Why do Americans view zero road deaths as an impossible goal?
strongtowns.org
strongtowns.org
For example, consider "zero tolerance" laws. They result in convicting kids who carry a one inch Lego toy gun to school, because "my hands are tied" by the legislation.
Or the "3 Strikes" laws which send people to jail for life for stealing a handbag.
BTW, I support removal of cars from high density pedestrian areas. I wish Seattle would do that.
What if I am having a heart attack and the ambulance is on the way? If it gets there within 5 minutes, I can be saved, if not I die. Oh well, no going over 20 mph, I'm dead.
I would hope Oslo has a carve out for emergency response, but I don't see one in the article.
Much, much, more abstractly, as the article points out, suburbs are much denser in American than in Olso. "If I could work on my lifesaving cancer cure 8hr/day I would cure it in 10 years, but at 7hr/day I only cure it in 12 years. I can only spend so much time at work and commuting. Oh well, no going over 20mph, it takes me years longer." Lots of productivity losses (some of which are undoubtedly going to result in loss of life) if a(not atypical) American 20 mile commute now takes an hour instead of 20 minutes.
It would take restructuring of roadways on a massive scale in America to have this policy not result in staggering productivity/time losses. The article admits this ("it's going to require both institutional and far-reaching cultural changes", "It will take decades"). Without massive changes, adopting this policy would, as the article states, "incite riots in no time." I'd welcome taking steps towards transit restructuring.
However, there seems to be little political will for even basic incremental steps. That's why zero deaths seems impossible - getting even basic, functioning, public transit is hard in America.
Suburbs too dense sounds like a virtual problem. Concentrate like Singapore or Seoul, more density yet less traffic. Even more ecological if public transportation works properly.
US population density is kept artificially low because everyone wants to own land. That is a "dream" sold by realtors, with obvious lack of focus on the costs of it.
People die riding bicycles, too. They die in mass transit accidents. As mentioned earlier, they die because they can't get to the hospital in time. They die because the economy does worse because fewer people shop.
It's really hard to tease a simple answer out of an extremely complex, interconnected system.
I'm reminded of the argument for the 55 mph speed limit in America, that it "obviously" saved lives. Turned out, it did not. Freeway travel was significantly safer than city street travel, and reducing freeway speeds pushed more traffic onto the city streets, resulting in a higher death rate.
For example, every time I get on an airplane I risk death. I know it. But I go anyway, because (say, visiting family, having a nice vacation, closing a business deal) is worth it.
"eliminate all instances where a driver could hit a pedestrian at a speed greater than 15 to 20 mph, even if one or both parties make a mistake.
This means in places where people will be out and about (i.e. streets), cars and trucks must either be kept out entirely, or must not travel faster than 20 miles per hour. Period."
In the US, this would require an immense amount of infrastructure building and/or an increase in the amount of time people spend in vehicles (due to lower speed travel). Either, with the current status quo, would raise carbon emissions.
In 2016, 5987 pedestrians died in the US [0]. And there were 37806 motor vehicle related deaths the same year [1]. Engaging in trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending or increasing the amount of time vehicles spend at low/inefficient speeds will almost certainly kill more people (indirectly) than it saves.
I am absolutely for public transit and other infrastructure improvements, but the fact is that preventing deaths just isn't a compelling argument in its favor with the relatively small amount of deaths - substantially more people die from the flu than traffic accidents [2].
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Most importantly, you have to look at the age structure. Influenza currently takes people in old age. Vehicular accidents are the top cause of death of young people, meaning they're much more impactful in disability adjusted years, which is the real useful measure here, not death count.
It's easy to fall prey to Lake Wobegon effect - everyone thinks they are above average and deserve more. Paying 20 minutes daily despite reducing crashes by two orders of magnitude saving average 3 hours of life will be obviously rejected for that reason.
Accidents here are generally caused by people ignoring the limits and law anyway, so this measure is unlikely to fix anything unless it causes congestion.
How many marginal person-years spent in traffic, or on less efficient alternative transport, is each road death worth? How many dollars per capita per fatality is appropriate (for e.g. infrastructure improvements.)?[1] Such absolutist and naive policy motives run the strong risk of making society worse, not better.
[1] I make no claim that we are at any optimum value, only that the optimum value is not 'no one dies on the roads, costs be damned'
The useful point of the article is that the Scandinavian countries are so much less dependent on cars (and so much smaller) that you have years where no one dies by a car hitting pedestrian. But it do better pointing out the overall (considerable) quality of life benefit rather than the factoid - factoid arguments just raise people's hackles these days.
It's surely a slightly flippant argument, but I certainly think there's at least a little nugget of truth to it.
In my opinion, those were likely going to be wasted either way.
I can see a literal point of view where if you add all sporadic minutes there also were opportunities, achievements, etc, but it just seems so far fetched for me.
Try telling that to all the parents who would love to be able to spend more time with their kids. Or all the people who have hobbies or side projects who would love to have more time to work on them.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/editorial-cap-us-speed-limit-at...
In Beverly Hills rich man-children with sports cars speed around with bumper stickers showing they donate to the Beverly Hill PD.
Just citing some high-level observations that show some issues.
That said, West LA is a fucking hellscape and the cars are mostly to blame for that.
SF is a pretty mismanaged city in general, but it's telling that complaints about transport are (IME) far less strident than complaints about everything else. There's a floor on how bad your transport experience can be based on the layout of the city: if there as gridlock on every street in San Francisco and all the subways were flooded, I could still easily walk to the equivalent of many, many square miles of a place like LA.
(I should note that this comparison is no longer as dramatic, since LA has started making at least certain areas denser and more accessible)
[1] I graduated college during a time when the LA economy was sputtering, while SF, NY, London, Seattle, etc were booming, so the only people who stayed in LA were the ones who didn't have much going on.
The only freedom that has been taken away has been the freedom of people to live car free. Its now required for so many people, and combine that with rising home prices and the associated sprawl and cars are nothing but a prison people have to put themselves in for multiple hours a day.
Well, if you target "zero" of anything with a large enough N, you end up well past the point of diminishing returns, and avoiding that last death may have a price tag truly outsized relative to the benefit. It may even cause more deaths in other areas.
For instance, after 9/11 security at airports was tightened massively ("targeting zero") and this caused a lot more people to drive short distances, which is much riskier than flying, which in turn caused way, way more deaths than all of 9/11. Micro, achieved, macro, failed.
Bruce Schneier covers this well in an essay titled "Our Decreasing Tolerance to Risk" [1]
With that in mind, I don't believe cars should exist in urban centers, but because they're a livability nightmare rather than due to the very low risk cars pose to my continued existence (you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident).
[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
Which sounds like very little. But life expectancy is now around 80 years. That means that your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 0.8%. That's high enough that, in a country of 330 million people, it adds up to a problem that's worth trying to solve.
Look, I mostly agree with you. But the "low risk" argument in your last paragraph isn't as effective as you think.
Not dying matters. I mean, duh, it really matters. But in the time when you're not dead, it's nice to be able to do some things besides just not dying. Among the things I want to do with my life and my time, walking to work in winter is very low on the list. So is waiting at a tram stop in a blizzard.
I don't have public transport available. So for freedom in general, take away access to public transport and cars become freedom to move. Even when public transport is available its not when I need it. Or how I need it. I need to move this odd shaped or heavy or inconvenient equipment now. Not in 5 minutes. Not in 15. I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either. The time of day is also important. I won't tolerate you saying "please wait 30 minutes" or "we can have a vehicle available tomorrow at 9am". Now.
Obligatory notes:
- I'm not in favor of more road deaths.
- I'm in favor of sensible road speed limits and school zones.
- I'm not in favor of speed limits being used as revenue streams.
- People need to actually stop tailgating and learn how to drive at appropriate speeds.
- I'm not against areas being pedestrian zones with entire streets blocked off. I like to walk as well.
- People are bad drivers some of the time or most of the time in many cases. They make mistakes. "No deaths" means an absolute guarantee. Real life has opinions about absolute guarantees: they are usually either strong fact or a temporary fiction that has harsh consequences while its maintained.
- I think the "cure" for road deaths using just legislation and too low speed limits will cause societal distortions similar to the madness that prohibition had on general society (the government went so far they actually thought poisoning alcohol was a legitimate measure).
- auto-pilot for cars and trucks is worth pursuing.
On a related note: you wrote, "It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult."
Sounds like helicopter parenting[1].
No, you don't. You want to move it now, but in general, you don't need to move it now.
> I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either.
Yes, you will, or you won't drive on publicly funded roads. You are not licenced to transport nuclear waste. You are not licenced to transport explosives. You need the right vehicle to transport an heavy or insecure load. Your freedom to transport whatever you want does not supersede other peoples freedom to drive in a safe environment.
I was referring to public transport rules and people's random car rules, eg Uber. But you want to enumerate toxic materials laws and assert I'm against that so you are Right and I'm Wrong in some attempt to show I'm completely unreasonable and probably kick puppies.
So, Obligatory note addendum to clarify so the internet feels safe:
- no, I'm not in favor of transporting unrestricted nuclear fuel in cars in icecream tubs in peoples laps while they speak on the phone and read the newspaper.
- yes I want freedom to have a vehicle of my own so that an odd shaped box that wont fit in a Uber can actually be moved.
- no that odd shaped box doesn't contain industrial waste. And no, I'm not an advocate for that.
- yes that box complies with standard size requirements. It does not stretch out the back like a jousting lance.
- having to clarify this stuff is bad. its like providing a legal document with so many clauses you forget the original point.
- And yes that guy is a helicopter parent to whatever degree.
- and yes, I've lost a family member to a road bicycle incident. The investigation showed that the only real way to have prevented that incident would have been to ban all road bikes. That seems unwise.
1. https://www.qualityhealth.com/childrens-health-and-parenting...
Sounds like helicopter parenting.
1. https://www.google.com/maps/place/1406-1416+Wolftrap+Run+Rd,...
In reality I cannot know your situation. I did read what you wrote however, so I've definitely revealed something you're sensitive about far more than you admit by this comment. But you are denying that.
That's fine.
So despite being in favor of pedestrian safe zones while simultaneously wanting sane speed limits I'm, in your mind, resistant to change. Interesting. I've seen plenty of people dead at vehicle incident scenes. Often a call in the early morning. I know exactly what the cost versus benefit really looks like. Note that I don't use the term "accident". I think I've seen a bit more than you'd expect. My dot points still stand and you haven't eliminated any of them.
When I and many others got sane speed limits put in place so that people slow down around schools and nearby shops we completely succeeded no matter what you say. But nonsense speed limits that are intended only to raise revenue aren't about safety. I'm talking about examples like 5 speed limit changes within 300 metres. That's ridiculous. But that's the kind of idiocy involved.
I'm resistant to bad changes and poor legislation. I sense you don't appreciate that kind of nuance and anything other than black or white is unacceptable to you.
Of course cars are a leading cause of death for children -- but that's only because children tend not to die of natural causes. They don't don't really get sick: they don't really die of heart disease, stroke or cancer. They certainly don't die of old age. That means they're basically only going to die of negligence and/or stupidity (their own or someone elses).
The chances of dying in a fatal car accident are low, 0.01% per year for the average individual. We should get rid of cars in urban areas, but it's because they're a livability issue, not because of the (low) risk associated with them.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
You can't teach kids to be independent if you have made it so they can't be independent which is exactly what car culture has done to kids. Kids can't be independent until they reach driving age, because any other independence is far too dangerous.
No, they're gone because many parents don't want to let their children out of their sight because humans are terrible at balancing the tiny risk of a very serious negative outcome, and many Americans have lost all appetite for risk. What you're suggesting isn't strictly true, and is more of an American phenomenon. In Japan (which also has cars) children as young as 5 or 6 are regularly sent out to run errands on their own. [1]
This has nothing to do with cars, and independence comes with both risk and reward. It's not true that "any other independence is far too dangerous" and it's not "because cars."
In 1969, 44% of kids walked or biked to school ([2]) and America definitely had cars back then. Granted, fewer (500 cars per 1000 people vs 800 today).
[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-littl...
[2] http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...
You have robbed kids of their independence, say its impossible for things to be different and blame parents for not letting kids roam. If you want kids to roam build high density livable developments that don't require cars and it will allow kids to be independent.
1. From the article
> School consolidation has lengthened the trip between home and school, and longer trips coincide with few children walking and bicycling. By increasing the distance between home and school, consolidation of schools may discourage physically active trips to school while encouraging higher levels of motor vehicle use and pollution.
2. From the other Article
> In Japanese cities, people are accustomed to walking everywhere, and public transportation trumps car culture
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/ori...
Arguably, however, the category of "people aged 15-24" in that chart is not representative enough of "children".
But for the millions stuck in rush hour traffic in every major city across the country, maybe there could be a better way to make that one commute to work. NYC has a lot of subways and 60% of the population uses transit, but they are just about all built for moving people to and from their 9-5 job in Manhattan, not traveling laterally across the outer boroughs.
All you need to do with public transport is open an app, walk to the spot, and have patience. In LA, the bus network is comprehensive, but it does demand patience. So I just bring a book. Much more peaceful than the bloodsport played on the freeways here.
Transit is stifling, taking me nowhere at inconvenience and cost.
Well, you're beholden to your mechanic, your gas stations, your insurance company, whoever you pay for parking at home (or the indirect cost you paid extra for a garage, driveway, etc) and parking away (or the indirect cost you pay extra for the goods and services you obtain at places that have "free" parking).
Oh, and the tax man, as America spends $66 billion dollars per year just maintaining the interstates.
> 8000 miles last summer thru remote spectacular regions, as we saw fit, was exhilarating.
Sounds nice!
> Transit is stifling, taking me nowhere at inconvenience and cost.
Well, if we didn't spend all that money on the interstates ($66B/yr), imagine how much rail we could lay down? Even California HSR cost $56M/km (where China's cost $17M), so we could lay down 1200km-4000km of high-speed rail each year. Standard speed rail costs $1.3-26M so we could lay down as much as 50,000km of new rail.
Freedom to not have to drive? Sure. It's great. But so is the freedom to be able to drive.
No, cars represent freedom if you live anywhere other than a dense city. Which is most of the usable land area of the planet.
If you grew up somewhere rural or suburban, you basically became a parasite to your parents, and were totally dependent on them for all of your transportation until 16 or 17 when you got a license & car. Even then you're probably gonna be a financial burden (and financially dependent) on your parents to purchase you a car if you are lucky. If you grew up in a city (or a Stars Hollow style small town), you likely got to claim that independence at a much younger age.
As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive. We talk about 'everyone gets a trophy' culture; what many don't realize is everyone gets a trophy because if you are responsible for driving your kid to the pitch for practice, as the parent you'll be damned if your kid isn't a winner (do kids even care about little statues?).
Then, when you age, you are once again going to have to go into a phase of dependance on others for your transit much earlier than people who live in walkable communities. This is both because walkers will be healthier and remain physically able longer, and because even if they did not, they could just walk to doctors appointments, grocery stores, and other destinations necessary to their independence.
All of these things are, if not unique to the American experience of the past 50 years, at least magnified here... and I have not even gotten into suburban housing policy and the financial impacts on households of car ownership and on governments of road maintenance (spoiler: its not good).
I'd give Strong Towns a serious read; I think you might find that Chuck Marohn is better aligned with your worldview than you think.
I grew up in suburbs. I rode the bus to school and rode my bike to the swimming pool and other places I wanted to play. For a couple of years in high school before I got a license, yes, my parents had to drive me places, but it certainly wasn't for my entire childhood.
> As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive.
For my commute, driving to work takes me about an hour door to door. Taking public transit takes me about an hour and a half. For people who car pool to work in my area (I don't), the disparity can be even larger because of HOV lanes and free use of express lanes on the freeway. Comparisons I've seen between public transit times and driving times often aren't door to door--they only count the actual travel time on the train or bus, not the time spent getting to the station (and parking if you don't live close enough to it to walk), and the time getting to the office after leaving the train or bus.
That said, I have nothing whatever against walkable communities (in fact, at some point as I age I will probably try to move to one, for the reasons you give). The freedom cars represent to me is not so much associated with the necessary tasks of life but with the fun ones. For example, I like to drive to Shenandoah National Park to hike. No way public transit is going to get me there. My wife and I like to go to the beach every so often. No way public transit is going to get us there. And so on.
Cars represent freedom the same way a semitransparent American flag flapping in the wind superimposed over a bald eagle represents freedom, not the way a library card, bus pass, and a health insurance plan that lets you see out of network providers with a low deductable represent freedom. It's a symbol, not a practical increase in your ability to do stuff without constraint.
In many areas, guns are the same way. They're a symbol that represents freedom and independence to a lot of people.
When we formulate arguments in our worldviews and express these arguments to people with vastly different worldviews, it's worse than saying nothing. We sound crazy, out of touch, or malicious.
If I live in the middle of nowhere and it takes the police half an hour to get to my home and I don’t own a weapon I can become victimized easily. I have a better chance of defending myself and my family if I own a firearm.
If I live in a city and have never fought someone or practiced self defense I have a much higher likelihood of being victimized. I have less freedom.
You don’t understand your limits to your freedom until someone is taking it from you. In that moment only you can defend it. The cops aren’t there, no one else is going to help you, it’s only you.
Um, what? A symbol wouldn't get me places I need to go.
Now I live in a city and via walking and public transportation I can get to literally any other major city in the world. That's freedom.
Vision Zero (I don't think) is about getting to zero today. It's a vision which guides us to zero some day in the future and should keep our eyes on the prize so long as it's not zero. It should drive behavior, policy and technology, to achieve that goal. It should not mean you drive roughshod over car owners through autocratic policies to get there by force.
Sure. However many people die, what can we do today to make it fewer? What's the next step? Let's start working on that.
I just drove through multiple US towns in Idaho that declared a 25 mph speed limits unless otherwise posted. They did not seem to have massive compliance issues.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-w...
Cars should probably be banned from urban centers entirely, replaced with investments in public transport, in walkability and in bikes. Cars outside the urban areas, well, it's not clear.
One kind of democracy, perhaps, but not the kind I support. Tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.
> the 70% who live in urban areas largely generate the money thats spent on the 30% living outside
Excuse me? Productive citizens don't only live in urban areas.
Indeed, I was just responding to the "they don't have the right" -- they do. It's not a good look to exercise it, though.
> Excuse me? Productive citizens don't only live in urban areas.
Of course, although the work they do is valued lower in the modern US economy which tends to be services-driven and not resource-driven. Further, there's nothing you can do to make up for the economic power of population density, efficiencies re: economies of scale, and the kinds of work that are most rewarded.
US metro economies account for 90.8% of GDP, 91.3% of wage income, and 87.7% of jobs. [1] This means that it accounts for easily over 90% of tax revenue, which in turn means that it accounts for easily over 90% of infrastructure spending on things like interstates. More so as the median income is almost 50% higher in metros than outside, which means the marginal tax rates are higher, too.
No, they don't. They might have the power, in theory, but that doesn't mean they have the right.
By you, perhaps. Not by me. But I understand what you're referring to; I just don't agree with using the word "right" to refer to it.
By Websters. I think we're on the same page though.
Then why are you pointing out what percentage of people live in urban areas?
Because the "probably most" part is not true. Although I admit that public transit is lacking in many cities in the country, a huge number of Americans live in areas that could support mass transit. I don't live in those places so I will reserve judgement and let them make their own choices. I already moved to a city, they can do what they want.
Car free infrastructure is about growth and quality of life in dense urban areas. It doesn't make sense to eliminate cars from rural or even most suburban areas.
Not according to the article. It specifically talks about the Boston suburbs, for example.
I didn't say it did.
Maybe I misread that but I parsed it as ~70% of people live in “Urbanized Areas” which have populations over 50,000.
By my understanding of "Urban Area" it is possible to have a town over 50,000 people that is not an Urban Area. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch12GARM.pdf
There’s another city nine miles down the road that also matches this description, but they only have one grocery store, and its poorly enough stocked that they come over here for many of their more esoteric needs, like spices. But they also have a really good steak house, so they have that going for them.
Another nine miles brings you to another “urban” center. They have a grocery store, but it’s even smaller. And they don’t have a good steak house.
Urban. To poorly quote a movie: “I don’t think that word means quite what you think it means.”
Is your town on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_ar...?
But none of that says anything about public transit.
According to https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ public transit becomes viable at around 13.5 people per hectare which by my back of the envelope math works out to about 3400 people per square mile.
Taking that back to the Wikipedia article there are 75,000,000 people living in areas with enough density to support public transit. It is worth noting that cities with current, working public transit systems (like Seattle, WA and Boston, MA) do not meet the 3,400 people per square mile requirement. If we add up all the peopple living in urban areas with density equal to or greater than Boston we get 148,744,607. If we add up everyone living in Charlotte, NC (which has a public transit system) or denser we get 196,307,807 people!
This is all obviously a massive oversimplification and we can argue in circles forever. The point is that by the US Census Bureau definition most Americans live in "Urban" areas (for a fairly clear definition of "Urban" and "in") and that we can probably support a lot more public transit.
Your argument is kinda bad.
By all means, have a car if you want one. It just doesn't make sense for millions of people traveling the same direction at the same times 10 times a week for 40+ years to do it spaced 25'x10' apart. There just isn't enough room. Not to mention the environmental toll of spending 95% of your gas or any other energy source just to move the 3000lb+ hunk of natural resources you bring with you everywhere you go in life.
Most "Pro Car" advocates dismiss any kind of policy about reducing cars in cities would look like and don't bother learning. Your post is a perfect example of this.
Many major cities are at a point where it is literally impossible to grow and retain their existing auto-infrastructure. This is the biggest reason cities like Paris and London adopted hard limits and large fees for driving inside downtown areas. This is also a large part of why larger US cities are looking into encouraging bikes/ scooters and other forms of transportation which don't hog real-estate the way cars do.
As a parent, you should also be sympathetic to a return to a world where kids can pedal their bikes to school safely. The current model of schools engineered around massive amounts of car traffic at the beginning and end of the day is insane and massively limits the individual freedom young people used to have.
Most people who advocate reducing reliance on cars aren't interested in eliminating cars, only making it safe for other forms of transportation and reclaiming much of the massive amount of public space which is wasted on car infrastructure.
I find it ironic that HN seems to be both very pro-freedom/privacy/right-to-repair, yet also very anti-car. Perhaps two separate demographics.
The transportation issue is fairly complicated, and there does exist a tendency to oversimplify the costs of moving away from the status quo. But many of the reactions on this thread (this one included) are even more free of nuance or an attempt at understanding the situation. There's no question for anyone who's bothered to inform themselves that the US status quo around transportation is far from ideal for most sets of preferences[1]. Vision Zero is a bit of a blunt instrument for calling attention to how bad the status quo is, but it's a lot better than the arguments I'm seeing here.
[1] Obviously you can construct a set of preferences that is optimal for a given state, but I'm using reasonable priors here.
I suspect there's less overlap than you assume. Freedom I'm sure we could go back and forth on for hours (money has better uses than gas IMO, but the freedom of a car is undeniable), but privacy for cars is an unmitigated disaster. Government-issued ID is undoubtedly a good requirement for driving, but everything else, from automatic license plate scanners to cars frequently reporting your location (to On-Star or Honda's anti-theft) leaves privacy in a dismal state.
Right to Repair is moving the wrong way as cars move from mechanical to digital. Tesla is infamous for this, and moving more people to electric cars seems unlikely to reverse the trend.
We're also discussing a subset of people likely sitting at desks far too much. I don't want to sit all day then sit in a car to get home either.
As the article calls out, many European cities do a better job at separating humans and cars. This only works because there is more diversity in roads and streets. My commute in Germany included an area that literally had a speed limit of "walking speed" a main road that had 70km/h and of course the Autobahn worth 160km/h. These streets and roads were much more clearly differentiated and made a clear trade off between prioritizing pedestrians, playing children and cars.
I think some European cities got this inadvertantly, since streets and roads suited for cars had to be fitted on Street the fact. US cities with their grid layout inherently treat the city and its traffic more like a homogenous blob.
> Speeding — defined as traveling too fast for conditions or in excess of the posted speed limits — contributes to nearly one-third of all roadway fatalities. This proportion has remained largely unchanged for decades.
They neglect to mention that, in America, alcohol contributes to about one-third of all roadway fatalities, too. In Norway, it's much rarer, due to stricter limits (.02 BAC!) and harsher penalties.
Big complex problems often have multiple contributing factors. Personally, I'd go after alcohol first. IME, nearly everyone on the road speeds, and apparently nearly everyone can do it safely. It's hard to argue that drunk driving can ever be done safely. The best "traffic calming" street designs in the world won't keep your city center safe from drunks.
The people who are the most down and out in our society don't care about the cost of their driving drunk. It doesn't occur to them until after they've been caught.
What needs to change is the attitude.
Virtually all of the speeding I observe is on freeways or divided highways with at least two lanes in each direction and no residences directly on the highway. I rarely if ever see people speeding on residential streets.
I wasn't able to find general statistics, only for Cologne/Germany, a city of about 1 million with relatively good public transport. In 2016, 18 people were killed on the roads of Cologne. 6 of them have been killed by a tram. In 2017, 19 were killed, 4 by tram. There are no statistics for pedestrians killed by bikes, but last year there was at least one such case in Cologne.
Compare with electricity, a danger that Edison terrified everyone into enshrouding in standard safety features to protect the public.
Both were set in place by a popular sentiment driven by industry manipulation. That's why. Next question.
Forgive me for thinking we can't make barreling down the highway safer than buying a soda. With 300+ million people, it's not a realistic target until something supercedes driving entirely.
If they were as populous as the U.S., it would be 250 deaths per year.
There were over 6,000 pedestrian fatalities last year in the U.S. Yes... we could do a lot better.
Americans lack perspective on virtually all topics. They don't read enough, they don't travel enough, their educations are overwhelmingly technical and occupational at the expense of philosophy and ethics, and their domestic brainwashing apparatus has left them collectively unable to think.
Transportation is just like any other topic American's are unqualified to comment upon, like healthcare. They've been indoctrinated by propaganda campaigns to believe and repeat a series of false statements: their cities are too spread out (they aren't); their cities are exceptionally far apart (they aren't); their weather is somehow unprecedented (it isn't); you can't take groceries/children/lumber home on the bike/bus/tram/train (you obviously can).
So the answer to the headline's question is the obvious one, the one with the most hard evidence and the one with the broadest explanatory powers. The reason Americans believe these things is because of ignorance.
We need fire prevention in depth here.