Report: U.S. pedestrian death rate increased during COVID(usa.streetsblog.org)
usa.streetsblog.org
Report: U.S. pedestrian death rate increased during COVID
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/02/28/report-us-pedestrian-death-rate-increased-9x-faster-than-population-during-covid/
237 comments
Yup... while the trend of increasing pedestrian death rates is worrying and should definitely be addressed, the blog is not doing itself a favor by trying to make the numbers look worse than they already are. An 18% increase from 2019 to 2022 should already be enough to convince anyone that something has to be done about it.
A 18% increase combined with a high number of cases.
Otherwise you get silly things like their claim that New Hampshire has seen a whopping 150% increase in pedestrian deaths from 2021 to 2022.
They went from 2 to 5.
Otherwise you get silly things like their claim that New Hampshire has seen a whopping 150% increase in pedestrian deaths from 2021 to 2022.
They went from 2 to 5.
The error in the title is they're not talking about death rate but number of fatalities.
since "2019, the last pre-pandemic year, pedestrian fatalities have surged 18 percent in just three years – nine times faster than U.S. population growth," the report said.
Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense because one would increase naturally with the other.
since "2019, the last pre-pandemic year, pedestrian fatalities have surged 18 percent in just three years – nine times faster than U.S. population growth," the report said.
Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense because one would increase naturally with the other.
The ratio is meaningless, though. If the US population increased by 0.001% and the pedestrian fatality rate went up 9%, the fatalities would have increased 9000x times faster than US population growth.
A high ratio between the two means that population growth doesn't explain the increased pedestrian facilities and therefore this is something to worry about.
The ratio itself does not mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant. Consider 0.00000000000000001% population growth and a 0.000001% rise in fatalities, or any number of zeroes that you like.
The per capita or per 100,000 rise would be meaningful. You don't get the per capita rise by dividing the rise in fatalities by the rise in population growth.
The per capita or per 100,000 rise would be meaningful. You don't get the per capita rise by dividing the rise in fatalities by the rise in population growth.
No, it doesn't mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant, it means that there is something that is causing a rise in pedestrian fatalities (and that it isn't simply population growth).
I agree the numbers used in the article are not the most explicit, though.
I agree the numbers used in the article are not the most explicit, though.
Thats correct.
> Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense
It only makes sense if we compare the number of fatalities to number of pedestrians growth.
More people doesn't necessarily means more pedestrians.
For example: a car ban like there are in many European city centres, leads to a growth of the number of pedestrians in the area, not linked to a growth in the general population.
EDIT: counting population growth as a proxy for pedestrian growth is a spurious correlation.
Population can grow and pedestrian could go down in number and vice-versa, it is been observed in the past 20 years as a result of the fluctuation of urban areas population VS suburb/non-urban areas population.
It only makes sense if we compare the number of fatalities to number of pedestrians growth.
More people doesn't necessarily means more pedestrians.
For example: a car ban like there are in many European city centres, leads to a growth of the number of pedestrians in the area, not linked to a growth in the general population.
EDIT: counting population growth as a proxy for pedestrian growth is a spurious correlation.
Population can grow and pedestrian could go down in number and vice-versa, it is been observed in the past 20 years as a result of the fluctuation of urban areas population VS suburb/non-urban areas population.
Sure, but it provides some grounds to get money for a study on it. Pedestrian deaths are basically free from the CDC, and population is free from the Census. More detailed data would require studies, unless someone is publishing a nation-wide count of pedestrians that I'm not aware of.
There's always better data, and making a study that doesn't have any spurious correlations is extremely expensive. Pedestrian growth is also not necessarily linearly correlated to pedestrian fatalities. If cities become more walkable, it could be that there are more pedestrians walking shorter distances. I would expect that to impact fatalities per pedestrian less than having more pedestrians walking the same amount.
This data just says that the growth in population isn't likely the direct cause of the effect. It could be a difference in the demographics of the population (new people walk more/less). It could be a difference in the existing pedestrians (i.e. % of pedestrians is constant, but people are walking at night or with headphones, etc). It could be a difference in the existing drivers (more dangerous cars, more dangerous driving, more DUIs, etc).
There's always better data, and making a study that doesn't have any spurious correlations is extremely expensive. Pedestrian growth is also not necessarily linearly correlated to pedestrian fatalities. If cities become more walkable, it could be that there are more pedestrians walking shorter distances. I would expect that to impact fatalities per pedestrian less than having more pedestrians walking the same amount.
This data just says that the growth in population isn't likely the direct cause of the effect. It could be a difference in the demographics of the population (new people walk more/less). It could be a difference in the existing pedestrians (i.e. % of pedestrians is constant, but people are walking at night or with headphones, etc). It could be a difference in the existing drivers (more dangerous cars, more dangerous driving, more DUIs, etc).
There are also definition issues. Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian? Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian? Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian? Definitions can range from anyone on foot to only those deliberately going somewhere without a vehicle. Do we include people walking where they are legally not allowed so to do? Without a consistent and stated definition, any stats are just fluff for headlines.
> Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian?
> Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian?
> Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian?
I'm quite sure they are are literally not, the article uses the term "pedestrian" in the title but then it uses "walkers" in the text, it looks quite clear that they are referring to people walking on public spaces as a means of travel.
> Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian?
> Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian?
I'm quite sure they are are literally not, the article uses the term "pedestrian" in the title but then it uses "walkers" in the text, it looks quite clear that they are referring to people walking on public spaces as a means of travel.
pedestrian
/pɪˈdɛstrɪən/
noun: pedestrian; plural noun: pedestrians
a person walking rather than travelling in a vehicle.Depends on how you look at the problem. if you look at it as a health problem it makes sense.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
I'll try anyway to express my though again.
As an example: The analysis by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit that represents state highway safety offices, found that pedestrian deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic had spiked significantly, as speeding and impaired and distracted driving proliferated
Now it would be incorrect to say that COVID-19 is dangerous for pedestrians, even though it happened due to COVID-19, the root cause has been speeding and impaired and distracted driving.
In the same way population growth is not directly correlated linearly to an increase of the number of pedestrians fatalities.
If, for example, a family of 2 moves into a new city but they never leave the house because they are both old and disabled, the population has grown, but the risks for pedestrians haven't.
In the case I used in the previous comment, more people walking doesn't correlate with more fatalities, it's in fact the opposite. There are more people walking, true, but in a much safer space for them.
So population growth makes sense as an health problem only if it produces more pedestrians, in particular more pedestrians at risk.
For example an higher driver/pedestrian ratio, which in the end is the same thing of more pedestrians. To use a bad analogy, for which I apologize in advance, it doesn't matter if there are more "targets" for cars to hit or more cars are hitting more of the same number of "targets", the result is roughly the same.
If we look at it as an health problem the only conclusion that makes sense is that the less pedestrians and other road vehicles cross their paths, the more pedestrians fatalities will go down, regardless of population growth.
I'll try anyway to express my though again.
As an example: The analysis by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit that represents state highway safety offices, found that pedestrian deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic had spiked significantly, as speeding and impaired and distracted driving proliferated
Now it would be incorrect to say that COVID-19 is dangerous for pedestrians, even though it happened due to COVID-19, the root cause has been speeding and impaired and distracted driving.
In the same way population growth is not directly correlated linearly to an increase of the number of pedestrians fatalities.
If, for example, a family of 2 moves into a new city but they never leave the house because they are both old and disabled, the population has grown, but the risks for pedestrians haven't.
In the case I used in the previous comment, more people walking doesn't correlate with more fatalities, it's in fact the opposite. There are more people walking, true, but in a much safer space for them.
So population growth makes sense as an health problem only if it produces more pedestrians, in particular more pedestrians at risk.
For example an higher driver/pedestrian ratio, which in the end is the same thing of more pedestrians. To use a bad analogy, for which I apologize in advance, it doesn't matter if there are more "targets" for cars to hit or more cars are hitting more of the same number of "targets", the result is roughly the same.
If we look at it as an health problem the only conclusion that makes sense is that the less pedestrians and other road vehicles cross their paths, the more pedestrians fatalities will go down, regardless of population growth.
Very good point. They actually say "a staggering 18 percent increase over the number of walkers who died in early 2019". Doesn't quite sound as good as "9 times!".
> the 1.18 times more deaths divided by 1.02 more people
This should have been the title of the post, or, if not, then a very close approximation of it.
What's worse is that going by the title alone I had suspected some clickbait-y foul play, because many of today's articles that rely on numbers or stats have start resorting to those tactics.
This should have been the title of the post, or, if not, then a very close approximation of it.
What's worse is that going by the title alone I had suspected some clickbait-y foul play, because many of today's articles that rely on numbers or stats have start resorting to those tactics.
Thank you. This sort of thing is a real problem nowadays... It's actually gotten to the point that for 95% of posted content I will check the comments first to make sure it's not total bogus.
Well, in this case it's not total bogus, the increase in pedestrian deaths is real, but that's exactly what will happen unfortunately if you try to make the numbers look worse than they are: people will dismiss the whole article wholesale...
Totally bogus internet content has increased infinite % compared with the hedgehog population when compared to 1929
It's sufficiently untrue that the author or publisher should know that it is untrue and misleading. I conclude they did it on purpose for clicks. However, I am not a scientific sample.
Thank you very much for that nice explanation! I'm almost torn between "what a stupid idiocy!" and "what a clever deception!"
Now hang on a minute
Really well earned use of 'hang on' there, sounds like the article is bollocks
Really well earned use of 'hang on' there, sounds like the article is bollocks
Presumably the numbers are correct, but the title is statistical bullshit.
Technically correct but designed to mislead. Statistical assholery.
This sort of "lying but with some plausible deniability on top" is SOP in the world of "journalism bordering on activism", a category which the site clearly falls into whether one agrees with the policy they're peddling or not.
Welcome to streetsblog.
They have a clear anti-car agenda, they seem to be pro public transportation but even that's questionable
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/05/07/opinion-roll-back-cuo...
They have a clear anti-car agenda, they seem to be pro public transportation but even that's questionable
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/05/07/opinion-roll-back-cuo...
I'm absolutely behind both the message and call to action of this article; the evidence is irrefutable; this comment should not be interpreted as calling into question the headline at all: the underlying data looks solid.
However. Why oh why did this author trash their own credibility by explicitly citing the "even more alarming [surge] at the state level" where "walker deaths had increased a shocking 266.67 percent in Nebraska, 150 percent in New Hampshire, and 87.5 percent in Delaware." They of course give the bare minimum caveat that "[t]hose dramatic numbers are partly explained by those states' small populations," but they are entirely explained by those states' small pedestrian fatality rates. Such as New Hampshire's increase from 2 to 5 fatalities. The other two "alarming" surges are equally unmentionable[1] in the light of actually reading the numbers.
I do have to give them credit for including the relevant numbers directly in an image in the article so that I didn't have to do any digging to figure out why those states had such high increases. But that just makes me even more baffled why they didn't catch themselves.
[1] Literally unmentionable, as in: those particular percentages cannot in good conscience be mentioned anywhere near a self-respecting argument for transportation reform.
However. Why oh why did this author trash their own credibility by explicitly citing the "even more alarming [surge] at the state level" where "walker deaths had increased a shocking 266.67 percent in Nebraska, 150 percent in New Hampshire, and 87.5 percent in Delaware." They of course give the bare minimum caveat that "[t]hose dramatic numbers are partly explained by those states' small populations," but they are entirely explained by those states' small pedestrian fatality rates. Such as New Hampshire's increase from 2 to 5 fatalities. The other two "alarming" surges are equally unmentionable[1] in the light of actually reading the numbers.
I do have to give them credit for including the relevant numbers directly in an image in the article so that I didn't have to do any digging to figure out why those states had such high increases. But that just makes me even more baffled why they didn't catch themselves.
[1] Literally unmentionable, as in: those particular percentages cannot in good conscience be mentioned anywhere near a self-respecting argument for transportation reform.
Yes. "From 2019-2022, pedestrian deaths tripled in Vermont!" sounds alarming and then you see it went from 1 to 3. It's still bad that people died, and bad that it's more, but that would really be reaching for clickbait territory.
And is it even a rate at all? They give number of fatalities, but how does that compare to the number of pedestrians? Or rather number x time spent walking? Car statistics are often given in terms of total miles traveled, for instance. A total is not a rate.
Totally agree our streets are way too dangerous, and being a pedestrian can be terrifying. That really needs to be fixed.
But not in a misleading way. If anything, things like this might scare people out of walking, meaning less pedestrians, and therefore less reason to solve it. That's counterproductive.
And is it even a rate at all? They give number of fatalities, but how does that compare to the number of pedestrians? Or rather number x time spent walking? Car statistics are often given in terms of total miles traveled, for instance. A total is not a rate.
Totally agree our streets are way too dangerous, and being a pedestrian can be terrifying. That really needs to be fixed.
But not in a misleading way. If anything, things like this might scare people out of walking, meaning less pedestrians, and therefore less reason to solve it. That's counterproductive.
Imagine if a state had gone from 0 to 1 pedestrian deaths. An infinity percent increase. Walking anywhere would be a death sentence.
