Also, 36,500 people were killed, and 4.5 million people were injured in the USA in 2019.
This report makes the mistake of blaming individuals for not wearing seatbelts and speeding, when a shift in urban design is necessary to mitigate this disaster.
Less driving -> Fewer killed by motor vehicles
It’s really very simple.
Pretty much this.
I’d rather be driven somewhere in a luxury Greyhound equivalent funded with the money saved as a result of less driving, rather than sit in traffic idle and inhaling exhaust for hours
Where I am we now have fully air conditioned electric buses with phone chargers, bankrolled by the govt. It’s nice not having to deal with other drivers on the road
Nah I’d rather pay 1,000$/yr on average per person in the entire country in than even think about how nice busses would be with that budget
Pretty much this. I’d rather be driven somewhere in a luxury Greyhound equivalent, rather than sit in traffic idle and inhaling exhaust for hours
Where I am we now have fully air conditioned electric buses with phone chargers, bankrolled by the govt. It’s nice not having to deal with other drivers on the road
We should also remark on the problem with large pickups and SUVs leading to an increase in traffic deaths.
I suspect that EVs will be added to this as well: they’re 30% heavier than the ICE counterpart and can create fires which are hot and difficult to extinguish.
The weight of trucks is a concern but secondary to their construction which is a much more rigid body that doesn’t crumple to distribute energy in a crash.
Similarly while EV fires are worse, ICE fires are relatively more common.
How would urban design get people to put on their seatbelt? I read the article and don’t think it was blaming people for not wearing their seatbelt for the majority of these costs. It was 3% of the cost associated to not wearing a seat belt. The author was trying to reinforce what works well to reduce traffic deaths. The automotive industry spends a huge amount of engineering resources to attempt to protect those folks. Imagine if that could be put to better use detecting distracted driving and mitigating it.
BTW please wear your seat belt. I’ve seen what humans do to a dash board when they don’t and it’s not pretty. Also, what happens to the human is not pretty either.
You’re right, I was probably too harsh on the seatbelt point. If you have to be in a car, you should wear a seatbelt. But, the first line of defense is to not be in a car, and the second line of defense is to be on well-designed roads.
American cities lack these two lines of defense. This is probably why crashes are such a big problem here.
I struggle to see how roads designed correctly always help. I will admit that I am not a road designer. In my area we recently redid an area to be a downtown thing with a 25 mph limit. The speed limit before and after the 1/2 mile stretch is 40MPH. I think the design follows items 1, 2, and 3 of this list very well. However, so much traffic fails to even slow down a bit.
It will take a major social campaign to get this to change.
They didn’t install speed bumps, did they?
No, speed bumps were not installed.
I’d say well designed roads are the first line of defense. Cars crash into people who are not in cars all the time.
That’s a fair point. However, what is the circumstance that leads to a pedestrian crash? Is it something road design might have resolved such as speed? Is it just due to other factors such as alcohol or distracted driving?
Yeah, a lot of roads are designed so that people drive fast and feel safe not paying attention. Roads inside cities should be designed so that people drive slowly and pay lots of attention.
Seatbelts work well if you’re in the car, absolutely.
With that said, infrastructure design decisions impact people in a car and people not in a car: motorcycle operators, pedestrians, and cyclists. I think OP was getting at this.
Add to this: ALL vehicles for sale should include as standard automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection. Those systems work to reduce pedestrian deaths. Here is some information from IIHS. If IIHS required this to get a high vehicle safety rating the OEMS would respond within 2-3 model years.
That’s a huge number.
If 10% of that is profit for various companies, that’s a $34 billion industry.
No wonder there is such push back against walkable communities and other such initiativesMeasuring in money.
The agency’s new report, “The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2019,” examines the costs of one year of crashes that killed an estimated 36,500 people, injured 4.5 million, and damaged 23 million vehicles.
36,000 deaths and 4.5 million injured doesn’t cause alarm. And that’s only the human numbers. Wildlife doesn’t count.
CityNerd did a great video about traffic violence
bUt HoW wIlL i GeT tO wOrK?!1
Transportation has always been expensive and dangerous. Take a look at any third world country, the roads there are dangerous af. Well that’s what we used to be too. Historically speaking it’s a recent luxury that we think it should be very safe and nearly free.
No, it’s not. Relative to the safety of our time, we live in this most dangerous time to travel.
All forms of transportation used to be more dangerous. Engineering of both roads and cars is better. We have safety everywhere.
Relative to the safety of our time? Does that mean you are comparing it to deaths from disease, war, famine, etc. from the past? While people didn’t travel as much. That’s not what’s being discussed.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that recent attempts to make transportation safer for people is futile because travel is inherently dangerous?
No and I have no idea how you can misconstrue that as what I’ve said.
Then enlighten me :)
Transportation is dangerous.
No one has ever died on a shinkansen
Take a look at any third world country, the roads there are dangerous af.
