April 9, 2008.
California Office of Traffic Safety Summit
San Francisco, CA.
May 19, 2009
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
Bloomington, MN
June 23, 2009
Driving Assessment 2009
Big Sky, Montana
June 26, 2009
PRI World Congress
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
June 27, 2009
Day of Architecture
Utrecht, The Netherlands
July 13, 2009
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP)
Phoenix, AZ.
August 12-14
Texas Department of Transportation “Save a Life Summit”
San Antonio, Texas
September 2, 2009
Governors Highway Safety Association Annual Meeting
Savannah, Georgia
September 11, 2009
Oregon Transportation Summit
Portland, Oregon
October 8
Honda R&D Americas
Raymond, Ohio
October 10-11
INFORMS Roundtable
San Diego, CA
October 21, 2009
California State University-San Bernardino, Leonard Transportation Center
San Bernardino, CA
November 5
Southern New England Planning Association Planning Conference
Uncasville, Connecticut
January 6
Texas Transportation Forum
Austin, TX
January 19
Yale University
(with Donald Shoup; details to come)
Monday, February 22
Yale University School of Architecture
Eero Saarinen Lecture
Friday, March 19
University of Delaware
Delaware Center for Transportation
April 5-7
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
McMurrin Lectureship
April 19
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (Organization Management Workshop)
Austin, Texas
Monday, April 26
Edmonton Traffic Safety Conference
Edmonton, Canada
Monday, June 7
Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Wednesday, July 6
Fondo de Prevención Vial
Bogotá, Colombia
Tuesday, August 31
Royal Automobile Club
Perth, Australia
Wednesday, September 1
Australasian Road Safety Conference
Canberra, Australia
Wednesday, September 22
Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s
Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Program
Statewide Conference
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Wednesday, October 20
Rutgers University
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Piscataway, NJ
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ontario Injury Prevention Resource Centre
Injury Prevention Forum
Toronto
Monday, May 2
Idaho Public Driver Education Conference
Boise, Idaho
Tuesday, June 2, 2011
California Association of Cities
Costa Mesa, California
Sunday, August 21, 2011
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Attitudes: Iniciativa Social de Audi
Madrid, Spain
April 16, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Gardens Theatre, QUT
Brisbane, Australia
April 17, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Centennial Plaza, Sydney
Sydney, Australia
April 19, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Melbourne Town Hall
Melbourne, Australia
January 30, 2013
University of Minnesota City Engineers Association Meeting
Minneapolis, MN
January 31, 2013
Metropolis and Mobile Life
School of Architecture, University of Toronto
February 22, 2013
ISL Engineering
Edmonton, Canada
March 1, 2013
Australian Road Summit
Melbourne, Australia
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
| 
June 8th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Let’s not forget about the phenomenon that people who drive too close to the vehicle in front are the most likely to get rear-ended (by someone else who does the same) due to their very sharp braking habits.
It is interesting to see how that was reported though – in the UK we have had reports of cyclists ‘colliding with cars’ as though the car damage was more important than the vulnerable road user!
June 8th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I disagree with this simplistic observation. All too often inexperienced and/or bad drives do not interpret yield signs correctly. Even when the roadway ahead of them is clear they stop if traffic is passing in adjacent lanes. There are at least two intersections in the town where I live where there is rarely ever any reason for merging traffic to stop but there is a yield sign. Time and again you will see cars stop when the lane ahead of them is completely open! Driving too close is a fault of the trailing driver but drivers who fail to efficiently navigate the roadways are a drain on the transportation system.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:35 am
They will most likely decide to make the Yield a Stop sign.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:37 am
i’m hoping to put together a “Journalists’ Guide To Covering Auto Crashes” — to correct these language issues, carhead, etc. I’d like a catchier name for it, though.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Dan: Who cares? The point is: (1) people stopped in the road, (2) other people had insufficient following distance / attentiveness and crashed into them. Who cares whether the first person stopped for a yield sign, a stop sign, or a goat? Your job as a driver is to pay attention to what’s happening on the road ahead of you and not crash into it.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
So when the old man stopped his car on the 695 beltway because he missed his exit and caused a chain reaction that killed the driver of another car we shouldn’t question the decision making of the first driver?
