Road safety tips from Sweden
mobile.nytimes.com
mobile.nytimes.com
Seems like the article could have been cut down to these two paragraphs:
> Because accidents are inevitable, Swedish regulations aim to make them nonlethal. Roads rely more on roundabouts, less on intersections. Cars are not allowed to turn at all when pedestrians are crossing. There are national camera enforcement policies. Sweden also focuses on pedestrian bridges, and separates cars from bicycles and oncoming traffic.
> Far fewer people drive under the influence of alcohol; stricter policing has reduced impaired driving to less than 0.25 percent of tested drivers vs. about 1.5 percent of American drivers. (Sweden also has a more stringent definition of driving under the influence, 0.02 percent vs. 0.08 percent.) The speed limit in areas where cars might come into contact with pedestrians (think all of New York City) is less than 20 m.p.h. Speed bumps and other traffic-calming interventions are common. The average cost of obtaining a driver’s license is the equivalent of more than $1,800.
I sometimes wonder how it would be possible to just adopt new laws and regulations wholesale from countries that have aimed to do a thing well, and succeeded. I know countries take ideas from each other, but it always seems to be small things and adapted with local modifications. Laws are obviously not for "move fast and break things" approach, but feels like we could achieve so much more.
There's a small Swedish state-owned (soon to be privatized though) consulting company with about 15 people that exists with the sole purpose of exporting this know-how to other countries. It's been relatively successful in selected developing countries. The know-how is typically given away for free, only actual work (training etc) is charged for.
They haven't been hugely successful though. I hear there's often way too much national pride and similar factors ("our country is unique because irrelevant factors X, Y and Z") involved.
These people have an odd mix of
a) satisfaction because they are helping people not get... killed or maimed
b) but also an extreme amount of banging your head against the wall kind of moments
Anyway, if you want to implement road safety quickly in your country, they are who you should go to.
Car is often seen as status symbol due to Soviet baggage. This leads to disregard of some traffic laws that are about "lesser status" pedestrians, e.g. speed limits, sidewalks parking, etc. The trend is slowly changing though with traffic calming measures becoming more common. This leads to a good number of accidents with drivers who can't ignore laws of physics as easily as traffic laws[1][2] though.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/comfycity.lviv/videos/vb.6665275535... (sorry for FB videos)
[2] https://www.facebook.com/comfycity.lviv/videos/vb.6665275535...
The studies you are referring to (the retracted and the non conclusive one) are two studies based on past data on real road. They did compare existing numbers and yes, there was no statistical significance due to the reduced sample (according to the article, I didn't check personnaly ;-) ).
If the article had stopped there on that part, you would be correct. But there was more. You missed the part about the sled test study (There is a direct link to the study in the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217519/)
And that study is statistically significant for all but one type of injury:
> The best RF restraints (RF EURO) clearly outperformed the best FF restraints (FF EURO) when comparing injury measures. There were statistically significant differences at all injury measures except chest 3ms clip
In my (rather weak) defence, they have conflicting evidence over child seats, so it still seems incorrect to focus on that one aspect.
A woman asked a friend of ours "how do you get your kid to eat brown bread?" and our friend replied "she doesn't know there's any other kind". I think the same applies here - we've never had a problem with the seat because she almost never goes in a front-facing one. Even when she has used a friend's seat for whatever reason, it's never been an issue getting her back into hers. And she's a pretty argumentative kid.
But somehow, the "safety industry" has leapt on these things and now everybody has a ludicrously fearful attitude to cycling and you get looked at funny (or even harassed by strangers) if you dare to let your kid ride about without body armour on.
- Cycling accidents under 20mph are highly unlikely to cause head injuries, and most cycling is done under 20mph so there's little room for improvement.
- Helmets are not designed to protect against the kind of injuries received in an accident with a car.
- Perhaps most importantly, the phenomenon called risk normalization. Cyclists wearing helmets take more risks than cyclists who don't, and cars interacting with cyclists give more space to cyclists who aren't wearing helmets.
Is this supported by evidence (aside from the oft cited but unscientific University of Bath study)?
When I was with my ex-girlfriend her little sister was knocked off her bike, also by a totally reckless driver doing over 80km/h in a 50km/h zone. She suffered serious head trauma, they didn't actually think she'd make it through the night. She did survive but had pretty serious behavioural problems after that, and died a few years later of a cerebral tumour which was almost certainly related.
I'll never forget the surgeon when he first came out of the operating room. He said: "If she had been wearing a helmet, none of this would have been necessary and she'd be fine." You could see clearly in his face that he'd seen this way too many times.
I have another more recent anecdote since having kids myself. A friend of a friend here has a son the same age as our daughter. When he was 3 he was out on his scooter without a helmet, and fell off - nothing out of the ordinary, except he happened to hit his head on the concrete corner of a ramp. We live in a small town, he had to be choppered out to the nearest city, spent significant time in ICU, multiple brain surgeries, and the kid is now epileptic.
I've also had the experience of falling when snowboarding not wearing a helmet, and not even going very fast. I woke up inside an MRI machine several hours later after a serious concussion.
You can do what you want for yourself and your kids. Mine are going to wear helmets. There is no learning curve for head injuries.
They either eat whole wheat bread or they don't eat bread, and I don't care either way. I make really good sandwiches. If they want one, then they can have one. :)
Water, flour, salt, yeast. Sometimes sugar depending on the type, but pretty rarely. Maybe an egg wash every once in a while. Sometimes olive oil. Etc etc.
That is correct. However, this is also true in the US. So since neither requires retaking any tests upon renewal, Swedish drivers (assuming initial premise to be correct) will always be better than their US counterparts, on a proportional decline over time on a graph.
I agree that there might be something to do there, but it is again not invalidating the initial statement.
Alcoholics on the other hand cause a massive amount of accidents.
Engaging in criminal behavior would be negligence, not accidental.
http://justicespeakersinstitute.com/traffic-crashes-theyre-n...
Also, a good point someone was made is that it may be easier for technology to solve the problems of elderly drivers who still have good cognition. E.g. you can make up for their limited neck flexibility with blind spot radar and backup cameras, and poor reaction times with collision detection systems. It's harder to do that for a teen who wants to drive too fast or make aggressive lane changes.
Take away someone's license in the US and it can be almost impossible for them to buy food, go to work, etc. I tried once living without a car for a month, and it only reason it was possible was because I lived near the center of town ... and because I bummed a few rides when I didn't feel like making the 45 minute walk home at night.
It's a bit better now, but I'm talking about 12 years ago.
I've since moved to a place with better cycling infrastructure.
One problem with rear facing seats and large children is that it requires a LOT of space in the car, if you want to fit more people in it. A rear facing seat for a 3yo behind the front passenger seat will make the front passenger space tiny in all but the largest cars.
If you look around europe you'll find that countries that traditionally use small cars (France, Italy, Britain) probably don't use rear facing seats as much. What part of this is cause and what is effect I don't know, but you won't find many families with small children driving compact cars in Sweden like you do in say the UK or Italy. I saw someone in the UK describe a golf as a "family hatchback" at one point. That person hadn't been in the front passenger seat of a Golf with a rear facing child seat behind (The front seat is then nearly touching the glove compartment).
When we were last car shopping, we looked at small SUVs (CRV, Rav4, Forester) and a rear facing seat mounted "American-style" still intruded on the passenger seat. I can't imagine how you could shift the seat forwards in a sedan and make it work.
Anyway. Kids would scream, fuss, battle, sometimes even while strapped in, and all the way until we arrived. Because they're kids. Some parents would try to soothe the kids, some would just ignore their fuss, and some would try to talk the driver/me out of using the seats.
The reasoning even among the parents that though "this is ridiculous, let me just hold the kid in my arms" was quite the same: We all knew that if something happened, the seats would likely be the difference of life and death for the kid. And thus, we just accepted that kids not wanting to be strapped is a part of life and had to be tolerated.
Not arguing against you here. I'm saying, yes, it's has difficulties, but the consequences of not using proper security is far worse.
In the UK rear facing is a legal requirement up to 15 months - I think that's being extended to older kids soon. We used rear facing until about 3.5 for our eldest. At that point we got her a new forward facing one and gave that one to our youngest.
Two child seats basically means no one can fit in the middle unless you have an extra wide car. Some of the compact but bigger cars seem to be incredibly popular with parents around here.
I can't say we ever had an argument about front versus rear facing - that was just the direction the seat was in. They didn't even know there was another option! I can see how it might be difficult if you tried to change a seat a kid was already used to though. That said, pretty much everyone here uses ISOFIX bases with the extension bars so maybe we do have more room (as per the article). I'd recommend them either was as being able to clip the seats in and out is fantastic if you have a sleeping baby.
The middle I never even worried about, the problem I find is that they take so much space in the front/back direction of the car. I.e. if you put a rear facing seat in the front passenger seat, no adult can sit behind it, and if you put a rear facing seat behind the front passenger seat, then no adult can sit in the front passenger seat.
So for the first child, a compact was no problem. The read-facing seat takes the non-driver side of the car - front or back doesn't matter). One parent drives and the other sits behind the driver.
