Risk Homeostasis - Drivers and Cyclists

A good read regarding how drivers act around cyclists is the theory of "risk
homeostasis" Google pulls up some good stuff. This is how drivers (or other
risk takers) have a set level of risk, and drive to that level. If you make
it "safer" - widen and straighten roads, add air bags and ABS, etc. people
compensate by driving more aggressively or absent-mindedly. Evidence our
numerous safety engineering improvements, increased aggressive driving, and
flat fatality rate.

Now consider how drivers get off after killing cyclists and pedestrians in
almost every situation - unless they are drunk. Every driver puts this into
her "risk computer". If killing a law-abiding cyclist or pedestrian meant a
felony record, a mandatory few months in jail and a few years without a
driver's license, drivers would naturally be more vigilant.

Japan for example has a much stricter view about driving. They see driving
like it was an activity that involved operating potentially deadly machinery
in an environment containing children and other not-so responsible people.
In other words, they treat driving fairly, not benevolently. Over here, a
kid enters the street and you can kill him even if you had a block to stop.

The only thing that seems to significantly change things are how societies
see mishaps - such as our freaking paranoia about airline crashes and shark
attacks - which we cannot personally control aside from not flying or
swimming in the ocean. If we cyclists make an issue every time a cyclists
is killed and the driver gets away, say holding candlelight vigils, bike
protests, marching on city hall, demanding that the press treat us fairly,
etc. we change this perception towards justice. If we don't, our
neighborhoods get less and less safe for anyone not driving.

Anyway, its an interesting topic.

--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL

"Robert Haston" wrote in message
link.net...
A good read regarding how drivers act around cyclists is the theory of
"risk
homeostasis" Google pulls up some good stuff. This is how drivers (or
other
risk takers) have a set level of risk, and drive to that level. If you
make
it "safer" - widen and straighten roads, add air bags and ABS, etc. people
compensate by driving more aggressively or absent-mindedly. Evidence our
numerous safety engineering improvements, increased aggressive driving,
and
flat fatality rate.

Now consider how drivers get off after killing cyclists and pedestrians in
almost every situation - unless they are drunk. Every driver puts this
into
her "risk computer". If killing a law-abiding cyclist or pedestrian meant
a
felony record, a mandatory few months in jail and a few years without a
driver's license, drivers would naturally be more vigilant.

Japan for example has a much stricter view about driving. They see
driving
like it was an activity that involved operating potentially deadly
machinery
in an environment containing children and other not-so responsible people.
In other words, they treat driving fairly, not benevolently. Over here, a
kid enters the street and you can kill him even if you had a block to
stop.

The only thing that seems to significantly change things are how societies
see mishaps - such as our freaking paranoia about airline crashes and
shark
attacks - which we cannot personally control aside from not flying or
swimming in the ocean. If we cyclists make an issue every time a cyclists
is killed and the driver gets away, say holding candlelight vigils, bike
protests, marching on city hall, demanding that the press treat us fairly,
etc. we change this perception towards justice. If we don't, our
neighborhoods get less and less safe for anyone not driving.

Anyway, its an interesting topic.

--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL

Excellent analysis, Robert. I completely agree. It is becoming obvious to
me that the little guy is being shoved off the road - so to speak - in the
US (not just cyclists). This aggressive, selfish mindset (and laws that
condone and promote it) carry over into virtually every sector of our
society. Aggressiveness is the order of the day. Fat, stupid, unthinking,
uncaring people are not only tolerated here, they are the majority. They're
buying gigantic vehicles to match their waistlines, and they'll be damned if
they'll slow down for anybody. If they kill a kid on a sidestreet, it's the
kid's fault, and his parents' fault, not the driver's.

What to do? Candlelight vigils, media-oriented public protests, petitions,
lobbying and every other form of civil disobedience (including Critical Mess
^H^H^H^H^ Mass) will be required in order to realign our priorities as a
society. It's not going to be easy, or quick. With 40,000+ US
automobile-related deaths per annum, it would take a very high body count of
dead cyclists to even get the public's attention. It's a problem that I
can't figure out how to solve without a regime change and some major
overhauls of American behavior. Let's start with the former: Regime Change
Begins at Home :-)

-Barry

Rocketman wrote:

Excellent analysis, Robert. I completely agree. It is becoming obvious to
me that the little guy is being shoved off the road - so to speak - in the
US (not just cyclists). This aggressive, selfish mindset (and laws that
condone and promote it) carry over into virtually every sector of our
society. Aggressiveness is the order of the day. Fat, stupid, unthinking,
uncaring people are not only tolerated here, they are the majority. They're
buying gigantic vehicles to match their waistlines, and they'll be damned if
they'll slow down for anybody. If they kill a kid on a sidestreet, it's the
kid's fault, and his parents' fault, not the driver's.

What to do? Candlelight vigils, media-oriented public protests, petitions,
lobbying and every other form of civil disobedience (including Critical Mess
^H^H^H^H^ Mass) will be required in order to realign our priorities as a
society. It's not going to be easy, or quick. With 40,000+ US
automobile-related deaths per annum, it would take a very high body count of
dead cyclists to even get the public's attention. It's a problem that I
can't figure out how to solve without a regime change and some major
overhauls of American behavior. Let's start with the former: Regime Change
Begins at Home :-)

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.

The second would be to improve the lives and reduce the stress levels of
the majority of the working population by having a "living wage" minimum
wage and a 30-hour work week. With the productivity levels of today's
worker, it is ridiculous that people are working close to 50 hours a
week for less in real wages than they made 30 years ago at 40-hours a
week.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"There is enough in the world for everyone's need; there is not enough
for everyone's greed." - Mohandas Gandhi

Drivers don't just kill cyclists and pedestrians; they kill other
drivers as well.

Thanks to at least 50 years of car-centric infrastructure building, we
have now arrived at a place where lots of N Ams. spend a lot of time
in their car every day. Given the amount of time they spend driving,
it would be difficult to give the task the required attention, even if
they were so inclined. Which they are not. They resent the time they
have to spend in the car, so they try to use it for other purposes;
eating, putting on make-up, talking on the phone (picking up voice
mail), etc. They tend to drive the same routes every day, so assuming
no surprises, (a bad assumption to make on the roads) they think they
can manage by giving the task of driving the minimum of attention.

There is something to the risk thing, I suppose, but it is
complicated. On one of my busy local streets, when there are parked
cars, it is difficult for meeting cars to pass each other. This
amounts to a kind of de facto "traffic calming" device. But at commute
times, drivers are aggresive and don't slow down. One frequently sees
broken mirrors on this stretch. I don't think static traffic calming
devices work.

Meanwhile in the core, traffic is slower because of signal lights and
volume, and there are always interuptions; bikes, peds, taxis stopped
in the lane, etc. The risk equasion is constantly changing. I think it
forces people to pay more attention and I actually feel pretty ok
about cycling there. Toronto has a kind of daily "critical mass" of
peds and bikes. There are always some present, so most drivers do look
for them. Bike messsengers in particular are very aggressive in
"educating" errant drivers.

I don't have any answers about how to change bad local environments.

john riley
Toronto

"Rocketman" wrote in message
news:d5wyb.268016$275.960138@attbi_s53...
"Robert Haston" wrote in message
link.net...
A good read regarding how drivers act around cyclists is the theory of
"risk
homeostasis" Google pulls up some good stuff. This is how drivers (or
other
risk takers) have a set level of risk, and drive to that level. If you
make
it "safer" - widen and straighten roads, add air bags and ABS, etc.
people
compensate by driving more aggressively or absent-mindedly. Evidence
our
numerous safety engineering improvements, increased aggressive driving,
and
flat fatality rate.

....stuff deleted

We've had this conversation on "Risk Compensation" in relation to helmets
before. Most humans adopt a "what will happen to me" attitude and pattern
their behavior on that basis. It would be safer if the prevailing attitude
were one of, "what will happen to others," but this is more than can be
expected of humans.

One thing I did notice through the years of using roads in the US, however,
is that those who feel safest driving tended to be the worst (either they
take more chances or are simply oblivious to the world around them). Volvo
drivers, for example, have always been on my short list of the chronically
unskilled. Their former advertising campaign that their cars are safe in all
kinds of accidents led to a selection of drivers who were awful, probably
because they felt safe. We are seeing the same kinds of behavior occur in
drivers of SUV's and other large vehicles because there is a prevailing
belief that size = safety. This is not the case when the majority of
vehicles on the road are also SUV's and trucks, but try telling them that.

Rick

It seems like proving a huge awards lawsuit would be a no-brainer for any
lawyer involved with a reckless injury.

But maybe that's too vague: still, having every lawyer in the world in a
position to slamdunk whoever hit you or your loved one seems significant.

More specifically: I'd think that any prosecutor in the world could easily
convict an injurious motorist of something fairly serious and go for max
penalty under even a misdemeanor?

Remember, this is a world where prosecutors and lawyers easily win cases
regarding hot coffee and hayride tumbles (I just heard this one locally).

A car hitting someone should be a BIG problem for any driver. Crazy to think
that it's not.

My hunch from reading about many hit bikers here and elsewhere is that a crazy
informal extra-legal consensus has been made among the nation's lawyers and
prosecutors. They simply DECIDE not to go after deadly motorists. They
INFORMALLY decide that the injuring party "has suffered as well." Haven't we
all noticed this in the reports? Obviously, in any of these incidents, a lawyer
or prosecutor would have enough to get SOMETHING and then apply max penalty if
they liked---enough to start a HUGE deterrent wave.

My guess is that our nation's lawyers and prosecutors ARE THEMSELVES
potentially injurious motorists!!! There's a sense of "we're all drivers here"
which lets drivers injure/kill with impunity.

Unless there ARE usually big settlements via insurance companies and lawyers
and these are sealed/gagged and absorbed by the system thus resulting in no
deterrence?

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com
publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself culture...
...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies...
...rare books on ski, bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller
about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels coming up!
...original downloadable music ... and articles galore!
plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.

Great idea. So why don't you start and set the example for the rest of us.
Every time you buy a gallon of gas you should send the government $4.

Dave

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

The first thing we (in the US) need is a gas tax in the $4-5/gal. range,
both to pay for the true cost of petroleum consumption, and to provide
an economic incentive for people to drive reasonably sized motor
vehicles.

The second would be to improve the lives and reduce the stress levels of
the majority of the working population by having a "living wage" minimum
wage and a 30-hour work week. With the productivity levels of today's
worker, it is ridiculous that people are working close to 50 hours a
week for less in real wages than they made 30 years ago at 40-hours a
week.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

I agree strongly with both of Tom's points. Bringing it back to the
subject of recumbents though the short term solution might be to ride
configurations of recumbents that offer more rider protection in the
event of a collision with a motor vehicle and ride as defensively as
possible including the regular use of mirrors, high visibility
surfaces, reflective material and lighting. This might also mean
choosing to ride recumbents with higher seat heights. These are steps
anyone can take now rather than waiting for the governmental policies
with regards to fuel tax, traffic law enforcement and driver
accountability to change which will be a slow process if it ever
happens in the US.

Zach Kaplan

Jeff Potter wrote:

A car hitting someone should be a BIG problem for any driver. Crazy to think
that it's not.


A nearby high school lost its valedictorian this summer. She was struck from
behind while cycling on a 2 lane road on a bright sunny afternoon, wearing
a bright yellow shirt.

The driver recently was acquitted. His lawyer offered the following defenses:
1. The victim may have swerved in front of her killer. (no evidence of this,
and it's the passer's responsibility to maintain a safe distance)
2. The victim's shirt was the same color as the sun, making her invisible.
(try using that defense when you hit a school bus)

I think the real reason for the aquittal was 3: The jury members wouldn't
want to go to jail if they committed negligent homicide with a vehicle.

Mitch.

Zach Kaplan Cycles wrote:

I agree strongly with both of Tom's points. Bringing it back to the
subject of recumbents though the short term solution might be to ride
configurations of recumbents that offer more rider protection in the
event of a collision with a motor vehicle ...

What configurations might that be?
Mitch.