Advocacy & Safety - Traffic. Why We Drive The Way We Do.

This is the title of a book written by Tom Vanderbilt. I have not purchased or read it yet, but will soon. I found it in the Social Studies section at my local Barnes and Noble store. Has anyone read this book? What did you think? Granted I can buy it cheaper on Amazon.com but I prefer to spend my money locally and want it right away.

Here is a link to Tom's blog: http://www.howwedrive.com/

I read it a few months ago (I downloaded the Amazon Kindle electronic edition.) Very fascinating and informative, and has lots of information that is relevant to bike riders. He turns statistics and anecdotes into interesting and useful entertainment. The main theme of the book I guess is that most of the stuff we do to "improve" traffic (signage, traffic calming etc.) generally makes thing worse. It's not all grim though, and there is lots of information on the kinds of things that actually work. Unfortunately for those of us in the U.S., most of them are being done in Europe...

I have it, I have read it, I highly recommend it.

Bought it and read it back last fall when it came out... Lots of good stuff in there; while it's mostly oriented toward motor vehicle traffic and driving behaviors, there's a lot of insight that you can use for cycling advocacy as well. A very readable book.

I just placed a hold on it at the library.

A related book, "It's no Accident" by Lisa Lewis is worth reading too.

I've read it - WARNING: it might cause you to drive more slowly on the highway. I have reduced my speeding from SL+20 to SL plus or minus 5 as a result of reading the book. So far I haven't died, even once.

Seriously though it is a good book, and you might reduce your driving speed as a result (good for you and your kids).

I'm reading this book and actually logged on hoping someone would be discussing it. I'm only in the first few chapters, but so far he's made some interesting points about cycling:

1. Cyclists who do not give clear traffic signals may elicit more caution from drivers because they are seen as unpredictable or simply as more human and less vehicular. Also in terms of humanity, he points out the constructs we use in our language that shed light on how a cyclist is (or should be) seen in traffic. For instance, you would say, "The car [thing] hit the cyclist [person]." You wouldn't be likely to say that "the bike hit the driver."

2. He references a study that showed that drivers tend to make closer passes if the cyclist is obviously male, or is wearing a helmet, or takes the lane. I fit all three of those categories and probably won't change (especially the male part), but it gives me something to consider.

1. Cyclists who do not give clear traffic signals may elicit more caution from drivers because they are seen as unpredictable or simply as more human and less vehicular. Also in terms of humanity, he points out the constructs we use in our language that shed light on how a cyclist is (or should be) seen in traffic. For instance, you would say, "The car [thing] hit the cyclist [person]." You wouldn't be likely to say that "the bike hit the driver."


Eh, that's interesting but in a car-bike collision, doesn't the car (thing) hit the cyclist (person)? I mean, it's not like your bike is going to go flying through the sunroof and conk the driver in the head, but the car is most likely going to come in contact with the cyclist.

I just got it out of the library and had to read a bit of it (even though I'm in the middle of another book I want to finish first).

I looked through the contents and decided to read the last chapter (What's risky on the road and why) first and have to say, I love it when what I read from an author that has done a lot of research confirms what I've found out on my own.

He even mentions the perception that many people have regarding riding on side walks because people think it's less likely they will be hit by cars if they do so when in fact it isn't due to the intersections where cars hit these cyclists.

You're right, degnaw, the car is physically going to touch the cyclist but the bike won't touch the driver. On the other hand, cars don't kill people, drivers do.

I really enjoyed the book. Not because it confirmed a lot of the biases that I personally hold, or validated many of the opinions I already held - but precisely because it didn't. Vanderbilt has obviously done a lot of research and interviews and thinking about the topics in his book; topics that affect us all (whether or not you currently own a car).

You may not agree with everything in his book, but I think that's his intent. The book will get you to re-think critically and examine closely our beliefs and misconceptions about traffic (and human nature and psychology in general). Very well written and a quick read. Highly recommended.

I just got it out of the library and had to read a bit of it (even though I'm in the middle of another book I want to finish first).

I looked through the contents and decided to read the last chapter (What's risky on the road and why) first and have to say, I love it when what I read from an author that has done a lot of research confirms what I've found out on my own.

He even mentions the perception that many people have regarding riding on side walks because people think it's less likely they will be hit by cars if they do so when in fact it isn't due to the intersections where cars hit these cyclists.

