Tag: statistics

FARS

[ Check out Paul Schimek’s visualization of FARS bicycling data ]

Cindie Holub’s death on March 1,  (Cindy’s death was written up on bicyclelaw.com, also see 2010 fatalities), from injuries sustained in a Feb 24 collision with a garbage truck caused me to look up the rule for categorization purposes. “To be included in this census of crashes, a crash had to involve a motor vehicle traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public, and must result in the death of a person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash.” from DOT HS 811 137.

The US DOT runs a very elaborate, publicly available, query-able database for every traffic fatality in the US called FARS — Fatality Analysis and Reporting System. Continue reading “FARS”

New Crash Forms / ALISS database

ALISS — stands for Accident Location Identification Surveillance System… it apparently feeds the ADOT Safety Data Mart.

As of Jan 1, 2009(?); Arizona has new forms. The old “Arizona Traffic Accident Report” will now be an “Arizona Crash Report” (as an aside, if you don’t know why that is significant, please see here). You can see what’s on the new form here, in a presentation by Rick Turner; includes the tantalizing bullet point “Customers Will Be Able to Query, Analyze and Retrieve Their Own Crash Data”. Continue reading “New Crash Forms / ALISS database”

Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles

This ponderously-name technical report from the NHTSA, Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles [DOT HS 811 204 pdf here]

Has a bunch of interesting tidbits. It’s obviously leading or suggesting that quieter motorvehicles, particularly at low speeds where tire noise would be less significant, have a tendency to not be heard by cyclists or peds thus leading to more crashes. Sounds plausible. The difference may explain some human behavioral factors of operators of bicycles; such as why cyclists rarely make a complete stop, yet rarely get seriously injured in those situations. (Motorist, too, rarely stop but that’s another story)

What mainly caught my eye was a juicy dataset as describe in the METHODS section “State crash files from NHTSA’s State Data System (SDS)… The SDS includes all police-reported crashes, regardless of the injury or crash outcomes”. Though the SDS actually only contains records for 32 states, arizona not being one of them.

Who’s Responsible?

There is a claim floating around that some study has concluded that motorists are responsible for some 90% of car-bike collisions.

This would be a lot higher than is generally appreciated. I’ve grappled with this a little bit before in Understanding Collision Summaries, where I pointed out an inexplicably high proportion of  “other” violations assigned to bicyclists.

So far, I’ve found a page at projectfreeride.org with a table that is said to be source from Tomlinson, David. Conflicts Between Cyclists and Motorists in Toronto, Canada. Link to a .pdf on the Velomondial.net.

The same claim can be found in a newslettery article dated Aug 19, 2009 on a University of Toronto website entitled Smart Cycling. the information was supplied by a physcian, Dr. Chris Cavacuti, who is also involved with projectfreeride. And a correction with that article that was posted Aug 26:

In the interview, Dr. Cavacuiti is quoted as saying “The [Toronto Collision] study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents”. Dr. Cavacuiti has asked us to make readers aware that the Toronto Collision study was actually designed to look at the cause of bicycle/motorist collisions but not culpability.

It is actually several studies conducted by the Charles Komanoff and member of the Right of Way organization in New York that concluded that concluded that cyclists were strictly culpable for less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents.

Dr. Cavacuiti would like to apologize for any confusion this error may have caused.

On the projectfreeride page,  in a statement summarizing Tomlinson’s findings, the page at projectfreeride says “In fact, cyclists are the cause of less than 10% of bike-car accidents in this study”. Is that really what Tomlinson found? Or should the correction mentioned above be also applied to the projectfreeride page too?

This claim got picked up by the Freakonomics blog, garnering wide exposure.

Skepticism at the commuteorlando blog. Links the 90% claim back to Komanoff’s group Killed by Automobile paper. More links here on cycledog.

(more to come…)

See my own figures for manner-and-fault-in-bicyclist-traffic-fatalities-arizona-2009 which, according to the police reports/investigation, found motorists most-at-fault in about 50% of fatal traffic collisions between a MV and bicyclist in 2009.

MAG Stats

There was a nice little piece in the local West Valley paper, Surprise a safe zone for bicycle riders.

