11 ms·

Roads Are Getting Deadlier for Pedestrians

50 points by upofadown 6y ago

kop316 6y ago
Since going back to school, I moved close enough to where I can commute to and from school using an electric bike. I recommend it whole heartly if you can do it, but I have noticed a few things as a cyclist (Note I am in the USA in a medium sized city, and the law in my state is if you are on the road, you follow the same laws as a cyclist): - There are a LOT of cyclists that don't bother respecting traffic laws (e.g. blow past red lights without even stopping, not respecting right of way, etc.). It's to the point that when I stop at a stop sign and let the other person go because they have the right of way, they are actually surprised I do it. I have noticed similar things with pedestrians as well (e.g. walk where there isn't a cross walk, jump out when there isn't a walk). - There are a staggering amount of motorists that are on their phones texting/checking facrbook/I don't know what they are doing. I really wish this would have a much harsher penealty and it was enforced much more. > "Slower speed limits and street redesigns such as wider sidewalks, narrow roads and rumble strips are among the group's priorities." A lot of motorists DO NOT care about the speed limit. 25 mph in a neighboorhgood with kids? yeah it's still amazingly common to be cycling at 25 mph on a road to be pasted by a car going 40-50 mph. I say those things to say I think there are bad actors on both sides, and to be honest, I don't know much of a solution.
- labatyd 6y ago
  Most of those people on their phones are probably using the GPS to get to their destination. I know that some of them are being irresponsible and using Facebook or something, but phone navigation has replaced the map quest printout of my day with everyone young and old in my circle.
  - kop316 6y ago
    That be be so, but having it on your lap or at the transmission shifter so you have to look away from the road to look at it causes the same effect I see: the driver is not paying attention to the road.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Thise priorities are things drivers care about. You get people doing 40-50 in a 25 when the road is as wide and straight as a 40-50 mph but the speed limit has been reduced because there are homes with kids nearby. Make the road narrow, add curves to it, and suddenly people will do lower speeds naturally because they don't feel like they have as much of a buffer. Same reason you're more likely to find someone speeding on a highway than down a narrow side street
  - kop316 6y ago
    > Make the road narrow, add curves to it, and suddenly people will do lower speeds naturally because they don't feel like they have as much of a buffer. I am not sure how that would be possible where I live. This would involve destroying a bunch of residential homes to add curves (the neighborhood I am in goes back at least to the 1930s, as thats when the house I am in was originally built).
    - dagw 6y ago
      How does narrowing roads lead to destroying houses? You can also add curves to road while narrowing it without changing the overall width of the road. If nothing else works just add speed bumps.
      - kop316 6y ago
        The roads where I live are quite narrow to begin with, and many houses do not have driveways, so street parking is the only choice for many houses. I don't think there is a possiblity of narrowing them in the first place.
    - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
      "Traffic calming" features are retrofitted to roads all the time. Things like bringing the curb outward (often creating divided bike lanes in the process), speed bumps, and adding center islands to intersections.
  - stefan_ 6y ago
rriepe 6y ago
This article is going off of incidents per miles driven, but that doesn't make any sense. It's the level of walking that matters, not the level of driving. Especially when one has gone way up and one has gone way down. The statistic only says that cars are more likely to hit pedestrians, not that being a pedestrian is itself more dangerous. If people were walking 2x as much in 2020 then this 20% increase would actually mean pedestrians were relatively safer. There's no conclusion to be drawn until you consider the miles-walked number too.
ruddct 6y ago
Poke around at what American auto manufacturers are selling these days, it's almost entirely high-grill trucks and SUVs, we don't sell much in the way of cars (and even then, they're mostly of the bigger/sportier variety). When you get hit by something with a high grill you're more likely to go under the vehicle than over the hood (compared to a car). This is allowed because when we evaluate cars for safety, we exclusively look at safety of the driver/passengers, not someone getting hit. This is a great place to start when looking for solutions to this problem. Of course lack of safe infrastructure and a legal system that frequently dismisses 'accidents' also play a role. EDIT: I'm talking about the American market and the way the NHTSA evaluates auto safety. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/nhtsa-too-slow-in-fight-against-surging-pedestrian-fatalities-federal-watchdog-says/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/nhtsa-too-slow-in... https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march-2019/death-on-foot-americas-love-of-suvs-is-killing-pedestrians https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march... https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standards-dont-protect-pedestrians/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standa...
- toxik 6y ago
