Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[oscar]

6. most are killed at night, yes, but how many roads even have sidewalks? Or bike lanes? It shouldn't be a surprise that cyclists and pedestrians are in the road...there's nowhere else to go. I think it's a bit ridiculous that everyone walking at night should be expected to wear reflective clothing. That's shifting too much of the responsibility on the pedestrian. In fact, it's equal responsibility: drivers have to watch for pedestrians, and pedestrians have to watch for cars. That's the best we can realistically do when there isn't some path for non-car users.

Hard for drivers to watch for pedestrians, if the pedestrians are nearly invisible in the dark. Not too much to ask them to wear light-colored clothing if they're out after dark.

In my county (which is one of yours), too many people walk around at night, wearing dark clothing. The county makes sure there is lots of white paint in crosswalks, to help the drivers spot those pedestrians. But that doesn't help in less urban counties where there aren't a lot of marked or even well-lit crosswalks, or urban places (like D.C.) fond of brick crosswalks.

[Tonytone]

Did anyone ever consider the fact that curbs are high in some places & people do not want to run over the curb & mess there car up or hit a bicyclist flying by on a bike lane, have you ever had to stop mid turn because a pedestrian or bicyclists are running right into the street where you are turning. Would you rather take a wide turn & be safe or take a tight turn & kill someone?


iPhone

[DaBigE]

But, they have the potential to be, and I usually fear more for my life and safety from the bicyclists (on multi-use paths where motorized vehicles are not allowed) than from the motorists.  At least, as a pedestrian, a car is big enough to see.  A bicycle comes flying silently out of nowhere.

Cars come out of nowhere at higher speeds, and with the advent of quieter electric vehicles they'll pose just as much risk to someone with limited hearing.

But seriously, 15 pedestrians die every day in the U.S. from collisions with cars. This number is only increasing.

Bicycle-on-pedestrian collisions are on the decline and don't cause deaths on nearly the same scale.

Car vs. car accidents are rarely fatal.

Car vs. Ped or Bike accidents are rare, period.  And under the subject heading of failing to make tight turns, the likelihood of a car turning into a ped is extremely rare, because the motorist should've yielded to the ped in the crosswalk in the first place.  If a car was turning right in front of a bicyclist, then turning wide is actually a *good* thing, because it gives the bicyclist additional room to account for the motorist's error. 

40,000 people die annually (109 per day) while in cars that have crashed into other cars. They are fatal enough to be the top killer of Americans in most demographics under the age of 65.

People make too many blind right turns into crosswalks without bothering to look for pedestrians. I've been the victim of this many times, and usually the driver does manage to stop halfway in the crosswalk while looking shocked that someone would dare walk in *their* road.

Crosswalks should come with railroad-style crossing arms that actually prevent intrusion for the duration of the walk signal. Or better yet, just ban cars from making right turns on reds, which is something that many cities have considered or are planning to implement.

We definitely need to change the way we do traffic signals. Too many times drivers have cut me off as a pedestrian even though I had the walk sign. I'm suggesting we don't allow turns unless there's an arrow, and the arrow is only on when pedestrians can't cross in that area.

How about people just become better drivers/enforce the laws we currently have? Better yet, raise the standards of acquiring a license to kill, including regular retesting for something besides your sight. I know, that seems to be a lot in this day and age, but I don't see the value in addition another device that has a strong potential of being ignored. Railroad gates were supposed to eliminate car/train crashes, but people still insist on driving around them. At some point, we'll have so many lights at an intersection, drivers will be screwing up because they have too many lights blinking at them.


Back to the original topic...slow and sloppy turns is one of my pet peeves. I think a big part of it has to do with people simply not knowing how to handle their vehicle. It's a reason I wish older drivers would be banned from driving land yachts. Great, you can afford it, but the combination of slower reaction times and needing more space for everything can be a deadly combination.

[renegade]

That's just it. They only have one hand on the wheel. The other is usually occupied with the phone.

An overly inaccurate observation.  If you watched 10 people drive by, and 1 was using a phone, many will say that "everyone" is using their phone, even though in that sample only 10% actually did.

The problem is, if you watch 10 people drive by, nowadays 9 of them will be using a phone.

Let me guess...you're the one that isn't?

I'm lucky if I use my cell phone ten minutes per month.  I have an old-school flip phone, I don't text, I don't do social media.  When I am driving, I am paying attention to the subject immediately at hand, not looking at a screen. 

[kalvado]

4. alcohol-related crashes (defined as deaths in a collision where an operator of a vehicle or motorcycle had a BAC of .08+) was 29% of all road deaths, the lowest amount since 1982
5. bit of a rehash of point 3?
6. most are killed at night, yes, but how many roads even have sidewalks? Or bike lanes? It shouldn't be a surprise that cyclists and pedestrians are in the road...there's nowhere else to go. I think it's a bit ridiculous that everyone walking at night should be expected to wear reflective clothing. That's shifting too much of the responsibility on the pedestrian. In fact, it's equal responsibility: drivers have to watch for pedestrians, and pedestrians have to watch for cars. That's the best we can realistically do when there isn't some path for non-car users.

To summarize: overall crashes per 100M VMT are down, and total crashes are down from 2016. So that's good. Pedestrian and bike deaths are about 18% of road deaths. This means that collisions involving drunk operators, plus pedestrians and cyclists, account for 47% of all deaths. But drunk operators still represent a larger portion of the issue than pedestrians or cyclists. I also cannot find any data that suggests 18% of the non-occupant deaths are due to the pedestrian or rider themselves.

I was really surprised that 50% of pedestrian deaths in a certain group (men of drinking age, 18-55 or so) involve drunk pedestrians. Which represent a sizable chunk of a problem.
As for watch out for each other.. Add "try to be visible to each other"
I saw quite a few pedestrians dressed all-black walking in the dark. That is the second low hanging fruit for reducing pedestrians deaths.

[jakeroot]

6. most are killed at night, yes, but how many roads even have sidewalks? Or bike lanes? It shouldn't be a surprise that cyclists and pedestrians are in the road...there's nowhere else to go. I think it's a bit ridiculous that everyone walking at night should be expected to wear reflective clothing. That's shifting too much of the responsibility on the pedestrian. In fact, it's equal responsibility: drivers have to watch for pedestrians, and pedestrians have to watch for cars. That's the best we can realistically do when there isn't some path for non-car users.

Hard for drivers to watch for pedestrians, if the pedestrians are nearly invisible in the dark. Not too much to ask them to wear light-colored clothing if they're out after dark.

In my county (which is one of yours), too many people walk around at night, wearing dark clothing. The county makes sure there is lots of white paint in crosswalks, to help the drivers spot those pedestrians. But that doesn't help in less urban counties where there aren't a lot of marked or even well-lit crosswalks, or urban places (like D.C.) fond of brick crosswalks.

Well it's not impossible to watch for pedestrians. It's harder at night, yes, but not impossible. Pedestrians obviously have to use care when walking at night, in the dark, but it being dark doesn't absolve drivers of the responsibility to do all they can to avoid a collision. Pedestrians could wear brighter clothing, but brighter clothes aren't necessarily more reflective, so I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Plus, it might cause the pedestrians to be less vigilant, under the impression that drivers can "definitely see me now".

I'm one of those people. I'm frequently walking to a pub in Courthouse. I'm usually in dark clothes (side effect of the overall darker atmosphere in the PNW compared to places like Hawaii or Miami), but there's sidewalks everywhere so I'm not worried about being visible for cars. Every crossing I use is signalized, so as long as drivers yield on green, its OK. I always look to make sure drivers are stopped, but drivers only stop because they were looking too. Everybody has to play the game, no matter how hard it may be.

