Traffic Deaths a Global Scourge, Health Agency Says [Wash. Post Article]

[Slow Train]

Forget War, Famine, Disease ... meet the real global terror.

Traffic Deaths a Global Scourge, Health Agency Says
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A09

Traffic injuries are the leading cause of death in people ages 10 to 24 around the world -- a huge, overlooked and largely preventable public health problem, the World Health Organization said yesterday.

Traffic Deaths a Global Scourge, Health Agency Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902409.html?hpid=sec-health)

[linux_author]

- there's something to be said for Drivers Ed!

(of course, i didn't had a car until i turned 25)...

[Wogsterca]

- there's something to be said for Drivers Ed!

(of course, i didn't had a car until i turned 25)...

I didn't have a car until I was 24, and if I had been smart, I wouldn't have gotten the darn thing then, cars are a financial black hole, you keep pouring money into it, and the only thing that you get out, is your expanding waist line. Problem is I was 44, before I got a bike again.

[fat_bike_nut]

I got my first, and so far only, car when I was 17.

Yep. A financial black hole. Too bad the realization didn't hit me until I seriously sat down to calculate it with everything in...gas, insurance, maintenance, repairs, depreciation (the model I chose was/is one of the fastest depreciating models of cars out there).

I wanna sell it soon...

[Dahon.Steve]

From the article
>>>>WHO is asking the World Bank and other institutions making loans for road building in the developing world to require that 10 percent of the money go for safety features, such as guardrails, barrier-protected lanes for bicyclists or pedestrians, speed bumps, traffic- calming roundabouts and lighting.<<

The article goes on to say that in order to cut back on the number of road deaths, we need to build MORE roads! Only 10% of the money is to go for safety features! This is insane.

It should be the other way around as building more roads will only increase the number of deaths because drivers will be able to go faster on improved roads. If you've been to some third world countries, traffic calming is badly needed and 90% of the money should be spent there.

[biketony]

So many thoughts...one can either expound for pages or say very little.

We rarely (ever?) question the 'right' of a technology to exist. We rail against the carnage caused by drunk drivers, young drivers, elderly drivers, etc, but do NOT question driving itself. A state/federal official actually advocating drastic automobile restrictions, and the obvious lifestyle changes, would be branded a Luddite and laughed off the national stage. With apologies to Gil Scott Heron, this revolution will NOT be televised.

[gerv]

We rarely (ever?) question the 'right' of a technology to exist. We rail against the carnage caused by drunk drivers, young drivers, elderly drivers, etc, but do NOT question driving itself. A state/federal official actually advocating drastic automobile restrictions, and the obvious lifestyle changes, would be branded a Luddite and laughed off the national stage. With apologies to Gil Scott Heron, this revolution will NOT be televised.
The technology thing is a big part of our mythology. Same for the notion of progress. Have a problem? Defer to the gods of technology. Even if technology evolves to the point where we are introducing the possibility for severe damage, we are reluctant to curb it. That would be stopping "progress".

However, there have been a few examples where the right of technology was questioned. For example, the growth of nuclear power plants stopped in the US right after 3 Mile Island. We may also be in the middle of questioning some of the more advanced gene-alterign technology. (Germline, rather than somatic, might see use actually cloning human being at some point...) .

In the case above, I don't think we as a society are yet at the point where we see "more roads" as being a questionable move. But there is hope that this might change.

[Roody]

I know how much life changes when you get that phone call, "There's been an accident, you need to get to the hospital as fast as you can."

One more damn good reason to get these horrible machines off the road.

[lyeinyoureye]

I know how much life changes when you get that phone call, "There's been an accident, you need to get to the hospital as fast as you can."

One more damn good reason to get these horrible machines off the road.

What a wonderful post. If it weren't for it, we may have a reasonable, sensible thread on a valid concern. I figure it's only a matter of time before the zealots come out of the woodwork in any discussion... :p

[Roody]

What a wonderful post. If it weren't for it, we may have a reasonable, sensible thread on a valid concern. I figure it's only a matter of time before the zealots come out of the woodwork in any discussion... :p


I'm grateful that Slow Train brought up this topic.

