Living Car Free - Cars are dangerous

Got a good fright today.

After waiting for the light to turn green at the intersection just outside my work... just as the car in front of me started to pull out... a Cadillac that should have stopped for the red light sails through the intersection at a pretty good speed and did a direct hit on an SUV pulling out in the opposite direction.

To top it off, the Caddy didn't stop. He sped off from the accident scene. Later the cops found him in the parking lot near the building where I work... apparently disoriented from the accident.

Luckily, the driver managed to avoid a direct t-bone hit by about two feet. So he destroyed the entire front end of the SUV he hit. Luckily, the lady he hit seemed to be OK, even though a bunch of airbags deployed.

I'm really amazed at this. This driver not only missed the red light, but he didn't take a cue from the dozens of cars that were already stopped at the light.

Sometimes I have to wonder who is driving these vehicles and -- even at 8:00 am -- what kind of shape they might be in.

It's always a good idea to look twice even if the light is green. I don't trust the cars at all.

I didn't mean to hit and run! I was disoriented!

These typs of stories are repeated thousands of times each year. I can assure you, the driver of the Caddie was either on drugs, booze or had no insurance.

Yeah, something I'm reminded about on all my daily commutes, plus I always keep the thought in the back of my head that the fine town that I'm riding in is rated #2 (formerly #1) out of 100 cities it's size in our state for vehicle deaths and collisions.

Years ago when I was in college, I was leaving the campus and waiting behind another car at a red light coming out of the parking lot. The light turned green, and the car in front of me (an older Tercel I believe) eased out into the intersection as he was turning left. I started to follow suit, and out of the corner of my right eye I could see a vehicle moving very fast. Another small car entered the intersection from the right going at least 40mph (in a 30mph zone) and just plowed into the Tercel. The Tercel spun around a couple of times and slid into a nearby gas station, and the other driver stopped just a few feet away. I jumped out and made sure the guy in the Tercel was okay, which he was aside from having the wind knocked out of him and being disoriented. There were several people coming out of the other car, and they all appeared to be fine. The driver was smiling as he walked toward us. :twitchy: I left shortly afterward, but that incident made me realize that I should look both ways even when I have a green light.

That title is a misnomer...the cars aren't dangerous the OPERATOR'S are! There is a whole parking lot of cars sitting outside my hotel I can move about them freely with no problems...until some idiot gets behind the wheel THEN they become a problem.:(

Aaron:)

I worked with someone who was a very sharp Engineering Tech. He was also an epileptic. His knowledge in the work we did was awesome but it bothed me to hear him tell people he 'just didn't feel right this morning'. He drove an hour to work and an hour home each day. I never asked but often wondered if he had ever had a siezure while driving.

I'm sure that is one person out of thousands who is driving while we are on the road.

Jerry H

FYI if he did have a siezure he'd be forced to surrender his license for 1.5 years of siezure free living. I had a similar thing happen due to a heart condition. oh how hard it was to give up that license for 6 months at 17 when i had just gotten it...

That title is a misnomer...the cars aren't dangerous the OPERATOR'S are! There is a whole parking lot of cars sitting outside my hotel I can move about them freely with no problems...until some idiot gets behind the wheel THEN they become a problem.:(

Aaron:)

It's still the cars that are dangerous. You could put a moron driver like this on a bike. He would still run red lights and crash into other vehicles, but he wouldn't do nearly the amount of damage if he didn't have 3 tons of steel to use as a weapon.

happens all the time. not surprised at all. Just look at the statistics on car wrecks and fatalities... unreal.

It's still the cars that are dangerous. You could put a moron driver like this on a bike. He would still run red lights and crash into other vehicles, but he wouldn't do nearly the amount of damage if he didn't have 3 tons of steel to use as a weapon.
Here's a link list numbers of automobile deaths in the United States for the last 30 or so years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

What's noteworthy is that for almost every years since 1975, 40,000 people have been killed.



On average in 2008, between 102 and 103 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day.


