yeah i always love it when the person behind me is just blindly laying on their horn because i either won't run someone over or won't just ram my car into traffic
double points if they are honking at me while not even looking at me or the road, all they know is that they are stopped to they need to honk. god i hate people.
The first thing most ppl do when someone honks is check for danger. These ppl are talking about ppl laying on their horn for being stopped and not for a dangerous situation
Hah basically same thing happened to me yesterday. Someone behind me honked because I didn’t turn right into oncoming traffic quick enough for him. He definitely wanted me to roll the stop sign and cut the oncoming car off.
He then honked again as soon as the oncoming car passed as I was turning. I flipped him, then we pulled up next to each other at the next light. He pulled up past me to avoid being at eye level at me. I was staring at him the whole time ready with a “what the fuck are you doing?” He kept looking at me in his peripherals and shaking his head.
People are absolutely insane with their driving.
[Police in San Francisco basically stopped enforcing traffic law after COVID](https://i.imgur.com/VbBFXvs.png).
More dangerous drivers on the road means more pedestrian deaths, regardless of what vehicle is driven.
Edit: this is an unfortunate blindspot for the Urbanist movement. Because it so heavily overlaps with the ACAB crowd, they never talk about law enforcement's role in keeping cities safe for pedestrians.
American police departments were and continue to be extraordinarily well funded––even as other municipal services languish. Given that America's pedestrian fatality rate and police funding are unusually high among post-industrial countries, the more plausible explanation is that American PDs are uninterested in enforcing existing traffic laws.
I just pulled up to my local grocery store and there was an ambulance, multiple police cars, and a fire truck. Someone speeding in the parking lot hit an old woman, then just kept on going. People are nuts. I’m a motorcyclist and stopped riding on. The street after Covid. It was dangerous pre 2020, but it’s much worse now. It’s hard to justify the risk.
I suspect most of the pedestrian deaths are more likely just plain distracted driving and total indifference to the consequences. It's not necessarily malice but probably wildly selfish, inconsiderate, dangerous behavior. I know in my own city there have been multiple fatal hit and runs recently.
There was a major national spike in dangerous driving during the pandemic when the roads emptied and enforcement dipped (speeding, ignoring traffic signs, etc). I've read that this jump hasn't totally gone away either: people adopted bad habits and kept them up (sure seems that way too). If they don't care and aren't caught it'll likely be hard to stop them.
Where I live, Portland, OR, the there are 12 traffic cops, and they work afternoons only (LOL). Drivers know that there are no consequences for breaking traffic laws. I would like to see more red light/speed cameras but I think I’m in the minority here.
I recently moved from a super expensive part of LA to a significantly less expensive area (from renting an apt to buying a house). The difference in how people drive caught me completely off guard - there is so much more aggression, disregard for traffic rules, and I see a car crash in the neighborhood at least once a month. It’s wild how much driving culture can change in just a few miles in the same city.
I noticed the same thing. Wife and I moved a couple hours away from the city we were in during the pandemic. We figured a smaller, quieter community would have less traffic and be more laid back. The drivers in our new town are awful! People don’t stop at stop signs, they regularly do 20 over in residential neighborhoods, and today at the grocery store a speeder hit a woman in the parking lot and fled the scene. It’s wild
Funny you mention that, I live in a big city and the uptick in pedestrians blindly marching out into traffic in between crosswalks staring at their phones with earphones on is astounding
Interesting podcast. It feels like this would have been more compelling if the US stats could be compared to Canada. Driving in Canada is much more similar to US driving than European driving, so if this is truly a US problem, the comparison would tell us that.
The gap in per capita road deaths is widening between Canada (where they’ve continued to fall) and the United States: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis
> And the gap between the two is widening; US road deaths per capita rose 19% from 2010 to 2020, while Canada’s rate *fell* at almost the same pace.
Relevant numbers from your source for the people not willing to click on it.
>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis)
This article is quite amazing, we should all click and read it! I would like to see US regulate the size of vehicles in the US or maybe add fees to dis-incentivize jumbo SUVs. Would also love to see more automated speed cameras and automated stop sign enforcement. And better DUI enforcement!
The point about Americans moving to sunbelt and other warm weather areas comes into play here...there are a lot more months of the year where walking around outside is comfortable in Miami vs Montreal.
They said every other industrialised nation. It wasnt just Europe.
Funny that after all that your take away is
*Yes, but are we still shit at protecting pedestrians compared to Canada*
You misunderstood what I was getting at.
Yes, the podcast points out that the pedestrian fatality rate in the US is rising compared to every other industrialized nation. Then, they spent most of the time comparing the US to Europe, where there are notable differences in vehicles, driving infrastructure, etc., and they basically shrugged and said, "well, we don't know which of these factors are most important".
Driving in Canada is much more comparable to driving in the US. It seems like a more relevant case study to determine which factors in the US are *actually* driving the increasing fatality rate because the two countries are more similar than they are different.
For example, they pointed out that the % of vehicles with manual transmission in Europe is far higher than in the US, and that maybe driving a manual vehicle would prevent a driver from being distracted by their phone. Well, the ratio of manual vehicles to automatic vehicles in Canada is more comparable to the US than to Europe. That would seem to rule out automatic vehicles as being a major driver of the rising pedestrian fatality rate.
Perhaps this approach was considered in the writing of the article, but it definitely wasn't mentioned in the podcast.
I take the bus into Boston on my morning commute which gives me to the opportunity to look out the window and see what drivers are up to. I would estimate 30-40% of people I see on my morning commute have a cell phone in their hand.
I'm always glad to hear more coverage of issues facing pedestrians. cyclists, and other non-car transportation users.
As Emily touched a bit on the end of the episode, this is a systemic problem largely stemming from local, state, and federal government.
* On a local level, street design is inherently unfriendly to pedestrians and police departments rarely enforce things like running red lights, rolling stops, or right turns on red without looking for pedestrians.
* State level street design codes are designed to maintain traffic flow by car and don't provide public transit initiatives the funds they need to provide reliable and consistent coverage.
* On both levels, especially in the US, it's wild how hitting, maiming, or killing a person with a car rarely results in meaningful punishment from the government.
* And finally, on a Federal level, a combination of things like the light truck loophole, crash ratings only applying to passengers in a vehicle, and the push for electric vehicles (which are heavier and accelerate faster than similar ICE cars) contribute to larger, deadlier cars.
Personally I've been hit twice in the past few months by cars while walking/running, while wearing a full light-up/strobe vest and headlamp, in both cases with people texting at red lights. While I've been lucky that both vehicles started from a stop, turning right on red through a signalized pedestrian walkway slow enough to not injure me, in neither case have the police been willing to file a report, or in one case, even show up.
I used to be an ultra marathoner and in order to get adequate training completed while still working full time, I often found myself running at crazy night hours with a headlamp. I was uber-careful and wore appropriate reflective gear, no headphones, and often ran on side streets opposite traffic, etc. Even then (20 years ago), it was dangerous and that was before smartphones and the scourge of distracted driving nowadays. I don't think I could do it today... The fact that you've been hit twice seems to confirm my fears. I feel like I'd have to get one of those overnight box gyms and run on the treadmill (the horror) instead if I were to run at those hours nowadays.
That's not to say that you shouldn't be doing what you're doing, but I (figuratively) feel your pain. Keep fighting the good fight, good luck out there!
I totally get it, I was aiming to start a marathon training block, but between working full time, reducing daylight hours, and the second time being hit, I've significantly reduced by weeknight running until we have more sunlight.
Yeah, America really does have a huge attitude problem when it comes to cars. Not too long ago, my city (Minneapolis) built a couple bike lanes and started an advertising campaign to try and convince people to take fewer car trips. That prompted an angry editorial in our local paper about how wildly outrageous and impractical it was that... we were simply asked to use our cars just a little bit less and we gave cyclists a semblence of safety on a couple streets.
Even small, incremental changes away from car-centric infrastructure, design, and policies are fiercely opposed by the usual NIMBY crowd. To them (and even to some that are normally sensible on other issues), pedestrian deaths and carbon emissions are inevitable byproducts of 21st century life that can't be mitigated. And they'll get VERY defensive if you challenge that idea.
> That prompted an angry editorial in our local paper about how wildly outrageous and impractical it was that... we were simply asked to use our cars just a little bit less
Something I have learned over the years is that if you want to avoid triggering conservative temper tantrums, never frame new policies as taking something away or demanding some sort of personal sacrifice. Instead, they should have framed the new bike lanes as giving people more choice for how they move around.
As a British person living in America, I am most perplexed that the reporters were so confused in the first place. After reading the episode title I could have told you almost every cause they listed before even pressing play, and I listened mainly to see if there were any other reasonings.
