B. Carfree

That's really apples and oranges. True, cars of the '60s were powered by internal combustion engines and had accelerators, brake pedals, a roundish object to steer with, but they weren't really the same beasts as today's vehicles. Steering improvements, brakes improvements, tire improvements, crush zones, seat belts, air bags, break-away steering columns all play large roles in the decreased death rates. Also, at least in the western half of the country, we have added incredible amounts of both paved lanes (formerly gravel roads got paved) and have dramatically widened the lanes and medians for substantial safety improvements. Remember those concrete columns on right next to the freeway off ramps back then? The ones that still exist are all buffered by soft objects to absorb energy and save the lives of clueless motorists.

I'm really surprised that you found the drivers from the '60s and '70s to be worse than today's crop. No cell phones, no insulated passenger compartments, actual traffic law enforcement (Didn't you have this back east? We had incredible levels of enforcement in the west.). It was a rare day when I felt threatened on any surface street or country road back then. Sadly, it is a rare day I don't feel the need to take precautions/evasive action these days. The higher number of motorists certainly plays a role, but their horrific narcissistic habits are what really keeps me on my toes.

Oh, and about those rates of wrecks: Back in the '60s and '70s, every fender bender was reported as a wreck by the local cops. Today, unless someone takes the ambulance trip or dies, there is no report. I'm not so sure there is any real decrease in the rate of wrecks, but there is most certainly a decrease in the reporting of wrecks.

buzzman

Most certainly safety improvements in the automobile account for a proportion of the reduced death rate as well as a lowering of the overall accident rate. Another factor affecting death rates is ER and trauma treatment has improved drastically meaning many people who would have died in an accident now survive.

However, if someone is driving an automobile and doesn't get in an accident because they have better visibility, better handling, better braking I do think that translates into better driving- whatever the cause. This is why I'm saying lets not get all nostalgic for an era when people were dying at a greater rate and getting in accidents at a greater rate.

Regarding reporting of accidents, unless you have some evidence that accidents were reported at a higher rate, I beg to differ here. Accident reports come from both the police and insurance companies and, if any thing, every accident today is an insurance claim. In the 1950's and 1960's, at least where i grew up, if your car got a dent in it you went home and fixed it yourself or left it as a battle wound. Every kid's dad or older brother did their own body work and under the hood work at that time. Cars that were seriously smashed were reconstructed from the ashes, today a simple " fender bender" with no injuries often leaves a car "totaled".

Road improvements? Really? I can go back to the neighborhood where I grew up and ride all the same roads I rode as a kid, including roads I toured and trained on as I got older and they have definitely not improved. Lane width, paving etc all pretty much the same. Right now the US transportation system is a decaying nightmare our roads and bridges are in worse shape than they have been since the end of World War II. Certainly in the Northeast, where road beds were well established 50 years ago improvements is not the case. And, most importantly for cyclists, the condition of the raod surfaces is worse than its been in decades. In many cities, particularly in the northeast, what is underneath the roads only makes things worse, crumbling gas lines, sewer lines, storm drain systems, power lines all need constant repair and that means ripping up stretches of pavement and re patching. Have you ridden in NYC, Boston or Philly lately? You can't get 100 feet without hitting a steel plate over a gaping hole in the road- and potholes and cracked pavement. And it's no better in rural communities where cash strapped state budgets and a deficit obsessed congress has left states with little money for maintenance let alone improvements for the last decade.

Oh, and drivers' Ed? Yep, back in the 60's and 70's it was the heyday of drivers ed. 90% of high schools had it as a course that every kid took. Now less than 30% of high schools even offer it. Why? States began studying its efficacy- in controlled study after controlled study teenagers had the same accident rates, same death rates, same rates of violations and convictions whether they took the courses or not. Teaching them all the "rules of the road" in a classroom, memorizing driving manuals did nothing. What did make a difference?- more hours of actual driving experience correlates with reduction in accidents and violations. What else helps? Strict enforcement of traffic laws especially drunk driving laws and a graduated license system where teens are slowly given more and more driving privileges as they gain experience and hours behind the wheel.