I have the book on reserve. So not read yet.

But I don't get your last sentence... how are sidewalk cyclists hit if not at an intersection? (BTW I count driveways as intersections... does not the author?

I don't think I enjoyed it because it confirmed my biases, but rather that my amateur research matched that of a professional.

My wife always gives me a hard time when I denigrate my research. She thinks I should be more confident. It has often been held to scrutiny and holds up.

I guess the fact that I do write a cycling column for a newspaper and my work is reviewed before going to print counts for something. I know that a lack of a formal education is no indication that someone can't be educated.

...I don't get your last sentence... how are sidewalk cyclists hit if not at an intersection? (BTW I count driveways as intersections... does not the author?

It's the people who ride on sidewalks that think they will not be hit by cars on the sidewalks. They forget the driveways and cross walks where they leave the sidewalk and encounter cars that are not looking for them as the people riding bikes on sidewalks are not looking for cars.

It's the people who ride on sidewalks that think they will not be hit by cars on the sidewalks. They forget the driveways and cross walks where they leave the sidewalk and encounter cars that are not looking for them as the people riding bikes on sidewalks are not looking for cars.

Ah ha, so if one is aware of driveways and crosswalks... sidewalks can be safer.

Aaronechang, I agree. I like books that turn my thinking upside down. His assertion that I should be merging at the last minute when driving toward a lane drop is really blowing my mind. I can see his point, but if I become one of those people in the lane soon to close, everyone else will hate me and I can't stop my car and recommend that they read this book.

More power to you, biking in Houston. I've done a little of it and all I recall is millions of cars and giant ditches inches from the road.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread. Keep talking about the book!

Ah ha, so if one is aware of driveways and crosswalks... sidewalks can be safer.

for sure. Awareness is key

Ah ha, so if one is aware of driveways and crosswalks... sidewalks can be safer.

Also be aware that all those intersections make the safe cycling speed on sidewalks much lower than on the roads.

The last time I rode on the sidewalk, I was trying to be "aware" and was looking back (read: not forwards) to see if anyone was about to turn right; the edge of my handlebars caught on a pole and I went down.

Like others, I only read part of it before I had to return it to the the library. It's a good read, and it will make you think. He talks about the importance of getting cars from Point A to Point B, and the consequences for not doing that, but he also points out that in traffic, cyclists are thought of as human beings while cars are looked at as cars. (You would never say, "The motorist hit the bicycle.") He treats bike lanes as a controversy among cyclists, but doesn't discuss them much.

You'll be smarter when you finish the book than when you start. And that's a good measure of a book. It's probably a better use of a few hours than rehashing the same bike lane debate we've been having for years.

I really should check it out again and finish it.

I don't think I enjoyed it because it confirmed my biases, but rather that my amateur research matched that of a professional.

My wife always gives me a hard time when I denigrate my research. She thinks I should be more confident. It has often been held to scrutiny and holds up.

I guess the fact that I do write a cycling column for a newspaper and my work is reviewed before going to print counts for something. I know that a lack of a formal education is no indication that someone can't be educated.

Well ... he is a journalist. I don't know whether being part of the profession implies that he/she is better at assimilating research better than others. Rather, my interpretation is that a thinking individual putting in (considerable) effort can pull together a set of ideas to create a reasonable analysis.

So if you are a thinking individual and put in the necessary effort ...

Vanderbilt took a rather narrow topic and drew from it some broad and original conclusions about human beings. I read a lot of non-fiction books in 2008 and Traffic was definitely one of the best. There's a lot of information about cycling--it will change the way you ride in traffic.

Ah ha, so if one is aware of driveways and crosswalks... sidewalks can be safer.

Problem is, the sidewalks still have pedestrians on them, an even greater collision hazard.

Tom

Ah ha, so if one is aware of driveways and crosswalks... sidewalks can be safer.

Probably not. Sight lines are better when you're in the street. You're more likely to see a car pulling out of a driveway or side street in time, and its driver is more likely to see you.

Probably not. Sight lines are better when you're in the street. You're more likely to see a car pulling out of a driveway or side street in time, and its driver is more likely to see you.

You just countered what I said. I said if you were aware... and you said, no you are not aware. :rolleyes:

Sightlines are one thing... if you want to look at that, how about overtaking collisions... which are possible if you are riding in the street, but not possible on sidewalks.

