6 ms·

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

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.
      - ch4s3 6y ago
        The title is just a title. The article is more complicated than the title. > I don't hold all else equal, because nothing is equal. Well yes, obviously. My point is that the observed outcome is in line with the expected outcome based on the increase in car sizes. But still it's a bit more complicated. note the following: > 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%. This implies that distracted driving could be partially responsible, but something else is probably going on with pedestrians. and: > And in the first half of 2020, while driving was down because of the pandemic, the pedestrian death rate — the number of people struck and killed compared with the number of miles driven — soared by 20%, putting 2020 on track for the largest one-year increase in the death rate ever. The article goes on to posit the popular theory that increased vehicle speed is the key factor in the last year. In fact a lot of the advocacy around the issue is focused on traffic calming in urban centers which has been shown repeatedly to lower the number of pedestrian deaths.
- mikece 6y ago
  > It's mostly down to vehicles being larger over the timespan measured. My neighbor's Smart Car and Cooper Mini beg to differ. Also, the proliferation of electric cars requires shedding weight in order to get more mileage. Sure, we still have lots of massive SUVs on the road but I would dispute the notion that vehicles overall are getting heavier on average.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    From the article: > Larger vehicles, such as the popular SUVs and trucks that dominate new car sales, are more dangerous for pedestrians than sedans Most new car sales are now SUVs and trucks. The share of SUVs and trucks sold is up over the period considered in the article, your neighbor notwithstanding.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    The data do not support your anecdotal evidence. The difference is less than I had thought, about 20% heavier on average relative to the minimum in the 1970s, but car size is increasing on average. (Section 4 in the below link.) https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight4 https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
  - wiredfool 6y ago
    Minis are _huge_ compared to what they used to be. Also, VW Golf/Rabbits. Civics. Accords. They're all huge. And they've all got a lot less glass than they use to have. (High beltline, small windows) Not that long ago you could get a car that was ~2000 lbs. A big car was 2 tons.
  - dagw 6y ago
    Smart Car and Cooper Mini beg to differ I haven't checked the sales numbers, but I see far fewer Smart Cars today compared to even 5 years ago. Also the latest Mini Coopers are massive. Much larger than most normal cars.
- jcims 6y ago
  I don't think that works out. The statistic is that pedestrian deaths are up 46% since 2010. There are possibly scenarios where vehicle mass or configuration makes a difference, but cars and trucks haven't changed that much in a decade. A spot check of an F150 and a Toyota Camry don't really yield any substantial change in that time frame.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    It isn't that F150s are heavier than 10 years ago, but that a higher share of new car sales are SUVs and trucks vs sedans.
    - jcims 6y ago
      Ah I got you. Found a study from 2005 - https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 Light truck (pickups, suvs, vans) accounted for ~30% higher relative risk vs cars. Surprisingly (to me) motorcycle/pedestrian accidents are three times as likely to result in a fatality. Personally I think it's mostly related to distracted driving/walking but vehicle type almost certainly plays some role.
      - ch4s3 6y ago
        Consider that larger vehicles also have larger blind spots that might obscure a pedestrian walking into a dangerous area.
minikites 6y ago
Drivers have the sole responsibility to safely pilot the multi-ton vehicle under their control. Stop blaming the victim and blame the perpetrator instead.
- wahern 6y ago
  You can safely operate a vehicle and still hit someone. Of note from the article, > The group reported about a third of pedestrians were intoxicated when they were struck
  - minikites 6y ago
    So if I'm walking along the sidewalk and a drunk guy wanders into my path it's okay for me to push him to the ground where he dies from cracking his skull? If not, why is that okay when I use a car?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
yoz-y 6y ago
When riding my bicycle I am just appalled at how almost suicidal many pedestrians are. Not only it's par for the course to not look around, it somehow became normalized to cross the street in a diagonal facing AWAY from incoming traffic. Cyclists are also completely unaware, it's almost depressing to stop at a red light and just watch swaths of riders zoom past into incoming traffic. One thing i'd like is diagonal crossings that would force you to look in the traffic direction. But then, most people don't bother to walk 10 meters to use the crossing anyways.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Like they say in boxing, "protect yourself at all times." Earbuds or headphones while walking near a motor vehicle road with anything shy of a barrier-separated sidewalk should be illegal.
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    I think that's a bit too much, it's reasonable to expect that cars will stay on the road. It's the interfaces that are dangerous.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      In a lot of cities, sidewalks aren't available along common pedestrian routes. And sometimes, when they are, are too narrow. Not listening to music or a podcast seems a reasonable sacrifice to make, in exchange for being within a few feet of multi-ton vehicles at 30+ mph relative velocity.
      - yoz-y 6y ago
        I agree that when walking on a shared road one must be on maximum alert.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    I don't want the police harassing pedestrians based on what their notion of safe phone use is. Look at how the NYPD uses jaywalking laws? In 2019 90% of the tickets were issued to black or Hispanic individuals. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/01/27/jaywalking-while-black-final-2019-numbers-show-race-based-nypd-crackdown-continues/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/01/27/jaywalking-while-blac... There is a large difference between people ought not do <> and cops ought to be given the privilege of harassing and imprisoning people who do <>. It's perfectly possible to wear headphones and use your eyeballs to ensure the path ahead is clear in fact your ears aren't all that useful. I can SEE an oncoming car as much as a mile away if I am hearing a car about to crease me its already too late.
swiley 6y ago
Cars are guests. If you can't drive carefully then you should not be allowed to drive.
- FpUser 6y ago
  Let's be fair. If you can't cross the road carefully and accordingly to the rules maybe you should not be allowed to walk either? It takes two to tango. All too often I see idiots suddenly and arbitrary crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic while staring at their phone screens.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    If you can't drive you can live in an urban area and use the bus/train. For practical purposes its ridiculous to argue someone not walk.
noobermin 6y ago
This attitude is pretty clearly victim blaming. You don't blame women for being sexually harassed for what they wear or black people shot by the police for wearing a hoodie or something, I don't think you should blame victims of traffic deaths for their deaths over the perpetrators.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  But you have to admit that some behaviors are inherently more risky. If the pedestrian is actively engaging in high risk behaviors...why is it wrong to point out those behaviors are higher risk and therefore potentially more likely to be victims of an accident. If someone sprints across an intersection at a green light with no warning to the drivers, isn't that more irresponsible than waiting for the light?
- linuxftw 6y ago
  It doesn't matter who you blame and who's the victim, the people are dead, often times because they failed to take their own basic safety into account. Always assume that cars don't see you, won't stop for you, might run lights, might make illegal turns, and will kill you.
  - antattack 6y ago
    That's rather fatalist outlook on life. We should strive for infrastructure that does not result in death when someone makes a mistake. Especially since to err is human.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      We're talking about literal fatalities for people that aren't behaving that way. I'm all for improving the infrastructure and reducing death, but until we do, put your dang phone down!
- program_whiz 6y ago
  Unpopular opinion -- you can victim blame to a reasonable level. If a pedestrian is walking backwards, blindfolded with music blaring in their ears into a crowded highway, then they do bear some responsibility for what happens. Same with your (morally reprehensible) examples, its possible to construct a case where the "victim" all but guarantees the outcome by their own actions (e.g. suicide by cop). The point of discussion is "what level of responsibility if any do pedestrians bear in these accidents". Your point tries to make a false moral-equivalency with rape and makes the claim "0 responsibility". I argue there is nuance and just like rape, its possible to make it more / less probable with reasonable measures, but beyond that point, it is wrong to blame the victim. So if you disagree, then address the point: should we consider the effect that pedestrians looking at phones, J-walking or ignoring signals, and listening to music has on safety or _only_ a single factor (drivers)? If you want to actually save lives then I'd argue for examining all reasons pedestrians are being hit by cars (and not resort to moral reasons to avoid even asking the question).

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.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      The title is just a title. The article is more complicated than the title. > I don't hold all else equal, because nothing is equal. Well yes, obviously. My point is that the observed outcome is in line with the expected outcome based on the increase in car sizes. But still it's a bit more complicated. note the following: > 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%. This implies that distracted driving could be partially responsible, but something else is probably going on with pedestrians. and: > And in the first half of 2020, while driving was down because of the pandemic, the pedestrian death rate — the number of people struck and killed compared with the number of miles driven — soared by 20%, putting 2020 on track for the largest one-year increase in the death rate ever. The article goes on to posit the popular theory that increased vehicle speed is the key factor in the last year. In fact a lot of the advocacy around the issue is focused on traffic calming in urban centers which has been shown repeatedly to lower the number of pedestrian deaths.
mikece 6y ago
> It's mostly down to vehicles being larger over the timespan measured. My neighbor's Smart Car and Cooper Mini beg to differ. Also, the proliferation of electric cars requires shedding weight in order to get more mileage. Sure, we still have lots of massive SUVs on the road but I would dispute the notion that vehicles overall are getting heavier on average.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  From the article: > Larger vehicles, such as the popular SUVs and trucks that dominate new car sales, are more dangerous for pedestrians than sedans Most new car sales are now SUVs and trucks. The share of SUVs and trucks sold is up over the period considered in the article, your neighbor notwithstanding.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  The data do not support your anecdotal evidence. The difference is less than I had thought, about 20% heavier on average relative to the minimum in the 1970s, but car size is increasing on average. (Section 4 in the below link.) https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight4 https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
- wiredfool 6y ago
  Minis are _huge_ compared to what they used to be. Also, VW Golf/Rabbits. Civics. Accords. They're all huge. And they've all got a lot less glass than they use to have. (High beltline, small windows) Not that long ago you could get a car that was ~2000 lbs. A big car was 2 tons.
- dagw 6y ago
  Smart Car and Cooper Mini beg to differ I haven't checked the sales numbers, but I see far fewer Smart Cars today compared to even 5 years ago. Also the latest Mini Coopers are massive. Much larger than most normal cars.
jcims 6y ago
I don't think that works out. The statistic is that pedestrian deaths are up 46% since 2010. There are possibly scenarios where vehicle mass or configuration makes a difference, but cars and trucks haven't changed that much in a decade. A spot check of an F150 and a Toyota Camry don't really yield any substantial change in that time frame.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  It isn't that F150s are heavier than 10 years ago, but that a higher share of new car sales are SUVs and trucks vs sedans.
  - jcims 6y ago
    Ah I got you. Found a study from 2005 - https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 Light truck (pickups, suvs, vans) accounted for ~30% higher relative risk vs cars. Surprisingly (to me) motorcycle/pedestrian accidents are three times as likely to result in a fatality. Personally I think it's mostly related to distracted driving/walking but vehicle type almost certainly plays some role.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      Consider that larger vehicles also have larger blind spots that might obscure a pedestrian walking into a dangerous area.

minikites 6y ago

Drivers have the sole responsibility to safely pilot the multi-ton vehicle under their control. Stop blaming the victim and blame the perpetrator instead.

wahern 6y ago
You can safely operate a vehicle and still hit someone. Of note from the article, > The group reported about a third of pedestrians were intoxicated when they were struck
- minikites 6y ago
  So if I'm walking along the sidewalk and a drunk guy wanders into my path it's okay for me to push him to the ground where he dies from cracking his skull? If not, why is that okay when I use a car?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

yoz-y 6y ago

When riding my bicycle I am just appalled at how almost suicidal many pedestrians are. Not only it's par for the course to not look around, it somehow became normalized to cross the street in a diagonal facing AWAY from incoming traffic. Cyclists are also completely unaware, it's almost depressing to stop at a red light and just watch swaths of riders zoom past into incoming traffic. One thing i'd like is diagonal crossings that would force you to look in the traffic direction. But then, most people don't bother to walk 10 meters to use the crossing anyways.