They make some rather outlandish claims, though.

According to figures recently released by Maricopa County Association of Governments, Surprise has one of the lowest rates of injuries and fatalities in the county.

Surprise has an average rating of 5.08 per 100,000 of its population for bicyclist injuries and fatalities and 6.31 for pedestrian injuries and fatalities from 2003 through 2007, the latest statistics…

This contrasts with other neighboring cities such as Peoria — with ratings of 16.43 for bicyclists and 11.71 pedestrians, and Glendale — with 26.68 for bicyclists and 31.27 for pedestrians.

Tempe ranks as the most dangerous city for bicyclists with a rating of 93.57 injuries and fatalities per 100,000 and 54.5 for pedestrian injuries and fatalities.

Is bicycling really almost twenty times more dangerous in Tempe relative to Surprise? One imagines it has more to do with the amount of cycling relative to population. And other distortions, e.g. maybe ASU students aren’t counted as Tempe residents.

Here is MAG’s Transpo Committee page, to see the data referred to in the story, open page Crash Trends in the MAG Region 2001-2007 and then click on “Injuries and fatalities per 100K population”, and a table with per-city data pops into the same page below the existing stuff (thanks to Sarath for pointing that out).

“Alcohol-Related” vs. “Alcohol-Impaired”

2007alcoholrelatedfromwsjIn last week’s Numbers Guy WSJ column, Carl Bialik examines a dust-up between MADD and the (beverage industry-backed) Century Council. They published a bar-chart of alcohol-related fatalities broken down by BAC levels.

Note that the term alcohol-related means simply that any of the drivers involved had a BAC of 0.01 or greater.

What intests me, however, is how the chart looks if we include all fatalities and how the same chart would look. Continue reading ““Alcohol-Related” vs. “Alcohol-Impaired””

Crashes are the Leading Cause of Death…

I found this image lurking on the NHTSA website. MVCs (Motor Vehicle Collisions) are always the leading cause, though the exact ages vary from year to year, e.g. from Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United States, 2000 “motor vehicle traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for every age 2 through 33”. Note that this ranking is all inclusive; thus it includes things like suicide, homicide, and so forth.

Just like everything else in life, there are some nuances that are worth understanding. The simplest distinction is between internal (think disease) and external (think any sort of accidental death; car crash, drowning, falling…). These distinctions are detailed in the technical report, e.g. Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the U. S., 1997 (emphasis added):

“As a major external cause, traffic crashes are the prime cause of accidental death in the United States, and this has been true for many years. Thus, for persons of all ages, traffic crashes alone in 1997 caused almost one-half of all accidental deaths that occurred….  “

For example, from Exhibit 5 here are the top 5 causes of “accidental death” for both sexes combined. MVCs DOMINATE the rankings.

  1. Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 42,340
  2. Falls  15,477
  3. Poisoning  10,163
  4. Other and Unspecified Causes (including suffocation which was #4) 5,207

…

MVC’s (Motor Vehicle Collisions) are so horrifically high, that they have even snuck into the debate over Universal Health Care in the US. It seems that “unnatural” causes of death (MVC being the prime category) are so high in the US that they have significantly depressed our life expectancy. By adjusting the life expectancy data for all the OECD countries (except Luxembourg), the US catapults from last to first place! This is all according to University of Iowa researchers  Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider.

 

http://idmeglobalalert.com/images/DeathCauses05.jpg

nhtsa 810936 Leading Causes based on 2005 data

 Updated for 2009 data

“Motor vehicle traffic crashes were the leading cause of death for age 4 and every age
11 through 27 (based on latest available 2009 data)”
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Mortality Data, 2009… quoted from NHTSA Quick Facts 2012.

More Photo-enforcement in the WSJ

On the heels of last weeks “front pager” — Jenkins thows in his two cents in today’s column The War on Short Yellows. His punditry is undoubtedly astute: “One Arizona sheriff recently proved you could get elected by opposing speed cameras”. He should have stopped there, since his analysis of safety is lacking. Firstly, he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t let on, the scope of the problem. To put it simply, traffic collisions are the leading cause of unnatural death for all Americans (link to reference here)… this is a huge problem.