4. alcohol-related crashes (defined as deaths in a collision where an operator of a vehicle or motorcycle had a BAC of .08+) was 29% of all road deaths, the lowest amount since 1982
5. bit of a rehash of point 3?
6. most are killed at night, yes, but how many roads even have sidewalks? Or bike lanes? It shouldn't be a surprise that cyclists and pedestrians are in the road...there's nowhere else to go. I think it's a bit ridiculous that everyone walking at night should be expected to wear reflective clothing. That's shifting too much of the responsibility on the pedestrian. In fact, it's equal responsibility: drivers have to watch for pedestrians, and pedestrians have to watch for cars. That's the best we can realistically do when there isn't some path for non-car users.

To summarize: overall crashes per 100M VMT are down, and total crashes are down from 2016. So that's good. Pedestrian and bike deaths are about 18% of road deaths. This means that collisions involving drunk operators, plus pedestrians and cyclists, account for 47% of all deaths. But drunk operators still represent a larger portion of the issue than pedestrians or cyclists. I also cannot find any data that suggests 18% of the non-occupant deaths are due to the pedestrian or rider themselves.

I was really surprised that 50% of pedestrian deaths in a certain group (men of drinking age, 18-55 or so) involve drunk pedestrians. Which represent a sizable chunk of a problem.
As for watch out for each other.. Add "try to be visible to each other"
I saw quite a few pedestrians dressed all-black walking in the dark. That is the second low hanging fruit for reducing pedestrians deaths.

Where'd you get the "50% of pedestrian deaths" data? I didn't see that in the report.

Problem with telling people what to wear while walking at night is that people don't go out dressed specifically to avoid car vs ped collisions. They go out wearing what they want, as they have the right to, expecting that drivers will watch for them, in the same way that they watch for drivers. If drivers are going too fast to avoid a collision, that's on them, especially if its an urban area where peds are going to be out.

Walking/using the sidewalk is pretty much the lowest form of transportation. It has the least amount of rules of any transportation option (and therefore the least amount of responsibility), and anyone can do it, even if disabled. To start putting a bunch of rules about what people can wear while walking at night has no chance of being observed.

[oscar]

Problem with telling people what to wear while walking at night is that people don't go out dressed specifically to avoid car vs ped collisions. They go out wearing what they want, as they have the right to, expecting that drivers will watch for them, in the same way that they watch for drivers.

Drivers are responsible for making themselves visible to other drivers and other road users. Ditto for bicyclists. Why can't be expect pedestrians to do likewise?

If pedestrians' fashion choices require them to wear dark clothing at night, they can always put on reflective wristbands, or other accessories, when they go outside. Or they can always avoid crossing or traveling on a roadway, unless they are certain there are no other vehicles (including bicyclists) in the vicinity. No rule involved here, except basic prudence and self-preservation.

[kalvado]

Where'd you get the "50% of pedestrian deaths" data? I didn't see that in the report.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812124   page 6.

Problem with telling people what to wear while walking at night is that people don't go out dressed specifically to avoid car vs ped collisions. They go out wearing what they want, as they have the right to, expecting that drivers will watch for them, in the same way that they watch for drivers. If drivers are going too fast to avoid a collision, that's on them, especially if its an urban area where peds are going to be out.

Walking/using the sidewalk is pretty much the lowest form of transportation. It has the least amount of rules of any transportation option (and therefore the least amount of responsibility), and anyone can do it, even if disabled. To start putting a bunch of rules about what people can wear while walking at night has no chance of being observed.

Rules may be applied to manufacturers and sellers.
Require reflective elements embedded in any new outwear. Will not address black shirts of all kinds, but hoodies and up are not unreasonable.
Not sure how to that legally; but if lead in toys can be addressed, this should be doable as well.Not 100% effective, but better than nothing.

[oscar]

Rules may be applied to manufacturers and sellers.
Require reflective elements embedded in any new outwear. Will not address black shirts of all kinds, but hoodies and up are not unreasonable.
Not sure how to that legally; but if lead in toys can be addressed, this should be doable as well.Not 100% effective, but better than nothing.

I wouldn't go quite that far, though it seems the running shoes I wear (not my black dress shoes, or my flip-flops) have reflective material built-in. Removable reflective accessories for outdoor use should be enough, without unnecessary interference with people's indoor fashion choices (I would hope they at least have pockets or purses, to stow their reflective wrist/arm bands, etc.).

