Isn't it amazing how safety is a relative concept?

[gabe]

I was just reading some comments concerning a rail safety post. I didn't want to rudely pollute the article with a slightly different subject, so . . .

One of the posters (Jamie) noted that railroaders would be appalled at trucking fatalities. Something that has always amazed me is how safety is such a relative concept (and often driven by who has the direct out-of-pocket expense to pay for it).

Railroad and Airline fatalities are a mere fraction of highway fatalities. Yet, we continually struggle to make them safer while at the same time we sanguinarily disregard highway safety.

I think the difference is, for airline or rail safety, the public's perception is that someone else has to pay for the cost of the safety upgrades where as in highway safety, the public is left holding the bill at the car dealership.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

I have often wondered about differing perceptions. Nearly every morning here, the traffic reports note the closing of one highway or another because a truck has flipped on its side. There seems to be a fatality about half the time. But although, or maybe because, it happens every day, the whole thing is forgotten by noon.
But if a freight train puts five empty hoppers on the ground, without injury to much of anything, the TV copters are all over it. Railroad "fender benders" are always news.

[gabe]

Dare I say the "S" word, but I think the differing levels of safety required for highway as compared to rail transportation amounts to a defacto subsidy.

I am not suggesting we regulate rail less either . . . .

Gabe

[chad thomas]

When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license. Any idiot that can answer a few questions and drive around the block can get one.

One way to make the road safer is if people would GET OFF THERE D** CELL PHONES. It seems latly every time I see someone do something really stupid I look and see a cell phone in there hand ( and it is illegal here in california to talk on the cell phone while driving unless its hands free). I just want to jerk these people out of there cars, grab there cell phones and put it under there tire, and make them watch me run it over.

[soapbox]

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license. Any idiot that can answer a few questions and drive around the block can get one.

One way to make the road safer is if people would GET OFF THERE D** CELL PHONES. It seems latly every time I see someone do something really stupid I look and see a cell phone in there hand ( and it is illegal here in california to talk on the cell phone while driving unless its hands free). I just want to jerk these people out of there cars, grab there cell phones and put it under there tire, and make them watch me run it over.

[soapbox]

I agree with you regarding the cell phones. Stastically, it is much more dangerous to drive while talking on your cell phone than to drive with a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration.

However, I thought the drivers license test was sort of hard. I had to actually retake the test when I moved from Illinois to Indiana. I passed the Indiana Barr on my first effort; I can't say the same for the Indiana Drivers' license test.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

The numbers are astonishing, but meaningless unless put into perspective.

There have been years when traffic fatalities in the USA were greater than the entire combat losses reported from the Vietnam War (50,000 plus.)
Operation Iraqi Freedom has lasted for three years with just over 1,000 US combat casualities. That's roughly equivalent to an especially busy Labor Day weekend on US highways.

At the other end of the spectrum, British combat casualities in the first battle of the Somme, World War I, reached over 50,000 just in the first afternoon of the battle.

Which leads me to a question...

It's pretty well known that working on the railroad is a dangerous business to be in. (Imagine being identified as a railroad brakeman by the number of fingers you have left.... from link and pin accidents on couplers) Can anyone out there direct me to a website that has fatality information on railroad workers? I imagine life is statistically safer on the railroads now... but whether it's because the workers are more safety conscious or because there are a lot less of them would be interesting to know.

Erik

[tree68]

I once read an article that concluded that a NYC firefighter could expect to suffer a significant injury on the job something like once every 5 years, historically/statistically speaking. Not a pleasant forecast.

The usual method of presenting injury statistics in transportation is as a function of miles travelled. This is far more revealing than raw numbers, and easily explains the holiday blips in highway deaths that Erik cites. That's the type of data that folks use when they point out that you're safer in the air than on the way to the airport. Those statistics are compiled and available almost back to the dawn of the automotive age.

Thus it would make sense to measure RR casualties in terms of ton-miles (which doesn't necessarily address the lower number of people actually working on individual crews) or employee miles (1 train, two crew members, 100 miles equals 200 employee miles). Or there may be another variable that could be (or is) used.

In fairness to the truckers, there are many who go an entire career (I'm talking years, not weeks...) with little more than a couple of fender benders, often not even their fault.

And on the topic of cell phones, seems like I recently read that newer research is showing that just plain talking on a cell phone, hands-free or not, contributes to accidents. Although I haven't had an accident, I can certain vouch for that, and the incident didn't even involve a cell phone. I was talking on my fire department two-way radio, which nearly qualifies as hands free, as I don't have to hold it up to my ear.

The problem with anything like that (and it was definitely the case with the fire radio) is that you mind is on something other than the road. In my case, I was visualizing the fire scene and making initial plans for deployment of apparatus. It didn't help that two cars (one in each direction) decided to pull over for me, exactly opposite each other, so I had to "thread the needle." If you are having a discussion about something that can be visualized (it could be the aisles in the grocery store), and you have that image in your "mind's eye," you aren't focused on the road...

Whoops! Time to get off the[soapbox]

[jeaton]

Gabe,

I don't think it is who pays, but rather the general lack of understanding of risk. Erik alludes to some of the issues with his comparison of casualties of war vs. casualties from motor vehicle accidents. I think politics and the media have a great deal to do with our perception of what is dangerous. The former, because raising alarms get votes, the latter because of what sells.

Ask someone and they may tell you that the danger from terrorists, drug abusers, street violence and child predators is much greater than driving a car down the street on an errand. Sorry, it just ain't so.

Jay

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

I once read an article that concluded that a NYC firefighter could expect to suffer a significant injury on the job something like once every 5 years, historically/statistically speaking. Not a pleasant forecast.

The usual method of presenting injury statistics in transportation is as a function of miles travelled. This is far more revealing than raw numbers, and easily explains the holiday blips in highway deaths that Erik cites. That's the type of data that folks use when they point out that you're safer in the air than on the way to the airport. Those statistics are compiled and available almost back to the dawn of the automotive age.

Thus it would make sense to measure RR casualties in terms of ton-miles (which doesn't necessarily address the lower number of people actually working on individual crews) or employee miles (1 train, two crew members, 100 miles equals 200 employee miles). Or there may be another variable that could be (or is) used.

In fairness to the truckers, there are many who go an entire career (I'm talking years, not weeks...) with little more than a couple of fender benders, often not even their fault.

And on the topic of cell phones, seems like I recently read that newer research is showing that just plain talking on a cell phone, hands-free or not, contributes to accidents. Although I haven't had an accident, I can certain vouch for that, and the incident didn't even involve a cell phone. I was talking on my fire department two-way radio, which nearly qualifies as hands free, as I don't have to hold it up to my ear.

The problem with anything like that (and it was definitely the case with the fire radio) is that you mind is on something other than the road. In my case, I was visualizing the fire scene and making initial plans for deployment of apparatus. It didn't help that two cars (one in each direction) decided to pull over for me, exactly opposite each other, so I had to "thread the needle." If you are having a discussion about something that can be visualized (it could be the aisles in the grocery store), and you have that image in your "mind's eye," you aren't focused on the road...

Whoops! Time to get off the[soapbox]

What is the difference between having a conversation with your passenger and a hands free cell phone?

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe


What is the difference between having a conversation with your passenger and a hands free cell phone?

Well, for starters, your passenger has another whole set of eyes and ears.....

[gabe]

If your car had another whole set of brakes and steering wheel, I might find that significant.

[Mookie]

I am dead set against any form of cell phone in John/Jane Q Public's vehicle, unless it is used by a 2nd person - or unless they pull over, park and talk their heart out!

What can't wait until you can stop and do it safely?

Moo

[Anonymous]

Since this ties into a protion of this thread, which relates to road safety, it is "National Work Zone Awareness Week," April 3rd - April 9th. For more information follow this link: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=13208

[miniwyo]

Erik - This is the FRA stats for any accident you want to find. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.asp

The difference between trucks and trains are: if a truck wercks, there are far more people at risk of injury or fatalitiy than if a train were to crash.

[gabe]

I refuse to buy a cell phone (for iconoclastic reasons) so, it doesn't really affect me. And, I am certainly have noticed a lot of people with bad driving habits while using a hand-held cell phone. I am all for making that illegal.

I am just saying that most people who drive with a passenger talk with the passenger, and I don't see a lot of difference between that and a cordless cell. When I talk to my passenger, should I pull over and stop?

