When I read this and the mention of Crash Analysis Studios, as a pilot, I immediately thought of how the aviation community treats accidents vs. the traffic system. Then I click through to the Crash Analysis Studio site, and voila, the video makes just that comparison.
If we took traffic safety as seriously for the accidents that cause >40,000 road fatalities each year as we do for the <400 general aviation accidents we could save thousands of lives. That safety culture, that learning from mistakes vs. assigning blame, that focus on improving the system at its core is one of aviation's strength that we could very much learn from for road traffic.
So great that you're bringing that mindset to cities with Crash Analysis Studios!
If I may propose a reset because my initial comment was parsimonious: "Yes, the streets are not engineered for safety, yet it’s still useful to remind drivers that they can be safer. We can chew gum and walk at the same time."
In the long run, engineering gives us the most bang for the safety buck. But we can do other things, and these are not all operating on the same timelines, so they are not always competing for resources.
I am arguing that engineering and scolding are complementary, so any comment that is explaining to me the merits or even the advantages of engineering to me is preaching to the choir. I am complaining about opposition to education programs and opposition to the notion that people can behave better, both in the absence of engineering improvement and in the cases that engineering doesn't reach. What's absurd about the opposition to education is that there are many opportunities to improve by ceasing to do things that are bad. Cell phone use while driving is such an example.
Yes, the streets are not engineered for safety, yet it’s still useful to remind drivers that they can be safer. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.
Is there any strategy of education and enforcement of drivers that will get us to a safe transportation system without different engineering? Not a chance.
Do most crashes, including fatal crashes, involve a driver operating their vehicle in what society would deem a normal and acceptable way? Yes, most of them do.
The reaction to chastise drivers is the equal and opposite reaction to the reaction to chastise people walking and biking. It's a distraction, at best.
Your claim is contrary to Fighting Traffic by Peter Norton, which argues that the Motordom revolution of the 1920s was one of social and legal constructions. Not much urban road engineering preceded WWII in the US.
This is a traffic safety own goal: “
“The reaction to chastise drivers is the equal and opposite reaction to the reaction to chastise people walking and biking. It's a distraction, at best.”
The most direct solution to bad behavior is people simply refraining from bad behavior. Car dependence is hard to beat, but within the constraints of car dependence, there are many bad behaviors, and it’s sad that safety advocates are granting absolution. If you need to drive, you didn’t need to drive the overpowered Wankpanzer. If you needed to commute, did you need to commute 50 miles instead of 10? Does your foot need to be so heavy on the accelerator? And for god’s sake, the cell phones. We should be ridiculing this without mercy.
Go ahead and ridicule if the goal is self satisfaction.
If the goal is safety, then we have to deal with the fact that people in 2026 live far from where they work, drive larger vehicles than they need, and ride of streets designed with the dimensions of a highway.
We have shown that small changes in street design have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the driver, reducing speeds, lowering kinetic energy, and improving safety. We have also shown that reducing conflict points along roadways improves travel times while also improving safety.
I have guesses -- most uncharitable -- as to why so many safety advocates insist on ridicule as a core strategy, but the science of traffic shows that it is ineffective at actually improving safety. Why not do what works instead of trying to change the humans to be what we think they should be?
Do you want a transformative mass movement around road safety based on people changing their driving behavior? It seems hard to achieve because there are a lot of old people, drunk drivers, high drivers, illegal immigrants with CDLs, and our country is so segmented today that it is unlikely that such a movement can transform all cultures within the US to become safe drivers especially when the method of doing so is ridicule.
When I read this and the mention of Crash Analysis Studios, as a pilot, I immediately thought of how the aviation community treats accidents vs. the traffic system. Then I click through to the Crash Analysis Studio site, and voila, the video makes just that comparison.
If we took traffic safety as seriously for the accidents that cause >40,000 road fatalities each year as we do for the <400 general aviation accidents we could save thousands of lives. That safety culture, that learning from mistakes vs. assigning blame, that focus on improving the system at its core is one of aviation's strength that we could very much learn from for road traffic.
So great that you're bringing that mindset to cities with Crash Analysis Studios!
Thank you. We're really excited to watch more and more places embrace this idea.
The reductio ad absurdum of this for me are the suggestions that pedestrians dress in high viz gear in order to avoid getting driven into
Here's one aimed at the driver, not the walker, but it still tries to affect human behavior rather than changing the road to reduce the danger..
Content warning: it's rather graphic. Not gory, but Aussie and Brit PSAs will use gut-level emotion to affect behavior. This is one of them.
https://youtu.be/q9fms5He5bM?si=UvNTr9OHbfcfaUFF
If I may propose a reset because my initial comment was parsimonious: "Yes, the streets are not engineered for safety, yet it’s still useful to remind drivers that they can be safer. We can chew gum and walk at the same time."
In the long run, engineering gives us the most bang for the safety buck. But we can do other things, and these are not all operating on the same timelines, so they are not always competing for resources.
I am arguing that engineering and scolding are complementary, so any comment that is explaining to me the merits or even the advantages of engineering to me is preaching to the choir. I am complaining about opposition to education programs and opposition to the notion that people can behave better, both in the absence of engineering improvement and in the cases that engineering doesn't reach. What's absurd about the opposition to education is that there are many opportunities to improve by ceasing to do things that are bad. Cell phone use while driving is such an example.
Yes, the streets are not engineered for safety, yet it’s still useful to remind drivers that they can be safer. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.
Can drivers can be safer? Sure.
Is there any strategy of education and enforcement of drivers that will get us to a safe transportation system without different engineering? Not a chance.
Do most crashes, including fatal crashes, involve a driver operating their vehicle in what society would deem a normal and acceptable way? Yes, most of them do.
The reaction to chastise drivers is the equal and opposite reaction to the reaction to chastise people walking and biking. It's a distraction, at best.
Your claim is contrary to Fighting Traffic by Peter Norton, which argues that the Motordom revolution of the 1920s was one of social and legal constructions. Not much urban road engineering preceded WWII in the US.
This is a traffic safety own goal: “
“The reaction to chastise drivers is the equal and opposite reaction to the reaction to chastise people walking and biking. It's a distraction, at best.”
The most direct solution to bad behavior is people simply refraining from bad behavior. Car dependence is hard to beat, but within the constraints of car dependence, there are many bad behaviors, and it’s sad that safety advocates are granting absolution. If you need to drive, you didn’t need to drive the overpowered Wankpanzer. If you needed to commute, did you need to commute 50 miles instead of 10? Does your foot need to be so heavy on the accelerator? And for god’s sake, the cell phones. We should be ridiculing this without mercy.
Go ahead and ridicule if the goal is self satisfaction.
If the goal is safety, then we have to deal with the fact that people in 2026 live far from where they work, drive larger vehicles than they need, and ride of streets designed with the dimensions of a highway.
We have shown that small changes in street design have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the driver, reducing speeds, lowering kinetic energy, and improving safety. We have also shown that reducing conflict points along roadways improves travel times while also improving safety.
I have guesses -- most uncharitable -- as to why so many safety advocates insist on ridicule as a core strategy, but the science of traffic shows that it is ineffective at actually improving safety. Why not do what works instead of trying to change the humans to be what we think they should be?
Read more history.
Do you want a transformative mass movement around road safety based on people changing their driving behavior? It seems hard to achieve because there are a lot of old people, drunk drivers, high drivers, illegal immigrants with CDLs, and our country is so segmented today that it is unlikely that such a movement can transform all cultures within the US to become safe drivers especially when the method of doing so is ridicule.