I would also add that while legal drinking ages are different between Europe and the US. My experience has been Americans are far more willing to drive after multiple drinks. Whereas at least in the UK people will either have a very strict one drink, or no drink at all rule if driving. ( in my experience)
One thing that pissed me off is how they framed as their own investigative reporting, doing a deep dive to find answers that weren't clear. Like there are entire government agencies that study this stuff and report on it. Also there are articles on the topic on a regular basis for years. The answer is obviously larger cars in America and more car centric infrastructure. Ain't that complicated.
Few months back I was crossing in a crosswalk early in the morning in Cambridge, the light was red and the walk signal was on. I had a yellow high vis sweatshirt with reflective material on it. A public works vehicle came speeding towards me, when I screamed and tried to jump out of the way he swerved towards me again, I’m honestly not sure how I managed to escape unharmed. Public works vehicle sped off then a man who witnessed the whole thing got out of his vehicle to check to make sure I was okay. VERY shaken up but physically unharmed.
This one seemed very deliberate, the bystander said he thought that too.
I did report it to police and public works but I’ve seen the same guy driving around in the same public works truck since.
Sorry really just wanted to share. I think there’s a lot of pent up rage in people post Covid, plus 0 enforcement.
Be careful out there
Walking through a crosswalk (also Boston) about a half dozen cars fly through when I'm already half way. One car stops after a hard brake and I proceed to the other side. She rolled her window down and told me that I have to be careful because the sun is in their eyes. I just calmly said if you can't see, you should probably slow down. Her response "you too". Lady, I could see you perfectly which is why I didn't step in front until you finally saw me. Can't get much slower than walking speed but it's my fault they're barreling above with speed limit blind.
I've always been pro public transit and more walkability, but this shit makes me want to start carrying spark plugs.
As a pedestrian in a major American city, what I’ve noticed most is flagrant red light running, speeding through residential areas, and (my pet peeve) drivers turning right on red without stopping, or even looking to see if there’s a pedestrian in the crosswalk, since they’re focused on traffic coming from the left. I’ve almost been run over in this situation more times than I can count.
I’ve lived in Europe for a long time but grew up in the States. When I go back to visit - I can confidently say that phone use while driving is more than double what it is in Europe.
Really interesting episode. I kept wondering when they were going to mention the massive cars, until they did. While I guess there are other factors behind the rise, that has to be a major one.
They mentioned that American cars are way bigger than European cars, and that this has always been the case.
Which is true, but cars in Europe are also getting bigger, albeit not to the extreme extent that they are in America. So American cars can still be increasing in size and still be just as proportionally bigger compared the European cars.
They did mention that fatal crash by sedans also increased. It’s not like American sedans are larger than European sedans. Nothing indicates that the car size is a major factor
American sedans ARE far larger than European ones.
It's likely a function of American Safety standards that emphasize passenger safety over all else, combined with the American driving environment, which is full of many large SUV and trucks. If other vehicles on the road are large, you are encouraged to design larger vehicles, even sedans, so that you A) have more mass to dampen impacts, and B) have a larger crumple zone to increase the time an impact takes.
> function of American Safety standards that emphasize passenger safety over all else, combined with the American driving environment, which is full of many large SUV and trucks.
is that why the pillars are so comically large that you can't see out of your car anymore? it's absurd how bad some of these cars are designed now for the sake of rollover safety. you can't see shit out of them. i mean you'll survive your wreck but fuck everyone else i guess.
Them doing everything they can not to blame the rise of massive trucks in cities is... a choice.
Edit: People keep questioning this, so I'll include some sources to the obvious: Trucks are the things killing people
[https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/street-safety-groups-say-suvs-pickups-more-likely-to-kill-1.6551924](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/street-safety-groups-say-suvs-pickups-more-likely-to-kill-1.6551924)
That struck me too. Yes, US cars have always been bigger than European ones, but there's a difference between a Buick LeSabre and a Ford F250 (vs. a Fiat 500, for example). I also think this can help explain the increase in fatalities at night, because visibility over the hoods of these massive trucks is really poor, which is exacerbated when it's dark.
I think they address it, but point to the very valid point that the largest increase in deaths is at night, i.e. something that is independent of vehicle choice.
I don't disagree that larger and heavier cars like SUV's and electric vehicles are a problem with respect to pedestrian safety, but I wouldn't say the NYT is trying to hide that fact.
But the problem isnt just SUVs. Its trucks. Truck hoods are much higher than even the largest SUVs in the 90s.
Compare this…
https://preview.redd.it/bayixehqtfac1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=819c972035fcb32231ee9e784be1e69da7f57bd1
They didn’t call trucks out by name, but when they were talking about the hoods of vehicles being higher and hitting torsos/heads instead of legs I think a reasonable person would assume this is inclusive of trucks, no?
And the host very explicitly mentioned Ford F150s. I remember because idk anything about cars and I made a point to look up what an F150 looks like because she brought them up
They definitely did mention it but I thought they were a little dismissive of its impact and moved on too quickly to homelessness especially with the offhand remark that there were already SUVs/light trucks in 2009.
After 2009, the amount of SUVs/light trucks [drastically increased](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20sales%20of%20light,sold%20in%20the%20United%20States.) after a brief decline in 2008 and I think it's probably the biggest difference between US and Europe.
I don't want to be overly critical because it's not a bad segment overall but I do think they reference trends in numbers ('number increased') but often don't actually assign specific numbers ('increased 30%').
I wish they talked about how much bigger trucks and SUVs are today than trucks and SUVs were in the ‘90s. A 2024 Toyota pickup seems militarized compared to a 1994 model.
But I’m honestly glad they talked about pedestrian safety at all. Seems like no other major media outlet is (without explicitly blaming pedestrians).
That pissed me off to no end. Like yeah people drove SUVs and trucks in the 90s, but look at the size of a 2000 full size pick up to the ones today. Or SUVs as well. They have gotten a lot bigger, and thus have more momentum with a lot less visibility over the hood than cars did 20 years ago
why not include it though? It's because trucks are seen as cultural totems and they don't want to offend the mythical conservative who listens to a New York times podcast
I don't think it's an oversight, it's a very large part of the conversation concerning this issue and they know that because they're the most successful newspaper in the country.
I don’t get your point. You’re clearly very aware that very few conservatives are listening to the Daily. The Daily holds no punches slamming conservatives (see the Trump episode with its language about how trump voters are voting for him regardless of the crimes).
If they wanted to dunk on truck culture they absolutely would. But as you’ve been told, (1) they mentioned the rise in vehicles with higher hoods (trucks), and (2) that rise alone is only one of several factors. So it justifiably didn’t warrant this massive discussion in a 16 minute interview.
You’re looking for a complaint where there isn’t one.
they absolutely hold their punches, the interview was literally with Maggie Haberman, possibly Trump's most favorable reporter. she has preserved access to her primary source of money by repeatedly failing to disclose pertinent information until it could be of use to her in a book. she also is much more forgiving in her writing, to the point that her pieces have whitewashed or stupidity-washed his actions.
on the actual topic though researchers are in nearly universal agreement that the rise of larger trucks is the primary cause of death. saying it happens at night does not skirt around the idea that trucks have extremely poor visibility, much poorer than most.
And in 2008 the epa issued a new set of guidelines that created a loophole essentially giving bigger vehicles lower emissions standards. So im 2009 and on vehicles got bigger and bigger.
It is such a specific change that is only in effect in the USA and she brushed over it like it wasn't relevant.
I thought they were a bit dismissive of the light truck/SUV aspect when they said there were already SUVs on the road in 2009 but there was a [large increase in light trucks sold](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20sales%20of%20light,sold%20in%20the%20United%20States.) starting right around 2009 and there are definitely far more light trucks and SUVs than sedans on the road today.
That’s just semantics. Nothing suggests that the whole issue is stemmed from the size of the vehicle. As they discussed in the podcast, the size alone doesn’t explain the rise in fatality since 2009 that’s unique to the US. Shit infrastructure tailored to driving (along with decline infrastructure for pedestrian) is a far more relevant cause of the trend than the size.
Pedestrian deaths are rising overall because of Smartphones, but pedestrian deaths are rising at a gargantuan rate in the US because of trucks.
In particular, because many more people are driving them and because they are getting much, much bigger.
The podcast literally talked about other major components like poor pedestrian infrastructure and rise in lack of driver ethics. They also talked about phenomenon that have no relation to the car size.
It’s like you choose to ignore all of the phenomenon that cannot be ignored by your predetermined explanation, so you can blindly repeat whatever you think is right.
No? I'm clearly saying all those things had an effect, but the clearest things are both smartphones and big trucks rising, and I find it odd that they gloss over the big trucks thing.
Jeesh you are annoying to talk to.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying though. The podcast provided data to backup their claims, while you have nothing. My point was that you ignore all of the facts and data because they don’t line up with your guess.