I still do not understand why we do not consider this a calamity. If an airplane goes down, killing 200 people, it's on the news day and night. I bet there aren't 200 people killed in air accidents in the US every year.

Still, somehow, we think 40,000 deaths a year is acceptable.

It's still the cars that are dangerous. You could put a moron driver like this on a bike. He would still run red lights and crash into other vehicles, but he wouldn't do nearly the amount of damage if he didn't have 3 tons of steel to use as a weapon.

My partner is 230lbs. His bike is a good 45lbs. And he's usually going a good 15-20mph, which is enough to outrun a city bus 'round here. That's enough mass and velocity to kill a pedestrian. Every spring, I have to remind him that trying to ride down the idiot college students sauntering lazily through the beautiful sunny streets is a Bad Plan. He then mutters bitterly about they should have their spring taken away if it's going to drive them mad.

A car definitely can do more damage with less effort. But that doesn't mean we can't do any.

Still, somehow, we think 40,000 deaths a year is acceptable.

It's not.

Mostly, I just do my best to show that car free can work. When we went car free, everyone in my family was convinced it was impossible, and that no one could manage without a car. That was about 2006. As of a few weeks ago, my brother got a bike :) (my little sister was already car free... with a parrot!). It's now just my parents using cars, and since my mom is the Bionic Woman (one hip replacement, one completely rebuilt shoulder and soon to be two knee replacements), it's not realistic for her to rely on a bike. Instead, they live in town, and all of us kids encourage her to walk as much as possible. Dad uses a car when needed, and often will walk or take his bike. I live in hope that someday I can convince him to put a rack and panniers on his precious vintage 10 speed.

Little ripples, but every bit of change helps.

Torrilin, you have an impressive family! Sorry your mom can't join the 'love train'. Maybe an electric recumbent trike...?

My daughter and my two youngest nephews are bike freaks; my sister would ride more if her hubby had the physical capabilities; he has a bike, a good one I built for him, but his health is fragile. He rides when he can, but at about the pace of his 6-y-o son. We have two vehicles in the driveway, mainly for grocerying and utility runs.

I'm still the main one to ride; I commute, pay bills, do some grocery runs myself, and take the kids to the park. I'm at about 90 miles/week.

I'm about the size/capability of your S.O.; I did want to suggest that he ease up on the alpha-male pedal-assertiveness. Makes it easier all around....

My partner is 230lbs. His bike is a good 45lbs. And he's usually going a good 15-20mph, which is enough to outrun a city bus 'round here. That's enough mass and velocity to kill a pedestrian. Every spring, I have to remind him that trying to ride down the idiot college students sauntering lazily through the beautiful sunny streets is a Bad Plan. He then mutters bitterly about they should have their spring taken away if it's going to drive them mad.

A car definitely can do more damage with less effort. But that doesn't mean we can't do any.

I haven't been able to find any cases of pedestrians being killed after colliding with a bicycle. Have you?

Here's a link list numbers of automobile deaths in the United States for the last 30 or so years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

What's noteworthy is that for almost every years since 1975, 40,000 people have been killed.



I still do not understand why we do not consider this a calamity. If an airplane goes down, killing 200 people, it's on the news day and night. I bet there aren't 200 people killed in air accidents in the US every year.

Still, somehow, we think 40,000 deaths a year is acceptable.

In the month of September, 2001, more Americans were killed by cars than died in the 9/11 attacks. And that's been true in each and every month since then.

Worldwide, the number of car fatalities is greater than half a million annually, IIRC.

And we haven't even discussed the casualties from smog and sedentary lifestyles.

I haven't been able to find any cases of pedestrians being killed after colliding with a bicycle. Have you?

It's about 1-5 a year in the US. Very rare, but given bike and pedestrian mode share, way more frequent than it should be. Wouldn't be much of a victory if we increased biking and walking, but cyclists were mowing down pedestrians as much as they get now from cars :(.

I haven't been able to find any cases of pedestrians being killed after colliding with a bicycle. Have you?

