Transportation Research Board Reports that US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety
#51
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It calculates the death rate by total population not (licensed and active drivers). Given the similarity of the VMT adjustments, it seems likely that there are far fewer folks on the road in the other nations when compared to the US. For instance, transit ridership is far higher in Europe than the US. If you get fewer drivers per capita, then of course the death rate per capita will be distorted.
#53
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I suspect you mean that fewer miles driven would result in fewer traffic related deaths. And all other factors being kept the same that would be true. However, that is not something the folks who wrote the referenced report considered as a solution. Which was ignored for a very good reason.
The single most relevant recommendation from the report and the easiest means to significantly reduce the number of deaths from traffic accidents in the US, would be to strictly enforce the current traffic laws. We don't need more laws. We don't need more bureaucracies. Just enforce what is currently on the books and hold people accountable for their actions.
#54
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, but number of licenses is a direct relationship to the number of cars on the road. Someone needs to be driving at least one vehicle for car accident to occur. That is why the licensed population would make another good adjustment factor to compare apples to apples. It is essentially the same as saying the number of vehicles on the road--in other words it defines the total population of the data set.
#56
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not if it's an implied consent state like CA. https://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_5/vc23612.htm
You either test, or you lose your license. The level of testing is based on the officer's discretion.
You either test, or you lose your license. The level of testing is based on the officer's discretion.
DUI is a criminal charge. The simple fact is that you can (and should) refuse consent when asked to submit to such tests when you are under the influence. It is your best bet at avoiding consequences. One of the consequences of living with a system that places individual rights above the wants of society. While unfortunate, it is better than the alternative.
#58
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I suspect you mean that fewer miles driven would result in fewer traffic related deaths. And all other factors being kept the same that would be true. However, that is not something the folks who wrote the referenced report considered as a solution. Which was ignored for a very good reason.
#62
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1. Their agenda was a desire to create a new agency for some bureaucrat to build a petty kingdom. (Based upon their recommendation for just that)
2. Significant negative economic impact of any major change in our car based economy.
3. The likely outcome for any elected official (or the bureaucrats they appoint) if they push programs that will force people to use something other than their car.
And of course there is the simple fact that the single easiest option would be to enforce the current traffic laws for all infractions and hold people accountable for their actions.
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Sure, but a court issued warrant guarantees a clean blow through the breathalyser, especially at 2AM; or 2PM the next day when they can get the warrant.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Your right I missed your chart, sorry.
However, your adjustment is in error.
It calculates the death rate by total population not (licensed and active drivers). Given the similarity of the VMT adjustments, it seems likely that there are far fewer folks on the road in the other nations when compared to the US. For instance, transit ridership is far higher in Europe than the US. If you get fewer drivers per capita, then of course the death rate per capita will be distorted.
However, your adjustment is in error.
It calculates the death rate by total population not (licensed and active drivers). Given the similarity of the VMT adjustments, it seems likely that there are far fewer folks on the road in the other nations when compared to the US. For instance, transit ridership is far higher in Europe than the US. If you get fewer drivers per capita, then of course the death rate per capita will be distorted.
Assuming that the only solution is to make roads safer for cars is in error in my opinion. It's a fine thing to try and do (make things safer for cars), but focusing solely on that seems a bit odd given that the drivers of the vast majority of the death is those cars. And there are other transportation solutions.
Seeing as how you're a traffic engineer, this is what we call "thinking outside of the box"
#65
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yep, that is why most politicians and lawyers refuse the test. By the time the warrant arrives they stand a much better chance of avoiding the charge... It is the price we pay for a free society.
#66
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is probably someone's point. One way to reduce traffic deaths is to reduce the vehicles which tend to kill people. Sure, you aren't making roads any safer for cars, but you're still reducing death. And if you're doing that without reducing people's ability to go where they like/need then I think you've achieved your goal.
Assuming that the only solution is to make roads safer for cars is in error in my opinion. It's a fine thing to try and do (make things safer for cars), but focusing solely on that seems a bit odd given that the drivers of the vast majority of the death is those cars. And there are other transportation solutions.
Seeing as how you're a traffic engineer, this is what we call "thinking outside of the box"
Assuming that the only solution is to make roads safer for cars is in error in my opinion. It's a fine thing to try and do (make things safer for cars), but focusing solely on that seems a bit odd given that the drivers of the vast majority of the death is those cars. And there are other transportation solutions.
Seeing as how you're a traffic engineer, this is what we call "thinking outside of the box"
It may be what some on this thread would like to see; however, it is a policy issue and ultimately the decision of the voters. It is not something bureaucrats (or the engineers that work for them) can (or should) attempt to force on the populace. As an industry we have been trying to get Americans to use Public Transit systems for decades. By and large people seem to prefer private motorized transport. Sit through one public involvement meeting discussing the tolling of a new road to ease congestion and you might understand why I sincerely doubt any politician is going to survive any attempt to wean these folks from their cars...
It is why I keep mentioning that the best means of reducing traffic related deaths is simply to enforce existing traffic laws and then hold people accountable for their infractions.
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
myrridin is correct -- if you're actually drunk, it's generally in your best interests to refuse the test. They may get a warrant and take your blood -- but they may not, and even if they do, it gives you a little time for your liver to work. If you're found guilty, you lose your license anyways -- but you also get fines, jail time and all sorts of other trouble.
Without a breathalyzer or blood test, all a jury has to work on is the belief of a cop that you were drunk and any slurring or stumbling you do on any dashboard camera he has. I was on the jury for such a case -- we acquitted the guy because while the cop said he seemed drunk (and had just had an accident), all we had was his belief. The guy interacted with the cop as little as possible on the video and we couldn't really hear any slurring. Ultimately, we thought he was drunk, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It was pretty close, however -- any additional evidence, or even a better job by the prosecutor could have convinced us, I think.
