Really glad to see these sentences: “My suspicion is that the difference between a serious crash and a fatal one is those last few moments of braking before the collision. It makes sense, but no one has checked (that I can tell—let me know if I’m wrong on that). [Matt’s] got footage from those crashes so we can tell when the braking happens and the speed the collisions happen at.”
I’ve wondered about this issue and asked a couple of traffic pros without getting any answer: When stats refer to “a 90% fatality rate at 50 mph” or a “20% fatality rate at 25 mph”, or similar stats, does this mean the vehicle is traveling at 50 mph at the moment of the crash, or that the vehicle was traveling at 50, but likely slowed to some degree before the impact? And the response has been “That’s a good question, and I have no idea.” So I’m glad you, and Matt, are aware of how important this is, and doing your best to get answers.
I also agree that collecting data on pedestrian impairment is an essential part of understanding the whole picture – but I don’t like the implication that, to an investigating officer, an impaired pedestrian “was responsible for their own death.” Being impaired doesn’t merit the death penalty. And among the differences between a careful, sober driver and an impaired pedestrian, there’s this difference: the driver is doing something that’s inherently dangerous to the public, while the pedestrian is not.
Responsibility is a tough issue period. We used to think that walking home drunk is better than driving home drunk. That may be true, but not necessarily for the one walking. Usually, that's not the problem with impaired pedestrians or cyclists. The vast majority of impaired pedestrians don't get themselves there overnight. Of the impairment cases I've been looking at, there is far more than just those final moments at play. These are not generally "responsible" people walking home from a bar because they don't want to drive. These are people that have been bled dry by those that feed their addictions. Is the pain that drives the addiction at fault or those who profit from it? Yes.
Blame is not a helpful path unless you are trying to figure out how to keep something from happening again--which happens to be our job. Being impaired may not merit a death penalty, but living a lifestyle of ongoing intoxication or drug abuse is suicidal.
I'm going to push back on the idea that an impaired pedestrian is not doing something dangerous to the public. The person who hits them (through no fault of their own) still has to live with that moment. The hospital has to deal with another trauma instead of treating others and often has to pass that cost on to patients with insurance. Secondary crashes can become a problem. Their mom, dad, sister, or kids will grieve, although it is often an unsurprising melancholy relief. We spend countless hours and endless dollars throwing money at the problem of pedestrian fatalities--using interventions that are not much more than symptom management, and not even good symptom management. They don't actually change the numbers. We try to fix broken hearts with pavement striping and curb lines. Until we start recognizing the real problems, we're trying to take responsibility for issues that are outside of our direct control. That doesn't mean we stop trying to fix things, but maybe we need to think about them differently to get the outcomes we're looking for.
Great question, Bart! Lakewood Police uses time/distance calculations based on a variety of evidence. It can be the physics of where a vehicle's impact occurs to point of rest of vehicle (or pedestrian) based on weight, area of impact on vehicle and other factors, or for us, it is increasingly use of our video cameras and using basic time-distance calculations. At least in Lakewood, it is the speed at impact that is determined and referenced to the death, not posted speed or approach speed (although both are also calculated and noted in the investigation as evidence used later in the judicial process when prosecuting/justifying charges filed).
For example, a report may state that a motorcyclist was travelling at 95 mph XX feet from the collision (usually based on video evidence upstream), and had reduced speed to 53 mph at the point of impact (based largely on physics calculations, the diagnostics 'black box' from the vehicle itself, or video if it exists), and posted was 40 mph. All of this evidence is used to determine who to charge and the severity of charges.
If in this example the motorcyclist was travelling straight and a motorist turned in front of him, and the motorist turned left into what otherwise would have been a reasonable gap under reasonable speeds, then the motorcyclist may have been determined to be responsible for his own death due to exceeding the posted speed limit by +45mph: too fast for conditions and exceeding design speed of roadway. The motorist in this case may not be charged (assuming their toxicology comes back negative), and the case is closed as "death of the offender" and will not proceed through the judicial process. Equally, in this case we work with the coroner's office to determine the results of the motorcyclist's toxicology- this could have a bearing on whether charges are laid on the motorist.
Wild to me that the default assumption is that a road is built to even _allow_ a motorcyclist to go 95 miles per hour in your example. Design a road that doesn't let someone go that fast or even turn in front of someone going that fast. Best yet, put those involved in your example on bikes, on transit, or let them walk comfortably and you never need to go to a coroner to figure out who to blame because this crash scenario didn't happen in the first place.