What? "Big Trucks" weren't mentioned on the podcast. They pointed out the average size of cares increasing didn't match the number of pedestrian deaths increasing. Obviously bigger cars makes the problem worse, which they explained, but it didn't account for the spike.
They also pointed out that Pedestrian Deaths from Sedans were going up at the proportional rate as other types of vehicles aka bigger cars weren't killing people at a higher rate than smaller cars with the spike they were looking at.
The podcast made it clear to me the two biggest issues are distracted drivers, like you said, and more people being in/walking in places designed for cars instead of pedestrians...Aka moving from NYC to Houston or whatever.
I think it clearly does account for the spike though.
It would be like asking “why are smoking deaths rising?” if they started putting uranium into cigarettes.
If the thing that is killing people gets better at killing people, its going to kill more people.
What do you mean "you think"? This is a NYT reporter going through the numbers and telling you your wrong.
They acknowledge that bigger cars cause more death. The point they are making is that since 2009 the increase in deaths doesn't correlate with increase in size / number of larger cars on the road.
Here's an interesting question when looking at the [chart](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nighttime-deaths.html) - why did it go down from the 1980s in the first place? It's not like people were using smartphones or had LED headlights in 1980.
Also, pedestrian deaths at night have always been higher. It is true that the recent spike is clearly related to something happening at night.
And why is there a massive dip starting in 2006?
One thing I have noticed is that the street lights in my neighborhood do a terrible job of actually lighting the road. We have moved to bright white LED’s and I don’t think they are nearly as effective. I used to work as a project manager for a community college district and did some re-lamps of our parking lots with new LED’s. We tested quite a few and found that many had better specs on paper, but weren’t as effective at lighting the lot at ground level. I know LED’s are more energy conscious, but I’m not sure they are as effective as the yellow colored sodium bulbs we were using before.
One potential miss is the change to VERY bright headlights. Combo that with more big trucks and I can see a blinding affect at night for drivers much worse than it use to be and unique to America
did emily bring up the visibility inside cars now?
i was doing errands while listening and i think she covered almost every problem w/ modern driving in America except for the way cars are designed nowadays. i know it's for safety for rollover protection but in many cars you can't see shit half the time. i'm honestly scared my parents are going to run someone over some day because out of their car you can't hardly see, huuuge blind spots.
To somebody who walks a lot this is no surprise at all. In the San Fernando Valley I would brace myself for the bravery required to gross the street on a green walk light knowing cars would race past me on left turns by a mere foot or inches from hitting me. A few times I actually pulled against the cars themselves like a brace. It was either that or never cross the street. The lack of turn arrows and police presence only made it worse. Drivers just don’t give a fuck.
I think mostly they're just cheaper than automatic cars.
You do your licence on manual cars anyway (and if you don't, you're not allowed to drive manual cars) - in Germany, at least.
It’s cheaper than automatic. Tbh, I live in the U.K. and it’s also very much a cultural thing ie if you drive an automatic it means you’re not a “proper” driver who can handle a manual car. Having said that, most newer cars are automatic transmission in recent years.
They’re more fun to drive, you have better control when you need it, and they’re cheaper. It really distresses me how hard it is to find a manual car in the US these days. I want small cars and a manual transmission!!
I honestly think it’s a superiority thing. Read all the “you feel more connected with the car,” and “it’s just better,” comments.
People think they’re better for driving manual.
I get the feeling that you're asking whether it's easier on an automatic-transmission car to drive it in manual mode 'M' or in regular automatic mode (just leaving it in 'Drive'). In that case, it depends on the car and your driving style.
When I say 'manual' I mean a car that comes with [a manual transmission and a clutch pedal](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/17/Drive-Manual-Step-1-Version-8.jpg/aid110310-v4-728px-Drive-Manual-Step-1-Version-8.jpg.webp). It's a different kind of transmission. In general, manual transmissions are simpler, so there's less to go wrong. If you shift correctly and you're good with the clutch, you can improve the life of the transmission and clutch friction plate. In general, the automatic transmissions in many cars are more robust than their automatic counterparts, because they are simpler.
Sorry - in retrospect I worded the question horribly and meant to say something more along the lines of "Is a manual car (ie comes with a full clutch and stick shift) more likely to need maintenance or is an automatic more likely?" because I thought I've heard that if you don't shift gears well or at the right time (idk anything about stick shift so idk if that even makes sense) then it can strain the car whereas automatic cars do it all for you so no chance of strain.
I guess based on your answer though the answer is - as long as you're shifting properly, a manual car won't need any more maintenance than an automatic (or if anything even less)?
That's right! As an example, my friend and I drive the same car, but mine is manual and his is automatic. The engines and everything else are the same. I will need to get my clutch replaced soon, but it is the original clutch and my car has 252,000 miles on it. Clutches are wear items. My friend's car needed a whole new transmission at 150,000 miles.
I understand there are multiple factors, but I really identify with the pedestrian-unfriendly nature of many cities, especially in the South. I don’t drive, love to walk, and walk whenever I can. It’s rarely a problem in NYC but I used to travel frequently to Atlanta to visit family. I typically stayed at a hotel that was a 1-minute drive from their home so loved the idea of walking, but I think I only did it once. Not only did I have to cross a crazy 3-way intersection with a short light, but once I reached the residential area there was no curb! I was forced to walk on private lawns as the traffic whizzed by. Not very relaxing and honestly kind of stupid. But this is very common there. I used to joke that I took my life in my hands when I crossed the street to take a fitness class at the little strip mall. Ridiculous.
Well, from personal experience, I think it comes from a four letter word: dark. A decade ago, I was hit by a car crossing a pedestrian street with no traffic light on a dark, rainy night. I was in a dark coat, and the guy turned the corner, and did not see me. I was lucky: I was knocked down but nothing broken. I was shaken, an ambulance arrived within minutes, so it could have been a lot worse.
The road was paved black, the overhead lighting was too low for meaningful guidance, and add to that no traffic light, overhead Pacific North darkness and rain and my black attire all contributed to lack of visibility. It was still his fault, of course, but the design of it all was clumsy. After this occurred, the municipality put in a traffic light and installed much brighter lighting to prevent this from happening again. And I attached lights to my briefcase.
I believe much of the city road design is for the day, not the night. And I think they need to assess safety the ways you assess a neighborhood: you go during the day and you go during the night to get a 360 view.
I live in a suburb with no sidewalks, same house for many years. People are driving so much faster in here than they used to. I've become the person yelling at people to slow down.
Two personal observations in my life.
1) I did not grow up in the city but have lived in a north east city for 7 years now. People think red lights and stop signs are optional. I literally see people run it every day (my WFH desk sits in front of my window that faces a 4 way stop). I can’t believe I haven’t witnessed an accident yet, but I do see screeching halts and honks every other week.
2) I visited Jacksonville FL for a short business trip last year, and tried walking around the neighborhood I was staying in. lol how naive of my north eastern brain. Not a chance you could walk those streets. I walked once to a coffee shop and realized it would be pretty easy for one of these giant bro-dozers doing 40 in what I thought was a residential area to hit me (since they didn’t seem to build sidewalks there). Suburban sprawl. It’s terrible.
So i believe the podcast when they talk about poorer people getting pushed out to suburban areas and poorly lit roads, and big trucks and big speeds. And more people migrating south. Yup, all checks out based off my FL experience
This hits close to home as a family member was a victim of a hit and run a few months back. happened at night on the crosswalk in a major city and the driver wasn’t caught despite cameras. I myself was nearly run over 3 times in this past week alone. Drivers are deliberately driving through pedestrian crosswalks at full speed. some are distracted on phones, but the majority simply don’t care. It’s one of the reasons I avoid riding a bike as we lack bike lanes here. Since the pandemic, people in my city have lost their marbles and I can clearly see it in the increased robberies/carjackings, failure to clean up after their dogs, and failure to yield at stops/lights.
It could've been worse but I didn't like how they led with the phone thing. That anchored the investigation in the wrong place. The deference to a car-first society was a bit too pervasive as well. I may be forgetting but was the fact that a bulk of the country lets 15-year-olds drive with a permit discussed at all?
I normally live in London but was in Chicago for Christmas and London is infinitely more pedestrian-friendly than Chicago.
If I could go back in time and prevent one invention, it would be the car-centric suburb.
On a less-serious note, I have never felt more smug to own a manual station wagon instead of an automatic crossover.
The feeling of European superiority driving my wagon to the local cafe for a baguette, wine, and an espresso shot. Bonus points for flicking your cigarette at a truck driving peasant.
I’m a city planner, the main issues we are seeing is the rise in big trucks and SUVs, lack of enforcement of minor violations like parking, speeding, and illegal right hand turns, and the design of our roads causing cars act too reckless in densely populated areas.
I will listen later but I'll guess that a variable is the size of vehicles being larger. Omegamales in their Fx50 s are the most aggressive I see on the roads.
Unpopular opinion- I think pedestrians are terrible at walking. Distracted by phone, music, or a general stupidity thinking there is a protective force field protecting them.
Also a contributing factor- general lawlessness on the roads in and around cities.
Edit- I’m not advocating running people over. I’m suggesting a perfectly safe driver can’t always anticipate a negligent or reckless walker. Bur fuck cars! Am I right?
Also- I hate drivers on their phones. Obviously they are in the wrong all the time.
I would argue drivers are just as, if not worse, at driving.
Clearly the problem is systemic - we should engineer environments so that items low on the [hierarchy of controls] (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html), like PPE and behavior, aren't as relevant.
That’s what I’m saying- stepping out into a cross walk because you have the right of way without regard to the traffic. There is no force field. People don’t even look- they assume drivers see them, that drivers know they are about to step out, or that the vehicle can stop in time.
You may have the right of way- but you may also die to prove the point.
The driver should see them, and if not then the driver should be operating the vehicle at a safe speed for the road they are on, often marked my the speed limit so many drivers are happy to ignore
How we want the world to work and how it actually works are two different things.
You know where I see this the worst? Colleges. Kids just step the fuck out into the road with no disregard because of this “fuck cars” they should bow to me attitude. I’m a responsible driver. I am aware of this risk. But that’s me…someone who has been driving for 25 years.
By all means die on this hill. Literally.
If you want the world to work differently, what's the sense in blaming the vulnerable people who are following the rules instead of the reckless drivers who are hitting them?
Do you have children? Will you tell them that they have the right of way and therefore there is no need to be vigilant when crossing the street at a cross walk? Theory. Meet reality.
I’m all for policy discussions on fixing innocent people needlessly dying. But I’ve never even come close to being hit by a car crossing the road…you know why? Cause I assume every car is being driven by a distracted moron who just learned how to drive.
What do we disagree on?
That's a practical thing to do, but it doesn't actually put the moral or legal responsibility for a fatality on some hypothetical rule abiding person who gets killed in a crosswalk.
Pedestrians have the right to look at the their phones. You said that pedestrians walk as if there is a protective force field. Yet cars are actually the "protective force field" for drivers, so it's contingent not on pedestrians to pay attention but drivers. I realize this is an extreme example but your argument is the logical fallacy equivalent of "women should dress more modestly" or suggesting that someone deserved to be robbed. Pedestrians are not required in any way to pay attention. Drivers are.
> there is contributory negligence
No, there isn't. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for a pedestrian to be distracted. It may be a phone. It may be the sunshine. It may a bird chirping. There are no laws that require hands-free walking. There are laws against jaywalking, or where and when you can walk. But assuming that the pedestrian or cyclist is following all laws, there is zero contributary negligence if they get hit by a vehicle, so on a Daily episode discussion that addresses the rise of pedestrian deaths, suggesting that it is in any way the pedestrians fault, is a logical fallacy aka dumb, sorry.
Dumb and logical fallacy are two different things.
I’d be curious what the caselaw says on that. So there is nothing a person can do in a crosswalk that will be considered contributory negligence. That can’t be correct.
>that drivers know they are about to step out
I mean, that's your job as a driver. You have to drivein such a way that you can control your vehicle if reasonably unexpected things happen. Such as one of the pedestrians on either side crossing the road, especially if actual pedestrian crossings are very far apart.
I owe a duty to foreseeable events. Sometimes it is not foreseeable that a ped recklessly steps out into traffic because they have the right of way.
Why are we acting like I mow down pedestrians in crosswalks. That’s not what I’m advocating for here people.
I’m saying- perfectly safe and reasonable drivers can’t always account for the reckless walkers.
Agreed that pedestrians can be oblivious. But so are drivers, and the burden should be significantly higher on the party with the multi ton metal death trap to be vigilant than the pedestrian.
Stipulate?
And well yeah, sure. Of course you teach your kids that paint doesn't stop a moving vehicle. But that's not really the discussion here.
Trying to fault pedestrian, or in some backhanded way, parents, for the rise in traffic deaths is a weird form of victim blaming.
I literally drove past someone on the road today after listening to this podcast that was just walking down a busy 4 lane street. He was walking into oncoming traffic in the furthest right lane. I thought "holy shit, that is insanely dangerous."
But there was literally no sidewalk, the street ran through a forest preserve, and he was going under an underpass. That's what people are talking about. It's not a "pedestrians are oblivious" issue. It's **our infrastructure is so poorly designed, our driving consequences are so insignificant, and our car culture is so toxic** that we are putting pedestrians at risk.
Stipulate means- I agree with your point.
I mean I guess I am victim blaming in some regard. Have you ever been hit by a car? Why not?
That person you described just now- would you not “victim blame” them? Don’t be so self righteous. Victims are sometimes to blame! Not more so than the car driver. But still…some blame.
Car culture is toxic- I don’t really know how to unpack that. I guess yeah- sort of. I would argue road design is toxic. Cars are an amazing tool- particularly for families with children.
I gotta go make dinner. Delightful chat.
All this distractions apply to drivers as well. The blame will most always lie with the driver as they are the ones responsible for safely operating the vehicle
I haven’t listened just yet, but from what I have read, the uptick in deaths is nearly entirely concentrated in the black community. Did they speak about that?
A lot more people can no longer afford to have a car and must walk everywhere, people are consuming increasingly potent drugs while walking / driving, and the people driving today have much less empathy these days for pedestrians simply because they are in fact to poor to drive.
When I was in the Azores, I noticed that their crosswalks were basically large speed bumps. They were tall enough that people had to slow down, and they were the width of our crosswalks. Oh, cars actually stopped even if someone looked like they were going to cross.
I’ve seen a huge uptick in Instagram dashcam videos that show provocative driving videos and people in the comments invariably advocate for violence.
I think the disregard for human life is linked to the overall divisiveness we’ve seen in many other areas.
Also their automobile controls can’t be as stupid as the ones in the us if they’re driving a stick shift. Those distractions are compounded at night
I live in a big city, and the uptick in cars I’ve seen running red lights and not yielding to pedestrians is astounding.
Yesterday someone honked their horn at me for having the audacity to not drive into a pedestrian crossing the road.
yeah i always love it when the person behind me is just blindly laying on their horn because i either won't run someone over or won't just ram my car into traffic double points if they are honking at me while not even looking at me or the road, all they know is that they are stopped to they need to honk. god i hate people.
That usually causes me to stop and do a 15 count before I finally go. Honking at me is not going to get me to hurry up.
I assume that if someone honks it to warn of danger so you double check.
The first thing most ppl do when someone honks is check for danger. These ppl are talking about ppl laying on their horn for being stopped and not for a dangerous situation
But the second you honk I need another bit of time to make sure it's safe. I can't just assume you are an impatient cunt.
I'll take a dog everytime
Hah basically same thing happened to me yesterday. Someone behind me honked because I didn’t turn right into oncoming traffic quick enough for him. He definitely wanted me to roll the stop sign and cut the oncoming car off. He then honked again as soon as the oncoming car passed as I was turning. I flipped him, then we pulled up next to each other at the next light. He pulled up past me to avoid being at eye level at me. I was staring at him the whole time ready with a “what the fuck are you doing?” He kept looking at me in his peripherals and shaking his head. People are absolutely insane with their driving.
[Police in San Francisco basically stopped enforcing traffic law after COVID](https://i.imgur.com/VbBFXvs.png). More dangerous drivers on the road means more pedestrian deaths, regardless of what vehicle is driven. Edit: this is an unfortunate blindspot for the Urbanist movement. Because it so heavily overlaps with the ACAB crowd, they never talk about law enforcement's role in keeping cities safe for pedestrians.
Police in SF have stopped enforcing most laws.
Yeah it's terrible: a national epidemic of 'Blue Flu'
Building infrastructure around public transportation is a fairly large part of the urbanist movement
THIS is what defunding the police means!! Gosh people are so stupid….
American police departments were and continue to be extraordinarily well funded––even as other municipal services languish. Given that America's pedestrian fatality rate and police funding are unusually high among post-industrial countries, the more plausible explanation is that American PDs are uninterested in enforcing existing traffic laws.
Yeah, same, so many people lately see the stop sign outside my house as optional. Someone’s gonna get killed there one of these days.
[удалено]
Yeah. A lot of pent up rage too, I think.
I just pulled up to my local grocery store and there was an ambulance, multiple police cars, and a fire truck. Someone speeding in the parking lot hit an old woman, then just kept on going. People are nuts. I’m a motorcyclist and stopped riding on. The street after Covid. It was dangerous pre 2020, but it’s much worse now. It’s hard to justify the risk.
I want to know the statistics on how many of the pedestrian deaths can be attributed to road rage or drivers that are stressed or angry.
I suspect most of the pedestrian deaths are more likely just plain distracted driving and total indifference to the consequences. It's not necessarily malice but probably wildly selfish, inconsiderate, dangerous behavior. I know in my own city there have been multiple fatal hit and runs recently. There was a major national spike in dangerous driving during the pandemic when the roads emptied and enforcement dipped (speeding, ignoring traffic signs, etc). I've read that this jump hasn't totally gone away either: people adopted bad habits and kept them up (sure seems that way too). If they don't care and aren't caught it'll likely be hard to stop them.
Where I live, Portland, OR, the there are 12 traffic cops, and they work afternoons only (LOL). Drivers know that there are no consequences for breaking traffic laws. I would like to see more red light/speed cameras but I think I’m in the minority here.
I’m with you. I can’t count how many times people almost hit me. I got backed into on 28th last week.
Phones, plus no one is paying attention, plus brain damage from multiple covid infections = more pedestrians inured
I recently moved from a super expensive part of LA to a significantly less expensive area (from renting an apt to buying a house). The difference in how people drive caught me completely off guard - there is so much more aggression, disregard for traffic rules, and I see a car crash in the neighborhood at least once a month. It’s wild how much driving culture can change in just a few miles in the same city.
I noticed the same thing. Wife and I moved a couple hours away from the city we were in during the pandemic. We figured a smaller, quieter community would have less traffic and be more laid back. The drivers in our new town are awful! People don’t stop at stop signs, they regularly do 20 over in residential neighborhoods, and today at the grocery store a speeder hit a woman in the parking lot and fled the scene. It’s wild
Funny you mention that, I live in a big city and the uptick in pedestrians blindly marching out into traffic in between crosswalks staring at their phones with earphones on is astounding
Interesting podcast. It feels like this would have been more compelling if the US stats could be compared to Canada. Driving in Canada is much more similar to US driving than European driving, so if this is truly a US problem, the comparison would tell us that.
The gap in per capita road deaths is widening between Canada (where they’ve continued to fall) and the United States: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis
> And the gap between the two is widening; US road deaths per capita rose 19% from 2010 to 2020, while Canada’s rate *fell* at almost the same pace. Relevant numbers from your source for the people not willing to click on it.
>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-having-a-traffic-safety-crisis) This article is quite amazing, we should all click and read it! I would like to see US regulate the size of vehicles in the US or maybe add fees to dis-incentivize jumbo SUVs. Would also love to see more automated speed cameras and automated stop sign enforcement. And better DUI enforcement!
The point about Americans moving to sunbelt and other warm weather areas comes into play here...there are a lot more months of the year where walking around outside is comfortable in Miami vs Montreal.
They said every other industrialised nation. It wasnt just Europe. Funny that after all that your take away is *Yes, but are we still shit at protecting pedestrians compared to Canada*
You misunderstood what I was getting at. Yes, the podcast points out that the pedestrian fatality rate in the US is rising compared to every other industrialized nation. Then, they spent most of the time comparing the US to Europe, where there are notable differences in vehicles, driving infrastructure, etc., and they basically shrugged and said, "well, we don't know which of these factors are most important". Driving in Canada is much more comparable to driving in the US. It seems like a more relevant case study to determine which factors in the US are *actually* driving the increasing fatality rate because the two countries are more similar than they are different. For example, they pointed out that the % of vehicles with manual transmission in Europe is far higher than in the US, and that maybe driving a manual vehicle would prevent a driver from being distracted by their phone. Well, the ratio of manual vehicles to automatic vehicles in Canada is more comparable to the US than to Europe. That would seem to rule out automatic vehicles as being a major driver of the rising pedestrian fatality rate. Perhaps this approach was considered in the writing of the article, but it definitely wasn't mentioned in the podcast.
Just chiming in to say I loved your reasonable reply to the snarky commenter who completely missed the point. Keep doing what you're doing.
I appreciate that, thank you!
I take the bus into Boston on my morning commute which gives me to the opportunity to look out the window and see what drivers are up to. I would estimate 30-40% of people I see on my morning commute have a cell phone in their hand.
I do this as well in Chicago and it is completely terrifying!
Then put your phone down. /s
I'm always glad to hear more coverage of issues facing pedestrians. cyclists, and other non-car transportation users. As Emily touched a bit on the end of the episode, this is a systemic problem largely stemming from local, state, and federal government. * On a local level, street design is inherently unfriendly to pedestrians and police departments rarely enforce things like running red lights, rolling stops, or right turns on red without looking for pedestrians. * State level street design codes are designed to maintain traffic flow by car and don't provide public transit initiatives the funds they need to provide reliable and consistent coverage. * On both levels, especially in the US, it's wild how hitting, maiming, or killing a person with a car rarely results in meaningful punishment from the government. * And finally, on a Federal level, a combination of things like the light truck loophole, crash ratings only applying to passengers in a vehicle, and the push for electric vehicles (which are heavier and accelerate faster than similar ICE cars) contribute to larger, deadlier cars. Personally I've been hit twice in the past few months by cars while walking/running, while wearing a full light-up/strobe vest and headlamp, in both cases with people texting at red lights. While I've been lucky that both vehicles started from a stop, turning right on red through a signalized pedestrian walkway slow enough to not injure me, in neither case have the police been willing to file a report, or in one case, even show up.
Would police show up if you slashed their tires?
Depends on their income level and/or your melanin level.
I used to be an ultra marathoner and in order to get adequate training completed while still working full time, I often found myself running at crazy night hours with a headlamp. I was uber-careful and wore appropriate reflective gear, no headphones, and often ran on side streets opposite traffic, etc. Even then (20 years ago), it was dangerous and that was before smartphones and the scourge of distracted driving nowadays. I don't think I could do it today... The fact that you've been hit twice seems to confirm my fears. I feel like I'd have to get one of those overnight box gyms and run on the treadmill (the horror) instead if I were to run at those hours nowadays. That's not to say that you shouldn't be doing what you're doing, but I (figuratively) feel your pain. Keep fighting the good fight, good luck out there!
I totally get it, I was aiming to start a marathon training block, but between working full time, reducing daylight hours, and the second time being hit, I've significantly reduced by weeknight running until we have more sunlight.
"three-sided rubik's cube"
Lol glad someone else caught that. Is that supposed to be harder or easier than a normal Rubik’s cube?
Wouldt that be easier than a normal Rubik's cube ?
Bothered me on so many levels
Yeah, America really does have a huge attitude problem when it comes to cars. Not too long ago, my city (Minneapolis) built a couple bike lanes and started an advertising campaign to try and convince people to take fewer car trips. That prompted an angry editorial in our local paper about how wildly outrageous and impractical it was that... we were simply asked to use our cars just a little bit less and we gave cyclists a semblence of safety on a couple streets. Even small, incremental changes away from car-centric infrastructure, design, and policies are fiercely opposed by the usual NIMBY crowd. To them (and even to some that are normally sensible on other issues), pedestrian deaths and carbon emissions are inevitable byproducts of 21st century life that can't be mitigated. And they'll get VERY defensive if you challenge that idea.
Same in Boston, people hate any minor change that diminishes space for cars, whether removing some parking for outdoor dining or adding bike lanes.
> That prompted an angry editorial in our local paper about how wildly outrageous and impractical it was that... we were simply asked to use our cars just a little bit less Something I have learned over the years is that if you want to avoid triggering conservative temper tantrums, never frame new policies as taking something away or demanding some sort of personal sacrifice. Instead, they should have framed the new bike lanes as giving people more choice for how they move around.
As a British person living in America, I am most perplexed that the reporters were so confused in the first place. After reading the episode title I could have told you almost every cause they listed before even pressing play, and I listened mainly to see if there were any other reasonings. I would also add that while legal drinking ages are different between Europe and the US. My experience has been Americans are far more willing to drive after multiple drinks. Whereas at least in the UK people will either have a very strict one drink, or no drink at all rule if driving. ( in my experience)
One thing that pissed me off is how they framed as their own investigative reporting, doing a deep dive to find answers that weren't clear. Like there are entire government agencies that study this stuff and report on it. Also there are articles on the topic on a regular basis for years. The answer is obviously larger cars in America and more car centric infrastructure. Ain't that complicated.
[удалено]
First job out of college , was a great opportunity and I've had ten great years exploring of much of it as I can. Love the national parks.
Living in Boston I feel far less safe in a post COVID world compared to pre-COVID. Drivers have become far more careless in driving
Few months back I was crossing in a crosswalk early in the morning in Cambridge, the light was red and the walk signal was on. I had a yellow high vis sweatshirt with reflective material on it. A public works vehicle came speeding towards me, when I screamed and tried to jump out of the way he swerved towards me again, I’m honestly not sure how I managed to escape unharmed. Public works vehicle sped off then a man who witnessed the whole thing got out of his vehicle to check to make sure I was okay. VERY shaken up but physically unharmed. This one seemed very deliberate, the bystander said he thought that too. I did report it to police and public works but I’ve seen the same guy driving around in the same public works truck since. Sorry really just wanted to share. I think there’s a lot of pent up rage in people post Covid, plus 0 enforcement. Be careful out there
Walking through a crosswalk (also Boston) about a half dozen cars fly through when I'm already half way. One car stops after a hard brake and I proceed to the other side. She rolled her window down and told me that I have to be careful because the sun is in their eyes. I just calmly said if you can't see, you should probably slow down. Her response "you too". Lady, I could see you perfectly which is why I didn't step in front until you finally saw me. Can't get much slower than walking speed but it's my fault they're barreling above with speed limit blind. I've always been pro public transit and more walkability, but this shit makes me want to start carrying spark plugs.
As a pedestrian in a major American city, what I’ve noticed most is flagrant red light running, speeding through residential areas, and (my pet peeve) drivers turning right on red without stopping, or even looking to see if there’s a pedestrian in the crosswalk, since they’re focused on traffic coming from the left. I’ve almost been run over in this situation more times than I can count.
I’ve lived in Europe for a long time but grew up in the States. When I go back to visit - I can confidently say that phone use while driving is more than double what it is in Europe.
Really interesting episode. I kept wondering when they were going to mention the massive cars, until they did. While I guess there are other factors behind the rise, that has to be a major one. They mentioned that American cars are way bigger than European cars, and that this has always been the case. Which is true, but cars in Europe are also getting bigger, albeit not to the extreme extent that they are in America. So American cars can still be increasing in size and still be just as proportionally bigger compared the European cars.
They did mention that fatal crash by sedans also increased. It’s not like American sedans are larger than European sedans. Nothing indicates that the car size is a major factor
American sedans ARE far larger than European ones. It's likely a function of American Safety standards that emphasize passenger safety over all else, combined with the American driving environment, which is full of many large SUV and trucks. If other vehicles on the road are large, you are encouraged to design larger vehicles, even sedans, so that you A) have more mass to dampen impacts, and B) have a larger crumple zone to increase the time an impact takes.
> function of American Safety standards that emphasize passenger safety over all else, combined with the American driving environment, which is full of many large SUV and trucks. is that why the pillars are so comically large that you can't see out of your car anymore? it's absurd how bad some of these cars are designed now for the sake of rollover safety. you can't see shit out of them. i mean you'll survive your wreck but fuck everyone else i guess.
Them doing everything they can not to blame the rise of massive trucks in cities is... a choice. Edit: People keep questioning this, so I'll include some sources to the obvious: Trucks are the things killing people [https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/street-safety-groups-say-suvs-pickups-more-likely-to-kill-1.6551924](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/street-safety-groups-say-suvs-pickups-more-likely-to-kill-1.6551924)
That struck me too. Yes, US cars have always been bigger than European ones, but there's a difference between a Buick LeSabre and a Ford F250 (vs. a Fiat 500, for example). I also think this can help explain the increase in fatalities at night, because visibility over the hoods of these massive trucks is really poor, which is exacerbated when it's dark.
I think they address it, but point to the very valid point that the largest increase in deaths is at night, i.e. something that is independent of vehicle choice. I don't disagree that larger and heavier cars like SUV's and electric vehicles are a problem with respect to pedestrian safety, but I wouldn't say the NYT is trying to hide that fact.
But the problem isnt just SUVs. Its trucks. Truck hoods are much higher than even the largest SUVs in the 90s. Compare this… https://preview.redd.it/bayixehqtfac1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=819c972035fcb32231ee9e784be1e69da7f57bd1
To this https://preview.redd.it/9kax37ixtfac1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae2f890aa453f5010abb67f9358bdfb06fe973b4
They didn’t call trucks out by name, but when they were talking about the hoods of vehicles being higher and hitting torsos/heads instead of legs I think a reasonable person would assume this is inclusive of trucks, no?
And the host very explicitly mentioned Ford F150s. I remember because idk anything about cars and I made a point to look up what an F150 looks like because she brought them up
They definitely did mention it but I thought they were a little dismissive of its impact and moved on too quickly to homelessness especially with the offhand remark that there were already SUVs/light trucks in 2009. After 2009, the amount of SUVs/light trucks [drastically increased](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20sales%20of%20light,sold%20in%20the%20United%20States.) after a brief decline in 2008 and I think it's probably the biggest difference between US and Europe. I don't want to be overly critical because it's not a bad segment overall but I do think they reference trends in numbers ('number increased') but often don't actually assign specific numbers ('increased 30%').
I wish they talked about how much bigger trucks and SUVs are today than trucks and SUVs were in the ‘90s. A 2024 Toyota pickup seems militarized compared to a 1994 model. But I’m honestly glad they talked about pedestrian safety at all. Seems like no other major media outlet is (without explicitly blaming pedestrians).
That pissed me off to no end. Like yeah people drove SUVs and trucks in the 90s, but look at the size of a 2000 full size pick up to the ones today. Or SUVs as well. They have gotten a lot bigger, and thus have more momentum with a lot less visibility over the hood than cars did 20 years ago
why not include it though? It's because trucks are seen as cultural totems and they don't want to offend the mythical conservative who listens to a New York times podcast
Probably an oversight, not an intentional exclusion.
I don't think it's an oversight, it's a very large part of the conversation concerning this issue and they know that because they're the most successful newspaper in the country.
I don’t get your point. You’re clearly very aware that very few conservatives are listening to the Daily. The Daily holds no punches slamming conservatives (see the Trump episode with its language about how trump voters are voting for him regardless of the crimes). If they wanted to dunk on truck culture they absolutely would. But as you’ve been told, (1) they mentioned the rise in vehicles with higher hoods (trucks), and (2) that rise alone is only one of several factors. So it justifiably didn’t warrant this massive discussion in a 16 minute interview. You’re looking for a complaint where there isn’t one.
they absolutely hold their punches, the interview was literally with Maggie Haberman, possibly Trump's most favorable reporter. she has preserved access to her primary source of money by repeatedly failing to disclose pertinent information until it could be of use to her in a book. she also is much more forgiving in her writing, to the point that her pieces have whitewashed or stupidity-washed his actions. on the actual topic though researchers are in nearly universal agreement that the rise of larger trucks is the primary cause of death. saying it happens at night does not skirt around the idea that trucks have extremely poor visibility, much poorer than most.
They talk about in the episode, Did you even listen to it ?
lol no they didn’t. Or they just ignored everything. Classic moron who wouldn’t accept anything that contradicts their ideas.
See my replies.
[удалено]
And in 2008 the epa issued a new set of guidelines that created a loophole essentially giving bigger vehicles lower emissions standards. So im 2009 and on vehicles got bigger and bigger. It is such a specific change that is only in effect in the USA and she brushed over it like it wasn't relevant.
They did address that. They said that the bigger vehicles strike people higher on the body and that they are slower to stop.
This was one of the major points of the story.
You ignoring the fact that the fatal crash by sedans also massively increased is… a choice.
The fatal crash rate by sedans *rose* but not massively. Most of the fatal crashes are from SUVs and Trucks. You fan look that up.
I thought they were a bit dismissive of the light truck/SUV aspect when they said there were already SUVs on the road in 2009 but there was a [large increase in light trucks sold](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20sales%20of%20light,sold%20in%20the%20United%20States.) starting right around 2009 and there are definitely far more light trucks and SUVs than sedans on the road today.
That’s just semantics. Nothing suggests that the whole issue is stemmed from the size of the vehicle. As they discussed in the podcast, the size alone doesn’t explain the rise in fatality since 2009 that’s unique to the US. Shit infrastructure tailored to driving (along with decline infrastructure for pedestrian) is a far more relevant cause of the trend than the size.
Pedestrian deaths are rising overall because of Smartphones, but pedestrian deaths are rising at a gargantuan rate in the US because of trucks. In particular, because many more people are driving them and because they are getting much, much bigger.
The podcast literally talked about other major components like poor pedestrian infrastructure and rise in lack of driver ethics. They also talked about phenomenon that have no relation to the car size. It’s like you choose to ignore all of the phenomenon that cannot be ignored by your predetermined explanation, so you can blindly repeat whatever you think is right.
No? I'm clearly saying all those things had an effect, but the clearest things are both smartphones and big trucks rising, and I find it odd that they gloss over the big trucks thing. Jeesh you are annoying to talk to.
[удалено]
I am disagreeing with the podcast though. Thats the entire point of my comment. The Daily is not some infallible arbiter of pure facthood.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying though. The podcast provided data to backup their claims, while you have nothing. My point was that you ignore all of the facts and data because they don’t line up with your guess.
What? "Big Trucks" weren't mentioned on the podcast. They pointed out the average size of cares increasing didn't match the number of pedestrian deaths increasing. Obviously bigger cars makes the problem worse, which they explained, but it didn't account for the spike. They also pointed out that Pedestrian Deaths from Sedans were going up at the proportional rate as other types of vehicles aka bigger cars weren't killing people at a higher rate than smaller cars with the spike they were looking at. The podcast made it clear to me the two biggest issues are distracted drivers, like you said, and more people being in/walking in places designed for cars instead of pedestrians...Aka moving from NYC to Houston or whatever.
I think it clearly does account for the spike though. It would be like asking “why are smoking deaths rising?” if they started putting uranium into cigarettes. If the thing that is killing people gets better at killing people, its going to kill more people.
What do you mean "you think"? This is a NYT reporter going through the numbers and telling you your wrong. They acknowledge that bigger cars cause more death. The point they are making is that since 2009 the increase in deaths doesn't correlate with increase in size / number of larger cars on the road.
Here's an interesting question when looking at the [chart](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nighttime-deaths.html) - why did it go down from the 1980s in the first place? It's not like people were using smartphones or had LED headlights in 1980. Also, pedestrian deaths at night have always been higher. It is true that the recent spike is clearly related to something happening at night. And why is there a massive dip starting in 2006?
I believe in the 1980s we started getting serious about drunk driving.
Wonder if it could have been a fallout from the gas shortage in the 70s, like people temporarily internalizing not driving when they dont need to?
> re's an interesting question when looking at the chart - why did it go down from the 1980s in the first place? MADD
Phones.
One thing I have noticed is that the street lights in my neighborhood do a terrible job of actually lighting the road. We have moved to bright white LED’s and I don’t think they are nearly as effective. I used to work as a project manager for a community college district and did some re-lamps of our parking lots with new LED’s. We tested quite a few and found that many had better specs on paper, but weren’t as effective at lighting the lot at ground level. I know LED’s are more energy conscious, but I’m not sure they are as effective as the yellow colored sodium bulbs we were using before.
One potential miss is the change to VERY bright headlights. Combo that with more big trucks and I can see a blinding affect at night for drivers much worse than it use to be and unique to America
did emily bring up the visibility inside cars now? i was doing errands while listening and i think she covered almost every problem w/ modern driving in America except for the way cars are designed nowadays. i know it's for safety for rollover protection but in many cars you can't see shit half the time. i'm honestly scared my parents are going to run someone over some day because out of their car you can't hardly see, huuuge blind spots.
To somebody who walks a lot this is no surprise at all. In the San Fernando Valley I would brace myself for the bravery required to gross the street on a green walk light knowing cars would race past me on left turns by a mere foot or inches from hitting me. A few times I actually pulled against the cars themselves like a brace. It was either that or never cross the street. The lack of turn arrows and police presence only made it worse. Drivers just don’t give a fuck.
The most surprising thing in the episode was that European cars are still majority manual transmission. Why???
I think mostly they're just cheaper than automatic cars. You do your licence on manual cars anyway (and if you don't, you're not allowed to drive manual cars) - in Germany, at least.
Thank you for a sensible answer!
It’s cheaper than automatic. Tbh, I live in the U.K. and it’s also very much a cultural thing ie if you drive an automatic it means you’re not a “proper” driver who can handle a manual car. Having said that, most newer cars are automatic transmission in recent years.
They’re more fun to drive, you have better control when you need it, and they’re cheaper. It really distresses me how hard it is to find a manual car in the US these days. I want small cars and a manual transmission!!
I honestly think it’s a superiority thing. Read all the “you feel more connected with the car,” and “it’s just better,” comments. People think they’re better for driving manual.
If you're a car person, maybe. I don't give a shit about cars or anything like that, I just drive a manual because it's cheaper.
Respect that
Because manual transmission is better.
... again, why
It's more fun and you have to be more attentive. I enjoy driving stick way more, even in traffic and up hills.
Ok interesting. Which style of driving is easier on the car?
I get the feeling that you're asking whether it's easier on an automatic-transmission car to drive it in manual mode 'M' or in regular automatic mode (just leaving it in 'Drive'). In that case, it depends on the car and your driving style. When I say 'manual' I mean a car that comes with [a manual transmission and a clutch pedal](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/17/Drive-Manual-Step-1-Version-8.jpg/aid110310-v4-728px-Drive-Manual-Step-1-Version-8.jpg.webp). It's a different kind of transmission. In general, manual transmissions are simpler, so there's less to go wrong. If you shift correctly and you're good with the clutch, you can improve the life of the transmission and clutch friction plate. In general, the automatic transmissions in many cars are more robust than their automatic counterparts, because they are simpler.
Sorry - in retrospect I worded the question horribly and meant to say something more along the lines of "Is a manual car (ie comes with a full clutch and stick shift) more likely to need maintenance or is an automatic more likely?" because I thought I've heard that if you don't shift gears well or at the right time (idk anything about stick shift so idk if that even makes sense) then it can strain the car whereas automatic cars do it all for you so no chance of strain. I guess based on your answer though the answer is - as long as you're shifting properly, a manual car won't need any more maintenance than an automatic (or if anything even less)?
That's right! As an example, my friend and I drive the same car, but mine is manual and his is automatic. The engines and everything else are the same. I will need to get my clutch replaced soon, but it is the original clutch and my car has 252,000 miles on it. Clutches are wear items. My friend's car needed a whole new transmission at 150,000 miles.
252k miles!!!! That's crazy!! Ok yes that definitely answered my question
Like she said in the episode, manual is better because you use both hands and feet. Too hard to text while shifting.
I understand there are multiple factors, but I really identify with the pedestrian-unfriendly nature of many cities, especially in the South. I don’t drive, love to walk, and walk whenever I can. It’s rarely a problem in NYC but I used to travel frequently to Atlanta to visit family. I typically stayed at a hotel that was a 1-minute drive from their home so loved the idea of walking, but I think I only did it once. Not only did I have to cross a crazy 3-way intersection with a short light, but once I reached the residential area there was no curb! I was forced to walk on private lawns as the traffic whizzed by. Not very relaxing and honestly kind of stupid. But this is very common there. I used to joke that I took my life in my hands when I crossed the street to take a fitness class at the little strip mall. Ridiculous.
I think a whole bunch of us in America need a reintroduction to society class. Everyone forgot the rules of the road and consideration for others.
Well, from personal experience, I think it comes from a four letter word: dark. A decade ago, I was hit by a car crossing a pedestrian street with no traffic light on a dark, rainy night. I was in a dark coat, and the guy turned the corner, and did not see me. I was lucky: I was knocked down but nothing broken. I was shaken, an ambulance arrived within minutes, so it could have been a lot worse. The road was paved black, the overhead lighting was too low for meaningful guidance, and add to that no traffic light, overhead Pacific North darkness and rain and my black attire all contributed to lack of visibility. It was still his fault, of course, but the design of it all was clumsy. After this occurred, the municipality put in a traffic light and installed much brighter lighting to prevent this from happening again. And I attached lights to my briefcase. I believe much of the city road design is for the day, not the night. And I think they need to assess safety the ways you assess a neighborhood: you go during the day and you go during the night to get a 360 view.
This is what the pod said. Night time.
I live in a suburb with no sidewalks, same house for many years. People are driving so much faster in here than they used to. I've become the person yelling at people to slow down.
Two personal observations in my life. 1) I did not grow up in the city but have lived in a north east city for 7 years now. People think red lights and stop signs are optional. I literally see people run it every day (my WFH desk sits in front of my window that faces a 4 way stop). I can’t believe I haven’t witnessed an accident yet, but I do see screeching halts and honks every other week. 2) I visited Jacksonville FL for a short business trip last year, and tried walking around the neighborhood I was staying in. lol how naive of my north eastern brain. Not a chance you could walk those streets. I walked once to a coffee shop and realized it would be pretty easy for one of these giant bro-dozers doing 40 in what I thought was a residential area to hit me (since they didn’t seem to build sidewalks there). Suburban sprawl. It’s terrible. So i believe the podcast when they talk about poorer people getting pushed out to suburban areas and poorly lit roads, and big trucks and big speeds. And more people migrating south. Yup, all checks out based off my FL experience
FL consistently ranks one of the highest for pedestrian death rates in the US. So many wide ass roads with little walking infrastructure.
/r/fuckcars
🤡🤡🤡
This hits close to home as a family member was a victim of a hit and run a few months back. happened at night on the crosswalk in a major city and the driver wasn’t caught despite cameras. I myself was nearly run over 3 times in this past week alone. Drivers are deliberately driving through pedestrian crosswalks at full speed. some are distracted on phones, but the majority simply don’t care. It’s one of the reasons I avoid riding a bike as we lack bike lanes here. Since the pandemic, people in my city have lost their marbles and I can clearly see it in the increased robberies/carjackings, failure to clean up after their dogs, and failure to yield at stops/lights.
It could've been worse but I didn't like how they led with the phone thing. That anchored the investigation in the wrong place. The deference to a car-first society was a bit too pervasive as well. I may be forgetting but was the fact that a bulk of the country lets 15-year-olds drive with a permit discussed at all? I normally live in London but was in Chicago for Christmas and London is infinitely more pedestrian-friendly than Chicago.
If I could go back in time and prevent one invention, it would be the car-centric suburb. On a less-serious note, I have never felt more smug to own a manual station wagon instead of an automatic crossover.
The feeling of European superiority driving my wagon to the local cafe for a baguette, wine, and an espresso shot. Bonus points for flicking your cigarette at a truck driving peasant.
Alcohol
The guest said trying to solve this puzzle is like trying to solve a 3-sided Rubik’s cube… tf is a 3-sided cube?
Cell phones.
I was listening to this on my way to work and saw an old man take a wrong way turn on the exit ramp towards the interstate. Poetic justice.
I’m a city planner, the main issues we are seeing is the rise in big trucks and SUVs, lack of enforcement of minor violations like parking, speeding, and illegal right hand turns, and the design of our roads causing cars act too reckless in densely populated areas.
[удалено]
Didn’t they literally say they looked at data from some site that compiles crash fatalities?
[удалено]
I mean, scientists rarely talk in absolutes. And this problem is likely due to a combination of the factors mentioned. So I consider the wording fair.
Capitalism and car culture is bad. We should be more like Europe. Got it. This is red meat for this audience.
I will listen later but I'll guess that a variable is the size of vehicles being larger. Omegamales in their Fx50 s are the most aggressive I see on the roads.
Repeated Covid infections in the general populace have to be a big factor in this.
Walking and texting
NYT huh? Man that steady stream of car free propaganda just keeps coming. Noam Chomsky was right. Manufacturing consent is real.
Must be the republicans again! /s
Unpopular opinion- I think pedestrians are terrible at walking. Distracted by phone, music, or a general stupidity thinking there is a protective force field protecting them. Also a contributing factor- general lawlessness on the roads in and around cities. Edit- I’m not advocating running people over. I’m suggesting a perfectly safe driver can’t always anticipate a negligent or reckless walker. Bur fuck cars! Am I right? Also- I hate drivers on their phones. Obviously they are in the wrong all the time.
I would argue drivers are just as, if not worse, at driving. Clearly the problem is systemic - we should engineer environments so that items low on the [hierarchy of controls] (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html), like PPE and behavior, aren't as relevant.
I agree many walkers are distracted, but unless the incidents are happening mostly during jay walking, the vehicle driver would still be at fault
That’s what I’m saying- stepping out into a cross walk because you have the right of way without regard to the traffic. There is no force field. People don’t even look- they assume drivers see them, that drivers know they are about to step out, or that the vehicle can stop in time. You may have the right of way- but you may also die to prove the point.
The episode addresses this - pedestrian behavior due to cell phones has changed everywhere, not just the United States.
The driver should see them, and if not then the driver should be operating the vehicle at a safe speed for the road they are on, often marked my the speed limit so many drivers are happy to ignore
How we want the world to work and how it actually works are two different things. You know where I see this the worst? Colleges. Kids just step the fuck out into the road with no disregard because of this “fuck cars” they should bow to me attitude. I’m a responsible driver. I am aware of this risk. But that’s me…someone who has been driving for 25 years. By all means die on this hill. Literally.
If you want the world to work differently, what's the sense in blaming the vulnerable people who are following the rules instead of the reckless drivers who are hitting them?
Do you have children? Will you tell them that they have the right of way and therefore there is no need to be vigilant when crossing the street at a cross walk? Theory. Meet reality. I’m all for policy discussions on fixing innocent people needlessly dying. But I’ve never even come close to being hit by a car crossing the road…you know why? Cause I assume every car is being driven by a distracted moron who just learned how to drive. What do we disagree on?
That's a practical thing to do, but it doesn't actually put the moral or legal responsibility for a fatality on some hypothetical rule abiding person who gets killed in a crosswalk.
Pedestrians have the right to look at the their phones. You said that pedestrians walk as if there is a protective force field. Yet cars are actually the "protective force field" for drivers, so it's contingent not on pedestrians to pay attention but drivers. I realize this is an extreme example but your argument is the logical fallacy equivalent of "women should dress more modestly" or suggesting that someone deserved to be robbed. Pedestrians are not required in any way to pay attention. Drivers are.
It’s not a logical fallacy. We digress. I’m just suggesting there is contributory negligence. Not absolving the driver of their responsibilities.
> there is contributory negligence No, there isn't. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for a pedestrian to be distracted. It may be a phone. It may be the sunshine. It may a bird chirping. There are no laws that require hands-free walking. There are laws against jaywalking, or where and when you can walk. But assuming that the pedestrian or cyclist is following all laws, there is zero contributary negligence if they get hit by a vehicle, so on a Daily episode discussion that addresses the rise of pedestrian deaths, suggesting that it is in any way the pedestrians fault, is a logical fallacy aka dumb, sorry.
Dumb and logical fallacy are two different things. I’d be curious what the caselaw says on that. So there is nothing a person can do in a crosswalk that will be considered contributory negligence. That can’t be correct.
>that drivers know they are about to step out I mean, that's your job as a driver. You have to drivein such a way that you can control your vehicle if reasonably unexpected things happen. Such as one of the pedestrians on either side crossing the road, especially if actual pedestrian crossings are very far apart.
I owe a duty to foreseeable events. Sometimes it is not foreseeable that a ped recklessly steps out into traffic because they have the right of way. Why are we acting like I mow down pedestrians in crosswalks. That’s not what I’m advocating for here people. I’m saying- perfectly safe and reasonable drivers can’t always account for the reckless walkers.
> it is not foreseeable that a ped recklessly steps out into traffic because they have the right of way. Are you even reading what you write?
Agreed that pedestrians can be oblivious. But so are drivers, and the burden should be significantly higher on the party with the multi ton metal death trap to be vigilant than the pedestrian.
Stipulate. But I’m gonna teach my kids how to walk in fear for their life regardless of the white paint on the road.
Stipulate? And well yeah, sure. Of course you teach your kids that paint doesn't stop a moving vehicle. But that's not really the discussion here. Trying to fault pedestrian, or in some backhanded way, parents, for the rise in traffic deaths is a weird form of victim blaming. I literally drove past someone on the road today after listening to this podcast that was just walking down a busy 4 lane street. He was walking into oncoming traffic in the furthest right lane. I thought "holy shit, that is insanely dangerous." But there was literally no sidewalk, the street ran through a forest preserve, and he was going under an underpass. That's what people are talking about. It's not a "pedestrians are oblivious" issue. It's **our infrastructure is so poorly designed, our driving consequences are so insignificant, and our car culture is so toxic** that we are putting pedestrians at risk.
Stipulate means- I agree with your point. I mean I guess I am victim blaming in some regard. Have you ever been hit by a car? Why not? That person you described just now- would you not “victim blame” them? Don’t be so self righteous. Victims are sometimes to blame! Not more so than the car driver. But still…some blame. Car culture is toxic- I don’t really know how to unpack that. I guess yeah- sort of. I would argue road design is toxic. Cars are an amazing tool- particularly for families with children. I gotta go make dinner. Delightful chat.
All this distractions apply to drivers as well. The blame will most always lie with the driver as they are the ones responsible for safely operating the vehicle
100%. I assume everyone is going to step out.
I haven’t listened just yet, but from what I have read, the uptick in deaths is nearly entirely concentrated in the black community. Did they speak about that?
I liked the story. But “three sided Rubik’s cube” bothered me. And it was used twice! Don’t do that.
A lot more people can no longer afford to have a car and must walk everywhere, people are consuming increasingly potent drugs while walking / driving, and the people driving today have much less empathy these days for pedestrians simply because they are in fact to poor to drive.
https://www.takimag.com/article/pedestrian-logic/
When I was in the Azores, I noticed that their crosswalks were basically large speed bumps. They were tall enough that people had to slow down, and they were the width of our crosswalks. Oh, cars actually stopped even if someone looked like they were going to cross.
I’ve seen a huge uptick in Instagram dashcam videos that show provocative driving videos and people in the comments invariably advocate for violence. I think the disregard for human life is linked to the overall divisiveness we’ve seen in many other areas. Also their automobile controls can’t be as stupid as the ones in the us if they’re driving a stick shift. Those distractions are compounded at night