34 ms·

Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver trafic deaths in 2019

864 points by anonymfus 7y ago

mongol 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
    - vinay427 7y ago
      These are different types of changes like lane narrowing or lane marker omitting that don't aim to make driving less intuitive, but to decrease the perceived safe speed of travel. They're trying to make driving feel more difficult without actually increasing the danger level, which in theory decreases the danger for everyone else on the road without actually endangering drivers.
    - jka 7y ago
      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.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        I might be cynical but IMHO there is no end to creative rationalisation of the poor investment in road infrastructure in the UK...
      - Sharlin 7y ago
        The keyword to look up is ”traffic calming”. Making lanes narrower, adding curb extensions (bulbouts), gentle curves to otherwise straight roadways, and so on.
      - merijnv 7y ago
        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).
    - vintermann 7y ago
      This happens in Norway too. For instance lots of zebra crossings were scraped away where I live a few years back, because they argued (from accident statistics) it gave pedestrians a false sense of security. That may be, but it also made 95% of drivers (those obeying traffic regulations) actually stop for you to cross. Obviously they don't if there's no crossing, and you have to wait ten times as long to cross safely.
  - aledalgrande 7y ago
    This is quite epic. It's like they live in a country where gov uses their brains to help.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    I don't know the economics of rebuilding roads but I wish other countries did the same.
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    That's certainly not unique, though the amount of effort put into it will vary. In Germany a typical response to an accident hotspot might be putting up extra signage (e.g. no passing, lower speed limit, Difficult Curves Ahead), adding or moving/changing a traffic light, speedbumps, speed checks etc. Major, expensive stuff like changing the routing or curvature is pretty rare and most likely to happen if the road is reworked anyway.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  It explains in another article linked in a comment: Oslo is virtually car-free. Heaving deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians is possible, but very rare, so the accidents disappeared because the main actor (cars) disappeared. It sounds obvious - if you want to eliminate car accidents, eliminate cars, this is what they did.
  - tallanvor 7y ago
    This is completely untrue. Oslo has tons of cars on the roads, unfortunately, even in the center of town. While the current city government has people that would like to get rid of cars - at least in the city center - we're nowhere close to being there.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      I am just telling about the article, not saying it is true or not. Just sharing info.
- Tiktaalik 7y ago
  Safer cars how? Cars are just as safe in NA where we rack up the pedestrian deaths. The two ton vehicle slamming into a pedestrian at medium speeds will probably kill them. The only way to solve this problem is to lower speeds or remove the car from the road.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    Cars are less safe in North America, since they're very often SUVs, trucks etc. Those have terrible results for the pedestrian in a collision. A typical European car hitting a pedestrian at 30mph is 80% survivable. (This road safety video is 14 years old now, and since then some places in the UK have managed to introduce 20mph limits, which are even better.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc
    - jessant 7y ago
      Safer for pedestrians, not for the drivers.
      - Vinnl 7y ago
        Safer for pedestrians and other drivers, I presume?
TrackerFF 7y ago
It is quite expensive to get a drivers license here in Norway, and it is a rigorous process.
- oleks 7y ago
  You can freely use many foreign driver's licenses without extra expenditures.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        >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 7y ago
        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.
teekert 7y ago
Does Oslo rigorously separate cars from bikes, using bike lanes?
- starefossen 7y ago
  To some extent. They have dedicated bus lanes with less traffic than the rest of the road and they have started restricting parts of the city center for cars.
- INTPenis 7y ago
  Much of Scandinavia is good at this, except when it comes to old city centres. And I believe Oslo has a large old and hilly centre. So we're good at separating bikes from cars, when it's practical and when we have the space to do so. Gothenburg and Stockholm city centres are two bad examples. While Malmö city is a very good example.
- vegardx 7y ago
  While I haven't used the bike lanes in cities like Copenhagen, Stockholm, London or Amsterdam they at least look better than in Oslo. In London I was was impressed by the sheer amount of bike lanes, but then again, people drive like madmen there, so perhaps that evens things out.
- kristofferR 7y ago
  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
cm2187 7y ago
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 7y ago
  I would love to live in a city where 1 traffic death is within the distribution, so I think it means a lot.
elfexec 7y ago
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.
- pi-rat 7y ago
  It's being attributed to safer cars, better roads, lower speed limits, more cycle lanes and less cars in the city center. (cars were / are being banned from parts of the city)
- jallasprit 7y ago
  Interesting point, but I'm under the impression (after living in Oslo my entire life) that it has to do with a well laid out seperation between heavy traffic (ie. buses) and pedestrians, along with relatively low speed limits and restrictions on private cars in the city center.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  There are many factors. Cars are getting safer, streets are getting safer, LED lighting has vastly improved visibility for cars and bikes and pedestrians, and also that Norwegian driver education is very thorough. Drivers ed starts with a 17 hours (2/3 days) theory course, then you are allowed at 16 to start practice driving with parent/other experienced driver in the passenger seat, then you do mandatory hands-on courses on: night driving, cold weather driving, safety driving (on closed track); typically you take at least 5-10 driving lessons on public roads with a certified instructor, then you can take the theoretical exam, and finally the 1-hour driving test before you get your certificate.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  It seems they almost eliminated (not completely) the cars from the city: https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo-decided-to-make-its-downtown-basically-car-free https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo...
pi-rat 7y ago
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
- grezql 7y ago
  its not implemented yet. there are few streets here and there with limited traffic but its far from car-free.
  - ptaipale 7y ago
    And even when implemented, it will be not what the headline says. There will be plenty of cars in Oslo, it's just limited on a few streets and central areas.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      I think ‘Oslo pedestrianises a couple of streets’ would be more accurate but not very interesting as many places do this.
gokhan 7y ago
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.
- INTPenis 7y ago
  That's not different at all. Why would Norwegians be different from other humans? I can confirm that Swedes and danes do this too. And being of croatian descent I can confirm they do it there too. It's not a cultural thing, it's a human thing to be impatient. If anything it speaks of the flow of traffic. Here in Sweden you can often safely cross the street because the entire length of the street has lights that work in a pattern. So there are long gaps in traffic due to lights further up/downstream on the street.
  - hycaria 7y ago
    Ive been shouted at in Germany for crossing at red light, even with no car in sight, and for how bad an example this was for children at the scene.
    - INTPenis 7y ago
      As a cyclist in Malmö, Sweden, I wish I could shout at some people sometimes. But truth is that people cross against red all the time with no consequences. I stay out of principle.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - reallydontask 7y ago
      I know people that have had similar experiences in Austria
    - 7y ago
aledalgrande 7y ago
I wonder also how the situation of Norway as a whole is? And is there a chart for other countries?
- erikbye 7y ago
  https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/vtu/aar https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/vtu...
- seventh-chord 7y ago
  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
- tim333 7y ago
  Wikipedia has some stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... showing Norway #3 after Monaco (0 deaths) and Micronesia
INTPenis 7y ago
Just speculation but considering the weather we've had this year it could be due to the lack of snow and ice.
glutamate 7y ago
Good to see all that oil revenue being used to protect Norwegians, shame about the climate change.
- erikbye 7y ago
  Norway doesn't even make a dent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - glutamate 7y ago
    That doesn't count the emissions from oil & gas extracted from Norwegian fields and exported.
    - erikbye 7y ago
      Yes, it counts the extraction, and export is through gas pipes, it does not pollute. Besides, extraction pollutes very little, too.
      - glutamate 7y ago
        I'm sure those pipes are very efficient but burning the gas at the other end is what is killing the planet right now. My point is that Norway has a unique responsibility as a democratic nation with outsized oil revenue to take a global lead on climate change and I don't see that happening. Edit:let me say though that I am genuinely pleased Norway is investing in traffic safety as opposed to supersized aircraft carriers or weapons of mass destruction
        erikbye 7y ago
        No, if not gas, it would be coal. Pollution would be magnitudes worse.
      - alkonaut 7y ago
        It doesn't count the emissions from burning the exported oil I think the argument is. You can argue that's the buyer's responsibility, and you can argue that it's the extractor's responsibility. Both arguments are valid. It's a mix of both I'd say: the extractor is making market prices lower than they would be if the oil had not been extracted.
ptrkrlsrd 7y ago
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."
tyfon 7y ago
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.
- yason 7y ago
  This is roughly how people should behave in a city centre, and Oslo has been working on nudging towards that. Hence, driving is not fun in the centre as it shouldn't be and speed limits should minimise pedestrian injuries. The difference in fatalities and serious injuries drops a great deal when going from 40 km/h to 30 km/h.
- moralestapia 7y ago
  >it's not very fun Sorry to hear that other people's lives get in the way of your idea of 'fun'.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    I don't think this was a complaint from OP. But instead an explanation of what makes them park and go to public transport. Which they go on to say is a good thing.
    - tyfon 7y ago
      Yes, exactly :)
  - marvin 7y ago
    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.
amedvednikov 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Cool thing is that electric cars have number plates that start with EV-
  - jonespen 7y ago
    And EL, EK, EB, EC.
- mbeex 7y ago
  > And ~60% of new cars sold are electric in Norway. There is a specific reason for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#Hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#H...
paozac 7y ago
Rome has probably the worst record: 111 traffic deaths from January to November 2019.
- kabacha 7y ago
  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/seasonal-death-toll-shrinks-despite-drunk-driving-epidemic https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1827019/seasona...
  - oblio 7y ago
    One would assume that the holiday season is a statistical outlier?
  - dougb5 7y ago
    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.)
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
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.
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  What a stark contrast to Romania, which had almost 2000 deaths at a population only 4 times larger than norway. Wondering what are the lessons to learn and apply to that country as the situation is out of control.
  - RivieraKid 7y ago
    Safer cars.
    - gombosg 7y ago
      Just look at the huge traffic fatality rate in the USA despite the 'safe' SUV trend. Better roads & infrastructure (which lead to less car use and slower traffic), driver education, enforcing traffic laws do help though.
    - ossworkerrights 7y ago
      Most cars around Romania are German made and used, most recently clocked or written off in that country. But the issue is driving culture and lack of policing I think. Romania had cameras and they were removed, the government claims, because they are against EU regulation. Naturally that's BS, and most laws are made in favor of law breakers not sure why.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    First of all, having 0.02% blood alcohol limit (I.e. effectively a zero tolerance) is a good and cheap start. Next comes the expensive things: Replace the car fleet with large, safe and modern cars. Build infrastructure like pedestrian walkways etc to have few unprotected people in traffic. Replace crossings with roundabouts and rebuild motorways and other high speed roads to never have oncoming traffic (separating railings etc). Have extensive automated speed monitoring, including average-speed monitoring, i.e. multiple speed cameras that time the passage of cars over some distance such as through a tunnel.
avh02 7y ago
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.
- swyx 7y ago
  bury? or highlight? it’s like Twitter PMs have never heard of the Streisand effect.
- brosinante 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
- tempsy 7y ago
  It’s a laughably poorly implemented feature that has the opposite effect of burying responses. It’s the Streisand effect at scale. Honestly kind of hilarious.
nagash 7y ago
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_yr4.pdf https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1629/pedestrian_road_rules...
- ailideex 7y ago
  > But if you read the recommendations, you will notice the language talks about how it's basically still on you to not die. Well it makes sense, given we still have not figured out how to legislate people back to life and have recognized that making something illegal does not make it impossible.
- tootie 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    Traffic rules should perhaps not be a federalized matter; certainly not down to city level.
- el_cujo 7y ago
  I don't know if this is true everywhere, but in my city in the US, cars are supposed to stop at crosswalks (not talking about at intersections necessarily) if a pedestrian is crossing even if there is no stopsign or signal beyond the white paint on the road, but this is NEVER observed in my experience. Thankfully it seems like most pedestrians don't know this either so we don't get people trying to challenge cars to make a point at risk of their own lives.
mensetmanusman 7y ago
When I was in western Norway, I noted the abundant use of roundabouts, wouldn’t be surprised if that contributes.
Zenst 7y ago
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/S0001457516301555 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751... Clearly an achievement that has been worked for and not statistical anomaly low.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  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.
doktrin 7y ago
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).
royroyroys 7y ago
Oslo is also the 'Tesla capital of the world', wonder if their high NCAP safety ratings have had an impact as well?
nabla9 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
esotericn 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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/#climate-graph https://en.climate-data.org/europe/norway/oslo/oslo-81/#clim... London: https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/london-1/#climate-graph https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/lo...
  - esotericn 7y ago
    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.
- xenospn 7y ago
  I remember being super frustrated with Norwegian speed limits when I was late for my flight and the taxi driver would not go over 80 on the freeway.
brenden2 7y ago
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.
Y-Bopinator 7y ago
Here in the US we plow our cars into protesters. Different culture.
punnerud 7y ago
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!
- stoolpigeon 7y ago
  No right on red is the default here in Hungary - I assumed it was the norm for much ( most? ) of Europe.
- surfmike 7y ago
  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.
- Tiktaalik 7y ago
  > Even with socioeconomic value on human life in the $10M range I don’t think it is economically beneficial to the city center. This is a psycho statement honestly reevaluate your values.
GavinMcG 7y ago
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-deaths-in-u-s-exceed-40-000-for-third-straight-year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/traffic-d...
- EpicEng 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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.
throwawaysea 7y ago
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.
ceejayoz 7y ago
Meanwhile, here in upstate New York... https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-ticketed-for-not-using-sidewalk https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-tic... > 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.
Mvhsz 7y ago
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-/8kay-6qhc https://data.nashville.gov/Police/Traffic-Accidents-2018-/8k... [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/statistics/countyfatality.aspx https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/statist...
- turk73 7y ago
  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.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    > Need to look at total miles driven, not just population size vs. number of deaths. If you happen to have traffic, and wish to improve the traffic in isolation, perhaps. More generally, what you need to look at really depends on whether you're trying to measure traffic safety itself, society's general safety and well being (very complex), or something more specific.
  - jablan 7y ago
    > The US standard of living is far higher. ?
at-fates-hands 7y ago
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-and-likes-it-that-way/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/05/oslo-is-almost-car-free...
Havoc 7y ago
Volvos no deaths announcement make a lot more sense in that context. When I first heard it I thought they were insane
blazespin 7y ago
I am sure that implémentation helps, but likely a big part is norwegians on average are far better educated.
rth 7y ago
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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tristor 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
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.)
inputError 7y ago
gotta get those numbers up boys!
arvesv 7y ago
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-trafikkulykke-i-fotgjengerfelt-paa-holmen-i-oslo https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/2G0EAx/barn-omkom-i-traf...

