
Some cities that took on a traffic safety challenge are seeing fatalities go up - luu
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/11/vision-zero-data-traffic-deaths-pedestrians-cyclist-safety/601831/
======
jordanbeiber
At the same time, in Norway:

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-
traffic...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic-road-
deaths-accidents-norway-a9269441.html)

Road deaths in Oslo (pop. 673.000) in 2019:

Pedestrians: 0 Cyclists: 0 Children: 0

Totally different outcome from ”vision zero” - actually 0. Impressive.

~~~
woodpanel
Having driven throughout Europe and as a non-Scandinavian I have to say that
this impressive result has a lot to do with the ways scandinavians behave in
traffic. As car-drivers as well as cyclists.

If urban politicians in cities "just short of the border" to Scandinavia like
Berlin or Hamburg propose such measures, residents with traffic experience in
both places will often chuckle, because car drivers but even more so cyclists
are much more aggressive in Germany than in Scandinavia.

It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with
danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.

~~~
praestigiare
I think the cause and effect may be reversed from what you imply here. Having
been a cyclist in both Berlin and in Oslo, I was much more aggressive in
Berlin, out of necessity. When there is not appropriate infrastructure and
traffic does not respect you, it creates a sort of Max Max mentality where you
do what you have to do.

~~~
lazyjones
There's plenty of infrastructure for cyclists in the Netherlands and they're
still famously aggressive.

So, no.

~~~
adrianN
I haven't heard of aggressive cyclists is the Netherlands. The image that
comes to my mind is a slow bicycle with an upright position and a basket at
the front. No helmet.

~~~
lazyjones
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0)

~~~
adrianN
The video says less than 5% of cyclists actually impeded other road users:
[https://youtu.be/XypDTdd4qr0?t=129](https://youtu.be/XypDTdd4qr0?t=129)
Doesn't sound so aggressive to me.

------
TulliusCicero
It sounds like this is really more, "What happens when a city says they're
going to end traffic deaths, then completely half-asses it."

It was super obvious when these cities committed to Vision Zero on hilariously
overoptimistic timelines that they weren't taking it seriously at all. It was
just a bullet point to signal that they cared, without having to do actual
work or sacrifice any convenience for cars.

~~~
Joe-Z
Well, to be fair, it's very very hard to take away any conveniences for cars
because of the strong opposition by pro-car people.

Just recently there was a proposition in Germany to enact an absolute speed
limit on the Autobahn. The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed
limit (in reality you only have that in some parts though), so you can imagine
how well that went...

It's one of the "drawbacks" of living in a democracy I guess: Revolutionary
changes are basically impossible to implement, because the disadvantaged side
also has a right to be heard.

~~~
redprince
> The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit

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.

~~~
Joe-Z
I don't really have a stake in the matter, but as your response clearly shows
even just mentioning the topic triggers vehement defenses. You clearly have
done your research though, so I respect your argument.

What I will say however, whenever I drive on the german Autobahn at some point
it happens to me that I'm in the left lane to take someone over and another
car comes speeding towards me from seemingly kilometers away at the speed of a
damn rocketship. Whatever the hard numbers may be, this causes high amounts of
stress and makes me feel very uncomfortable on the road every time. Not a good
state to be in while operating high-velocity death machines!

~~~
Joe-Z
@FDSGSG: That's why I said "from seemingly kilometers away". Like, I base my
decision on if I have enough space to take over by assuming reasonable[0]
speed levels and suddenly someone comes along going 250 km/h

[0] I guess reasonable in this case means what I'm used to from driving on
other countries' highways

EDIT: Sorry, I changed my response while you were actively responding it
seems! You can call me a bad driver all you want. The fact is that the rules
should be made to accommodate bad drivers also. Survival of the fittest is not
a good rule when it comes to traffic law!

~~~
FDSGSG
Yeah, but you know very well that many people drive 250km/h on the autobahn.
If you decide to assume "reasonable speed levels" and try to overtake someone
in a corner that's just you being a bad driver.

But sure, maybe the rules should better account for bad drivers.

E: > The fact is that the rules should be made to accommodate bad drivers
also. Survival of the fittest is not a good rule when it comes to traffic law!

Of course, but people also need to take personal responsibility for their
actions. Statistically the autobahn is quite safe, it's not clear that adding
global speed limits would make it much better. It's very difficult to balance
this possible minor safety increase with the fact that many (perhaps even
most?) people find it vastly more comfortable to drive on the autobahn as is.

There are places where I refuse to drive because I'm not comfortable with the
environment, there's no way you'll find me driving in a city like Barcelona or
London. Perhaps you should do everyone (especially yourself!) a favour and
consider the same in regards to the Autobahn?

~~~
Joe-Z
For some reason now I have a reply button again. I want to use it to tell you
that I find your suggestion based on the remarks I made here very rude. The
driving skill you infer on my part probably says more about your
interpretation of my comment than on my actual ability to navigate a vehicle
safely. That said, I detest cars and wish cities were free of them. THAT said,
I never posted this to take any stance on the "global speed limit on the
Autobahn"-topic, so this will be it for me.

Thank you for the discussion!

~~~
lobotryas
If you as a driver or your vehicle cannot move quickly enough to overtake
another car on the autobanh then the fault is with you. That “rocketship”
behind you should not have to decelerate because of this. The other poster is
right: you are at fault here.

~~~
wink
No, you are wrong here. §5.2 StVo[0] says (my bad translation) "You may only
overtake if your speed is _significantly_ higher than the one being
overtaken."

So let's assume the one you're overtaking is going with a solid 100. What's
significant? Let's say 150? +50%. The one approaching with 240 is still the
perceived rocket ship.

Also, just for completeness, here's a blog post about some case[1] where the
speed was being judged, 10km/h is barely enough. So let's be generous and
change my example to 100+120.

[0]: [https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/stvo_2013/__5.html](https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/stvo_2013/__5.html)

[1]: [https://www.deubner-
recht.de/news/verkehrsrecht/details/arti...](https://www.deubner-
recht.de/news/verkehrsrecht/details/artikel/mindestgeschwindigkeit-beim-
ueberholen-auf-der-autobahn.html)

~~~
lobotryas
Did you reply to the wrong person? By my reading we are saying the same thing.
If a person cannot overtake quickly enough then they are at fault for impeding
the “rocketship” traffic behind them.

------
josh2600
A big part of why LA has so many pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities is
because the mass transit system is awful and the sprawl. A ton of people in LA
still just drive drunk because ridesharing and cabs are too expensive. Lots of
people can’t afford to pay $30 to get home and would rather risk it.

Note that the economically less fortunate districts of LA dominate the drunk
driving fatalities by capita:
[https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-
dru...](https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-drunk-
driving-los-angeles/)

~~~
stevenicr
I've wondered for years why we don't have more tow trucks on the road for
this, and bars need to have X amount on retainer per Y seating capacity.

It's not just the cost of the cab / uber, it's not having your car when you
wake up, no good way to get it, and not being sure if the lot you left it in
is going to have it impounded / booted or something.

Still waiting for the uber/tow combo that guarantees your car arrives before
you wake up, and in the exact condition it was in when they went to pick it
up.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I am not sure we have enough tow trucks for this, and it seems unnecessary if
the public transportation is robust enough. Even if you leave your car at the
pub, it should be a minimal hassle to use public transportation the next day
to get it back - or to simply use it in the first place. I do think we should
disallow booting/towing for cars in those situations, so perhaps having a
"safe" parking lot to keep one's car would be prudent.

~~~
stevenicr
The good thing is that the tow trucks wouldn't have to drive them all at 3am..
they could drive some at 3am some at 3:30am... most people don't need them
until 7am or later - so you'd have 4 hours or more..

getting people to use public transportation - haha that's a whole 'nother
podcast I'd like to do.. it's just not happening.

The booting, and LAZ parking's new "barnacle" \- it's just absurd, as are the
prices they charge.

Vars could start fixing the problem with tows - or the double drivers as
another pointed out below, is popular in Japan..

or the cops could start pulling licenses for the places that are over
serving.. or do the Salt Lake law where bars have to stop serving an hour
before close / stay open an hour later than they stop serving..

I mean, something should be done. It's a true safety issue, and people are
profiting by looking the other way every day in just about every city as far
as I know.

------
lubujackson
> Despite its efforts, San Francisco is facing headwinds. By October of this
> year, the city had counted 25 crash-induced fatalities, already higher than
> last year’s total.

The most notable change in SF has been the delayed light cycle after
pedestrian crosswalk comes on. There was a spike in deaths after that change
and I understood why immediately - drivers were timing the light by watching
the crosswalk countdown and/or the cross traffic's light cycle. Your light
used to turn green just as the other direction's light turned red. When they
suddenly changed all the light I noticed a fair number of cars jolt forward
then stop, confused, until their light actually changes 4 seconds later.

I'm not sure how this change results in deaths directly, but it definitely
added to road rage out there. When the light does change and a car is turning,
the expectations are different now. Pedestrians are in the middle of the
street already and are less wary of cars jumping out because before there was
a moment when everyone would figure out the situation before moving (ideally).
Now people are mid-crosswalk and have no idea when the cars' light is going to
change which leaves pedestrians more vulnerable.

Another issue I imagine is cars that are making a legal right turn on a red
light. The driver looks to see if they can go and have their head turned the
exact opposite direction of the crosswalk and wouldn't be aware of when the
crosswalk symbol changes. Meanwhile, pedestrians aren't expecting a car to
suddenly turn into them 2 seconds after they step into the crosswalk and it is
a recipe for disaster. I don't see how they can fix that now without banning
all turns on red.

There is also a particularly ugly intersection at Laguna and Geary where they
instituted a delayed green when crossing over Geary. People were getting run
over in the crosswalks because there is an extra long crosswalk on both sides
and cars were turning from both directions with other cars getting backed up
and unable to go around them. Because there isn't room for dedicated turn
lanes, they have one side go then the other side go, but people lose their
shit when they see the southbound cars coming at them for 15 seconds while
their light is still red because all prior experience at other lights
indicates they should also have a green light when other cars are going... I
have seen multiple cars simply drive through that red light and one time 3
cars in a row just decided to go despite the red. They finally put up a sign
that says "delayed green" which seems to be helping, but it is an imperfect
solution and another counter-intuitive solution.

~~~
chrisseaton
I don’t understand when I visit SF and as a pedestrian when my light is go
there still seem to be cars allowed to cross my path. Why don’t they stop cars
entirely for pedestrians to cross? And why don’t the lights in SF allow you to
cross diagonally?

~~~
ramshorns
I'm curious where you live and what the signals are like there, because what
you describe is how almost all the traffic signals I see work.

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.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I'm curious where you live and what the signals are like there

In the UK. Where I am if there is a light for a pedestrian to cross that
guarantees no car will be trying to cross your path. I feel like you shouldn’t
show a pedestrian a light if cars are still allowed to cross their path! Seems
dangerous and misleading and it scares me every time.

In most cases what happens here is that the whole intersection gets stopped
for pedestrians periodically, so you can cross diagonally as well.

Why isn’t that popular in North America? Trying to interleave cars and
pedestrians and let cars edge towards you menacingly as they try to turn
across your path is absolute madness to me.

~~~
Symbiote
I don't know how common each system is worldwide, but the UK system (no
traffic against a "green man") is different to the system in Germany, Denmark,
Sweden and California ("green man" but turning traffic must give way to
pedestrians).

I do prefer the UK way, but the downside in a car-centric place like most of
Britain is there's much less time for pedestrians to cross. You often wait
over a minute for the pedestrian light to go green.

------
sliken
I live in a "bike friendly city", competing for the friendliest bike cities.
Yet bikes seem like a distant after though. Things like putting "share the
road" signs _IN_ the bike lane during the day. Even worse at night they don't
move them, but fold them down so they are near invisible (black cloth) even
with a light. They re-engineered intersections with big cement islands to
protect pedestrians... but force bikes into traffic right at the intersection.

When they want to slow down a bike trail they put a "S" in it, then line it
with large boulders... typically where there's no street lights.

------
Double_a_92
I live in a city that has lots of external commuter coming into it, and
traffic is becoming a problem. And politics are going a bit haywire here...
They have been arguing for years about some expensive, 2-station, city train
in some inaccessible edge region of the city. And now they even proposed to
tax driven distances on our roads, with some GPS tracking device or so in
every car.

------
hannob
At multiple points the article tries to argue that things are outside the
cities control. But this often sounds more like a cheap excuse.

From the text: "Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low
gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic
safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising
popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are
frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders."

Some of those, ok. But well, you can't stop people from buying SUVs, but
nobody says you have to give them free or cheap parking spaces in dense cities
or make streets wider for them. You can't stop ride-hailing services, but you
can police them to follow traffic rules. You can't control gas prices, but you
can control parking fees (and police them). You can't change state-level
safety-laws, but you can make sure the existing ones are followed.

------
segmondy
I wonder if people from such region are more likely to become victims when
they go outside of their city since they might be less attentive to traffic
else where.