You just countered what I said. I said if you were aware... and you said, no you are not aware. :rolleyes:

Sightlines are one thing... if you want to look at that, how about overtaking collisions... which are possible if you are riding in the street, but not possible on sidewalks.

Even if you are paying attention, one still makes mistakes. And your placement affects the likelihood of other people making mistakes.

I think that when discussing transportation, labeling something "safe" without also mentioning something about the speed traveled misses an important aspect of the topic.

Even if you are paying attention, one still makes mistakes. And your placement affects the likelihood of other people making mistakes.

I think that when discussing transportation, labeling something "safe" without also mentioning something about the speed traveled misses an important aspect of the topic.

True... and regardless, I don't want to derail this thread to a sidewalk cycling thread. So let's move on.

True... and regardless, I don't want to derail this thread to a sidewalk cycling thread. So let's move on.

The last section of the book Traffic discusses plans for the elimination of sidewalks, and also getting rid of bike lanes, traffic lanes, pavement markings and signage. The idea is to force motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to become very active negotiators of the road. This means that they have to slow down, pay attention, and cooperate with other users. This method has been used in Holland, and even some in the UK and New york City. It shows great promise, but more study is needed.

You just countered what I said. I said if you were aware... and you said, no you are not aware. :rolleyes:

Sightlines are one thing... if you want to look at that, how about overtaking collisions... which are possible if you are riding in the street, but not possible on sidewalks.

While cyclists may fear them the most, overtaking collisions are rare compared to other types.

The last section of the book Traffic discusses plans for the elimination of sidewalks, and also getting rid of bike lanes, traffic lanes, pavement markings and signage. The idea is to force motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to become very active negotiators of the road. This means that they have to slow down, pay attention, and cooperate with other users. This method has been used in Holland, and even some in the UK and New york City. It shows great promise, but more study is needed.

Would probably work great anywhere a motorist is not inclined to do 60MPH...

High speeds on freeway like roads are the biggest problem I face in So Cal...

While cyclists may fear them the most, overtaking collisions are rare compared to other types.

And generally more deadly.

The last section of the book Traffic discusses plans for the elimination of sidewalks, and also getting rid of bike lanes, traffic lanes, pavement markings and signage. The idea is to force motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to become very active negotiators of the road. This means that they have to slow down, pay attention, and cooperate with other users. This method has been used in Holland, and even some in the UK and New york City. It shows great promise, but more study is needed.

There's a lot to be said for this. The problem is not lack of study. Major planning firms have plenty of experience with it from projects they've been involved with around the world. The problem is bartleby-esque municipal planners who won't stick their necks out, probably because they'd get their heads chopped off by cranky citizens who object to anything.

There's a lot to be said for this. The problem is not lack of study. Major planning firms have plenty of experience with it from projects they've been involved with around the world. The problem is bartleby-esque municipal planners who won't stick their necks out, probably because they'd get their heads chopped off by cranky citizens who object to anything.


According to what I've read, nobody has "plenty of experience" in this area.

What you say about cranky citizens rings true. For a new municipal parking lot, the designer proposed back in angle parking. The public outcry was mild, but enough to get them to change the plans to traditional parking.

removing all traffic control devices and roadway markings might work as a tool for greater integrated mixing along low speed, low ADT intersections and roads - some streets in Denmark and Germany (woonerfs, Tempo zones) where this is applied have speed limits as low as 7 km/hr!!!!

this 'tabula rasa' streetscape would fail miserably accomodating the american public as a blanket approach to traffic mangement.

removing all traffic control devices and roadway markings might work as a tool for greater integrated mixing along low speed, low ADT intersections and roads - some streets in Denmark and Germany (woonerfs, Tempo zones) where this is applied have speed limits as low as 7 km/hr!!!!

this 'tabula rasa' streetscape would fail miserably accomodating the american public as a blanket approach to traffic mangement.

I don't know what you're talking about. The street design was devised in the Netherlands and that's mainly where it's been used. We won't really know how it will work in the US until it's tried here. There are NO speed limits in this design. And obviously no single design will work as a "blanket approach." This particualr design, according to Traffic, is best suited for high traffic urban areas where there's a mix of cars, bikes and peds.

