[ExI] US traffic deaths dropped to new low

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] US traffic deaths dropped to new low

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:28 PM, spike  wrote:
> >... the pedestrian fatalities statistics a factor of 8 disagreement based

> on how they are counted.  Which is right?  When we see numbers like 
> those above, are we free to assume a factor of 8 uncertainty?  Plenty 
> of cases are unambiguous, but many are debatable how they should be
counted.

>...There is no discrepancy between the two sites that you quoted.  They are
both interpreting the same study.

Indeed?  Their interpretations disagree by a factor of 8? 

>...One is quoting pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents and the other
(quoting from the actual study) is quoting the Pedestrian Danger Index.  The
Index is a calculated figure and has no direct connection with the number of
fatalities...

Hmmm.  I fail to see what value is that index.  On the contrary, I see
negative value: it is misleading.

>...Quote:
Researchers at the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership in the 1990s
developed the Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) in order to establish a level
playing field for comparing metropolitan areas based on the danger to
pedestrians. The PDI corrects for the fact that the cities where more people
walk on a daily basis are likely to have a greater number of pedestrian
fatalities, by computing the rate of pedestrian deaths relative to the
amount of walking residents do on average.
-------------------

OK, well then.  I do urge a bit of intuition.  One of the sites was using
the pedestrian deaths to urge greater investment in better sidewalks and
crosswalks.  I saw four of the cities listed as the worst for walking.  I
have been in all four of those Florida cities.  My intuition is that better
sidewalks and crosswalks would do little or nothing to improve the
situation.  In the areas I suspect their pedestrian fatalities were
occurring, the ambiguity comes from something else entirely.  For instance,
if a prole drives into a neighborhood to purchase drugs, gets out of her
Detroit to complete the transaction, is shot by the competing pharmacist
next door and perishes on the sidewalk, is that a pedestrian fatality?  If
she manages to get back into her car and bleeds out while searching for a
medic, is that a traffic fatality?  If she perishes en route, crosses the
centerline and hits pedestrians, would better sidewalks have helped?

If one is in a neighborhood where one KNOWS one has no business being and
gets slain, is not that a suicide?  And if one actually lives in that
neighborhood, clearly that person does have business being in there, so is
that counted differently?  In those places where there are many homeless,
and they perish of exposure in the night, is that a pedestrian fatality?

Often we see public transit proposed as a solution, yet the local homeless
people use those as rolling shelters: they get aboard in the morning, ride
around all day, collect alms from the rich, enjoy the warmth of the very
expensive steam belching clean vehicle.

>> This uncertainty may get worse as the population ages and cars actually
get safer and better...

>Heart attacks while driving are a tiny factor in the total carnage figures.
But, even so they should still be included as a pointer to the need to make
car crashes more survivable. If the driver has a heart attack it would be
nice if crumple zones, airbags, safety belts, and other measures mean that
all the passengers survive...BillK

Heart attack while driving is an extreme example of something far more
common and becoming more so: driving while impaired by any medication or
medical condition.

spike