[B’ Spokes: I think this is good news, finally some tools for more accurate crash reconstruction.]
************************************************************************************************************
…
Car-testing dummies, it seems, don’t tell what happens to people who are thrown off a bicycle. The Carleton dummy is built to suffer in more ways than the conventional model, a Thor-NT device used widely in industry.
“The idea is that we should be able to throw this crash test dummy into whatever situation and get a reasonably accurate result, regardless of whether we know (in advance) what injuries we’re going to have,” he said.
…
Read more: https://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Carleton+students+develop+crash+test+dummy+cycling+accidents/6411644/story.html

[B’ Spoke: … yet the irony and causation is missed by so many.]
Continue reading “Too much traffic to walk to school”

[B’ Spokes: If you haven’t seen this yet, it has a heart warming ending where a bus driver and motorist make sure the hit-and-run driver does not get away.]

Related: The police press release: https://bethlehempolice.blogspot.com/2012/04/press-release-city-honors-two-citizens.html

[B’ Spokes: One of the things I want to point out is while Maryland does have a law against aggressive driving, it is one of the worst, hard to enforce laws I have seen as it totally ignores driving behavior that puts pedestrians at risk. For example; not yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk – not part of our aggressive driving law. A copy of the relevant laws are at the end.

And let’s not forget Maryland’s seeming tolerance for going 10mph over the speed limit for way too many drivers.]

SUMMARY OF KEY SURVEY RESULTS AND GHSA RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite reductions in the overall number of speed-related crashes and fatalities, the proportion of speed-related fatalities that occur on U.S. roadways has remained unchanged over the last quarter century. Almost one-third of all fatalities continue to be speed-related.

GHSA recognizes the major role speed and aggressive driving play as contributors to traffic death and injury. To better understand state efforts to control speed and aggressive driving problems, GHSA conducted an online survey of states in late 2010 and early 2011. All fifty states and Guam responded to the survey.
…

A summary of the key results of the survey follows.
a. Public perception of speed. Recent research on traffic safety culture and the survey responses cited by state highway safety representatives make it clear that the public’s perception of the speed and aggressive driving problems are inconsistent at best and apathetic at worst. Few advocates exist for speed reduction; speeding is a behavior that many people engage in routinely. Even so, the majority of states conduct both enhanced speed enforcement programs and public awareness campaigns focused on speed; many also address aggressive driving. Opportunities exist for all states to strategically focus enforcement and awareness efforts on both speed and aggressive driving.

b. Conflicted role of technology. Speed enforcement tools such as radar and laser speed detection devices are common technology applications in almost every state; their purchase is supported by most state highway safety offices. Yet a large majority of these states’ laws allow motorists to use technology to avoid speeding tickets. Far fewer states have adopted automated technology such as red light running and automated speed enforcement cameras despite the successful use and acceptance of these devices in many other parts of the world.

c. Other factors. Over-involvement in speeding crashes is likely to involve the same type of driver—young, male and a resident of a rural area—as is involved in many other dangerous driving behaviors. States are challenged in trying to change the behavior of this risk-taking personality type, who often combines speed with other aggressive driving behaviors, further increasing the risk of crashing. At the same time, representatives of state highway safety offices report a reduction in law enforcement officers that are available to conduct speed enforcement activities.

d. Appetite for change. A national agenda for change was adopted by highway safety leaders at the National Forum on Speeding in 2005. Yet very few significant aggressive driving and speed-related laws and policies have been enacted in states since that agenda was created nearly seven years ago. Many of the state speed-related laws that have passed in the last seven years include raising speed limits and are not expected to improve safety.
…

GHSA Recommendations
The leadership of GHSA believes that many opportunities currently exist to address the tremendous loss associated with speed-related crashes, deaths and injuries. These strategies can be successfully implemented in states across the country in collaboration with and supported by federal partners. To that end, GHSA makes the following recommendations:

■ States should explore addressing speed concerns through aggressive driving enforcement since the driving public believes that aggressive driving is a serious threat to their safety.
…

The public’s attitude about speeding is enormously conflicted.
…

The action agenda included seven steps designed to:

■ Raise the priority of speed as a traffic safety issue

■ Set and achieve speed reduction goals, focusing on the reduction of extreme speeders and/or all travel speeds in high risk areas like school or work zones

■ Improve speed-related data and research, investigating improvements in: travel speed and crash data, methods to get accurate speed data in crashes, educating the public on speed issues, methods to use “smart” vehicles and highway technology to manage speed

■ Implement engineering strategies designed to reduce speed, both in the short term (like speed humps or roundabouts, transitional signing, pavement markings, and signal timing) and in the longer term (like roadway design, speed limits consistent with design and use, and variable speed limits)

■ Implement speed enforcement strategies such as raising the priority of speed enforcement with law enforcement agencies, the general public and the courts, and utilizing automated speed enforcement

■ Implement education strategies
…

…

In the AAA Foundation’s Traffic Safety Culture
Index poll, nearly 90 percent of drivers view aggressive driving as a very
serious or somewhat serious threat to their own safety.
…

and a 50 percent
reduction in the incidence of speeding more than 6 miles per hour over
the speed limit. Officials credit these programs with reductions in fatalities on the order of 15-20 percent on the targeted road systems.
[Note: That Maryland is basically unconcerned till 12 mph over the limit.]

…

The report concludes that if the results of the most rigorous U.S. speed
management efforts (not using automated enforcement) could be
replicated and sustained throughout the all 50 states and proportionate
benefits were realized, 1,000 to 2,000 lives could be saved per year.

…
Continue reading “SPEEDING AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING – GHSA”

California Car Accident Lawyer

16. Abstract
The Oregon Department of Transportation improved two crosswalks on US 97 (Bend Parkway) near Bend, Oregon by installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), replacing signs, and enhancing pavement markings. At the location of the intersections where the RRFBs were installed the highway is a four-lane facility with a center median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The posted speed is 45 miles per hour. At about the same time that the improvements were made at the two crosswalks on the Bend Parkway, RRFBs were installed at another nearby location in the City of Bend. As the use of RRFBs is considered experimental, particularly at locations with posted speeds in excess of 35 mph , an evaluation of driver compliance rates and conflicts at the three intersections was undertaken.
Driver yielding rates increased significantly at all three intersections where RRFBs were installed. Prior to the installation of RRFBs, data was collected on a total of 159 crossings at the three intersections; following RRFB installation data was collected on a total of 211 crossings. The average yielding rate was 17.8%; following installation the average yielding rate more than tripled to 79.9%.
The conclusion of the study was that RRFBs should be considered for installation on high-speed facilities where there are posted speeds greater than 35 miles per hour if there are pedestrians and bicyclists using the facility and a history of crashes or the potential for them. The design of an RRFB installation needs to include features to improve the visibility of the crossing.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/2011/SPR721_bend_rrfb.pdf?ga=t