I'd love to participate in a frenzy of "things were so much better then" wistful memories and anecdotes but I just don't see it that way. The one positive difference I recall is fewer cars and fewer people on the road but "better drivers"- nope.

wphamilton

aside: I think you are interpolating a bit here. I only asked if we stopped teaching people to drive, specifically with respect to drivers ed and bicycles. No nostalgia, no reminiscing. If anything, you're agreeing with everyone else that yes, we did stop doing that.

buzzman

Sorry for the misinterpretation of your post. I may have read an implication into your post, and others, that wasn't there. I thought you all were going all old fogie on me and waxing nostalgic about the "good old days" when folks larn't thar lessons well, drove like saints and gave cyclists wide berth on the highways and by-ways of this once great land- and my memory doesn't support that contention.

My point being that people are still people, there are fewer fatalities and fewer accidents per VMT- for whatever reason- BUT there are a lot more people and a lot more vehicles on the roads. And the roads, IMO, have not improved all at much and, if anything, have deteriorated.

With regards driver Ed "back in the day". I don't recall there being all that much about bicyclists on the road and what to do about them. When I started cycling a lot there just weren't that many bikes on the road any way. If anything the drivers Ed pitch about bicycles was pretty much like the "see a rolling ball look for the kid following it" advice. In other words, see a bike and watch for the little kid who might swerve or shoot out of a driveway but little, if nothing, about adult cyclists using bikes as vehicles.

I looked for old drivers Ed manuals on line to see what they said but didn't find anything. If you find something please share it. I'd be curious what the prevailing attitude and advisement was at the time and whether we would, in fact, find it all that palatable or applicable to today.

genec

I want to know where you get the notion of lower collision rates over all... do you have any sort of statistic on this? Something from insurance companies for instance? Meanwhile the collision industry has grown over the last 4 decades... now why is that? It used to be that collision damage was repaired by the local mechanic or the dealer; now there are a host of collision centers to deal with dents and dings.

Using death rates is misleading... fewer people die these days in even the same sorts of collisions that were very deadly in the '60s and '70s. Head on collisions can be walked away from today due to airbags; back in the '60s and '70s, such collisions were typically deadly.

While cars have become safer, the actual driver has NOT improved in the last 4 decades... and in fact is more likely to be distracted by something in the vehicle, from complicated radio (used to be 5 or 6 simple buttons) to GPS, to CD player, to Cell phone and either voice or texting, to even in dash entertainment system.

Sure, in the past you may have been more likely to encounter a drunk or buzzed driver... perhaps the MADD campaign has reduced the incidence of drinking/driving, but other than that, HOW HAVE MOTORISTS IMPROVED? Cars are safer, drivers are not. This does nothing for those outside of the vehicle... which is one reason pedestrian deaths have gone up, and why this stupid sign keeps showing up:


Drivers are still hitting things they should not hit, and are doing so with increased frequency.

There are more drivers on the road today, so again your odds of encountering someone in a bad way have also gone up.

wphamilton

For me Drivers Ed was reading through the material once and sleep through the classroom talk, and I didn't sit on a bicycle for more than 30 years after getting a license. Yet there wasn't any time that I didn't know that bikes were considered vehicles and entitled to the roads subject to staying reasonably right. It was in the manuals and the TX vehicle code.

This was long before the internet, and high volume page scanners weren't feasible until the 90's really unless you had a really good reason, so it would be fortuitous to find that material on the internet now. Who knows, maybe someone has a hobby of collecting DMV material and digitized it but I doubt that it's worth looking for.

John Forester

Your own account of what you learned shows what you did not learn. You learned that bicycles were considered vehicles (which may or may not be accurate, depending on the state's wording) but you did not learn that cyclists were prohibited from operating as drivers of vehicles by being required to stay as far right as practicable, whatever that might mean. They gave you rights, and then took most of them away, and you failed to notice that.

FenderTL5

I don't know the answer to that question, completely.
The information about bikes, lane usage etc is still in our Driver's Handbook. In fact, I've posted elsewhere, I actually like the wording for bike lane usage in the handbook*.
That said, I have two at home that are carrying learner's permits. They took the test recently and there was a strong emphasis on drunk driving statistics and teen driving accident stats. I don't know that the information is missing, but I don't recall having to answer questions about statistics on my written DMV test. The change in the focus was/is obvious.

Page 105 Lane Positions for Bicycles
*Bicyclists are required to ride as far right in the lane as possible only when a car and a bicycle, side by side, can safely share the lane

genec

Interesting that folks feel the driving public has been educated to know that cyclists have rights to use the road... now test that and ask people that don't know you as a cyclist whether they know that cyclists have nearly the same rights as motor vehicle operators... you may find some very interesting answers.

