Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Transportation Research Board Reports that US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Transportation Research Board Reports that US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety

Old 11-17-10, 06:29 PM
  #26  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
There is sufficient case law that says you can refuse the test, even in the implied state laws. The consequence is simply the loss of your drivers license, though even that is not a guarantee. You can challenge the loss in court and from a recent article I read you stand a very good chance of either reducing the length of time you loose the license or not loose it at all. Seems that most legislators take this option.
So in essence you are saying it is not "draconian" as you can refuse and then perhaps maybe lose your license... or not. Oddly enough this is also why we have the problems we have... that of easy to obtain driver's licenses that are hard to remove from offenders... and can lead to issues of decreased safety on the roadway.

Do you not see this relationship?
genec is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 06:51 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
[QUOTE=myrridin;11803136]
all of the countries other than the US have instituted programs that allow for random screening of drivers for sobriety tests--something the 4th amendment of the Constitution would disallow.
Ain't so in the UK. The police need evidence of impaired driving to breathalyse

As far as using vehicle miles as the basis for the comparison is concerned, it seems likely that that too is somewhat flawed. It seems also arguable that, because of the greater sprawl that US cities tend to display, a sizeable part of each driver's journey will be in conditions of lower traffic density, thereby reducing the number of interactions s/he has with other drivers. It would be interesting to see what difference there is in the vehicle miles travelled in Florida, which has a pretty appalling collision rate, with the vehicle miles travelled in the states with the lower end of the collision/injury/death rate. Are Florida's cyclist deathrate figures connected with the fact that their driver's licence test is a joke since it takes place AFAIK on glorified carparks with a few mock traffic junctions and road signs, rather than testing the applicants actual ability ot drive in traffic?

I'm not sure that the centralised vs decentralised system of government argument is entirely convincing, either. Is there much difference between the different states' interpretations of the Uniform Vehicle Code? Or is it more to do with their different standards of enforcement/punishment?

Not being a statistician of any kind, I don't pretend to know which is the correct method for comparing our different collision rates. I suspect that both the per capita and per vehicle mile models are flawed and a true comparison would require weightings for population, vehicle density per mile, vehicle ownership levels, distance travelled, number of potential interactions per journey/driver, average number of people per vehicle, etc.

But where cyclist victims are concerned, judging by the experiences described on this forum, the US standard of driving and anti-cyclist attitudes are rather worse than I've experienced in the UK - had no problems in Toronto, when I've ridden there on holiday, by the way. Note, I'm not using that as a valid argument about Canada/US standards
atbman is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 07:14 PM
  #28  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by hotbike
I have a theory that the decrease in deaths, that we see in this chart, is due to safety improvements in cars.
Here are a few:
Radial Tires
Rack & Pinion Steering
Air Bags
Disk Brakes
Day Time Running Lights

None of these things are mandated in the United States. A redneck can keep driving his 1972 Pontiac, which has none of these features.
Odd how that redneck 1972 Pontiac, is still running even though it must have been totaled 100 times from all the crashes you assume it must have been in.

I guess redneck 1972 Pontiacs don't really crash that often, so that is the car I want to be in.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 07:58 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
zeppinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,016

Bikes: Giant FCR3, Surly LHT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Studies show that drivers of vehicles that "feel less safe" drive in a safer manner. Drivers of vehicles with every safe feature imaginable make the driver feel more safe and driver less safe. This is especially true for luxury vehicles the isolate the occupant from road and wind noise while making the road feel smoother than it is. It is also true of SUV and large truck drivers who feel safer in large cars, when they are not safer at all.
zeppinger is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 11:21 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
Comparing absolute quantities of deaths without adjusting for different population sizes and geographic layout is simply faulty analysis. The use of Vehicle Miles Traveled accomplishes both adjustments and allows for an apples to apples comparison, hence why it was included in the cited report. And on that basis there is little difference currently among the nations included in the study, though they were much worse than we were a few decades ago. The better title for the article would have been; "Other Industrialized Nations Catch up with US on Automobile safety...)

I'm not comparing absolute quantities, I'm comparing # of deaths per population. My chances of dying from a car crash increases when the average person drives more miles. The less people drive, the safer the roads become. Vehicle Miles traveled muddies the water by assuming people have a fixed amount of miles they need to drive. America is less safe not because people drive more dangerous, but because people drive more often and for longer distances.

The suburban model is not a foregone conclusion, but a state we reached due to massive incentives and zoning laws restricting urban development. sggoodri said it better then I can.

Originally Posted by sggoodri
Rural and low-density suburban residents not only travel farther by car per capita, but they have more severe crashes, due to higher speeds and head-on collision hazards on two-lane roads.

