On The Road
by: Bill Oetinger 2/1/2008
Traffic safety: a culture of complacent incompetence
A little over a year ago, our friend Kathy Hiebel was run over and killed by a garbage truck while crossing Santa Rosa to meet the gang for our club's Friendly Friday ride. I wrote about her death in an essay at the time (Seize the Day), but that was mostly about the loss of our pal and not about any other aspects of the incident, for instance the questions it raises about bike safety.
I have been thinking about pursuing that end of the matter for all of the months since then. While the topic has been simmering on one of the little back burners of my brain, other items have come to my attention that have shed further light on it. All of them collectively have finally prompted me to proceed with an examination of the subject. But as I see it now, it's more than just a look at how safe or unsafe it is to ride a bike. It's that, certainly, but it's also about the entire culture of traffic safety at this time, in this place.
I will include links to some of these other items that seem relevant and provocative, but in the event that you don't choose to follow those links, or if you end up reading this at some future time when the links are no longer operative, I will attempt to paraphrase some of what is contained in those other articles and studies.
What you will see, if you follow the assorted links, is that there is no shortage of statistics covering the questions of traffic safety, with respect to both cycling and to driving and transportation in general. The old maxim that we can make statistics say anything we want them to say would appear to be alive and well in this context. For instance, one study claims that it is somewhere between three times and ten times as dangerous to ride a bike as it is to drive a car. In counterpoint to that, another study claims that driving a car is almost twice as dangerous as riding a bike. (Both of these research estimates are cited in a 2007 article by Alan Durning. If you follow this link to his article, you can then pursue further links to the research studies in question. There are numerous other references in his piece, as well as a good deal of common-sense commentary in his own words, pursuant to the various studies.)
Naturally, I prefer the set of stats that asserts that cycling is actually safer than driving. This conclusion was put forward by a group called Failure Analysis Associates, described as "one of the world's leading engineering firms in the specialty field of quantifying risk exposure and preventing mechanical failure." They present a chart under the heading, "Estimate of Fatal Risk by Activity," which lists fatalities-per-million-exposure-hours for all sorts of activities. Cycling's rate is listed at .26 (just below water skiing's .28). Travel in passenger cars is rated at .47. Make of it what you will.
The problem with all such stats is that they're overly simplistic. In the case of the "activity" of cycling, they do not appear to differentiate between the many different subsets within the vast family of cyclists. We know, for instance, that children crash more frequently than adults, and that college-age riders also crash more than supposedly more mature, "grown-up" riders. Durning makes the good point as well that, in the current culture of cycling, when many would-be riders consider cycling too risky, we end up with a cycling population that is skewed toward those who are not deterred by that presumptive level of risk. They are, to put it simply, risk takers, or at least somewhat more comfortable with the notion of risk. To make the point, I'll overstate it a little: the stereotypical adult cyclist in this country at this time is someone who doesn't mind living out on the edge, pushing the envelope. That cyclist shrugs off the presumptive risk and keeps right on riding. In fact, many of those edgy riders may even get a charge out of pushing the envelope...thrill seekers.
Durning argues that those supposedly carefree, even daredevil, risk-takers may skew the danger statistics because they live out on the edge where accidents happen more frequently. If cycling were perceived to be safer, then perhaps more cautious, moderate folks might take up the activity, resulting in a reduction in the danger numbers.
And as he also points out, the risk of accidents in cycling is more than compensated for by the healthful benefits of cycling...the cardio-vascular stimulation and all that good stuff we appreciate. Somewhere in his essay is a link to a study that attempts to quantify this: that the risk of dying of heart disease if you don't cycle is far greater than the risk of dying in an accident if you do cycle.
Whether you feel that cycling is safer than traveling in a car, or whether you feel that cycling is safe at all, one thing is certain: it could be safer. And so, for that matter, could driving. I have written in the past about differences in the traffic culture in the United States compared to Europe (How's my driving?). A recent study by the American Automobile Association goes into this matter in great depth. How much depth? A compendium of essays and articles by experts in the field totaling nearly 400 pages. Fortunately, for those of us with limited attention spans, they have also published a summary that runs to just nine pages, plus several more pages of references and links to the many essays and studies contained in the main work.
The study is titled Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United States. So far, I have only read the summary. I am promising myself that I will go back and read at least some of the full essays, but for now, the summary does a good job of, well, summing things up. If I may sum up the summary in a sentence, the main theme here is that we, in America, are living in a culture of complacency when it comes to the dangers of traffic. Every year, somewhere over 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in this country. Almost 43,000 in 2006. 116 per day. That's the equivalent of two jumbo jets falling out of the sky and killing everyone on board, every week of the year, year after year after year.
If that sort of aviation carnage were really to happen, our world would pretty much grind to a halt. The media feeding frenzy would be off the chart, and the public simply would not stand for it. And yet, somehow, we manage to assimilate this astonishing level of death and destruction in auto accidents with little more than a shrug. For the record, commercial aviation fatalities in the US currently average 22 a year, compared to those 43,000 auto deaths, and yet many people persist in the delusion that air travel is more hazardous than auto travel.
The AAA study suggests several reasons why this irrational and erroneous risk assessment is so common, and it's instructive to read what these are. But the point they make at the end is this: it doesn't have to be this way. We do not have to accept this terrible, pandemic trauma as the price we pay for the convenience of our cars.
In fact, several countries have made great strides in reducing auto carnage. Sweden, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, among others, have been working on the problem in a concerted way for many years, and they have seen substantial, in some cases enormous reductions in accidents, fatalities, and injuries. But it takes a massive effort across many fields to make it happen, and it has to begin with a total commitment to altering the basic behavior--the essential mindset--of every single driver (and cyclist). So far, that sort of 100% commitment has not been evident in this country.
Actually, our roads are much safer than they were a few years ago. There are 10,000 fewer fatalities per year now than there were in the early 70's, and considering that we're all logging many more miles--more cars on the road by far--the real rate of fatalities has fallen even more dramatically. Some of this is due to social pressure (that is, education coupled with enforcement): the increase in use of seat belts and child safety seats, and the increase in the use of helmets for cyclists. Some of it can be credited to technological advances: air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, better highway engineering, etc.
Unfortunately, those technological advances are somewhat offset by the horrific plague of SUVs and large pick-ups clogging our roads (a uniquely American phenomenon). Their massive size and weight translates as terrible handling, increased rollovers, longer braking distances, and far greater blunt-trauma mayhem when the big lunkers hit something, be it another car, a pedestrian, or a cyclist. The fact that they have been marketed as being "safer" than smaller cars represents a level of fraud and calculated greed on the part of the auto industry that is truly criminal.
Between the scourge of monster vehicles and the complacent, willfully oblivious attitudes of many drivers, we in this country have fallen well behind in the matter of traffic safety. While traffic fatalities were dropping 19% in the United States from 1970 to 2004, they dropped 46% in Canada, 57% in Great Britain, 58% in Australia, 63% in Sweden, and 75% in the Netherlands. The traffic fatality rate per population is now almost 50% lower in Australia than in the United States. To put it bluntly, for the country that has the most advantages and the most resources for solving such a problem, the fact that we have not done so is shameful and inexcusable.
How does all this relate to cyclists? An average of slightly less than 800 people die each year in bike accidents. Of those, the vast majority die because they were hit by a car or truck, and in the vast majority of those cases, the drivers say they never saw the cyclists. How can you not see a cyclist that you've just run into or over? The simple answer is that the drivers weren't paying attention. (I am reminded of an accident reported in our local paper a few years back: an elderly lady driver hit a large adult cyclist; he flew up, bounced off her windshield and rolled on over her roof and off the back of the car. She told the police: "I thought I hit a tin can!")
This brings me around to another couple of items that have come to my attention in recent months. One of them many of you may have seen. It was a long, painful article in a recent Bicycling magazine about a series of cycling fatalities and accidents in Sonoma County. It began with the story of poor Ross Dillon, a friend and riding companion for many of us, who was struck from behind by a woman whose car had drifted onto the shoulder of the road while she was rummaging around in the back seat, looking for something to eat. All of the other accidents discussed in the article--involving three fatalities and one young woman left paralyzed--were caused by drunken drivers. I discussed the terrible problem of drunk drivers at the time of one of those much publicized killings (Sharing the Road...With Drunks, and a follow-up in Loose Ends). It's an especially acute part of the traffic safety challenge, and it's inextricably mixed up with the whole culture of complacency (or indifference or cluelessness).
17,000 of the country's annual fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. That's an appalling, obscene, intolerable figure. But I've already chewed on that issue in the previous columns. What I'm concerned about now are the other 25,000 fatalities and millions of injuries that have been caused by other things. Some will be blamed on excessive speed or reckless driving. Some will have been caused by road rage or some other manifestation of a tormented, twisted soul behind the wheel. But a huge, huge number of deaths and injuries will be chalked up in a column that can best be summed up with one word: "Oops!"