Streetsblog has a tendency to use infrequent/irrelevant traffic deaths and such to paint pictures about wider things. Things like, using hit and runs at stop signs to argue about speed limits. They did that a lot in Chicago when the city was pushing to raise the speed camera sensitivity from 10mph to 5mph. It makes it really difficult to take their writing (about genuine problems) seriously.
> Things like, using hit and runs at stop signs to argue about speed limits.
That doesn't sound irrelevant to me. Drivers around my area have a tendency to not quite stop at stop signs before rolling into the crosswalk. If they're going slower they have more ability to react to a pedestrian stepping out into the crosswalk.
That doesn't sound irrelevant to me. Drivers around my area have a tendency to not quite stop at stop signs before rolling into the crosswalk. If they're going slower they have more ability to react to a pedestrian stepping out into the crosswalk.
> infrequent/irrelevant traffic deaths
I’m all onboard the accuracy train with you, but I must say that describing any kind of traffic death as “irrelevant” seems very cold. Every person that dies on the road matters.
I’m all onboard the accuracy train with you, but I must say that describing any kind of traffic death as “irrelevant” seems very cold. Every person that dies on the road matters.
Of course, but when you stretch the truth, you lose the message and lose the people you need to reach the most. To me, that sort of truth stretching is way colder than I could ever be.
> Why oh why did this author trash their own credibility...
I follow streetsblog regularly, because, like you, I also think the message they are advocating for is important and more or less completely neglected in the United States, though a few cities/states are getting better. Cops regularly victim blame when pedestrians or cyclists are hit by cars, and people who kill others with their cars often have no consequences whatsoever. When I was still living in the US, I didn't feel my children were safe in traffic, ever. They do this stuff so much better in many other parts of the world.
That being said, that blog's writing style is really grating at times. They often raise these sort of scandalizing points in posts that are otherwise on point. I don't know why, maybe to produce sound bytes, maybe because the authors are so personally invested in the topic they can't help but exaggerate, or whatever.
It's really annoying.
I follow streetsblog regularly, because, like you, I also think the message they are advocating for is important and more or less completely neglected in the United States, though a few cities/states are getting better. Cops regularly victim blame when pedestrians or cyclists are hit by cars, and people who kill others with their cars often have no consequences whatsoever. When I was still living in the US, I didn't feel my children were safe in traffic, ever. They do this stuff so much better in many other parts of the world.
That being said, that blog's writing style is really grating at times. They often raise these sort of scandalizing points in posts that are otherwise on point. I don't know why, maybe to produce sound bytes, maybe because the authors are so personally invested in the topic they can't help but exaggerate, or whatever.
It's really annoying.
Recently (3 months ago), I was visiting family in Portland, OR and experienced an odd event. For context, I currently live in Oslo, Norway.
As I was using a crosswalk, a Prius driver felt compelled to yell slurs at me. I can only guess that the inconvenience of having to yield to a pedestrian was some kind of trigger.
Another observation was that very few pedestrians wear reflective gear. It almost seemed as if wearing dark clothes at night was intentional. I suspect that also has a negative effect on drivers as it can be extremely difficult to see pedestrians.
I think pedestrian and driver safety go “hand in hand”. In Norway, pedestrians are expected to wear reflective gear and drivers are required to yield. Based on my empirical evidence, it is significantly safer walking in Oslo, Norway than in Portland, OR.
I can only hope at this point that enough people come together to try and improve the safety in the states.
As I was using a crosswalk, a Prius driver felt compelled to yell slurs at me. I can only guess that the inconvenience of having to yield to a pedestrian was some kind of trigger.
Another observation was that very few pedestrians wear reflective gear. It almost seemed as if wearing dark clothes at night was intentional. I suspect that also has a negative effect on drivers as it can be extremely difficult to see pedestrians.
I think pedestrian and driver safety go “hand in hand”. In Norway, pedestrians are expected to wear reflective gear and drivers are required to yield. Based on my empirical evidence, it is significantly safer walking in Oslo, Norway than in Portland, OR.
I can only hope at this point that enough people come together to try and improve the safety in the states.
It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety. It's been this way since the post-war area where everything was built for cars, and this seems to have manifested in peoples' minds like the concrete they built. Hard to remove this. People seem to fight over minor improvements (like adding a protected bike lane or making safer crosswalks) while a drastic change would be necessary (like building completely different roads or changing underlying laws).
I'd recommend checking out the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube channel for some interesting observations on the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to traffic safety. Also, Strong Towns is a resource you might want to check out: https://www.strongtowns.org/
I'd recommend checking out the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube channel for some interesting observations on the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to traffic safety. Also, Strong Towns is a resource you might want to check out: https://www.strongtowns.org/
> It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety.
Knowing the average engineer, traffic engineers probably care about a lot of things.
What usually happens is that someone higher up (politicians, city administrators, etc) set up an incentive system that forces the engineers' hand. Stuff like: "Increase car traffic speed in region X by Y% in 2023".
Knowing the average engineer, traffic engineers probably care about a lot of things.
What usually happens is that someone higher up (politicians, city administrators, etc) set up an incentive system that forces the engineers' hand. Stuff like: "Increase car traffic speed in region X by Y% in 2023".
Funny you mention that metric since it happens often and is irrelevant since throughput would be way more interesting since it is often chosen as a metric to "solve" congestion, especially total throughput (including not cars) would most likely increase the total speed (in general) for all commuters due to limiting congestion.
Don't mention to car-centric politicians the most effective speed for safe throughput is about 40kph/25mph and not 120/75.
Don't mention to car-centric politicians the most effective speed for safe throughput is about 40kph/25mph and not 120/75.
> Don't mention to car-centric politicians the most effective speed for safe throughput is about 40kph/25mph and not 120/75.
I would assume that depends on the road in question? Eg Autobahn vs dirt road?
If not, that would be a very interesting result!
I would assume that depends on the road in question? Eg Autobahn vs dirt road?
If not, that would be a very interesting result!
It's pretty well known graph in traffic engineering -- Max throughput isn't free flowing traffic. (Though I remember it at 35-40 mph on interstate/motorway).
The basic reason is that free flowing traffic requires bigger gaps between vehicles. (safe anyway, but practically the way people drive generally follows the safe spacing function, but with a 'bit' of y offset). At the minimum latency (the free flow speed (ffs)) the spacing between cars is x seconds, so you get 3600/x cars per hour. At maximum flow rate, ~1/2 the ffs, the spacing is more like 1-2 seconds, so you get closer to 2k cars per hour. Even slower, the cars can be packed closer, but you don't clear the road nearly as quickly so the throughput is lower.
See https://courses.washington.edu/cee320ag/Lecture/Freeway_LOSd... (page 13) and https://courses.washington.edu/cee320ag/Lecture/Freeway_LOSd... (page 9)
It's a little bit like the tradeoff between latency and throughput in servers.
The basic reason is that free flowing traffic requires bigger gaps between vehicles. (safe anyway, but practically the way people drive generally follows the safe spacing function, but with a 'bit' of y offset). At the minimum latency (the free flow speed (ffs)) the spacing between cars is x seconds, so you get 3600/x cars per hour. At maximum flow rate, ~1/2 the ffs, the spacing is more like 1-2 seconds, so you get closer to 2k cars per hour. Even slower, the cars can be packed closer, but you don't clear the road nearly as quickly so the throughput is lower.
See https://courses.washington.edu/cee320ag/Lecture/Freeway_LOSd... (page 13) and https://courses.washington.edu/cee320ag/Lecture/Freeway_LOSd... (page 9)
It's a little bit like the tradeoff between latency and throughput in servers.
Throughput is mostly independent of road as distances between cars increase more than you can speed up to compensate (you reaction time stays the same or get's worse). Type of road can make a difference, obviously dirt makes the distance requirements worse. If people also exit/enter the road it's even worse.
I was assuming an ideal road though with everyone sticking to the same speed. Cross lane movement and speed difference in traffic also places limits and slower speeds limit both of those afaik.
I was assuming an ideal road though with everyone sticking to the same speed. Cross lane movement and speed difference in traffic also places limits and slower speeds limit both of those afaik.
Traffic engineers routinely make design choices that prioritise minor driver convenience (think 5 seconds saved) over pedestrian life-or-death.
I've become disillusioned with the Not Just Bikes guy. He tends to omit key disadvantages of the lifestyle he's advertising.
Which are?
Costs mostly. He's talking from a privileged position of someone who can afford living in Amsterdam with his lifestyle.
Take for example buying groceries in your corner shop daily on your way back from work. Easily 50% more expensive than taking a longer, less frequent trip to a larger supermarket further away.
But what upset me the most was showcasing a building built somewhere in Canada that was, in his view, great because it didn't have parking spaces.
What actually happened is that the building rented-out parking spots from a nearby multi-level parking lot and was only allowed to be built as an exception, because it was too tall according to the zoning. And it shows, because it stands out like a buck tooth.
I live in a country essentially taken over by construction companies' interests and this is the kind of bullshit they peddle to improve their margins.
Take for example buying groceries in your corner shop daily on your way back from work. Easily 50% more expensive than taking a longer, less frequent trip to a larger supermarket further away.
But what upset me the most was showcasing a building built somewhere in Canada that was, in his view, great because it didn't have parking spaces.
What actually happened is that the building rented-out parking spots from a nearby multi-level parking lot and was only allowed to be built as an exception, because it was too tall according to the zoning. And it shows, because it stands out like a buck tooth.
I live in a country essentially taken over by construction companies' interests and this is the kind of bullshit they peddle to improve their margins.
I don't follow your argument. I've lived in various major European cities and it was always easy enough to find a discount supermarket (Lidl, Aldi etc.) within walking distance, and if not, maybe within 5 minutes of cycling. There would've rarely been a need to use the (more expensive, but certainly not 50%) corner grocery store. Everyone can afford this — quite the contrary: people often ignore the hundreds of Euros they spend on a car, because it's just a given for them. (That said, I know there are lots of people who depend on the car for getting to a work location because of lack of public transport.)
I don't know about the building you're talking about and can't weigh in on this.
I don't know about the building you're talking about and can't weigh in on this.
A store placed where land and labour is expensive will necessarily have considerably higher prices than one far away from such an area.
I had friends who, in order to save money, went by bus, did shopping for the whole week and just Ubered back, because even compared to a local Lidl it was worth it. Of course it was a major time sink, but spread over a week didn't affect them too much.
My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
This is the type of reality I'm talking about - note the lack of cars in these scenarios.
I wish I could find the clip showing the mentioned building, but a cursory search didn't yield results.
I had friends who, in order to save money, went by bus, did shopping for the whole week and just Ubered back, because even compared to a local Lidl it was worth it. Of course it was a major time sink, but spread over a week didn't affect them too much.
My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
This is the type of reality I'm talking about - note the lack of cars in these scenarios.
I wish I could find the clip showing the mentioned building, but a cursory search didn't yield results.
> My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
By bicyle, 3.6 km would take 10-15 min without riding hard.
By bicyle, 3.6 km would take 10-15 min without riding hard.
I don't follow. One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
As for buying for the corner shop being 50% more expensive, why? What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
As for buying for the corner shop being 50% more expensive, why? What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
> One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
I see this as a perspective of someone who never lived in a walkable city that has both zoning and parking minimums. It's not a case of either-or.
The type of construction he's proposing is a net negative to how a city functions - specifically it was a particularly tall building in an area where four floors + ground level buildings were already allowed - that's an already appropriate density for a city.
> What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
That's my experience from just about every European city I spent any appreciable time in(meaning - at least a few months) - especially the one I grew up in.
And no wonder - grocery stores scale exceedingly well so far as there's cheap land to build on. That's not the case in city centres.
I see this as a perspective of someone who never lived in a walkable city that has both zoning and parking minimums. It's not a case of either-or.
The type of construction he's proposing is a net negative to how a city functions - specifically it was a particularly tall building in an area where four floors + ground level buildings were already allowed - that's an already appropriate density for a city.
> What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
That's my experience from just about every European city I spent any appreciable time in(meaning - at least a few months) - especially the one I grew up in.
And no wonder - grocery stores scale exceedingly well so far as there's cheap land to build on. That's not the case in city centres.
Ah the famous Tade0's-experience-price-index /s :)
Sure, I'd love to see how prices in small shop chain retailers compare to big box chain retailers. But sorry, your personal gut feeling is not data enough for me.
As for walkable cities with zoning and parking minimums, perhaps it can technically be done? But you do agree that it makes it extremely difficult and disincentivised, right?
Sure, I'd love to see how prices in small shop chain retailers compare to big box chain retailers. But sorry, your personal gut feeling is not data enough for me.
As for walkable cities with zoning and parking minimums, perhaps it can technically be done? But you do agree that it makes it extremely difficult and disincentivised, right?
On the reflective gear, such thinking only shifts the blame from the drivers to the pedestrians. It's the car that has the light, the driver that controls the speed and it's their responsibility to be able to stop their car quickly enough. After all distraction and speeding are the main causes for accidents here in Austria, reflective gear can't change that. The solution to reduce distraction and speeding is changing the road layout so drivers feel less comfortable to speed. Narrower roads, trees, speed bumps, even cobble stones will do the trick.
No matter who is to blame reflective elements on clothing increase visibility and safety. Of course nothing would help if a driver is distracted by a smartphone but this is another problem. As a pedestrian I wish I could wear only jackets with reflective stripes but in most cases there is no such option available.
Even when I cycle (which implies speed much lower than for a car) I sometimes notice pedestrians in dark garments (without reflective elements) at a small distance and have to brake hard (moving light beam up would help to see them further but it would blind both pedestrians and other drivers).
Even when I cycle (which implies speed much lower than for a car) I sometimes notice pedestrians in dark garments (without reflective elements) at a small distance and have to brake hard (moving light beam up would help to see them further but it would blind both pedestrians and other drivers).
So dark colored cars are also dangerous then?
Where is it legal to operate a dark colored car in the dark without lights?
Cars have lights and reflectors
Blame is not always 100% on one side.
If it is difficult to see you, especially at night, it is dangerous for you and cars (obviously more for you as pedestrian) even if drivers are prudent. Help cars and help yourself by being visible.
If it is difficult to see you, especially at night, it is dangerous for you and cars (obviously more for you as pedestrian) even if drivers are prudent. Help cars and help yourself by being visible.
I don't see why walking around town should need protective gear, maybe we should wear helmets too?
If a driver turns off all their lights and gets hit, you don’t think the driver shares some of the blame?
Pedestrians wearing dark clothes at night are almost invisible. Until we put sidewalks and bright crosswalks on every street in the country, wearing reflective clothes is common sense. Comparing that to a helmet mandate is absurd.
Pedestrians wearing dark clothes at night are almost invisible. Until we put sidewalks and bright crosswalks on every street in the country, wearing reflective clothes is common sense. Comparing that to a helmet mandate is absurd.
Ugh, talk about a false equivalence
No, someone who pops out to the shops should not have to think about putting on reflective gear, someone who goes out in a car a night should be the ** aware pedestrians exist and know to turn their lights on.
No, someone who pops out to the shops should not have to think about putting on reflective gear, someone who goes out in a car a night should be the ** aware pedestrians exist and know to turn their lights on.
No because the default for all of human existence is that I wear my normal street clothing to walk from my home to my neighbors house, or the market.
The idea that innovations demand normal folks to change their way of life is absurd on the face. Very simple measures, like major consequences for all vehicle-pedestrian collisions would solve this better.
The idea that innovations demand normal folks to change their way of life is absurd on the face. Very simple measures, like major consequences for all vehicle-pedestrian collisions would solve this better.
>”like major consequences for all vehicle-pedestrian collisions would solve this better.”
There are already major consequences for hitting a pedestrian.
There are already major consequences for hitting a pedestrian.
A failure to yield citation, maybe with an additional citation for negligent or distracted driving is not a major consequence. Insurance tends to cover the monetary cost of the civil suit, and higher auto insurance bills aren't really a "major consequence" either.
To be charged with vehicular assault or manslaughter you have to prove intent, most of these collisions are a result of mild negligence or even poor roadway design. Many states don't have any kind of charge for negligent collision that results in jail time. And yes if you kill or injure someone while driving distracted I think 3-6 months in jail is still pretty minor, given that consequences can be permanent.
To be charged with vehicular assault or manslaughter you have to prove intent, most of these collisions are a result of mild negligence or even poor roadway design. Many states don't have any kind of charge for negligent collision that results in jail time. And yes if you kill or injure someone while driving distracted I think 3-6 months in jail is still pretty minor, given that consequences can be permanent.
Yes, for the pedestrian. A driver can pretty much commit murder behind the wheel and get by with token penalties.
Sure, it does not hurt to wear such clothes. But those arguments aren't mutually exclusive, and by always repeating them, public discussions tend to shift towards the arguments that blame the weaker ones (i.e., cyclists, pedestrians), often neglecting the underlying issues at fault (reckless car drivers or unsafe infrastructure).
For instance, in many cases, when a car has injured a cyclist severely, there could have been infrastructure to prevent this (e.g. separate bike lanes, clear road layouts, …). A helmet would not have prevented the accident.
Similarly, unless someone's crossing a dark street at night without looking for oncoming traffic, why should pedestrians have to be wearing reflective gear all the time, when there could be well-illuminated crosswalks, slower driving speeds, speed bumps etc.?
(I'm not claiming there aren't cyclists ignoring red lights or pedestrians randomly crossing roads in unsafe situations … that's usually the next argument.)
For instance, in many cases, when a car has injured a cyclist severely, there could have been infrastructure to prevent this (e.g. separate bike lanes, clear road layouts, …). A helmet would not have prevented the accident.
Similarly, unless someone's crossing a dark street at night without looking for oncoming traffic, why should pedestrians have to be wearing reflective gear all the time, when there could be well-illuminated crosswalks, slower driving speeds, speed bumps etc.?
(I'm not claiming there aren't cyclists ignoring red lights or pedestrians randomly crossing roads in unsafe situations … that's usually the next argument.)
I don't understand the problem and, seemingly, the outrage in some of the replies.
If it is dark and there's traffic it is safer and useful for everyone to be visible. Obviously this depends on how well the streets are lit, if they are very well lit it may not be a big issue.
As a pedestrian at night (which is pretty much any commute to/from work in winter in the UK) I know that sometimes cars don't see me or see me at the last moment if I wear dark clothes, or even any clothes that are not high-viz.
And as a driver I know that this is because pedestrians, or even cyclists at crossings, can be very difficult to see in low light conditions (good forbid there's fog as well!) even if you're driving carefully.
This is all common sense, really.
In my neighbourhood, which is residential and poorly lit as many are here in the UK, people also wear lights on themselves when they walk their dogs in the evening, and they usually also make the dogs wear lights.
When I go running in the evening I wear a high-viz jacket and one of those chest lights so that I can be seen and can see the potholes as well.
Again, common sense for safety in such conditions.
If it is dark and there's traffic it is safer and useful for everyone to be visible. Obviously this depends on how well the streets are lit, if they are very well lit it may not be a big issue.
As a pedestrian at night (which is pretty much any commute to/from work in winter in the UK) I know that sometimes cars don't see me or see me at the last moment if I wear dark clothes, or even any clothes that are not high-viz.
And as a driver I know that this is because pedestrians, or even cyclists at crossings, can be very difficult to see in low light conditions (good forbid there's fog as well!) even if you're driving carefully.
This is all common sense, really.
In my neighbourhood, which is residential and poorly lit as many are here in the UK, people also wear lights on themselves when they walk their dogs in the evening, and they usually also make the dogs wear lights.
When I go running in the evening I wear a high-viz jacket and one of those chest lights so that I can be seen and can see the potholes as well.
Again, common sense for safety in such conditions.
The logic behind my thinking is more based on what we do as humans to be safe.
For example:
When it is cold, we wear protective gear to keep us warm.
When the UV index is high, we wear protective gear to protect our skin.
When it is dark, we wear reflective elements to be seen.
Obviously not everyone subscribed to that thinking, and it is not my intention to shift blame.
For example:
When it is cold, we wear protective gear to keep us warm.
When the UV index is high, we wear protective gear to protect our skin.
When it is dark, we wear reflective elements to be seen.
Obviously not everyone subscribed to that thinking, and it is not my intention to shift blame.
It doesn't shift blame because there is no blame. It's just the mechanics of human factors: reflective clothing adds visbility, which increases available response time of drivers, which reduces injury.
The car has the light and is already contributing to being able to see and avoid the pedestrian.
The pedestrian now has an independent choice to wear clothing that helps make themself visible or clothing that makes them harder to see. Their own safety will be affected by their choice.
I wouldn’t pass a law requiring it, but I do choose light/visible clothes for myself and for my family when out at night.
The pedestrian now has an independent choice to wear clothing that helps make themself visible or clothing that makes them harder to see. Their own safety will be affected by their choice.
I wouldn’t pass a law requiring it, but I do choose light/visible clothes for myself and for my family when out at night.
We require cars and bicycles to have lights on at night to make it easier for other drivers to be able to stop their car quickly enough.
I don’t see why we couldn’t require some reasonable action from pedestrians, too. I’m not suggesting pedestrians should become Christmas trees, but things like “don’t be dressed in Vantablack” seem reasonable to me.
Firstly, though, street designs should aim to have street lighting wherever car drivers and pedestrians are expected to interact.
I don’t see why we couldn’t require some reasonable action from pedestrians, too. I’m not suggesting pedestrians should become Christmas trees, but things like “don’t be dressed in Vantablack” seem reasonable to me.
Firstly, though, street designs should aim to have street lighting wherever car drivers and pedestrians are expected to interact.
"Being a pedestrian" is the default state of a human outdoors. What are you going to do to enforce a requirement someone fails to meet take away their going outside privileges?
For some reason it's much easier to buy black or charcoal outerwear than something bright and reflective. I myself am baffled by this. As for the Prius-- something happened in the last few years and horrible, anti-social driving became much more prevalent. There were always a few... but now those folks seem to be everywhere, tailgating, aggressively ignoring crosswalks, damaging property and driving away. It's still not mainstream behavior, but it's very visible lately.
> For some reason it's much easier to buy black or charcoal outerwear than something bright and reflective. I myself am baffled by this.
That's the same thing in France especially for winter clothes, and given that night are longer in winter that's makes it even worse!
That's the same thing in France especially for winter clothes, and given that night are longer in winter that's makes it even worse!
Now that I think about it, the same can be said about outerwear here in Norway, but I just realised that I’m used to seeing the reflective band or vest standout.
There are many people who lost their minds over the past two years and haven’t recovered.
It doesn’t help that many cities stopped routine traffic enforcement during the same period.
It doesn’t help that many cities stopped routine traffic enforcement during the same period.
Bright colors are generally a lot more controversial than dark ones.
You can see it in business attire.
You can see it in business attire.
> the inconvenience of having to yield to a pedestrian was some kind of trigger
I've experienced this in the UK as well using a zebra crossing. A driver decided to accelerate at me and then slam on the brakes as late as possible, then lean out the window to swear and tell me to get out the way.
It definitely seems like extremely aggressive driving has become more common over the last few years. Not sure if it's just driving or the general attitude of people due to covid, inflation etc causing people to have shorter fuses.
I've experienced this in the UK as well using a zebra crossing. A driver decided to accelerate at me and then slam on the brakes as late as possible, then lean out the window to swear and tell me to get out the way.
It definitely seems like extremely aggressive driving has become more common over the last few years. Not sure if it's just driving or the general attitude of people due to covid, inflation etc causing people to have shorter fuses.
My pet theory is lot of people overextended themselves due to easy financing[0] and are perpetually frustrated when driving due to the insatisfaction of getting very little of what they imagined. They are just commuting like everyone else but with an additional big bad financial decision. Pedestrians, bicycles, other drivers, everything then become an instant scapegoat for their frustration.
[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-14/new-car-p...
[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-14/new-car-p...
> Pedestrians, bicycles, other drivers, everything then become an instant scapegoat for their frustration
Yeah, but if you yell at other drivers, they don't hear you so you can do it safely.
If you yell (possibly with open window) to pedestrian/biker they hear you and "take harm" (however small it is).
Another "priviledge" od being in car. Total isolation, including isolation from consequences of your own dick moves.
The very social situation of being canned box is reason for so much frustration of drivers. When you're on bike/feet you behave much better usually.
Yeah, but if you yell at other drivers, they don't hear you so you can do it safely.
If you yell (possibly with open window) to pedestrian/biker they hear you and "take harm" (however small it is).
Another "priviledge" od being in car. Total isolation, including isolation from consequences of your own dick moves.
The very social situation of being canned box is reason for so much frustration of drivers. When you're on bike/feet you behave much better usually.
It sounds like a variety of road rage which is an interesting psychological phenomena.
There is something about that act of driving and the environment of a drivers seat that breeds maladaptive emotional responses. I think it's partly being alone and disconnected from other road users that generates runaway sense of entitlement and cooking off emotionally without any regulating social factors.
I think that both driving and internet use have a common de-socialisation effect fuelling similar negative behaviours.
There is something about that act of driving and the environment of a drivers seat that breeds maladaptive emotional responses. I think it's partly being alone and disconnected from other road users that generates runaway sense of entitlement and cooking off emotionally without any regulating social factors.
I think that both driving and internet use have a common de-socialisation effect fuelling similar negative behaviours.
The same thing happened to me recently! I had the walk indicator lit, crossing in a cross walk, someone comes speeding up to me and stopped and yelled at me to "get my ass out of the road." Someone else drove up on the sidewalk and almost hit me -- they were on their phone when it happened. People are nuts.
One time a guy had to brake real hard as he almost ran a red light as I was crossing, he beeped at my and i told him to f himself, he drove the car around the block and assaulted me.
I am sorry that happened to You.
That sucks. I've had sorta-similar experiences, but I've probably provoked them...
