, which is about 2% of the overall state population (do you think 2% of Oregon can be consider "cyclist?" I think that sounds realistic).... and we use our average death rate of 14 against that 51,000... in a given year, you have ... erf, stupid calculator is giving me the answer in scientific notation, for some reason... and it's been much too long since algebra for me to make sense of that.

But.. the point remains.. I'm betting you have better odds of being murdered in a bank robbery or dying in a trash can fire accident or etc. I personally feel pretty damn safe out there on my bike.... what's it going to take to make YOU feel safe? How much more liberty does everyone else need to give up to satisfy you?

Just kinda playing devil's advocate here... but I'm serious too. I just don't seem to possess this nobody should ever die... ever! mindset.

What's worth more? Liberty, or safety? Where's the balance?

[shovelhd]

Just enforce the laws.

[choke]

What's worth more? Liberty, or safety? Where's the balance?That's an interesting take on it. I don't see it as a 'liberty or safety' issue.

I think there are changes that could be made which wouldn't infringe on the 'liberty' aspect at all. Simply making Driver's Education more thorough and requiring more than a few hours in a classroom and behind the wheel would result in people with more skill on the road. It's really hard for me to see a downside to better trained and educated drivers.

[Coluber42]

The number of people who die on bicycles every year is not huge; but the number of people who die in cars is. If memory serves, it's the leading cause of death for Americans under 45 or so; and after that the only reason it isn't anymore is that after that things like cancer and heart disease kill them at higher rates. And if you count serious injuries, the numbers in both categories go way up. Not to mention lost productivity and damaged property, etc.

I agree that at a certain point, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be made, balancing personal liberty against safety. The same is true for the cost to enforce laws that are intended to increase safety. My personal opinion is that while we have gone way over the tipping point in some areas (how many lives per year do you think we save by making everyone take off their shoes in the airport and go through body scanners? How much does that cost in equipment and personnel?), it's hard to argue that we have gotten to that point with regard to road safety. Just because there is a balance to be struck does not mean that we are currently striking it in exactly the right place.

I do not accept that any and all attempts at reducing the numbers of injuries and deaths from car accidents would represent either an unacceptable blow to personal liberty or an unacceptable financial expenditure, especially compared with what we are prepared to spend or give up in order to reduce deaths from other causes.

[rugbysecondrow]

This might be a dumb way to look at it, but it seems that the increase in quality brakes have allowed people to speed faster, follow closer, drive more aggressively then they might have been able to do in previous years. When brakes were less responsive, you had to leave more room, stopping distance was greater so you had to drive more slowly to accommodate the environment. It seems that drivers think they have mastery over the car and can control it in whatever situation they want, but they lack the skill and the reaction time to do so. Back in the day, you had to pay more attention.

This might be off the wall, but just an observation.

[OtayBW]

Just enforce the laws.

That's an interesting take on it. I don't see it as a 'liberty or safety' issue....
+1 to both.

[milkbaby]

Where does liberty come into this? The government already determines the criteria for licensing people to drive, there is no inalienable right to driving. They also set limits on legal driving such as adherence to speed limits and traffic signals.

[bdawe]

After some overseas travel, I too noticed how terrible American drivers are in general. Driving and cars also seem to be equated with freedom and liberty, and "our way of life". Driving is not a right, despite the prevailing delusion. Thirty-thousand plus fatalities per year is completely unacceptable.

[bikinchris]

Just enforce the laws.

I agree. Enforce the laws already on the books first, then see where that gets before passing any more laws.

[shovelhd]

I agree. Enforce the laws already on the books first, then see where that gets before passing any more laws.

Congress would go out of business.

[choke]

Congress would go out of business.You say that like it's a bad thing....;)

[abalone]

When you ride on the road daily, there will be a time that your life won't be in your control anymore. Maybe someone turns in front of you, maybe they hook a turn in front of you, maybe they run you down from behind. They could be drunk, they could be sober, they could be texting, or eating a sandwich. You could be wearing a helmet, or not, but someday your time will come and then there is nothing you can do about it. That's the scary part of cycling.

Everyday you are out there on the road, you ride with vehicles that could kill you and you take this risk every day. Probably a lot of people in this forum have already been hit by a driver. I have, and I take every precaution to prevent another accident, but there is only so much that you can do and someday I'll probably get hit again. If you haven't been hit by a car and you ride enough, then your time is coming.

