Too slow for what? Which roads? Which type of roads?
Whatever we do to make things safer we eventually have to decide how much more effort we should put in and what we might have to give up in order to achieve the next increment of improvement.
There must be a cost benefit analysis that includes people's opinions about the status quo as well as any desired change.
> However, progress has slowed in most countries. As a result, the EU target of halving the number of road deaths between 2010 and the end of 2020 will not be met.
The article explains they're trying to reach zero by 2050 (I don't know if that sounds crazy to someone somewhere like the US, but I think some European locations are actually not far off this). But currently progress is too slow for achieving this goal.
I think one unexpected problem has been that the UK, which has phenomenally good road safety compared to most of the EU, has left, meaning that the statistics now look worse.
For example Oslo is one place that already cut road deaths (including cyclists and pedestrians) to literally zero by 2019. There were also literally zero child road deaths across the whole of Norway. I'm not sure it's unachievable. (The bigger goal is deaths and serious injuries.)
Well, it only takes one psycho to push a cyclist/pedestrian onto the road or under a train, like it happens surprisingly often in Germany and elsewhere. But I guess that's not reported as a road death. Zero is impossible.
Shouldn’t they measure in miles driven, not per population? And then cross reference other transit safety?
Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just sssume it is)
Failing to do so assumes people aren’t dying using other transit.
> Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just [assume] it is)
What is this less-safe transit option? I imagine that "road deaths" includes bus/tram riders, cyclists and pedestrians that died on the road. The number of people who died on trains/train tracks (excluding suicides) and planes is certainly at least an order of magnitude smaller.
In any statistic, you have to ask what the goal is.
Deaths per capita means reducing the mortality rate related to road use (driver, passenger, pedestrian, etc.)
Deaths per mile driving may include that, but may also include increasing the amount of driving done. Three times as much driving, with only twice as many deaths, would have a lower ratio, but would that really be an improvement?
Not in the Vision Zero goal.
The "death on roads" here appears to include car drivers and passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and "drivers of powered two-wheelers", according to the "more detail" link to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... . That is, even if there was no driving there could still be road deaths included in this sort of report.
The other modes not covered under "road safety" are "air", "rail", "maritime", and "inland waterways." I don't think many people are switching from road use to one of those other modes, except perhaps rail -- and rail is quite safe.
> A growing amount of evidence suggests that distraction whilst driving, in particular by mobile devices like smartphones, but also by electronic systems integrated in vehicles, is a major factor in causing crashes.
I'm surprised that the way "ridesharing" apps work, where IIUC near the end of the ride they push requests for subsequent rides that require action in a few seconds, is allowed at all. I frequently see drivers get distracted and swerve to interact with the phone.
These statistics are almost meaningless without other context: for instance Sweden has the ‘best’ stats for road deaths, but there are other factors that the raw figures don’t tell you:
- An important element is that car drivers are driving bigger and bigger vehicles that are safer for their occupants
- People here are also consuming new cars - which are also generally safer
- What the stats don’t show is that deaths and injuries for other road users are creeping upwards - not so much yet to offset the lives saved in the bigger/safer cars, but it’s a horrible cost to pay
- The main drawback is that road use is shifting almost entirely to cars: country roads are often practically impossible to cycle or walk on.
This last fact was really brought home to me over the summer: to get to the country place we vacationed in over the summer was a 20 minute drive from a local town. I intended to get some secondhand bikes for the whole family, but after just a week of using this road I realized that it was a no-go area for anything other than cars. The whole summer I saw maybe five/six cyclists on this road - and each time I felt they were defying death.
So removing all other road-users, or banishing them from the road to poorly-designed cycle lanes separate from the car traffic isn’t something shown by raw statistics.
> People here are also consuming new cars - which are also generally safer
Isn't that a core part of their strategy? Increasing vehicle safety standards (including for passengers)? I don't think that's some kind of gotcha - it's literally what they're trying to do.
It depends in what context the statistic is used. If you are looking just at vehicle deaths/injuries in general it is fine. If you are trying to justify that road designs and changes are improving driver outcomes, then it is deceptive.
Chris Boardman was saying this a few years ago [0]. He also notes that the safety aspect of cycling is often pushed on to cyclists themselves including useless distractions like helmets. His own mother was killed on a bicycle while wearing a helmet.
I ride my bike on the road a lot. I first got on a bike on the road as a child and learnt a lot of lessons then that I couldn't afford to learn now. After more than 25 years on the road I've seen it get worse and worse and it's not getting any better. I couldn't imagine getting on the road for the first time today. I'm sad to say I cannot in good faith recommend cycling to anyone.
We need to get rid of cars. They are unhealthy and a scourge. Too many adults let their bodies regress into useless blobs the moment they can get in a car. Streets all over the UK are packed with ugly cars parked dangerously, vagrantly disobeying the laws and parking illegally and dangerously around junctions and on footpaths.
Bicycles are beautiful technology. A machine which enables you to travel at least 3x faster, with luggage, using nothing but your own steam. Bicycles are quiet, clean, small, efficient and cheap. And we're paradoxically telling people they should use them, while still allowing untrained idiots to drive 3-ton trucks around them at high speeds on the same roads. It's insane.
Cars will not go. There are too many people for whom cycling is not an option, for various reasons.
However, I think the trend for ever bigger and more powerful cars absolutely should go and can go (if politicians choose to make the incentives right). Most people who drive SUVs could do with a subcompact (or less!).
In general, I'd be in favor of making roads friendly to all alternative modes of transport, whether that's foot, bicycle, velomobile, motorcycle, microcar, or whatever. Right now however the incentives are mostly aligned against such vehicles, and it is very dangerous to be on the road using a slow & lightweight vehicle mixing with fast, powerful, and large cars.
