
Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019 - anonymfus
https://twitter.com/andershartmann/status/1212465415743512576
======
Mvhsz
Some contextual data from US cities in 2018

City – City Population (Metro Area Population), City Density per Square Mile,
City Traffic Fatalities

Oslo [1]: 690,335 (1,588,457), 3,938, 1

Nashville [2][3]: 692,587 (1,930,961), 1,374, 82

Portland [4][5]: 653,115 (2,478,810), 4,911, 34

Milwaukee [6][7]: 592,025 (1,572,245), 6,155, 68

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville,_Tennessee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville,_Tennessee)

[3] [https://data.nashville.gov/Police/Traffic-
Accidents-2018-/8k...](https://data.nashville.gov/Police/Traffic-
Accidents-2018-/8kay-6qhc)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon)

[5]
[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/74093](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/74093)

[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee)

[7] [https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-
wisdot/newsroom/statist...](https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-
wisdot/newsroom/statistics/countyfatality.aspx)

~~~
turk73
Need to look at total miles driven, not just population size vs. number of
deaths.

Doesn't Norway have huge taxes on automobiles which chill ownership? If so,
then population is not relevant. If only 10% of people can afford to own cars,
then the number of crashes and fatalities will certainly be low.

The US standard of living is far higher. Whether that leads to more fatalities
or not is anybody's guess. I would prefer the idea that we don't bother
teaching people to drive very well or that people don't value developing their
own good driving skills.

~~~
throwawaysea
Also need to look at travel times. Norway has low speed limits and makes
driving an inconvenience in the pursuit of perfect safety records. But it
takes away from being able to get where you want quickly (cities with road
infrastructure that is not over-subscribed are way faster to get around than
walking/biking/public transit) and on your own terms (no waiting times, room
for people/cargo, etc.). The tradeoffs for a better safety record, as well as
the lurking variables, are not being considered in this conversation.

~~~
megablast
Imagine thinking that making things more convenient for drivers is worth a lot
more dead people!

~~~
throwawaysea
At some level it is. If you think that any amount of risk is too great, then
everyone should just stay in their home. But that's obviously impractical.

~~~
fyolnish
Well, if you can live like they do in Oslo and have 1 death. That seems worth
it.

------
gokhan
One interesting observation on Oslo is that, pedestrians do cross the street
when it's red for them, if there's no moving traffic close by. This is totally
different from, for example, Copenhagen, Stockholm and places I visited in
Germany. They're like Italians of the north.

That's probably why we felt at home on the streets during our stay there, as a
family from Turkey. I would love to have that 0 deaths statistics here
instead, though.

~~~
yason
_pedestrians do cross the street when it 's red for them_

You have to think what pedestrian lights are for. They exist solely to improve
the flow of car traffic. Pedestrian lights are in gross contrast to the rights
and benefits of pedestrians. Without lights, pedestrians would always have
first priority on a crosswalk. Cars would have to stop for any pedestrian
crossing the street. However, drivers (of inefficient but fast automobiles)
don't like waiting for a more efficient form (on the city centre scale) of
traffic (i.e. pedestrians) to cross the street so pedestrian lights exist to
ensure enough green time for cars so that they don't _always have to_ stop.
Thus, it is no wonder that any sensible person wouldn't cross the street on
red if there are no cars coming.

~~~
TomMarius
I am not sure what you mean with this effectiveness. I live in Prague, the
city with (what they say) one of the best public transport systems in the
world, and yet, going to my workplace is 45 minutes by public transport and 15
minutes by car. Even though I live close to a subway and tram station, and the
workplace is right in the city center, car still wins - where is the
effectiveness you're talking about? This is the case for my past 3 workplaces
and 2 homes. Sorry but my time is more valuable than waiting an hour per day
_just because_.

Before you say that I can read or listen to music on the way in public
transport, I listen to audiobooks in the car, and the trams are lately so
packed that for me it's especially hard to not puke because of the terrible
air (and sometimes smelly people, luckily not that much in winter) there,
sadly I would puke right into someone's face. Even though there is a lot of
traffic which slows my car down, I am still in comfort. I'd rather sit 45
minutes in a car listening to wonderful music than be pushed inside a can full
of people for the same time, and given the traffic, I am not the only one
thinking the same.

First improve public transport, make it at least a tiny bit comfortable, then
hate cars, not the other way around, that just won't work.

(let the downvotes rain... What did I expect, a discussion? Lol)