I should also mention that the guy had two previous DWI convictions (and who knows how many arrests) -- but we were not allowed to use that information in our determination of guilt (not that they would know, but we did try to follow the rules). The only reason we were even told about it was that it was what made it from a class B misdemeanor into a felony.
Last edited by dougmc; 11-18-10 at 10:45 PM.
#69
Senior Member
has nothing to do with "Libertarian" and everything to do with cost/benefit, though you seem to have chosen to overlook that.
The other countries discussed showed much greater rates of improvement because they were so much worse than we were in the beginning. When the numbers were adjusted to account for vehicle miles traveled (similiar to adjusting for per capita) all of the countries had very similar death rates. And that is despite the simple fact that they enforce much more draconian measures to achieve their safety levels.
The other countries discussed showed much greater rates of improvement because they were so much worse than we were in the beginning. When the numbers were adjusted to account for vehicle miles traveled (similiar to adjusting for per capita) all of the countries had very similar death rates. And that is despite the simple fact that they enforce much more draconian measures to achieve their safety levels.
#70
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I have a theory that the decrease in deaths, that we see in this chart, is due to safety improvements in cars.
Here are a few:
Radial Tires
Rack & Pinion Steering
Air Bags
Disk Brakes
Day Time Running Lights
None of these things are mandated in the United States. A redneck can keep driving his 1972 Pontiac, which has none of these features.
Here are a few:
Radial Tires
Rack & Pinion Steering
Air Bags
Disk Brakes
Day Time Running Lights
None of these things are mandated in the United States. A redneck can keep driving his 1972 Pontiac, which has none of these features.
What can you get ANYwhere except radials? Haven't seen a bias-ply tire since before my time in the service, twenty-plus years ago.
Disc brakes started appearing on most cars in '70-71; my old '71 Monte Carlo had 'em, as did every '70-or-later vehicle I owned subsequent to that.
Daytime running lights are a joke; the touted benefit comes from their status as a rarity. Make them ubiquitous, and the benefit will evaporate.
#71
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Vehicle miles traveled is a routine measure is a standard and reliable value used in the industry. In addition to standard direct measurement methods and sampling it can be estimated from external factors such as fuel consumption data.
The accuracy from these methods are in the same range as population estimates on non-census years.
#72
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Sounds good, but the police have sped the process up. At least in Texas, when they have their "no refusal weekends" they have a judge on call and give him the details and he gives the warrant over the phone. Only takes a few minutes.
myrridin is correct -- if you're actually drunk, it's generally in your best interests to refuse the test. They may get a warrant and take your blood -- but they may not, and even if they do, it gives you a little time for your liver to work. If you're found guilty, you lose your license anyways -- but you also get fines, jail time and all sorts of other trouble.
Without a breathalyzer or blood test, all a jury has to work on is the belief of a cop that you were drunk and any slurring or stumbling you do on any dashboard camera he has. I was on the jury for such a case -- we acquitted the guy because while the cop said he seemed drunk (and had just had an accident), all we had was his belief. The guy interacted with the cop as little as possible on the video and we couldn't really hear any slurring. Ultimately, we thought he was drunk, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It was pretty close, however -- any additional evidence, or even a better job by the prosecutor could have convinced us, I think.
I should also mention that the guy had two previous DWI convictions (and who knows how many arrests) -- but we were not allowed to use that information in our determination of guilt (not that they would know, but we did try to follow the rules). The only reason we were even told about it was that it was what made it from a class B misdemeanor into a felony.
myrridin is correct -- if you're actually drunk, it's generally in your best interests to refuse the test. They may get a warrant and take your blood -- but they may not, and even if they do, it gives you a little time for your liver to work. If you're found guilty, you lose your license anyways -- but you also get fines, jail time and all sorts of other trouble.
Without a breathalyzer or blood test, all a jury has to work on is the belief of a cop that you were drunk and any slurring or stumbling you do on any dashboard camera he has. I was on the jury for such a case -- we acquitted the guy because while the cop said he seemed drunk (and had just had an accident), all we had was his belief. The guy interacted with the cop as little as possible on the video and we couldn't really hear any slurring. Ultimately, we thought he was drunk, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It was pretty close, however -- any additional evidence, or even a better job by the prosecutor could have convinced us, I think.
I should also mention that the guy had two previous DWI convictions (and who knows how many arrests) -- but we were not allowed to use that information in our determination of guilt (not that they would know, but we did try to follow the rules). The only reason we were even told about it was that it was what made it from a class B misdemeanor into a felony.
The bottom line is that laws with regard to alcohol stops are not to be trifled with.
Folks, don't drive drunk. Now let's move away from subtopic. If anything, "proving" that our alcohol laws are less restrictive merely "proves" that indeed the US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety.
#73
Senior Member
Wouldn't you say FARS is a responsible and reliable agency of transportation information? Could you say their figures are reliable?
#74
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have never had reason to look at FARS data for bicycle fatalities. I wasn't refering to accident data but to general transportation data. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier statement, but I thought you were referring to accidents rates adjusted for relative trip distances and frequency. It is the latter data that is lacking, though non-fatality data is severely under reported for bicycle mode as well.
#75
Senior Member
but the question is the general reliability of information FARS provides. AFAIK, FARS is a reliable supplier of information. Is there any reason to assume FARS would be off base with some information while being a reliable source for other information?