There have been a few. IIRC last year in the UK and at least once in NYC where a messenger type plowed into a crowd at a crosswalk. (I will have to see if I can find the link, I know they were posted in A&S)

Aaron:)

It's about 1-5 a year in the US. Very rare, but given bike and pedestrian mode share, way more frequent than it should be. Wouldn't be much of a victory if we increased biking and walking, but cyclists were mowing down pedestrians as much as they get now from cars :(.

I'm not trying to minimize the bike-on-pedestrian problem, especially as I've been nearly mowed down by bikes a number of times. However, it looks like far more peds are killed by bee stings, lightning strikes, or just tripping on their shoelaces.

Cars are the real problem, and I don't think we should lose sight of that.

Its is crazy, you can't just take a gun any where but that car, just go man go.

I'm not trying to minimize the bike-on-pedestrian problem, especially as I've been nearly mowed down by bikes a number of times. However, it looks like far more peds are killed by bee stings, lightning strikes, or just tripping on their shoelaces.

Cars are the real problem, and I don't think we should lose sight of that.

I kind of disagree there. The problem is our society's inability to deal the threat of machines that can travel at high speed in residential areas.

Even that's not entirely true. In some sections of the suburbs in my city, the use of traffic circles to slow down traffic and to generally discourage bad behaviour has met with some success. It seems to be popular with the local residents, but very unpopular with drivers passing through. Your kids are safe on the sidewalks, but it takes longer to get to work.

Personally, I think traffic circles are a pretty rough tool to keep your neighbourhood free from speeding vehicles, but it sure is nice to know that something is being done to keep the local streets safe.

However, there are many sections of a city that aren't strictly residential and streets that are considered "arterial". These type streets tend to have cars moving at 50mph with lights every 1/2 mile. These streets are particularly dangerous because a moment's inattention can lead to pretty deadly results.

I'm not even sure what you could do to make these streets safer. I know that a large number of cyclists traveling on them would slow traffic down. But would also lead to an abnormal number of deaths too.

I suspect the real answer is a number of initiatives. Traffic lights that were designed to slow traffic down, rather than facilitate high speed.... possibily narrow lanes that would make speeders feel uncomfortable. Even... somehow.. increasing the amount of foot traffic on sidewalks.

The neighbourhood where I live has implemented a couple of these ideas. Particularly the traffic light trick mentioned above. You can't pass through the one mile stretch without stopping at a light. Frequently it's two lights. Speed limit is 25mph Also, adding commercial sections through a one mile stretch ... including bars and restaurants... and even a violin shop... has increased foot traffic. Consequently, I feel pretty safe cycling on the main thoroughfare. I can usually (when going downhill anyway... :)) keep up with the traffic and don't particularly fear for my life.

The section of street where I saw the accident was on the same street but in another neighbourhood where planners decided that speed and getting traffic through was all important. Nobody walks on the sidewalks. No sane cyclist will venture out there.

Hey, I did 10 miles before work today on streets and paths with NO car driver idiocy. AND, at two or maybe three red lights there were more bikes than cars. My nefarious plan to turn DC into "Copenhagen on the Potomac" by setting an example seems to be working.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

What's noteworthy is that for almost every years since 1975, 40,000 people have been killed.You know something struck me about this, looking at the numbers... There are roughly 70 million more people in 06 then in 75, and you'd assume proportionately more drivers. The number of associated fatalities, you'd think, would go up. There were actually less in 2006 then in 1975, by a small number (2k).

This probably just has to do with advances in car safety and road safety measures, but worth noting and I do so even though it disagrees with my position on cars: I am highly suspicious of our ability to regularly and safely operate a 4k pound steel rhino at cheetah speeds mere feet from one another.

Anyway, just an interesting footnote to that data, which I found pretty alarming.

You know something struck me about this, looking at the numbers... There are roughly 70 million more people in 06 then in 75, and you'd assume proportionately more drivers. The number of associated fatalities, you'd think, would go up. There were actually less in 2006 then in 1975, by a small number (2k).