If I have the right-of-way,e.g., stop sign AND I'm in the street when the automobile is 3/4 of the block away and they still try blowing through the intersection with me being in front of them...
I either grab as high [front of the vehicle] as I can if I'm getting run-over, or, if a near-miss, I park one of my heavy boots into the side of their car (not recommended, I tend to dent it but I get tossed to the ground by their velocity).
I live in Seattle, Belltown specifically, for 20 years, and spend much time in Pike Place Market [0]. I've worn a long black coat for the past 40 years; and this stuff only happens during daylight.
The people who "circle around" to confront are rare.
In those situations I behave calmly, explain what is going on, and most of the the time, we walk away.
Now to atone... I do not put up with this in my neighborhood. I am lucky that I call an Attorney. Instead of seeing another "blah foo blah person...getting harassed by a "bum" I find either a compassionate human who figures-it-out or a dick-w that wants to punch me out.
That sucks. I've had sorta-similar experiences, but I've probably provoked them...
If I have the right-of-way,e.g., stop sign AND I'm in the street when the automobile is 3/4 of the block away and they still try blowing through the intersection with me being in front of them...
I either grab as high [front of the vehicle] as I can if I'm getting run-over, or, if a near-miss, I park one of my heavy boots into the side of their car (not recommended, I tend to dent it but I get tossed to the ground by their velocity).
I live in Seattle, Belltown specifically, for 20 years, and spend much time in Pike Place Market [0]. I've worn a long black coat for the past 40 years; and this stuff only happens during daylight.
The people who "circle around" to confront are rare.
In those situations I behave calmly, explain what is going on, and most of the the time, we walk away.
Now to atone... I do not put up with this in my neighborhood. I am lucky that I call an Attorney. Instead of seeing another "blah foo blah person...getting harassed by a "bum" I find either a compassionate human who figures-it-out or a dick-w that wants to punch me out.
Just massive sense of entitlement, either bred by spoiling children, or by abuse, breeding a "might is right" mentality.
Why should pedestrians wear protective gear? It's like telling non-smokers to wear respirators if they don't want to passively smoke. Going outside should be the normal default and shouldn't require suiting up like you're going into battle.
The difference you describe is more cultural. In Europe most people who are able to walk regularly. Cars are used for longer distances and perhaps a few super lazy people. But generally everyone knows what it's like to walk. Most people don't know what it's like to cycle, though. So people get angry at cyclists all the time. In the US people don't even walk. Walking is seen as a leisure pursuit, not as a way to get around. So basically pedestrians are treated the same way cyclists are here.
It essentially boils down to empathy. People who have only ever used a car can't relate to people outside of a car. They can't imagine what it's like being exposed to the elements or having to actually expend energy to move. You'll see people completely soak pedestrians or cyclists by driving through puddles. Or getting frustrated that cyclists aren't going above 20mph because they have no fossil fuel assistance.
I think if everyone was required to work their way up to having the responsibility of operating a car things would be much better. I think at least a year spent using a bicycle or other non-motorised vehicle should be required before being able to use a car. Pilots don't get straight into jumbo jets as soon as they've learnt to walk. Why do we let people get straight into cars?
The difference you describe is more cultural. In Europe most people who are able to walk regularly. Cars are used for longer distances and perhaps a few super lazy people. But generally everyone knows what it's like to walk. Most people don't know what it's like to cycle, though. So people get angry at cyclists all the time. In the US people don't even walk. Walking is seen as a leisure pursuit, not as a way to get around. So basically pedestrians are treated the same way cyclists are here.
It essentially boils down to empathy. People who have only ever used a car can't relate to people outside of a car. They can't imagine what it's like being exposed to the elements or having to actually expend energy to move. You'll see people completely soak pedestrians or cyclists by driving through puddles. Or getting frustrated that cyclists aren't going above 20mph because they have no fossil fuel assistance.
I think if everyone was required to work their way up to having the responsibility of operating a car things would be much better. I think at least a year spent using a bicycle or other non-motorised vehicle should be required before being able to use a car. Pilots don't get straight into jumbo jets as soon as they've learnt to walk. Why do we let people get straight into cars?
Most areas don’t let you drive a car until 16 or even 18: but whether people are shuttled around before that or transport themselves.
If there are usable sidewalks and every crosswalk is illuminated by street lights, there's almost no need to wear reflective gear, especially if the speed limit in built-up areas is kept low for safety... it's all about the provided infrastructure..
Time the lights and the crosswalks to the lights.
Do not _artificially_ lower a speed limit (people will drive the speed that feels safe) nor _artificially_ make a roadway more dangerous (it will be more dangerous).
Or even better still, build a separated pedestrian way. Skybridges, underground shopping district tunnels, all sorts of engineering solutions exist for isolating pedestrian and vehicle traffic entirely which will maximize safety and in climates with adverse weather encourage year round walking.
Do not _artificially_ lower a speed limit (people will drive the speed that feels safe) nor _artificially_ make a roadway more dangerous (it will be more dangerous).
Or even better still, build a separated pedestrian way. Skybridges, underground shopping district tunnels, all sorts of engineering solutions exist for isolating pedestrian and vehicle traffic entirely which will maximize safety and in climates with adverse weather encourage year round walking.
If I'm reading it right, the advice in your comment is basically "Bad Infrastructure Planning 101" in 2023.
The right way to do it is what the Dutch do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxRYrpbnuA
It's called "traffic calming".
Oh, and underground pedestrian walkways, skybridges, etc are absolutely horrible long term solutions. If you'd use one of them for extended periods of time, you'd know. They're generally under maintained over the decades, they tend to get dirty and attract homeless people as shelter (I don't want to get into the debate of why homeless people need to use them as shelter), they're for various reason a top target for muggings, they inconvenience the people you should be encouraging (pedestrians) by greatly increasing the distances they have to walk, which means that people will just stop walking when their 500m straight line walk becomes a 1.2km runaround, etc.
The right way to do it is what the Dutch do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxRYrpbnuA
It's called "traffic calming".
Oh, and underground pedestrian walkways, skybridges, etc are absolutely horrible long term solutions. If you'd use one of them for extended periods of time, you'd know. They're generally under maintained over the decades, they tend to get dirty and attract homeless people as shelter (I don't want to get into the debate of why homeless people need to use them as shelter), they're for various reason a top target for muggings, they inconvenience the people you should be encouraging (pedestrians) by greatly increasing the distances they have to walk, which means that people will just stop walking when their 500m straight line walk becomes a 1.2km runaround, etc.
You don't need to make the infrastructure more dangerous to lower speeds, it only needs to feel that way (narrower RoW with some plants around, more constant small curves, ...). If it would be more dangerous at higher speeds, but speeds are decreased due to this, it is often safer in the end.
Separate pedestrian ways mostly suck. Segragated infra in very bad weather is used, but in most conditions walking at ground level is preferred. In Germany, many Pedestrian Underpasses (often with shops), Overpasses, Skywalks were abandoned in favor of level-crossings, due to accessability concerns, pedestrian dislike, maintainance hassle and the general tendency of them to get unattractive very quickly.
Separate pedestrian ways mostly suck. Segragated infra in very bad weather is used, but in most conditions walking at ground level is preferred. In Germany, many Pedestrian Underpasses (often with shops), Overpasses, Skywalks were abandoned in favor of level-crossings, due to accessability concerns, pedestrian dislike, maintainance hassle and the general tendency of them to get unattractive very quickly.
> You don't need to make the infrastructure more dangerous to lower speeds, it only needs to feel that way (narrower RoW with some plants around, more constant small curves, ...).
That probably won't work long-term, see for example 55mph state highways that newcomers to the area tend to drive annoyingly slow on.
That probably won't work long-term, see for example 55mph state highways that newcomers to the area tend to drive annoyingly slow on.
It's pretty setteled that people tend to drive slower on eg. narrow/twisty roads or with more stuff near the road (e.g. trees in an alleyway), even after acclimating to them.
The Netherlands seems to do pretty well with segregated infrastructure?
My understanding is that in dense towns and cities, the Dutch don't segregate infra very much. Though at some level of density/space they tend to drop car lanes entirely, like in the densest plazas of city centres.
In rural areas, segregated infra makes a ton of sense. Nobody wants to be near noisy, dangerous cars over 40mph. So they build separate bike and pedestrian paths in rural areas to connect the denser parts of the country without the need to get in a car in between.
In rural areas, segregated infra makes a ton of sense. Nobody wants to be near noisy, dangerous cars over 40mph. So they build separate bike and pedestrian paths in rural areas to connect the denser parts of the country without the need to get in a car in between.
It's a mix. On mid-size urban roads, the bike, ped, and auto lanes tend to be separated, but usually at the same grade. On smaller urban roads, bike and auto can be mixed, but speed limits are generally lower there than in the US. And in the suburbs/rural areas, there are definitely completely separate bike paths (in addition to mix of other layouts).
Typical urban road... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XuBdf9jYj7o/maxresdefault.jpg https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/cyclelanes0...
Mixed on a slow neighborhood road (30kph is 18mph)... https://coordinates.ce.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/images...
Completely separate bike path... https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/cyclelanes0...
Typical urban road... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XuBdf9jYj7o/maxresdefault.jpg https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/cyclelanes0...
Mixed on a slow neighborhood road (30kph is 18mph)... https://coordinates.ce.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/images...
Completely separate bike path... https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/cyclelanes0...
In the sense that they're not part of the road and may have their own RoW, yes. In the sense that non-ground level infrastructure is commonly used do replace level crossings and seperate cars and others, no.
Underground passages are so welcoming at night. Bridges need accessibility, lifts etc, all these are very costly too. Better still, make cars drive slower around pedestrians, increase penalties for cars that hit pedestrians and let them stop thinking that speeding is just something everyone does.
Why not put the drivers underground? Raise gas taxes to pay for it.
Portland street lights are hilariously dim and its nearly always cloudy and hence extra dark by 5:30pm in the winter, I am terrified of hitting someone here.
> I suspect that also has a negative effect on drivers as it can be extremely difficult to see pedestrians.
It seems the best efforts in reducing pedestrian casualties have been in making the road more complicated to drivers.
A sister comment mentions making street narrower with more obstacles. I’ve also seen straight street transformed into multicurves ones. Fake pedestrian statues set at crossing points. Fake painting on the road that force the driver to focus etc.
And all of these (unfortunately for drivers?) seem to have had a positive effect in the towns that implemented them (at least while the driver doesn’t get used to them in the case of non obstructive setups).
It seems the best efforts in reducing pedestrian casualties have been in making the road more complicated to drivers.
A sister comment mentions making street narrower with more obstacles. I’ve also seen straight street transformed into multicurves ones. Fake pedestrian statues set at crossing points. Fake painting on the road that force the driver to focus etc.
And all of these (unfortunately for drivers?) seem to have had a positive effect in the towns that implemented them (at least while the driver doesn’t get used to them in the case of non obstructive setups).
The first part -- narrower lanes and less straight ways (also centerline islands in straight roads, and at intersections) -- are part of Vision Zero approach. The approach is directed at subconscious level and aims to make driver more attentive, not to complicate or irritate. I drove at such roads, it dosen't feel wrong or irritating. No problem to make a left turn behind a centerline island, rather than cut the turn. I feel much unsafer at big "runway" roads.
Fake pedestrian statues and painting are the opposite and strogly discouraged, because they distract driver from real pedestrians and numb attention. These are just fantasies of police departments.
Fake pedestrian statues and painting are the opposite and strogly discouraged, because they distract driver from real pedestrians and numb attention. These are just fantasies of police departments.
> Another observation was that very few pedestrians wear reflective gear
I don't think this is so prevalent everywhere, among cyclists maybe, and maybe if you're planning on walking down some dark country roads with no pavement.
Honestly, this one struck me as maybe a step too far, walking around town should not really require protective gear
I don't think this is so prevalent everywhere, among cyclists maybe, and maybe if you're planning on walking down some dark country roads with no pavement.
Honestly, this one struck me as maybe a step too far, walking around town should not really require protective gear
I think the reflective thing is a red herring and can simply be explained by latitude. It gets dark in northern England at about 3pm in winter, so even earlier in Oslo, whereas Portland is on the same latitude as southern France.
There’s also a difference in areas seen in how pedestrians walk - some cities you will NEVER see a pedestrian enter the road except at a marked crosswalk, others they just walk across at any place.
And it’s not 100% clear which is overall safer - the latter can result in drivers always looking but a moment inattentiveness can result in disaster. (The main advantage of slower speeds is the driver can react in time; a pedestrian hit even at 10 mph is not going to do well.)
And it’s not 100% clear which is overall safer - the latter can result in drivers always looking but a moment inattentiveness can result in disaster. (The main advantage of slower speeds is the driver can react in time; a pedestrian hit even at 10 mph is not going to do well.)
> In Norway, pedestrians are expected to wear reflective gear and drivers
The fuck they are.
Pedestrians, viz. anyone walking, is not expected to wear anything but clothes.
The fuck they are.
Pedestrians, viz. anyone walking, is not expected to wear anything but clothes.
> come together to try and improve the safety in the states -- significantly safer walking in Oslo, Norway than in Portland, OR.