864 points by anonymfus 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    These are different types of changes like lane narrowing or lane marker omitting that don't aim to make driving less intuitive, but to decrease the perceived safe speed of travel. They're trying to make driving feel more difficult without actually increasing the danger level, which in theory decreases the danger for everyone else on the road without actually endangering drivers.
  - jka 7y ago
    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.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      I might be cynical but IMHO there is no end to creative rationalisation of the poor investment in road infrastructure in the UK...
    - Sharlin 7y ago
      The keyword to look up is ”traffic calming”. Making lanes narrower, adding curb extensions (bulbouts), gentle curves to otherwise straight roadways, and so on.
    - merijnv 7y ago
      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).
  - vintermann 7y ago
    This happens in Norway too. For instance lots of zebra crossings were scraped away where I live a few years back, because they argued (from accident statistics) it gave pedestrians a false sense of security. That may be, but it also made 95% of drivers (those obeying traffic regulations) actually stop for you to cross. Obviously they don't if there's no crossing, and you have to wait ten times as long to cross safely.
- aledalgrande 7y ago
  This is quite epic. It's like they live in a country where gov uses their brains to help.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  I don't know the economics of rebuilding roads but I wish other countries did the same.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  That's certainly not unique, though the amount of effort put into it will vary. In Germany a typical response to an accident hotspot might be putting up extra signage (e.g. no passing, lower speed limit, Difficult Curves Ahead), adding or moving/changing a traffic light, speedbumps, speed checks etc. Major, expensive stuff like changing the routing or curvature is pretty rare and most likely to happen if the road is reworked anyway.
AdrianB1 7y ago
It explains in another article linked in a comment: Oslo is virtually car-free. Heaving deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians is possible, but very rare, so the accidents disappeared because the main actor (cars) disappeared. It sounds obvious - if you want to eliminate car accidents, eliminate cars, this is what they did.
- tallanvor 7y ago
  This is completely untrue. Oslo has tons of cars on the roads, unfortunately, even in the center of town. While the current city government has people that would like to get rid of cars - at least in the city center - we're nowhere close to being there.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    I am just telling about the article, not saying it is true or not. Just sharing info.
Tiktaalik 7y ago
Safer cars how? Cars are just as safe in NA where we rack up the pedestrian deaths. The two ton vehicle slamming into a pedestrian at medium speeds will probably kill them. The only way to solve this problem is to lower speeds or remove the car from the road.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  Cars are less safe in North America, since they're very often SUVs, trucks etc. Those have terrible results for the pedestrian in a collision. A typical European car hitting a pedestrian at 30mph is 80% survivable. (This road safety video is 14 years old now, and since then some places in the UK have managed to introduce 20mph limits, which are even better.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc
  - jessant 7y ago
    Safer for pedestrians, not for the drivers.
    - Vinnl 7y ago
      Safer for pedestrians and other drivers, I presume?