[Louis]

From Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Causes_of_death_by_age_group_(percent).png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png

[Md3000]

What's worth more? Liberty, or safety? Where's the balance?

Liberty and safety are not each other's opposites. There can be liberty AND safety. Not every rule or law is an automatic infringement on one's liberty (although some would like you to believe that), some laws are just made to make things work better! For everyone! (and for those responding that the red light is affecting their liberty to drive straight through: go live in the desert)

That said, what I do like about your post is that people should see the bigger picture. Although cyclist deaths are something we're emotionally involved with, there really aren't that many compared to the amount of cyclists on the road every single day. I'd be interested to know what the % of deaths amongst all cyclists is, and compare that to the % of deaths amongst all motor vehicles. I'm guessing the % motor vehicle deaths is higher, so focus on making driving cars safer, and inevitably you will make all traffic safer.

The graphs posted by Louis are interesting. Although the first one makes it look like there is a MASSIVE amount of traffic deaths in the 18-34 age group, that % is really just high because there are few other causes of death in that age group. ie. not many between 18-34 die of cancer or cardiovascular diseases. The second graph tells you that there's perhaps 10.000 traffic deaths in the most affected age group of 15-24. Compare that to the 340.000 deaths in older age groups due to cardiovascular diseases. We can all be proud of our liberty to eat as much junk food as we want! :hello:

[professerr]

Is there a problem though? When do we decide it's "safe" out there, and stop trying to change laws? When only 600 people die every year? 60? 6? 0?

Should we sacrifice more liberty for even more safety, when we're already the safest we've ever been since the dawn of man?

I think 700 dead cyclists a year is the figure that gets passed around. That's 14 per state (obviously some states will have more or less than others). How many here in Oregon, with a super middle-of-the-road population representation? Wikipedia says there's 16,000 bike commuters in Portland, which makes up about a quarter of the state's total population... there's definitely a lot higher concentration of riders in Portland than in the rest of the state.... but probably not THAT much.. I know there's bike riders all over this state, so I'll just go with a 1/5th representation guesstimate... that'd be like 51,000 cyclists in Oregon.

What are we calling "cyclist?" oh man, this is just not knowable. But if I use the 51,000 figure, which is about 2% of the overall state population (do you think 2% of Oregon can be consider "cyclist?" I think that sounds realistic).... and we use our average death rate of 14 against that 51,000... in a given year, you have ... erf, stupid calculator is giving me the answer in scientific notation, for some reason... and it's been much too long since algebra for me to make sense of that.

But.. the point remains.. I'm betting you have better odds of being murdered in a bank robbery or dying in a trash can fire accident or etc. I personally feel pretty damn safe out there on my bike.... what's it going to take to make YOU feel safe? How much more liberty does everyone else need to give up to satisfy you?

Just kinda playing devil's advocate here... but I'm serious too. I just don't seem to possess this nobody should ever die... ever! mindset.

What's worth more? Liberty, or safety? Where's the balance?

I’d put it a little differently: should people be trivially inconvenienced so that nearly 13,000 people per generation don’t die preventable, violent deaths on bikes alone?

The problem with using vague concepts like “liberty” and “safety” is that they make it easy abstract away from the real-life human details that are what matter to moms and dads and friends and spouses, like, say, my teammate who had his skull split open at 21 by an elderly impaired driver who no law required be tested, or getting doored (that would be me) because we don’t teach drivers here to open their doors with their right hands so they look over their shoulders.

I’m happy to ride the slippery slope toward not dying senselessly, and, in any case these sorts “this vs. that” cost/benefit analyses are always based on the obscene premise that you can reduce both a human life and a mild inconvenience to some common unit of measurement, be it “utils” or, more popular these days, “dollars” in order to determine the optimal course of action.

I am very much of the “Vision Zero” mentality of treating all traffic fatalities as preventable. We’re not talking about base jumping here; we’re talking about getting to school and work.

[Dead Man]

I’d put it a little differently: should people be trivially inconvenienced so that nearly 13,000 people per generation don’t die preventable, violent deaths on bikes alone?

I can't get past this first paragraph.

Trivial inconveniences will not prevent 13,000 deaths.

