clichty

https://bigstory.ap.org/article/bike-...-bucking-trend

A fairly odd title, at first I thought they were tying the two together. But for those that don't want to read it:


Deaths of bicyclists and occupants of large trucks rose sharply last year even as total traffic fatalities dropped to their lowest level since 1949, federal safety officials said Monday.

Bicyclist deaths jumped 8.7 percent and deaths of occupants of large trucks increased 20 percent, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in an analysis of 2011 traffic deaths.

The increase in bicycle deaths probably reflects more people riding bicycles to work and for pleasure, said Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies.

Washington, D.C., for example, reports a 175 percent increase in bicyclists during morning and evening rush hours since 2004. The city also tripled its bike lane network during the same period.

"Our culture is beginning to move away from driving and toward healthier and greener modes of transportations," Adkins said. "We need to be able to accommodate all these forms of transportation safely."

Brandonub

I'd guess (and I don't know this factually, correct me if I'm wrong) that an 8.7 percent jump is either not higher than the increase in cycling, or not statistically significantly greater than the increase in cycling. Obviously I'm not looking at increased deaths as a good thing, but if it's actually just a result of increased ridership, or a statistical blip, what we might be seeing is something that will drive infrastructure improvements.

no1mad 

Moved from Road.

Chris516

I sort of see an 'I told you so', from the excerpt.

Because the percentage jump in truck(does not indicate SUV, pickup, dump) deaths is more than twice that, in the percentage jump of cycling deaths.

B. Carfree

Car companies have spent decades improving the outcome of motor vehicle crashes for the occupants of the padded cells (air bags, collapsible steering columns, mandatory seat belt and shoulder harness laws, crumple zones) and steps have even been taken to reduce the severity of the crashes (anti-lock brake systems, improved tire and steering technologies). Thus, it shouldn't be any great surprise that the death rate of motorists is going down. However, the same morons are still driving these cars, so anyone who is not similarly protected (that would be us, motorcyclists, and to a lesser extent commercial truck drivers) are going to continue to get hammered. Add in the increasing numbers of us, and we'll paint a bit more asphalt red. Consider how many of us have very little mileage in the saddle, and it's even less surprising. (If you ride like you drive and our drivers drive poorly, well...)

Now, for something that might be a bit controversial. Back when a wreck meant the steering wheel entered the driver's body and annual highway deaths were near 50,000 per year, there was some selection against horrible drivers; they were killed by their crashes. Now, with all the safety features of modern padded cell cars, idiot motorists walk away and buy a new car with the insurance check (assuming they have collision insurance). Maybe it's time to start taking some licenses away for scofflaw motorists.

genec

Add to all that the fact that the auto companies have also made driving more comfortable, and new distractions have been added to the auto in the form of everything from multiple cup holders to touch screen radios to GPS systems to the inevitable car phone... and this sure paints a lousy picture for anyone outside the "padded" cages we call cars.

rjkfsm

The article also points out that motorcycle deaths are up as well, thus further validating the padded cell theory.

The biggest danger to truck drivers is the cargo. Swinging meat can tip over a truck on a straight road and a load of pipe can turn a cab into a giant pin cushion.

The "experts" keep trying to reduce the impact of crashes (air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc.), but no one is trying to reduce the number of crashes. Sad.

RK

FBinNY 

Many years ago, the organization I was with tracked and analyzed bike accident data. There was a pattern which I suspect holds true today. As participation grows, the accident rate increases (grows faster then overall growth). As participation flattens out, the accident rate drops back to about where it was before.

We drew the conclusion that the newbie accident rate was much higher than the experienced rider rate. So as growth skewed the class toward newbies, the rate reflected their inexperience. Later as the mix was more normal, the rate reflected that.

If there's a lesson here, it's that we need to pass the lessons of experience to newbies as fast as possible. Also newbies need to understand that their inexperience, whether it's poorer bike handling skills, or lack of street wisdom puts them at greater risk.

By the same token, even the most experienced riders, need to remember, that even with years of experience, the added knowledge and skill, only improves the odds, but doesn't imply immunity to the everyday risks of the sport.

jon c. 

but no one is trying to reduce the number of crashes.

They have improved things like brakes a great deal. Drive a car from the 60s and you wonder how there wasn't carnage on the highways.

ModeratedUser150120149

To an extent the system does that now. But that doesn't stop them from driving. The question ends up not being licensing but how to keep them off the road. Solve that problem and you will have done something real.

ModeratedUser150120149

Not so. Much effort is spent designing safer roads, better signage, more crashworthy roadside objects, etc. If you have an experience at all surely you have noticed the collapsible barriers at bridges, road markers and so forth. They are specifically designed to minimize vehicle damage and occupant injury. Notice also that newer roads have their lights further from the roadway. Again, to improve safety of the road system. Notice the newer signs that have larger letters and are often reflective and lighted. Much better than just a few years ago. Much more could be done if money was allocated. That is a political process that suffers from lack of effective advocacy.

B. Carfree

That's all too true. Every week, I read of a wreck in our local newspaper in which a drunk driver who has lost his license, generally only suspended, crashes into something or someone. I actually cheer when the drunk dies in the wreck, especially if no innocent lives were lost.

Maybe it is time to require that all cars have some sort of system that prevents them from operating unless the driver has a valid license and that his face matches the one on the license. Sadly, the couple of hundred dollars such a retrofit would cost is probably not considered worth the 1.2 million or so injuries motorists cause every year.

dynodonn 

Pretty much can call many of today's vehicles as rolling living rooms, vanity tables, meeting rooms, family rooms, offices, dining halls, information centers, etc.

Feldman

How about this--cities where the locals determine that the pedestrian and cyclist death rate is unacceptable, suspend their police departments' auto theft units until driver behavior improves. Don't protect the property of drivers whose behavior shows they don't deserve it.

vol

I always thought drivers (or occupants---passengers) of larger trucks such as box trucks or 18 wheelers have the "upper hand" in any accident. It's those whom they hit die, not them. So I'm interested to know how those occupants of large trucks die in so many accidents.

FBinNY 

Many don't die from impacts directly. They die in cargo fires, or from rollover. I suspect the increase in truck driver deaths may reflect changes allowing longer and heavier trucks/trailers, along with increased speed limits. Plus with higher fuel costs, many independent over the road drivers, may be pushing themselves harder; driving faster, more hours, and more aggressively in an effort to maintain/increase their net income.

Also note that while auto fatalities are dropping, with "safer cars" that doesn't mean that accidents are down.

I remember that many years age, NYC noticed a significant drop in the homicide rate, but the attempted homicide rate was actually up by more. Killers weren't getting sloppier or gentler, but hospitals were getting that much better treating gunshot, and other trauma. So while you were more likely to get shot, you were less likely to die from it. Every silver lining has a cloud hiding behind it.

vol

That is a very interesting perspective and valid argument!

genec

Yup, basing "safety stats" on deaths only tends to skew things quite a bit.

B. Carfree

I've had several incidents where I am driving an eighteen wheeler and am suddenly confronted with a stop-sign running motorist who gives me the lovely choice of testing my skills at deceleration with fully-loaded double trailers, going into the ditch, going into oncoming traffic, running into the scofflaw at speed or some combination. It takes a lot of training to avoid ending up in the ditch or oncoming traffic in those sort of situations. As humans, we grasp at any straw that shows some promise of resulting in no deaths, even if it increases the odds that the only death that occurs will be our own.

By the way, when the rubber side is up, the trucker dies. The roofs of those cabs are just sheet metal.