~~~
jan_g
It is (almost) the same for every city, if you compare driving times from
suburbs to city centre. The reason is that city train/metro/tram needs to stop
on 15+ stations before reaching the inner city.

Still, to me, train is superior - I can just sit and relax. Driving is much
more tiring. 15 minutes or so difference is not worth it.

~~~
TomMarius
In Prague, subway does not go to suburbs. Few trams do, but they do not reach
the city centre. Not my case at all. The subway route I compare to car is 7
stops + 10 min walk.

~~~
sobani
What kind of awful subway is it, that takes 35 minutes to drive 7 stops?

I just checked a Rotterdam subway line and it does 30 stops in an hour[0]
which is a ~32KM distance as a bird flies[1].

[0]
[https://www.ret.nl/home/reizen/dienstregeling/metro-b.html](https://www.ret.nl/home/reizen/dienstregeling/metro-b.html)
[1]
[https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Nesselande,+Rotterdam/Hoek+v...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Nesselande,+Rotterdam/Hoek+van+Holland+Haven,+Hoek+van+Holland/@51.9413423,4.2172473,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47c5cd813f600759:0x5074da313c0c6b58!2m2!1d4.586625!2d51.9797308!1m5!1m1!1s0x47c5ad1ea57bcd9f:0x17bb2708c2461a3!2m2!1d4.1284167!2d51.9752644!3e3)

------
semi-extrinsic
The entire country (Norway) had 0 children traffic deaths in 2019. In total
110 traffic deaths, of which 72% were men, very similar to the past few years.
About 2/3rd of deaths were drivers or passengers in a car (the rest motorbike
or pedestrian), and of those in cars 1/3rd were not using a seat belt.

So it's likely you could get an immediate decrease in total traffic deaths of
close to 20% if you could just force everyone to wear a seatbelt.

~~~
pi-rat
Seatbelt issue is probably going away.

My car will nag the hell out of me if anyone isn't wearing a seatbelt at
speeds over 20 km/h. I assume this is true for most modern cars.

Part of the population who didn't grow up with seatbelts is aging. I remember
my late grandmother hated the seatbelts, they didn't exist when she grew up.
Often she would pretend to use the belt, holding it in place by hand so that
it looked like she was wearing it. Stupid, and illogical, but that's how it
is..

That only leaves the "cool" youths. Once "modern" naggy cars become old and
cheap enough for them, they'll probably start too (or go out of their way to
disable the sensor, or uncomfortably wear a seatbelt behind their back -
turning a passive action into an active one.).

~~~
stevehawk
Is that easily bypassed? I don't need my car nagging me because I put a large
box in my back seat.

~~~
user5994461
For the cars I had, it was only on the driver seat. I think it's fair to
assume there is always a person driving.

~~~
stevehawk
I've got one car where the front passenger seat will set off an alarm but if I
hit a button on a control stalk it'll ignore it. However, this car loses its
mind if I start the vehicle with the driver door open or my seat belt off
(pretty common when you want to get the heat or a/c going for a bit before you
drive off)

I've got another vehicle where it goes full chicken little if I don't button
the seat belt first.

Both of them make me nostalgic for a Mitsubishi I had where the "chime" was a
specific speaker that was easily disconnected and not a full blown part of the
stereo/canbus/ecu and blasting out of every speaker in the car.

