AHC: during WW II U.S. becomes serious and effective about roadway safety?

[GeographyDude]

it took Harry Turtledove, through the eyes of extraterrestrials, to make the point that a large and relatively steady number of humans die on the roadways, and we don’t seem to really care at all ? ? ?

or not care in such a way that we’re able to make effective changes.

Let’s say this starts to change during World War II. Paint me a picture.

 

[GeographyDude]

Bonus points for most of the action taking place at the state and local level. Perhaps early on preventing traffic fatalities becomes viewed as part of the patriotic war effort.

And perhaps they get it kind of right (?) on drunk driving. Nights and weekends in jail for the first advice. Standard not too much lower than .10 blood alcohol. And maybe municipalities even sometimes essentially subsidize cheaper taxicab fares from taverns. (almost a pre-Internet version of uber?)

In many ways, World War II was the last serious reshuffle of American culture and politics.

 

[NHBL]

Was there a good way to measure blood alcohol content then?

I could see something starting with traffic safety if an accident made the news in a big way, and someone--perhaps a fighter pilot, since they strap in--said, "Mr. and Mrs. well known celebrity and kids would still be alive if they had strapped in like every pilot does, every day."

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . perhaps a fighter pilot, since they strap in--said, "Mr. and Mrs. well known celebrity and kids would still be alive if they had strapped in like every pilot does, every day."

And I like the aspect in which the pilot could use a reputation for both bravery and competence to get people to take it more seriously.

And with a blood test, I think blood alcohol is just basic skills from high school chemistry, but then again, I've only had one chemistry course from long ago!

 

[NHBL]

And I like the aspect in which the pilot could use a reputation for both bravery and competence to get people to take it more seriously.

And with a blood test, I think blood alcohol is just basic skills from high school chemistry, but then again, I've only had one chemistry course from long ago!

A blood test is more invasive than a Breathalyzer test, so there would probably have to be a pretty good reason to suspect DWI before using it. Perhaps all drivers in an accident get tested?

 

[marathag]

People used to drive drunk just near to the point of being passed out, thru the 1970s.

Obvious enough not to need testing.

People used to get absolutely hammered, and then get behind the wheel to drive home from the Bar/Party/whatever.

If they crashed without killing anyone, that was A-ok.

 

[Arthur Marston]

Let’s say this starts to change during World War II. Paint me a picture.

Why specifically WWII?

 

[marathag]

Why specifically WWII?

A form of Breathalyzer was invented in 1938, to be able to test without an invasive blood test.

Plus, it's for the War Effort. Easier to get things done for that.

 

[GeographyDude]

A blood test is more invasive than a Breathalyzer test, so there would probably have to be a pretty good reason to suspect DWI . . .

A form of Breathalyzer was invented in 1938, . . .

Yes, I tend to think we need probable cause, and not just something like stopping people at a checkpoint over Labor Day weekend.

Even for a Breathalyzer, which I’m glad was developed early.

 

[GeographyDude]

People used to drive drunk just near to the point of being passed out, thru the 1970s.

Obvious enough not to need testing.

People used to get absolutely hammered, and then get behind the wheel to drive home from the Bar/Party/whatever.

If they crashed without killing anyone, that was A-ok.

I fully embrace the challenge of how much a “norm” drunk driving was,

Plus, it's for the War Effort. Easier to get things done for that.

as well as the opportunity.

Even with the additional requirement that we largely get things right, perhaps even better than OTL.

 

[NotQuiteConfident]

The real answer is to reduce driving. Public transit, walking, biking, etc are much safer than driving.

 

[marathag]

The real answer is to reduce driving. Public transit, walking, biking, etc are much safer than driving.

People were walking until the bicycle craze started in the late 1880s, and that didn't stop till cars took over, just after 1900

'Just walk' was done by the 1880s. Bikes 1900
US Population density just doesn't support public transit. By WWI, rural residents were replacing horses with autos, even with few surfaced roads-- and that's not paved, just gravel.

 

[InvaderX]

The real answer is to reduce driving. Public transit, walking, biking, etc are much safer than driving.

The thing is, this is really not an option for anybody who doesn't live in a major city. And this issue would probably be bigger in the 1940s than it is now, considering a larger percentage of the population lived in rural areas back then compared to now (if I'm not mistaken, anyway). In vast countries with comparatively (to places like Europe, where public transit is a lot easier to make work for more people considering the smaller geographic distances and higher population densities involved) low population densities like the USA (or Canada, as well as many other countries in the Americas), driving is basically essential for a significant portion of the population if they want to be able to get anywhere without hiking or cycling for dozens of miles. America will always need cars.

Earlier introduction of even something as basic as the seatbelt would likely save quite a few lives. It may also be possible to introduce airbags a few years earlier than OTL, possibly even in WW2 if technology isn't too much of a barrier and if someone has a bright idea or two.

 

[NotQuiteConfident]

The thing is, this is really not an option for anybody who doesn't live in a major city. And this issue would probably be bigger in the 1940s than it is now, considering a larger percentage of the population lived in rural areas back then compared to now (if I'm not mistaken, anyway). In vast countries with comparatively (to places like Europe, where public transit is a lot easier to make work for more people considering the smaller geographic distances and higher population densities involved) low population densities like the USA (or Canada, as well as many other countries in the Americas), driving is basically essential for a significant portion of the population if they want to be able to get anywhere without hiking or cycling for dozens of miles. America will always need cars.

Earlier introduction of even something as basic as the seatbelt would likely save quite a few lives. It may also be possible to introduce airbags a few years earlier than OTL, possibly even in WW2 if technology isn't too much of a barrier and if someone has a bright idea or two.

I agree not everyone can go without driving, but it can be reduced. You actually have it backwards, the US is much more car dependent now than it was in the past. While more people lived in rural areas in the past, they often lived in small towns that were walk-able for most. In addition, many small towns were connected to other areas with interurban railroads, almost all of which no longer exist. A typical person in a rural area in the pre-WW2 era likely either lived at their workplace or at least within a walk-able distance and if they did need to go somewhere they likely took a train, streetcar, or a bus. Most of the shops they needed would be nearby (probably in walking distance), this was the essence of the quintessential American main street. Compare that to today where in many even major cities it can be difficult to get around without a car. This is compounded by the fact that most Americans now live far away from their workplace, which requires the commute in the first place. The main street has been replaced with the strip mall, and strip malls are designed around the car.

The car will of course grow in use, and probably cause the shut down of some mass transit lines. However, it does not need to be as near total that it was in OTL and it does not have to come at the cost of walk-ability. To actually reduce America's car dependence I would say that the post-war infrastructure boom would have to include a fair amount of money towards mass transit (probably commuter and suburban rail if white flight cannot be prevented). Avoiding the dominance of single family detached homing would be a big help as it encourages sprawl and limits walk-ability. Stopping white flight would be best for this but I'm not sure how it could be done. To be honest I don't think you could completely avoid the dominance of single family detached with a POD of WW2, but you might be able to have it be more like the streetcar suburbs where that housing is more centered around transit (probably a form of commuter rail in this case).

 

[NotQuiteConfident]

People were walking until the bicycle craze started in the late 1880s, and that didn't stop till cars took over, just after 1900

'Just walk' was done by the 1880s. Bikes 1900
US Population density just doesn't support public transit. By WWI, rural residents were replacing horses with autos, even with few surfaced roads-- and that's not paved, just gravel.

Walking and biking certainly didn't end by 1900 (in fact biking has seen a lot of growth in recent years).

Regardless, overall population density is a bit misleading. Russia has a population density a bit more than 1/5 of the United States but has much better public transportation. How? Because what matters is how people are distributed. If everyone is in relatively dense housing with decent access to good public transit (and especially if that housing is near where they work) they will drive less. But those same amount of people could also be spread out over a large area with housing far away from most jobs in ways that make non car transportation non-viable. Compare the Boston metro area and the Phoenix metro area. Both have around 4.8 million people and even similar commute times but around 5% of people in Phoenix use transit compared to over 30% for Boston.

It is true places like middle-of-nowhere Wyoming are never going to be non-dependent on cars, but you can limit car usage of America as a whole by investing in transit and focusing development in walk-able communities near that transit. This is the way that most development is done in Europe and Asia and as a result they drive less and have fewer road deaths. American suburbs could be more Arlington, VA and less Arlington, TX.

 

[marathag]

Because what matters is how people are distributed.

More because poor farmers and workers in the Russian Empire and then Soviet Union never had the opportunity to buy inexpensive cars.

People were not going to walk when a single speed bicycle cost $25, a motorcycle $180 and a Model T at $850, that could carry the entire family at over 40 miles per hour

Phoenix Metro area is 14600 sq.miles, Boston Metro is 3500.
That's why Phoenix doesn't have much besides a bus system for downtown

 

[NotQuiteConfident]

More because poor farmers and workers in the Russian Empire and then Soviet Union never had the opportunity to buy inexpensive cars.

People were not going to walk when a single speed bicycle cost $25, a motorcycle $180 and a Model T at $850, that could carry the entire family at over 40 miles per hour

Phoenix Metro area is 14600 sq.miles, Boston Metro is 3500.
That's why Phoenix doesn't have much besides a bus system for downtown

Cars are fairly highly subsidized in the US (at least compared to other countries), which promotes car use. But even Canada has about twice the amount of transit usage per capita so again it is possible for the US to have good transit if the right choices were made.

The Phoenix metro was not always 14600 sq. miles and it did not have to be that sprawled and that's my point. Phoenix could have been built more dense and walk-able and centered around transit. Instead, it was built to be almost completely car dependent and as a result it has a rate of car deaths per capita over 2.5 times higher than Boston.

 

[marathag]

possibly even in WW2 if technology isn't too much of a barrier and if someone has a bright idea or two.

While Accelerometers dated back to the '30s, the several hundred dollar, hand built, bulky units didn't drop much in size or cost till new piezoelectric materials are around in the 1960s



Big safety items

Brakes on each axle, with redundant hydraulic circuits. Extra points for being fade resistant. If you can stop, you won't hit objects.

Seat Belts. So you don't get ejected if you do hit something

Laminated Safety glass. For when belts aren't worn, and you don't get cutup on regular glass.

positive door latches, so door won't open in a crash

Padded Dashboards and collapsible steering columns. So you don't get impaled or beat your head against a steel dash, even if belted in

Fuel tanks moved away from the cowl or under the front seat.

These simple items didn't all come together til the 1960s, and could have been done decades earlier.

But Safety didn't really sell, Styling and Power did

 

[marathag]

The Phoenix metro was not always 14600 sq. miles and it did not have to be that sprawled and that's my point. Phoenix could have been built more dense and walk-able and centered around transit. Instead, it was built to be almost completely car dependent and as a result it has a rate of car deaths per capita over 2.5 times higher than Boston.

How will you force people to live in projects? Out West, land was cheap, and there was cheap technology to travel around

Boston built Up, not out, because land was not cheap in the East

 

[NotQuiteConfident]

How will you force people to live in projects? Out West, land was cheap, and there was cheap technology to travel around

Boston built Up, not out, because land was not cheap in the East

It's not the projects, its just Transit-Oriented Development. You promote development near transit, look at Arlington County VA for a good American example (and one of the few decent ones). Arlington VA is a very desirable place to live today, they increased their population while also reducing their traffic by putting most new development near their DC Metro stations. Its an updated streetcar suburb not government housing.

While it is true land is cheap (and that is a contributing factor to suburban sprawl) another major factor is the vast amounts of money put into roads and highways when compared to transit. Phoenix developed the way it did in large part because the massive freeways were built and and existing transit was destroyed. You only had the option of the car, never a choice. Additionally, Phoenix (like many if not most American cities) severely limited the ability to build non single family detached housing. Other types of housing were often made functionally illegal (at least in the vast majority of the city). Suburban sprawl, at least the form it took in america, was not a natural phenomenon (at least not entirely). It certainly cannot be completely avoided but even doing only somewhat better than OTL would result in a lot fewer traffic deaths. Even just ending like Canada (which had similar patterns but not quite as extreme as America) would result in a quarter less traffic deaths per capita!