Drunk driving doctor kills runner training for Boston

Flagpole wrote:

1) No one gets killed by a car running where there aren't cars.

2) Runners getting killed by cars happens a LOT more than you and most runners think.

3) A small chance of getting killed or not, this is a risk that is completely avoidable, and not only that, but it should be desirable. Who the hell wants to run and breathe all that car exhaust on a road anyway?

Running on roads is stupid. No two ways about it. Blame goes to drunk and distracted drivers, but as I said before, that doesn't bring a dead runner back.

Where are you suggesting that runners run? Not being argumentative, just wondering what exactly you are saying.

Flagpole wrote:

I can understand how people might disagree with me here, but I honestly don't understand the hatred I get because of this stance of mine. Seems weird.

You're being paternalistic on a website that caters to individualists. Let people choose for themselves what risks they deem to be acceptable and cut it out with the condescending judgement. Everybody knows that running on roadways carries some risk. They don't need you to inform them of this fact and are perfectly capable of deciding whether the risk is personally worth it to them or not.

BAN CARS wrote:

If It Works for Guns... wrote:

Oh my God, oh my God. Ban doctors. Ban drinking. Ban cars. They all kill people! People are dying. When will we come to our senses and eliminate these senseless tragedies?!

People who own cars are heartless murderous monsters. They don't need cars. They can walk or ride a bike. They are so selfish, we need to be more like the Chinese and ride bicycles everywhere.

We will ban all automobiles! This I promise.

Guess what - cars are already restricted in so many ways. One needs a licence, one needs to be a certain age. One can only drive them at certain speeds, one cannot text and drive, one cannot drink and drive, one needs to wear a seatbelt, one needs to own insurance.

If we applied the same rigour to gun ownership we might not need to ban them.

Nice try though.

Flagpole wrote:

some stupid stuff

~13% of car-related deaths are pedestrians. Driving is AT LEAST as dangerous as running on the road.

Flagpole - did your daughter choose MIT or caltech?

Flagpole wrote:

I can understand how people might disagree with me here, but I honestly don't understand the hatred I get because of this stance of mine. Seems weird.

Word choice makes you appear insensitive.

However, if you watch the video, I would agree that I would not choose to run on that road.

Unfortunately, many of us are faced with the choice of using roads to connect to safe running routes or driving to those routes, thus putting us in danger of assisting some other runner on, paraphrasing your words, a suicide mission.

I actually agree that it would have been safer to run on trails. In my not so extensive experience, drivers do sometimes overlook runners when making turns, etc., and the onus is on the runner to preserve themselves. And this doesn't really take into account reckless (including drunk) drivers, just the less aware ones. The problem is that if I were to stick to trails it would basically kill my training, given where I live and time limitations. And so I make the conscious decision to assume the small risk of something bad happening on the roads.

Flagpole wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

How often does it happen? The fact that something occurs does not make it common when you're talking about millions of people. To call this suicide is really offensive, Flagpole.

1) Millions of people are NOT running on the roads. The vast majority of runners do not do this anymore.

2) If I have to be the beacon of truth with regard to this dangerous activity and somehow somewhere down the line it keeps someone from not losing their life in this manner, then I will gladly take it on.

I can understand how people might disagree with me here, but I honestly don't understand the hatred I get because of this stance of mine. Seems weird.

If you run into traffic (with the exception of going around a tight, blind turn to the left) wearing bright clothing, with no music playing, on roads with slower speed limits, paying close attention to traffic and being ready to jump off the road at a moments notice, the odds of you coming home alive are pretty good.

Have to imagine the odds of contracting mrsa or some such disease off the treadmill in the gym isn't zero either.

In 2011, 48% of non-driver fatalities occurred on a Friday. 37% of the vehicles involved were driven by drunk drivers.

The states with the lowest pedestrian fatality rates were Nebraska, Vermont and South Dakota, (all 0 in 2011), Alabama, Maryland, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Missouri, Idaho, Kentucky, Connecticut and Alaska.

My recommendations for runners who have to run on roads is, - don't run on a Friday

- don't run in the evening when drivers are more likely to be drunk

- wear reflective, bright colored clothes with flashing lights, even during daytime

- run in a group if possible as you will be more visible, - - stick to long flat roads with little commercial traffic (and adjoining fields or grass verges) if necessary

-

In other news

700 cyclists were killed by vehicles in 2011, so running seems inherently safer. 65,000 people are estimated to have died as a result of a poor diet or inactivity.

A Lot of pro runners train on roads, without any notable fatalities (I may have missed some news).

Last year I ran about 17 miles on roads in Vermont over a 3 day weekend. Although they were not straight or flat in places, I saw about 3 cars the whole time, none of which were driving driving fast. We even did an hour of hill training on public roads, without any hint of danger.

I would regard running in that area as very safe for running on roads.

WhitePony wrote:

Where are you suggesting that runners run? Not being argumentative, just wondering what exactly you are saying.

In a field

On a track

In a park

On a treadmill

On a bike path

Anywhere but where there are cars traveling at a decent speed.

Want to run only in a suburb where you never run a road where the speed limit is greater than 25 MPH, then OK...that's an acceptable risk to me, but anything beyond that is too risky.

Don't have any of the above things available to you? Well, then perhaps you need to move. Choosing to run on roads with cars because it is convenient and because you (not YOU specifically, the collective YOU) feel entitled is foolhardy.

A 21 year old College of Charleston student was hit and killed by a pick up truck last night.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140115/PC16/140119625/1177/college-of-charleston-student-dies-after-getting-hit-by-pickup-while-jogging

used to be cool wrote:

You're being paternalistic on a website that caters to individualists. Let people choose for themselves what risks they deem to be acceptable and cut it out with the condescending judgement. Everybody knows that running on roadways carries some risk. They don't need you to inform them of this fact and are perfectly capable of deciding whether the risk is personally worth it to them or not.

I have no power to let them or not let them. I can only (and have only) said it's silly to do it. I disagree with you that people properly recognize the risk though. Someone made the comment that if you dress properly run on the correct side of the road and so on that you have driven the risk down low enough to be acceptable. I disagree with that. Experienced runners die by getting hit by cars, and they are doing things right. In fact, usually when you read a story about such a thing, it will say something to that effect.

the clarifier wrote:

Word choice makes you appear insensitive.

However, if you watch the video, I would agree that I would not choose to run on that road.

Unfortunately, many of us are faced with the choice of using roads to connect to safe running routes or driving to those routes, thus putting us in danger of assisting some other runner on, paraphrasing your words, a suicide mission.

1) If I were insensitive, I would not bring up the topic at all and likely wouldn't give a crap one way or the other.

2) You said many of you are faced with a CHOICE. Make the right choice, brother. Don't do it. Well, don't RUN on those roads, and if YOU drive, make sure that YOU are not impaired and that YOU look out for runners. YOU can control what YOU do as a driver. You can NOT control what other drivers do.

How is the weather up there?

Group Runner wrote:

In other news

700 cyclists were killed by vehicles in 2011, so running seems inherently safer. 65,000 people are estimated to have died as a result of a poor diet or inactivity.

This is where stats can hurt you big time.

1) There are WAY more cyclists on roads than runners on those same roads...WAY more. Car hits a runner, car hits a bicyclist, except for the fact the bicyclist might have some serious speed going on, it's just as bad.

2) That something else is ALSO risky doesn't negate THIS risky behavior. That is a debate tactic that holds no water. Playing Russian Roulette is even more dangerous than either of those or even smoking. Does that mean we should all smoke 3 packs a day?

From Isle of Palms wrote:

A 21 year old College of Charleston student was hit and killed by a pick up truck last night.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140115/PC16/140119625/1177/college-of-charleston-student-dies-after-getting-hit-by-pickup-while-jogging

Sad. This happens VERY frequently. If I REALLY wanted to browbeat people here over this, I would start a thread everytime it happens. Sad.

Flagpole wrote:

From Isle of Palms wrote:

A 21 year old College of Charleston student was hit and killed by a pick up truck last night.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140115/PC16/140119625/1177/college-of-charleston-student-dies-after-getting-hit-by-pickup-while-jogging

Sad. This happens VERY frequently. If I REALLY wanted to browbeat people here over this, I would start a thread everytime it happens. Sad.

Wrong - doesn't happen very frequently. You don't understand what frequent means.

I wonder if some women prefer the roads to a secluded trail for the safety factor of being in a visible public place.

distance guy wrote:

I wonder if some women prefer the roads to a secluded trail for the safety factor of being in a visible public place.

Yes, and it's suicide, as the most disgusting poster, Flagpole, has proven.

toner of the rings wrote:

http://wtvr.com/2014/01/13/mechanicsville-jogger-killed/

Drunk at 8:15 in the morning?

By the way, not that this matters, but a woman running 3:05 is NOT a jogger.

Not that uncommon for a heavy drinker. He drinks from 8pm to midnight--and I mean DRINKS---then sleeps, but he drank so much that he still has a higher than allowed BAC when he wakes up.

Another scenario--he works the night shift, goes out for a few drinks after work at some all night dive bar or just drinks in his car and drives.

Also, with an accident, the threshold for charges is often lower. Not that hard to get 0.08 or 0.05 (as is the threshold for an accident in some states).