One of our club members who lives up in Redding sent me an article recently from their local paper about a woman cyclist who had been killed by a woman driver who--shades of Ross Dillon--had drifted onto the shoulder while she was rummaging around in the back seat for her baby's bottle. In the end, the District Attorney decided not to press for any criminal charges against the driver because it was just one of those "oops" sorts of accidents.
She was of course held to be at fault, as was the driver in the Ross Dillon case, as was the woman who killed three or four cyclists in the East Bay when she drifted onto the shoulder while hunting for a tape casette. But none was judged to be guilty of any criminal negligence...no suggestion of vehicular manslaughter or something similar.
The DA's decision not to prosecute provoked an interesting discussion on our club's chat list. In response to howls of outrage from some, the point was made by several people, including me, that as our laws are currently written, and as our culture is currently constituted, those drivers were really not guilty of anything but carelessness. "Oops! Sorry about that!" And further, that all of us are in the same sorry boat on this one: that all of us, at least a few times, have been guilty of inattention and loss of focus when driving our cars and trucks; that we too have drifted onto the shoulder or slightly misjudged a corner while looking at the scenery or daydreaming or multi-tasking. In most cases, we've gotten away with those lapses because no cyclists or cars or pedestrians happened to be in the wrong place at that wrong time to get caught up in our little oops moments. None of us is without fault, so who among us is there to cast the first stone?
That brings us back to the AAA study about a paradigm shift in the attitudes we, as a society, bring to the matter of traffic safety...the matter of personal and civic responsibility for managing this lethal red tide of auto accidents. The study speaks of an urgent need to completely rethink our attitudes and values about what it means to be in control of a motor vehicle; that allowing for a lax and lazy inattention when behind the wheel is simply unacceptable anymore. This new mindset was nicely put into words by one of our club members, with reference to the non-prosecution of the driver in Redding...
"Perhaps it is my acute sense of justice, but I actually think this is a pretty straightforward call (whether the driver was criminally culpable). It is NOT an ‘accident' if you crash performing an act which you know, or should have known, could result in a crash. Activities in this category would include operating a cell phone, texting, eating, shaving, putting on your makeup, reaching for food in the back of the car, or picking up a baby bottle. Picking up a stack of CDs from the floor of the vehicle would also count. Changing the dial on the radio? If it leads you to drive off the edge of the road several feet and strike a cyclist, you bet! Unexpected events, like a seizure, stroke, heart attack--even a sneeze, I guess--since they are not volitional, would not lead to liability. I admit that new laws would be needed to make this enforceable. But there is precedent in the drinking-and-driving laws.
"Those of us who are old enough remember a time, not that long ago, when drinking and driving was tolerated. It took outrage to change the laws and the public consciousness, but change did occur. I doubt there are many now who would be anything other than incensed if a drunk driver killed a cyclist or another motorist. Back in the day though, a drunk driver who killed someone was met with a shrug and a slap on the wrist. Good people worked long and hard to change that attitude, but they were successful.
"I am sure these drivers are remorseful. They should be; but it is not enough punishment. Our criminal code is based on the notion of deterrence. If people know they are going to be held responsible for negligent acts, they will change their behavior."
The response to this by another member was also good...
"All excellent points. We are where we are, today. As others have said, the opportunity here is education. Today, reaching for a bottle is quite tolerated, while DUI is not. That's just reality. Police will cite a DUI. But not someone doing the things you mention. As such, the punishment for the bottle can't be equal to DUI (in today's world, in my opinion). If, through education, discussions like this, raising public awareness, etc., society collectively shifts and elevates the bottle reach closer to DUI levels, then criminal recourse is more/very appropriate. That would happen years down the road. I don't think it's right, in today's world, to say, since we want to get to that place, that we should punish this particular driver using the DUI sorts of punishments. That isn't just, in my opinion. She shouldn't be made an example. Plus, according to the laws mentioned by the DA in the article, she'd have a max penalty of one year and a $1000 fine. I'd find it actually wrong to see a person spend a few months in jail (good behavior, etc) and pay a token penalty. That leaves the impression that the scales of justice have balanced out: one dead person on one side; four months/$500 bucks on the other. That's distasteful. But years from now, when society's collective view of driving makes the things you mention more like DUI... then yes, this driver would be subject to a DUI-like consequence. Let's hope we get to that day."
Will we ever see that day? The AAA study insists that we must see that day, not only in terms of punishments to fit the crimes, but in terms of all of us taking the job of driving (and cycling) more seriously.
