Killed by a Traffic Engineer - Book Review

I haven't read the book, but did review the interview here. 

I would agree with the author and the premise that we aren't going to fix "our road safety problems based on what I was taught in engineering school". That being said, I didn't learn a lot in engineering school that I use day to day in my multimodal transportation safety engineering practice. The good news is that the profession and the education system is evolving. I appreciate that the process is slow. 

I also appreciate that human error is part of many crashes. In my opinion, we as a profession can do more to address the issue of groupthink. The MUTCD is an excellent example. Ideally, it is a document that changes associated with research and that peer reviewed studies are directly incorporated quickly to address research that can improve practice. Given federal rulemaking, this isn't possible, but there are clearly opportunities for improvement. In Portland, research on the Wait Here for Green bicycle detector marking and bicycle detector confirmation and countdown indications have been conducted by our colleagues at Oregon State University and Portland State. You too can work on good ideas that are built into new capital projects.

While the City is not an established research organization setup to fund studies like our state DOT is, we have tried to find opportunities to collaborate and provide data. So, how can we garner more input to emphasize the importance of a Request to Experiment and the writing of a National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommendation that is supposed to actually change the MUTCD? We need more research, but if our industry is focused on following standards, how do you improve practice? Would the MUTCD be different if it was written by the FHWA Office of Safety or NTSB? How do we encourage more collaboration? We all have a chance to incorporate research into our projects and practice and that's one of the reasons that makes ITE such a great space. 

The interview references the "Safe Streets, Livable Streets" article and includes the following quote: Historically, there has been a tendency for those funding research to focus on rural or high-speed environments, and on pavements and structures.  

This is true, State DOTs control research funding and are heavily engaged at the Transportation Research Board. The good news is this is also changing as collaboration within state and local agencies has improved. The article continues: 

One outcome of the resulting underemphasis on safety and urban design concerns, as author Eric Dumbaugh identified in this article, is the problem with the published research about urban roadside design in the U.S.: it is limited in both scope and quantity. With these limitations, it is understandable that city street designers extrapolate from principles learned in a rural highway environment. They may not be standing on the firmest ground when they do this, but they judge that it is the best ground they have.

Another point he makes in the interview is that we need more generalists. I would argue that we need more engineers that use the safe, multimodal systems they are designing. In their use, they would see the challenges that are faced by people walking to school, biking to work, or taking the bus to the grocery store. My kid is great at calculus but also doesn't drive. I think with the right training, they'll be able to solve any problem of a City with the right mentorship from fellow ITE members. 

My last point is as I ride my bike, I do need people to others help to safely operate my vehicle. Multimodal street designs can also help keep me safer as a I ride around too, but the politics around this are really important, so our work has to be not only to engage technically, but also at some point with the policymakers to share the intent of our practice with them.