People should drive defensively but people should also drive intelligently. People who make dumb decisions may not be personally liable for the accidents they cause (funny how the law works that way) but they should not be immune from criticism.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Dan: “too often inexperienced and/or bad drives do not interpret yield signs correctly.”
As far as I understand, the yield does not require that you do not stop. All that it does is allow the option of not stopping. That is, stopping at a yield for whatever reason is a perfectly correct “interpretation” and it’s legal too!
Dan: “There are at least two intersections in the town where I live where there is rarely ever any reason for merging traffic to stop but there is a yield sign. Time and again you will see cars stop when the lane ahead of them is completely open!”
This ends up being relevant to nothing. If it’s bad for the leading car to stop, it’s vastly worse that the trailing car runs into them!
Dan: “So when the old man stopped his car on the 695 beltway because he missed his exit and caused a chain reaction that killed the driver of another car we shouldn’t question the decision making of the first driver?”
This situation isn’t anything like a “yield”, where it is required that you expect that the leading car will stop.
Dan: “People should drive defensively but people should also drive intelligently. People who make dumb decisions may not be personally liable for the accidents they cause (funny how the law works that way) but they should not be immune from criticism.”
Legally, people can stop at yield signs and it’s completely illegal for people to run into them!
Stopping at a yield (for whatever reason) does nothing to mitigate the responsibility of the trailing driver not to hit the leading car. You certainly might be able to criticize the leading car but it has no bearing on the responsibilities trailing car!
June 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Let’s see: the public servants, having observed that a certain location has a lot of rear-end collisions, can
A. Hide behind the rules of liability and ignore a bad situation.
B. Realize that if many drivers (not just a few unusually inattentive ones) are rear-ending others, than perhaps something is making that more likely.
Is it better to be “right” or to address a dangerous situation?
June 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“A. Hide behind the rules of liability and ignore a bad situation.”
They probably can’t “hide behind the rules of liability”. That is, in the situation described in the article referenced by the blog post, they are likely liable if they are aware of an addressable situation. Note too that the article says the “public servants” are not “ignoring” the bad situation.
Since it’s the job of the public servants to address safety issues, they would be negligent if they did not do so.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am
This IS among of the oddest of logical aberrations; who and/or what is responsible for crashes.
- LA Times
“Heavy fog is being blamed for a multi-car pileup on Interstate 15 in the Cajon Pass that could involve as many as 50 vehicles, including two big rigs, authorities said this morning.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/50-car-pileup.html
The “authorities” are clearly very remarkable imbeciles.
They often never stop to consider how the preceding (or those following) vehicles managed to not crash, or the vehicles on the other side of the highway.
Nope. Apparently the unnamed authorities believe fog attacks specific vehicles without rhyme or reason… but headline writers are reluctant to publish “Fog Attacks 50 Vehicles on Cajon Pass”.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
gpsman, a similar crash happened in central florida not too long ago. Heavy fog, smoke from an uncontrolled controlled burn and early morning dew point temperatures all combined to reduce visibility to less than a few hundred feet.
The news media was quick to blame the forestry service, the state police and other authorities. After a substantial period of time, beyond a few months, the Florida Highway Patrol issued a number of traffic citations to those involved in the crashes.
At least in this case, certain authorities recognized that motor vehicle operators are responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, but it would appear that the new media take the credit for being imbeciles.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
And certain authorizes did not:
“The fog was a contributing factor to the crashes, (Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Larry) Coggins said, but he downplayed the smoke as a cause, saying deputies who were patrolling the area earlier Wednesday morning reported smoke was not an issue.
http://wcbstv.com/national/Florida.highway.pileup.2.626211.html
He only implies smoke could have caused the crashes, had it been more dense.
I would agree there are more imbeciles amongst “reporters” (/editors), but the “authorities” are suffering no shortage in this regard, AFAICT.