And the problem is even worse in Arizona; something he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about. Arizona rates (even after some fairly large improvements in recent years) far above US averages in both per capita fatalities, and fatalities per 100M VMT. So it should probably come as no surprise that the authorities in Arizona are trying out things like photo-enforcement. Which he, reflexively, believes is basically a jack-booted government gone wild.

He goes with the typical cannard — that supposedly the collisions prevented represent only a small fraction of all collisions. His exact stat was “Consider: Red-light running and speeding, the two main uses of traffic cameras, are implicated in fewer than 8% of accidents”.  He doesn’t reveal a source (possibly a talking point from the NMA?), I’m guessing it is 3% + 5%, and also guessing it’s the national causastion survey. In any event, the weakness is that these collisions are far more freqently fatal. Arizona has a particularly high fatal red-light running rate.

He even brings up Britian, yet he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t let on that Britian experienced a precitious decline in fatality rates through the 1990’s — coincident with the rise in photo-enforcement. Are the two related? One wonders, but Jenkins apparently doesn’t care or wonder. By the way, fatality rates are far below US rates (both per capita, and per VMT).

His solution? lengthen yellow lights. This would undoubtedly reduce violations. But unless the yellow is “short” (shorter than engineering standards) there’s no indication this would reduce collisions, though. And as to the other ten’s of thousands of deaths annually? Well he doesn’t even have a suggestion for that.

2007 Arizona claims enormous improvement in VMT fatality rate

I guess it takes a long time for the VMT state-by-state rates to trickle out — but they are all here. The numbers are close to, but not the same as, ADOT’s 2007 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts.

The VMT fatality rate for 2007 is 1.69 fatalities per per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled. Continue reading “2007 Arizona claims enormous improvement in VMT fatality rate”

Comparative Traffic Safety

This reference, now a couple of years old, does a good job of exposing the poor job U.S. is doing traffic-safety wise:

Lives on the Line: US Highway Safety Targets and Achievements are Fatally Low

By the way, that site, www.policedriving.com, as its name implies puts a spotlight on police and driving. The Officer Down Memorial Page keeps detailed stats on the cause of death of all law enformcemnt officers killed in the line of duty — e.g. in 2008 the of the 134 officers killed in the US; about 70 were in traffic collisions (3 of those were as the result of pursuit, about 5 were intentionally “rammed”); by comparison, 40 were killed by gunfire (two of those accidentally), and only 1 by stabbing.
…

DPS says photo radar major factor in drastic fatality reduction

Arizona DPS in a press release Dec 29, 2008 cited photo radar as a major factor in a 59% decrease in fatal crashes for the 80 days of “enhanced” photo-radar enforcement, compared to the same period in prior years on Phoenix metro highways.

A modest decrease in miles driven is also a factor.

The statewide fatality decrease in 2007 (over 2006) was dramatic, and it remains to be seen how this will compare to full AZ 2008 stats.

Photo enforcement remains controversial but report by ASU Civil Engineering professor Simon Washington  Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 Photo Enforcement Demonstration Program confirms not only safety benefits but also time and financial savings due to reduction in crashes.

On the other hand, critics claim that the cameras have no effect on safety; the most strident claim that cameras cause an overall increase in crashes — but so far at least that is all they are, claims.

the enabling legislation for the so-called enhanced photo (DPS / state-run) is 48th 2nd regular session HB 2210 “budget reconciliation; criminal justice” (which is very long and has lots of stuff in it; it was also apparently a striker because the original name was “regents; scholarships;”), see  §41-1722, [some updates 3/1/2013 — much has changed, in particular it looks like that statue is now missing due to repeal, see all of chapter 41; also see process-servers-and-personal-jurisdiction] which among other things gets rid of points, and changes (see changes to  process service requirement.

General rules for commencing a civil traffic violation “by filing” (photo tickets are filed as opposed to issued) are specified in 28-1592 and 28-1593; say that complaints must be filed within 60 days and served within 90 days from filing. There are exceptions if the incident involves a traffic collision and investigation. Do these rules apply to photo tickets? dunno, as far as i can see there are no alternatives. And how this jives with Rule 4(d), i dunno either, see below.

