On a recent weekend, the Washington Post published two articles about transportation safety.
One of these articles scrutinized how the Washington, DC region’s transit agency categorizes reports of smoke and sparks in its subway system. The piece centered on the fact that the agency’s official definition of a fire doesn’t encompass every single instance of fire department activity in the subway, although WMATA is experiencing fewer delay-causing arcing insulators as it clears its maintenance backlog and has not experienced a fatal rail safety lapse in more than three years.
The other Post article summarized two car crashes, both fatal, that occurred in Prince George’s County, MD (just outside DC, and served by WMATA buses and trains) the same night the WMATA investigation was published:
- A Good Samaritan pulled to the side of S. 50 to assist the driver of a crashed car, only for another car to strike and kill her. The driver of the car that hit the victim was arrested for DUI.
- In Upper Marlboro, MD, a car and pickup truck crashed into each other, head on. The driver of the car died at the scene, while the driver of the truck was hospitalized.
It took just seven paragraphs for the newspaper to document these two tragedies that, though not directly connected to each other, occurred on the same perilous road network. The article did not analyze how authorities categorized the crashes.
The contrast between these two articles stems from issues beyond transportation. In the digital age, newspapers’ finances have become increasingly dependent on website page views, and much of that internet traffic comes from social media.
Our nation’s capital, of course, has a well-followed crop of WMATA critics who make sure anything negative about the transit agency spreads across the web like wildfire (no pun intended), sometimes even trending nationally on Twitter. Thus, in this case, it’s likely that the Post’s management understood that an eye-catching WMATA headline would likely gain traction online, while many readers would see the car crashes as nothing more than run-of-the-mill local news. From an economic standpoint, it made sense for the paper to frame the two articles the way it did.
But the Post’s understandable decision reflects negatively on our society. It demonstrated that, relative to other forms of transportation, we hold cars to incredibly low safety standards.
Cars get a pass when it comes to safety
America has not always been this numb to fatal crashes. In the 1950s and -60s, when transit systems across the country were imploding and automobile travel was rapidly becoming the nation’s dominant transportation mode, crashes became an increasingly common subject of popular songs, such as The Shangri-Las’ 1964 hit “Leader of the Pack”. The car crash song genre born during that era even has its own Wikipedia page.
But as the bodies piled up, people coped by tuning out the carnage. Today, the tens of thousands of Americans killed in such crashes each year can, if they’re lucky, expect to be memorialized in a short newspaper blurb like the above-summarized Post article. To many, they’re remembered as little more than a statistic.
Yet despite the dangers, which show no signs of abating, people continue to use car-based transportation modes en masse.
Our built environment encourages driving
There are numerous ways to frame how our cars have manipulated our minds, but above all else, people drive to cope with the realities of inadequate transportation systems – or, to survive in a world others have designed without their interests in mind. Over time, they adapt to these realities and become overconfident in their ability to navigate the dangers of car-based travel, perpetuating a deadly cycle.
In much of the United States, people wishing to provide for their families have two choices: drive, or risk hardship. Perhaps their neighborhood lacks viable transit service, and marginal improvements to their mediocre bus system would do little to improve access to jobs or services. Maybe there are some decent bus routes, but would-be riders are repulsed by inhospitable stops or fear they’ll be robbed or assaulted if they travel alone at night.
Every crash-free car trip reinforces the mistaken perception of safety.
Their inevitable solution: buying a car in order to get to work, medical appointments, and other activities essential to their quality of life.
When transportation infrastructure is designed to move as many cars as possible, even people using non-car modes are subjected to the dangers of driving. Streets are perilous to cross on foot, and a wayward automobile could crash into someone just trying to catch a bus. All of a sudden, it’s people walking and biking – not people driving – who are categorized as “vulnerable” road users, because at least the cars are surrounded by airbags and metal.
Over time, people become more and more confident in their abilities to navigate automobile-related hazards. If they’ve sent a few texts from behind the wheel or seen their ride-hailing driver glued to smartphone navigation while in motion, and nothing bad has happened, why not make it a regular habit?
What people forget: no matter how many times they enjoy problem-free trips, things only have to go wrong once to end it all.
Broad improvements to multimodal infrastructure are the only way to break the cycle of car crash fatalities
According to auto industry stakeholders, self-driving cars are going to address many of the safety problems that currently plague automobile travel. But systemwide autonomy won’t become reality until many decades from now, if ever. Driver-assist technology may be beneficial in some situations, but also adds new, potentially fatal variables. In the foreseeable future, car-based technology alone won’t bring us a miracle.
But designing our transportation infrastructure for a variety of modes, rather than just for cars, is a proven strategy to bolster safety for drivers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. Places that have embraced multimodal options consistently have lower casualty rates from car crashes. The reasons:
- Traffic calming measures ensure automobiles are traveling at relatively safe speeds when they interact with other modes, and drivers are accustomed to and respectful during these interactions
- Limited-access, higher-speed roads do exist, serving specific types of trips, but common design practices, such as “2+1” roads that feature alternating center passing lanes, help ensure these roads don’t artificially obstruct non-drivers and necessitate dangerous crossings
- Transit stops, bike lanes, and sidewalks – all treated as mainstream ways to get around – are designed to be hospitable for their users, with essential safety features built-in.
When multimodal options are a priority, not only are their users kept safe, but they become preferable ways to access the life needs that so many Americans must get in their cars to reach.
This article is from our new series exploring the connections between behavioral economics and transportation. This week, we’ll be breaking down behavioral economics research to understand why people make the transportation decisions they do – and how we can build a transportation network that works for everyone. Press the image to see the series.