Bloomberg: The Rules That Made U.S. Roads So Deadly (during the pandemic)

[CoreySamson]

If speed really is the issue, then why do many European countries have higher speed limits than the US, but their fatality rates are much lower? Also, much of Africa has low speed limits, but high fatality rates.

One of the answers is driver's education. German drivers have to take 25-45 hours of professional instruction, plus 12 hours of theory. Also, offenses such as drunk driving are punished more severely there than they are around here. They take driving very seriously, and we should, too. I see too many other drivers that frankly just don't take it very seriously. All drivers should note that driving is a privilege, not a right.

[vdeane]

That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

[jamess]

That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Whats your source for all this?

Because this is what I found from 2019

"Rising speed limits over the past 25 years have cost nearly 37,000 lives, including more than 1,900 in 2017 alone, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Maximum speed limits are set by the states, and they have been rising since the mid-1990s. Proponents of raising the speed limit often argue that such increases simply bring the law in line with reality, since most drivers exceed the limit. Once the limit is raised, however, drivers go even faster.

Today, 41 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph or higher. Six states have 80 mph limits, and drivers in Texas can legally drive 85 mph on some roads.

For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates – including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate – he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.

Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways – the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit – and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths – 13,638 on interstates and freeways – and 23,122 on other roads – than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.

Of the 37,133 people who died on U.S. roads in 2017, Farmer estimates that 1,934, or 5 percent, would still be alive if speed limits hadn't changed since 1993."

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years


And also, you say:
"People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  "

That very well may be true. But we're talking about safety, not comfort. 

Hypothetically, a 17mph speed limit would be really uncomfortable to drive at. But you know what, I have a feeling it would be pretty safe.

[interstatefan990]

That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Human nature varies. People do drive at the speed they're comfortable at. 55mph is the max speed some people are comfortable driving at. Others, 100mph. The speed differential can be dangerous at times, especially when a slower driver wants to change lanes. There are also drivers who abide by the limit and will only go up to 5 over. Raising the speed limit will only make those drivers feel like they have to go faster. It could also possibly encourage a select few fast people to go even faster, because now, "25 over" has become "15 over" and it feels less serious. This is why giving slower drivers the option to exceed the limit when they aren't keeping up with the flow will make traffic safer while still keeping speeders in check.

[kphoger]

So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

I mean, I believe we do need to bring the perspective of women and people of color into the picture. But the way to do that is to encourage women and people of color to become educated as highway engineers.

I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

Honestly, I wonder what percentage of speed-related car crashes involve drivers going over the limit. If it's a large percentage, perhaps we need greater enforcement of the limits or even greater punishment for breaking them. If it's not, then look at other factors, such as texting, automobile infotainment systems, and social factors before changing the limit.

I've heard it's a big untold secret that the majority of speed-related crashes are caused by going "too fast for conditions", not by going over the posted limit.  However, I've never seen any actual data, nor am I sure there even is a dataset available to see.

[jamess]

Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

The author said "women AND people of color"

Are we really going to act like men and women have the same travel patterns and act the same on roadways?

For nearly every year from 1975 to 2019, the number of male crash deaths was more than twice the number of female crash deaths, but the gap has narrowed.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females

We have an ASTONISHING amount of data on how people get around thanks to this:

National Household Travel Survey

Conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the NHTS is the authoritative source on the travel behavior of the American public. It is the only source of national data that allows one to analyze trends in personal and household travel. It includes daily non-commercial travel by all modes, including characteristics of the people traveling, their household, and their vehicles.
https://nhts.ornl.gov/

If you browse the data, youll find that women take many more non-automotive trips than men.

That is, if you put 5 white males in a room, and ask them to "fix transportation" odds are, they will come up with a very different result than if you put 5 black women in the room with the same prompt. Simply put, their daily lived experience is different.

Having feedback from a diverse set of people means youre more likely to see the whole picture.

Someone who rides a bus, who is more likely to by a minority female, might say that "no sidewalks leading to the bus stop" is a serious safety concern. Your typical group of AASHTO traffic engineers likely that rode a bus in middle school and they simply wont think of it. Not because theyre bad people, but because in their daily life, its simply not something that registers.