I have done this for years at parties and public gatherings where folks may not know me directly... I bring it up in conversations, and I find that younger folks often know cyclists have these rights; older folks (over about 40-45) tend to think that they are doing cyclists a favor by allowing them to use the roads... and their reactions are often very mixed on whether they feel cyclists should be "allowed" to use the roads.

Various LEOs and Judges, who should know better, have also expressed their opinions on the laws and how they interpret said laws...

While recent driving manuals (in the past 20 years or so) have discussed cyclists use of the road, the fact is that older drivers have no requirement to read those manuals nor even retake a test, and thus tend to adhere to the rules and habits they either made up, heard from others, or assumed.

Test this yourself and talk to people that do no know you as a cyclist... see what they know of laws that give cyclists rights to the road and how they feel about such laws. (the latter tends to be very eye opening... motorists have all sorts of reasons for why they "own the road.")

Cyclists have had access to the roads since there were paved roads in America; but the rights of cyclists were poorly codified in various ways until the late '60s and early '70s when such laws were formalized in various states due to the efforts of folks like John Forester, et. al.. Even now the "exceptions" may differ slightly from state to state... as do the laws regarding passing distances and use of sidewalks. And we all know that cycling facilities vary about as much as Easter eggs.

wphamilton

John, I only enumerated the relevant points of what I learned 38 years ago. It's really a reach for you to presume to know what I "didn't learn" or "failed to notice" based only on a 10 word summary. So chill out.

FYI yes, based on the wording in the TX vehicle code it is accurate that bikes were considered vehicles.

ps, tying it all together: drivers tend to misunderstand bicycle FRAP rules, or don't know because they're no longer taught. There aren't any good excuses for that, but the fact remains. It's not just that almost everyone is pigheaded about it; I think the laws could be more explicit and defaulting to taking the lane (you should like that John), and exceptions covered by general rules like "Slower traffic keep right".

B. Carfree

I don't have any data regarding the ignorance of prior generations of motorists, but I highly doubt if they were as incredibly stupid as the current crop. Bearing in mind that performing at a D+ level is sufficient to pass the written test, fewer than half of the licensed drivers in CA are able to do just that:


From https://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/...evaluation.htm

buzzman

Just spent some time re-looking for the NHTSA link that had the stats. It was a link from an article I'd read on reduced fatalities since the 60's and 70's and it referenced the overall reduced crash rates from then till now- not just lower fatality/injury rates but reduced crash rates. They attributed the higher crash rates from that time to a combination of road design and automobile improvements in handling, maintenance and inspections as well as reductions in drunk driving and restrictions on teen drivers. They also indicted the "muscle cars" of the earlier era and attitudes about driving that went hand in hand with the hyped up street cars that were popular at the time.

If I get time to do a more extensive search I'll see if I can somehow unearth the article and/or the NHTSA link.

This whole conversation about educating drivers may be rendered moot in roughly the same number of years (8) that I've been on BF's, since that's when we can expect autonomous (self driving automobiles) to appear on the road. Just as crash avoidance and reduced fatalities can be attributed to new technologies, which have reduced the possibility of operator error, we will see even more of these technologies at work in coming years.

genec

I have to fully agree with you... should this actually happen in a reasonable time... and I get a bit of a chuckle from the notion that ultimately the cars (not the drivers) will adhere to John Forester's ideal of following the letter of the law for drivers of vehicles and thus true vehicular cycling can comfortably take place.


BTW interesting that the NHTSA administration attributes the reduced crash rate to just about anything but "improved drivers," which is consistent with what has been vocalized here. There were also reduced crash rates due to fewer cars on the road during the 2008-2010 financial down turn, and fewer teen drivers due to a choice by the latest generation (gen Y - "millennials") to not own cars and thus drive less...
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/21/209579...ning-ownership

buzzman

Still can't find the original article but here is some data from two separate insurance websites.

from:https://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_sa...of_crashes.asp

And from: https://www.safemotorist.com/articles...c_crashes.aspx


The reduction in crash rates shown in this 7 year span is part of a trend in reduced crash rates since the 1970's.

Nearly impossible to attribute the reduced crash rates to any one factor and certainly no where near the data that would be needed to accurately attribute it to better drivers. However, the corollary would be true as well, which is that it is impossible to accurately say drivers are worse than they were 40-50 years ago.

