It’s simple, and not really helpful to just blame individual drivers. Obviously, if you carelessly run over a pedestrian cause you are busy texting, it’s your fault, but there are many other things at play. That’s basically the same as saying obesity is the fault of people eating too much. It’s true, but it’s also misleading.
There’s a system called the “hierarchy of controls” that is used in occupational and industrial applications to address hazards. The idea is to solve as many things as possible at the highest level of controls, so that you reduce reliance on lower level controls.
The hazard is that high velocity transportation can result in injury of death.
The first level of control is elimination of the hazard. Obviously we can’t get rid of travel, but we can get rid of a lot of it by designing our cities to put all the things people need (jobs, groceries, leisure) close to where they live. We can promote remote work. Less distance traveled on a population level means less death.
The second level of control is substitution. In this case, that might mean switching people to safer modes of transit. Trains, bikes, walking, etc. Less distance driven means less death.
The third level is engineering controls. This is things like having cars be physically disconnected from where pedestrians, cyclists, etc are. Bollards, pedestrianized zones, separate bike routes, etc. Also in this category are things like speed bumps and traffic calming measures like narrowed or curving streets. Design features of cars can be engineering controls, too. Lower height vehicles, vehicles with pedestrian warning systems, etc. Less interaction between cars and people means less death.
The fourth level is administrative controls. This is things like speed limits, stop lights and signs, cross walks, drunk driving laws, texting while driving laws, etc. These all rely on rules to be followed, which is a fairly inefficient way to operate.
The last level is personal protective equipment. This would be things like reflectors on pedestrian clothing, helmets on cyclists, etc.
When cars first became common, and deaths started to creep up in number. Auto manufacturers refused to improve design to be safer, because that would mean acknowledging that design could be considered at fault. If everyone drove perfectly, there would be no deaths, right? So they just blamed drivers and pedestrians instead. BP did the same thing by popularizing the concept of a personal “carbon footprint”. The plastics industry (among other companies) popularized the idea of “littering” as a thing individual people did that was wrong to distract from the fact they they were making all of the trash in the first place. Ever hear the Smoky the Bear slogan, “only you can prevent forest fires”? How about “only concerted international effort to reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change can prevent forest fires”?
By focusing on drivers, you are doing the same thing as all those corporations.
You mentioned obesity, that was due to a series of skillful lies and a bit of scientific fraud.
The first was Ancel Keys who did a study that showed saturated fats (from meat, eggs) were protective but pretended it said they shortened people lives with heart disease
Then there was “research” from Kelloggs and Sanitarium that said grain was good for you
Then there was Coca Cola “research” that said sugar was good
Then there were three Seventh Day Adventists who got positions of power and said meat was bad, vegetarianism good (because meat causes masturbation)
So people increased their sugar, increased their vegetable oil, increased processed food, reduced meat and got fat, or if naturally thin, just got unhealthy
It turns out our only healthy diet is low carbohydrate. A little bread, some veg, a good amount of meat
Yes but high velocity transportation such as cars come with built-in safety features to help prevent injuries and death. But people are stupid, and won’t use their seatbelts, or have their cars inspected. And they do text and use phones while driving.
When you’re talking on a phone, your mind is picturing the thing your discussing over the phone. It is not focused on the road or what’s going on around you. Distracted driving continues to kill people right left and sideways in our state.
It’s not that driving a car HAS to be dangerous. It really is designed to be as simple and safe as possible. BUT - it does have one big requirement. THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE DRIVING PART. Your peripheral vision also helps in avoiding oncoming disaster, but you have to be engaged in watching the road for it to be of any help.
I’ve seen several accidents play out right in front of me, where both drivers were not paying attention at the same time. That’s all it takes to make driving a disaster. And yet, it seems like people would rather have that than be responsible people and leave the phone calls for later.
Driving a car will always be dangerous whether you pay attention or not. It’s not “responsible” to leave calls for after you drive. The fact that we have to drive huge machines by ourselves at all is irresponsible.
It’s “responsible” to vote for politicians who will fix the problem by starting at the very top of the hierarchy of controls, rather than trying to blame administrative controls for not working.
Do you really think that road design doesn’t matter at all, and all designs are equally (un)safe?
Consider a library with a parking lot across the street.
In one design, the street is four lanes, 45 mph, and there’s no crosswalk. The expectation is for people to walk a quarter mile out of the way to the nearby intersection.
In the other design: the road is 25 mph, with only two narrow lanes. There’s a crosswalk that’s over a speed table, with chicanes before and after.
Do you really expect both designs to have equal numbers of deaths?
Road design DOES matter and there’s no question that bad roads where I live (in Utah where they cheaped out and bought pavement that ended up cracking all over the roadways) do damage cars and make driving a lot more unsafe. I’m not saying that road design simply doesn’t matter, that would be absurd.
But in Utah, it doesn’t matter how well designed the roads are. Even with clearly marked pedestrian crossings and lights, cars run the lights and kill people all the time here because, utahns believe they won’t be charged if they kill someone with their car.
I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s absolutely true - they really believe it’s OK to kill people on the sidewalks, streets, or in crosswalks.