Portland person here. I drive, and I have some competence at it, no tickets in about 50 years of driving, but it is growing very difficult to drive safely. I am a retired guy who drives at whatever speed I consider safe according to conditions, and I try to follow the rules. But so many drivers are in such a rush, so many bicylists drive like stunt men, and the time pressures of modern life and road systems overloaded with cars probably damage safety seriously by raising everyone's stress and pulse rate.
The traffic engineers (or the bureaucrats) who control the traffic controls know that the fewer people who drive, the safer we all will be, but that relationship only holds when other factors are constant. We have road and traffic systems now that seem to be designed purely to discourage driving. Like everyone other than the driver (buses, trolleys, bicycles, roller-skaters, skateboarders, pedal-powered delivery trucks, ...) has the right-of-way and the driver is presumed wrong if any encounter, however illogical and incomprehensible, with the other modes of transportation should occur. Too many creative, novel, and unfathomable patterns of paint on the pavement that mostly are supposed to create safe zones for the other modes without any safety-preserving and unambiguous physical barriers; too many directions to look (like six at many intersections) from which people may be getting into a driver's path in less than a second. Did I mention that about zero percent of the municipal experts who come up with all this chaos are within 20 years of my demographic, so they have no idea of what percentage of the population has to have a very very good day as a driver to not raise anyone else's eyebrows or scare themselves to death.
This situation is just another obvious sign that the auto-centric economy is not benign. I rarely drive more than twice in a week, but those trips would cost around 20 percent of my Social Security and 20 percent of my time if I tried to do them without a personal vehicle. It seems like the most likely shot we have at de-fanging the horrible auto is that the huge number of drivers will clog the roads and foul the air so much that no one will want to drive any more, so we'll have to find a better way.
Portland person here. I drive, and I have some competence at it, no tickets in about 50 years of driving, but it is growing very difficult to drive safely. I am a retired guy who drives at whatever speed I consider safe according to conditions, and I try to follow the rules. But so many drivers are in such a rush, so many bicylists drive like stunt men, and the time pressures of modern life and road systems overloaded with cars probably damage safety seriously by raising everyone's stress and pulse rate.
The traffic engineers (or the bureaucrats) who control the traffic controls know that the fewer people who drive, the safer we all will be, but that relationship only holds when other factors are constant. We have road and traffic systems now that seem to be designed purely to discourage driving. Like everyone other than the driver (buses, trolleys, bicycles, roller-skaters, skateboarders, pedal-powered delivery trucks, ...) has the right-of-way and the driver is presumed wrong if any encounter, however illogical and incomprehensible, with the other modes of transportation should occur. Too many creative, novel, and unfathomable patterns of paint on the pavement that mostly are supposed to create safe zones for the other modes without any safety-preserving and unambiguous physical barriers; too many directions to look (like six at many intersections) from which people may be getting into a driver's path in less than a second. Did I mention that about zero percent of the municipal experts who come up with all this chaos are within 20 years of my demographic, so they have no idea of what percentage of the population has to have a very very good day as a driver to not raise anyone else's eyebrows or scare themselves to death.
This situation is just another obvious sign that the auto-centric economy is not benign. I rarely drive more than twice in a week, but those trips would cost around 20 percent of my Social Security and 20 percent of my time if I tried to do them without a personal vehicle. It seems like the most likely shot we have at de-fanging the horrible auto is that the huge number of drivers will clog the roads and foul the air so much that no one will want to drive any more, so we'll have to find a better way.
Portland OR is a funny example. We recently moved here from TX and by far the biggest thing that stood out to us is how frequently people stop to let us cross the road. Something I would occasionally see in TX, you see literally constantly here -- it's generally expected to yield to pedestrians. I'm unsure if it's law or culture, but it is very different than other places I have visited.
And yet, the in regards to pedestrian safety it _feels_ less safe for pedestrians here. The visibility is simply much lower in the winter, the roads are smaller, the lights dimmer, and the walkers more abundant. It's a very interesting difference from TX and a few other places I've been.
And yet, the in regards to pedestrian safety it _feels_ less safe for pedestrians here. The visibility is simply much lower in the winter, the roads are smaller, the lights dimmer, and the walkers more abundant. It's a very interesting difference from TX and a few other places I've been.
In other countries pedestrians don’t have the right of way and the US has a lot more immigrants than Norway so it may just be that driver didn’t learn the laws here
> US has a lot more immigrants than Norway so it may just be that driver didn’t learn the laws here
In absolute numbers, yes.
Percentage-wise? No.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
Norway ........... 852,238 ............. 15.72%
United States ... 50,632,836 ........ 15.28%
In absolute numbers, yes.
Percentage-wise? No.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
Norway ........... 852,238 ............. 15.72%
United States ... 50,632,836 ........ 15.28%
The fix is simple.
Our cars kill people because we do not test for pedestrians surviving impacts. The EU does, and their cars kill less pedestrians. (They do a bunch of other things too, like redesign roads with reducing pedestrian collisions as a goal, which we also do a poor job of tracking.)
We will not get the results we are looking for until we start actually looking for them.
Our cars kill people because we do not test for pedestrians surviving impacts. The EU does, and their cars kill less pedestrians. (They do a bunch of other things too, like redesign roads with reducing pedestrian collisions as a goal, which we also do a poor job of tracking.)
We will not get the results we are looking for until we start actually looking for them.
> Our cars kill people because we do not test for pedestrians surviving impacts.
We should also look at the overall design of these damn things.
Weight. Gigantic A-pillars (do we really need this many damn airbags?). Touch screens and horrible user interface design. Drive by wire removing all sense of physicality and risk (because you sure as hell don't want those new pickup truck drivers perceiving the true weight of their vehicles...).
If it meant that my A-pillars could be 50% narrower, I would happily forego the protection afforded to me by those side impact airbags. In fact, if you could promise to reduce my vehicle's weight by 1000 lbs, I would forego all forms of driver-oriented protection.
The tradeoffs we've made for the driver in the driver vs pedestrian game are extremely unfair in my estimation. I hate driving these "modern" vehicles.
We should also look at the overall design of these damn things.
Weight. Gigantic A-pillars (do we really need this many damn airbags?). Touch screens and horrible user interface design. Drive by wire removing all sense of physicality and risk (because you sure as hell don't want those new pickup truck drivers perceiving the true weight of their vehicles...).
If it meant that my A-pillars could be 50% narrower, I would happily forego the protection afforded to me by those side impact airbags. In fact, if you could promise to reduce my vehicle's weight by 1000 lbs, I would forego all forms of driver-oriented protection.
The tradeoffs we've made for the driver in the driver vs pedestrian game are extremely unfair in my estimation. I hate driving these "modern" vehicles.
I'm pretty sure those massive A-pillars are to avoid roof collapse during a tip-over and not airbags. My previous smaller car had the same airbags my new one (new ones a longer but just as narrow) has and had about half the width of the pillars, the new one is also twice as heavy (still light by US standards).
> I'm pretty sure those massive A-pillars are to avoid roof collapse during a tip-over
Sounds like we are back to weight being the root evil here.
Why do the cars need to weigh so much again? Are we dealing with circular reasoning at this point?
Sounds like we are back to weight being the root evil here.
Why do the cars need to weigh so much again? Are we dealing with circular reasoning at this point?
Batteries are really heavy as are high power ICE engines and drivetrain etc.
The minimum weight for tires, suspension, exterior panels, frame, interior panels, seats etc isn’t that bad. But it gets worse the larger interior you want from simple scaling.
The minimum weight for tires, suspension, exterior panels, frame, interior panels, seats etc isn’t that bad. But it gets worse the larger interior you want from simple scaling.
Old cars had very narrow a pillars and they survived rollover just fine - look at the thickness of an actual full on roll cage and it is much smaller than modern a-pillars.
It’s mainly the airbags (and the angle of the windshield too I suspect) - and that it is simply not an aspect that is controlled for in testing to allow a vehicle to be road worthy. Add a tax based on degrees of width of A pillars and they would start shrinking.
It’s mainly the airbags (and the angle of the windshield too I suspect) - and that it is simply not an aspect that is controlled for in testing to allow a vehicle to be road worthy. Add a tax based on degrees of width of A pillars and they would start shrinking.
[deleted]
Ha, if it only was this simple.
The fact that EU has less traffic deaths is not because of testing, but because of the design of all the infrastructure and more importantly; culture. Yelling at pedestrians because they are walking a zebra crossing is something I cannot comprehend.
Fix the infra! Get actual good designed roads that have dedicated lanes for pedestrians and cyclers. Ban cars in city centers.
The fact that EU has less traffic deaths is not because of testing, but because of the design of all the infrastructure and more importantly; culture. Yelling at pedestrians because they are walking a zebra crossing is something I cannot comprehend.
Fix the infra! Get actual good designed roads that have dedicated lanes for pedestrians and cyclers. Ban cars in city centers.
Absolutely this! Every time I visit North America, the car-centric everything strengthens my resolve to never move back there.
In Canada, I once had a visitor from Denmark who was aghast at the amount of horn honking on the roads. In Denmark the horn is to be used only in an emergency, such as the imminent threat of collision. Apparently you might get a ticket for misusing the horn (not sure about this, it was 30 years ago).
Here in The Netherlands, as a pedestrian or as a cyclist, I am regularly politely annoyed with drivers who stop for me even though they have right-of-way! This has something to do with infrastructure design, but also with the fact that most everybody is a cyclist, and of course that in any accident involving a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motorist is by law _at least_ 50% liable.
In Canada, I once had a visitor from Denmark who was aghast at the amount of horn honking on the roads. In Denmark the horn is to be used only in an emergency, such as the imminent threat of collision. Apparently you might get a ticket for misusing the horn (not sure about this, it was 30 years ago).
Here in The Netherlands, as a pedestrian or as a cyclist, I am regularly politely annoyed with drivers who stop for me even though they have right-of-way! This has something to do with infrastructure design, but also with the fact that most everybody is a cyclist, and of course that in any accident involving a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motorist is by law _at least_ 50% liable.
> Apparently you might get a ticket for misusing the horn
Many countries have them either as part of the sound rules or separate rules (Since you live in NL, it's a separate offence a 95 euro). It used to be part of the rule standardization process but I'm not sure it still is. Somebody can correct me on that.
The reason the cars stop is good since it provides more time for both drivers to get a grip of the situation and at worse limits the speed of an impact. Though due to cyclist speed increasing due to more electric bikes there is a discrepancy on older (as in more than 5 year old) cycling crossings, not all are designed for 20+kph speeds and it's hard for drivers to notice oncoming fast traffic which is in a bend (looking at you local roundabout with a hexagonal cycling path making it impossible to see cyclists further away than the section you can see due to sharp angles and larger distances created by the hexagon).
Many countries have them either as part of the sound rules or separate rules (Since you live in NL, it's a separate offence a 95 euro). It used to be part of the rule standardization process but I'm not sure it still is. Somebody can correct me on that.
The reason the cars stop is good since it provides more time for both drivers to get a grip of the situation and at worse limits the speed of an impact. Though due to cyclist speed increasing due to more electric bikes there is a discrepancy on older (as in more than 5 year old) cycling crossings, not all are designed for 20+kph speeds and it's hard for drivers to notice oncoming fast traffic which is in a bend (looking at you local roundabout with a hexagonal cycling path making it impossible to see cyclists further away than the section you can see due to sharp angles and larger distances created by the hexagon).
No, it's not simple. Changing most of a country car fleet, drastically reducing traffic, changing the infrastructure, changing the population mindset, overcome the cultural wars (this is the most important thing to change). From outside, it seems that this is part of the (new) US mythology. This is really difficult to change.
You don't need to do this overnight.
You can change the rules for newly built (or refurbished) infrastructure only.
Roads don't last forever, so if you change the rules now you'll have the pedestrian friendly infrastructure you want in 20 years, without need a big push.
That's how the Dutch got (and are still getting) their infrastructure to be more human friendly.
You can change the rules for newly built (or refurbished) infrastructure only.
Roads don't last forever, so if you change the rules now you'll have the pedestrian friendly infrastructure you want in 20 years, without need a big push.
That's how the Dutch got (and are still getting) their infrastructure to be more human friendly.
Right - we're still building dangerous infrastructure today. Starting to do better now is better than the status quo.
It's like that quote: "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
It's like that quote: "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
Don't forget significantly stricter tests for getting licenses, and generally just having smaller cars helps a huge amount. A truck hits you, you're taking the impact to your chest or upper back. A small hatchback hits you, and it's hitting your legs.
> Don't forget significantly stricter tests for getting licenses
Some states in the US stopped requiring new drivers to take a road test before being handed a license due to the pandemic. I imagine that meant a lot more people were driving who shouldn't be on the road.
Some states in the US stopped requiring new drivers to take a road test before being handed a license due to the pandemic. I imagine that meant a lot more people were driving who shouldn't be on the road.
You know what helps a huge amount? Preventing trucks even hitting pedestrians. This is the EU strength. The core safety of EU traffic is the infra, not the cars. Lighter cars and better testing is just icing on the cake.
