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

[gabe]

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

[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]

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?

[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

[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]

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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