WTOP Radio: Pedestrian deaths up 10 percent, marking largest annual spike (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/03/pedestrian-deaths-up-10-percent-marking-largest-annual-spike/)
QuoteA new study shows the number of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes in 2015 nationally increased 10 percent in the past year – the largest jump since nationwide records have been kept.
I'm still waiting to see a report where it shows the breakdown of those at fault. Is it more vehicle drivers or pedestrians at fault?
I will guess that once 50.0000001% or more of ped fatalities are the result of the vehicle driver, the stories will then start including that fact. Until then, it will remain omitted from the articles.
Bold emphasis added
Quote from: Article"Obviously we're concerned," said GHSA executive director Jonathan Adkins.
Adkins says distraction is likely responsible for many of the crashes.
"Any time you go out you see people walking and looking at their phones and you see drivers driving and looking at their phones," he said.
"The intersection of a pedestrian and a driver never ends well for the pedestrian, unfortunately."
Ironically, the rise in pedestrian deaths coincides with the increase of people walking to improve their health.
Upshoot,
both drivers and pedestrians need to stop looking at their phones and pay attention to the surrounding environment & conditions.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2016, 11:51:11 AM
Bold emphasis added
Quote from: Article"Obviously we're concerned," said GHSA executive director Jonathan Adkins.
Adkins says distraction is likely responsible for many of the crashes.
"Any time you go out you see people walking and looking at their phones and you see drivers driving and looking at their phones," he said.
"The intersection of a pedestrian and a driver never ends well for the pedestrian, unfortunately."
Ironically, the rise in pedestrian deaths coincides with the increase of people walking to improve their health.
Upshoot, both drivers and pedestrians need to stop looking at their phones and pay attention to the surrounding environment & conditions.
That's fine...IF cell phones are the major cause of people walking into the street. Data isn't exactly forthcoming regarding that.
No doubt people are distracted from their cell phones. But, using an extreme example, if 95% of the people getting hit after exiting their vehicle and walking into the street while drunk, you can eliminate every cell phone fatality and accidents will still be up.
That's why data and the reasons why these accidents occur is so important. Trying to deal with a problem that's not occurring won't resolve the issue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 12:07:59 PMThat's fine...IF cell phones are the major cause of people walking into the street. Data isn't exactly forthcoming regarding that.
No doubt people are distracted from their cell phones. But, using an extreme example, if 95% of the people getting hit after exiting their vehicle and walking into the street while drunk, you can eliminate every cell phone fatality and accidents will still be up.
That's why data and the reasons why these accidents occur is so important. Trying to deal with a problem that's not occurring won't resolve the issue.
The
GHSA in the article stands for Governors Highway Safety Association; not 100% sure if such is an actual state agency or a special interest group conveniently named to be
intentionally mistaken for the former.
Jonathan Adkins, of the GHSA, is the one that's making the connection with distractions
along with the increased number of people walking. Why the data (regarding the increase in pedestrian deaths) is more broken down nor elaborated isn't completely known.
My agreeing with his assumptions is based on what I've seen walking through the streets of Philly (to/from SEPTA's Jefferson Station from/to my place of work near Independence Hall) 5 days/week and seeing a few near misses (thankfully seeing nobody hit... yet); Adkins' assumptions for the increases are indeed plausible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
That's fine...IF cell phones are the major cause of people walking into the street. Data isn't exactly forthcoming regarding that.
It would also be nice to know how many involved drivers
and pedestrians were drunk or under the influence of some other substance
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ and http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812124.pdf
Well, here's some great statistics...
4,735 Pedestrians were killed in 2013.
Included in the findings:
Those 65 and older accounted for 19% of ped deaths (896 people).
Drunk Peds compared to Drunk Drivers were more than twice as likely to be involved in a pedestrian fatal. Drunk Peds accounted for 34% of deaths (approx. 1600 people). This can be compared to 15% of drivers being involved in a fatal.
5% of the fatals were children (236 children).
So, those 3 groups alone represent more than half of the pedestrians killed. There's nothing mentioned within those reports regarding cell phone usage, and it's entirely possible a drink walking the street while on the phone got hit.