------
Zenst
Saw this study that pertains to road safty for Oslo published a few years back
and some interesting aspects, like seasonal patterns and what works and what
does not.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457516301555)

Clearly an achievement that has been worked for and not statistical anomaly
low.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Safety for mixed classes of traffic (car vs bike, yard worker vs freight
train, sailboat vs tugboat, dump truck vs service truck, etc, etc.) has been
studied since the industrial revolution brought about a world where it was
common for a workplace to have big heavy things rolling around. Nobody wants
to get hit and nobody wants to stop a money making operation because someone
got hit. It's a shame that whenever cars/bikes/pedestrians are involved in the
discussion it turns into your typical politicized yelling match.

Good on Oslo for using a data driven approach. Finding the political capital
to do that sort of thing instead of just caving to whoever screams loudest
seems rare these days.

------
pi-rat
HN 11 months ago: Oslo made its city center basically car-free
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19000076](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19000076)

~~~
chrisseaton
That’s a bizarre article. If you go to Oslo for yourself you will see it is
far from car free - there’s cars everywhere like a normal city.

~~~
kristofferR
It's because of the various definitions of "city center".

The upcoming car free city center in question is just a pretty small area,
which has been a driving hell for years anyway, due to all the pedestrians,
public transportation and low speeds. Unless you're a taxi who want to
increase your fare, you wouldn't want to drive through it anyway.

~~~
chrisseaton
I think ‘Oslo pedestrianises a couple of streets’ would be more accurate but
not very interesting as many places do this.

------
mongol
That is amazing. It is easy to imagine that safer cars have contributed most
to this. But there are so many other factors.. emergency response, alcohol,
road quality, weather... I wonder how it would break down, if it was possible
to measure it all.

~~~
AdamHede
They also look at road section with abnormally high levels of accidents and
are actually willing to chance road layout to more intuitive.

It is a legitimate reason to change the curvature or build a bridge or
additional exit in Norway "because it's difficult to drive in".

It's really quite incredible, and combine that with safer cars, and you can
really start to eat into traffic fatalities.

~~~
gambiting
Interesting, because in some places like the UK, road infrastructure is
intentionally made "difficult" as it has been proven to make drivers pay more
attention and reduce accidents around those places.

~~~
jka
Do you have a reference for that, out of interest?

That might genuinely be the intention but I'd worry that -- depending on the
kind of 'challenge' added to roads -- it might not always work out for the
best.

~~~
merijnv
I know this approach is used in residential areas in the Netherlands. A lot of
these streets are designated as "woonerf"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street)),
which means that everything has right of way on cars (i.e. pedestrians, bikes,
playing kids, whatever).

The design is often (intentionally) tricky to navigate. Brick/cobble roads to
make driving fast uncomfortable. Planter's narrowing/blocking half the road,
resulting in the road frequently being limited to a single lane (often
alternating sides) so cars can't simultaneously pass. Frequent 90 degree
turns, that sorta thing. It make it impossible to drive fast on these roads.

Note that this is only applied in some "zones", generally this applies to
streets with houses, which will then connect up to a 30 km/h max road that is
less obstructed and functions as a connecting artery to main roads in the
city/town and eventually provincial roads (80 km/h) or highways.

Each classification has different goals, so highways and provincial roads are
"vehicles only", cyclists and pedestrians will be on completely separate
unconnected paths (usually with several meters of separation from the main
road).

Main roads will have both cars and cyclists, but usually separate/designated
bike lanes (and sometimes even separated bike paths). Only the 30km/h and
woonerf streets really have bikes and cars mixed on the same lane (and will
have measures that restrict car speed like I mentioned above).

~~~
jka
Great details, thanks very much! Glad to see that this designation is
widespread across a decent number of countries as well.

------
nagash
Here in Perth, Western Australia we have quite reasonable pedestrian right of
way laws.

But if you read the recommendations, you will notice the language talks about
how it's basically still on you to not die.

For example, pedestrians have right of way when crossing a street where a car
may be turning in to, so there should really be no need to check across your
shoulder for traffic.

Most drivers don't seem aware of these laws, I get honked at regularly.

[https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1629/pedestrian_road_rules...](https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1629/pedestrian_road_rules_yr4.pdf)

~~~
tootie
NYC has plenty of "laws" but the volume of people makes it impossible to
thoroughly enforce. Plus we have so many people visiting from elsewhere. Our
mayor adopted Vision Zero a few years ago and we're making improvements but we
still have quite a lot of fatal accidents.

~~~
blattimwind
Traffic rules should perhaps not be a federalized matter; certainly not down
to _city_ level.

------
esotericn
I've been traveling in northern Scandinavia for the past few months.

One thing that sticks out is that Norway has very low speed limits. They also
have strict enforcement compared to the UK and super high fines.

In the northern part of the country you really need it because the weather
varies a lot and the highways are basically mountain passes. At the moment
around where I am close to Lofoten the roads are pretty much ice rinks as it's
been constant rain and wind for a few days whilst the lower surface of the
road was compacted snow/ice.

Plus there are animals.

But even in town 30, 40, 50 limits are common in places that would be way
higher in the UK.

~~~
alkank
Speed limits in towns in the UK are either 20mph or 30mph, which is 30 km/h to
50 km/h. So speed limits look very similar to me.

The weather is an interesting point though, UK doesn't get any harsh winters -
e.g. it almost never snows and doesn't go below 0 degrees celsius, however
Norway seems to fluctuate between -5 and +15 degrees celsius.

Oslo: [https://en.climate-
data.org/europe/norway/oslo/oslo-81/#clim...](https://en.climate-
data.org/europe/norway/oslo/oslo-81/#climate-graph) London:
[https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-
kingdom/england/lo...](https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-
kingdom/england/london-1/#climate-graph)

~~~
esotericn
The difference is that tiny little villages/hamlets of the sort that I drove
though in Northern Norway would definitely not be 20 or 30 zones in the UK.

You might see a 40 or 50 limit. 30 zones are generally reserved for places
that are fairly built up.

------
tyfon
It's quite hard to drive in Oslo now. Not impossible but it's not very fun and
the speed limits are very low.

When I have to go inside "ring 1", I usually drive to a free parking/charging
spot for electric cars and walk from there. It's quite close to aker brygge
and close to the high way.

Back when I was living in Oslo (and didn't have children) I didn't have a car
at all, no need for it.

~~~
moralestapia
>it's not very fun

Sorry to hear that other people's lives get in the way of your idea of 'fun'.

~~~
marvin
This is just a linguistic misunderstanding. "Det er ikke så moro" in Norwegian
literally translates to "it's not so fun", but normally translates closer to
"it's not pleasant/convenient" in meaning.

When you're not a native English speaker, it's very common to have subtle
differences in intent lost in translation due to different ideomatic
expressions. It's a good idea to be charitable (or ask for clarification) wrt.
the perceived intent of the speaker, especially when they're from a different
culture.

~~~
tyfon
It's not always easy to keep track of the idioms in different languages!

In this case you can also translate it to an American idiom: It's a pain in
the ass :)

~~~
moralestapia
Huh? Well, could you provide an example of your idea of having 'fun' while in
a car?

~~~
magicalhippo
What he wrote was: "Not impossible but it's not very fun and the speed limits
are very low."

What he meant was: "Not impossible but it's a pain in the ass and the speed
limits are very low."

Nothing to do with fun, in the English sense of the word.

------
arvesv
And 13 days into 2020, and Oslo got it's first traffic death in this year.
[https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/2G0EAx/barn-omkom-i-
traf...](https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/2G0EAx/barn-omkom-i-
trafikkulykke-i-fotgjengerfelt-paa-holmen-i-oslo)

------
cm2187
From the chart, going from 5 or 10 driver traffic deaths to 1 may be a simple
statistical anomaly (and perhaps not even, it could be within the
distribution). We would need to know the history of pedestrian and cyclist
deaths too. The long term evolution seems meaningful, but that year may not
mean anything.