Also, note in my comment I use "more likely", "odds are" etc. Yes, your random selection of 5 white males COULD result in 5 people who only use the bus. Absolutely possible. Its just unlikely. Thats why diversity is needed.

[kphoger]

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

[jamess]

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

I work with a DOT, as a consultant.

The complaint being raised right now is exactly what you said: the current volunteers do not "represent that same cross-section of America" and because of that they have giant blind spots. Those blind spots happen to be related to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, which is why it seems organizations representing those areas are speaking up louder.

"because they took the same educational route to get there"

The thing is, many of these folks are experts at what the 1991 road manual says (for example) but havent really kept up to date on the state of the practice. Yes, theyre required to get x amount of professional credits every year to maintain their license, but for some reason, this doesnt stick with many of them. I know that doctors subscribe to and read medical journals, but Ive never met a traffic engineer that does.

As someone who is brought in by DOTs to assist with Road Safety Audits (RSA's) it's frightening how much pushback we get when we submit our recommendations because of the mistaken belief that x is not allowed. I cant count how many times Ive had to print off FHWA documents to try and convince an engineer that yes, we only recommend stuff that has been approved and no Im not making up the concept of a pedestrian refuge island.

[Scott5114]

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

The reason why it'd a good thing to have people of different ethnicities and genders in the profession is that it means because of their different life experiences they'll apply that common education in different ways. Which would mean transportation systems more closely reflect how people with differing backgrounds use them, which is a good thing.

That level of education is still necessary, though. Adding the voices of someone to the process who is not trained as a traffic engineer, even if they aren't a white straight cisgender male, is going to just add meaningless noise to the process, because it will be adding points of view that aren't founded on what's feasible. One of the things education teaches you is what has been tried before and proven not to work.

[Skye]

Lanes are "too wide" and that's a problem to them? I've seen this line of thinking before (the idea of: we have it too good and need to cut back) and - if followed- it always leads to changes that suck. I've driven quite a bit in countries that have narrower lanes and people drive just as crazily but seem to have a lot more wrecks and deaths, partially as a result of roads that are designed without the "luxuries" of wide lanes and nice wide shoulders. Break down in one of those places and perhaps your vehicle will be blocking half of the right lane where it makes a fine target for a high speed hit.

I agree. I've seen urban areas near me with narrower lanes and on street parking and I frequently see busses and trucks having to partially pull off to the side and let another large vehicle traveling in the opposite direction go past.

[hbelkins]

...a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

More need not be said. Consider the source.

It's one of the things you see most often expressed as a dislike of AAA. They don't seem to advocate for things drivers actually want, such as the ability to get where they're going quicker. They're in the insurance business, not the motorist advocacy business. I've seen more than a few express a preference for the National Motorists Association. I'm not sure what type of roadside assistance NMA offers, if they do at all, or how many contracted providers they have, but they might be worth looking into, especially if AAA is going to discontinue its Tour Books and has already axed the Triptik strip maps.

[vdeane]

That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Whats your source for all this?

Because this is what I found from 2019

"Rising speed limits over the past 25 years have cost nearly 37,000 lives, including more than 1,900 in 2017 alone, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Maximum speed limits are set by the states, and they have been rising since the mid-1990s. Proponents of raising the speed limit often argue that such increases simply bring the law in line with reality, since most drivers exceed the limit. Once the limit is raised, however, drivers go even faster.

Today, 41 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph or higher. Six states have 80 mph limits, and drivers in Texas can legally drive 85 mph on some roads.

For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates – including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate – he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.

Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways – the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit – and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths – 13,638 on interstates and freeways – and 23,122 on other roads – than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.

Of the 37,133 people who died on U.S. roads in 2017, Farmer estimates that 1,934, or 5 percent, would still be alive if speed limits hadn't changed since 1993."

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years


And also, you say:
"People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  "

That very well may be true. But we're talking about safety, not comfort. 

Hypothetically, a 17mph speed limit would be really uncomfortable to drive at. But you know what, I have a feeling it would be pretty safe.