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen.

[Mookie]

lfish - I agree. When on a phone I really have to concentrate on the conversation. When in the company of a person, I don't concentrate as hard. Seems like I am less distracted when I drive and talk to a passenger.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish

Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen.

Ifish and Mookie,

The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . .

You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer.

I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . .

Gabe

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish

Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen.

Ifish and Mookie,

The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . .

You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer.

I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . .

Gabe

Well, you take the cases that are assigned.....

And re: cell phone vs person - think peripheral vision.

[kevarc]

How many times have you been behind another car and see the person laughing and not paying attention?

Aside about cell phones - That is all we have at our house, no land line anymore.

Another thing - I was standing in line at a store the other day waiting to check out and the girl behind me was on her cell. After a few minutes of hearing her life story - most of the people in the front of the store heard it, she was a bit LOUD, I finally told her that while her life history was interesting, esp. about the fellow she spent the weekend with (in graphic detail) I really didn't give a %$^% about it and my son really didn't need to hear the details. Guess what - she got PO'ed at me. Go figure. But I did get a round of applause from teh other people.

[tree68]

Many people have said that eating and/or drinking (we'll assume non-alcoholic beverages here) while driving is just as distracting as talking on a cell phone. Aside from dumping your Double Whopper with Cheese down the front of you, I generally disagree. Same goes for talking to someone in the car. Unless you are SO engrossed in eating or talking that your attention is truly diverted from driving, your attention is still with your vehicle. As several have mentioned, the focus of your attention while talking on a cell phone is generally someplace besides the car.

Don't believe it? Try talking to someone on your landline while sitting in front of the TV. Discuss something like a golf game or the renovations your friend is doing on a room. Then go back and describe, in detail, the television show you had on. You'll note I didn't say you were watching, because you can believe that you weren't.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license.

Chad,
The Wall Street Journal had an article on this very topic a couple years ago, where various US driving tests were compared with those in various countries in Europe. Hands down, the US ones were simpler.
Part of it was attributed to our consumerism culture in the US...GM, Ford, etc (and their cousins ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, etc. ) make a living off us continuing to buy or lease autos and drive them. In order to encourage that, we need easy license application processes, good roads, etc.

In the years past there was a phrase something like "What's good for GM is good for America". E-Z Licensing is good for GM...

MP

[gabe]

I have to admit, the ease of getting a license doesn't affect me that much. My experience as a former prosecutor tells me that those who can't get a license drive anyway.

Gabe

[DSchmitt]

Transportation Fatalities by Freight Transportation Mode

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/04factsfigures/table5_1.htm

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipping/statistics/safety.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855866.html

The 3 links above are the "raw" numbers not rates. They are all based on the same sources but there are some different catagory splits.


Transportation Fatality Rates: Note disclaimer quoated below.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/transportation_fatality_rates.html

"Fatality Data
Each transportation mode tends to define fatality differently and may generate its fatality data using different methods. Therefore, comparisons across modes should be viewed very carefully. For further information on modal fatality definitions, see the glossary section of this report."


The following rates are from the above web site:

Fatalities Per 100,000 U.S. residents (rate and number)
Air rate; 0.21 number: 609
Railroad rate: 0.33 number: 951
Transit rate: 0.10 numner: 285
Waterborne recreational boating rate: 0.29 number: 826
Pipeline rate: 0.004 number: 11
Highway rate: 14.87 number: 42,815
Total rate: 15.80 number: 45,497

NOTES: Air fatalities include air carrier service, commuter service, air taxi service, and general aviation. Highway fatalities include all types of highway motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Railroad fatalities include railroad and highway-rail grade-crossing incidents. Transit fatalities include motor bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, demand responsive, trolley bus, aerial tramway, automated guideway transit, cablecar, ferry boat, inclined plane, monorail, and vanpool. Waterborne fatalities include those due to vessel-related incidents or nonvessel- related incidents on commercial and recreational vessels. Pipeline fatalities include hazardous liquid pipelines and gas pipelines.