> There are too many people for whom cycling is not an option, for various reasons.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. 99% of adults are able bodied and capable of locomotion. Don't forget that most adults let their bodies regress back into a baby-like form. Weak and incapable. But it need not be the case.
> In general, I'd be in favor of making roads friendly to all alternative modes of transport
They shouldn't be considered "alternative modes of transport". That's the problem. Humans should have the right to move around safely.
19 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] threadWhatever we do to make things safer we eventually have to decide how much more effort we should put in and what we might have to give up in order to achieve the next increment of improvement.
There must be a cost benefit analysis that includes people's opinions about the status quo as well as any desired change.
> However, progress has slowed in most countries. As a result, the EU target of halving the number of road deaths between 2010 and the end of 2020 will not be met.
The article explains they're trying to reach zero by 2050 (I don't know if that sounds crazy to someone somewhere like the US, but I think some European locations are actually not far off this). But currently progress is too slow for achieving this goal.
I think one unexpected problem has been that the UK, which has phenomenally good road safety compared to most of the EU, has left, meaning that the statistics now look worse.
And yes railway deaths not reported as road deaths. You've got them there!
Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just sssume it is)
Failing to do so assumes people aren’t dying using other transit.
What is this less-safe transit option? I imagine that "road deaths" includes bus/tram riders, cyclists and pedestrians that died on the road. The number of people who died on trains/train tracks (excluding suicides) and planes is certainly at least an order of magnitude smaller.
Deaths per capita means reducing the mortality rate related to road use (driver, passenger, pedestrian, etc.)
Deaths per mile driving may include that, but may also include increasing the amount of driving done. Three times as much driving, with only twice as many deaths, would have a lower ratio, but would that really be an improvement?
Not in the Vision Zero goal.
The "death on roads" here appears to include car drivers and passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and "drivers of powered two-wheelers", according to the "more detail" link to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... . That is, even if there was no driving there could still be road deaths included in this sort of report.
The other modes not covered under "road safety" are "air", "rail", "maritime", and "inland waterways." I don't think many people are switching from road use to one of those other modes, except perhaps rail -- and rail is quite safe.
We can all be locked in our homes - nice and safe - but at that point there is no value to life.
Life comes with risks, and it is managing those risks that determines if a life is well-lived or not.
> A growing amount of evidence suggests that distraction whilst driving, in particular by mobile devices like smartphones, but also by electronic systems integrated in vehicles, is a major factor in causing crashes.
I'm surprised that the way "ridesharing" apps work, where IIUC near the end of the ride they push requests for subsequent rides that require action in a few seconds, is allowed at all. I frequently see drivers get distracted and swerve to interact with the phone.
- An important element is that car drivers are driving bigger and bigger vehicles that are safer for their occupants
- People here are also consuming new cars - which are also generally safer
- What the stats don’t show is that deaths and injuries for other road users are creeping upwards - not so much yet to offset the lives saved in the bigger/safer cars, but it’s a horrible cost to pay
- The main drawback is that road use is shifting almost entirely to cars: country roads are often practically impossible to cycle or walk on.
This last fact was really brought home to me over the summer: to get to the country place we vacationed in over the summer was a 20 minute drive from a local town. I intended to get some secondhand bikes for the whole family, but after just a week of using this road I realized that it was a no-go area for anything other than cars. The whole summer I saw maybe five/six cyclists on this road - and each time I felt they were defying death.
So removing all other road-users, or banishing them from the road to poorly-designed cycle lanes separate from the car traffic isn’t something shown by raw statistics.
Isn't that a core part of their strategy? Increasing vehicle safety standards (including for passengers)? I don't think that's some kind of gotcha - it's literally what they're trying to do.
I ride my bike on the road a lot. I first got on a bike on the road as a child and learnt a lot of lessons then that I couldn't afford to learn now. After more than 25 years on the road I've seen it get worse and worse and it's not getting any better. I couldn't imagine getting on the road for the first time today. I'm sad to say I cannot in good faith recommend cycling to anyone.
We need to get rid of cars. They are unhealthy and a scourge. Too many adults let their bodies regress into useless blobs the moment they can get in a car. Streets all over the UK are packed with ugly cars parked dangerously, vagrantly disobeying the laws and parking illegally and dangerously around junctions and on footpaths.
Bicycles are beautiful technology. A machine which enables you to travel at least 3x faster, with luggage, using nothing but your own steam. Bicycles are quiet, clean, small, efficient and cheap. And we're paradoxically telling people they should use them, while still allowing untrained idiots to drive 3-ton trucks around them at high speeds on the same roads. It's insane.
Cars need to go.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/31/chris-b...
However, I think the trend for ever bigger and more powerful cars absolutely should go and can go (if politicians choose to make the incentives right). Most people who drive SUVs could do with a subcompact (or less!).
In general, I'd be in favor of making roads friendly to all alternative modes of transport, whether that's foot, bicycle, velomobile, motorcycle, microcar, or whatever. Right now however the incentives are mostly aligned against such vehicles, and it is very dangerous to be on the road using a slow & lightweight vehicle mixing with fast, powerful, and large cars.
I know.
> There are too many people for whom cycling is not an option, for various reasons.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. 99% of adults are able bodied and capable of locomotion. Don't forget that most adults let their bodies regress back into a baby-like form. Weak and incapable. But it need not be the case.
> In general, I'd be in favor of making roads friendly to all alternative modes of transport
They shouldn't be considered "alternative modes of transport". That's the problem. Humans should have the right to move around safely.