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Lowering or raising the posted speed limits at the experimental sites had little
effect on driver behavior as reflected by the 85th percentile speeds. Lowering the
speed limit by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 32 km/h) at the study sites did not
result in major reductions such as 5 mi/h (8 km/h) or more in the 85th percentile
speeds. Raising the speed limit by 5, 10, o r 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 24 km/h) at the study
sites also did not result in major increases such as 5 mi/h (8 km/h) or more in the
85th percentile speeds.

At sites where speed limits were lowered, percentile speeds below the 50th percentile speed tended to increase, and percentile speeds above the 50th percentile
speed tended to decrease. However, as shown in figure 18, a similar trend occurred at
the comparison sites where the posted speed limits were not changed. The net effects,
shown in figure 20, indicate that when speeds were reduced by 10 mi/h (16 km/h), the
slowest drivers (1st percentile) increased their speed approximately 1 mi/h (1.6 km/h).
There were no changes in the highest speed drivers (99th percentile); however, when
speed limits were lowered by 15 or 20 mi/h (24 or 32 km/h), there was approximately a
1-mi/h (1.6-km/h) increase in the 95th percentile speed.
At sites where posted speed limits were raised, generally there was a small
increase in speeds below the 75th percentile (less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 km/h)). The net
effects, shown in figure 21, indicate that there was a small decrease in the 99th percentile speed when speed limits were raised by IO or 1 5 mi/h (16 or 24 km/h).

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the author wanted diversity to include non-engineers as well.  A bike advocate or urban planner, for example, is going to have a very difference perspective than a traffic engineer.  The April Fool's Day prank by the Albany Bike Coalition this year was to send an official-looking email to its mailing list with a fake press release purporting to be from NYSDOT claiming that Central Ave (NY 5, a four-lane, 40 mph arterial with an AADT ranging from 20k-45k) would get a road diet to add a planted tree median, bike lanes, and a speed limit reduction to 25 mph.  I'm sure if our traffic engineers saw that, they'd have a heart attack, but out planners loved it.

[jamess]

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Is a study that was conducted in 1986 really the best we have? Thats a full decade before the national 55mph limit was revoked.

And this is a red flag:

collection of the after data ranged from several days to as much as 2 years following the speed limit change

Im sorry, but "several days" is not enough to determine the effects of a speed limit change. Most daily drivers wont even notice!

I noticed you attacked the IIHS report without any discussion on their methodology. Unless your accusation is that they doctored the data or are wrong, the source simply doesnt matter, just the facts.

[Occidental Tourist]

Modern traffic engineering has not advanced by focus grouping how to engineer safer roadways.  User preferences are only a small part of the picture.  Most traffic engineering is study-based with physics playing a role.  The fact that five black women might highlight the need for a sidewalk at the bus stop based on anecdotal or empirical knowledge has nothing to do with traffic engineering insofar as the MUTCD doesn't dictate whether bus stops should or shouldn't have sidewalks.

The correct question isn't what five black women would say, it's what five black female traffic engineers would say that is different from their white male counterparts when it comes to traffic safety.  The author of the article blithely assumes based solely on their gender or ethnicity they would have different approaches to traffic engineering than white males, despite the fact that regardless of race or gender they are all being taught the same traffic engineering theories, reviewing the same data and studies, etc.

A law professor who teaches land use does not have the experience or training to opine on whether current traffic engineering curricula is fatally biased due to the race or gender of its teachers.  She makes facile assumptions based on an underlying implication that race and sex have resulted in flawed and faulty conclusions about how to most safely engineer a roadway.

Ultimately, her objection is that as a society we've prioritized speed over other factors more than she believes is appropriate. That's a public policy argument, with the "blame"  falling on the public and politicians rather than traffic engineers or groups like AASHTO.  But to correct the problem she's targeting the wrong group based on unproven claims of inherent bias.

[Scott5114]

The correct question isn't what five black women would say, it's what five black female traffic engineers would say that is different from their white male counterparts when it comes to traffic safety.  The author of the article blithely assumes based solely on their gender or ethnicity they would have different approaches to traffic engineering than white males, despite the fact that regardless of race or gender they are all being taught the same traffic engineering theories, reviewing the same data and studies, etc.