Here are a bunch of “emergency changes” to the Arizona rules of civil procedure, effective Sept 2008. These are mostly regarding the complaint and service provisions of phot0-radar violations.

…

There was an article in June 2009 issue of Perfectify magazine written by Arizona Attorney Monica Lindstrom Smile for the Camera (p.44). It gives some general background regarding service requirements

Under Arizona rules of civil procedure, Rule 4(d), a complaint must be served within 120 days. for purposes of a photo radar ticket, the “complaint” is the ticket and it is typically considered filed on the day of the violation (the day you were speeding or ran the red light). In other words, the government has 120 days to serve you with the ticket. If it fails to do so, then the ticket is dismissed — unless the government asks for more time. Beware some cities are using “alternative service” which can be by publication in a newspaper or posting it on your door. I recommend keeping up with the news in your area and doing periodic internet searchs to see if your city/town/county is employing this sneaky method.

I am not aware of any such “alternative service”.??

Strangely/inexplicably, she seems to not understand that there are no points associated with photo radar (speed cameras).

 

Thomas says no to criminal speeding

In a surprise move (a surprise to DPS, that is. Is this more politics than law?), Maricopa county attorney Andrew Thomas announced (Feb 24,2009) that his office will not charge motorists flashed at 20+ over with “criminal” speeding. Cities within Maricopa county, as well as everywhere outside of Maricopa are not affected by Thomas’ decision.It wasn’t clear to me if the DPS photo citations go to the city, or to the county by default (I’m guessing they go to the county?).

His whole explanation is silly; e.g. his claim that it is unconstitutional since “you can’t cross-examine a camera”. This is absurd, how does he support any other machine-based evidence? breathalyzers (or blood analysis machines), photographs, surveillance videos, wiretaps and so forth. they can’t be cross examined either.

In Arizona, criminal speeding is defined by §28-701.02 “Excessive Speeds, Classification”. The reference to 20 over isn’t completely accurate on the highway, it refers to over 85mph — i.e. 20 over if the posted limit is 65mph, but 30 over if it is 55. The general reasoning, which is said to be an “informal” opinion is that criminal requires a higher burden of proof than photo-radar alone can provide and as such they will decline any such cases. The DPS has indicated it will request a formal opinion on the matter from the Attorney General.

Attorney General says yes to criminal speeding

That didn’t take long. In a Feb 27th memorandum, Attorney General Terry Goddard knocked Thomas’ claims; “Mr. Thomas’ anecdotal explanations of potential abuses of the criminal process based on the use of photo radar do not provide a reasoned basis for an assertion that photo radar cannot be used to establish a criminal violation.”

“Arizona courts have similarly authorized evidence derived from other types of devices, such as video-tape recorders or cameras… there is no reason to believe the same rule would not be followed by Arizona appellate courts were the issue to be raised here.”

“Mr. Thomas states that prosecutions based on photo radar evidence would violate the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions because a defendant would have ‘no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera.’ Mr. Thomas ignores, however, the fact that non-testimonial evidence such as a surveillance tape or an Intoxilyzer test result is routinely admitted in criminal cases without implicating the Confrontation Clause. Under Mr. Thomas’ interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, the evidentiary use of surveillance tapes or Intoxilyzer test results, as well as any other mechanical measuring device, would be improper because there is no opportunity to question or cross-examine the tape or the measuring device. Furthermore, the United States and Arizona Confrontation Clauses, by their express terms, only afford a criminal defendant the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him… A defendant’s right to confrontation does not extend to physical evidence”

Thomas Responds

(do we have a dyfunctional system going here in AZ or what?) From KTAR story dated Feb 27th:

“[Goddard’s] main goal seems to be avoiding being pinned down on controversial issues,” Thomas said. “Quite frankly, that’s one of the reasons why this amazes me. You never hear him weighing in on the controversial, tough issues that I take on”

Then he switches to… drum roll please… immigration enforcement!

“Since the first year I took office, he and DPS have refused to fully enforce the immigration laws of this state,”… “DPS has released one van load after another of illegal immigrants stopped on our highways.”