  The second problem is it becomes an arms race. If I’m in a normal height car and get hit by the monster trucks out there today, I am more exposed. So I buy a big monster truck, to be safe.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    I currently drive a car that is a little over four feet tall. I regularly pull up to intersections and try to turn corners where my roofline is below the bottom of the windows of the megatrucks next to me. So yes, the arms race is real, and my next car will be taller and bigger.
    - toxik 6y ago
      I think it's fair to tax bigger cars higher. They take up more road space, they take up more parking space. Should pay more by % of oversize.
jtdev 6y ago
Maybe the problem is that more pedestrians are occupying space in roads intended for large, heavy, dangerous, automobiles than in previous years? I have hundreds of miles of bike trails within minutes of my residence (as do most Americans), yet people continue to ride bikes in the middle of major roads used for mass transit, freight, etc. I just don't understand why people think this is a good idea.
- ohples 6y ago
  Because people are riding their bikes and walking to get places, not just recreationally . Those bike trails are probably great for a nice weekend trip, but not getting groceries or going to work.
- rob74 6y ago
  Maybe the problem is not only the failure of planners to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, but also the drivers of these "large heavy dangerous automobiles" who behave like the roads belong to them alone...
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    Planners usually do add bike lanes when re-thinking streets. Politicians usually fail to implement these improvements. Sometimes NIMBY groups block them or have them removed after the fact.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    I constantly see cyclists fail to stop at stop signs/signals, dart into oncoming traffic, ride multiple riders abreast across roads, etc. Cyclists need to take some responsibility here. Also, do cyclists register their bikes within the states that they ride them? Do they pay taxes on tires, fuel, etc.? Maybe cyclists should consider that roads were designed and intended for automobiles...
    - PeopleB4Cars 6y ago
      > Also, do cyclists register their bikes within the states that they ride them? Do they pay taxes on tires, fuel, etc.? Maybe cyclists should consider that roads were designed and intended for automobiles... Should pedestrians also have to do this? Also it really doesn't make much sense since drivers are typing charged by weight, because that's what matters when it comes to wear and tear on the roads. Bicycles weight nothing compared to cars. Having such a system and charging bicyclist by weight would be orders of magnitude more expensive then the money it brings in.
minikites 6y ago
If you want to get away with murder, use a car as your weapon. Drivers are almost never considered at fault and are almost never punished for killing pedestrians. Actual consequences would be a good start to addressing this.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Valid point. Prosecution varies widely in the US, according to stories from friends. Unless it's malicious road rage with video evidence of the incident and intent, it's probably not going to be the penalty they deserve. I get it, everyone makes mistakes. But when your mistake costs someone else their life, you deserve to have the book thrown at you. I'm hopeful the increasing amount of cameras in cars will allow for more strict prosecution, as they establish a clearer record of fault (e.g. did biker zoom out of nowhere across a red, or did driver miss obvious biker).
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  >Actual consequences would be a good start to addressing this. Sorry, but no they wouldn't. They might make YOU feel better, but it would do VERY little to solve the problem. In fact, I'd bet a fair amount of money that you'd end up with deadlier vehicle vs pedestrian accidents because you'd dramatically increase the number of hit-and-runs, reducing the number of pedestrians that receive prompt care. The consequences are already quite severe, though subject to some uncertainty and heavily based on the circumstances of the accident which... is probably pretty appropriate. In basically every other context in criminal policy, increasing penalties beyond a certain point really doesn't affect the underlying rate of the target crime by very much, and can actually be harmful. Three strikes laws are a good example where a run-of-the-mill crime gets turned into a situation where you might as well go for broke and murder every policeman you see because you're going to prison for life anyway so criminals are incentivized to do whatever they can do to escape.
  - willhslade 6y ago
    In NYC, you're wrong. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-a-new-fre...
linuxftw 6y ago
Pedestrians are getting dumber. I was taught as a child, never wear headphones when walking down the street or crossing the street. People today routinely are not only listening to music that completely drowns out the world around them, they're staring at a phone and completely oblivious. Drivers are also to blame because they're doing the same dang thing!
- ch4s3 6y ago