~~~
soneca
I would love to live in a city where 1 traffic death is within the
distribution, so I think it means a lot.

------
brenden2
It's interesting to see how effective lowering the speed limit is (which comes
to no surprise). In NYC the speed limit is 25mph, but anecdotally speaking
it's largely ignored. I have never seen much in the way of enforcement of
those limits, at least in Manhattan.

------
avh02
slightly off topic, but had no idea you could hide replies to your tweet on
twitter.

It's amazing how many inconvenient counterpoints (and trolls) we can now bury
under an extra layer (the view hidden tweets button) because we don't like
what they have to say on a public forum.

~~~
brosinante
Is a tweet a public forum, or someone's back yard? I can kick people off of my
back yard if I feel like it.

~~~
avh02
that's a fair question. I'd say the way it's been used so far (unless you have
a private account) that it's a public forum.

If you want your backyard-privacy treatment then turn down your megaphone and
make your profile private.

------
at-fates-hands
For some context:

 _The Oslo city center is almost entirely car-free after eliminating parking
spots and banning cars on certain streets. The Norwegian capital finished at
the beginning of this year, removing the last of approximately 750 street-side
parking spots within the city center and replacing them with bike lanes,
benches, greenery and parks._

 _With nowhere to park in the city center, there are essentially no cars in
downtown Oslo. A few exceptions are made for delivery vehicles during specific
hours, spaces for EVs to charge, people with disabilities, and of course
emergency vehicles. Parking garages outside the center are available to the
public, with 9,000 available spaces, and drivers are diverted via traffic
restrictions to use ring roads to bypass the city._

Oslo Is (Almost) Car-Free — And Likes It That Way (March 2019):
[https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/05/oslo-is-almost-car-
free...](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/05/oslo-is-almost-car-free-and-
likes-it-that-way/)

------
elfexec
That's impressive. Even more impressive is that the yearly death toll has been
10 or below since around 2005. Is it because people/teens are now staying
indoors more due to the internet or is it due to a policy change or is it
technological improvements in cars? I don't speak norwegian so I can't read
the linked article.

~~~
AdrianB1
It seems they almost eliminated (not completely) the cars from the city:
[https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-
oslo...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo-decided-
to-make-its-downtown-basically-car-free)

~~~
gvjddbnvdrbv
Basically not true. This applies to a small section of the city center.

------
GavinMcG
In contrast, the US had over 40,000 traffic deaths in each of 2016, 2017, and
2018.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/traffic-d...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/traffic-
deaths-in-u-s-exceed-40-000-for-third-straight-year)

~~~
EpicEng
Comparing a population of ~329M to a city of 1M seems a bit silly. Scale that
and you get 121 deaths / million. That's unfair the other way as we're
comparing conditions a large city rural areas of the US as well, but since we
began with a silly comparison I'm not sure how we fix it without starting
over.

In Austin TX, population ~1M, we had 74 vehicle related fatalities in 2018.

~~~
GavinMcG
I mean... it's context to make it relevant to US readers. You didn't see me
say there was a direct comparison to be made.

And you're kind of contradicting your claim that it's totally useless.
121/million vs. 1/million shows at what order of magnitude the comparison
takes place, which is good enough to contextualize things, and your example of
Austin further shows that the order of magnitude isn't far off.

~~~
EpicEng
It's context that makes no sense. How about this one?:

"In my neighborhood last year there were also no vehicle fatalities."

Is that in any way helpful?

~~~
GavinMcG
No. We have no knowledge of your neighborhood, whereas US readers have a good-
enough picture of the US.

It's also useless because a neighborhood is too small a unit of measurement to
be useful, period. Unlike cities, states, or the entire country, the vast
majority of neighborhoods have zero vehicle fatalities.

~~~
EpicEng
I'm glad we agree

~~~
GavinMcG
It doesn't seem that way. If you're being snide... well, I guess that's that.
Sad that you need to be so critical of one mildly helpful data point.

------
INTPenis
Just speculation but considering the weather we've had this year it could be
due to the lack of snow and ice.

------
doktrin
You can always tell which pedrstrians in Oslo are visitors, because they wait
for cars to slow down at crosswalks before setting foot in the street.
Norwegians are so accustomed to motorists being attentive that they blindly
and confidently stroll into traffic (at crosswalks).

------
TrackerFF
It is quite expensive to get a drivers license here in Norway, and it is a
rigorous process.

~~~
oleks
You can freely use many foreign driver's licenses without extra expenditures.

~~~
vinay427
Yes, and this is true in virtually every country. The licenses of almost every
country are accepted for visitors in any of those same countries, thanks to
some UN conventions.

An international driving permit which uses a standardized format and includes
translations may be required.

~~~
mytailorisrich
I think the point here is that EU/EEA driving licences are considered as valid
as local licences, without time limits, because Norway is in the EEA.

~~~
ovi256
>without time limits

Not true in many EU countries. In France you're supposed to get a French
driving license after two years of residence. Never heard of this being
enforced, but I know people that changed when their licensed needed renewal so
they could deal with a local administration.

~~~
mytailorisrich
This is not compulsory. It is perfectly legal to keep your EU/EEA licence as
long as it is valid. They can force you to exchange it for a local one,
though, if you commit certain driving offences.

~~~
vinay427
It is required to get one in your country of residence when it expires (and
licenses that are valid for life can be limited to two years), or if it is
lost, stolen, or damaged. That's not what I would consider "without time
limits," and certainly not what I would consider "as valid" as a local
Norwegian license. It's more of an extension of the several months or year
that people from any other country get.

~~~
Symbiote
It's no different than a local renewing the card (the license itself lasts
longer than the plastic card).

That's in contrast to people from some non EEA countries who have to take a
local driving test.

------
paozac
Rome has probably the worst record: 111 traffic deaths from January to
November 2019.

~~~
kabacha
Worst record in Europe, right? That's like a two-day worth of accidents here
in Bangkok:

> A total of 256 were killed and 2,588 injured in 2,529 road accidents
> nationwide from Dec 27 to 31

[https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1827019/seasona...](https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1827019/seasonal-
death-toll-shrinks-despite-drunk-driving-epidemic)

~~~
dougb5
That's a staggering number, but isn't the article including the whole country
in this count of 256 deaths? It sounds like "only" 12 of them were in Bangkok:

> Over the Dec 27-31 period, Bangkok had the highest number of deaths at 12

(...which implies a very long tail of cities outside of the capital.)

------
ptrkrlsrd
The cause of the decline is mentioned in the article:

"\- Oslo has received several regulations that have reduced the number of
places where it is possible to drive. This is especially true within the city
center and downtown areas. People have started cycling more. The risk of
accidents between motorists and cyclists has been reduced. The more you
separate the different road groups, the less the risk of serious traffic
accidents. And then we see that the speed limit has been lower on several
roads, says Steen."

------
teekert
Does Oslo rigorously separate cars from bikes, using bike lanes?

~~~
kristofferR
Hehe, nope. It's actually the opposite.

Don't get me wrong - they're building new bike lanes at a rapid pace. However,
traffic, bicycles and pedestrians freely intermingle most places, which works
because it helps reduce car speeds massively.

Drivers perceive intermingled streets as more dangerous, so they drive safer.

This video illustrates it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWYvovLvMQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWYvovLvMQ)

------
ceejayoz
Meanwhile, here in upstate New York...

[https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-
tic...](https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-ticketed-for-
not-using-sidewalk)

> A man in Ontario County was ticketed after he was hit by a car.

> Deputies ticketed Weaver for not being as far off the road as possible. The
> driver who hit him was not charged.

In broad daylight, incidentally.