If Americans migrate toward a more urban, location-efficient lifestyle, the crash fatality rates per capita will likely decline for the US. Now, I'm not suggesting that public policy should force Americans to live in cities, but I think there is already a migration under way among young people, in part due to lower cost of transportation (especially where car ownership is avoided), and in part due to fewer jobs in rural areas. If urban areas are made desirable to live in, and zoning restrictions that favored low-density development and land use separation are adjusted, the market may support a movement toward shorter, slower daily trips.
SCROUDS is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 11:23 PM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What states have DUI checkpoints? I know we have them in florida. That's where the police stop everyone on the road and observe them for signs they are drunk.
SCROUDS is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 11:35 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by SCROUDS
I'm not comparing absolute quantities, I'm comparing # of deaths per population. My chances of dying from a car crash increases when the average person drives more miles. The less people drive, the safer the roads become. Vehicle Miles traveled muddies the water by assuming people have a fixed amount of miles they need to drive. America is less safe not because people drive more dangerous, but because people drive more often and for longer distances.

The suburban model is not a foregone conclusion, but a state we reached due to massive incentives and zoning laws restricting urban development. sggoodri said it better then I can.
This is why the best thing Portland is doing is maintaining an urban growth boundary, and not building bike facilities.

The only two bike facilities any city really needs are sharrows and bike parking everywhere.
randya is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:33 AM
  #33  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
the only two bike facilities any city really needs are sharrows and bike parking everywhere.
That's wildly inadequate.

35 + mile per hour roads and sharrows don't mix.

I skimmed most of the TRB report. Seems like stricter traffic enforcement, promotion of traffic cameras, safety promotion programs and a host of other interventions are in order to make US roads safer.

Last edited by Bekologist; 11-18-10 at 12:38 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 02:01 AM
  #34  
snob
 
rogwilco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by myrridin
And that is despite the simple fact that they enforce much more draconian measures to achieve their safety levels.
Like what exactly?
rogwilco is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 08:51 AM
  #35  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SCROUDS
I'm not comparing absolute quantities, I'm comparing # of deaths per population. My chances of dying from a car crash increases when the average person drives more miles. The less people drive, the safer the roads become. Vehicle Miles traveled muddies the water by assuming people have a fixed amount of miles they need to drive. America is less safe not because people drive more dangerous, but because people drive more often and for longer distances.

The suburban model is not a foregone conclusion, but a state we reached due to massive incentives and zoning laws restricting urban development. sggoodri said it better then I can.
You referenced table 1-2 which is simple absolute numbers and not adjusted for population. If you'd care to actually do the calculations or show the table in the report where those calculations were done, then please do so. You haven't yet.

VMT is the only way to account for both population differences as well as geographical differences, among the nations studied, VMT accounts not just for the length of trips, but also (and more importantly) the percentage of the population who drive. It would be interesting to adjust the numbers in Table 1-2 to account for population of licensed drivers; however, that information was included in the report. It would be the only way to determine if VMT was skewing the numbers the way you'll claim.

You'll need to read the report cited. It says nothing about controlling urban sprawl as a means of "fixing" the straw man problem it proposes. One of the first items listed is the creation of a new federal bureaucracy... It discusses the advantages of the other nations centralized control of the safety issue--which since the numbers don't support their conclusions is strongly suspect. About the only measure that it discusses that is feasible in the US is the increase of enforcement of existing laws.
myrridin is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 08:52 AM
  #36  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rogwilco
Like what exactly?
Either read the report or this thread. I've already answered this question.
myrridin is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 09:25 AM
  #37  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by SCROUDS
What states have DUI checkpoints? I know we have them in florida. That's where the police stop everyone on the road and observe them for signs they are drunk.
We have them on holidays in San Diego.
genec is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 09:58 AM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
You referenced table 1-2 which is simple absolute numbers and not adjusted for population. If you'd care to actually do the calculations or show the table in the report where those calculations were done, then please do so. You haven't yet.

VMT is the only way to account for both population differences as well as geographical differences, among the nations studied, VMT accounts not just for the length of trips, but also (and more importantly) the percentage of the population who drive. It would be interesting to adjust the numbers in Table 1-2 to account for population of licensed drivers; however, that information was included in the report. It would be the only way to determine if VMT was skewing the numbers the way you'll claim.

You'll need to read the report cited. It says nothing about controlling urban sprawl as a means of "fixing" the straw man problem it proposes. One of the first items listed is the creation of a new federal bureaucracy... It discusses the advantages of the other nations centralized control of the safety issue--which since the numbers don't support their conclusions is strongly suspect. About the only measure that it discusses that is feasible in the US is the increase of enforcement of existing laws.
I posted the calculations in my earlier post. Please read my posts before responding again.
SCROUDS is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 10:57 AM
  #39  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SCROUDS
I posted the calculations in my earlier post. Please read my posts before responding again.
Your right I missed your chart, sorry.

However, your adjustment is in error.

It calculates the death rate by total population not (licensed and active drivers). Given the similarity of the VMT adjustments, it seems likely that there are far fewer folks on the road in the other nations when compared to the US. For instance, transit ridership is far higher in Europe than the US. If you get fewer drivers per capita, then of course the death rate per capita will be distorted.
myrridin is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 11:22 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
Your right I missed your chart, sorry.

However, your adjustment is in error.

It calculates the death rate by total population not (licensed and active drivers). Given the similarity of the VMT adjustments, it seems likely that there are far fewer folks on the road in the other nations when compared to the US. For instance, transit ridership is far higher in Europe than the US. If you get fewer drivers per capita, then of course the death rate per capita will be distorted.
Everyone has to get somewhere to do things. Deaths are not limited to only licensed drivers. Non licensed passengers and people outside of vehicles are also killed. If we reduce the numbers of drivers, and that reduction in drivers reduces miles driven, we will reduce total death rates in the US.
SCROUDS is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:06 PM
  #41  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SCROUDS
Everyone has to get somewhere to do things. Deaths are not limited to only licensed drivers. Non licensed passengers and people outside of vehicles are also killed. If we reduce the numbers of drivers, and that reduction in drivers reduces miles driven, we will reduce total death rates in the US.
It is amazing how a true believer fits the facts into their preconceived notions. If fewer people drive than fewer deaths...

Of course. Except that the report discussed isn't about reducing driving. Its about making driving safer. Of course like you they ignored the simple fact that there was virtually no difference in safety between the studied countries.
myrridin is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:19 PM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by randya
instead of simply building bike lanes to get cyclists out of the way or motorists, we really need to address the root causes of why traffic safety sucks in the US.
You mean those tiny cars they drive there don't lead to more death? Huh.
crhilton is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:24 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by genec
What is real interesting is the fact that more folks are killed on US roadways than the 5 other countries COMBINED!
Add the populations of the other 5 together.
Japan: 127 million
Germany: 81 million
UK: 61 million
Australia 22 million
Total: 291 million

US: 310 million

They still have us beat. But I'm guessing those countries were chosen because they add up to nearly the same population, have lots of similarities, and are all highly industrialized modern western countries (yes, I'm calling Japan western).
crhilton is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:28 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
VMT is nice, but it escapes using reduced need to drive to improve safety. And I think that's silly.

If you drive half as much, but get in three fourths as many accidents you're still safer, but you're driving less safely. So, for a traffic engineer he may feel he's failed you. For someone concerned about life wasted in traffic accidents he thinks he's done well.
crhilton is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:32 PM
  #45  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by crhilton
You mean those tiny cars they drive there don't lead to more death? Huh.
Oh they compensate with tiny roads, tiny houses, tiny parking spaces... etc.

The funniest thing I saw a few years ago was a HUMMER being driven on narrow streets in Bandol France... the thing just didn't fit... eventually it was parked (in 1-1/2 spaces) out by the harbor. No doubt the passengers got out and walked.
genec is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:34 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by myrridin
There is sufficient case law that says you can refuse the test, even in the implied state laws. The consequence is simply the loss of your drivers license, though even that is not a guarantee. You can challenge the loss in court and from a recent article I read you stand a very good chance of either reducing the length of time you loose the license or not loose it at all. Seems that most legislators take this option.
This is all if they don't have reasonable suspicion that you're drunk right? As I remember when I lived in Iowa they could require you to come take a blood test at a hospital, which people would opt for because it gave them about an hour to sober up and the cop had to be serious to spend his time doing that.
crhilton is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:42 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
It is amazing how a true believer fits the facts into their preconceived notions. If fewer people drive than fewer deaths...
Stats aren't facts, stats are manipulations of stats. VMT is a manipulation of death rates.

Do you dispute that driving fewer miles will lead to less death?
SCROUDS is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 01:44 PM
  #48  
dirt merchant
 
dorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 30

Bikes: Heckler / Nomad / Blur LT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My goodness! I thought this was a bike forum most of the comments I read here, are heavily weighted, towards cagers.
Not to totally jack the thread I quote Rafe Mair. "The figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure." Just my two cents, but anyone who sticks up for the current traffic solutions is very mistaken. Here are some more stats. https://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html
dorse is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 02:08 PM
  #49  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by crhilton
This is all if they don't have reasonable suspicion that you're drunk right? As I remember when I lived in Iowa they could require you to come take a blood test at a hospital, which people would opt for because it gave them about an hour to sober up and the cop had to be serious to spend his time doing that.

There may well be some variation, but I believe they require a warrant to compel a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer . Like any other application of the 4th amendment, a court issued warrant meats the due process requirement.
myrridin is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 02:14 PM
  #50  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by myrridin
There may well be some variation, but I believe they require a warrant to compel a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer . Like any other application of the 4th amendment, a court issued warrant meats the due process requirement.
Not if it's an implied consent state like CA. https://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_5/vc23612.htm

You either test, or you lose your license. The level of testing is based on the officer's discretion.
genec is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.