You're right. But our cars didn't suddenly get worse during the last 3 years. The behavioral changes we're seeing in drivers since the pandemic are very, very concerning to me. We need more understanding of this phenomenon.
This is the full press release the article is citing: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Ped-Spotli...
It's worth noting that the trend has accelerated in the last three years but we are actually up over a much longer period of time. From 2009-2019 we erased the entire decline in pedestrian deaths from 1990: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/17194.jpeg
It's worth noting that the trend has accelerated in the last three years but we are actually up over a much longer period of time. From 2009-2019 we erased the entire decline in pedestrian deaths from 1990: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/17194.jpeg
Are there statistics on the number of SUVs and trucks on the road?
That is an obvious difference with Europe. Both have much worse pedestrian safety, especially the truck.
The default vehicle for someone who needs to move tools, materials etc in Europe is not a truck but a van like a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter.
The other obvious difference is the huge, multi-lane roads in America, sometimes with no sidewalk.
Changing either of these will take years.
That is an obvious difference with Europe. Both have much worse pedestrian safety, especially the truck.
The default vehicle for someone who needs to move tools, materials etc in Europe is not a truck but a van like a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter.
The other obvious difference is the huge, multi-lane roads in America, sometimes with no sidewalk.
Changing either of these will take years.
> Are there statistics on the number of SUVs and trucks on the road?
I wouldn't be surprised if increasing numbers of SUVs and pickup trucks in the US is at least partly to blame for this. If you're hit by a sedan, you're likely to get thrown onto the hood, windshield, or roof of the car. If you're hit by an SUV or truck, you're much more likely to get dragged underneath, where you can get run over by the wheels. While neither situation is particularly fun, the latter is much more likely to result in death.
> The other obvious difference is the huge, multi-lane roads in America, sometimes with no sidewalk.
It would also be interesting to be able to classify what was happening when the pedestrian died in data like this. Were they crossing the street and a car going perpendicular ran into them? Were they crossing the street, and a car turning from the parallel street ran into them? Or were they walking along a road without a sidewalk, and a passing car hit them?
Agreed that the US has a lot of wide, multi-lane roads, and poor sidewalk coverage on many roads, but I don't expect that situation has changed (for worse or better) all that much in the past few years, in a way that would explain the surge of fatalities.
But anyway, to explain the increase in fatalities, my money would be on smartphones: more people driving distracted, and more pedestrians walking around buried in their phones, having no idea what's going on around them. Another posters somewhere here pointed out that pedestrian fatalities have been rising steadily since their all-time low back in 2009, which roughly coincides with the rise of smartphone adoption.
I wouldn't be surprised if increasing numbers of SUVs and pickup trucks in the US is at least partly to blame for this. If you're hit by a sedan, you're likely to get thrown onto the hood, windshield, or roof of the car. If you're hit by an SUV or truck, you're much more likely to get dragged underneath, where you can get run over by the wheels. While neither situation is particularly fun, the latter is much more likely to result in death.
> The other obvious difference is the huge, multi-lane roads in America, sometimes with no sidewalk.
It would also be interesting to be able to classify what was happening when the pedestrian died in data like this. Were they crossing the street and a car going perpendicular ran into them? Were they crossing the street, and a car turning from the parallel street ran into them? Or were they walking along a road without a sidewalk, and a passing car hit them?
Agreed that the US has a lot of wide, multi-lane roads, and poor sidewalk coverage on many roads, but I don't expect that situation has changed (for worse or better) all that much in the past few years, in a way that would explain the surge of fatalities.
But anyway, to explain the increase in fatalities, my money would be on smartphones: more people driving distracted, and more pedestrians walking around buried in their phones, having no idea what's going on around them. Another posters somewhere here pointed out that pedestrian fatalities have been rising steadily since their all-time low back in 2009, which roughly coincides with the rise of smartphone adoption.
A huge SUV also has way worse visibility lines than a sedan. If there is a child standing in front of the SUV, you simply won't be able to see them from inside the vehicle.
There's also the fact that when there are more SUVs on the road, the visibility from all the other cars is drastically worse.
When you park an Escalade at a street corner, everyone who's trying to cross that intersection is screwed.
I really hope parking too close to an intersection was made illegal everywhere in the US like it is in some European countries.
When you park an Escalade at a street corner, everyone who's trying to cross that intersection is screwed.
I really hope parking too close to an intersection was made illegal everywhere in the US like it is in some European countries.
Parking laws are state, or usually local level.
Interestingly, New York state does actually have a "no parking 30 feet (9m) from a crosswalk" but New York City has overridden that to make it legal
Interestingly, New York state does actually have a "no parking 30 feet (9m) from a crosswalk" but New York City has overridden that to make it legal
Airbags in the A pillars results in blind spots in the exact field of vision pedestrians tend to be in.
SUVs have a higher impact location I'm sure doesn't help, and then there's the legality of bullbars in the US which are pretty much outlawed in other places
FWIWs, Ford eliminated all cars in is lineup except for the Mustang in the US, and otherwise sells SUVs and trucks.
I think there's a convincing argument that trucks are getting significantly more lethal in recent years.
https://news.yahoo.com/americas-cars-trucks-getting-bigger-1...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
https://news.yahoo.com/americas-cars-trucks-getting-bigger-1...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
The reason for the behavioral change is that police stopped doing traffic stops during the pandemic and had already "quiet quit" in response to movements toward greater police accountability, and now people know they can now get away with almost anything.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a police officer pulling someone over, either around town or on the highway.
I was rear-ended by a guy who was clearly looking at his phone and the cop refused to write a ticket despite him rear-ending me at a stoplight that I had been waiting at for over half a minute.
Cops are a legal gang and we cannot have police reform fast enough, starting with federal minimum standards for fitness, education, training, and on-the-job apprenticing/mentoring. In huge swaths of the US, all you need to be a cop is to pass a background check, have a pulse, and be young enough.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a police officer pulling someone over, either around town or on the highway.
I was rear-ended by a guy who was clearly looking at his phone and the cop refused to write a ticket despite him rear-ending me at a stoplight that I had been waiting at for over half a minute.
Cops are a legal gang and we cannot have police reform fast enough, starting with federal minimum standards for fitness, education, training, and on-the-job apprenticing/mentoring. In huge swaths of the US, all you need to be a cop is to pass a background check, have a pulse, and be young enough.
> The reason for the behavioral change is that police stopped doing traffic stops during the pandemic
I suspect there isn't just one cause, but I did see that several states have stopped requiring new drivers to take a road test. Teens who wouldn't have passed a drivers test, cell phones, higher than normal stress/anxiety/frustration, grief, and an increase in walkers may also have played a role .
I suspect there isn't just one cause, but I did see that several states have stopped requiring new drivers to take a road test. Teens who wouldn't have passed a drivers test, cell phones, higher than normal stress/anxiety/frustration, grief, and an increase in walkers may also have played a role .
And at the same time if you fall in to a certain bubble on social media (eg TikTok) you could be convinced that there are police pulling someone over every 5 seconds in every city. We need good stats on the topic
I do feel the same way as you though. Running red lights, for example, has, at least in my experience, increased massively the past few years (UK)
I do feel the same way as you though. Running red lights, for example, has, at least in my experience, increased massively the past few years (UK)
I agree, I don't know what you notice where you are but where I am it's a bizarre passive aggressiveness - passive almost to the point of aloof. Cars either go 20mph over the speed limit, or float exactly at or some degree under it. They can also change this behavior at any time making passing or generally being anywhere near them dangerous. People also seem to have no qualms stopping in the middle of the road to make an exit or turn.
Anyway, driving feels more dangerous the last couple years. Also, I wonder if cars haven't changed but the number of beast-mobiles gone up? I drive a car and most trucks these days look like they'd kill me instantly and they drive like they wouldn't mind.
Anyway, driving feels more dangerous the last couple years. Also, I wonder if cars haven't changed but the number of beast-mobiles gone up? I drive a car and most trucks these days look like they'd kill me instantly and they drive like they wouldn't mind.
My guess: people disappeared completely into their phones during the pandemic and are continuing to use them while driving
it's incredible to me how laxly we treat driving multi-ton vehicles at high speeds. you'd think operating such beasts would be something for which a real license and strict guidelines were put in place, instead it's just treated as a more complicated form of taking a stroll around.
see what running the equivalent of a red light does to you as a train operator or airplane pilot. in a car? who gives a crap lol! and let's not even touch upon maintenance...
see what running the equivalent of a red light does to you as a train operator or airplane pilot. in a car? who gives a crap lol! and let's not even touch upon maintenance...
Definitely the rule these days that any other driver doing something stupid is usually staring at their crotch, cupholder, or dashboard.
And walking.
U.S roads are designed in a fundamentally unsafe way (stroads in particular). In particular, the design speed of these roads are generally too high for their intended use, leading to high-speed collisions. However, on account of the inefficiency inherent in car-oriented infrastructure, these roads were often congested to the point of reducing the speed to less unsafe levels. The pandemic reduced the amount of vehicles on the road, leading to the vehicles left on the road being able to hit the unsafe design speeds again, leading to the worrying trend that we are seeing.
That could help, but the article is ignores the obvious.
US population growth rate 2019-2022 was quite low due to the pandemic the actual increase was 18% or ~500 people from 2019. Further, working from home changed the dynamics around driving presumably a great number of people got worse because they didn’t do it as much. The numbers of pedestrians may have also increased faster than population growth rate.
US population growth rate 2019-2022 was quite low due to the pandemic the actual increase was 18% or ~500 people from 2019. Further, working from home changed the dynamics around driving presumably a great number of people got worse because they didn’t do it as much. The numbers of pedestrians may have also increased faster than population growth rate.
Also, if we're using population growth as a baseline, shouldn't we wait for the new members of the population to grow past three years old? It's not like we expect infants and toddlers to die in pedestrian accidents, at least not in the same ratio as the rest of the population.
0-4 year olds are killed at around the same rate as 65 year olds: https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/walking-...
They are the most difficult to see (especially from a large vehicle, or amongst large parked vehicles) and the most vulnerable to collisions, since they'll be hit directly on the head.
They are the most difficult to see (especially from a large vehicle, or amongst large parked vehicles) and the most vulnerable to collisions, since they'll be hit directly on the head.
Which is well below the overall average according to your link.
Rates are much higher between 4 and 65 than for the very young and the elderly. So, the person you’re replying to is correct.
Rates are much higher between 4 and 65 than for the very young and the elderly. So, the person you’re replying to is correct.
500 additional people is a lot of people, considering that as recently as 2009 the annual death total was 4109 people. https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/17194.jpeg
That’s for the full year this is comparing six months worth of data, and 2009 was well outside the norms.
I don’t mean to downplay deaths but looking at a few datapoints may not represent a trend. Economics, weather, etc vary from year to year.
I don’t mean to downplay deaths but looking at a few datapoints may not represent a trend. Economics, weather, etc vary from year to year.
That chart shows a decline trend from 1990-2009, and then an increase every single year after that.
It’s been 13 years, at which point do we call it a trend? Especially if you compare to peer nations which have not seen the upward trend: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedest...
It’s been 13 years, at which point do we call it a trend? Especially if you compare to peer nations which have not seen the upward trend: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedest...
That basic question is why people started using statistics to analyze data. Your article is talking overall deaths not pedestrians, which is a useful point of comparison but doesn’t address pedestrian fatalities. It’s easy to say something is a trend, much harder to say if there is some specific case or if it’s random variation. Do something like compare rates of smartphone adoption vs pedestrian deaths between countries and look for correlations and you don’t want to go with gut feel.
Also, look at that chart again, 2 years after 2009 were lower than the year before. I only bring it up because of how easy it is to see trends that aren’t there.
Also, look at that chart again, 2 years after 2009 were lower than the year before. I only bring it up because of how easy it is to see trends that aren’t there.
2009 is not long after smartphones started becoming a thing. I wonder if there's a correlation there: more distracted driving, more distracted walking.
I think the correlation would be stronger with the size of personal vehicles getting larger tbh. Larger vehicles are far less safe for pedestrians.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
also pandemic stress made drivers more aggressive comes to mind.
People working remotely started walking more, cause they don't have to spend few hours each day in traffic which is healthy and good but also dangerous in a car-crazy country like US.
Our cars kill people because our infrastructure is not made for human beings. The goal is not to make the cars soft and bouncy, it's to make them unnecessary.
The IIHS is looking for results.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/acura/integra-4-door-se...
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/acura/integra-4-door-se...
That is a test of collision avoidance.
It does not test what actually happens in the event that a collision cannot be avoided, and the car hits the person anyways.
It's also worth noting, the test only goes up to 37MPH, which is lower than common speed limits on arterial roads in suburban areas across the US. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests#front-crash-pre...
It does not test what actually happens in the event that a collision cannot be avoided, and the car hits the person anyways.
It's also worth noting, the test only goes up to 37MPH, which is lower than common speed limits on arterial roads in suburban areas across the US. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests#front-crash-pre...
[deleted]
The fix is simple.