The accident I referred to made me realize the dark side of the automobile culture. The public today is so jaded about car accidents that we rarely stop to think that these accidents are unacceptable and unnecessary. We've come so far in our blind acceptance of cars that we think the deaths and injuries are just a small price to pay for the convenience of cars.

[wahoonc]

This is sort of on topic. When I think about automobiles and the "personal freedom" that people claim I get very irritated. People driving cars kill way too many people. If I killed that percentage of people on my jobsite OSHA would have shut me down years ago. When it comes to safety on jobsites "personal freedom" takes a back seat. Perhaps this needs to be done in the general public sector when it comes to accidents and drivers. I know of no other "industry" that is allowed to wreak as much havoc on the general public with no or such limited consequences. [/rant off]

Aaron:)

[gerv]

Another aspect of this that scares me are all the suburban bars and restaurants that are set up far, far from the homes of their clients. I wonder how everyone gets home after a night out. They certainly seldom take cabs. Mostly they drive and I'm pretty sure that most of them shouldn't get behind a wheel.

It seems to me that if you own a bar in a strip mall, you should be required to have some means of transporting your clients back home.

[wahoonc]

Another aspect of this that scares me are all the suburban bars and restaurants that are set up far, far from the homes of their clients. I wonder how everyone gets home after a night out. They certainly seldom take cabs. Mostly they drive and I'm pretty sure that most of them shouldn't get behind a wheel.

It seems to me that if you own a bar in a strip mall, you should be required to have some means of transporting your clients back home.

And I don't reccomend it in MSP either...the muslim taxi cab drivers don't want to take fares that "might" have alcohol:rolleyes:

FWIW this is yet another issue brought on by urban sprawl. When I was temporarily living in Mansfield, OH I was surprised by the number of "neighborhood" bars. I could walk to at least 4 from where my apartment was located. And just for reference I have spent most of my life in the deep south where bars were hidden on the "bad" side of town or waaaay out in the country. I would love to be able to ride my bike to a local brew pub for a pint every now and again, but I don't see that happening anytime soon...I live in a dry county:p

Aaron:)

[biketony]

Another aspect of this that scares me are all the suburban bars and restaurants that are set up far, far from the homes of their clients. I wonder how everyone gets home after a night out. They certainly seldom take cabs. Mostly they drive and I'm pretty sure that most of them shouldn't get behind a wheel.

It seems to me that if you own a bar in a strip mall, you should be required to have some means of transporting your clients back home.

The car really is an insidious feature of modern life. The Big Box stores open at the edge of town, where property is cheaper, and we all drive there to get those Low! Low! prices. This, in turn, kills the local (read: bikeable/walkable distance) businesses that deal with the consumer basics such as groceries. Now, factor in strict zoning which forces homes HERE and business over THERE, somewhere... Oh, and a lot of US cities/suburbs have codes requiring homes to be larger than they were in the past. This, of course, requires larger lots which, in turn, leads to more sprawl (again, land is cheaper the further away one drives), requiring more driving to lead that American Dream.

Is there really any wonder at the notion that we'd actually have a war for oil?

To veer back to this thread's topic, cars as a health/safety issue: Society wrings it's collective hands about all the deaths and injuries that result from all of our driving. Still, every time we start the engine we are declaring these deaths/maimings to be 'acceptable losses'.

And I am not above any of this; I still own a car. One of those ironies of modern life, is that some of us move to more rural areas-and then drive even more. My wife and I are moving to a city, and are very much looking forward to, among many other things, NO driving. I wonder if a Nissan Frontier would make a nice planter box?

[Platy]

I wonder if a Nissan Frontier would make a nice planter box?
Saw the cab's roof off. Poke holes through the floorboards and bed for drainage. Leave the wheels on so you can roll it around to get maximum sun.

[wahoonc]

You could use it for a guest house:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

[JeffS]

This is sort of on topic. When I think about automobiles and the "personal freedom" that people claim I get very irritated. People driving cars kill way too many people.

