Are health pros missing street dangers?

40,000 annual traffic deaths

Jon Boyd, Sep 07, 10.

Angie Schmitt of Streetblogs.net asks, “When it comes to preventing traffic fatalities, are the country’s leading authorities missing the point?”

Schmitt is reacting to this comment from the New York Times story:

Among the interventions proven to reduce the toll are strict seat-belt laws, more enforcement of speeding laws, educating parents about child safety seats and using devices that lock out drivers who have been drinking alcohol, Ms. [Rebecca B.] Naumann [of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] said. Policies that restrict inexperienced teenage drivers also significantly reduce crashes, she said.

The New York Times article also cited a CDC estimate of the total annual costs of motor vehicle accidents of $100 billion, or “$500 for each licenced driver.” The New York Times writes:

The analysis is based on national data about both fatal and nonfatal injuries from 2005, the most recent year for which several sets of information were available.

Men represent 70 percent of the nearly 40,000 Americans killed on the roads each year, and they are responsible for about three-quarters of the total costs, or about $74 billion, the study found.

Teenagers and young adults, who represent only 14 percent of the population, account for almost one-third of injuries and fatalities and almost one-third of the costs. Pedestrians and motorcyclists, who represent 11 percent of the injuries, rack up 22 percent of total costs, because of the severity of their injuries, the study found.

Wide streets might also be a factor, claims Streetsblogs:

Urbanists like Phil Langdon, writing for the New Haven Safe Streets Coalition, wonder why perilous streets fail to warrant discussion, given the wealth of research linking specific road designs to traffic fatalities:

‘It seems strange that an epidemiologist at the CDC — which recently has shown a strong interest in the effects of community design — would not point out the role played by roadways that practically invite motorists to speed.

Planning consultant Peter Swift and others, in a study that was first presented to the Congress for New Urbanism in 1997, amplified in 2002, and amplified again in 2006, identified an important reason for serious traffic accidents: Many residential streets are too wide.

After studying the conditions under which nearly 20,000 accidents occurred over eight years in Longmont, Colorado, Swift and his co-authors came to an unambiguous conclusion: ‘narrow streets are safer.’ They declared: ‘Clear relationships are evident between accident frequency and street width.’ In the Longmont study, the difference between a typical 36-foot-wide residential street and a 24-foot-wide street was found to be ‘a 487 percent increase in accident rates.’”

Additional research has linked suburban-style street patterns to increased traffic fatalities, as well, Langdon writes. The CDC’s failure to mention these factors highlights the inconsistent signals from public health leaders when it comes to traffic deaths. While some CDC studies have mentioned the need to reduce driving, officials don’t seem to be in the habit of promoting that message the same way they urge the public to buckle up or avoid driving drunk.