This probably just has to do with advances in car safety and road safety measures, but worth noting and I do so even though it disagrees with my position on cars: I am highly suspicious of our ability to regularly and safely operate a 4k pound steel rhino at cheetah speeds mere feet from one another.

Anyway, just an interesting footnote to that data, which I found pretty alarming.

Good catch. Car fatalities per passenger mile are way down. I think this is due mainly to "crumple zone" construction of cars, seat belt use and air bags. I believe passenger miles have more than doubled since 1975. so this is a big improvement.

I don't think non-fatal injuries are down as much as traffic deaths. Injuries are very expensive and can be devastating to victims and their families. My stepson was in a crash that hurt him so badly that there were moments when I wished he would die. Even now, almost 5 years later, he's only about 85 % of his former self.

Good catch. Car fatalities per passenger mile are way down. I think this is due mainly to "crumple zone" construction of cars, seat belt use and air bags. I believe passenger miles have more than doubled since 1975. so this is a big improvement.

I don't think non-fatal injuries are down as much as traffic deaths. Injuries are very expensive and can be devastating to victims and their families. My stepson was in a crash that hurt him so badly that there were moments when I wished he would die. Even now, almost 5 years later, he's only about 85 % of his former self.That clears it up a bit for me. It would make sense that car accident fatalities are down with technology, but the gross number of accidents has likely risen along with the population/# of drivers. I wonder if it has actually risen at a greater rate then the number of drivers.... (anyone besides me assuming it has??)

Terrible experience for your stepson. As does assuredly everyone who reads that, I hope he continues to climb from that 85% and best wishes to your family helping him along the way.

Thanks, Citizen78. :)

Even if you have a green light, and have looked both ways, you can still be hit...

Many years ago I was stopped at a red light, the light turned green, and the 4 cars in front of me proceeded forward just fine. We barely crossed the intersection when the lead car turned on the left turn signal and stopped. All 5 of us stopped just fine... we were after all, only moving at a few MPH (perhaps 10) when the lead vehicle indicated a left turn.

The lead vehicle made the left after a short delay and the remaining 4 cars again proceeded forward... moments later a vehicle from behind slammed into the rear most car (mine) and forced all the vehicles to slam forward into the vehicle just in front, in a domino effect.

The rear most car (mine) was totaled, and each more forward vehicle had subsequently less damage.

The driver of the vehicle that plowed into mine, and slammed us all together was not insured, and failed to realize that we as a group were barely moving after the green... she had just descended a hill at full speed and and went right through the green and into the back of the entire group... hitting me first.

The police assumed that the group had failed to stop for the lead driver, the one that made the left turn... and subsequently they tried to blame each driver in line for following too close.

Each driver told them they were wrong and that everything happened after the left turn stop and all at once.

But as I mentioned, the light was green, and all the drivers had looked both ways and were attentive and aware of the traffic in front of them... it was the new motorist, "arriving late" that caused the crash... from behind.

*********************

The real irony for me was that I had only stopped being car free just a couple years before... and had bought the truck, that was now totaled, then.

My partner is 230lbs. His bike is a good 45lbs. And he's usually going a good 15-20mph, which is enough to outrun a city bus 'round here. That's enough mass and velocity to kill a pedestrian. Every spring, I have to remind him that trying to ride down the idiot college students sauntering lazily through the beautiful sunny streets is a Bad Plan. He then mutters bitterly about they should have their spring taken away if it's going to drive them mad.

A car definitely can do more damage with less effort. But that doesn't mean we can't do any.

No, but compared to the damage done by and with autos, bikes are not even worth an honorable mention...

I think I have heard about/read about 2 deaths to pedestrians in about 10 years time, due to cyclists.

Home baths are more dangerous.

The real irony for me was that I had only stopped being car free just a couple years before... and had bought the truck, that was now totaled, then.

So... back to carfree?