It would help also if pedestrians not wearing reflective materials would pay particular attention to obeying traffic lights. I too often see pedestrians walking against lights, as well as wearing dark clothing, at night in Arlington County.

[Duke87]

Problem with telling people what to wear while walking at night is that people don't go out dressed specifically to avoid car vs ped collisions. They go out wearing what they want, as they have the right to, expecting that drivers will watch for them, in the same way that they watch for drivers. If drivers are going too fast to avoid a collision, that's on them, especially if its an urban area where peds are going to be out.

Just because there is no rule saying clothing worn by a pedestrian at night should be colored as to enhance their visibility doesn't mean it isn't nonetheless best practice.

I do not and never will own a coat that is uniformly darkly-colored for this reason, and will admonish anyone walking around an urban environment at night wearing such a coat that they are taking an unnecessary risk.

When I go out walking somewhere, I don't want to get hit by a car, and I am not about to make choices that needlessly counterproductive to this desire. Morgues are filled with bodies of people who weren't at fault for their deaths; people who don't willingly delegate responsibility for their own self-preservation just because of what the law says tend to do better at staying out of them.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think it will ever be practical to expect pedestrians not to wear dark clothes at night.  Some types of clothing have to be dark to comply with dress codes and sartorial expectations.  Remember all the flak President Obama caught for wearing a bright tan suit?

I can, however, see someone mounting a campaign to normalize wearing high-visibility tabards after dark while walking around town.  When I left the UK, this was becoming increasingly common among cyclists.

[Beltway]

Drivers are responsible for making themselves visible to other drivers and other road users. Ditto for bicyclists. Why can't be expect pedestrians to do likewise?

I carry a nice bright LED flashlight with me when I walk at night.

If you really want to be seen, get one of these Nightsticks, and a cone --
https://www.baycoproducts.com/product/safety-lights

Certain colors are restricted to emergency personnel only.  Yellow isn't.
 

[abefroman329]

I generally cross on a "don't walk" if it's clear, including checking for turning cars. As the most common intersection where this applies to me has many pedestrians (it's on campus at UMass Lowell), I've seen groups people walk in front of turning cars, and one time, someone walked in front of an emergency vehicle.

I generally don't unless there's no visible traffic at all on the road when crossing.  It's a bad habit to get into - next thing you know, you're crossing on red in front of cars that have a left/right turn arrow.

I posted in another thread about how I recently crossed a street on a "don't walk" signal in front of a funeral procession, because I'm an idiot.

[kalvado]

I don't think it will ever be practical to expect pedestrians not to wear dark clothes at night.  Some types of clothing have to be dark to comply with dress codes and sartorial expectations.  Remember all the flak President Obama caught for wearing a bright tan suit?

I can, however, see someone mounting a campaign to normalize wearing high-visibility tabards after dark while walking around town.  When I left the UK, this was becoming increasingly common among cyclists.

I can hardly imagine Obama in fashionable suit walking along dark highway without sidewalks. Although I heard people finding themselves in such a situation - but this was a situation they were recalling 30 years later...
If reflective elements can become standard on outwear - that is, clothing for below room temperature conditions - that will have little effect on fashion, but can put a dent on pedestrian accident rates. Even if just 10% in raw numbers, that is a lot of souls..

[kphoger]

When I lived in the Chicago suburbs...

[1]  My roommate used to go jogging at like 3 AM.  He ran down the middle of the street instead of the sidewalk.  One time, a police officer stopped him.  He explained to the police officer that, in the middle of the night, he was worried someone might jump out from behind a bush to attack him so he felt safer in the middle of the street.  The officer couldn't argue with that and just told him to be careful.  Eventually, he bought some reflective tape at a truck stop in Mexico and made a reflective vest out of it to go jogging in.

[2]  I used to hitchhike to evening classes at community college every so often.  In the colder months, that meant hitching a ride after dark.  What I did was to wear a bright red jacket, clip a blinking red bicycle taillight to my belt loop, and mount a flashlight on my backpack shining at my face and hitchhiking sign.  It worked wonders.