Someone with a different background may well have a novel way of looking at traffic engineering, given the same training, that allows them to develop novel traffic engineering theories that advance the state of the art. But in order for that to be possible, they need to have the same starting point (i.e. education) as any other traffic engineer.

[kphoger]

I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

The reason why it'd a good thing to have people of different ethnicities and genders in the profession is that it means because of their different life experiences they'll apply that common education in different ways. Which would mean transportation systems more closely reflect how people with differing backgrounds use them, which is a good thing.

That level of education is still necessary, though. Adding the voices of someone to the process who is not trained as a traffic engineer, even if they aren't a white straight cisgender male, is going to just add meaningless noise to the process, because it will be adding points of view that aren't founded on what's feasible. One of the things education teaches you is what has been tried before and proven not to work.

Someone with a different background may well have a novel way of looking at traffic engineering, given the same training, that allows them to develop novel traffic engineering theories that advance the state of the art. But in order for that to be possible, they need to have the same starting point (i.e. education) as any other traffic engineer.

I never questioned the diversity of life experiences and priorities between races and sexes.  I also never denied that different people apply their educational training in different ways.  What I said is that I wondered why the author assumes it would only be white males who are trained to prioritize driver speed.

I wouldn't be surprised if the author wanted diversity to include non-engineers as well.  A bike advocate or urban planner, for example, is going to have a very difference perspective than a traffic engineer.

That's a good take.  Perhaps the author would rather the decisions not be made not so much on the basis of engineering decisions, but more on other "soft" factors that matter more to the author.  If that's the case, then the author should at least admit that, rather than making any baseless claims about the engineers' training.

[vdeane]

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Is a study that was conducted in 1986 really the best we have? Thats a full decade before the national 55mph limit was revoked.

And this is a red flag:

collection of the after data ranged from several days to as much as 2 years following the speed limit change

Im sorry, but "several days" is not enough to determine the effects of a speed limit change. Most daily drivers wont even notice!

I noticed you attacked the IIHS report without any discussion on their methodology. Unless your accusation is that they doctored the data or are wrong, the source simply doesnt matter, just the facts.

Ever hear the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?  It's possible to make statistics say anything you want, especially when you have an agenda.  In any case, it doesn't say anything about the speed people actually drive, so it's not really relevant to my point that people won't just go "even faster" by raising the limit to match the speed of travel.

[HighwayStar]

So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

Thank you for so eliminating the need for me to read the article. That sentence alone proves its utter trash. Having actually read a highway engineering manual or two, I will say that prioritizing speed is not really the main theme anyway. But what a load of BS. 

[hotdogPi]

I also want to point out that the one female member who has posted in this thread is a DOT employee and disagrees with the article.

[JoePCool14]

<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

[jamess]

<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

By not reading the article, youve simply chosen to embarrass yourself instead.

Heres a hint at how off base you are:

Fourth, federal regulators must start integrating the safety of non-drivers in vehicle safety tests. While this seems obvious, it has virtually never been done in the U.S. We know that roads have gotten less safe for non-drivers, but we don't know exactly how dangerous some cars are. Tests that can measure non-driver safety will pull back the curtain.

[jeffandnicole]

<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

By not reading the article, youve simply chosen to embarrass yourself instead.

Heres a hint at how off base you are:

Fourth, federal regulators must start integrating the safety of non-drivers in vehicle safety tests. While this seems obvious, it has virtually never been done in the U.S. We know that roads have gotten less safe for non-drivers, but we don't know exactly how dangerous some cars are. Tests that can measure non-driver safety will pull back the curtain.

Of course, by reading the article, you just accepted what was written without any basis.  And what does "virtually never been done" mean?  Are they practically literally saying they're sure about that?

Whenever they can site stats for some things, they show the stats.  Whenever they use "we know that..." for other things, they're basically saying based on a few news stories where a pedestrian got hit, we'll assume that roads are less safe for non-drivers.

In reality, we have to look deeply at the accidents in the first place.  If bicyclists and pedestrians are getting hit where they're ultimately at fault, that's not the roadways being unsafe. That's bicyclists and pedestrians failing to follow the basic signs and signals, many of which were installed for their very safety.  The number of times I've read "bicyclists can go thru a red light because it's safer" is mind-blowing, because that's basically speaking that they don't want to follow the traffic rules.  If they were getting hit sitting at red lights, let's see that data.  And if that data reveals there's an insignificant number of accidents at red lights, that doesn't mean that bicyclists should start blowing thru red lights. 

And the number of times when a pedestrian was hit and "the nearest light/crosswalk was 500 feet away", that's used to make it appear 500 feet is a realllllly loooooonnnnngggggg distance.  In reality, if a slow walker takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, it would take them about 2 minutes to walk 500 feet.  No doubt they've walked longer than that to get to the point where they decided to fatally cross the street.   Add on that quite often they illegally cross the street, but then continue down thru the intersection that they could've crossed at legally, and there's no question that roads aren't unsafe for pedestrians...they just choose to ignore the laws meant for their safety because they already know that they can just argue that the police should be doing more important things.

When there's a ped/bike accident reported in the news, I generally look at this:  If there's a followup story, the motorist was at fault, and the media will do whatever it can to pick on the motorist.  If there's a story that says "It's being investigated/stop back for more updates" and there aren't followup stories or updates, the ped/bicyclist was at fault, and the newspaper decided to drop the story.

[hotdogPi]

I typically don't wait for the walk signal to cross; I just cross when it's clear, taking advantage of medians when possible. (It helps that the Northeast has few undivided multilane roads.) I make sure that if the cars don't see me at all, I'll still make it across. I also cross behind cars quite often so that I'm not blocking their way, even at intersections.

If I absolutely need to cross at a specific spot, and there's no traffic signal nearby, I'll step into the shoulder if it's wide enough and wait for the cars to stop (where I typically did this before I moved into an apartment, it would be almost guaranteed within the first 6 cars). I would never do this on a road that's more than one lane in each direction, though.

Is this a problem?

[jeffandnicole]

I typically don't wait for the walk signal to cross; I just cross when it's clear, taking advantage of medians when possible. (It helps that the Northeast has few undivided multilane roads.) I make sure that if the cars don't see me at all, I'll still make it across. I also cross behind cars quite often so that I'm not blocking their way, even at intersections.

If I absolutely need to cross at a specific spot, and there's no traffic signal nearby, I'll step into the shoulder if it's wide enough and wait for the cars to stop (where I typically did this before I moved into an apartment, it would be almost guaranteed within the first 6 cars). I would never do this on a road that's more than one lane in each direction, though.

Is this a problem?

Other than the fact that you make up your own rules?

The biggest problem tends to be pedestrians cut things closer than they should, especially in the eyes of a motorist.  If you're crossing when there's no cars in sight, then there's generally no issues.  But if you're crossing just in time, then you may unwittingly causing motorists to slow down so that they don't hit you.  You think you're doing fine in your eyes, but in a motorists eye, they're doing what they can to avoid hitting you.

[vdeane]

When there's a ped/bike accident reported in the news, I generally look at this:  If there's a followup story, the motorist was at fault, and the media will do whatever it can to pick on the motorist.  If there's a story that says "It's being investigated/stop back for more updates" and there aren't followup stories or updates, the ped/bicyclist was at fault, and the newspaper decided to drop the story.

Not always.  There was a case where someone was killed jaywalking near Cohoes and not only did the story get continued coverage, it was used as an example of dangerous road design and even became the centerpiece of the political push for rebuilding the road narrower with a 10 mph lower speed limit.

Basically, a road that felt slow at anything below 55 but which was signed for 45/40 was redesigned to be comfortable at 40 but signed at 35/30.  The engineering improvements are good, though with the speed limit drop the road still feels a bit on the slow side, and speed didn't kill the person whose death motivated the change - jaywalking did - but it seems like the answer to every issue on the roads these days, if you ask the advocates at least, is to lower speeds.

(personal opinion)