Warning labels? Waste of time. As long as driving is considered a civil right, a significant fraction of drivers will drive as carelessly as they please without a moment's consideration of consequences. When a Kirkland cyclist is fatally run down on the shoulder and the driver hit with a $42 fine, a message is sent confirming that there is no penalty for inattention and carelessness while piloting a motor vehicle. And if we cyclists have it coming for using the roads god gave to cars, fine; Eric's example will suit, or thousands of others that involve pedestrians or other vehicles. Driving is not a civil right, and if the culture is to be changed then in addition to strong penalties for impairment, inattention and carelessness; older drivers need to be given driving exams on a regular basis after a set year, drivers of any age driving with a suspended or no license should spend a week in the public's care, and a media campaign reminding drivers of these responsibilities untaken. No, the Vulnerable Road Users Law won't take the place of such measures.
Imagine the outcry if trains or air travel had a small percentage of the death toll and property damage that occurs annually on the roads. Never mind the expense of importing oil, cleaning spills, breathing fouled air or the increase of obesity by a population that's sworn off casual walking.
No, there's a War on Cars, don'tya know. Their defenders are being picked off by friendly fire, but not enough for them to care. The right to drive and to park shall not be infringed.

Except looking at the steering wheel, instead of the road, could lead to accidents. Maybe we should fund a massive installation of warning video billboards. It will be expensive, but hey, even if it saves one life it's worth it!

Warning: Reading some of Crosscut's authors could make you go broke.

It's lucky that Ishmael's accident occurred in Amish country, where the ambulance buggy responded. It would have been a frightening thing if local EMS had driven a horseless carriage to the scene.

Thank you Eric Scigliano. I understand that you don't really want warning labels on cars, but you see the darkness created by our car-dependent culture. All it will take is one moment of inattention brought on by fatigue or stress and my life and the life of some strangers will be forever changed.

Didn't Crosscut publish an article with basically this same premise (which I'll characterize as "You should be paralyzed with fear while driving") last year?

It's not just hitting someone else that makes it so that a car will kill it's driver, it's also the just plain lack of exercise that a car gives you. Why walk to the store when you can drive? Why walk to school when you can be dropped off via car? Why ride a bicycle to a restaurant when you can drive?

But change is coming, I can see it in the slowly growing numbers of people who chose to live with one car instead of two, who bicycle or walk to work. No need for those stickers on the dash board, you get the message when you drive up to the pump. When your doctor weighs you in, and takes your blood pressure.

This whole business about the SLAUGHTER ON THE HIGHWAYS is an even bigger load of crap now than it was before the passage of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The NHTSA reports less than 33,000 traffic fatalities (not just drivers and passengers of cars, but trucks, buses, light rail vehicles, bicycles and even pedestrians) for 2010. (See http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/NHTSA-05-11) This is the lowest figure ever recorded, and as the release notes, the biggest decrease occurred right here in the Pacific Northwest! This in the face of the number of vehicles, and the miles they are driven, increasing by orders of magnitude since since statistics on traffic fatalities were first kept in 1949.

In fact, statistically speaking, driving a car is safer than almost any other means of transportation. It is also safer than eating, sleeping and having sex.

It's too bad Mr. Ortman and his ilk don't have the courage or the integrity to admit they simply can't stand the idea of people being able to choose travel on their own schedule, via their own route, anytime they want. As for the other busybodies, I paraphrase the pro-choice bumper sticker: if you don't want a car, don't have one...

Many people commenting here are missing the point: People can be involved in causing a fatality in the blink of an eye when driving a car without being at fault. But being without fault will not ease the feelings of guilt most normal people will feel. One fraction of a second when you are distracted by something happening by the side of the road or your screaming toddler in the back seat and someone could die. Technically, it will be their fault because they stepped into traffic, but people with normal emotional development will forever question whether they could have done something to prevent it.

orino, this actual data might clear things up for you:

Fatality Rates per 100 Million Passenger-Miles
(1997)

Motor Vehicles 0.93
Rail Rapid Transit 0.55
Commuter Rail 0.05
Bus 0.10
Light Rail 0.00

[Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics/National Transportation Statistics 1999 and FTA/National Transit Statistics and Trends 1998; average motor vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 calculated from 1998 FHWA data]

Thanks andy. Those are the stats I just looked up, though I found data from a different time period:

Highway vehicles 0.89
Regional ("commuter") rail 0.03
Rail rapid transit 0.47
Light rail transit 0.23
Bus 0.07

All in all, I'd rather be on a train than in a car.

The other problem is that drivers of autos are killing not only each other, they are killing bicyclists. 64.2% of the time

Motorist failed to yield 21.6%
Bicyclist failed to yield at intersection 16.8%
Motorist merged or turned into bicycle 12.1%
Bicyclist failed to yield mid-block 11.7%
Motorist overtaking bicyclist 8.6%
Bicyclist turned or merged into motorist 7.3%

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

===
It's not just about personal convenience, it's also about making the roads unsafe for other modes of transportation as well.
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

The lack of attention that the typical driver pays to the task of driving is appalling. Drivers who talk/play with their cell phones--in flagrant violation of the law--or who confuse crosswalks with parking spaces, among numerous other careless activities. I now live in an area where there is much more of the pickup truck demographic, who will intentionally harass pedestrians and bicyclists and would no doubt run them over if the law permitted it.

I wonder how effective warning labels would be. I would also be concerned about the proliferation of warnings of all natures; it would seem that we are developing a paranoid society. My inclination is to measures that are more concrete; for instance, states could be more willing to revoke drivers licenses for people who prove themselves unable or unwilling to drive responsibly.

"lack of attention:" Why it seems only yesterday..

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/04/09/child-struck-by-van-in-south-seattle/

"aggressive driving..."
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2012/04/05/salute-to-a-heroic-bus-operator/