Wikipedia on Monderman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman)

Have you read the book? I think you would like it a lot. There's a lot of support for some of your pet projects.

roody- you highlight from the last chapter of traffic on one type of multimodal mixing to the extent you miss how bikes, cars, and pedestrians really coexist on different streets.

Woonerfs and Tempo zones are well established streetscape designs. What am I talking about? equitable use streetscape designs...... WOONERFS in Denmark, with traffic speeds of 7 km/hr, and TEMPO zones in Germany, where traffic speeds are limited to less than 30 km/hr - the limit may even be 20 km/hr in tempo zones.

Traffic is on my book list, haven't gotten it from the library yet.

that Tabula Rasa streetscape concept would fail MISERABLY along Sunset Boulevard, Roody. or maybe it wouldn't, but I suggest that you don't hold your breath in hopes to see stunning improvements in traffic negotiation using the removal of traffic control devices as a widespread road design in the USA.

have you watched 'slumdog millionaire' yet?

I don't think I enjoyed it because it confirmed my biases, but rather that my amateur research matched that of a professional.

My wife always gives me a hard time when I denigrate my research. She thinks I should be more confident. It has often been held to scrutiny and holds up.

I guess the fact that I do write a cycling column for a newspaper and my work is reviewed before going to print counts for something. I know that a lack of a formal education is no indication that someone can't be educated.

Is your column part of the online version of your paper? Is it weekly, or daily? Do you have a link to it? I'd love to read what you have to say.

An important point in the book Traffic was that the signless / markerless intersection only works in countries where the societal norms ensure that everything doesn't degenerate into chaos. Netherlands, Denmark, fit the bill.

Otherwise you end up like New Delhi, India (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiG6RqCWLao&feature=related) where there are few signs (the ones that exist are ignored by everybody), getting around is a complete clusterf@#$ and the fatality rate is sky high.

Is your column part of the online version of your paper? Is it weekly, or daily? Do you have a link to it? I'd love to read what you have to say.

It is online and the paper runs just a couple of times a week.

Currently, I'm inactive but come spring, I'll start up again.

The usual submission is one every two weeks but last year, my editor kept on asking for more, so I ended up writing twice what was originally arranged.

I started a thread about it and linked all the articles in the thread

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=428493&highlight=

I finally bought the book and am on page 64, the section about the DriveCams. I am going to post about the book in my blog, either as I go along, or when I am done reading it. Thing is I don't know if I should consider this book part of seomthing advocacy and safety related or general traffic. I have 2 possible blogs to post about it:
http://bicycleadvocacyandsafety.blogspot.com/
http://johnsbicyclinghobby.blogspot.com/

Where would you post about it?

I just finished my other book and am starting this one.

As I said, I read the last chapter first and particularly liked this part.

"As the risk expert John Adams likes to say, understanding risk is not rocket science - it's more complicated. Looking at statistics from the United Kingdom, he notes that a young man is 100 times more likely than a middle age woman to be killed in traffic. Someone driving on a Sunday morning at 3 am has a risk 134 times greater than than someone driving at 10 am on Sunday. Someone with a personality disorder is 10 times more likely to have a serious crash, while someone 2.9 times over the BAC limit would be 20 times more likely than a sober driver to crash.

'So if these were independent variables,' he told me,'you could multiply them to come to the conclusion that a disturbed, drunken young manon the road on a Sunday morning was about 2.5 million times more likely to have a serious accident than a normal, sober middle-aged woman driving to church seven hours later.' They are, however, not independent. 'There are proportionally more disturbed, drunken young men on the road at 3 o'clock on a Sunday morning,' Adams noted. Now add other factors. Were the cars tires n good shape? Was it foggy? Was the driver tired or awake? "Once you start trying to imagine all the factors,' Adams said,'that might not be an exaggeration of the disparity between one persons risk and another persons risk.' He used this example to 'have a go' at what he calls the 'Richter scales' of risk, which show, for instance,that a person has a 1 in 8,000 chance of dying or being seriously injured in a car crash, and a 1 in 25,000 chance of the same thing happening while playing soccer. 'The purveyors of these tables say they produce them to guide the lay public in making risks. The lay public is hopeless at making use of numbers like this.'"