  It's mostly down to vehicles being larger over the timespan measured. More mass means you're more likely to die. And taller wider vehicles have larger blind spots for pedestrians. There are infrastructure issues too, but vehicle size alone is sufficient to explain most of the increase.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    This sounds like a testable theory. What's the pedestrian death rate for city buses? They've always been in high-pedestrian areas and are much larger than the average vehicle.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      From the article, as a share of new cars sold over the time span considered larger vehicles represent a higher and higher share. What this means is that a larger share of vehicles on the road are trucks and SUVs which are more lethal in a collision with a pedestrian. Even if the rate of crashes was the same you would expect more people to die given the increase in average vehicle mass. Given vehicle size trends, holding all else equal, this is exactly the outcome you would expect.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        > holding all else equal I don't hold all else equal, because nothing is equal. I contend that pedestrians are more distracted than ever, as are drivers. The control for the 'bigger cars more death' would be evaluating the death rate of smaller cars. The headline doesn't say 'accidents' are getting deadlier, it's saying 'roads' are getting deadlier.
red05 6y ago
If only it affected Whites more, then we could ignore the problem.
mikece 6y ago
Not only are pedestrians more distracted (wearing headphones/earbuds/etc) but DRIVERS are more distracted as well. If it was only one and not the other it wouldn't be as big of a problem but I suspect distracted drivers are more the problem than any cluelessness on the part of pedestrians.
- xnx 6y ago
  Stand by any intersection (in Chicago at least) and you will see very close to 100% of drivers primarily looking at their phones. Technology truly is the cause of (distraction from smartphones) and solution to (autonomous software drivers) all our problems.
herdcall 6y ago
It seems publishers have figured out that injecting identity/race into every single topic gets views these days. What is the benefit of analyzing increasing pedestrian deaths by race here?
- Avicebron 6y ago
  It must be a way to generate clicks at this point. There isn't any benefit
- xphilter 6y ago
  What’s the point of leaving it out if it’s evident after seeing the data?
  - brighton36 6y ago
    "There are no facts, only interpretations". It could just as easily be the case that people with black hair are more affected than people with white hair, if that was the taxonomy we applied to the dataset.
- devb 6y ago
  It raises questions of systemic injustice. If there is a demographic discrepancy, it is worth asking why.
  - noofen 6y ago
    > If there is a demographic discrepancy, it is worth asking why. The answer is minorities are notorious bad drivers. The Indians across the street from me do not know they can turn the wheel while in reverse. Every day, for the past year, I see them making 3-4 point turns to get in and out of the drive way. > It raises questions of systemic injustice. Of course it does. Ignore the true cause, and find someone in the "system" to blame. As long as they're white enough.
  - ryandvm 6y ago
    Ugh. At least in the US, we already know why. Due to a pretty dark and nasty history of race-based subjugation; race and inequality were tightly intertwined in this country and we're still untangling it to this day. So... since finance is an integral component of pretty much every social interaction, economic inequality rears it's head everywhere. Correlation seems like causation and all that, which means that if every single issue is looked at through the lens of "is this racist?" the result is always "uh oh, maybe it is." I dunno. Seems to me that constantly re-casting economic inequality issues as racial inequality issues is going go to make race relations worse rather than better...
MereInterest 6y ago
This article only touches on what exactly makes roads deadlier, but it's an interesting topic. For example, increasing the curb radius at an intersection is generally seen as good for drivers, because it allows the driver to take the turn at faster speeds. However, this increased speed increases both the curb to curb distance for pedestrians and the speed of collisions. The article touches on SUVs being more common and deadlier, but doesn't go into why that is. For a typical sedan, a pedestrian is struck at the legs, then rolls over the car. By contrast, an SUV strikes a pedestrian in the chest, and is pushes the pedestrian forward because it is too high to roll over. This means that the pedestrian both has a higher delta v (direct impact vs glancing blow), a shorter collision duration (single impact vs roll), and a more fragile region (the torso has important organs that the legs so not). All of these combine to increase the fatality rate when hitting pedestrians, turning a broken leg into a death. I know that sometimes SUVs or trucks are needed, such as for electrical workers who need to get to a repair site during/after a snowstorm. In most cases, though, there is a social responsibility not to buy SUVs, due to the danger they pose to society in general.
dghlsakjg 6y ago
Ugh. I already know what the comments are going to look like from reading the headlines. Perspective 1: Cars are, by default, supreme on the road. The use of personal motor vehicles on public roads should be an assumed right, a first principle of modern life. Non motorized transport should be assumed to be lesser in all cases. Complaints about ‘distracted pedestrians’, and people ‘misusing’ a bicycle on public roads. Perspective 2: The enlightened one whose eyes have been opened. Personal cars are the absolute devil. Unredeemable assholes drive pickup trucks with hoods as high as my forehead. Etc, etc. How did we get to a place where this is so contentious? Why is everything politicized to extremes.