These fatality rates have not been adjusted to account for double counting across modes because the detailed fatality data needed to do so were not available at the time this report was prepared. Double counting is of particular concern across rail and highway modes due to highway-rail grade-crossings fatalities and across highway and transit due to transit bus fatalities. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that the double counting inflates the total fatality rate by about 0.1 fatality per 100,000 residents. Air and waterborne data are preliminary.

SOURCES: Except as noted-U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002, table 2-1 revised, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2004. Transit-USDOT, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Safety and Security Newsletter (Washington, DC: Spring 2003) available at http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Data/NTDNewsletters/Default.asp as of January 2004. Waterborne recreational boating-U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Boating Safety, Boating Statistics (Washington, DC: December 2003) available at http://www.uscgboating.org as of January 2004. Population-U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Population Estimates for the United States, available at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/NA-EST2003-01.php as of January 2004.

BTS • Research and Innovative Technology Administration • U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW • Room 3103 • Washington, DC 20590 • 800-853-1351 • [e-mail]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Is this a fair comparison? For instance out of 100,000 US residents: 99,000 might reguarly use highways. The number using railroads might be less than 1000. I don't have any idea what the real numbers would be.

There are a lot more deths on the highways than the railroads, but there are a lot more highway users than rail users.

This also applies to comparisions of trucker fatalities to railroad worker fatalities. There are a lot more truckers.

[daveklepper]

Talkling to another person in a car while driving takes far less concentration than talking on a phone. That is my experience, and I rarely used a cell phone while I drove, and then on those very rare occasions only when the rental car had been equipped with one, not a personal cell phone. Having a companion in the car and keeping up a conversation on a long trip can actually be a contribution to safety by preventing drowsiness . Good radio programs can do the same. I never found either a distraciton from attention to the road ahead.

Here is some terrible news. Around 1997 or 1998 GM actually hired MIT to develop a program to:

Get people to send more time in cars.

MIT came up with this answer:

Make the car equal to the home as the communications and entertainment center.

This is the honest truth.

I've been trying to get MIT to do the right thing for some nine or ten years with regard to both energy and transportation but President Charles Vest would not even answer my letters. All I would get would be letters from the Alumni Association asking for money. And a very good alumni magazine, Technology Review.

I am making a new attempt with the new President, a woman who has degrees in Medical Physics among other things and seems aware that the highways are the major USA health problem. I did get one polite response from her, so there is hope.

Instead of working on this fuel cell nonsense and the entertainment and communications in cars, MIT should concentrate all its efforts on highway safety, using the very latest and best communications and computer technology.

[Anonymous]

I agree that any time a person is distracted for any reason they are at risk of an accident.
Proper driving requires focus, periphiral vision and anticipation, which are not at the forefront when someone is on their cell, or munching a donut.
A co workers daughter was injured when driving down a busy four lane at speed, and another driver stuck the nose of her car too far out of a strip mall parking lot. Both were talking on cell phones at the same time.

Jimmy

[dwRavenstar]

Only my opinion and observation: When you're talking with a passenger in the car you're accepting responsibility for that person's safety and your observation of street situations should be heightened. You have no responsibility for the person on the phone.

I work in an extremely potentially dangerous environment and safety is stressed at every opportunity with good results as we'd gone 18 months without a lost work day accident up till last week when a guy pulled a muscle in his back. The back of my hardhat reads "keep yer HOYA" with HOYA (Head outta yer .....um....armpit?) in larger red letters. I told the Supervisors it's the new Alcoa safety message. Keeps the message in the back of my mind and in front of everyone else.

Few years back an Air Force pilot flew into the side of a mountain. The Air Force brass, in response to the "was it pilot error" question said "the pilot suffered a temporary, yet fatal loss of situational awareness"....... pilot error, maybe?

Cell phone or not, when behind the wheel Keep yer HOYA!!! [^]

Dave (dwRavenstar)

[spbed]

"They" say most accident occur around your home. As a example people living in the snow belt slipping on the ice & breaking bones. Or a car skidding on ice/snow? There are so many possibilities that to try to list them all would take like a very long time. Safety is something everyone should practice but in another thread a guy ran around the gates with the train coming while he made it what if did not & his car was splatter & hit cars waiting for the gates to go up? One guys silliness could affect other who supposely choose the "safe' method.[:o)][:I]

Originally posted by gabe

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply