Q: You say that the Whatcom County Target Zero Task Force has a vision to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2030 but what is being done to achieve that goal? Every day I see worrisome traffic infractions – speeding, tailgating, texting, passing in no-passing zones; but I seldom see a police presence. The recent spate of fatal accidents caused by irresponsible drivers is frightening. I know that at any time I could become a statistic. Isn’t it time to get tough and send a message that driving is a privilege, not a right, and with that privilege comes serious consequences for flouting the law?
A: Even edited to half its original length, this two-part question still conveys the passion of someone that wants to see a change in driving behavior. And for good reason; in 2014 Washington lost 462 people in fatal crashes, and over 2000 people were seriously injured. The data for 2015 isn’t complete yet, but it may be even higher. Vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teens and young adults. Clearly, this is a serious issue.
What are we doing about it? The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (the parent organization of the Whatcom County Target Zero Task Force) supports and funds many traffic safety initiatives, including coordinating emphasis patrols focusing on impaired drivers, distracted drivers, speeding and seat belts; conducting public education campaigns; researching the best methods to reduce crashes; working with legislators for better traffic laws; improving road engineering; and working with communities to resolve traffic safety issues.
Could we do more? Sure, and the second part of the question asks, “Isn’t it time to get tough?” As a traffic safety professional, I’d like to see a reduction of crashes, and enforcement plays a major role in achieving that outcome. But what level of traffic enforcement does our community want? In contrast to the original question, I’ll bet nearly every cop has been asked a variation of the following question during a traffic stop: “Isn’t there some real crime you should be investigating instead of hassling drivers?” Community support for traffic enforcement is not a universally shared point of view.
However, most citizens recognize a need for traffic enforcement; it’s more of a question of how much enforcement. Here are a few proven crash-reduction strategies that we don’t utilize in our community:
-Red light cameras: Multiple studies show a significant reduction of injury crashes, and minor increase in non-injury crashes. Bellingham had a short-lived relationship with red light cameras until community opposition ended the program.
-Speed cameras: Most studies show a reduction in crashes, but Washington limits use almost exclusively to school zones. Cities with citizen support for speed cameras are a minority in the US.
-In-car data recording: This method uses a device installed in a car to monitor driver behavior. Some insurance companies already use in-car data recording. One study showed a 20% reduction in crashes. Law enforcement doesn’t utilize data from in-car recording, and even discussing it feels like we’re getting into Big Brother territory.
Beyond enforcement, we could reduce speed limits, redesign roads to force traffic to drive slower, make driver licensing requirements more restrictive and increase penalties for violations. We could even build a transit system with so much capacity that no one really needs a car to get around any more.
These aren’t just ideas. They’ve all been done in other places, and every one of them can be implemented if the citizens have the collective desire to do so. Understand that I’m not advocating that we do all these things; just that it takes more than a law enforcement agency or a judge, it takes the support of our whole community to make positive changes. There is currently a distracted driving bill being proposed in the legislature that is struggling for support. That bill will likely live or die based on the input of citizens to their elected officials.
We have many important issues competing for our attention and resources. Within them all, where does traffic safety rank? How serious are we about eliminating vehicle fatalities? What is an acceptable number of vehicle fatalities for our state? What is an acceptable number of vehicle fatalities within your family and friends? How we answer these questions determines the social will to make changes.
Okay, I’ll step off the soap box. Now it’s your turn. How do you envision making driving safer? Post a response and let us know.
To eliminate traffic fatalities in the long term: remove the person from behind the steering wheel; humans make terrible drivers. Google’s cars are already safer than your average driver. The state should encourage the development and deployment of driver-less cars to make this happen sooner rather than later.
It’s obvious to me that those who oppose red light cameras and speed traps are those who run red lights and speed! I say, “To hell with them!” I’d like to see cameras on every overpass and at every intersection linked to a computer system that automatically records violators for proof of their violation and mails tickets with scheduled court dates.
It’s obvious to me that those who oppose red light cameras and speed traps are those who run red lights and speed! I say, “To heck with them!” I’d like to see cameras on every overpass and at every intersection linked to a computer system that automatically records violators for proof of their violation and mails tickets with scheduled court dates.
Several readers sent emails with responses to this article, and I want to make sure their voices are heard, so I’m adding them to the comments as they come in:
Libby writes:
The various methods mentioned in the article may not be the most directly effective ways of reducing car crashes. For instance, red-light and speed cameras present constitutional and other issues (potential violations of due process, as well as integrity issues related to the profits that the camera-operating companies make as a percentage of ticket fees charged to drivers) that may or may not withstand court challenges. Building a better transit system, another method listed in the article, would likely take years and many rounds of tax initiatives that would have to be put to voters.
The simplest way of reducing traffic fatalities would seem to be old-fashioned direct police enforcement. I can’t count how many times I’ve very nearly been hit by cars as a pedestrian in various intersections downtown, while crossing in a crosswalk on the walk sign. Drivers either do not pay attention or think they can avoid the pedestrian while running a red light. Cameras wouldn’t have any immediate effect on driver behavior, since the first indication they’ll get of a moving violation is when their ticket arrives in the mail. Being pulled over by the police immediately after almost hitting someone with their car would likely have more impact.
The obvious way to accomplish this would be more funding for public safety in our city and county. While this is always more difficult than it sounds, better public safety funding would serve not only to reduce traffic fatalities by increasing the number of officers on traffic patrol, but also to deter other types of crime with a more visible and active police presence. If funding was to be considered for projects such as red-light cameras and public transit, there is no reason it shouldn’t be considered for the police department as well.
John writes:
You can also make driving safer by reducing the population of people.
Gary writes:
Zero fatalities as a goal is absurd on its face, but the phrase works well politically. One can expect to be able to reduce the reality of accidents and fatalities, incrementally as the article above suggests. And you can continue to reduce fatalities at the rate of 30% per year into eternity and you will never get to zero, absent a police state on the highways.
As for the ways in which I believe the State can be more effective in lowering traffic fatalities, I would include:
1. Drivers training – increase the practical training to include car control/accident avoidance. Provisional license status till age 25 that includes stiffer penalties for driving drunk or aggressively. Institute an advanced drivers license system based upon driving record and extensive testing, paid for by the applicant.
2. Distracted driving – Outright ban on cell phone use of any form while driving with increased penalties for non-compliance.
3. State Patrol – Stop wasting time with ineffective speed traps and address driver behavior more. Stop using ticketing for revenue generation and trooper rating.
Traffic deaths in the USA is like one 911 disaster every month!
As a wise friends once said, “A Law without enforcement is merely a suggestion.”
Unfortunately, cell phone use while driving is one of these.
Thanks for your traffic safety passion and your well researched and well written column, Doug.
The traffic laws, first and foremost, are intended to make things safer for all involved. Traffic laws not enforced and hence almost universally disregarded make a mockery of these laws. Furthermore, anyone trying to obey the law becomes a hinderance to the flow of traffic and makes themselves more likely to be involved in an accident. I travel by motorized two-wheeler much of the time and can’t obey the law against much heavier and aggressive machines demanding I drive faster than the speed limit or they will commit some unsafe and aggressive following or passing maneuver no matter where we are.
At four way stop intersections I continually lose the right of way even having arrived first simply because I come to a full stop – no one else does and they just carry on through the intersection. I could go on and on, but everyone out there who drives knows the score.
One possible solution that comes to mind is what I think of as a “Truth in Law“ bill that would repeal any law not enforced. Any new law would have to be signed off on by the voters, law enforcement and judiciary before being enacted into law. This would prevent laws that the police or the courts haven’t the manpower or funds to enforce and force the legislature to fund the enforcement of any new rulings. Democracy, the will of the people, would be served better than the present system, also democratic, but more chaotic, where no one, including the LEOs wants to obey or enforce the rules, or be ticketed for not doing so. I think that without the rules that aren’t being enforced the public will come to a better agreement on what rules they really need.
You mention “ come to a full stop. Not true that no one does. Now there’s two of us. Even though sometimes you can be hit from behind for doing so. Why do I stop . Because I got a ticket from A DOT cop while driving a truck , which is double teaming us , cause all cops can give trucks citations for this, but DOT cops can’t give car tickets for this. It cost me 1500.00$ and three trips to court, and now DOT cops aren’t allowed, or have been told not to inforce traffic laws like this. But that’s one of the reasons I stop. Complete stop. If police and lawmakers and judges and all the other people that can get away without traffic citation would obey the traffic laws the way you and I have to, we first of all would have almost no traffic laws and secondly would have more monkey see monkey do on our highways. It’s a mater of corruption. First we have to hold the officials, lawmakers , law enforcements feet to the fire , than monkey see monkey do will change the culture.. I watched a video in court where a policeman chased a motorist for going 92 MPH . At the bottom of the screen was the policeman’s speed 122 MPH Thomas Gauke (not sure of spelling) here in Alaska. In that same stretch of road I can get a ticket by Thomas for doing 63 MPH. Not to single him out, but that is the way the culture is today, and has been. This is why many of us do, or did drive reasonably and prudent as opposed to driving only 2 MPH over , or even precisely the speed limit or lower. The judge at that hearing never bat an eye at the 122MPH. I’ve caught .many police going over the speed limit, and didn’t have to speed to get them, but waited til they stopped at confront them. However I was told recently not to confront policemen in this way for breaking the stop sign and speed limit laws. We Can get a citation from our hypocritical accusers, but they can’t even be confronted. That’s one of the things that needs to change to get closer to zero.
Doug. I’d like to ride with you, or you with me sometime, and i think you and I , and all of us have a different perspective on driving issues. We all have our biases. You can verbalize your perspective better than I because you have skill , training and practice in that field. Words, or digits or keys on a computer can’t duplicate experience, that’s where observing each other, would help some. Also some have commented about driverless cars will be safer, and my thought on that is,(safer if computer programmers are putting the information in, without the input of the most experienced drivers.)
Hi Merrill,
From some of your previous posts, I’m assuming you’re in Alaska, so it’s unlikely we’ll have an opportunity to drive together, but you bring up an excellent idea. It’d be great to go on drives with people of various driving experience and backgrounds. Different perspectives are always valuable. When we get to a time where it’s appropriate for for me to join someone in a vehicle I might just have to make and share some videos doing just that.