Aaron:)

Bolded to make my point. Indept drivers are the primary cause of these deaths and no amount of "safety features" is going to change that. A competent driver, paying attention doesn't need guard rails (with a few exceptions) or five signs to warn of each impending turn.

I couldn't care less about death rates, but that we, as a society, continue to label vehicle-based maiming and murdering as accidents does annoy me. A couple kids die on a 3-wheeler and they're outlawed. Thousands of kids die in cars and we try to fix it with safety-features.

[Wogsterca]

Bolded to make my point. Indept drivers are the primary cause of these deaths and no amount of "safety features" is going to change that. A competent driver, paying attention doesn't need guard rails (with a few exceptions) or five signs to warn of each impending turn.

I couldn't care less about death rates, but that we, as a society, continue to label vehicle-based maiming and murdering as accidents does annoy me. A couple kids die on a 3-wheeler and they're outlawed. Thousands of kids die in cars and we try to fix it with safety-features.

One of the traffic reporters here in Toronto also uses the term collision instead of accident, he says because not all collisions are accidents, and until the police investigation is complete, you can't know, so he refers to them as collisions. Cars are special, because politicians are in the pockets of the automobile and oil industries, so special laws apply. However if regular people, decided to stop driving, and demanded that the government do something about it, and elected green candidates, rather then the ones with the biggest election contributions, then cars would probably be banned.

[biketony]

One of the traffic reporters here in Toronto also uses the term collision instead of accident, he says because not all collisions are accidents, and until the police investigation is complete, you can't know, so he refers to them as collisions. Cars are special, because politicians are in the pockets of the automobile and oil industries, so special laws apply. However if regular people, decided to stop driving, and demanded that the government do something about it, and elected green candidates, rather then the ones with the biggest election contributions, then cars would probably be banned.

Great, something else to ponder! I wonder when the term 'accident' became mainstream, and how that occured. The cynic in me would suspect the auto industry itself. Without a great leap of imagination, it's easy to envision the 'powers-that-were' wanting to downplay the significance of automobile collisions to a public still needing to be coaxed into the car. Doesn't the word 'accident' seem to conjure up an almost benign event? Sort of like "the puppy just had an 'accident' on the floor". Yes, messy and unwanted, but easily corrected; no harm, no foul.

[Roody]

I call them "crashes" and so do a lot of traffic engineers and safety advocates.

[fat_bike_nut]

I've been calling them collisions ever since I took a close look at the definition of "accident" in the dictionary.

[thebankman]

I know how much life changes when you get that phone call, "There's been an accident, you need to get to the hospital as fast as you can."

One more damn good reason to get these horrible machines off the road.

Look at it from another perspective: Life changes when someone has to call your family and friends for you to tell them to come to the hospital immediately.

[lyeinyoureye]

The accident I referred to made me realize the dark side of the automobile culture. The public today is so jaded about car accidents that we rarely stop to think that these accidents are unacceptable and unnecessary. We've come so far in our blind acceptance of cars that we think the deaths and injuries are just a small price to pay for the convenience of cars.

Don'tcha think that's a half-truth? Strict licensing and enforcement would do nearly as much for accidents as removing all cars from the road. The problem is a blind acceptance of standards, not cars. Although the blind acceptance of cars does apply in other areas, such as urban pollution, it doesn't apply to operator safety. If every driver had to go through what a semi driver does, as well as a thorough course on automotive maintenance, I doubt we would have this "epidemic". We've come so far in our blind acceptance of lax standards that we think the deaths and injuries are just a small price to pay for the convenience of easy licensing. ;)

[Roody]

Don'tcha think that's a half-truth? Strict licensing and enforcement would do nearly as much for accidents as removing all cars from the road. The problem is a blind acceptance of standards, not cars. Although the blind acceptance of cars does apply in other areas, such as urban pollution, it doesn't apply to operator safety. If every driver had to go through what a semi driver does, as well as a thorough course on automotive maintenance, I doubt we would have this "epidemic". We've come so far in our blind acceptance of lax standards that we think the deaths and injuries are just a small price to pay for the convenience of easy licensing. ;)

Actually, no, I don't think standards for drivers are the problem or the solution. It's much harder to get a driver's license than it used to be, at least in this state. The cars themselves are much safer now too, with innovations like antilock braking, crumple zone construction, and especially seat belts and airbags. Roads are also constructed to higher safety standards these days.