I find after thinking about the topic that it is much the same with assessing the risks of cycling. Everybody does it differently with different skills and judgement. People often equate the risks I take on a bike as the same as that person that they read about in the newspaper who had died in a bicycle accident on the week-end but do not know that cyclist was drunk, on the wrong side of the road at night with no lights and very rarely rode a bicycle. I would never do that. They also don't take into consideration the age of the cyclist. Does a 50 year old commuter run the same risks as an 8 year old? Does a teen or 22 year old riding a bike ride the same way someone who has been riding as long as those younger riders have been alive?

Just got it and am now reading... find the issues discussed in context with the DriveCam the most interesting, so far.

... The main theme of the book I guess is that most of the stuff we do to "improve" traffic (signage, traffic calming etc.) generally makes thing worse...


Vanderbilt took a rather narrow topic and drew from it some broad and original conclusions about human beings...

Got to agree with Roody here. While Vanderbilt does mention safety measures are often accompanied by riskier behavior therefore possibly eliminating any gains in safety provided by those measures, he quotes Henry Barnes early in the book.

Speaking of his work as traffic commissioner in NYC inthe 60's he said,

"Traffic was as much an emotional problem as it was a physical and mechanical one. As time goes on the technical problems become more automatic while the people problems become more surrealistic."

Vanderbilt comments, "That surrealistic side of traffic will be the focus of this book."

Just got it and am now reading... find the issues discussed in context with the DriveCam the most interesting, so far.

DriveCam should be mandatory equipment for new drivers and drivers with multiple collisions/citations. If you go to their site, you can watch a few collision/near collisions from their on board camera's. One is pointed out front to watch the action, and the other is pointed at the driver to record what they were doing prior to the "risky event" incident that triggered the recording. Sound gets recorded too.

http://www.drivecam.com/

Would probably work great anywhere a motorist is not inclined to do 60MPH...
The major reason that those methods were used in the first place was to make motorists no longer inclined to drive at high speeds; they are very effective at that.

The major reason that those methods were used in the first place was to make motorists no longer inclined to drive at high speeds; they are very effective at that.

I have a feeling that those methods were tried in areas that did not have sweeping wide roads that look like freeways...

DriveCam should be mandatory equipment for new drivers and drivers with multiple collisions/citations. If you go to their site, you can watch a few collision/near collisions from their on board camera's. One is pointed out front to watch the action, and the other is pointed at the driver to record what they were doing prior to the "risky event" incident that triggered the recording. Sound gets recorded too.

http://www.drivecam.com/

Personally, I'd like to have use of a drive-cam to get an objective view of the quality of my driving.

I agree with Vanderbilt when he says those who are bad drivers have no idea that they are because their view-point is not objective.

I know after driving for 30 years, driving a cab for 8 years, commuting on a bicycle for (almost) 25 yaers, and having a keen interest in traffic, I'd guess I'm a decent driver, but that's just my perspective. I'm sure there are areas that I can improve. I'd like to know just how I can.

I agree with Vanderbilt when he says those who are bad drivers have no idea that they are because their view-point is not objective.

But it is more than that, right? Serious accidents are still relatively rare. That is, a bad driver has to drive quite a bit before getting the "feedback" that says, "hey, you might suck at driving". Of course, then your point that the driver might still rationalize the outcome because of bias applies.

Besides having another perspective, the camera helps since close calls can be used as evaluation points too.

edited for crappy late-night grammar.

Personally, I'd like to have use of a drive-cam to get an objective view of the quality of my driving.

Me too, but considering that the camera records events like hard braking or turning, anyone who had few of these incidents wouldn't get much coaching. You could, and probably already do, analyze these types of events on your own after they happen, even without a camera. If your present driving style almost never triggered the camera to record an event, (which should be the goal) then it can't really help you to improve much more. Still, seeing very few triggered events would be a nice confirmation that one had safe driving habits.

I like how Tom points out that the key to avoiding the few crashes at the top of the "Heinrich triangle" is by reducing the much larger group of near misses at the base of the triangle. This is the same thing we were taught in our workplace accident reduction training.

But it is more than that, right? Serious accidents are still relatively rare. That is, a bad driver has to drive quite a bit before getting the "feedback" that says, "hey, you might suck at driving". Of course, then your point that the driver might still rationalize the outcome because of bias.

Besides having an other perspective, the camera helps since close calls can be used as evaluation points too.

The sad thing is some drivers view their close calls as simply "avoiding an accident due to their 'superior' driving skills... "

You've seen these folks... weaving through traffic, with close calls all the time.

There are cyclists that ride like this too.