My guess is that drivers are roughly the same as they've always been but our perception is that they are always worse now than years ago because there are still so many bad drivers. I can remember my father claiming that drivers were better when he was younger when I was a kid and a passenger in his car listening to him rant at the drivers around him.

genec

Gotta be careful with those stats... driving rates were down in 2009 and 2010 too... so the total numbers reflect a decrease in drivers on the road.

And frankly I fully agree that drivers have not changed much... which means in fact that they have not improved either... yet road speeds HAVE gone up, but cars are safer, but there are MORE motorists then ever before... all of which skews the stats when looking at totals.

Oh and of course "drivers were better..." there were fewer of them to encounter. GRIN

wphamilton

OT but I've had the same thought. Even more so, that with the machines the risk priorities will shift and in some cases drastically. No more risking the pedestrian - or bike - to avoid body damage. I wonder if we'll be forced to carry transceivers though.

Rollfast

The answer is simply get your keyster in there and keep out of the way. Quantum physics couldn't be simpler.

skye

If a *traffic engineer* doesn't understand these signs, I think it's safe to say that we're all screwed.

I-Like-To-Bike

Conversely, most bicyclists are screwed if much attention is paid to self described "bicycle traffic engineers" who are also ardent, if not strident, Vehicular Cycling advocates.

John Forester

The last paragraph is entirely false. Cyclists were drivers of vehicles in all states until about 1940. They did not need to have any different rights spelled out. Do motorists need to have special rights spelled out? Of course not; the rights come with the designation of driver. In 1944 the Uniform Vehicle Code removed cyclists from the class of drivers, making them second-class roadway users whose prime duty was to stay out of the way of motorists: "shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction." Did this mean that cyclists' one remaining right was to move left when overtaking a slower vehicle? In other words, did we have only the rights listed (overtaking), or did we retain the other rights of drivers, such as moving left in preparation for a left turn? Opinions differed, but the general public and the police assumed that cyclists did not have any other rights of drivers and were limited to the side of the road. As I said, opinions differed. When the left turning question arose in California in 1972, the California Attorney General issued two opposite opinions on the subject, under exactly the same number. The first said that cyclists had to turn left from the curb lane. The second, a week or so later, and issued under the same number as if the first had never been issued, said cyclists had the right to move left to prepare for a left turn.

In my service on the California Statewide Bicycle Committee (8 motorists appointed by the government, 1 cyclist), I started out by pointing out the items in which the restrictive law violated the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, hoping to provide sufficient causes for repealing the restrictive law. I failed, because I was never told that the purpose of the committee was to work out ways to restrict cyclists further. But the result was that, for only those items I had mentioned, cyclists were allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Was this a new statement of their rights? Those who initially believed that cyclists had few or no rights claimed so. But those who believed that cyclists really had the rights of drivers of vehicles, such as my associates, saw the new list as another statement of restrictions, modified only to preserve cyclists' second-class status against legal challenge. That California list of exceptions was adopted into the Uniform Vehicle Code and, from there, into most state codes.

John Forester

It has never been my "ideal of [motorists] following the letter of the law for drivers of vehicles." I have always specifically stated that in some cases, stop signs and speed limits being the most obvious, American motorists have adapted to the poor ways these laws are written or administered by adopting reasonable work-arounds that are generally understood. Vehicular cycling does not depend on the literal meaning of the laws, but on how traffic uses them. There's no point, in any endeavor, of arguing from an idealist viewpoint when the actual facts are common knowledge.

bshanteau

I hope you were trying to be cute, skye, because your comment could be construed as nasty.

Just to be clear, I answered my own question in the OP. The problem is that most people misinterpret "Slow Traffic Keep Right" as requiring bicyclists who are traveling slower than other traffic to be at the right edge of the road instead of in the right-hand lane, like other drivers in a similar situation.

I-Like-To-Bike

What was the purpose of your "question" in the OP? Was it a test for us ignorant folk?

bshanteau

It is sad when so-called "bicycle advocates" stoop to ad hominem attacks to try to discredit another's point of view. As Wikipedia says,

I don't attempt to deny your right to ride at the edge or on a sidewalk or on a bike path if you wish, but you want to deny my right to ride on the road as the driver of a vehicle.

In every state of the Union, bicyclists have all the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. It is you who is the ardent, if not strident denier of those rights for all bicyclists who wish to exercise them.

bshanteau

No. It was a rhetorical question. Again, from Wikipedia: