US DOT awards $800M toward street safety
smartcitiesdive.com
smartcitiesdive.com
And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.
I'm not even going to bring up places like rural or lower density suburbs as the service there is almost non-existent.
To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here. That is changing with more dense transit-oriented development happening across the country, but it will probably take decades for the needle to move significantly. And unfortunately the street safety measures that this money is going to are not going to help very much with this, which is sort of the point of the original comment.
These issues are all intertwined, but I don't understand the arguments in these comments that point out the problems are intertwined and stop there, as if that's a death knell for change (for example, political support for transit service is tied to the quality of that service). Yes, no one is denying they are intertwined, that is even why urbanists have started using terms like "car culture" that encapsulate the messy ball of issues. The more we discuss these issues, even online, the more consciousness arises in the public about how things can change; and things eventually do change. Hence the use of attention-grabbing call to action phrases like "cars are the problem" that started this thread, which provide an alternate framing.
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/What-Do-Americans-Think-a...
"To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here."
If it's such low density, is it really a problem?
The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.
> We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them
Public transit can be fast and efficient if it is prioritized. That may require raising the federal tax on gasoline (last raised thirty years ago!!!) and directing that overdue increase to funding alternative transportation options.
For the higher density cities, cost is a major factor. I remember seeing a study or article comparing cost and time to build a subway in the US vs a European country. If I remember correctly, it tooks years longer and cost tens of millions more for a similar route even adjusted for local cost differences.
I would like additonal funding for many things. I would first like to explore efficient use of the money we do have in order to make it all more effective.
There was a great article on here the other day about the evolution of pickup trucks, the user-survey statistics about how trucks are typically used was pretty eye opening. As was the size of the forward facing blindspot for your everyday stock F-150. Kids don't stand a chance.
It seems the biggest factor is alcohol, which played a role in around 50% of pedestrian fatalities (not all on the part of the driver).
There was a period right during/after the pandemic where things were really bad but it’s settled to a fairly decent situation.
If you ride a $500 bike then you will probably be fine factoring in a $50-$100 theft cost at most.
Finally, most bike theft is covered under rental insurance, which isn’t all that expensive to begin with, and is highly recommended anyways.
Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.
I biked for over a decade without incident for leisure.
Then I started bicycle commuting. Within one year I had not one but two occasions where I was knocked unconscious by angry rush hour drivers. I no longer could plan my destination but rather had to fight the entirety of traffic trying to get downtown at the same time at once. I still have trouble with one arm and the other time I believe I got a concussion after the driver destroyed my bike hitting me broadside and drove off.
I have about 3-4 years of biking as only transport including working as a full time professional bike messenger. I have never been hurt outside of rush hour. I have never been hurt on a planned leisure route. Only when I cannot pick the destination.
The hostility in my experience is like 10x dealing with angry to/from work rush-hour traffic headed to a dense job-rich area, especially with folks like soccer moms desperate to pick up their kiddy from daycare in time, etc.
As you note and in my experience the school drop off / pick up times are the scariest as you near schools and arteries on the school destination paths. There are frequently backups and gridlock situations at these times, coupled with palpable driver anxiety and hurriedness, which just seems like a recipe to get killed or maimed as a cyclist
I would never bike commute where I live currently, and I don't think that will change any time soon despite it being a relatively left leaning urban area.
> If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo
That said, I used a bicycle as my primary mode of transportation in the Atlanta, Decatur, and Northern suburban areas for several years. It wasn't really all that bad despite a near-total lack of cycling infrastructure (this was before the Beltline).
I just found a hack, I'm going to spend 12 hours a day cycling and extend my lifespan by at least 50%. All joking aside, cycling as travel is a fantastic way to add physical activity into your daily life.
There is a big difference between what is, and what must be. Improvements are possible, which is what the linked article is all about. These are baby steps, but if you want to bike more (and get healthier and live longer and live happier and pollute less) then demand more from your local politicians.
Until cities get affordable to live in, us “poor” will continue to exist in the reality that is now, and commute for two times the square footage, and a backyard, for less than a studio apartment.
The amount of actual ped zones in America is pretty small anyway, think downtown shopping precints and stuff like that, so the majority of roads would still be car dominant.
It’s possible to have both. It’s why we have grade separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_separation
Most pedestrian friendly streets that do mix in cars actually do the opposite to grade separation, slow down the cars a lot and make it clear that they are in a pedestrian space by removing demarcation between cars and people,which changes behavior.
They including a road widening as 'street safety'. Very generous interpretation of the term.
If it feels like your car is not squeezed, the natural inclination is to drive faster. You need to resist that inclination to stay within the speed limit. Basically, increasing the perceived width of the lane you’re in increases speed, and speed of crash is one of the core determinants of crash fatality.
And your assumption that higher speeds are unsafe is unfounded- unless you want to eliminate cars altogether (“there is no safe sex/speed”), a given roadway has a generally safe speed and typically this would be calculated and considered in the widening of the shoulders
Calculations and considerations are all well and good, but when the rubber hits the road, wide straight roads will lead people to reason that it's fine to drive fast. I'd much, much rather have people think it's a pain to take my road because it's too skinny than to have 50-60 mph traffic accidentally kill my son or my neighbors when they choose to go outside.
If you want to do something about it you can lobby for a traffic study
I mean, you have to strike an object. Adding obstacles on the shoulder seems like it would increase that likelihood. It would also prevent the option to avoid oncoming traffic, or a sudden braking vehicle in front. I have seen both of those happen multiple times.
The thing is, none of this will address the real issue - drivers making bad decisions because they're ignorant. Education, testing, and consistent enforcement is how things get better.
Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes. I would love to see more enforcement however.
"Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes."
It very well could. Many of these mistakes are founded in ignorance. I see people doing things like passing on the right/shoulder and having no idea why that's dangerous. Or they have no idea what the vehicle dynamics are like for their car. Doing something like a skid pad or autocross (TireRack had a driver safety program associated with them) can really wake people up to their vehicles limitations. Things like following too closely on the road is generally not a true mistake, but a product of what is essentially negligence.
Edit: why disagree?
If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.
The richer states and cities subsidize the poorer states and cities via this exchange.
This should be considered a good thing.
[0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
Your state rep can listen all they want but they won't have the means.
Secondly, there's a tradeoff here. If you take something out of the purview of the feds so that your state can do it "right" you lose the ability to force Alabama or West Virginia or whatever to do it your way.
> Sub-state municipal governments, MPOs, and tribes will be able to apply for grants to develop Vision Zero plans ... At least 40 percent.. $400 million of the up-front $1 billion.. would have to go for the planning grants to develop Vision Zero plans.
https://visionzeronetwork.org/where-to-start/
> First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe — and now it’s gaining momentum in major American cities ... Vision Zero focuses on preventing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This starts with understanding what and where the most problems are, then prioritizing resources to make systemic improvements. Data should be analyzed over at least five years to identify locations and types of serious crashes and to identify patterns. It is important to supplement police crash records, which can omit important information, with public health and equity data for a fuller picture.
https://visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Wha...
> Speeding kills more than 10,000 people each year in the U.S. – on par with drunk driving – yet, the act of speeding does not carry the same social consequences as drunk driving. Vision Zero calls on communities to prioritize safe speeds through safe street design, automated speed enforcement (or safety cameras), and setting safe speed limits.
That's a little misleading. Excessive speed is a factor in about 30% of US traffic fatalities. That can have an overlap with other factors, like DUI, inattentive driving, or failure to yield. Speed itself is not the issue, as we see with lower fatality per mile on the autobahn, including areas without limits or with high limits. Speed mixed with bad decisions are the real problem. Driver education, testing, and consistent enforcement are really where the safety gains are.
That's an opinion. Any source to back that up? The limits are set based on safety and flow considerations, with safety taking precedent.
""Excessive speed" in the statistics is purely based on posted speed limit."
Not true. This can include going too fast for conditions, such as in snow. Or exceeding the recommended speed for a turn, even if you're going the posted speed limit.
Your interpretations seem very biased so far. I'd love to see your data/facts and not just opinion.
Speeds of motorists in normal conditions
Traffic volume
Roadway type (e.g., interstate, freeway, city street)
Roadway features (e.g., curves, hills, number of lanes)
Roadway setting (e.g., urban, rural, residential, woodland, farmland)
Number and spacing of driveways or intersections
Sight distances
Presence of on-street parking
Pedestrian or bicyclist activity
Crash history
Pavement condition
You need to advocate for street redesign, then.
In California, most speed limits have a relation to the median speed that drivers drive on the roadway. If you want them to drive slower, you need to design the roads so that they drive slower.
Unfortunately, you will be fighting the local residents who don't want to spend extra time on every task because their local roads are so slow.
But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US. They all have a pedestrian use case: People need to cross them. And yet, their lanes are as wide as highway lanes, are often at least 4, if not 8 lanes across, and so straight that, once you take away pedestrians and traffic, the design feels like an autobahn. They are often rated as 40mph streets, where people might do 50 or 60. A street like that will kill people if they try to cross, as many forms of failure lead to a 4000 pound vehicle going fast colliding the pedestrian, and that's often fatal. If there is a real pedestrian use case for the street, either the pedestrians need an easy way to just never step on the asphalt, or affordances that lower the risk need to be added in.
Again, basically every lethal mile of road in America has the same design characteristics and use cases, which aren't shared by safer roads. So it's not that no road can let you do 60mph: It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40, while pedestrians have to cross them. You might as well say that deaths in a very narrow bridge with spikes at the bottom is a matter of lack of education in funambulism.
Even compared to US interstates, which have similar attributes, the fatality rate is lower.
"But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US."
I haven't seen any with more than 4 lanes to cross. Even those have extensive traffic and pedestrian control signals. Do you have some examples?
"It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40"
I've crossed a few with similar speeds. I never felt unsafe though through the use of common sense and traffic/pedestrian controls. It seemed the safety was adequately designed. I'd like to see more info on the actual factors involved in pedestrian deaths. The one with the most attention seems to be alcoho, at about 50% prevalence.