5 ms·

The road toll in the US is staggering given its wealth. The conversation to reduce it doesn’t obviously exist like it does in other places. The NHTSA figures s

The road toll in the US is staggering given its wealth. The conversation to reduce it doesn’t obviously exist like it does in other places. The NHTSA figures showed an increase per kilometre in 2021, where many developed nations are showing a year on year reduction. Any Americans want to posit a reason why?

resoluteteeth 4y ago
The conventional answer is that vehicles are getting bigger/higher off the ground/heavier in the US. Some new pickup trucks are so big and have such a bad view of the road in front of them that you can't even see a normal sized car stopped in front out the windshield and they need to have a front camera. A lot of SUVs aren't quite there yet but they are getting ridiculously big/heavy and still high enough that it's hard to see children in front. The height means that the bumper is positioned in a much worse way and rather than rolling on the windshield you'll just die if you're hit. The weight also increases the risk to pedestrians in a collision. Also, some other countries are doing much more serious things to reduce pedestrian/cyclist deaths while the US is doing pretty much nothing.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  The other side of the coin is that you're safer inside a bigger and heavier vehicle when you're inevitably in an accident. A big Ford F-350 is going to have a much better chance of successfully protecting its passengers than a Toyota Camry.
  - chillwaves 4y ago
    Based on what? I have never heard of this rule "Bigger = safer". Nothing "inevitable" about accidents.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      It's very simple physics: if your vehicle is much larger than the vehicle you crash into, you're going to have lower acceleration forces inside your vehicle and thus experience fewer injuries. Sucks to be the person in the other vehicle though. The end result is an arms race of vehicle sizes.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >Nothing "inevitable" about accidents. Car accidents are a question of when, not if. Sooner or later you're going to be in one. If you somehow get through life without ever being involved in one, you were a very lucky bastard.
      - sveme 4y ago
        Live in Germany, driving for 25 years. Never was in an accident. Same as my father, who has been driving for more than 45 years. Anecdotes, I know, but I definitely know less people that were in accidents than those that were not.
        usr1106 4y ago
        Nobody in my wider family drives. But I remember 4 accidents. 2 as passengers in a car, which is already very rare in a family without cars. 2 hit by cars breaking traffic law when cycling. Nothing overly dramatic happened, but still. Most of my relatives and friends have been in car accidents. 2 friends of friends even deadly. Germany, too. Edit: My active memory is around 50 years.
      - mcv 4y ago
        That's a defeatist attitude. Most people I know have never been in a car accident (I actually have; I just remembered. I hit a bike when turning right when I just had my license; never happened since, fortunately. Nobody was hurt). But I live in a country that cares about safe traffic design; that matters a lot.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        >That's a defeatist attitude. It's called being realistic. First, think of the stupidest guy you can think of and understand half of humanity is stupider than him. Second, think of simply how many people and cars are on the road at any given time. Counting would be a fool's errand, to say the least. Third, understand that driving a car is not something that comes naturally or instinctively. Some might be more talented drivers than others, but we all have to learn how to drive a car to varying degrees of competency. Fourth and finally: Murphy's Law. When you combine all of these together, it's a miracle that we aren't seeing several orders of magnitudes more car accidents on a daily basis. The old saying that you're more likely to be in a car accident going to the airport than the chance you'll be in a plane accident is based in reality. If you get through life without being in a car accident, I reiterate you were a lucky bastard and I would sincerely be happy for your good fortune.
  - etrautmann 4y ago