I think a big cause of crashes is that there are just too many cars on the roads. There are literally more cars than drivers in the US, as you probably know. The number of cars on the roads has more than doubled since I learned to drive in the 1970s, but the actual linear mileage of roadways has increased by a much smaller proportion. Congestion makes roads more dangerous and also contributes to road rage and reckless driving. This situation is bad for everybody, but especially distressing for cyclists and pedestrians.

A related danger is that the speed limits are too high. They're high because of the increased number of cars on the road. The existing roads can handle a bigger volume of traffic if speeds are faster, much like more water can get through a pipe if it's going faster.

Another way they handle more cars on the existing roads is through creative highway engineering. Examples of this include intersections with multiple turn lanes, roundabouts and complex traffic signals with vehicle activation and advanced and delayed green lights. These traffic innovations generally work well for cars, but not so well for bikes and walkers. You probably know how difficult it can be to get your bike over into the proper left turn lane, only to discover there isn't enough metal mass on the bike to activate the left turn arrow, and the cars behind you are honking.....

[donnamb]

One of the traffic reporters here in Toronto also uses the term collision instead of accident, he says because not all collisions are accidents, and until the police investigation is complete, you can't know, so he refers to them as collisions.
Wogster, that's one reporter who is worthy of respect, IMO. :beer:

[lyeinyoureye]

I think a big cause of crashes is that there are just too many cars on the roads. There are literally more cars than drivers in the US, as you probably know......

Ah, yes. Because there are more cars than drivers, there must be obscene numbers of cars on the road! Maybe even more cars than drivers! ;)

According to any DMV agency out there, cars must follow at a distance proportional to the increase in braking distance, i.e. kinetic energy, for safety reasons. An increase in speed limits won't allow more cars to get through unless the drivers break the law and tailgate. If they do, that's operator error. In fact, because the braking distance/KE increases with the square of speed, given a highway that's near capacity, the lower the limit, the more cars we can fit, because the braking distance between each car decreases according to the square of velocity too. Lonely interstate highways generally have higher speed limits because traffic isn't dense, and this allows drivers to legally move through the area faster.

In any event, 40% of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol (definite operator error). 21% were intersection fatalities (likely operator error), and ~20% probably involve people w/o seatbelts (definite operator error) among other incidents such as road departure and pedestrian fatalities, both likely caused by operator error for the most part. The large majority of accidents are probably cause by operator error. They are either driving while intoxicated, tired, w/o paying attention to their surroundings, or just F'up because they lack experience. Only ~12% of drivers on the road are 16-24 years old, but they're involved in ~24% of all traffic fatalities.

What you're stating seems akin to improving gun safety by eliminating guns. It'd work. But it wouldn't address the actual reason behind most automobile fatalities, operator error. I think we should also eliminate social interaction because the flu causes quite a few deaths world wide each year. ;)

[Roody]

According to any DMV agency out there, cars must follow at a distance proportional to the increase in braking distance, i.e. kinetic energy, for safety reasons. An increase in speed limits won't allow more cars to get through unless the drivers break the law and tailgate. If they do, that's operator error. In fact, because the braking distance/KE increases with the square of speed, given a highway that's near capacity, the lower the limit, the more cars we can fit, because the braking distance between each car decreases according to the square of velocity too. Lonely interstate highways generally have higher speed limits because traffic isn't dense, and this allows drivers to legally move through the area faster. I guess your state is different than mine. Here, the speed limits on urban freeways have been raised to 70 mph, the same as the limits on rural interstates. In Detroit, where traffic is very dense, the average speed is closer to 80, and they sure ride close together. Speed limits on surface streets have been raised considerably too. Michigan, like many states, has adopted the 85th percentile rule. Speed limits are reset at the top speed actually driven by 85 % of the drivers.