Humans are not designed to drive at such speeds, we've been trying to correct this for decades, and still same problem, plus, we end up with horrible and empty cities. Time to switch to safer vehicles.
Humans are not designed to drive at such speeds, we've been trying to correct this for decades, and still same problem, plus, we end up with horrible and empty cities. Time to switch to safer vehicles.
In our house we love watching Dashcam Owners Australia compilation videos on YouTube.
It's a very popular genre.
It amuses me that future humans are going to watch these videos in amazement at how medieval and barbaric driving of cars was!
Driving cars like we do is totally bonkers. Barreling down the freeways at ~100kmh with only friction brakes, our reactions and the fear of mutually assured destruction to stop of us crashing into each other.
It's absolute madness.
We have expended tremendous resources in making cars safer whilst never admitting that we cannot fix the real problem. Which is that humans are terrible at driving safely. We have dreadful reactions and a mass delusion that we are in full-control of the vehicle at speed!
It's a very popular genre.
It amuses me that future humans are going to watch these videos in amazement at how medieval and barbaric driving of cars was!
Driving cars like we do is totally bonkers. Barreling down the freeways at ~100kmh with only friction brakes, our reactions and the fear of mutually assured destruction to stop of us crashing into each other.
It's absolute madness.
We have expended tremendous resources in making cars safer whilst never admitting that we cannot fix the real problem. Which is that humans are terrible at driving safely. We have dreadful reactions and a mass delusion that we are in full-control of the vehicle at speed!
This is something I think about whenever I am in a taxi/uber (don't drive, live in a city with good public transport).
It's astounding that we're completely apathetic to driving at high speeds in opposite directions with clearance of meters at best. You simply put your life in the hands of hundreds of random people you pass every trip, hoping that they (intentionally or due to any tiredness, distraction or medical emergency) don't swerve in the slightest to your side and kill both of you instantly.
It's astounding that we're completely apathetic to driving at high speeds in opposite directions with clearance of meters at best. You simply put your life in the hands of hundreds of random people you pass every trip, hoping that they (intentionally or due to any tiredness, distraction or medical emergency) don't swerve in the slightest to your side and kill both of you instantly.
I've been traveling down the US east coast in a sailboat last fall, so I was a pedestrian every time I went ashore.
The northern states weren't so bad in terms of safety; in Gloucester MA cars would stop to let you cross as soon as you were facing the street. In contrast, NJ was pretty bad; I had to wait for 2-3 minutes _at a crosswalk_ before I could cross because cars just wouldn't stop. At least the infrastructure was relatively good.
The worst was Florida, though. There's a shocking lack of just basic infrastructure, like sidewalks stopping randomly (what am I supposed to do, take flight?) or just outright absent with no shoulder either. One time I was walking on such a street (and this was a city street, not a highway or anything) and one of these very large pickup trucks almost hit me in the face with his side mirror because he wouldn't give me space... I made a "come on" gesture in protest, and the guy stopped in the middle of the street, got out of his truck, and started berating me! As if that wasn't enough, just a few minutes later, I got honked at because I apparently wasn't crossing the intersection fast enough... But I had my pedestrian crossing light on so technically I had the right of way.
There's also a disturbing lack of public transport in Florida, for example they have the "Space Coast Transportation Authority" which has a few bus routes, but none that go to the Kennedy Space Center. The car brain is unreal around these parts.
The northern states weren't so bad in terms of safety; in Gloucester MA cars would stop to let you cross as soon as you were facing the street. In contrast, NJ was pretty bad; I had to wait for 2-3 minutes _at a crosswalk_ before I could cross because cars just wouldn't stop. At least the infrastructure was relatively good.
The worst was Florida, though. There's a shocking lack of just basic infrastructure, like sidewalks stopping randomly (what am I supposed to do, take flight?) or just outright absent with no shoulder either. One time I was walking on such a street (and this was a city street, not a highway or anything) and one of these very large pickup trucks almost hit me in the face with his side mirror because he wouldn't give me space... I made a "come on" gesture in protest, and the guy stopped in the middle of the street, got out of his truck, and started berating me! As if that wasn't enough, just a few minutes later, I got honked at because I apparently wasn't crossing the intersection fast enough... But I had my pedestrian crossing light on so technically I had the right of way.
There's also a disturbing lack of public transport in Florida, for example they have the "Space Coast Transportation Authority" which has a few bus routes, but none that go to the Kennedy Space Center. The car brain is unreal around these parts.
> NJ was pretty bad; I had to wait for 2-3 minutes _at a crosswalk_ before I could cross because cars just wouldn't stop.
Grew up in NJ and just recently moved back. This checks out. It's pretty bad.
> At least the infrastructure was relatively good.
This is relative I suppose but we have a lot of stroads... I wouldn't say our infrastructure is good, though it depends on where in NJ I think.
Grew up in NJ and just recently moved back. This checks out. It's pretty bad.
> At least the infrastructure was relatively good.
This is relative I suppose but we have a lot of stroads... I wouldn't say our infrastructure is good, though it depends on where in NJ I think.
> I wouldn't say our infrastructure is good
I meant, at least there are sidewalks, designated crossings, and pedestrian lights at intersections. Can't really say the same for other states.
I meant, at least there are sidewalks, designated crossings, and pedestrian lights at intersections. Can't really say the same for other states.
Building public transportation is part of the answer. US should stop its unhealthy obsession with cars and build necessary infrastructure like most of the world does.
In addition to bad use of statistics, this article really buries the lead, making the identification of solutions difficult. US pedestrian deaths steadily declined over 20 years from 2.6 per 100K in 1990 to 1.4 per 100K in 2010 -- a 46% decrease -- but then in the following 10 years increased to 1.96 per 100K -- a 40% increase in half the time.
Furthermore, the curve is V-shaped, with the best year in 2009; it seems like some thing or things happened around 2010 that suddenly changed a long-term downward trend into a much more rapid upward trend. It's hard to see how a change in human behavior would cause such an abrupt turnaround or such a steady increase.
I think what fits the data best is that this is due to a technological change, and I suspect it might be tied to sales of hybrids and EVs, which are quieter vehicles that pedestrians are less likely to be aware of, and sales of which really ramped up starting in the late 2000s. Every year, we add more of these vehicles to the roads -- which is a very good thing overall -- and that would explain why the pedestrian death rate is steadily increasing.
In other words, it may be that this is not due to a change in human behavior, but rather that human behavior hasn't caught up to a technology change. In addition, it looks like NHTSA's "2015 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Data Analysis" suggests that pedestrian deaths for kids continued to decrease between 2010-2015, but that adults 50+ suffered the largest increases. In other words, the demographic that is both hardest of hearing and had the hardest time to adapt to hybrids/EVs was hit the hardest.
Furthermore, the curve is V-shaped, with the best year in 2009; it seems like some thing or things happened around 2010 that suddenly changed a long-term downward trend into a much more rapid upward trend. It's hard to see how a change in human behavior would cause such an abrupt turnaround or such a steady increase.
I think what fits the data best is that this is due to a technological change, and I suspect it might be tied to sales of hybrids and EVs, which are quieter vehicles that pedestrians are less likely to be aware of, and sales of which really ramped up starting in the late 2000s. Every year, we add more of these vehicles to the roads -- which is a very good thing overall -- and that would explain why the pedestrian death rate is steadily increasing.
In other words, it may be that this is not due to a change in human behavior, but rather that human behavior hasn't caught up to a technology change. In addition, it looks like NHTSA's "2015 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Data Analysis" suggests that pedestrian deaths for kids continued to decrease between 2010-2015, but that adults 50+ suffered the largest increases. In other words, the demographic that is both hardest of hearing and had the hardest time to adapt to hybrids/EVs was hit the hardest.
I had a 2008 version of a vehicle that I replaced just this year with a 2017 version of the same vehicle.
I have several times found pedestrians walking right in front of me and I slam on my brakes and the pedestrians yell at me as if I'm a negligent driver, yet previously I don't think I did such a thing more often than once every few years, if that.
What I have come to discover is that the front frame rail of the 2017 is so huge it blocks my view exactly where pedestrians step off of a curb into traffic, especially because the pedestrian is elevated on the curb and completely behind the frame rail.
I recognize that drivers should of course carefully inspect every intersection, but reality is that they cannot, and what pedestrians really need to do with these newer vehicles making up a larger percentage of the vehicles is make sure they can see the eyes of the driver, else the driver likely cannot see the pedestrian, at all.
I have several times found pedestrians walking right in front of me and I slam on my brakes and the pedestrians yell at me as if I'm a negligent driver, yet previously I don't think I did such a thing more often than once every few years, if that.
What I have come to discover is that the front frame rail of the 2017 is so huge it blocks my view exactly where pedestrians step off of a curb into traffic, especially because the pedestrian is elevated on the curb and completely behind the frame rail.
I recognize that drivers should of course carefully inspect every intersection, but reality is that they cannot, and what pedestrians really need to do with these newer vehicles making up a larger percentage of the vehicles is make sure they can see the eyes of the driver, else the driver likely cannot see the pedestrian, at all.
In all countries and ever since I can remember I treat every vehicle as a death machine out to kill me - the idea of doing a maneuver that requires the death machine to react correctly to me is as foreign to my thought as expecting a train to stop for me.
Still doesn’t mean we should ignore things like a pillars growing.
Still doesn’t mean we should ignore things like a pillars growing.
I agree with the problem but to me that sounds like those vehicles should have mandatory automatic braking systems to be considered street legal. There’s an arms race building them stronger to withstand impacts from large SUVs and trucks but that shouldn’t be used to justify making them less safe for everyone else. IIRC, the last figure for the SUV safety “improvement” had it at 4.3 additional lives outside the vehicle lost for every life inside saved.
It's SUVs, not EVs. There's an arms race amongst drivers to have the largest vehicle to push the consequences of collisions onto other people. Pedestrians are just collateral damage.
SUV/truck drivers kill 4x more of the pedestrians they hit.
SUV/truck drivers kill 4x more of the pedestrians they hit.
this example of "bad use of statistics" is so common, especially in journalism, that it is now just "use of statistics". If you don't squeeze every last gram of hype and horror out of your numbers, you're obviously not a serious advocate fo whatever cause.
> some thing or things happened around 2010
My first suspicion is another weight bump to meet safety mandates. The heaviest car sold in 1992 was lighter than the lightest car sold in 2012. F = mv^2, v hasn't changed in most of those accidents.
> some thing or things happened around 2010
My first suspicion is another weight bump to meet safety mandates. The heaviest car sold in 1992 was lighter than the lightest car sold in 2012. F = mv^2, v hasn't changed in most of those accidents.
If Americans are anything like Australians, this should surprise absolutely no-one. People are driven to distraction here, often glued to their smartphones with zero situational awareness.
When this applies to both drivers and pedestrians, the outcome is predictable.
When this applies to both drivers and pedestrians, the outcome is predictable.
Which is why I don't blame QLD for adding their "mobile phone while driving" cameras. It's silly to me that people do. Of course that can't solve for pedestrians looking at their phones, but drivers at least should be stopped from doing so.
Here in Los Angeles, I noticed a dramatic uptick in phone usage while driving over this time period. I believe the primary cause of driver and pedestrian distraction is phone usage.
A friend I knew as a child was killed last year on her bike as she commuted to work. She lived in a western US city and after her death I learned that this city has the same number of total bike deaths per year as New York City!
We can argue about the statistics used by this article and the math here but it doesn’t really matter. The fact is US cities are not built for anything besides cars (with the exception of NY and maybe a few tiny downtown areas where hardly anyone lives). Urban planning on the US is a disaster and the decisions made 50 years ago amount to large, sprawling suburban areas we pretend are cities.
We can argue about the statistics used by this article and the math here but it doesn’t really matter. The fact is US cities are not built for anything besides cars (with the exception of NY and maybe a few tiny downtown areas where hardly anyone lives). Urban planning on the US is a disaster and the decisions made 50 years ago amount to large, sprawling suburban areas we pretend are cities.
> The fact is US cities are not built for anything besides cars (with the exception of NY and maybe a few tiny downtown areas where hardly anyone lives).
They were though, and it's a big shame that changed. I seem to recall Los Angeles had the largest streetcar system in the country.
They were though, and it's a big shame that changed. I seem to recall Los Angeles had the largest streetcar system in the country.
Most cities in the US were practically small towns in comparison to the populations of today. The vast majority of most of our cities were built post 1930, with a few exceptions like NYC.
In 1920 the population of LA County was about 900k. In 1950 it was 4 million. In 2020 its now 10 million.
For comparison, the population of Amsterdam went from 650k in 1920 to 835k in 1950 to 872k in 2020.
In 1920 the population of LA County was about 900k. In 1950 it was 4 million. In 2020 its now 10 million.
For comparison, the population of Amsterdam went from 650k in 1920 to 835k in 1950 to 872k in 2020.
Part of the problem is that increase in population happened in outward sprawl. There isn't anything particularly incompatible with a modernized version of that transit system at that density.
The sprawl makes up massive chunks, if not the majority, of US cities these days, and has been so in most of what is now our cities since those areas existed.