[jakeroot]

I can, however, see someone mounting a campaign to normalize wearing high-visibility tabards after dark while walking around town.  When I left the UK, this was becoming increasingly common among cyclists.

I see this among cyclists in Seattle all the time. Lots of high-vis clothing.

I can't help but think that the UK (well, Europe in general) has more issues with night-time ped vs car collisions due to seemingly-worse issues with public intoxication. Still a thing here, of course (apparently a leading cause of death among middle-aged men), but the last time I was in the UK, there was a lot of people wandering around at night, visibly drunk, not necessarily walking on the sidewalk. Americans aren't necessarily great at sticking to sidewalks either, but I saw more horizontal wandering there than I usually do here.

Nevertheless, I don't see America getting less urban, so even if the issue is worse there, it won't be long before cars hitting pedestrians (especially drunk ones) here in North America becomes more common. It's already getting worse, at least as far as a share of collisions.


To everyone else, just to be clear, I have no problems with pedestrians taking precautions as far as wearing high-vis clothing. It's better than nothing, of course. I just don't think a realistic solution to an increasing "non-occupant" death rate is requiring peds to go out wearing "bright" clothes. Especially since, if you're going out for a "night on the town", you're gonna look like a complete moron.

[abefroman329]

I can't help but think that the UK (well, Europe in general) has more issues with night-time ped vs car collisions due to seemingly-worse issues with public intoxication. Still a thing here, of course (apparently a leading cause of death among middle-aged men), but the last time I was in the UK, there was a lot of people wandering around at night, visibly drunk, not necessarily walking on the sidewalk. Americans aren't necessarily great at sticking to sidewalks either, but I saw more horizontal wandering there than I usually do here.

I think you simply have more people walking at night in rural/exurban areas, along roads without sidewalks, drunk or sober, in the UK than the US.

[1995hoo]

Returning to the issue of making turns, an issue I thought of while driving earlier today: People around here routinely refuse to practice any sort of lane discipline when turning right at a multiple-lane turn. For example, at a light with two right turn lanes, the people in the far right lane will routinely turn into whatever lane they want on the other road, regardless of whether anyone is turning right from the second lane over. It doesn't matter if the turn has those short skips (local officials here call them "puppy tracks") directing turning traffic into the proper lane—people ignore them, if they even notice them at all.

Yet the same usually doesn't happen at left turns (earlier today being an exception, when some jackass illegally driving with iPhone earbuds in his ears came right across the line into my lane as we both turned left, and my blasting the horn didn't have any effect, probably because he had earbuds in)—most of the time, people turning left from the left-most left turn lane do not turn into lanes other than the left lane on the other street. People in the right-most left turn lane might sometimes go into either of the other two lanes if the street to which they're turning has three lanes, but that doesn't present a conflict with other turning traffic.

I found myself wondering why people are so bad about this when turning right but so much better when turning left. My guess, at least in Northern Virginia, is that VDOT's obsession with allowing right on red only from the far right or curb lane is the reason it happens with right turns—at most intersections, far more traffic will use the far right lane and if there's a line to turn, it'll always be in the far right lane. People don't want to get stuck in the "no turn on red lane." The same doesn't happen with left turns because left-on-red situations are rare and even when it's allowed, the vast majority of drivers have no idea it's legal unless a sign is posted saying it's OK (and the only such sign I can think of has been removed when the intersection was reconfigured). So it's routine to have people turning left out of both lanes.

I can't help but think that's too simple an explanation, though.

[wxfree]

I know of an intersection that pretty much everyone has a hard time with.  Both roads have one lane in each direction and a left turn lane.  Two of the left turns are more than 90 degrees, and people can't seem to figure them out.  My approach is the enter the intersection straight, go nearly half way across and turn hard to the left, and exit the intersection in the correct lane and as straight as possible.  If someone is turning left from the other side I can't do that, and sometimes go a little over the white line into the shoulder.