In any event, 40% of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol (definite operator error). 21% were intersection fatalities (likely operator error), and ~20% probably involve people w/o seatbelts (definite operator error) among other incidents such as road departure and pedestrian fatalities, both likely caused by operator error for the most part. The large majority of accidents are probably cause by operator error. They are either driving while intoxicated, tired, w/o paying attention to their surroundings, or just F'up because they lack experience. Only ~12% of drivers on the road are 16-24 years old, but they're involved in ~24% of all traffic fatalities.

I agree that operator error is responsible for most accidents. But there is much less room for error than there used to be, since the roads are so much more congested and confusing. And at higher speeds, errors are much more likely to result in fatalities and serious injuries. There are much stiffer penalties for drunk driving than there used to be, and I've read that enforcement has been effective in this area. Young drivers have a handicap--their brains are not yet fully developed--more than a lack of experience, though inexperience probably plays a role in their high crash rates. Here, new drivers have to go through a multi=stage licensing process, and they're not fully licensed until they're 18, with a certain number of hours operating a car.

I'm not getting the source of your arguments. Are you saying there is not more car traffic than there used to be? Or are you saying that congestion has minimal impact on the number of crashes? As a cyclist, I imagine you'd at least agree that heavy car traffic makes cycling less enjoyable, if not less safe. Most of my friends who drive also tell me that driving is less enjoyable shen traffic is heavy. As a motorist, would you agree with that?

[Wogsterca]

Ah, yes. Because there are more cars than drivers, there must be obscene numbers of cars on the road! Maybe even more cars than drivers! ;)

According to any DMV agency out there, cars must follow at a distance proportional to the increase in braking distance, i.e. kinetic energy, for safety reasons. An increase in speed limits won't allow more cars to get through unless the drivers break the law and tailgate. If they do, that's operator error. In fact, because the braking distance/KE increases with the square of speed, given a highway that's near capacity, the lower the limit, the more cars we can fit, because the braking distance between each car decreases according to the square of velocity too. Lonely interstate highways generally have higher speed limits because traffic isn't dense, and this allows drivers to legally move through the area faster.

In any event, 40% of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol (definite operator error). 21% were intersection fatalities (likely operator error), and ~20% probably involve people w/o seatbelts (definite operator error) among other incidents such as road departure and pedestrian fatalities, both likely caused by operator error for the most part. The large majority of accidents are probably cause by operator error. They are either driving while intoxicated, tired, w/o paying attention to their surroundings, or just F'up because they lack experience. Only ~12% of drivers on the road are 16-24 years old, but they're involved in ~24% of all traffic fatalities.

What you're stating seems akin to improving gun safety by eliminating guns. It'd work. But it wouldn't address the actual reason behind most automobile fatalities, operator error. I think we should also eliminate social interaction because the flu causes quite a few deaths world wide each year. ;)

To deal with operator error, you need much improved driver training, for example the certification process in many places is a multiple-guess test, where someone with no training whatsoever, most of the answers being obvious, could get 75%, then they set the pass rate at 70%. A drivers test of drive around the block and park it, just doesn't cut it either. Yet 80% of drivers out there, the ones over 30, have just that for certification, and they then have 64 years, from the time of certification before anyone questions their driving ability.

I would think a better system would be a training program, minimum 100 hours of class room instruction, then they put you in a simulator, you need to log 500 hours in that simulator, and during that time, the instructors will throw every possible situation at you, multiple times, to train the driver not to think about a situation, when dealing with it. Not everything can be dealt with in a simulator, so next is the skid pan, basically this is a oil + water surface (could be ice in the winter), and they intentionally throw you into a skid, repeatedly until you automatically correct the skid. Now, you can actually get in a car, and drive it, but you need to log 200 hours with an instructor, before you go through a 3 hour, in car, certification exam. Once you pass, you get a learners licence, which means you can not drive on major highways or at night. After a year, you need to recertify, then you can drive on major highways or at night (but not both), after another year, you recertify again, and get a full licence. Up until this point, if you are pulled over with ANY alcohol in your system, your done, you need to wait 3 years before restarting the whole process again.

Okay, so you have a full licence, it cost you $20,000 to go through the whole process, but your finally a driver, your not done yet, every 5 years before your renewal, you must recertify. Existing drivers would, also need to go through the same recertification process, if you fail, the certification officer will recommend a refresher course, which would be a shorter form of the new driver course maybe 20 hours of classroom, and 100 simulator hours, followed by the skidpan, and retaking the exam. If you do not recertify before your licence expires, it expires, and you can not drive on an expired licence, but you have 3 years in which to take the refresher course and recertify, although it may mean a longer course is required. After 3 years, you need to start over as a new driver.

If you are caught DUI, then your licence is immediately cancelled, you must wait 5 years, before going through the whole new driver process. Driving with out a licence would result in a $30,000 fine or 1 year in jail, with a second offense the fine and/or time are doubled.

Yeah, I know 75% of current drivers, who have had their licence 10 years or more, would probably fail the recertification process, and 50% if those could not afford the training upgrades, fine, gets bad drivers off the road. I also know that 95% of teenagers could not afford the new driver training either, well, a much simpler process could be enacted for other vehicle types, like scooters and bicycles. Motorcyclists would need a similar program to cagers, although a shorter program could be enacted for existing cagers.

Yeah, I know, I included bicycles in there, it would basically be 25 hours of classroom instruction, and
25 hours of practical experience, would be done as part of the late elementry (grade 5 or 6) school physical education program, basically covers the rules of the road, and would get you a permanent bicycle licence, and you could ride a bike or a scooter under 50cc. Scooters over 50cc but under 201cc would require a lesser version of a motorcycle licence, and scooters larger then 200cc would need a motorcycle licence.

Yeah, I know that would quickly result in a lot of traffic becoming bicycles and low end scooters, but think of the savings on gas and pollution.....

[lyeinyoureye]

@Roody
My point was that operator training and safety is why we have car crashes. No need to ban them. We could ban bicycles and have no fatalities involving bicycles.... ;)
The stats were from the dot (safety.fhwa.dot.gov) iirc. I remember seeing statements like 80-90% of all deaths are caused by driver error in some way. I think Wogsterca has it right wrt vehicle licensing.

I thoroughly enjoy heavy stop and go city traffic on my bike. There isn't any of that where I live now, but when I used to live in Riverside, CA biking through downtown was a blast compared to driving because of filtering and *breaking traffic laws with (cautious) impunity. Moving farther out into the county sucked because the roads had traffic traveling at 40-65mph compared to my 5-30mph and stop were miles away. I tend to drive when I know I won't hit traffic, but all driving for me isn't enjoyable because I do all the driving in my household. I don't make much of a distinction between getting stuck in traffic or on the open road, although I try to avoid it because it hurts my mileage and increases vehicle wear.

*Done in front of police nonetheless. They didn't care so long as cyclists took a good look and made sure there was no traffic when running reds and the like.

[thebankman]

Education and enforcement don't mean anything when there are drivers on the road without 1. driver's ed time 2. a drivers license 3. insurance

[Robert C]

For a long time I have thought that requireing the commerical drivers physical of all drivers would be a good start (no, I do not "have a thing for old people" my parents are in thier 70's too). After all, if a person is not physically fit to drive, then there not physically fit to drive.

The hidden agenda with this is to try to make non-driving common enough amongst a well off segment of the population that there would be a real demand for facilities, and culture, that would permtt living car free.

(of course, I also want to see vehicles that are built as, safety tested as, and classed as, light trucks to be registered as light trucks and subject to all truck rules. The facts are that passenger trucks are disproportionatly unsafe and call for more light trucks to allow others to feel safe when shareing the road with them)

[Platy]

The hidden agenda with this is to try to make non-driving common enough amongst a well off segment of the population that there would be a real demand for facilities, and culture, that would permtt living car free.
That's my explicit agenda. No need to hide it, it's a worthy goal at this point.