- minikites 6y ago
  >Why is everything politicized to extremes. Everything is political, "politics" is just shorthand for "this is how I think people should be treated". Politics is about how we structure and interact with society, so of course it permeates everything.
  - dsnr 6y ago
    > Everything is political This is a left-wing narrative. When you want to change the entire system from the ground up you want everyone to be involved in politics and campaign for your cause. Those who prefer to be left out of it become your enemies. This is the same narrative that was used in USSR and everyone knows how it played out for them.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  How did we get to a place where we think contentiousness is de facto a problem and is “political” (used as a slur)? These are problems people care about. No one is actually stating the exaggerated positions you’ve characterized.
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    I wish I was wrong. Ctrl f your way through the comments. There is a comment on hood heights. There is a comment about cyclists using streets even though there are recreational paths. There are several comments about distracted walking. I use the term political as derogatory in a contentious discussion because 1) people come into them unwilling to change their mind 2) their beliefs are largely inherited and they will not acknowledge or state the assumptions and underlying opinions that underly their positions
AcerbicZero 6y ago
My opinion is that we lack a culture of automotive excellence, and driving as a real “skill” is long gone. People operate vehicles with the bare minimum of requirements on roads almost devoid of any practical safety policing; speeding tickets and DUIs aside, I rarely see an officer doing much more to encourage good driving habits, and on some level I get it. Traffic stops are deadly and police would like to avoid them....but how else do you police traffic? Letters in the mail perhaps? Driving is a skill, and if it’s not taken seriously or encouraged then it atrophies like any other skill. One of the best refreshers I’ve ever had was my motorcycle safety course; while I hated it because it was mandatory, it did teach real skills to help keep you alive on the road, and even if I found it boring, most of the people in my class were in dire need of that refresher.
- ohples 6y ago
  Thats because in most places in the US driving is a necessity in order to function in society. So we need to make it stupid simple for people to maintain a drivers license, less we want them to end up homeless. IMHO the only way for such a culture to emerge is if driving is not something that is required by a mass amount of people.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    This is a symptom of low wages and subsidized roads. People can't afford to live near where they work, so they commute. People that commute speed because they're short on time. We're all still trying to live by the punch clock like it's 1950 and everyone needs to be at their factory station at a certain time, all together at once. It's collective insanity.
    - ohples 6y ago
      You also have to consider most people cant live near where they work because it is illegal to build affordable housing near where they work.
aimor 6y ago
If you like the article, read the report. Especially the section, "How Can We Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries?" There are many things we can and are doing to make streets safer for pedestrians, so it's alarming to me that fatalities have been increasing for over a decade. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotlight%202021%20FINAL%203.23.21.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotl... https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...
rory 6y ago
In the linked study, 75% of the fatalities happen at night. 32% of pedestrians struck are drunk, and 13% of striking drivers are drunk. There is mention of drug treatment as a prevention method, but no specific statistics for non-alcohol intoxication. It's also notable that fatality rates are only worse for some minorities-- those typically in the lower socioeconomic brackets. And the difference isn't nearly as dramatic as the difference in homicide victims in general. Yes, we need smaller cars, but it's worth noting that the common case isn't someone being run down walking to the train on their morning commute, as the Doerner quote might insinuate without further research.
Someone 6y ago
FTA: “In 2019, 6,301 pedestrians were killed by vehicles on American streets — up 46% from 2010. Over the same timespan, the total for all traffic deaths rose by 5%.” As always with traffic death data, it is eye-opening to compare with the EU (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs20xx_pedestrians.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/...). There, pedestrian deaths about decreased by a third over about the same period, and stayed at about the same percentage of all traffic deaths (figure 2, page 4), so non-pedestrian traffic deaths also must have decreased significantly. (And no, it isn’t because US traffic deaths already are very low. They’re high, compared to the EU)
martin__ 6y ago
It's not mentioned in the article, but I feel like the number of cars with blindingly bright headlights has to factor into this too.
ohples 6y ago
For anyone who wishes to learn more about this sort of stuff I recommend The War on Cars podcast https://thewaroncars.org/ https://thewaroncars.org/ Also, Not Just Bikes on YouTube https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