If you can give me a significantly more realistic opener, I can continue reading.

[unterhausen]

it has become clear to me that we need road design that tells people how fast they can go and if they can text and drive drunk. Low speed roads with cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be designed with long straight sections and many lanes. Road diets are the answer. I look at the street view of the road where Tom Palermo was murdered, and I see all sorts of cues that it's safe to speed and not pay attention. Wide lanes, straight road. They should put chicanes on that road and narrow it to two lanes. Otherwise people will take the cue that it's safe to stop paying attention.

[Bob Ross]

Just enforce the laws.

No.

Don't just enforce the laws; there also needs to be a more aggressive reinforcement of the need to operate motor vehicles more responsibly than we as a culture seem to.

But yeah, enforcing the laws would be a nice start...

[wallymann]

It's really hard for me to see a downside to better trained and educated drivers.

Rechts-fahren!

[professerr]

I can't get past this first paragraph.

Trivial inconveniences will not prevent 13,000 deaths.

If you can give me a significantly more realistic opener, I can continue reading.

That's OK. I'm not addressing you.

[Gummee]

Rechts-fahren!

Abso-effing-lutely!

I can't tell you how many people I see cruising in the left lane either doing just over the speed limit, or pacing the car(s) next to them. ...often with a queue of cars lined up behind them.

Grrr

Its a concept that American drivers don't seem to get. Aggravating even 40 years later 'cause I learned 'proper driving behavior' watching Dad on the Autobahn. My ex- never could figure out why I got bent out of shape at left lane bandits. Yeah, I *can* go around, but I shouldn't have to.

M

[shovelhd]

No.

Don't just enforce the laws; there also needs to be a more aggressive reinforcement of the need to operate motor vehicles more responsibly than we as a culture seem to.

But yeah, enforcing the laws would be a nice start...

You gotta start somewhere. I'd be happy with all drivers that hit cyclists being charged. Hit and run? Jailed.

[BobO]

Its a concept that American drivers don't seem to get. Aggravating even 40 years later 'cause I learned 'proper driving behavior' watching Dad on the Autobahn. My ex- never could figure out why I got bent out of shape at left lane bandits. Yeah, I *can* go around, but I shouldn't have to.

M

We don't train drivers in this country. All we do is give overviews of some very basic concepts and then let people loose to learn on the job. Many of the techniques that are being taught are wrong. An afternoon at Bondurant would be an enormous improvement in how we handle the skill training.

Ironically, cyclists receive even less training.

[soulspinner]

We don't train drivers in this country. All we do is give overviews of some very basic concepts and then let people loose to learn on the job. Many of the techniques that are being taught are wrong. An afternoon at Bondurant would be an enormous improvement in how we handle the skill training.

Ironically, cyclists receive even less training.

yup. cars are easier to control now, come with disc brakes, etc. my daughter passed her drivers test after a seven minute drive around a small town. what kind of evaluation is that?

[oldpotatoe]

Abso-effing-lutely!

I can't tell you how many people I see cruising in the left lane either doing just over the speed limit, or pacing the car(s) next to them. ...often with a queue of cars lined up behind them.

Grrr

Its a concept that American drivers don't seem to get. Aggravating even 40 years later 'cause I learned 'proper driving behavior' watching Dad on the Autobahn. My ex- never could figure out why I got bent out of shape at left lane bandits. Yeah, I *can* go around, but I shouldn't have to.

M

Agree, along with people that can't turn into the proper lane when turning into a 4 lane road(2 each way).

[sitzmark]

I need to re-read my manual 'cause I missed the part that says the middle lane (or first PASSING lane) of a multi-lane highway is the place to park your ass.

Love the people who don't use acceleration lanes to accelerate to merging speed, but saunter down at 35-40mph and gun it at the end of the ramp. Especially helpful when they immediately dive to the center lane to claim their stake. All traffic approaching from the rear has to slam on brakes or split left and right. I see this every day at least 1 or 2 times. Where is this in the manual? Where is this in common sense?

Just the tip of the iceburg for incompetence on US roadways...

[oldpotatoe]

Love the people who don't use acceleration lanes to accelerate to merging speed, but saunter down at 35-40mph and gun it at the end of the ramp.

Just the tip of the iceburg for incompetence on US roadways...

Or stop.....