It's important to note though that today's modern cell phone usage probably started around 2007/2008, when Apple and Android started becoming mainstream. However...reviewing the tables, Pedestrian Deaths have remained fairly consistent. Even more remarkable, total fatalities have actually gone down.
So the vast usage of cell phones really isn't translating all that much into increased deaths on our roads...even though nearly every accident and fatal store out there has everyone screaming to others that they need to get off their cell phones. And when people falsely attribute deaths on our roads and highways to cell phones, it's really pointing the finger at a problem that doesn't exist to the extent people believe it exists.
^^ Judging from that, a full third of the deaths are drunk pedestrians. Drinking and walking appears to be as bad as drinking and driving. The other interesting statistic is the children versus those over 65. Four times as many over the age of 65 were fatal when compared to children. Granted, some of it could be attributed to fragility, but not all of it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 11:38:56 AM
I'm still waiting to see a report where it shows the breakdown of those at fault. Is it more vehicle drivers or pedestrians at fault?
Under the principle of comparative negligence it can legally be both in most states.
Statistics about motor vehicle crashes generally don't get into who is or isn't at fault because it's legally hairy and can potentially remain undetermined if no litigation results from the incident. There's also the "act of god" situations where no one is really at fault, e.g. car veers off road and strikes a pedestrian because the driver had a heart attack.
As for why the spike, well, first of all the 10% figure is conjecture. The numbers at the moment are 2368 versus 2232, which is a 6% increase. Experts are merely speculating it will be 10% once all the reports come in and the numbers are finalized. It's also worth noting that even if it is 10%, it's 10% of a number that isn't that big, so it could simply be anomalous.
That said, I'm also curious to see how the numbers for 2015 come in in terms of all traffic deaths, and in terms of VMT. Given that 2015 was a full year of low gas prices I predict we will see a spike in both total deaths and in VMT, but that the number of deaths per million VMT will probably not have changed much.
In other words, if more pedestrians are getting hit by cars the simplest explanation may simply be that it's because there are more cars on the road.
I think simply blaming mobile phones is an oversimplification. Most weekdays I walk about 3/4 of a mile each way from the subway to the office (vice versa in the afternoon) and, since I do not jaywalk, I often watch other pedestrians' behavior. Certainly there are people buried in their phones. It's damn annoying the way a lot of the 20-somethings walk on the wrong side of the sidewalk not looking where they're going and expect you to watch out for them. But some behavior would happen regardless of things like phones. People are going to jaywalk either way. I do think phones may make the jaywalking worse when people walk more slowly or pay less attention as a result of the phone. Yesterday morning I saw a younger woman strolling across M Street against the light, face buried in a mobile device, and she didn't hop to it when a truck was bearing down on her even when the driver honked. I think she would have jaywalked either way, but perhaps without the phone she might have moved faster. Maybe not. A lot of pedestrians in DC seem to me to take delight in walking against the light and essentially daring oncoming drivers to hit them.
(That's not to excuse some very bad driver behavior I see daily, such as ignoring the red arrow as Washington Circle and 23 Street. That's dangerous because the "Walk" signal comes on when the red arrow comes on. Yesterday morning I also saw a bit of an altercation between a red-light runner and a legally-crossing pedestrian–with no phone–at 22d and L in which the driver attempted to throw his coffee out his passenger-side window at the pedestrian, but messed up and got it all over the inside of his minivan.....dumbass!)
I tend to think blaming any one factor is going to be an oversimplification that ignores other aggravating or concurrent causes. Saying "it's mobile phones" sort of makes me think of that study about 20 years ago that said women who wear bras are 90% more likely to get breast cancer than women who don't wear them. The problem with that is that, at least in Western countries, probably more than 97% of women wear those things, so it's false causation because it doesn't account for any other risk factors.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 09, 2016, 12:52:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 11:38:56 AM
I'm still waiting to see a report where it shows the breakdown of those at fault. Is it more vehicle drivers or pedestrians at fault?
Under the principle of comparative negligence it can legally be both in most states.
Statistics about motor vehicle crashes generally don't get into who is or isn't at fault because it's legally hairy and can potentially remain undetermined if no litigation results from the incident. There's also the "act of god" situations where no one is really at fault, e.g. car veers off road and strikes a pedestrian because the driver had a heart attack.
As for why the spike, well, first of all the 10% figure is conjecture. The numbers at the moment are 2368 versus 2232, which is a 6% increase. Experts are merely speculating it will be 10% once all the reports come in and the numbers are finalized. It's also worth noting that even if it is 10%, it's 10% of a number that isn't that big, so it could simply be anomalous.
That said, I'm also curious to see how the numbers for 2015 come in in terms of all traffic deaths, and in terms of VMT. Given that 2015 was a full year of low gas prices I predict we will see a spike in both total deaths and in VMT, but that the number of deaths per million VMT will probably not have changed much.
In other words, if more pedestrians are getting hit by cars the simplest explanation may simply be that it's because there are more cars on the road.
I'd say there's a lot of truth in the VMT argument. Insurance companies are raising rates due to VMT rising so quickly.
The difference between a distracted/drunk pedestrian and a distracted/drunk motorist is that one of them is operating a heavy and potentially dangerous machine
I'd wager that most traffic-related pedestrian deaths occur in cities, where people are most apt to be walking anyway. Rather than throwing blame around about whether it is drivers or pedestrians that or inattentive, or are drunk, or otherwise, perhaps it would be wise to address the question of whether certain roads where these pedestrian deaths occur cause drivers to go too fast. Think Roosevelt Blvd in Philadelphia. Road that encourages drivers to drive quickly, also has lots of pedestrians.
Maybe part of the problem is that American roads are just pedestrian hostile. That must account for some things (long crossings in short times could cause accidents).
Quote from: Bruce on March 16, 2016, 01:53:12 AM
Maybe part of the problem is that American roads are just pedestrian hostile. That must account for some things (long crossings in short times could cause accidents).
I don't think this would account for an increase in deaths, though. If they're unsafe now, they've been unsafe for a while.
Quote from: Bruce on March 16, 2016, 01:53:12 AM
Maybe part of the problem is that American roads are just pedestrian hostile. That must account for some things (long crossings in short times could cause accidents).
Yes, much of America's urban space (re: suburbs) is built to be entirely hostile to pedestrians. This alone can't account for an
increase in pedestrian deaths year over year but perhaps if we re-thought the way we construct spaces for living, working, and relaxing, we could substantially reduce pedestrian deaths.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2016, 07:50:01 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 16, 2016, 01:53:12 AM
Maybe part of the problem is that American roads are just pedestrian hostile. That must account for some things (long crossings in short times could cause accidents).
I don't think this would account for an increase in deaths, though. If they're unsafe now, they've been unsafe for a while.
Most deaths are occurring in urban areas, even though there's been a remarkable increase in better crosswalks, countdown signals, etc. Overall, very few deaths are occurring in suburban and rural areas at marked crosswalks during walk cycles. Many ped accidents are jaywalking-type accidents; whether it be on 2 lane or 8 lane roads.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 09, 2016, 12:52:07 AM
Under the principle of comparative negligence it can legally be both in most states.
That relates to damages and recovery. That has nothing to do with handing out tickets, fines, Motor Vehicle & insurance points.
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on March 13, 2016, 11:13:59 PM
I'd wager that most traffic-related pedestrian deaths occur in cities, where people are most apt to be walking anyway.
Maybe if Casper, WY, counts as a city. :)
Seriously though, the pedestrian infrastructure here is kind of scary. There's not a
grassy rocky strip between the street and the sidewalk. When I walk to work, I'm right next to moving traffic that isn't exactly on the outlook for any pedestrians due to their general rarity out here. In any case, the infrastructure is less than exciting here when compared to NYC or Chicago.
We had one just a few nights ago on NC 55 West between New Bern and Cove City, which by most people's standards would be the middle of nowhere.
Female subject walking down the road in the dark with all dark clothing got smoked by a mini van. http://www.wcti12.com/news/troopers-identify-pedestrian-killed-in-craven-county-accident/38726134
It can happen pretty much anywhere if one or both parties are not able to pay attention to what they are doing.