Pretty much everyone else starts turning as soon as they get into the intersection and exits the intersection in the left turn lane, sometimes putting the entire vehicle to the left of the yellow lines.  If that left turn lane is occupied, they swing completely onto the shoulder to avoid hitting the vehicle in the left turn lane.  I don't get it.  There's no rule that says you have to start turning as soon as you enter the intersection.

Another complaint, not really related:

Why do people back up to the left just far enough that they can turn all the way right and just make it?  After backing they swing across the left side of the road, blocking traffic in both directions.  A better maneuver would be to back up until you can just straighten the wheels and go straight ahead.  This would more quickly get your vehicle out of the way of drivers going in the other direction.  Some people seem to be afraid to reverse an inch farther than they have to.

[J N Winkler]

I know of an intersection that pretty much everyone has a hard time with.  Both roads have one lane in each direction and a left turn lane.  Two of the left turns are more than 90 degrees, and people can't seem to figure them out.  My approach is the enter the intersection straight, go nearly half way across and turn hard to the left, and exit the intersection in the correct lane and as straight as possible.  If someone is turning left from the other side I can't do that, and sometimes go a little over the white line into the shoulder.

Pretty much everyone else starts turning as soon as they get into the intersection and exits the intersection in the left turn lane, sometimes putting the entire vehicle to the left of the yellow lines.  If that left turn lane is occupied, they swing completely onto the shoulder to avoid hitting the vehicle in the left turn lane.  I don't get it.  There's no rule that says you have to start turning as soon as you enter the intersection.

There is a skew intersection I use often (because it is near my house) that forces me to turn through a greater-than-90° angle after wheeling slightly into the intersection on a straight course.  I think it has to do with the offset for the raised center island on the target street not being set further back from the intersection throat to compensate for the skew, but I have not actually carried out measurements to check.

13th and Zoo Blvd., Wichita, Kansas (difficult movement is westbound 13th to southeast-bound Zoo)

Why do people back up to the left just far enough that they can turn all the way right and just make it?  After backing they swing across the left side of the road, blocking traffic in both directions.  A better maneuver would be to back up until you can just straighten the wheels and go straight ahead.  This would more quickly get your vehicle out of the way of drivers going in the other direction.  Some people seem to be afraid to reverse an inch farther than they have to.

Backing up is seen as a difficult part of driving and thus attracts what is called stereotype threat:  people become anxious, shut down, and do badly at it, thus confirming the stereotype.  In actuality, it is possible to become quite good at it, but I believe it generally requires dedicated practice in a nonthreatening setting.  When I decided (after about 20 years of driving) to make reversing into rather than nosing into parking spaces my personal default behavior, I went to lightly used parking lots to practice, just as I had done when I was a teenager and learning how to drive for the first time.

My personal philosophy, whether reversing into spaces or out of driveways, is to treat the space or lane I am reversing into as the target and aim generally to back through a 90° angle (if possible) and straighten out the steering wheel as part of the maneuver so that both car and wheels are pointed straight ahead when I come to a stop.  This minimizes tire scrub and wear on hydraulically assisted power steering.  (I realize that electrically assisted steering is now the norm, but at 25 and 14 years respectively, both of my vehicles are old enough to still have power steering pumps.)

Reversing out of driveways onto high-speed roads adds another layer of complexity since it is hard to practice reversing both fast and accurately, which is a useful skill to have when you are reversing left and have to clear a lane between the driveway and your target lane.  My personal preference in such cases would be to reverse into the driveway, as I feel a vehicle already in the high-speed highway has better visibility.

Many people who back into parking spaces as their personal default cock their vehicles just outside the space and then reverse into it through a shallow angle.  I dislike this method because it involves more tire scrub, but the use of it is not always the result of a lack of skill.  When the car is just outside the space, instead of a stall width or more down the aisle (the ideal position for beginning to back up through a 90° angle), it blocks a following vehicle that might otherwise be able to gazumph the space.

[kphoger]

Backing up

I used to be terrible at driving in reverse.  Then I got a job where I drove a forklift every day.  After a while of that, driving a car in reverse was a cinch!