    Safety for you at the direct expense of everyone else. Classic tragedy of the commons I suppose.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    "Make sure the other guy dies" is not a great approach to social policy.
    - coryrc 4y ago
      But it is a very American approach.
  - davidw 4y ago
    This is not wrong, but it's a horrible arms race that leads to an incredible loss of life as well as massive amounts of unnecessary pollution.
  - kranelisa 4y ago
    So, arms race towards everyone driving a tank?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Let's drive tanks then, and play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters !1!! edit: Did not downvote, because on point. But mine is too, in extrapolation.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes. Madness. There's no way I'd ever ride a bike in those lanes. I hate the Kriss-Kross when I'm driving, because in slow traffic the bikes often move faster, passing on the right and then Kriss-Krossing in front of you.
  - MonaroVXR 4y ago
    " In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes" Same in the Netherlands, not all bicycle and stoplights are equal
  - livueta 4y ago
    I biked many thousands of miles to/from work/school in Seattle - well, up until the third time I got run over and decided to call it quits - and agree 1000%. The idea that "sharing the road" is possible if only we were all a little nicer and more attentive is a supremely naive fantasy that exists primarily as a justification to not build real physically divided infrastructure. Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Sharing the road with a sane driver travelling at sane speed limits in a sane car is perfectly reasonable. There's no practical reason 95% of motor vehicles couldn't be as small as the eu L7e class (or even half the weight) and governed to 40km/h (with a manual override for larger roads) with the remaining 5% only travelling on local roads by timed permit. Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice, not some inevitability and even not what people would naturally decide to do. For rural roads a bike lane works fine as there are very few conflict points.
      - Reason077 4y ago
- spookierookie 4y ago
  European here. We mostly get what you guys have in terms of cars and politics lagging just a few years or months back. Usually with narrower roads and worse infrastructure.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
    From a pedestrian safety perspective, narrower roads and worse infrastructure is a good thing. It slows cars down and makes it less pleasant to drive, so fewer do.
    - spookierookie 4y ago
      You'd expect so (and I'd hope so) but nope. Drivers become even more reckless. Driving huge, noise-insulated cars seems to put them in the mindset of total control, detachment from actual speed and "I'm not gonna hurt myself anyways". Depending on the country you can add a less than perfect driver education (if any) to the mix.
zdragnar 4y ago
Driving culture is pretty bad here. Get out into very rural areas, and drinking and driving can be frighteningly common. Also, as is in the article, the punishment for speeding tends to be a slap on the wrist by way of a comparatively small fine. You'd need to be going at least 20 miles an hour over the speed limit before you're in real trouble. That said, the numbers are still small enough that the average person doesn't really care about it come election day- not in comparison to other issues. And that's if they even care about local elections at all- these are issues handled at the state level, which makes a very tiny percentage of the population who is even remotely interested in.
screye 4y ago
I'm not entirely sure if this is a US only problem, but Americans have a way about making logistical details of how they lead their life a fundamental part of their identity. Roads, cars, obesity, single family homes, HOA are IMO all symptoms of this. The bureaucrats are never trusted with even the most minute details by the populace or the politicians. This is a problem of the left and right. If statistics show that BRT will reduce traffic, but if the population thinks that 'removal of a lane' will slow road traffic, then no change will occur. From the location of a train-stop to an affordable income apartment, local politics poisons all efforts grinding all efforts to a complete halt. participation in local politics is good. Micromanaging governance using 2 minute snippets from a tiktok video as inspiration is not. The left ignores