It’s simple, and not really helpful to just blame individual drivers. Obviously, if you carelessly run over a pedestrian cause you are busy texting, it’s your fault, but there are many other things at play. That’s basically the same as saying obesity is the fault of people eating too much. It’s true, but it’s also misleading.
There’s a system called the “hierarchy of controls” that is used in occupational and industrial applications to address hazards. The idea is to solve as many things as possible at the highest level of controls, so that you reduce reliance on lower level controls.
The hazard is that high velocity transportation can result in injury of death.
The first level of control is elimination of the hazard. Obviously we can’t get rid of travel, but we can get rid of a lot of it by designing our cities to put all the things people need (jobs, groceries, leisure) close to where they live. We can promote remote work. Less distance traveled on a population level means less death.
The second level of control is substitution. In this case, that might mean switching people to safer modes of transit. Trains, bikes, walking, etc. Less distance driven means less death.
The third level is engineering controls. This is things like having cars be physically disconnected from where pedestrians, cyclists, etc are. Bollards, pedestrianized zones, separate bike routes, etc. Also in this category are things like speed bumps and traffic calming measures like narrowed or curving streets. Design features of cars can be engineering controls, too. Lower height vehicles, vehicles with pedestrian warning systems, etc. Less interaction between cars and people means less death.
The fourth level is administrative controls. This is things like speed limits, stop lights and signs, cross walks, drunk driving laws, texting while driving laws, etc. These all rely on rules to be followed, which is a fairly inefficient way to operate.
The last level is personal protective equipment. This would be things like reflectors on pedestrian clothing, helmets on cyclists, etc.
When cars first became common, and deaths started to creep up in number. Auto manufacturers refused to improve design to be safer, because that would mean acknowledging that design could be considered at fault. If everyone drove perfectly, there would be no deaths, right? So they just blamed drivers and pedestrians instead. BP did the same thing by popularizing the concept of a personal “carbon footprint”. The plastics industry (among other companies) popularized the idea of “littering” as a thing individual people did that was wrong to distract from the fact they they were making all of the trash in the first place. Ever hear the Smoky the Bear slogan, “only you can prevent forest fires”? How about “only concerted international effort to reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change can prevent forest fires”?
By focusing on drivers, you are doing the same thing as all those corporations.
You mentioned obesity, that was due to a series of skillful lies and a bit of scientific fraud.
The first was Ancel Keys who did a study that showed saturated fats (from meat, eggs) were protective but pretended it said they shortened people lives with heart disease
Then there was “research” from Kelloggs and Sanitarium that said grain was good for you
Then there was Coca Cola “research” that said sugar was good
Then there were three Seventh Day Adventists who got positions of power and said meat was bad, vegetarianism good (because meat causes masturbation)
So people increased their sugar, increased their vegetable oil, increased processed food, reduced meat and got fat, or if naturally thin, just got unhealthy
It turns out our only healthy diet is low carbohydrate. A little bread, some veg, a good amount of meat
Yes but high velocity transportation such as cars come with built-in safety features to help prevent injuries and death. But people are stupid, and won’t use their seatbelts, or have their cars inspected. And they do text and use phones while driving.
When you’re talking on a phone, your mind is picturing the thing your discussing over the phone. It is not focused on the road or what’s going on around you. Distracted driving continues to kill people right left and sideways in our state.
It’s not that driving a car HAS to be dangerous. It really is designed to be as simple and safe as possible. BUT - it does have one big requirement. THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE DRIVING PART. Your peripheral vision also helps in avoiding oncoming disaster, but you have to be engaged in watching the road for it to be of any help.
I’ve seen several accidents play out right in front of me, where both drivers were not paying attention at the same time. That’s all it takes to make driving a disaster. And yet, it seems like people would rather have that than be responsible people and leave the phone calls for later.
Driving a car will always be dangerous whether you pay attention or not. It’s not “responsible” to leave calls for after you drive. The fact that we have to drive huge machines by ourselves at all is irresponsible.
It’s “responsible” to vote for politicians who will fix the problem by starting at the very top of the hierarchy of controls, rather than trying to blame administrative controls for not working.
Do you really think that road design doesn’t matter at all, and all designs are equally (un)safe?
Consider a library with a parking lot across the street.
In one design, the street is four lanes, 45 mph, and there’s no crosswalk. The expectation is for people to walk a quarter mile out of the way to the nearby intersection.
In the other design: the road is 25 mph, with only two narrow lanes. There’s a crosswalk that’s over a speed table, with chicanes before and after.
Do you really expect both designs to have equal numbers of deaths?
Road design DOES matter and there’s no question that bad roads where I live (in Utah where they cheaped out and bought pavement that ended up cracking all over the roadways) do damage cars and make driving a lot more unsafe. I’m not saying that road design simply doesn’t matter, that would be absurd.
But in Utah, it doesn’t matter how well designed the roads are. Even with clearly marked pedestrian crossings and lights, cars run the lights and kill people all the time here because, utahns believe they won’t be charged if they kill someone with their car.
I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s absolutely true - they really believe it’s OK to kill people on the sidewalks, streets, or in crosswalks.