Traffic crashes 2003 - Isn't there a better/safer way?

[Anonymous]

Here is an article on the cell phone study.

    http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/62/71477.htm

Also google search on "cell phone cause accidents"

More on topic, what is the leading cause of grade crossing collisions? I would guess it is not "I didn't know the train was coming!" With the flashing lights and gate I can see the crossing here from a mile away, in daylight! I think it is probably trying to beat the train & going around the gate.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

They probably didn't include the accidents caused by the person on the cell phone, but in which the cell user wasn't involved in the collision....

The same applies to beverage drinkers, food eaters, sight seers, etc. so it all balances out.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks

- According to a recent survey I heard about on the radio, (not done by Verizon or Sprint!), cell phone usage does not appear to be a significant cause of highway crashes. They didn't say what % was significant.

They probably didn't include the accidents caused by the person on the cell phone, but in which the cell user wasn't involved in the collision....

Reminds me of an incident I heard of a while back. Two cars in an accident - woman on cell phone in one. When rescuers went to check on her, she waved them off, apparently because they were interrupting her call...

BTW - no slam on women - men are be equally as bad when it comes to cell phones.

[Anonymous]

Greetings;

To add perspective:
- In the nine years of the Vietnam "War" there were ~58,000 US casualties.
- In 2003 there were 325 deaths at grade crossings.

(FYI, most grade crossing accidents and deaths occurred in California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Louisiana.)

This is not to minimize or trivialize any of these deaths, but I feel that the effort should be applied to the biggest problem.

Other data points.
- According to a recent survey I heard about on the radio, (not done by Verizon or Sprint!), cell phone usage does not appear to be a significant cause of highway crashes. They didn't say what % was significant.

- Also, some years ago I read of a study that concluded that many of the single occupant highway fatalities may actually be suicides.

As far as grade crossing accidents and deaths are concerned, isn't the only way to really eliminate them to seperate the railroad and street? Orhow about just blocking them off with Jersey Barriers!

Good Luck!
Dennis

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lincoln5390

Why does our planning process force people to drive?

I agree with much of what you said, but look at the Fortune Top 50. All those automobile and oil companies sure have lobbyists over in DC. The lobbyists in turn inluence new laws that encourage more of the same...more consumption, etc.

The Fortune Top 50 make a lot more sales from a neighborhood full of cars as opposed to a transit or bus system. Developers, on the other hand, probably make more money where transit systems are in place (because of denser housing construction) so maybe those are the folks who we need to crank up the lobbying...

[Anonymous]

Why does our planning process force people to drive? Ever since we started building freeways professional planners have never questioned the constitutionality of allowing new development that's accessible and functional for motorists only. We should prohibit any new urban/suburban development that's not at least as accessible and functional for non-drivers as it is for those who drive. No one should be forced to depend on a mode of transportation so dangerous that it requires seat belts, air bags or crash helmets, but there are no mandates for a safer alternatives. Period! Paragraph! Furthermore . . .

[Overmod]

Princess Diana would almost certainly have lived had she been wearing a seat belt.

Statistics (perhaps as usual) don't tell a meaningful story here. You have to separate out some of the special (and in some cases unavoidable) factors in order to distinguish what should be done from what probably has to be 'tolerated' in a land with so many cars and the wherewithal to drive them whether or not licensed...

I would make a first cut in separating alcohol- and substance-related crashes out. Then perhaps follow New Jersey's lead by analyzing sleep-related problems, and developing approaches to address it (btw, I do NOT like the idea of trying to 'criminalize' lack of sleep using the same machinery as is now used for DUI/DWI).

The existing CYA method used by many jurisdictions (when an accident occurs, put traffic control at that location) is often useful, but the actual accident has to occur before the funds get allocated.

With respect to rail/car crashes, which is somewhat more on-topic here: While four-gate crossings are a bit more likely to reduce problems, they certainly don't solve them. I have personally seen delays due to vehicles knocking the barriers loose onto the track, and accidents caused by breaking through, lifting, or being caught between the barriers (a case of the latter having happened just recently in Germantown, Tennessee; I didn't see the impact but came to the scene before any police activity arrived).

I don't think it's likely that crossing problems are going to be solved without SIGNIFICANTLY better enforcement. Perhaps that means an extension of a MADD-like organization, that focuses on the real issues rather than serves as a mouthpiece for trial lawyers, combined with active camera systems. Cameras for crossings make much better sense in most cases, as an effective means of traffic-safety enforcement, than do cameras on traffic signals... and one would also note that enforcement could be much more dramatic and successfully prosecutable.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it's becoming possible to build inexpensive light-and-sound crossing alerts even for isolated, infrequently-used, or even private crossings. I don't object to spending billions for traffic safety... only to spending billions for only an incomplete 'solution' that often creates its own set of problems and issues, not to mention trying to soak the railroads for an extended portion of the cost of such solutions.

[tree68]

Saturday night I was out on a rollover accident - the driver went off the left side of the road for over 300 feet (and took out a mailbox), then crossed over to the right side, through some bushes, where the truck rolled on it's side, partially ejecting and pinning the driver under it. The top of the door was across his chest. Fortunately (for him) there was enough space under him that he was just uncomfortable (which point he made clear numerous times). He was medevac'd to a major hospital 70 miles away, where he refused treatment, and a BAC test. He was still charged with DWI.

While we were still on that scene, a neighboring department was dispatched to a serious accident. We'll never have all that answers on that one, though, as both drivers (sole occupants of their vehicles) died. Haven't heard any more details than that.

There are better/safer ways, but certain factors (machismo, cell phones, alcohol, etc) seem to interfere with them. Simple stuff like buckling your seatbelt (which would have saved us a lengthy extrication on that first accident) don't seem to find favor with all too many people. And don't get me started on cell phones. I learned from personal experience that they can get you into trouble very easily. Fortunately that experience didn't include any accidents.

Rail would help alleviate some of our problems, but there just isn't enough to do the job. Add to that the published facts that most accidents occur withing 25 miles of home, and most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45, and the case for trains gets a little weaker.

As was pointed out in another thread - a lot of "accidents" are really just collisions - there is no accident involved. Somebody wasn't paying attention.

[MP57313]

A prominent news story in news papers, on news web sites would raise awareness. There should also be some kind of breakdown / categories: - DUI, asleep at the wheel, speeding, etc. Also some meaningful comparison, such as deaths and injuries per miles traveled, or some other measure that makes sense.

Is the better.safer way you ask about to travel by rail?

[Anonymous]

The transportation department reported Tuesday:

42,643 people died in traffic crashes in the US in 2003.
That's 116 people each day.

2,890,000 people were injured in traffic crashes in the US in 2003.
That's 7,917 people each day.