TrackerFF 7y ago

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

oleks 7y ago
You can freely use many foreign driver's licenses without extra expenditures.
- vinay427 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      >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 7y ago
        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.

teekert 7y ago

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

starefossen 7y ago
To some extent. They have dedicated bus lanes with less traffic than the rest of the road and they have started restricting parts of the city center for cars.
INTPenis 7y ago
Much of Scandinavia is good at this, except when it comes to old city centres. And I believe Oslo has a large old and hilly centre. So we're good at separating bikes from cars, when it's practical and when we have the space to do so. Gothenburg and Stockholm city centres are two bad examples. While Malmö city is a very good example.
vegardx 7y ago
While I haven't used the bike lanes in cities like Copenhagen, Stockholm, London or Amsterdam they at least look better than in Oslo. In London I was was impressed by the sheer amount of bike lanes, but then again, people drive like madmen there, so perhaps that evens things out.
kristofferR 7y ago
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

cm2187 7y ago

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 7y ago
I would love to live in a city where 1 traffic death is within the distribution, so I think it means a lot.

elfexec 7y ago

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.

pi-rat 7y ago
It's being attributed to safer cars, better roads, lower speed limits, more cycle lanes and less cars in the city center. (cars were / are being banned from parts of the city)
jallasprit 7y ago
Interesting point, but I'm under the impression (after living in Oslo my entire life) that it has to do with a well laid out seperation between heavy traffic (ie. buses) and pedestrians, along with relatively low speed limits and restrictions on private cars in the city center.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
There are many factors. Cars are getting safer, streets are getting safer, LED lighting has vastly improved visibility for cars and bikes and pedestrians, and also that Norwegian driver education is very thorough. Drivers ed starts with a 17 hours (2/3 days) theory course, then you are allowed at 16 to start practice driving with parent/other experienced driver in the passenger seat, then you do mandatory hands-on courses on: night driving, cold weather driving, safety driving (on closed track); typically you take at least 5-10 driving lessons on public roads with a certified instructor, then you can take the theoretical exam, and finally the 1-hour driving test before you get your certificate.
AdrianB1 7y ago
It seems they almost eliminated (not completely) the cars from the city: https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo-decided-to-make-its-downtown-basically-car-free https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo...

pi-rat 7y ago

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

grezql 7y ago
its not implemented yet. there are few streets here and there with limited traffic but its far from car-free.
- ptaipale 7y ago
  And even when implemented, it will be not what the headline says. There will be plenty of cars in Oslo, it's just limited on a few streets and central areas.
chrisseaton 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    I think ‘Oslo pedestrianises a couple of streets’ would be more accurate but not very interesting as many places do this.

gokhan 7y ago

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.

INTPenis 7y ago
That's not different at all. Why would Norwegians be different from other humans? I can confirm that Swedes and danes do this too. And being of croatian descent I can confirm they do it there too. It's not a cultural thing, it's a human thing to be impatient. If anything it speaks of the flow of traffic. Here in Sweden you can often safely cross the street because the entire length of the street has lights that work in a pattern. So there are long gaps in traffic due to lights further up/downstream on the street.
- hycaria 7y ago
  Ive been shouted at in Germany for crossing at red light, even with no car in sight, and for how bad an example this was for children at the scene.
  - INTPenis 7y ago
    As a cyclist in Malmö, Sweden, I wish I could shout at some people sometimes. But truth is that people cross against red all the time with no consequences. I stay out of principle.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - reallydontask 7y ago
    I know people that have had similar experiences in Austria
  - 7y ago

aledalgrande 7y ago

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

erikbye 7y ago
https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/vtu/aar https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/vtu...
seventh-chord 7y ago
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
tim333 7y ago
Wikipedia has some stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... showing Norway #3 after Monaco (0 deaths) and Micronesia

INTPenis 7y ago

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

glutamate 7y ago

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

erikbye 7y ago
Norway doesn't even make a dent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- glutamate 7y ago
  That doesn't count the emissions from oil & gas extracted from Norwegian fields and exported.
  - erikbye 7y ago
    Yes, it counts the extraction, and export is through gas pipes, it does not pollute. Besides, extraction pollutes very little, too.
    - glutamate 7y ago
      I'm sure those pipes are very efficient but burning the gas at the other end is what is killing the planet right now. My point is that Norway has a unique responsibility as a democratic nation with outsized oil revenue to take a global lead on climate change and I don't see that happening. Edit:let me say though that I am genuinely pleased Norway is investing in traffic safety as opposed to supersized aircraft carriers or weapons of mass destruction
      - erikbye 7y ago
        No, if not gas, it would be coal. Pollution would be magnitudes worse.
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      It doesn't count the emissions from burning the exported oil I think the argument is. You can argue that's the buyer's responsibility, and you can argue that it's the extractor's responsibility. Both arguments are valid. It's a mix of both I'd say: the extractor is making market prices lower than they would be if the oil had not been extracted.

ptrkrlsrd 7y ago

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."

tyfon 7y ago

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.

yason 7y ago
This is roughly how people should behave in a city centre, and Oslo has been working on nudging towards that. Hence, driving is not fun in the centre as it shouldn't be and speed limits should minimise pedestrian injuries. The difference in fatalities and serious injuries drops a great deal when going from 40 km/h to 30 km/h.
moralestapia 7y ago
>it's not very fun Sorry to hear that other people's lives get in the way of your idea of 'fun'.
- rocqua 7y ago
  I don't think this was a complaint from OP. But instead an explanation of what makes them park and go to public transport. Which they go on to say is a good thing.
  - tyfon 7y ago
    Yes, exactly :)
- marvin 7y ago
  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.

amedvednikov 7y ago

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 7y ago
Cool thing is that electric cars have number plates that start with EV-
- jonespen 7y ago
  And EL, EK, EB, EC.
mbeex 7y ago
> And ~60% of new cars sold are electric in Norway. There is a specific reason for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#Hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#H...

paozac 7y ago

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

kabacha 7y ago
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/seasonal-death-toll-shrinks-despite-drunk-driving-epidemic https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1827019/seasona...
- oblio 7y ago
  One would assume that the holiday season is a statistical outlier?
- dougb5 7y ago
  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.)

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

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.

ossworkerrights 7y ago
What a stark contrast to Romania, which had almost 2000 deaths at a population only 4 times larger than norway. Wondering what are the lessons to learn and apply to that country as the situation is out of control.
- RivieraKid 7y ago
  Safer cars.
  - gombosg 7y ago
    Just look at the huge traffic fatality rate in the USA despite the 'safe' SUV trend. Better roads & infrastructure (which lead to less car use and slower traffic), driver education, enforcing traffic laws do help though.
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    Most cars around Romania are German made and used, most recently clocked or written off in that country. But the issue is driving culture and lack of policing I think. Romania had cameras and they were removed, the government claims, because they are against EU regulation. Naturally that's BS, and most laws are made in favor of law breakers not sure why.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  First of all, having 0.02% blood alcohol limit (I.e. effectively a zero tolerance) is a good and cheap start. Next comes the expensive things: Replace the car fleet with large, safe and modern cars. Build infrastructure like pedestrian walkways etc to have few unprotected people in traffic. Replace crossings with roundabouts and rebuild motorways and other high speed roads to never have oncoming traffic (separating railings etc). Have extensive automated speed monitoring, including average-speed monitoring, i.e. multiple speed cameras that time the passage of cars over some distance such as through a tunnel.

