8 ms·

The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher

The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher.[1] That said, the article makes a very interesting claim about attitudes that we should all follow to the end of the article for further discussion here: "There’s an open secret in America: If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. As long as you’re sober, chances are you’ll never be charged with any crime, much less manslaughter." My wife bike-commutes year-round (yes, even in Minnesota), and as I mention this among Facebook friends, other friends who are also bike commuters point out that car drivers can basically kill bicyclists in the United States with no legal penalty at all. That's not a good social environment for getting more people out for exercise and energy conservation by substituting bicycling for driving cars. The history reported in this article is very interesting. There are a lot of contemporary photographs of changing American cities. The quotations from experts provide perspective on the visuals: "'If a kid is hit in a street in 2014, I think our first reaction would be to ask, "What parent is so neglectful that they let their child play in the street?,"' says Norton. "'In 1914, it was pretty much the opposite. It was more like, "What evil bastard would drive their speeding car where a kid might be playing?" That tells us how much our outlook on the public street has changed." Indeed. Are we really thinking carefully about how to spread the risk around, when so much of our living space is dominated by cars? AFTER EDIT: The video link shared by pugz[2] in a reply comment elsewhere in this thread is not to be missed. Car safety standards have improved enormously in my lifetime, but those protect the occupants of cars better than they protect pedestrians and bicyclists who are hit by cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

happyscrappy 13y ago
Pretending kids were better protected in any context in 1914 is absurd.
- pyrocat 13y ago
  That quote was specifically about attitudes towards cars, not statistics for mortality rates.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
lutorm 13y ago
Your edit is an important point: As far as I am aware, there are no safety standards or ratings for how likely a vehicle is to injure occupants of other vehicles, let alone unprotected pedestrians or bicyclists. If anything, the focus on occupant safety to the exclusion of others has supported the "race to the top" in terms of vehicle mass and size.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Yup. http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html
  - sokoloff 13y ago
    Holy crap. That's the most heart-breaking web page I've ever read. I literally had to stop reading after just a couple so that I'd have any chance of sleeping tonight.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sukuriant 13y ago
  Modern European tests include pedestrian safety ratings: https://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/crash_tests.html https://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/crash_tests.h...
- pugz 13y ago
  The Australasian New Car Assessment Program provides a website howsafeisyourcar.com.au. A recent interesting addition is precisely what you say: it measures pedestrian safety in collisions with specific car models. For example, the 2013 VW Polo: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2013/Volkswagen/Polo/Trendline-6R-4D-Hatch-5sp-man-1_4L-4cyl-Petrol/ http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2013/Volkswagen/Polo/Tren... "The bumper provided mixed protection for pedestrians' legs. The front edge of the bonnet was marginal to poor. The centre of the bonnet offered good protection to a child's head but poorer protection towards the edges. In most areas likely to be struck by an adult's head, poor protection was provided." EDIT: Seems three of us posted in the same minute. :)
nostromo 13y ago
I don't think the solution to unsafe roads is to throw everyone that is at-fault in an accident in jail. I understand the frustration cyclists have with auto traffic, but we've seen a million times that harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome. And we have a habit in the US of using prison as the answer for every malady. Instead, I think the answer is better road design, separating cars and cyclists using dedicated lanes, and automated vehicles. Also, according to this report, pedestrian fatalities are also on a long-term downward trend, even without correcting for increased traffic: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042/part2.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike...
- revelation 13y ago
  Sure, lets do all of that. But there is plenty of low-hanging fruit. Maximum of 20 mph everywhere you have pedestrians, certainly in any city or city center - the simple reasoning being that higher speed only reduces time to travel some distance linearly, but the forces at work in a potential collision increase quadratically. So this is a complete no-brainer tradeoff that is directly reflected in survival rates for pedestrians in ped-car crashes: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_10/Fatality_rates.gif http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_10/Fat... (There need to be legal repercussions regardless. If you are involved in a collision as a car driver, you can not be allowed to be driving again the very next day, regardless of fault. People that operate multi-ton machinery producing enough kW to provide power for a whole block take on a massive gamble at the cost of other people, and so that in and of itself needs to be remedied legally.)
  - sp332 13y ago
    This sounds like an argument for introducing a separate class of "city car" to the USA. On a highway, I want a big comfy car that can be efficient at 55-65 MPH, and protect me in a collision at those speeds. In a city, I don't really need that.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
mikeash 13y ago
I was recently in Beijing, where the supremacy of the automobile over the pedestrian is just about taken to its logical conclusion. The US puts cars on a high footing compared to pedestrians, with pedestrians restricted to crossing roads at certain points, generally better signaling and routes for cars, etc. Yet cars are still required to yield to pedestrians when e.g. turning or at a marked crosswalk. In Beijing, the idea of yielding to pedestrians when turning doesn't seem to exist. Crossing a major intersection, even with full signaling, is an adventure and an exercise in attempting to look in all directions simultaneously. It's even worse than you might think, because the sidewalk often doubles as a parking lot, so somebody might by trying to drive up where you're waiting, or worse, come up behind you! And you are expected to yield. It got to the point where I measured the difficulty of any walk not in terms of distance but in terms of how many intersections I'd have to cross. Beijing is pretty walkable overall but at the same time this can make it extremely unpleasant, depending on where you are. I wonder if that might not be where the US is heading if we're not careful about it. (The Chinese are strangely cavalier about cars in general. Essentially nobody wears seat belts, for example, and drunk driving is common. No surprise that their death rate per vehicle is three times higher than the US's. Seat belts would be such an easy way to reduce that. It's hard to understand.)
- WildUtah 13y ago
  It's ironic. Peking was considered a beautiful city of clean air (except dust storm season) full of bicyclists during the oppressive communist era. Now in the time of industrial crony capitalism, it's famous as the most polluted capital in the world. The streets are dangerous and cars have replaced bikes making the powerful insiders even more oppressive against individuals because now they can kill people with impunity. Surely this is better than communism, but unlike the Taiwanese the Red China capitalists have imported every Western vice tenfold. Only during the Dèng era was Peking open to new ideas and businesses, full of pedestrians and bicycles free from fear, and able to look up to clear skies.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Yes! Having seen the "Nixon in China" images of a surging wave of bicycles at every green light at an intersection, I was shocked to see in person how completely cars have taken over, and how badly Beijing drivers treat cyclists, driving within inches of them. The only reason there isn't carnage on every block is that nothing moves faster than 10mph. Taipei, meanwhile, is overrun with gas scooters. These pollute worse than cars. The mainland Chinese could not allow gas scooters because of their pollution output. Every office in Taipei has racks in the stairwells for hanging up your very necessary rain poncho. A great irony is that the Chinese have mastered the ability to make cheap electric bikes. Some Chinese use them. Very few Taiwanese, because they can't keep up with gas scooters. But you'll see lots of Chinese electric bikes in New York.

happyscrappy 13y ago

Pretending kids were better protected in any context in 1914 is absurd.

pyrocat 13y ago
That quote was specifically about attitudes towards cars, not statistics for mortality rates.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

lutorm 13y ago

Your edit is an important point: As far as I am aware, there are no safety standards or ratings for how likely a vehicle is to injure occupants of other vehicles, let alone unprotected pedestrians or bicyclists. If anything, the focus on occupant safety to the exclusion of others has supported the "race to the top" in terms of vehicle mass and size.

saraid216 13y ago
Yup. http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html
- sokoloff 13y ago
  Holy crap. That's the most heart-breaking web page I've ever read. I literally had to stop reading after just a couple so that I'd have any chance of sleeping tonight.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sukuriant 13y ago
Modern European tests include pedestrian safety ratings: https://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/crash_tests.html https://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/crash_tests.h...
pugz 13y ago
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program provides a website howsafeisyourcar.com.au. A recent interesting addition is precisely what you say: it measures pedestrian safety in collisions with specific car models. For example, the 2013 VW Polo: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2013/Volkswagen/Polo/Trendline-6R-4D-Hatch-5sp-man-1_4L-4cyl-Petrol/ http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2013/Volkswagen/Polo/Tren... "The bumper provided mixed protection for pedestrians' legs. The front edge of the bonnet was marginal to poor. The centre of the bonnet offered good protection to a child's head but poorer protection towards the edges. In most areas likely to be struck by an adult's head, poor protection was provided." EDIT: Seems three of us posted in the same minute. :)

nostromo 13y ago

I don't think the solution to unsafe roads is to throw everyone that is at-fault in an accident in jail. I understand the frustration cyclists have with auto traffic, but we've seen a million times that harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome. And we have a habit in the US of using prison as the answer for every malady. Instead, I think the answer is better road design, separating cars and cyclists using dedicated lanes, and automated vehicles. Also, according to this report, pedestrian fatalities are also on a long-term downward trend, even without correcting for increased traffic: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042/part2.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike...

revelation 13y ago
Sure, lets do all of that. But there is plenty of low-hanging fruit. Maximum of 20 mph everywhere you have pedestrians, certainly in any city or city center - the simple reasoning being that higher speed only reduces time to travel some distance linearly, but the forces at work in a potential collision increase quadratically. So this is a complete no-brainer tradeoff that is directly reflected in survival rates for pedestrians in ped-car crashes: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_10/Fatality_rates.gif http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_10/Fat... (There need to be legal repercussions regardless. If you are involved in a collision as a car driver, you can not be allowed to be driving again the very next day, regardless of fault. People that operate multi-ton machinery producing enough kW to provide power for a whole block take on a massive gamble at the cost of other people, and so that in and of itself needs to be remedied legally.)
- sp332 13y ago
  This sounds like an argument for introducing a separate class of "city car" to the USA. On a highway, I want a big comfy car that can be efficient at 55-65 MPH, and protect me in a collision at those speeds. In a city, I don't really need that.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

I was recently in Beijing, where the supremacy of the automobile over the pedestrian is just about taken to its logical conclusion. The US puts cars on a high footing compared to pedestrians, with pedestrians restricted to crossing roads at certain points, generally better signaling and routes for cars, etc. Yet cars are still required to yield to pedestrians when e.g. turning or at a marked crosswalk. In Beijing, the idea of yielding to pedestrians when turning doesn't seem to exist. Crossing a major intersection, even with full signaling, is an adventure and an exercise in attempting to look in all directions simultaneously. It's even worse than you might think, because the sidewalk often doubles as a parking lot, so somebody might by trying to drive up where you're waiting, or worse, come up behind you! And you are expected to yield. It got to the point where I measured the difficulty of any walk not in terms of distance but in terms of how many intersections I'd have to cross. Beijing is pretty walkable overall but at the same time this can make it extremely unpleasant, depending on where you are. I wonder if that might not be where the US is heading if we're not careful about it. (The Chinese are strangely cavalier about cars in general. Essentially nobody wears seat belts, for example, and drunk driving is common. No surprise that their death rate per vehicle is three times higher than the US's. Seat belts would be such an easy way to reduce that. It's hard to understand.)

WildUtah 13y ago
It's ironic. Peking was considered a beautiful city of clean air (except dust storm season) full of bicyclists during the oppressive communist era. Now in the time of industrial crony capitalism, it's famous as the most polluted capital in the world. The streets are dangerous and cars have replaced bikes making the powerful insiders even more oppressive against individuals because now they can kill people with impunity. Surely this is better than communism, but unlike the Taiwanese the Red China capitalists have imported every Western vice tenfold. Only during the Dèng era was Peking open to new ideas and businesses, full of pedestrians and bicycles free from fear, and able to look up to clear skies.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Yes! Having seen the "Nixon in China" images of a surging wave of bicycles at every green light at an intersection, I was shocked to see in person how completely cars have taken over, and how badly Beijing drivers treat cyclists, driving within inches of them. The only reason there isn't carnage on every block is that nothing moves faster than 10mph. Taipei, meanwhile, is overrun with gas scooters. These pollute worse than cars. The mainland Chinese could not allow gas scooters because of their pollution output. Every office in Taipei has racks in the stairwells for hanging up your very necessary rain poncho. A great irony is that the Chinese have mastered the ability to make cheap electric bikes. Some Chinese use them. Very few Taiwanese, because they can't keep up with gas scooters. But you'll see lots of Chinese electric bikes in New York.