50 points by upofadown 6y ago

Since going back to school, I moved close enough to where I can commute to and from school using an electric bike. I recommend it whole heartly if you can do it, but I have noticed a few things as a cyclist (Note I am in the USA in a medium sized city, and the law in my state is if you are on the road, you follow the same laws as a cyclist): - There are a LOT of cyclists that don't bother respecting traffic laws (e.g. blow past red lights without even stopping, not respecting right of way, etc.). It's to the point that when I stop at a stop sign and let the other person go because they have the right of way, they are actually surprised I do it. I have noticed similar things with pedestrians as well (e.g. walk where there isn't a cross walk, jump out when there isn't a walk). - There are a staggering amount of motorists that are on their phones texting/checking facrbook/I don't know what they are doing. I really wish this would have a much harsher penealty and it was enforced much more. > "Slower speed limits and street redesigns such as wider sidewalks, narrow roads and rumble strips are among the group's priorities." A lot of motorists DO NOT care about the speed limit. 25 mph in a neighboorhgood with kids? yeah it's still amazingly common to be cycling at 25 mph on a road to be pasted by a car going 40-50 mph. I say those things to say I think there are bad actors on both sides, and to be honest, I don't know much of a solution.

labatyd 6y ago
Most of those people on their phones are probably using the GPS to get to their destination. I know that some of them are being irresponsible and using Facebook or something, but phone navigation has replaced the map quest printout of my day with everyone young and old in my circle.
- kop316 6y ago
  That be be so, but having it on your lap or at the transmission shifter so you have to look away from the road to look at it causes the same effect I see: the driver is not paying attention to the road.
BoorishBears 6y ago
Thise priorities are things drivers care about. You get people doing 40-50 in a 25 when the road is as wide and straight as a 40-50 mph but the speed limit has been reduced because there are homes with kids nearby. Make the road narrow, add curves to it, and suddenly people will do lower speeds naturally because they don't feel like they have as much of a buffer. Same reason you're more likely to find someone speeding on a highway than down a narrow side street
- kop316 6y ago
  > Make the road narrow, add curves to it, and suddenly people will do lower speeds naturally because they don't feel like they have as much of a buffer. I am not sure how that would be possible where I live. This would involve destroying a bunch of residential homes to add curves (the neighborhood I am in goes back at least to the 1930s, as thats when the house I am in was originally built).
  - dagw 6y ago
    How does narrowing roads lead to destroying houses? You can also add curves to road while narrowing it without changing the overall width of the road. If nothing else works just add speed bumps.
    - kop316 6y ago
      The roads where I live are quite narrow to begin with, and many houses do not have driveways, so street parking is the only choice for many houses. I don't think there is a possiblity of narrowing them in the first place.
  - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
    "Traffic calming" features are retrofitted to roads all the time. Things like bringing the curb outward (often creating divided bike lanes in the process), speed bumps, and adding center islands to intersections.
- stefan_ 6y ago

rriepe 6y ago

This article is going off of incidents per miles driven, but that doesn't make any sense. It's the level of walking that matters, not the level of driving. Especially when one has gone way up and one has gone way down. The statistic only says that cars are more likely to hit pedestrians, not that being a pedestrian is itself more dangerous. If people were walking 2x as much in 2020 then this 20% increase would actually mean pedestrians were relatively safer. There's no conclusion to be drawn until you consider the miles-walked number too.

ruddct 6y ago

Poke around at what American auto manufacturers are selling these days, it's almost entirely high-grill trucks and SUVs, we don't sell much in the way of cars (and even then, they're mostly of the bigger/sportier variety). When you get hit by something with a high grill you're more likely to go under the vehicle than over the hood (compared to a car). This is allowed because when we evaluate cars for safety, we exclusively look at safety of the driver/passengers, not someone getting hit. This is a great place to start when looking for solutions to this problem. Of course lack of safe infrastructure and a legal system that frequently dismisses 'accidents' also play a role. EDIT: I'm talking about the American market and the way the NHTSA evaluates auto safety. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/nhtsa-too-slow-in-fight-against-surging-pedestrian-fatalities-federal-watchdog-says/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/nhtsa-too-slow-in... https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march-2019/death-on-foot-americas-love-of-suvs-is-killing-pedestrians https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march... https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standards-dont-protect-pedestrians/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standa...

toxik 6y ago
The second problem is it becomes an arms race. If I’m in a normal height car and get hit by the monster trucks out there today, I am more exposed. So I buy a big monster truck, to be safe.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  I currently drive a car that is a little over four feet tall. I regularly pull up to intersections and try to turn corners where my roofline is below the bottom of the windows of the megatrucks next to me. So yes, the arms race is real, and my next car will be taller and bigger.
  - toxik 6y ago
    I think it's fair to tax bigger cars higher. They take up more road space, they take up more parking space. Should pay more by % of oversize.

jtdev 6y ago

Maybe the problem is that more pedestrians are occupying space in roads intended for large, heavy, dangerous, automobiles than in previous years? I have hundreds of miles of bike trails within minutes of my residence (as do most Americans), yet people continue to ride bikes in the middle of major roads used for mass transit, freight, etc. I just don't understand why people think this is a good idea.

ohples 6y ago
Because people are riding their bikes and walking to get places, not just recreationally . Those bike trails are probably great for a nice weekend trip, but not getting groceries or going to work.
rob74 6y ago
Maybe the problem is not only the failure of planners to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, but also the drivers of these "large heavy dangerous automobiles" who behave like the roads belong to them alone...
- ch4s3 6y ago
  Planners usually do add bike lanes when re-thinking streets. Politicians usually fail to implement these improvements. Sometimes NIMBY groups block them or have them removed after the fact.
- jtdev 6y ago
  I constantly see cyclists fail to stop at stop signs/signals, dart into oncoming traffic, ride multiple riders abreast across roads, etc. Cyclists need to take some responsibility here. Also, do cyclists register their bikes within the states that they ride them? Do they pay taxes on tires, fuel, etc.? Maybe cyclists should consider that roads were designed and intended for automobiles...
  - PeopleB4Cars 6y ago
    > Also, do cyclists register their bikes within the states that they ride them? Do they pay taxes on tires, fuel, etc.? Maybe cyclists should consider that roads were designed and intended for automobiles... Should pedestrians also have to do this? Also it really doesn't make much sense since drivers are typing charged by weight, because that's what matters when it comes to wear and tear on the roads. Bicycles weight nothing compared to cars. Having such a system and charging bicyclist by weight would be orders of magnitude more expensive then the money it brings in.

minikites 6y ago

If you want to get away with murder, use a car as your weapon. Drivers are almost never considered at fault and are almost never punished for killing pedestrians. Actual consequences would be a good start to addressing this.

ethbr0 6y ago
Valid point. Prosecution varies widely in the US, according to stories from friends. Unless it's malicious road rage with video evidence of the incident and intent, it's probably not going to be the penalty they deserve. I get it, everyone makes mistakes. But when your mistake costs someone else their life, you deserve to have the book thrown at you. I'm hopeful the increasing amount of cameras in cars will allow for more strict prosecution, as they establish a clearer record of fault (e.g. did biker zoom out of nowhere across a red, or did driver miss obvious biker).
Enginerrrd 6y ago
>Actual consequences would be a good start to addressing this. Sorry, but no they wouldn't. They might make YOU feel better, but it would do VERY little to solve the problem. In fact, I'd bet a fair amount of money that you'd end up with deadlier vehicle vs pedestrian accidents because you'd dramatically increase the number of hit-and-runs, reducing the number of pedestrians that receive prompt care. The consequences are already quite severe, though subject to some uncertainty and heavily based on the circumstances of the accident which... is probably pretty appropriate. In basically every other context in criminal policy, increasing penalties beyond a certain point really doesn't affect the underlying rate of the target crime by very much, and can actually be harmful. Three strikes laws are a good example where a run-of-the-mill crime gets turned into a situation where you might as well go for broke and murder every policeman you see because you're going to prison for life anyway so criminals are incentivized to do whatever they can do to escape.
- willhslade 6y ago
  In NYC, you're wrong. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-a-new-fre...

linuxftw 6y ago

Pedestrians are getting dumber. I was taught as a child, never wear headphones when walking down the street or crossing the street. People today routinely are not only listening to music that completely drowns out the world around them, they're staring at a phone and completely oblivious. Drivers are also to blame because they're doing the same dang thing!

ch4s3 6y ago
It's mostly down to vehicles being larger over the timespan measured. More mass means you're more likely to die. And taller wider vehicles have larger blind spots for pedestrians. There are infrastructure issues too, but vehicle size alone is sufficient to explain most of the increase.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  This sounds like a testable theory. What's the pedestrian death rate for city buses? They've always been in high-pedestrian areas and are much larger than the average vehicle.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    From the article, as a share of new cars sold over the time span considered larger vehicles represent a higher and higher share. What this means is that a larger share of vehicles on the road are trucks and SUVs which are more lethal in a collision with a pedestrian. Even if the rate of crashes was the same you would expect more people to die given the increase in average vehicle mass. Given vehicle size trends, holding all else equal, this is exactly the outcome you would expect.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > holding all else equal I don't hold all else equal, because nothing is equal. I contend that pedestrians are more distracted than ever, as are drivers. The control for the 'bigger cars more death' would be evaluating the death rate of smaller cars. The headline doesn't say 'accidents' are getting deadlier, it's saying 'roads' are getting deadlier.

red05 6y ago

If only it affected Whites more, then we could ignore the problem.

mikece 6y ago

Not only are pedestrians more distracted (wearing headphones/earbuds/etc) but DRIVERS are more distracted as well. If it was only one and not the other it wouldn't be as big of a problem but I suspect distracted drivers are more the problem than any cluelessness on the part of pedestrians.

xnx 6y ago
Stand by any intersection (in Chicago at least) and you will see very close to 100% of drivers primarily looking at their phones. Technology truly is the cause of (distraction from smartphones) and solution to (autonomous software drivers) all our problems.

herdcall 6y ago

It seems publishers have figured out that injecting identity/race into every single topic gets views these days. What is the benefit of analyzing increasing pedestrian deaths by race here?

Avicebron 6y ago
It must be a way to generate clicks at this point. There isn't any benefit
xphilter 6y ago
What’s the point of leaving it out if it’s evident after seeing the data?
- brighton36 6y ago
  "There are no facts, only interpretations". It could just as easily be the case that people with black hair are more affected than people with white hair, if that was the taxonomy we applied to the dataset.
devb 6y ago
It raises questions of systemic injustice. If there is a demographic discrepancy, it is worth asking why.
- noofen 6y ago
  > If there is a demographic discrepancy, it is worth asking why. The answer is minorities are notorious bad drivers. The Indians across the street from me do not know they can turn the wheel while in reverse. Every day, for the past year, I see them making 3-4 point turns to get in and out of the drive way. > It raises questions of systemic injustice. Of course it does. Ignore the true cause, and find someone in the "system" to blame. As long as they're white enough.
- ryandvm 6y ago
  Ugh. At least in the US, we already know why. Due to a pretty dark and nasty history of race-based subjugation; race and inequality were tightly intertwined in this country and we're still untangling it to this day. So... since finance is an integral component of pretty much every social interaction, economic inequality rears it's head everywhere. Correlation seems like causation and all that, which means that if every single issue is looked at through the lens of "is this racist?" the result is always "uh oh, maybe it is." I dunno. Seems to me that constantly re-casting economic inequality issues as racial inequality issues is going go to make race relations worse rather than better...

MereInterest 6y ago

This article only touches on what exactly makes roads deadlier, but it's an interesting topic. For example, increasing the curb radius at an intersection is generally seen as good for drivers, because it allows the driver to take the turn at faster speeds. However, this increased speed increases both the curb to curb distance for pedestrians and the speed of collisions. The article touches on SUVs being more common and deadlier, but doesn't go into why that is. For a typical sedan, a pedestrian is struck at the legs, then rolls over the car. By contrast, an SUV strikes a pedestrian in the chest, and is pushes the pedestrian forward because it is too high to roll over. This means that the pedestrian both has a higher delta v (direct impact vs glancing blow), a shorter collision duration (single impact vs roll), and a more fragile region (the torso has important organs that the legs so not). All of these combine to increase the fatality rate when hitting pedestrians, turning a broken leg into a death. I know that sometimes SUVs or trucks are needed, such as for electrical workers who need to get to a repair site during/after a snowstorm. In most cases, though, there is a social responsibility not to buy SUVs, due to the danger they pose to society in general.

dghlsakjg 6y ago

Ugh. I already know what the comments are going to look like from reading the headlines. Perspective 1: Cars are, by default, supreme on the road. The use of personal motor vehicles on public roads should be an assumed right, a first principle of modern life. Non motorized transport should be assumed to be lesser in all cases. Complaints about ‘distracted pedestrians’, and people ‘misusing’ a bicycle on public roads. Perspective 2: The enlightened one whose eyes have been opened. Personal cars are the absolute devil. Unredeemable assholes drive pickup trucks with hoods as high as my forehead. Etc, etc. How did we get to a place where this is so contentious? Why is everything politicized to extremes.

minikites 6y ago
>Why is everything politicized to extremes. Everything is political, "politics" is just shorthand for "this is how I think people should be treated". Politics is about how we structure and interact with society, so of course it permeates everything.
- dsnr 6y ago
  > Everything is political This is a left-wing narrative. When you want to change the entire system from the ground up you want everyone to be involved in politics and campaign for your cause. Those who prefer to be left out of it become your enemies. This is the same narrative that was used in USSR and everyone knows how it played out for them.
ethanbond 6y ago
How did we get to a place where we think contentiousness is de facto a problem and is “political” (used as a slur)? These are problems people care about. No one is actually stating the exaggerated positions you’ve characterized.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  I wish I was wrong. Ctrl f your way through the comments. There is a comment on hood heights. There is a comment about cyclists using streets even though there are recreational paths. There are several comments about distracted walking. I use the term political as derogatory in a contentious discussion because 1) people come into them unwilling to change their mind 2) their beliefs are largely inherited and they will not acknowledge or state the assumptions and underlying opinions that underly their positions

AcerbicZero 6y ago

My opinion is that we lack a culture of automotive excellence, and driving as a real “skill” is long gone. People operate vehicles with the bare minimum of requirements on roads almost devoid of any practical safety policing; speeding tickets and DUIs aside, I rarely see an officer doing much more to encourage good driving habits, and on some level I get it. Traffic stops are deadly and police would like to avoid them....but how else do you police traffic? Letters in the mail perhaps? Driving is a skill, and if it’s not taken seriously or encouraged then it atrophies like any other skill. One of the best refreshers I’ve ever had was my motorcycle safety course; while I hated it because it was mandatory, it did teach real skills to help keep you alive on the road, and even if I found it boring, most of the people in my class were in dire need of that refresher.

ohples 6y ago
Thats because in most places in the US driving is a necessity in order to function in society. So we need to make it stupid simple for people to maintain a drivers license, less we want them to end up homeless. IMHO the only way for such a culture to emerge is if driving is not something that is required by a mass amount of people.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  This is a symptom of low wages and subsidized roads. People can't afford to live near where they work, so they commute. People that commute speed because they're short on time. We're all still trying to live by the punch clock like it's 1950 and everyone needs to be at their factory station at a certain time, all together at once. It's collective insanity.
  - ohples 6y ago
    You also have to consider most people cant live near where they work because it is illegal to build affordable housing near where they work.

aimor 6y ago

If you like the article, read the report. Especially the section, "How Can We Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries?" There are many things we can and are doing to make streets safer for pedestrians, so it's alarming to me that fatalities have been increasing for over a decade. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotlight%202021%20FINAL%203.23.21.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotl... https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...

rory 6y ago

In the linked study, 75% of the fatalities happen at night. 32% of pedestrians struck are drunk, and 13% of striking drivers are drunk. There is mention of drug treatment as a prevention method, but no specific statistics for non-alcohol intoxication. It's also notable that fatality rates are only worse for some minorities-- those typically in the lower socioeconomic brackets. And the difference isn't nearly as dramatic as the difference in homicide victims in general. Yes, we need smaller cars, but it's worth noting that the common case isn't someone being run down walking to the train on their morning commute, as the Doerner quote might insinuate without further research.

Someone 6y ago

FTA: “In 2019, 6,301 pedestrians were killed by vehicles on American streets — up 46% from 2010. Over the same timespan, the total for all traffic deaths rose by 5%.” As always with traffic death data, it is eye-opening to compare with the EU (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs20xx_pedestrians.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/...). There, pedestrian deaths about decreased by a third over about the same period, and stayed at about the same percentage of all traffic deaths (figure 2, page 4), so non-pedestrian traffic deaths also must have decreased significantly. (And no, it isn’t because US traffic deaths already are very low. They’re high, compared to the EU)

martin__ 6y ago

It's not mentioned in the article, but I feel like the number of cars with blindingly bright headlights has to factor into this too.

ohples 6y ago

For anyone who wishes to learn more about this sort of stuff I recommend The War on Cars podcast https://thewaroncars.org/ https://thewaroncars.org/ Also, Not Just Bikes on YouTube https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes