Some cities that took on a traffic safety challenge are seeing fatalities go up

There are a lot of well behaved cyclists, but there is also a hard-core of aggressive cyclists who seem to take it as their right to never have to slow down for anyone or anything, and woe betide you if you get in their way (e.g. the guy in that article above who was jailed after killing a pedestrian had the excuse that he shouted at her to get out of his way, so it was her fault for getting hit). They will go through red lights, turn the wrong way, go down the wrong way of one-way streets, barrel through pedestrian crossings while people are crossing, ride along pedestrian paths etc etc etc.

They are much more dangerous than cars purely because of their unpredictability (compared to cars which 99.9999% of the time do what you expect - like follow the rules, don't drive along the pedestrian paths etc) and sense of being untouchable I guess. Not everything ends in a death like this poor lady, but there are countless near-misses and people having to jump out of the way from cyclists who refuse to slow down or go through red light etc etc every day - it is happening all the time in London and you see it multiple times each day.

There was talk after the events in the linked article about forced registration plates for cyclist to try and bring some sort of accountability, but I think that was shelved "because environment" or something.

As they should! Cyclists are often closer by and silent.

Add to the fact that many cyclists are using the bike for exercise and seem to want to keep pace at any cost.

But mostly - a car is made for running in to humans at relatively low speed, causing as little damage as possible.

Bikes not so much.

I’d much rather be hit by a car at 30km/h than a bike.

Come to think of it - drivers license for cars probably makes a difference as well.

Edit - anecdote:

A co-worker of mine got hit by a bike at a buss stop. Not really super fast, but oh my he got tangled. Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. He was off work for almost a year in total. A modern car would most likely not have caused him, or the rider the kind of damage they incurred.

It’s probably easier to keep numbers down in less populated areas as well.

I’ve driven in London, as a rightie, and if those numbers checks out I’m equally impressed!

Narrow, people, cars and scoters everywhere. It felt crazy at times, but I’m sure using the “wrong” side of the street compounded the issue. :)

Where do you get that 23? I looked it up and see 21.6. The average before the vision zero stuff started was much higher, BTW.

I got overtaken over a blind corner in a 50 zone, by a car doing around 100... Had to quickly get off the road once when I realised an oncoming truck wasn't going to slow down or budge, one tyre slipped off the road (or rather there was a crack on the edge of the road, flicked my steering into the woods). Also experienced being in a Tesla driven by an otherwise calm girl, was both fearing for my life and excited the entire time haha.

Would definitely do a road trip around Norway again, and stick to the more scenic routes again, however. So much fun, and so much beautiful scenery. Maybe the latter was what impeded my driving ability :)

30% of the Autobahn have a mandatory speed limit for varying reasons, mostly safety (high incidence of accidents for example). On 70% there is an advisory speed limit of 130kph.

This means, it is inadvisable to exceed this speed even under the best of circumstances. Now in practice this has very little meaning. You may speed with impunity.

Until there is an accident. Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit. This is even true, if the other party to the accident is completely at fault. The only exception would be, if it can be shown beyond a doubt that the accident would have happened at the recommended speed of 130kph as well. In practice this is next to impossible.

There have been several attempts to change the advisory speed limit to a mandatory speed limit. Albeit the arguments aren't clearly on the side of the proponents. Regarding accidents, a statistic from the German autobahn ministry in 2018 stated that 71% of all deaths on the autobahn occur in places with no mandatory speed limit. Since 70% of the autobahn have no speed limit, one might wonder, what the expected result of a mandatory speed limit is expected to be.

In addition 33.6% of all kilometers are driven on the autobahn while only 12% of all deaths occur on the autobahn. 60% of all traffic deaths do occur on rural roads which have speed limits throughout.

Regarding climate change argument, the estimated reduction of total CO2 with a mandatory speed limit of 120kph would be 0.2% or even less if the mandatory speed limit were 130kph.

A visit to the neighbors Austria and Switzerland (both have speed limits on the autobahn) would also destroy the expectation, that smaller cars would be bought, if there were a mandatory speed limit on the autobahn.

What people also tend to forget is that a healthy, functional democratic state doesn't protect individual interests, it protects the collective by majority vote, for better or worst. As an individual, the state will protect you in so far that your protection benefits the collective.

The main difference with other forms of governance, such as a technocracy, is that you, as an individual, at least have a vote every so often and the chance to participate in an open public debate.

If the majority of people are pro-cars, then a democratic society will spawn politicians and politics that are largely pro-car. That's just par for the course. The prerogative of the minority is the freedom to voice their dissent.

The main reason why pro-car politics lead to half-baked policies, is because no car driving individual likes to see how their peers run over their close friends and family members. Crosswalks or bicycle lanes don't just exist to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, they also exist because a high number of traffic deaths is comes with political consequences on their part.

As such, the quality of public transport, pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, or how the justice system deals with traffic incidents, is a reflection of how important the majority deems to the safety of those who aren't in a car when they are behind the wheel.

At the end of the day, I feel there's a ton of cognitive dissonance involved when you are used to driving a ton of steel hurtling 20, 30 or 40 miles an hour down the road. Car constructors have made cars so much safer... for drivers and their passengers. Sadly, it often takes an accident before one starts to realize the impact and the consequences of their behavior in reality. That doesn't mean this isn't true for pedestrians and cyclists as well: you can't reasonably expect that every driver is going to yield every single time.

The crux is to approach a workable balance in that shared responsibility through sensible policies. And that's an ever-lasting exercise. Throwing your arms up and giving up fundamental freedoms in order for a technocratic regime to make sweeping policy changes, that's just throwing the good away with the bad parts.

There are some American equivalents, using folding mini-motorcycles: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/business/smallbusiness/27...

When the light is green on the N-S street, pedestrians have the right of way to cross N and S (on the E and W sides of the intersection). Cars going straight N and S also have the right of way, and cars can turn left or right from the N-S street after they yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.

There are a few intersections in Ontario with a dedicated phase for crossing in any direction, including diagonally, but they're rare.

Anyway, I bet the different ways traffic signals work inform people's perception of traffic and streets in different places.