ethbr0 6y ago
Like they say in boxing, "protect yourself at all times." Earbuds or headphones while walking near a motor vehicle road with anything shy of a barrier-separated sidewalk should be illegal.
- yoz-y 6y ago
  I think that's a bit too much, it's reasonable to expect that cars will stay on the road. It's the interfaces that are dangerous.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    In a lot of cities, sidewalks aren't available along common pedestrian routes. And sometimes, when they are, are too narrow. Not listening to music or a podcast seems a reasonable sacrifice to make, in exchange for being within a few feet of multi-ton vehicles at 30+ mph relative velocity.
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      I agree that when walking on a shared road one must be on maximum alert.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  I don't want the police harassing pedestrians based on what their notion of safe phone use is. Look at how the NYPD uses jaywalking laws? In 2019 90% of the tickets were issued to black or Hispanic individuals. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/01/27/jaywalking-while-black-final-2019-numbers-show-race-based-nypd-crackdown-continues/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/01/27/jaywalking-while-blac... There is a large difference between people ought not do <> and cops ought to be given the privilege of harassing and imprisoning people who do <>. It's perfectly possible to wear headphones and use your eyeballs to ensure the path ahead is clear in fact your ears aren't all that useful. I can SEE an oncoming car as much as a mile away if I am hearing a car about to crease me its already too late.

swiley 6y ago

Cars are guests. If you can't drive carefully then you should not be allowed to drive.

FpUser 6y ago
Let's be fair. If you can't cross the road carefully and accordingly to the rules maybe you should not be allowed to walk either? It takes two to tango. All too often I see idiots suddenly and arbitrary crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic while staring at their phone screens.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  If you can't drive you can live in an urban area and use the bus/train. For practical purposes its ridiculous to argue someone not walk.

noobermin 6y ago

This attitude is pretty clearly victim blaming. You don't blame women for being sexually harassed for what they wear or black people shot by the police for wearing a hoodie or something, I don't think you should blame victims of traffic deaths for their deaths over the perpetrators.

Avicebron 6y ago
But you have to admit that some behaviors are inherently more risky. If the pedestrian is actively engaging in high risk behaviors...why is it wrong to point out those behaviors are higher risk and therefore potentially more likely to be victims of an accident. If someone sprints across an intersection at a green light with no warning to the drivers, isn't that more irresponsible than waiting for the light?
linuxftw 6y ago
It doesn't matter who you blame and who's the victim, the people are dead, often times because they failed to take their own basic safety into account. Always assume that cars don't see you, won't stop for you, might run lights, might make illegal turns, and will kill you.
- antattack 6y ago
  That's rather fatalist outlook on life. We should strive for infrastructure that does not result in death when someone makes a mistake. Especially since to err is human.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    We're talking about literal fatalities for people that aren't behaving that way. I'm all for improving the infrastructure and reducing death, but until we do, put your dang phone down!
program_whiz 6y ago
Unpopular opinion -- you can victim blame to a reasonable level. If a pedestrian is walking backwards, blindfolded with music blaring in their ears into a crowded highway, then they do bear some responsibility for what happens. Same with your (morally reprehensible) examples, its possible to construct a case where the "victim" all but guarantees the outcome by their own actions (e.g. suicide by cop). The point of discussion is "what level of responsibility if any do pedestrians bear in these accidents". Your point tries to make a false moral-equivalency with rape and makes the claim "0 responsibility". I argue there is nuance and just like rape, its possible to make it more / less probable with reasonable measures, but beyond that point, it is wrong to blame the victim. So if you disagree, then address the point: should we consider the effect that pedestrians looking at phones, J-walking or ignoring signals, and listening to music has on safety or _only_ a single factor (drivers)? If you want to actually save lives then I'd argue for examining all reasons pedestrians are being hit by cars (and not resort to moral reasons to avoid even asking the question).