all literature around urban crime management, the science around obesity and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of good-intentions based educational interventions. The right ignores all literature around infrastructure regulation, transit, welfare or coercive religious interventions. The gridlock means that systems that are in a downwards spiral (urban crime, car accidents, obesity epidemic, drug epidemic, school costs, healthcare costs) continue spiralling. The most radical of either political side leverages this using promises of policies that can never be enacted, while any politician who might have been willing to strike compromises for slow movement towards real solutions is pushed out of their party. IMO, a center-left or center-right govt. with a Party Govt. (Pres, Senate, House) up & down the ballot with the ability to pass bills would be able to push for useful change, even if it is with policies that are diametrical. The grid-lock is an unstable equilibrium, where a move in any direction will probably make things a lot better than just staying still.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >The bureaucrats are never trusted with even the most minute details by the populace or the politicians. This is a problem of the left and right. This has to do with the founding principles of the United States. Remember, the US came about as a result of giving the finger to British governance (read: bureaucracy). All Americans can unanimously agree to hate on politicians and the government, specific exceptions notwithstanding.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
semireg 4y ago
I feel that road rage has increased even in rural areas. Being on a bicycle or on foot automatically makes you an “other” and the contempt on busy roads is palpable. The law states “cars must yield to pedestrians in crosswalk” (novel idea) but it seems many in cars look at me like “what are you going to do about me not stopping? nothing” which mirrors a certain political climate as well. There’s a sense of entitlement and power when you have your fellow man’s life in your hands - and many choose to aggressively step on the gas. As an aside, I’m raising a 5 and 2 year old a block away from a very busy 4 lane (2x2) street. A few years ago the state awarded our city a grant for a road diet (1x1+center turn). Everything was set to be changed and then our city council was replaced by car-loving candidates sponsored by local big-money. The grant was forfeited and the road remains oversized and dangerous. The upside is I get to teach my children how dangerous this road is, meaning they won’t have a complacency that otherwise could set in if the road was made safer. What a twisted logic … ugh!
coryrc 4y ago
Many factors: The Americas, as a whole, are a more violent place. Life is just not valued as much. American apartments suck in every way, particularly sound. Most people in cities go through a phase of apartment living and it sucks and as soon as they can afford they move into a house, but they require cars because even the houses are built poorly and only have a semblance of privacy with big spaces between them. So most people need cars, any costs added to cars are costs borne by most people, people don't like voting for things that cost them personally. We don't trust the government to execute social change, because both the right and left preach against it (cabrini green, for example).
- coryrc 4y ago
  Oh, fun fact: Washington state legislature tried to reduce the number of DUIs before you go to prison from 5 to 4, but they decided not to because it would cost too much money. We have to have some sort of collective trauma that should be worked out.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    I was on the Jury for someone in California with a prior DUI that caused an accident (injuries but not deaths) while drunk, fled the scene and ditched the car. After a plea bargain, no jail time.
aetherson 4y ago
People going faster due to less congestion due to the pandemic.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Don't know why you're down-voted when NHTSA agrees that's one of the factors. Quoting https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56125 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56125 : > During the first 9 months of 2020, driving patterns and behaviors in the United States changed significantly (Wagner et al., 2020; Office of Behavioral Safety Research, 2021). Of the drivers who remained on the roads, some engaged in riskier behavior, including speeding, failure to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Traffic data cited in those reports showed average speeds increased during the Q2 and Q3, and extreme speeds became more common. At https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/58456 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/58456 : > Analyses of speeding behavior (driving faster than the posted speed limits) since the start of the pandemic reveal other changes. Cambridge Mobile Telematics (2021) analysis of telematic data suggested that as trips taken decreased by 50%, their measure of speeding risk increased by 45%. Further, they reported an approximate one third increase in speeding above pre-pandemic levels from November 2020 through March 2021. Or from https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/03/30/as-roads-empty-to-covid-19-drivers-who-remain-are-speeding-up-heres-how-to-slow-them-down/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/03/30/as-roads-empty-to-cov... > “We do have fewer car crashes right now, because there are fewer cars,” said Jacque Knight, a St. Louis-based traffic planner. “But the crashes we do have are likely to be more severe because speed is the biggest determinant of serious injury and mortality — especially for pedestrians. Our hospitals can’t handle that right now.”
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Because we are generally extraordinarily stubborn.
Tiktaalik 4y ago
Other countries are literally reducing road space that is exclusively for car use and building protected bike lanes and pedestrian spaces where such road users cannot be killed by cars. The USA is likely not to the same degree. (Certainly not at the pace of Paris, which has changed remarkably) This is the simple, dull solution. Cars inevitably kill other road users because they’re fundamentally unsafe. Remove cars from having any possible interaction with other road users and deaths go down. It’s that simple.
jeffbee 4y ago
"Given its wealth" America is basically dirt poor. We have almost no public realm worth having. The only things we have that make us seem wealthy are things you can easily count, like bank accounts and big TVs and huge medical bills that make our GDP seem artificially high.
noenforcement 4y ago
[flagged]
jrockway 4y ago
> Any Americans want to posit a reason why? 2 things. 1) Covid / social distancing fucked up everyone's interpersonal skills. So if you're driving towards a pedestrian or cyclist, people are like "fuck it, they deserve to die if they're in my way." 2) It's currently the "style" to have pedestrian-killing bull bars on your truck. People think they look cool, but it just crushes the pedestrian you hit into a paste instead of pushing them up and over your hood. 1 is probably hard to fix. 2 should just be made illegal instantly. I get if you drive your pickup truck on a farm, or are regularly participating in high speed chases as a police officer, they might come in handy (?), but if you're driving around in the city commuting to your desk job, you don't need 'em. It just turns "we broke every bone in that poor pedestrian's body" into "he's dead, Jim". Absolutely no need for that; if we want to keep cars around, we need to design them to do minimal damage to the other road users they hit while their drivers are drunk. It might not look cool, but even better than looking cool is not murdering other people.
- Reason077 4y ago
  On the bright side, at least collision avoidance systems (AEB) in modern vehicles are getting better at detecting and avoiding pedestrians and cyclists.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    And yet still the pedestrian death toll is rising. Even technology that would seem miraculous 20 years ago isn't enough to slow down the carnage.
- gernb 4y ago
  This isn't just a car driver issue. 90% of the cyclists and 75% of the pedestrians are also like "fuck it!", I don't care that the light is red, I'm crossing now. Fuck anyone who has the right of way. They'll have to wait". Add in the pedestrians who don't even look up from their phones as they cross on the red. Probably drivers doing this too. I'm not making excuses for cars. They are obviously big and heavy and kill people. Rather I'm saying the attitude of "fuck you, I'm going" is ubiquitous, at least in some parts of the USA.
bagels 4y ago
Was it because there was exceptionally less driving in 2020?

resoluteteeth 4y ago

The conventional answer is that vehicles are getting bigger/higher off the ground/heavier in the US. Some new pickup trucks are so big and have such a bad view of the road in front of them that you can't even see a normal sized car stopped in front out the windshield and they need to have a front camera. A lot of SUVs aren't quite there yet but they are getting ridiculously big/heavy and still high enough that it's hard to see children in front. The height means that the bumper is positioned in a much worse way and rather than rolling on the windshield you'll just die if you're hit. The weight also increases the risk to pedestrians in a collision. Also, some other countries are doing much more serious things to reduce pedestrian/cyclist deaths while the US is doing pretty much nothing.

Dalewyn 4y ago
The other side of the coin is that you're safer inside a bigger and heavier vehicle when you're inevitably in an accident. A big Ford F-350 is going to have a much better chance of successfully protecting its passengers than a Toyota Camry.
- chillwaves 4y ago
  Based on what? I have never heard of this rule "Bigger = safer". Nothing "inevitable" about accidents.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    It's very simple physics: if your vehicle is much larger than the vehicle you crash into, you're going to have lower acceleration forces inside your vehicle and thus experience fewer injuries. Sucks to be the person in the other vehicle though. The end result is an arms race of vehicle sizes.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >Nothing "inevitable" about accidents. Car accidents are a question of when, not if. Sooner or later you're going to be in one. If you somehow get through life without ever being involved in one, you were a very lucky bastard.
    - sveme 4y ago
      Live in Germany, driving for 25 years. Never was in an accident. Same as my father, who has been driving for more than 45 years. Anecdotes, I know, but I definitely know less people that were in accidents than those that were not.
      - usr1106 4y ago
        Nobody in my wider family drives. But I remember 4 accidents. 2 as passengers in a car, which is already very rare in a family without cars. 2 hit by cars breaking traffic law when cycling. Nothing overly dramatic happened, but still. Most of my relatives and friends have been in car accidents. 2 friends of friends even deadly. Germany, too. Edit: My active memory is around 50 years.
    - mcv 4y ago
      That's a defeatist attitude. Most people I know have never been in a car accident (I actually have; I just remembered. I hit a bike when turning right when I just had my license; never happened since, fortunately. Nobody was hurt). But I live in a country that cares about safe traffic design; that matters a lot.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >That's a defeatist attitude. It's called being realistic. First, think of the stupidest guy you can think of and understand half of humanity is stupider than him. Second, think of simply how many people and cars are on the road at any given time. Counting would be a fool's errand, to say the least. Third, understand that driving a car is not something that comes naturally or instinctively. Some might be more talented drivers than others, but we all have to learn how to drive a car to varying degrees of competency. Fourth and finally: Murphy's Law. When you combine all of these together, it's a miracle that we aren't seeing several orders of magnitudes more car accidents on a daily basis. The old saying that you're more likely to be in a car accident going to the airport than the chance you'll be in a plane accident is based in reality. If you get through life without being in a car accident, I reiterate you were a lucky bastard and I would sincerely be happy for your good fortune.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  Safety for you at the direct expense of everyone else. Classic tragedy of the commons I suppose.
- notacoward 4y ago
  "Make sure the other guy dies" is not a great approach to social policy.
  - coryrc 4y ago
    But it is a very American approach.
- davidw 4y ago
  This is not wrong, but it's a horrible arms race that leads to an incredible loss of life as well as massive amounts of unnecessary pollution.
- kranelisa 4y ago
  So, arms race towards everyone driving a tank?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Let's drive tanks then, and play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters !1!! edit: Did not downvote, because on point. But mine is too, in extrapolation.
WalterBright 4y ago
In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes. Madness. There's no way I'd ever ride a bike in those lanes. I hate the Kriss-Kross when I'm driving, because in slow traffic the bikes often move faster, passing on the right and then Kriss-Krossing in front of you.
- MonaroVXR 4y ago
  " In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes" Same in the Netherlands, not all bicycle and stoplights are equal
- livueta 4y ago
  I biked many thousands of miles to/from work/school in Seattle - well, up until the third time I got run over and decided to call it quits - and agree 1000%. The idea that "sharing the road" is possible if only we were all a little nicer and more attentive is a supremely naive fantasy that exists primarily as a justification to not build real physically divided infrastructure. Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Sharing the road with a sane driver travelling at sane speed limits in a sane car is perfectly reasonable. There's no practical reason 95% of motor vehicles couldn't be as small as the eu L7e class (or even half the weight) and governed to 40km/h (with a manual override for larger roads) with the remaining 5% only travelling on local roads by timed permit. Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice, not some inevitability and even not what people would naturally decide to do. For rural roads a bike lane works fine as there are very few conflict points.
    - Reason077 4y ago
spookierookie 4y ago
European here. We mostly get what you guys have in terms of cars and politics lagging just a few years or months back. Usually with narrower roads and worse infrastructure.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
  From a pedestrian safety perspective, narrower roads and worse infrastructure is a good thing. It slows cars down and makes it less pleasant to drive, so fewer do.
  - spookierookie 4y ago
    You'd expect so (and I'd hope so) but nope. Drivers become even more reckless. Driving huge, noise-insulated cars seems to put them in the mindset of total control, detachment from actual speed and "I'm not gonna hurt myself anyways". Depending on the country you can add a less than perfect driver education (if any) to the mix.

zdragnar 4y ago

Driving culture is pretty bad here. Get out into very rural areas, and drinking and driving can be frighteningly common. Also, as is in the article, the punishment for speeding tends to be a slap on the wrist by way of a comparatively small fine. You'd need to be going at least 20 miles an hour over the speed limit before you're in real trouble. That said, the numbers are still small enough that the average person doesn't really care about it come election day- not in comparison to other issues. And that's if they even care about local elections at all- these are issues handled at the state level, which makes a very tiny percentage of the population who is even remotely interested in.

screye 4y ago

I'm not entirely sure if this is a US only problem, but Americans have a way about making logistical details of how they lead their life a fundamental part of their identity. Roads, cars, obesity, single family homes, HOA are IMO all symptoms of this. The bureaucrats are never trusted with even the most minute details by the populace or the politicians. This is a problem of the left and right. If statistics show that BRT will reduce traffic, but if the population thinks that 'removal of a lane' will slow road traffic, then no change will occur. From the location of a train-stop to an affordable income apartment, local politics poisons all efforts grinding all efforts to a complete halt. participation in local politics is good. Micromanaging governance using 2 minute snippets from a tiktok video as inspiration is not. The left ignores all literature around urban crime management, the science around obesity and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of good-intentions based educational interventions. The right ignores all literature around infrastructure regulation, transit, welfare or coercive religious interventions. The gridlock means that systems that are in a downwards spiral (urban crime, car accidents, obesity epidemic, drug epidemic, school costs, healthcare costs) continue spiralling. The most radical of either political side leverages this using promises of policies that can never be enacted, while any politician who might have been willing to strike compromises for slow movement towards real solutions is pushed out of their party. IMO, a center-left or center-right govt. with a Party Govt. (Pres, Senate, House) up & down the ballot with the ability to pass bills would be able to push for useful change, even if it is with policies that are diametrical. The grid-lock is an unstable equilibrium, where a move in any direction will probably make things a lot better than just staying still.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>The bureaucrats are never trusted with even the most minute details by the populace or the politicians. This is a problem of the left and right. This has to do with the founding principles of the United States. Remember, the US came about as a result of giving the finger to British governance (read: bureaucracy). All Americans can unanimously agree to hate on politicians and the government, specific exceptions notwithstanding.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

semireg 4y ago

I feel that road rage has increased even in rural areas. Being on a bicycle or on foot automatically makes you an “other” and the contempt on busy roads is palpable. The law states “cars must yield to pedestrians in crosswalk” (novel idea) but it seems many in cars look at me like “what are you going to do about me not stopping? nothing” which mirrors a certain political climate as well. There’s a sense of entitlement and power when you have your fellow man’s life in your hands - and many choose to aggressively step on the gas. As an aside, I’m raising a 5 and 2 year old a block away from a very busy 4 lane (2x2) street. A few years ago the state awarded our city a grant for a road diet (1x1+center turn). Everything was set to be changed and then our city council was replaced by car-loving candidates sponsored by local big-money. The grant was forfeited and the road remains oversized and dangerous. The upside is I get to teach my children how dangerous this road is, meaning they won’t have a complacency that otherwise could set in if the road was made safer. What a twisted logic … ugh!

coryrc 4y ago

Many factors: The Americas, as a whole, are a more violent place. Life is just not valued as much. American apartments suck in every way, particularly sound. Most people in cities go through a phase of apartment living and it sucks and as soon as they can afford they move into a house, but they require cars because even the houses are built poorly and only have a semblance of privacy with big spaces between them. So most people need cars, any costs added to cars are costs borne by most people, people don't like voting for things that cost them personally. We don't trust the government to execute social change, because both the right and left preach against it (cabrini green, for example).

coryrc 4y ago
Oh, fun fact: Washington state legislature tried to reduce the number of DUIs before you go to prison from 5 to 4, but they decided not to because it would cost too much money. We have to have some sort of collective trauma that should be worked out.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I was on the Jury for someone in California with a prior DUI that caused an accident (injuries but not deaths) while drunk, fled the scene and ditched the car. After a plea bargain, no jail time.

aetherson 4y ago

People going faster due to less congestion due to the pandemic.

eesmith 4y ago
Don't know why you're down-voted when NHTSA agrees that's one of the factors. Quoting https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56125 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56125 : > During the first 9 months of 2020, driving patterns and behaviors in the United States changed significantly (Wagner et al., 2020; Office of Behavioral Safety Research, 2021). Of the drivers who remained on the roads, some engaged in riskier behavior, including speeding, failure to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Traffic data cited in those reports showed average speeds increased during the Q2 and Q3, and extreme speeds became more common. At https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/58456 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/58456 : > Analyses of speeding behavior (driving faster than the posted speed limits) since the start of the pandemic reveal other changes. Cambridge Mobile Telematics (2021) analysis of telematic data suggested that as trips taken decreased by 50%, their measure of speeding risk increased by 45%. Further, they reported an approximate one third increase in speeding above pre-pandemic levels from November 2020 through March 2021. Or from https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/03/30/as-roads-empty-to-covid-19-drivers-who-remain-are-speeding-up-heres-how-to-slow-them-down/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/03/30/as-roads-empty-to-cov... > “We do have fewer car crashes right now, because there are fewer cars,” said Jacque Knight, a St. Louis-based traffic planner. “But the crashes we do have are likely to be more severe because speed is the biggest determinant of serious injury and mortality — especially for pedestrians. Our hospitals can’t handle that right now.”

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Because we are generally extraordinarily stubborn.

Tiktaalik 4y ago

Other countries are literally reducing road space that is exclusively for car use and building protected bike lanes and pedestrian spaces where such road users cannot be killed by cars. The USA is likely not to the same degree. (Certainly not at the pace of Paris, which has changed remarkably) This is the simple, dull solution. Cars inevitably kill other road users because they’re fundamentally unsafe. Remove cars from having any possible interaction with other road users and deaths go down. It’s that simple.

jeffbee 4y ago

"Given its wealth" America is basically dirt poor. We have almost no public realm worth having. The only things we have that make us seem wealthy are things you can easily count, like bank accounts and big TVs and huge medical bills that make our GDP seem artificially high.

noenforcement 4y ago

[flagged]

jrockway 4y ago

> Any Americans want to posit a reason why? 2 things. 1) Covid / social distancing fucked up everyone's interpersonal skills. So if you're driving towards a pedestrian or cyclist, people are like "fuck it, they deserve to die if they're in my way." 2) It's currently the "style" to have pedestrian-killing bull bars on your truck. People think they look cool, but it just crushes the pedestrian you hit into a paste instead of pushing them up and over your hood. 1 is probably hard to fix. 2 should just be made illegal instantly. I get if you drive your pickup truck on a farm, or are regularly participating in high speed chases as a police officer, they might come in handy (?), but if you're driving around in the city commuting to your desk job, you don't need 'em. It just turns "we broke every bone in that poor pedestrian's body" into "he's dead, Jim". Absolutely no need for that; if we want to keep cars around, we need to design them to do minimal damage to the other road users they hit while their drivers are drunk. It might not look cool, but even better than looking cool is not murdering other people.

Reason077 4y ago
On the bright side, at least collision avoidance systems (AEB) in modern vehicles are getting better at detecting and avoiding pedestrians and cyclists.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  And yet still the pedestrian death toll is rising. Even technology that would seem miraculous 20 years ago isn't enough to slow down the carnage.
gernb 4y ago
This isn't just a car driver issue. 90% of the cyclists and 75% of the pedestrians are also like "fuck it!", I don't care that the light is red, I'm crossing now. Fuck anyone who has the right of way. They'll have to wait". Add in the pedestrians who don't even look up from their phones as they cross on the red. Probably drivers doing this too. I'm not making excuses for cars. They are obviously big and heavy and kill people. Rather I'm saying the attitude of "fuck you, I'm going" is ubiquitous, at least in some parts of the USA.

bagels 4y ago

Was it because there was exceptionally less driving in 2020?