53,717 motor vehicles were involved in
35,747 fatal crashes, resulting in 40,115 deaths (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).
Does this statistic mean we should, therefore, ban motor vehicles or highways or both?
Every form of human activity involve risks. The question is whether the risks are
acceptable in light of the rewards. Our society, with some bazaar logic, rationalizes away
or accepts 40,000 deaths each year from motor vehicles because it believes the rewards are
acceptable. Once established, trails have proven to be safe as the surrounding community
through which they pass. The rewards of recreation and non-motorized transportation they
provide far outweigh the risks.
While it is important not to trivialize or deny that bad things can happen on trails, it
is equally important to examine the logic behind the anecdotes. Are trail opponents
willing to apply their let's-close-the-trails logic to other activities, e.g., close all
highways because 40,000 people are killed each year; close all colleges because there were
1,000 rapes? If not, then they are using a double standard to analyze risks-a selective
use of statistics to discredit what is a relatively safe activity.
Two final points. First, we need to educate trail users about elementary safety
precautions. We should caution people about jogging alone on an isolated trail, just as we
would caution against jogging alone on an isolated country road or the mall parking lot.
Second, if there are safety problems on trails, we need to fix them. That's what we do
with highways. If there's a dangerous highway curve, we straighten it. If a certain
highway intersection has frequent accidents, we redesign it or put up stoplights. But, we
don't close the road when we discover a problem, and we don't stop building more of them.
Instead, we improve them. Why would it be any different for trails?
John D. Yoder, President
Friends of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail, Inc. Goshen, IN 46526-4836
jdyoder@compuserve.com
|
