“A 30-year-old cyclist was found dead by the side of the road after being struck by a vehicle in Brampton Thursday morning.”

“… was riding his bike to work…”

These were the descriptions that stood out to me in October 2015 as I was reading about the untimely demise of Hardeep Praha. A father, and husband, in his 30’s. On his way to work, taking his bike to connect to transit. He didn’t own a car.

The description struck a nerve with me. It described circumstances that I am very familiar with, as I share them.

It could have been me.

The circumstances around this death, even of a complete stranger, felt so familiar to me, that I felt compelled to join the members of ARC to deliver a Ghost Bike at the collision site.

The conversation did evolved positively into “what can be done to prevent this?” Obvious deficiencies were observed in the space where the collision occurred, including:

The road has an 80 km/h speed limit, and no separated bike lane — or even a paved shoulder — to ride in.

There are only lights on the south side of the street, not the north side, where the collision occurred.

Visibility was likely a factor in this collision, I don’t think there’s any denying that. But here’s the problem. During the investigation, it was revealed that Mr. Praha was wearing dark clothing, and riding a black mountain bike. At that point, any conversation about improving the quality and experience of the road allowance for all road users terminated, and the “fashion police” took over.

Fashion police messaging refers to police “safety” campaigns that puts the onus on pedestrians and cyclists to ideally dress up like a giant glow stick — for their own safety — as suggested in this questionable video by Peel Region Police.

This particular video makes no mention of the identified deficiencies in the road allowance that contributes to injury or death. Instead, it brings to light that a cyclist died last year (Mr. Praha), and insinuates that his death was his own doing due to lack of diligence in being visible.

Never mind the questionable setup of the production, this messaging has many problems.

Inattentional Blindness

I would argue that this video demonstrates the problem of inattentional blindness. Inattentional blindness is a situation where a person “fails to recognize an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight”.

In one questionable moment, the darker dressed cyclist “blacks out” for reasons unknown, but just before that happens you can see this:

The lighting appears to be very directional, like a single spot, pointed downwards. This could be indicative of a car driving in the dark with their daylights instead of their proper headlight compliment. This would in fact be the driver’s mistake. The reflectivivity of the vest that the primary subject is wearing fails to work as intended. Fashion police fail. The shorts of the primary subject are as equally visible as the subject which appears unexpectedly. Between that and the vest failure, this suggests that visibility has less to do with clothing, and more do with sources of light. It is in fact law for bicycles to be equipped with proper lighting and reflective strips, and used the same as with an automobile. This is not mentioned.

Double Standard

With all the talk about how hard it is to see pedestrians dressed in dark clothes, it’s easy to forget that it’s also difficult to see dark coloured automobiles.

Some of the takeaways from this study are:

If all vehicles had white front bumper bars (most have black) or a high visibility strip, many serious accidents could be avoided.

People with dark cars are not only endangering their own lives but also to lives of other road users.

Driving a darker coloured car can increase your crash risk…but that is nowhere near as influential a factor as your driving behaviour (driving within speed limits, not drinking and driving, avoiding driving when tired).

The messaging regarding visibility is equally important for automobiles. Yet is not typically applied to dark-coloured automobiles or cars with tinted windows in Peel Police public safety campaigns.

Doesn’t Address Sources Of Problems (Enter Vision Zero)

Rather than blame victims and create a strawman argument with inattentional blindness, there was an opportunity missed to highlight the sources of problems and address them through system design changes that infer correct user behaviours. These are similar guiding principles to designing a product interface.

These are principles of Vision Zero:

Traffic deaths and injuries are preventable; therefore, none are acceptable.

People will make mistakes; the transportation system should be designed so those mistakes aren’t fatal.

Safety is the primary consideration in transportation decision-making.

Traffic safety solutions must be addressed holistically.

Here’s a simple exercise in understanding the importance of Vision Zero.

In 2015 there were 14 fatal collisions in the City of Brampton, a 75% increase since 2013. Let’s say that every month, someone in Brampton will die in a fatal collision.

There’s a hypothetical lottery. You have the opportunity to choose which of your family, friends, closest loved ones, to be selected for the next fatality.

Which will you choose? What about next month, and the month after that? How many deaths are you prepared to accept?

Probably, none. That’s why Vision Zero is important.

Nothing Changes If Nothing Changes

“…girl is has been airlifted to a trauma centre in serious condition after being struck by a truck in Brampton…”

“It happened just before 5 p.m. Thursday in the Centre Street and Prouse Drive area.”

These were the descriptions that stood out to me in June 2016 as I was reading about the untimely demise of Mia Allen. A daughter, and sister, who just entered her teenage years. Walking to a friends house after school.

The description struck a nerve with me. It described circumstances that I am very familiar with. I share them as a father to a daughter of similar age. That day, a father lost his daughter.

It could have been me.

What surprised me is that it was an off-duty Peel Police Officer who collided with this girl with his truck. It was daylight, and sunny.

This was a law-enforcement officer, driving in ideal conditions.

An officer who knows the risks on the roads, and knows what to watch for. Someone who as a professional, is expected to demonstrate and be an ambassador for safe behaviour. If a person in this position is capable of making a mistake, or is otherwise unable to stop a collision with someone else that did make a mistake…

What chance does anybody else have?

Putting the onus for road safety squarely on the most vulnerable users doesn’t work. Expecting everyone to behave perfectly all the time won’t happen. The sooner our local police, government, and traffic planners realize this, the sooner we can start making the design changes needed to actually make roads safer.

In the meantime be cautious and patient on our roads. It’s month 6 in the lottery of 2016.

Resources