With TWO rear facing seats however, we found that not even a medium size car (A4, 9-3, C-class, 3-series...) would fit them in a way that also fits two adults - at least not in a way that works for long trips.
We spent a few weeks in Aus/NZ and bought a couple of car seats there (cheaper than renting them), which was odd -- they were rear facing and belted, but had straps to go over the back of the passenger seat and connect to an anchor point in the boot (trunk).
The rear-facing laws in California define the _minimums_ (weight, age, and I think also height?) for when you're _allowed_ to let your child face forward. Given the difference in fatality rates between the two, I was OK with going past the minimum time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Shorter drives means fewer deaths, generally speaking.
Check out the infographic, where you can "turn back time" and see how much traffict deaths have been reduced. Europe goes from almost bright red to green/yellow over 15 years.
I don't even recall ever thinking that as a child passenger.
Not using a seatbelt was the norm only fifty years ago.
It's a weird cultural thing
Seatbelts save lives, it's a fact you can't get around. When they developed and tried them, they realized how good seatbelts are and decided that every car should have them, not patent fee for any manufacturer.
Or just don't buy an electric car...
Someone I know has a brother who was in an accident, was wearing seat belt, was stuck in the car as he couldn't release the belt, and was burned somewhat. He simply couldn't buckle up after that and eventually got some kind of exemption for medical reasons.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AA-Emergency-Windcsreen-Hammer-Seat...
Not sure how many road trips you took as a child, but lying down across the back seat with a seat belt is harder than without.
We used to just throw caution to the wind, put the seats down in our suburban and fill the area with blankets.
It is used to shut off the beeping when carrying groceries in my passenger seat. Cheap and effective. But the initial thought betrays some reasoning.
What does Greece has that I've never seen in China? T-shirts that have a seat-belt design printed on them, to fool police officers from afar.
It seems to me like it would be easier to put up with a little bit of discomfort (not that seat belts are uncomfortable) than it would be to get a special plug for your seat belt socket, and wear a T-shirt that looks like a seat belt. That's a lot of effort to be petty.
Your experience might work in a closely spaced situation (hence your odd comparison of moving at a magnitude difference velocity), where most people pick the same mall and live close to eachother, but that's not how large countries work.
Not to mention, try carrying the things I put in my 5700lb car (without any planning) on your bike.
I made the math easy, but it's the same arg if it's 45. The only legit arg I can come up for your point is sometimes I want to run or ride a bike, but in that case, I'm going to avoid roads even if it's 100% 3 cylinders Geo's, or just follow my routine and exercise at the gym since it's more fun than running alone to xyz when I really just need to get something done.
Also it should be mentioned that your driving makes the city less pleasant and more dangerous to walk or cycle in, encouraging others to drive, in an unfortunate feedback loop.
Have you considered that some people deliberately don't live in cities structured around that because they consider not using (or paying for the infrastructure of) public transit a good thing?
The self-image and idea of what a successful American is supposed to look like wasn’t something I thought about until my cycling group had unpleasant encounters with bitterly resentful drivers in San Diego county. All middle-aged or older white guys driving expensive vehicles, clearly unimpressed by California law if it involves sharing with people unlike them. I should also note that our group was rather scrupulous about the rules of the road so it wasn’t a case of escalating bad behavior.
Tellingly SD will put in really nice bike lanes where there's already tons of empty space (Genesee in the middle of nowhere) but where you really need it, like University ave. in Hillcrest, they fight tooth and nail against it.
They like pretending to be bike friendly, at least! Nobody loves a good render more than them, and tour de fat is good fun.
In countries where more people cycle and walk it can be the driver who is the "other" but that's rarely if ever the case in the US.
I like speed bumps, bus lock, and round abouts... These features are self-enforcing and violators are punished with swift justice.
When you run over a speed bump too fast, the good old laws of physics will meter out an immediate punishment :)
But it's great for residential neighborhoods, and city limits.
https://www.svtplay.se/video/17480166/sparviddshinder?info=v...
Much of it is in English since many of the victims are tourists.
(I think this an excellent example of an anti-pattern.)
Why shouldn't there be a price to pay :)
We have a swearword for vindictive people like you in Sweden. It's "miljöpartist". Prounonced "millowepartist".
He moved into it from a baby seat, so he's never regularly used a front-facing seat. He can still see out well enough to see what's going on, and to comment when we don't go the way he's expecting. He's three at the moment, and we fully expect to keep him rear-facing until he's four.
Our older children had to move into a front-facing seats earlier because there wasn't really a choice. But there is now, and I know a couple of other people who have also gone down this route.