Really glad to see these sentences: “My suspicion is that the difference between a serious crash and a fatal one is those last few moments of braking before the collision. It makes sense, but no one has checked (that I can tell—let me know if I’m wrong on that). [Matt’s] got footage from those crashes so we can tell when the braking happens and the speed the collisions happen at.”
I’ve wondered about this issue and asked a couple of traffic pros without getting any answer: When stats refer to “a 90% fatality rate at 50 mph” or a “20% fatality rate at 25 mph”, or similar stats, does this mean the vehicle is traveling at 50 mph at the moment of the crash, or that the vehicle was traveling at 50, but likely slowed to some degree before the impact? And the response has been “That’s a good question, and I have no idea.” So I’m glad you, and Matt, are aware of how important this is, and doing your best to get answers.
I also agree that collecting data on pedestrian impairment is an essential part of understanding the whole picture – but I don’t like the implication that, to an investigating officer, an impaired pedestrian “was responsible for their own death.” Being impaired doesn’t merit the death penalty. And among the differences between a careful, sober driver and an impaired pedestrian, there’s this difference: the driver is doing something that’s inherently dangerous to the public, while the pedestrian is not.
Responsibility is a tough issue period. We used to think that walking home drunk is better than driving home drunk. That may be true, but not necessarily for the one walking. Usually, that's not the problem with impaired pedestrians or cyclists. The vast majority of impaired pedestrians don't get themselves there overnight. Of the impairment cases I've been looking at, there is far more than just those final moments at play. These are not generally "responsible" people walking home from a bar because they don't want to drive. These are people that have been bled dry by those that feed their addictions. Is the pain that drives the addiction at fault or those who profit from it? Yes.
Blame is not a helpful path unless you are trying to figure out how to keep something from happening again--which happens to be our job. Being impaired may not merit a death penalty, but living a lifestyle of ongoing intoxication or drug abuse is suicidal.
I'm going to push back on the idea that an impaired pedestrian is not doing something dangerous to the public. The person who hits them (through no fault of their own) still has to live with that moment. The hospital has to deal with another trauma instead of treating others and often has to pass that cost on to patients with insurance. Secondary crashes can become a problem. Their mom, dad, sister, or kids will grieve, although it is often an unsurprising melancholy relief. We spend countless hours and endless dollars throwing money at the problem of pedestrian fatalities--using interventions that are not much more than symptom management, and not even good symptom management. They don't actually change the numbers. We try to fix broken hearts with pavement striping and curb lines. Until we start recognizing the real problems, we're trying to take responsibility for issues that are outside of our direct control. That doesn't mean we stop trying to fix things, but maybe we need to think about them differently to get the outcomes we're looking for.
Great question, Bart! Lakewood Police uses time/distance calculations based on a variety of evidence. It can be the physics of where a vehicle's impact occurs to point of rest of vehicle (or pedestrian) based on weight, area of impact on vehicle and other factors, or for us, it is increasingly use of our video cameras and using basic time-distance calculations. At least in Lakewood, it is the speed at impact that is determined and referenced to the death, not posted speed or approach speed (although both are also calculated and noted in the investigation as evidence used later in the judicial process when prosecuting/justifying charges filed).
For example, a report may state that a motorcyclist was travelling at 95 mph XX feet from the collision (usually based on video evidence upstream), and had reduced speed to 53 mph at the point of impact (based largely on physics calculations, the diagnostics 'black box' from the vehicle itself, or video if it exists), and posted was 40 mph. All of this evidence is used to determine who to charge and the severity of charges.
If in this example the motorcyclist was travelling straight and a motorist turned in front of him, and the motorist turned left into what otherwise would have been a reasonable gap under reasonable speeds, then the motorcyclist may have been determined to be responsible for his own death due to exceeding the posted speed limit by +45mph: too fast for conditions and exceeding design speed of roadway. The motorist in this case may not be charged (assuming their toxicology comes back negative), and the case is closed as "death of the offender" and will not proceed through the judicial process. Equally, in this case we work with the coroner's office to determine the results of the motorcyclist's toxicology- this could have a bearing on whether charges are laid on the motorist.
~Matt
Wild to me that the default assumption is that a road is built to even _allow_ a motorcyclist to go 95 miles per hour in your example. Design a road that doesn't let someone go that fast or even turn in front of someone going that fast. Best yet, put those involved in your example on bikes, on transit, or let them walk comfortably and you never need to go to a coroner to figure out who to blame because this crash scenario didn't happen in the first place.