So suggesting our cities were designed for dense urban cores and it was the automobile that somehow destroyed it is revisionist IMO. Our cities experienced the vast majority of their growth when automobiles and fuel were relatively cheap, when most people weren't aware of greenhouse gasses or didn't necessarily care about the environmental impacts. So we built our cities reflecting what a lot of the population wanted at the time: automobile access.
Its not like LA was a city of 10 million people in a dense urban downtown with cable cars, then GM came in and spread them all out. The city with cable cars is absolutely nothing compared to the city which exists today.
However, comparing a place like Amsterdam, it hasn't experienced anywhere near the same level of growth during that time period. Most of what is the city today was the city in the 1930s as well, before automobiles were popular. And on top of that, automobiles were never as popular in Europe for several other factors other than just pure city design. Tons of dense European cities were dense cities well before automobiles were a thing. Pointing to Amsterdam, it only added 20k people in that time period, during which LA added >6,000k.
Meanwhile, most US cities have experienced these kinds of massive growth during periods when automobile access was relatively cheap and affordable for most households.
So suggesting our cities were designed for dense urban cores and it was the automobile that somehow destroyed it is revisionist IMO. Our cities experienced the vast majority of their growth when automobiles and fuel were relatively cheap, when most people weren't aware of greenhouse gasses or didn't necessarily care about the environmental impacts. So we built our cities reflecting what a lot of the population wanted at the time: automobile access.
Its not like LA was a city of 10 million people in a dense urban downtown with cable cars, then GM came in and spread them all out. The city with cable cars is absolutely nothing compared to the city which exists today.
However, comparing a place like Amsterdam, it hasn't experienced anywhere near the same level of growth during that time period. Most of what is the city today was the city in the 1930s as well, before automobiles were popular. And on top of that, automobiles were never as popular in Europe for several other factors other than just pure city design. Tons of dense European cities were dense cities well before automobiles were a thing. Pointing to Amsterdam, it only added 20k people in that time period, during which LA added >6,000k.
Meanwhile, most US cities have experienced these kinds of massive growth during periods when automobile access was relatively cheap and affordable for most households.
The US is downright hostile to pedestrians. Could it be that there were simply a lot more of then during the pandemic?
There's pretty good evidence to suggest that the design of American pickup trucks is at least in part to blame for this.
They have much longer frontal blind spots than sedans, vans, and SUVs, and their high bonnets mean that pedestrians are hit in the head and run over, rather than being hit in the legs (not great either, but a broken leg is better than a broken brain).
The ever-higher bonnets mean that these blind spots are growing, not shrinking, in never vehicles.
Furthermore, many such vehicles aren't even fitted with passenger-detecting automatic emergency braking.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
They have much longer frontal blind spots than sedans, vans, and SUVs, and their high bonnets mean that pedestrians are hit in the head and run over, rather than being hit in the legs (not great either, but a broken leg is better than a broken brain).
The ever-higher bonnets mean that these blind spots are growing, not shrinking, in never vehicles.
Furthermore, many such vehicles aren't even fitted with passenger-detecting automatic emergency braking.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
Some pedestrians are self-righteous to the point of endangerment. Yes, vehicles are legally required to stop for you, but in the event you step out into the street without verifying cars are stopping, it's only you that will wind up injured or dead. All it takes is one driver that's not familiar with their surroundings and it's over. That's a lot of risk to take for entitlement.
Ask your mama why she never taught you to look both ways before crossing.
Ask your mama why she never taught you to look both ways before crossing.
Easy solution: kill someone with your car, get the death penalty. Then the incentives are all aligned.
I notice more and more people walking across busy roads lately. Especially at night. And people flying around on those stupid rental scooters (do those count as pedestrians?)
Why does anyone have to walk on the sidewalk? Why do people need to cross at crosswalks? Just do whatever you want, there's no repercussions.
Why does anyone have to walk on the sidewalk? Why do people need to cross at crosswalks? Just do whatever you want, there's no repercussions.
I’ve seen this too, even in my suburban neighborhood, with wide brand new sidewalks, people are walking next to the sidewalk in the road.
Is there some TikTok I missed?
Is there some TikTok I missed?
I am curious how the increase in deaths compares with the rate of pedestrian accidents overall. Are accidents becoming more deadly?
The changes in safety regulations have pushed these big flat front ends as being “safer” for pedestrian accidents, which is why almost every vehicle these days has the same big flat front end. It really seems to me like it would have to have the opposite effect, pushing you under the vehicle and trampling you rather than relatively more safely throwing you over.
The changes in safety regulations have pushed these big flat front ends as being “safer” for pedestrian accidents, which is why almost every vehicle these days has the same big flat front end. It really seems to me like it would have to have the opposite effect, pushing you under the vehicle and trampling you rather than relatively more safely throwing you over.
Wait, you mean like the big 'aggressive' looking hoods on newer SUVs and pickups? I thought they were widely agreed to be dangerous to pedestrians, but drivers like them so car manufacturers make them.
If you have something claiming they're safer I'd really be interested to see it. Can you link?
If you have something claiming they're safer I'd really be interested to see it. Can you link?
I have to get to sleep, but here’s a questionable source. I know I have read similar stories from more reputable outfits but I am struggling to find a link at the moment
https://www.torquenews.com/1083/here-what-your-next-car-or-c...
https://www.torquenews.com/1083/here-what-your-next-car-or-c...
Steve Sailor makes the case that the unprecedented rises in traffic fatalities are connected to the Black Lives Matter protests and the ensuing reduction in law enforcement:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/traffic-accident-deaths-up-7-year...
The article would be more interesting if it mentioned any theories of what is behind this increase
P.S. What I wonder what "equitable enforcement" means
P.S. What I wonder what "equitable enforcement" means
I think it means enforcing the law to avoid causing or exacerbating inequality.
Rather than ticketing 10 cyclists rolling through a stop sign on an empty intersection, or a pedestrian crossing safely but against a red light, prioritise enforcement against those causing the most danger. Vehicles speeding in residential areas, parking in a school zone where it's forbidden, etc.
Rather than ticketing 10 cyclists rolling through a stop sign on an empty intersection, or a pedestrian crossing safely but against a red light, prioritise enforcement against those causing the most danger. Vehicles speeding in residential areas, parking in a school zone where it's forbidden, etc.
They link to an article that does do that a bit: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/01/09/road-deaths-surged-al...
[deleted]
It means they aren't enforcing anything.
Does anyone have data on car accidents the past couple years? Anecdotally everyone I talk to notices driving is much more dangerous now.
I was curious to see if the UK had a similar rise, nope a 14% fall in the same period of pedestrian deaths (slight rise in deaths of cyclists and car occupants though):
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
As an aside the article title is sensationalist to say the least - according to the article the US saw a 18% rise in pedestrian deaths in the same period.
As an aside the article title is sensationalist to say the least - according to the article the US saw a 18% rise in pedestrian deaths in the same period.
Grim numbers no matter how much you quibble with their presentation.
But WHY any increase in pedestrian deaths? Where is that discussed?
1. A aging set of drivers?
2. self-driving cars?
3. decaying road and sidewalk infrastructure?
4. daylight savings?
5. public transportation used by or available to fewer pedestrians?
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-11-04/...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-11-04/...
As said elsewhere, one likely contributor is pickup trucks getting higher, leading to a bigger frontal blind spot and more severe injuries when they hit people.
Interesting but incomplete.
- State population density is too vague, what is the population density at the spot of the accident(s)?
- Age of pedestrians?
- Who was at fault, the driver or the ped?
- Did a mobile device factor into the cause of the accident?
- 2019 to 2022 feels like a small sample.
- I suspect there's another study somewhere, "More People Are Getting Their Exercise by Walking." That is, it's not about population and population density but opportunities. More walked miles creates more chances for an accident.
- State population density is too vague, what is the population density at the spot of the accident(s)?
- Age of pedestrians?
- Who was at fault, the driver or the ped?
- Did a mobile device factor into the cause of the accident?
- 2019 to 2022 feels like a small sample.
- I suspect there's another study somewhere, "More People Are Getting Their Exercise by Walking." That is, it's not about population and population density but opportunities. More walked miles creates more chances for an accident.
Boss at a previous job in Berlin always followed the mantra that cycling is less dangerous than driving (Because heart disease).
Always wondered if that still holds in the US after seeings those numbers and how dangerous roads can be if you're on a bike. Berlin wasn't all that bike friendly either, but at least you weren't the only one on a bike.
Always wondered if that still holds in the US after seeings those numbers and how dangerous roads can be if you're on a bike. Berlin wasn't all that bike friendly either, but at least you weren't the only one on a bike.
Are they sure it's only pedestrians? Or it's actually the number of car accidents overall?
I don't have statistics but around where i am, based on the news, everyone forgot how to drive / drove more recklessly starting with the Covid lockdowns. But it's not the number of pedestrian deaths, it's deadly car accidents overall.
I don't have statistics but around where i am, based on the news, everyone forgot how to drive / drove more recklessly starting with the Covid lockdowns. But it's not the number of pedestrian deaths, it's deadly car accidents overall.
What's perhaps more distressing is the fact that this comes AFTER we removed a huge chunk of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users from the equation by putting them in a car for virtually all trips.
If you fill a pool with sharks then shark attack deaths will fall to 0 pretty quickly, after all! But it doesn't mean the pool is safe.
If you fill a pool with sharks then shark attack deaths will fall to 0 pretty quickly, after all! But it doesn't mean the pool is safe.
[deleted]
https://xkcd.com/2733/
What a weird way to phrase a headline. From the article, it seems US population grew 2% and pedestrian deaths by 18%.
But why relate those two numbers? If the US population declined by 1%, that would not really affect the story at all, but the headline would turn into nonsense.
The population is stable, so it's not really important. But even if it is, you could just turn the pedestrian deaths into a per-100k number like a homicide rate.
What a weird way to phrase a headline. From the article, it seems US population grew 2% and pedestrian deaths by 18%.
But why relate those two numbers? If the US population declined by 1%, that would not really affect the story at all, but the headline would turn into nonsense.
The population is stable, so it's not really important. But even if it is, you could just turn the pedestrian deaths into a per-100k number like a homicide rate.
It'd be interesting is to see this data plotted on a map, even though, from a high level, it would probably be yet another population density map. There might be correlations with locale, demographics, environment, zoning/development, traffic engineering, etc.
To avoid population density plots, you divide by population in each area/pixel you consider.
This subreddit pokes fun at the phenomenon:
https://old.reddit.com/r/PeopleLiveInCities/
This subreddit pokes fun at the phenomenon:
https://old.reddit.com/r/PeopleLiveInCities/
Just as a reminder that it doesn't have to go like this: Finland sees record low number of road traffic fatalities in 2022.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20010847
https://yle.fi/a/74-20010847
We know that alcohol consumption increased during these years, and that alcohol consumption plays a role in a about half of pedestrian fatalities. Seems to make sense.
More "too old" drivers? Self driving cars? Fewer pedestrians using public transportation? And do bicycles count as pedestrians in this report?
Methodological problems and misleading title aside, the article did a really poor job of explaining why there appears to be some kind of unexpected increase in pedestrian fatality rates. The only putative causes specifically mentioned were more even temporal distribution of traffic and increase in reckless driving, but no data were provided to support these assertions.
It’s a BS article. (Tongue-in-cheek) maybe it was written by ChatGPT.
It’s a BS article. (Tongue-in-cheek) maybe it was written by ChatGPT.
the period of time in question here is "Covid times", which was a time of office and school closures and remote (home) school and work. Could these statistics be more influenced by pedestrians than by drivers?
Comparing population growth rate and pedestrian death rate is a bizarre comparison. If the population growth rate was 0.5% then a 4.5% increase in pedestrian deaths isn't particularly impressive and could have many causes, such as much more people walking around due to wfh.
Feels like agenda driven statistics.
Feels like agenda driven statistics.
Someone really needs to pull the plug on Tesla FSD.
Tesla's FSD will likely perform better than your average distracted human driver within the next few years.
So, no.
So, no.
Pedestrian as in "drove to Walmart and died on the parking lot crawling to the motorscooter from a heart attack"?
Whatever the cause is, it's likely too abstract for us to attack easily. The simpler solution is probably to build more underground tunnels and over-road pedestrian bridges, and waiting for self-driving cars to become widespread.
The title is incredibly misleading. The reason to compare pedestrian deaths to population is because more pedestrians with an equal death rate leads to more pedestrian deaths. So far the comparison is clear.
What you cannot do however is to compare the relative difference in relative growth rates. That's one level of 'relative' comparison too far. Heck the population could very well have been constant over 3 years (it is decreasing in some countries) so if you're dividing some positive number by the relative population growth then you're going to end up with a bigger number, but that fact is meaningless.
The phrasing suggests that the chance of getting injured has increased 9 times, but it hasn't, it's increased about 16% (the 1.18 times more deaths divided by 1.02 more people). Other than evaluating the relative risk there is no sensible reason to compare it to population, so any other calculation simply does not make sense. Unless you're willing to say it had decreased 18 times faster had the population shrunk by 1%.