------
royroyroys
Oslo is also the 'Tesla capital of the world', wonder if their high NCAP
safety ratings have had an impact as well?

------
tristor
These types of stats are almost meaningless to compare because most of the
difference in outcomes is caused by cultural differences which are difficult
and unlikely to change. There are two factors that have more effect on traffic
safety in the US than anything else when compared to most of the rest of the
world: 1) More total miles driven per capita, 2) Distracted driving.

To expand on #2 above, most of the world still predominantly drives manual
transmission vehicles, and licensing and enforcing standards are much higher,
as well as cultural factors which increase driving engagement. All of this
culminates in the average driver being much much more attentive of their
surroundings outside the US than inside the US. In the US its nearly the
reverse, majority of vehicles are automatic transmissions, almost all newer
cars now have BLISS and other automated safety systems which are a reaction to
fatalities from distracted driving. Texting while driving is epidemic and is
more dangerous now in most states than drunk driving is.

Replicating the factors that Oslo has which drives their stats in the US is
likely to be impossible, and probably would create such far-reaching
consequences that it's also undesirable.

~~~
alkonaut
Requiring drivers to be 18 and take extensive driver training and having a
zero tolerance for drunk driving is certainly “cultural”.

But for the the technical argument (cars, infrastructure) I’m not so sure.
Manuals are definitely going the way of the dinosaur in Norway (people buy
SUVs and Teslas - they don’t even have manual as an option).

Distraction is a problem but it seems it should be as big a problem everywhere
where there are distractions. What helps there is infrastructure: a distracted
person is much less dangerous in a roundabout than in an intersection. A
cyclist on a separate path is less likely to be hit by both drunk and
distracted drivers etc.

But yes these things are _expensive_. The consequence of replacing thousands
of intersections with roundabouts is huge. Building bridges and tunnels so
pedestrians never need to cross roads is expensive. Converting highways to be
separated without oncoming traffic is _really_ expensive, even if Norway and
Sweden fancy the cheaper alternating 2+1 lane conversions.

Getting rid of the first part of deaths is low hanging fruit. Just change DUI
levels (perhaps doing something about distraction but it’s unfortunately much
harder as there are no breath tests for distraction). That’s almost “free”.

Going the rest of the way towards zero costs a lot of (tax) money in
infrastructure, and that might be a harder sell.

------
ptaipale
Similarly, Helsinki (about same population) had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist and 0
children killed in traffic, but 3 people killed in motor vehicles.

(The above figures are only for road traffic; several people were killed by
trains, but those are excluded from calculations because of politics.)

------
amedvednikov
Amazing.

And ~60% of new cars sold are electric in Norway.

They are doing it right.

Too bad the rest of the world is slow to catch up.

~~~
rocqua
Cool thing is that electric cars have number plates that start with EV-

~~~
jonespen
And EL, EK, EB, EC.

------
nabla9
Is Tesla having any effect on that?

Most new cars sold in Norway are electric and Tesla has almost 50% share of
electric cars. Model 3 is the most-sold vehicle in Norway.

~~~
rand_cato
Probably some due to the safety features, but I think its wrong to focus on
Telsa alone here - modern cars (such as Tesla) have much better safety
features than the cars from the 1970s. Norway has a high standard of living,
and there are a lot of nice and new cars in Oslo.

Most of this is probably due to the local government focus on walkability. The
article describes that the reduction is due to reduced speed limits, an
increased amount of bike-paths and limiting a large number of roads to only
pedestrian traffic. The large increase in road tolls and increase in cycling
has probably also reduced the total number of cars on the road.

Anecdotally I've got the impression that Tesla drivers are among the most
aggressive ones on the road in Norway, but this is only my experience.

------
Havoc
Volvos no deaths announcement make a lot more sense in that context. When I
first heard it I thought they were insane

------
mensetmanusman
When I was in western Norway, I noted the abundant use of roundabouts,
wouldn’t be surprised if that contributes.

------
blazespin
I am sure that implémentation helps, but likely a big part is norwegians on
average are far better educated.

------
rth
Because he was the only person in the country and made an accident?

Whole country 5 million (Oslo 673.000) and 20 percentage expats.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway)

You can't have much accidents already by default.

There are many cities in the world like Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow population way
bigger than whole Norway.

------
aledalgrande
I wonder also how the situation of Norway as a whole is? And is there a chart
for other countries?

~~~
seventh-chord
For norway, our central statistics agency[1] keeps track of anual traffic
fatalities. They provide numbers for each year since 1946, though detailed
statistics are only available since ~2000.

In 1946, there were 161 fatalities and 675 gravely injured. This grew more or
less linearly to 1971, with 533 fatalities and 4069 gravely injured. Since
then it has fallen, again more or less linearly, to 108 fatalities and 602
gravely injured in 2018.

Numbers for 2019 are not out yet, as statistics for december have yet to be
released.

[1]: ssb.no

------
inputError
gotta get those numbers up boys!

------
punnerud
I am living in Oslo and just came driving from the city center now, not
strange when it is almost impossible to drive around there, lot of light
regulation (no turn right on red as in US). Even with socioeconomic value on
human life in the $10M range I don’t think it is economically beneficial to
the city center.

The ‘no children died’ in 2019 is something else and a really good thing!

~~~
surfmike
Oslo city center is doing great economically, and lots of good connections to
there with public transit for commuters. Also despite tolls etc. there is bad
commuter time traffic and downtown parking shortages, not clear what extra
economic benefit would arise from adding more cars to the roads.

------
glutamate
Good to see all that oil revenue being used to protect Norwegians, shame about
the climate change.

~~~
praptak
Is Norway responsible for the emissions? It's the buyers who decide to burn
the oil rather than use it to produce other stuff.

~~~
vintermann
If the buyer doesn't want it, Norway sets down the price until someone does.
We make sure every barrel pumped is burned eventually.

In the end, we have to leave carbon in the ground. Even with increasingly
dubious prospects for profitability, and increasing environmental risks (from
oil extradition in the far north), Norwegian governments have not been willing
to leave any oil in the ground.

~~~
richardwhiuk
Why is turning it into plastics a problem? You don't have to burn oil....

~~~
alkonaut
Most of the plastic I buy is burned (as trash) probably within a year from me
buying it. Sweden burns its trash, we don't stuff it in landfills, and even
though I recycle a lot of plastic, it's far from all of it. It's mostly
packaging plastic that's recycled, not e.g. toys.

~~~
richardwhiuk
In theory, the world should just bury it. After all, it came from the ground.

------
throwawaysea
I don’t understand why this is a big deal. Oslo has basically made driving so
inconvenient and so inefficient, that all of its benefits relative to other
modes of transportation are taken away. In those conditions, for example
lowering speed limits dramatically, obviously reducing deaths is not hard.

What is being completely left out of this conversation is the impact on
quality of life. Cars are simply far more convenient than public transit or
biking or walking, when supported appropriately by infrastructure and policy.
In the absence of “traffic calming” measures (a euphemism for making driving
painful) that accompany Vision Zero initiatives, cars are fast, don’t involve
waiting time, and are a point to point option that takes you straight to where
do you want to go.

Everything in life involves some degree of risk. I’m OK with having convenient
car driving options and incurring a higher degree of risk as a result. A small
number of deaths does not make me feel generally “unsafe” on the roads and I
will happily take the reduced travel times as a trade off. The CDC’s data also
indicates that vehicle related injuries and deaths have been falling since the
1980s, unrelated to recent traffic calming measures. I bet this trend will
continue with rapid declines caused by the standardization of back up cameras,
collision avoidance, lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring, and so on.
I don’t think it is worth trying to optimize for perfect safety when we
already have good-enough safety, and we should retain fast travel times
instead of letting the boogeyman of safety rule all decisions.