There is another side to this as well, and that is the commitment that communities can (and must) make to improving the traffic infrastructure. This is an especially acute issue with respect to cycling.
Kathy Hiebel was killed by what in cycling parlance is called a "right-hook." The truck driver made a right turn in front of her; she ran into the side of the turning truck and was pulled under the wheels. The driver admitted that he had seen her as they both approached the intersection. But as they both sat at the red light, he had forgotten about her, standing over her bike, just to the right of his cab and below his window. He quite literally overlooked her.
Right-hooks are one of the most common traffic accidents to afflict cyclists. I have personally been right-hooked at least three times, and only split-second reactions on my part saved me from Kathy's fate. In a couple of those cases, I was able to, shall we say, bring the matter somewhat forcefully to the attention of the drivers. Both of them were astonished to find they had cut me off. Both claimed to have not seen me.
Now the city of Portland, Oregon is doing something to address the right-hook hazard. They are repainting several intersections along popular bike routes with a space called a bike box where cyclists can wait out a signal ahead of the cars and in plain view of the drivers, where they can't be overlooked. Almost certainly, such a box--a tiny infrastructure adjustment--would have saved Kathy's life.
Portland is one American city that has been consistently proactive and visionary in the field of traffic engineering to protect and promote cycling. We need more cities and counties and states to be equally receptive to such modifications...to this sort of rethinking of our priorities. In most of Europe, such bike-friendly systems are commonplace. Cycling is seen to be a viable and normal part of the traffic mix, and all appropriate steps are taken to see that it functions safely and smoothly as part of the whole fabric of the community...not as some irrelevant and irritating fringe binge for a small cult of crazies.
Lord knows where the money will come from to implement the changes, as long as our politicians continue to mismanage things as they are doing now. Don't get me started on that topic! But if a big city like Portland can do it, why can't other cities, other counties?
Finally, there is the matter of cycling smarts. With 20-20 hindsight, it's possible to suggest that Kathy should have created her own de facto bike box by placing herself in front of the truck; by making some sort of eye contact with the driver to let him know she was still there. We can't know what was in her mind in that final minute of her life, but I knew here pretty well, and I can guess that she was probably, without really thinking about it, trying to stay out of the way of the traffic; to not be a bother to the big cars and trucks around her. That self-effacing, overly accommodating mindset is common among cyclists. Some of the time, it's the right position to take. No point in being obnoxiously assertive for no good reason. But quite often, being assertive and taking the lane is exactly what one needs to do...to be seen and to be taken seriously as an integral part of the traffic pattern.
Bike skills and bike smarts: knowing, first of all, how to ride a bike and, second, how to ride in traffic. For the most part, in this country, we have no system for teaching potential riders either fundamental bike handling skills or the savvy needed for operating in traffic. I lamented this educational void in yet another recent column (School Daze). As we work toward a change in driver behavior (and thinking) and as we lobby for more and better bike-friendly infrastructure, we also need to consider the question of biker education. Currently, skills clinics for adults are few and far between. When they can be found, they're elective and usually cost money. Bike education for kids is in about the same sad state: a few volunteers conduct bike rodeos at schools and so forth, but the effort is far from comprehensive.
There are a few glimmers of hope in this department. Grants have come down the uncertain pipeline of government funding to help promote safe routes to schools in several of our local communities. School systems in some cities are implementing bike skills education programs as a mandatory part of their curricula. But so far, the projects and efforts are spotty. We need much, much more of the same, and we need adult rider education that is accessible and appealing for the widest number of riders. Much as I hate the Big Brother approach to solving problems, it might even be worth considering some sort of licensing system for cyclists: a certification showing that they have completed a proper skills training program.
Okay, okay...I know that's going to leave a sour taste in the mouths of a lot of riders, especially those lone wolf renegades with the live-free-or-die mentality (the same riders who scoffed at helmet use not too long ago). But we're all in this together...the cyclists, the car and truck drivers, and the larger community (government). We all have to do our parts. It's going to take a long time to turn this big super-tanker around. If you think it's hard to regulate or curtail the possession and use (or abuse) of guns in this country, imagine how much harder it will be to modify the behavior of people when it comes to their supposed "right" to do whatever they want while driving their cars.
I don't know if I'll see this turn-around in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We do what we can, each of us individually and all of us collectively, one little bike box at a time; one howl of outrage at a time; one elementary school bike rodeo at a time. Someday, maybe, things will be different. And in the meantime, we do the one thing we do best: we keep riding.
Bill can be reached at srccride@sonic.net