avh02 7y ago

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.

swyx 7y ago
bury? or highlight? it’s like Twitter PMs have never heard of the Streisand effect.
brosinante 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
tempsy 7y ago
It’s a laughably poorly implemented feature that has the opposite effect of burying responses. It’s the Streisand effect at scale. Honestly kind of hilarious.

nagash 7y ago

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_yr4.pdf https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1629/pedestrian_road_rules...

ailideex 7y ago
> But if you read the recommendations, you will notice the language talks about how it's basically still on you to not die. Well it makes sense, given we still have not figured out how to legislate people back to life and have recognized that making something illegal does not make it impossible.
tootie 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Traffic rules should perhaps not be a federalized matter; certainly not down to city level.
el_cujo 7y ago
I don't know if this is true everywhere, but in my city in the US, cars are supposed to stop at crosswalks (not talking about at intersections necessarily) if a pedestrian is crossing even if there is no stopsign or signal beyond the white paint on the road, but this is NEVER observed in my experience. Thankfully it seems like most pedestrians don't know this either so we don't get people trying to challenge cars to make a point at risk of their own lives.

mensetmanusman 7y ago

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

Zenst 7y ago

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/S0001457516301555 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751... Clearly an achievement that has been worked for and not statistical anomaly low.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
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.

doktrin 7y ago

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).

royroyroys 7y ago

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

nabla9 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.

esotericn 7y ago

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 7y ago
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/#climate-graph https://en.climate-data.org/europe/norway/oslo/oslo-81/#clim... London: https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/london-1/#climate-graph https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/lo...
- esotericn 7y ago
  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.
xenospn 7y ago
I remember being super frustrated with Norwegian speed limits when I was late for my flight and the taxi driver would not go over 80 on the freeway.

brenden2 7y ago

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.

Y-Bopinator 7y ago

Here in the US we plow our cars into protesters. Different culture.

punnerud 7y ago

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!

stoolpigeon 7y ago
No right on red is the default here in Hungary - I assumed it was the norm for much ( most? ) of Europe.
surfmike 7y ago
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.
Tiktaalik 7y ago
> Even with socioeconomic value on human life in the $10M range I don’t think it is economically beneficial to the city center. This is a psycho statement honestly reevaluate your values.

GavinMcG 7y ago

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

EpicEng 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.

throwawaysea 7y ago

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.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Meanwhile, here in upstate New York... https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-ticketed-for-not-using-sidewalk https://13wham.com/news/local/pedestrian-hit-by-car-then-tic... > 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.

Mvhsz 7y ago

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-/8kay-6qhc https://data.nashville.gov/Police/Traffic-Accidents-2018-/8k... [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/statistics/countyfatality.aspx https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/statist...

turk73 7y ago
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.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  > Need to look at total miles driven, not just population size vs. number of deaths. If you happen to have traffic, and wish to improve the traffic in isolation, perhaps. More generally, what you need to look at really depends on whether you're trying to measure traffic safety itself, society's general safety and well being (very complex), or something more specific.
- jablan 7y ago
  > The US standard of living is far higher. ?

at-fates-hands 7y ago

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-and-likes-it-that-way/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/05/oslo-is-almost-car-free...

Havoc 7y ago

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

blazespin 7y ago

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

rth 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tristor 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago

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.)

inputError 7y ago

gotta get those numbers up boys!

arvesv 7y ago

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-trafikkulykke-i-fotgjengerfelt-paa-holmen-i-oslo https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/2G0EAx/barn-omkom-i-traf...