10
Loading video...
By Glen Dunzweiler
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
We tell everyone on the road to "share the responsibility." I think that gets traffic safety fundamentally wrong.
A distracted pedestrian can make a dangerous mistake. So can a cyclist, motorcyclist, or driver. But those mistakes do not carry equal consequences.
A distracted pedestrian is unlikely to kill the driver of an SUV. A distracted driver operating thousands of pounds of metal can end someone’s life.
Read More on Leadership Insights
If we are serious about making streets safer, responsibility should increase with the amount of harm you have the power to cause.
I came to that conclusion the hard way. I have been hit by distracted drivers six times while riding a motorcycle. Three cut into my lane, two rear-ended me, and one backed into me.
Every driver gave me some version of the same explanation: "I didn’t see you."
After the sixth time, that stopped sounding like bad luck. It started sounding like a system.
...
This should matter even if you have never ridden a motorcycle. Almost everyone becomes a vulnerable road user eventually. You may drive in the morning and cross a parking lot on foot that afternoon. Your child may ride a bicycle. Your parent may need more time to cross an intersection.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that pedestrians and cyclists struck by SUVs and pickups are more likely to be injured or killed than those struck by cars.
Everyone should stay alert. But equal responsibility sounds fair only until we consider unequal consequences. The operator capable of causing the greatest harm should carry the greatest obligation to prevent it.
Modern vehicles can include automatic emergency braking, lane-assistance systems, cameras, and driver-assistance technology.
These developments can prevent crashes. But they also create a dangerous temptation if we begin treating technology as a substitute for attention.
Distractions on the Roads
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identifies phones and in-vehicle systems as potential distractions from driving. Yet drivers increasingly operate amid screens, alerts, and navigation instructions.
A safety system should be the final layer of protection after an attentive human makes a mistake. It should never become permission to pay less attention.
Autonomous vehicles complicate responsibility further. If a Waymo or another self-driving vehicle hits someone, how should responsibility be allocated among the companies and people involved in its operation?
Automation may change who controls the vehicle, but it should not make responsibility disappear.
Larger vehicles may offer advantages to their occupants. But they can also occupy more road space and, as research shows, pose greater risks to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision.
A New Philosophy
This is why I think we need a different philosophy of road safety: the greater your capacity to harm someone else, the greater your responsibility to prevent that harm.
That principle places greater responsibility on whoever controls the vehicle capable of causing greater harm, not on the smaller road user for being more vulnerable.
In the best version of our transportation future, drivers expect to share the road with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycles. Intersections account for different speeds and vulnerabilities. Public transportation gives people meaningful alternatives to driving. Technology supports attentive drivers instead of compensating for disengaged ones.
The alternative is a transportation system where vehicles continue to get larger, drivers become more dependent on automated safety systems, vulnerable road users remain exposed, and serious injuries are treated as an inevitable price of getting around.
That is not technological progress. It is a failure to account for the safety of all road users.
Burbank, where I live, remains in a dispute with LA Metro over the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit project. The city opposes dedicated bus lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake streets and continues to support mixed-flow traffic on that stretch.
The Organizing Principle
The specifics are local, but the question is national. Street space is finite. Parking, traffic, public transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians all compete for it.
I think safety should be the organizing principle. When trade-offs are unavoidable, we should ask who faces the greatest consequences if the system fails.
That does not mean eliminating cars. Cars are essential for millions of Americans, including people with disabilities and those living where public transportation is impractical or nonexistent.
But necessity is different from automatic priority. A traffic lane can move vehicles efficiently while making a street more dangerous to cross. A transportation project can improve travel times while increasing risks for people outside cars.
Efficiency and safety are not always the same objective. When they conflict, we should be willing to ask which matters more.
Stop Pretending
Cities will not be redesigned overnight. Technology will keep evolving. Human beings will continue making mistakes.
Put the phone away before moving the vehicle. Look deliberately for motorcycles before changing lanes. Expect cyclists at intersections. Slow down when pedestrians are present. Use driver-assistance technology as backup, not permission to disengage.
If you operate a larger or faster vehicle, remember that the consequences of your mistake may be far greater than someone else’s.
We cannot eliminate every collision. But we can stop pretending that everyone involved in one arrived with the same ability to cause harm.
Six drivers have told me they did not see me. Road safety should not depend on whether the seventh one does.
Glen Dunzweiler is a filmmaker, social entrepreneur, and storyteller focused on socially responsible entertainment and direct action. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines