8 ms·

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

55 points by luu 7y ago

jordanbeiber 7y ago
At the same time, in Norway: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic-road-deaths-accidents-norway-a9269441.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic... Road deaths in Oslo (pop. 673.000) in 2019: Pedestrians: 0 Cyclists: 0 Children: 0 Totally different outcome from ”vision zero” - actually 0. Impressive.
- arnsholt 7y ago
  Vision Zero is a part of national traffic policy, enacted by Parliament in 2002 according to the Directorate of Roads. Apparently the goal for 2030 is a maximum of 350 severe injuries and deaths, but the overarching goal for traffic policy is to get to zero.
- LeonidasXIV 7y ago
  Similarly, another nordic capital, Helsinki (pop. 631.000): https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/17253-no-pedestrians-died-in-traffic-accidents-in-helsinki-in-2019-writes-helsingin-sanomat.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/1...
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Important factor for Helsinki: the nicest bike path in the North, below grade. It's an old repurposed railroad which gives the bulk of the city near instant access to split level cycling infrastructure.
- iso947 7y ago
  That link literally says 1 death, not zero It also says Norway as a whole has a death rate of 23 per million, not much lower than the uk (1 in 26)
  - Arnt 7y ago
    The correct number is 1, a car driver who drove into a fence. Speed is not reported, but the speed limit there is low. Where do you get that 23? I looked it up and see 21.6. The average before the vision zero stuff started was much higher, BTW.
    - iso947 7y ago
      120 deaths, 5.2m people
      - Arnt 7y ago
        Whence 120? https://www.ssb.no/transport-og-reiseliv/artikler-og-publikasjoner/79-menn-og-30-kvinner-omkom-i-trafikken-i-fjor https://www.ssb.no/transport-og-reiseliv/artikler-og-publika... https://www.tryggtrafikk.no/pressemeldinger/109-omkom-i-trafikken-i-2019/ https://www.tryggtrafikk.no/pressemeldinger/109-omkom-i-traf... I don't suppose it really matters, considering how the graph for the past 20 years looks ;)
  - jordanbeiber 7y ago
    That’s 1 in norway as a whole, but Oslo 0? It’s probably easier to keep numbers down in less populated areas as well. I’ve driven in London, as a rightie, and if those numbers checks out I’m equally impressed! Narrow, people, cars and scoters everywhere. It felt crazy at times, but I’m sure using the “wrong” side of the street compounded the issue. :)
- woodpanel 7y ago
  Having driven throughout Europe and as a non-Scandinavian I have to say that this impressive result has a lot to do with the ways scandinavians behave in traffic. As car-drivers as well as cyclists. If urban politicians in cities "just short of the border" to Scandinavia like Berlin or Hamburg propose such measures, residents with traffic experience in both places will often chuckle, because car drivers but even more so cyclists are much more aggressive in Germany than in Scandinavia. It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.
  - jordanbeiber 7y ago
    > It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars. As they should! Cyclists are often closer by and silent. Add to the fact that many cyclists are using the bike for exercise and seem to want to keep pace at any cost. But mostly - a car is made for running in to humans at relatively low speed, causing as little damage as possible. Bikes not so much. I’d much rather be hit by a car at 30km/h than a bike. Come to think of it - drivers license for cars probably makes a difference as well. Edit - anecdote: A co-worker of mine got hit by a bike at a buss stop. Not really super fast, but oh my he got tangled. Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. He was off work for almost a year in total. A modern car would most likely not have caused him, or the rider the kind of damage they incurred.
    - Joe-Z 7y ago
      >Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. What in the hell was going on there? I mean, I get GP's point about aggressive cyclists. I noticed them in Berlin especially (straight, wide roads on flat terrain), but even then people will usually try to brake before they run into you. This kind of damage sounds insane. Was the cyclist hitting him at full-speed? If so, how???
      - jordanbeiber 7y ago
        Yeah, so at places in Sweden we have the most stupid buss stops. You have main road, then a curb followed by a bicycle lane followed by a buss stop with a pedestrian sidewalk behind it. If you want to get to the buss you need to cross the cycle-lane. If the cyclist is careless and speeding, and you maybe are not paying enough attention, bad stuff can and do happen.
- sundvor 7y ago
  Don't forget that Oslo all but banned cars in the CBD.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    That is probably an excellent thing to do if the aim is to end traffic deaths.
- anovikov 7y ago
  One has to keep in mind that Norwegians are excellent drivers. Requirements to get a driver license are ridiculously difficult there, exams are almost unpassable. Probably because of difficult climate and sometimes difficult terrain - thus icy roads etc - which makes driving dangerous. Impressive result, but i don't think it's reproducible much elsewhere.
  - sk0g 7y ago
    Excellent drivers maybe, but slightly psychotic when it comes to twisty roads! I got overtaken over a blind corner in a 50 zone, by a car doing around 100... Had to quickly get off the road once when I realised an oncoming truck wasn't going to slow down or budge, one tyre slipped off the road (or rather there was a crack on the edge of the road, flicked my steering into the woods). Also experienced being in a Tesla driven by an otherwise calm girl, was both fearing for my life and excited the entire time haha. Would definitely do a road trip around Norway again, and stick to the more scenic routes again, however. So much fun, and so much beautiful scenery. Maybe the latter was what impeded my driving ability :)
josh2600 7y ago
A big part of why LA has so many pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities is because the mass transit system is awful and the sprawl. A ton of people in LA still just drive drunk because ridesharing and cabs are too expensive. Lots of people can’t afford to pay $30 to get home and would rather risk it. Note that the economically less fortunate districts of LA dominate the drunk driving fatalities by capita: https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-drunk-driving-los-angeles/ https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-dru...
- stevenicr 7y ago
  I've wondered for years why we don't have more tow trucks on the road for this, and bars need to have X amount on retainer per Y seating capacity. It's not just the cost of the cab / uber, it's not having your car when you wake up, no good way to get it, and not being sure if the lot you left it in is going to have it impounded / booted or something. Still waiting for the uber/tow combo that guarantees your car arrives before you wake up, and in the exact condition it was in when they went to pick it up.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    Quite the opposite, LA requires bars to have X amount of car parking for Y seating, which is insane, but there you go.
  - Broken_Hippo 7y ago
    I am not sure we have enough tow trucks for this, and it seems unnecessary if the public transportation is robust enough. Even if you leave your car at the pub, it should be a minimal hassle to use public transportation the next day to get it back - or to simply use it in the first place. I do think we should disallow booting/towing for cars in those situations, so perhaps having a "safe" parking lot to keep one's car would be prudent.
    - stevenicr 7y ago
      The good thing is that the tow trucks wouldn't have to drive them all at 3am.. they could drive some at 3am some at 3:30am... most people don't need them until 7am or later - so you'd have 4 hours or more.. getting people to use public transportation - haha that's a whole 'nother podcast I'd like to do.. it's just not happening. The booting, and LAZ parking's new "barnacle" - it's just absurd, as are the prices they charge. Vars could start fixing the problem with tows - or the double drivers as another pointed out below, is popular in Japan.. or the cops could start pulling licenses for the places that are over serving.. or do the Salt Lake law where bars have to stop serving an hour before close / stay open an hour later than they stop serving.. I mean, something should be done. It's a true safety issue, and people are profiting by looking the other way every day in just about every city as far as I know.
lubujackson 7y ago
> Despite its efforts, San Francisco is facing headwinds. By October of this year, the city had counted 25 crash-induced fatalities, already higher than last year’s total. The most notable change in SF has been the delayed light cycle after pedestrian crosswalk comes on. There was a spike in deaths after that change and I understood why immediately - drivers were timing the light by watching the crosswalk countdown and/or the cross traffic's light cycle. Your light used to turn green just as the other direction's light turned red. When they suddenly changed all the light I noticed a fair number of cars jolt forward then stop, confused, until their light actually changes 4 seconds later. I'm not sure how this change results in deaths directly, but it definitely added to road rage out there. When the light does change and a car is turning, the expectations are different now. Pedestrians are in the middle of the street already and are less wary of cars jumping out because before there was a moment when everyone would figure out the situation before moving (ideally). Now people are mid-crosswalk and have no idea when the cars' light is going to change which leaves pedestrians more vulnerable. Another issue I imagine is cars that are making a legal right turn on a red light. The driver looks to see if they can go and have their head turned the exact opposite direction of the crosswalk and wouldn't be aware of when the crosswalk symbol changes. Meanwhile, pedestrians aren't expecting a car to suddenly turn into them 2 seconds after they step into the crosswalk and it is a recipe for disaster. I don't see how they can fix that now without banning all turns on red. There is also a particularly ugly intersection at Laguna and Geary where they instituted a delayed green when crossing over Geary. People were getting run over in the crosswalks because there is an extra long crosswalk on both sides and cars were turning from both directions with other cars getting backed up and unable to go around them. Because there isn't room for dedicated turn lanes, they have one side go then the other side go, but people lose their shit when they see the southbound cars coming at them for 15 seconds while their light is still red because all prior experience at other lights indicates they should also have a green light when other cars are going... I have seen multiple cars simply drive through that red light and one time 3 cars in a row just decided to go despite the red. They finally put up a sign that says "delayed green" which seems to be helping, but it is an imperfect solution and another counter-intuitive solution.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  Just goes to show how many motorists drive around with a „the road is mine“-attitude. If that doesn‘t change and people have no actual interest in the well-being of their fellow humans (which exceeds their interest to be home 10 seconds earlier) you can tout 0-fatality plans all you want, they will never pan out.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
It sounds like this is really more, "What happens when a city says they're going to end traffic deaths, then completely half-asses it." It was super obvious when these cities committed to Vision Zero on hilariously overoptimistic timelines that they weren't taking it seriously at all. It was just a bullet point to signal that they cared, without having to do actual work or sacrifice any convenience for cars.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  Well, to be fair, it's very very hard to take away any conveniences for cars because of the strong opposition by pro-car people. Just recently there was a proposition in Germany to enact an absolute speed limit on the Autobahn. The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit (in reality you only have that in some parts though), so you can imagine how well that went... It's one of the "drawbacks" of living in a democracy I guess: Revolutionary changes are basically impossible to implement, because the disadvantaged side also has a right to be heard.
  - redprince 7y ago
    > The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit 30% of the Autobahn have a mandatory speed limit for varying reasons, mostly safety (high incidence of accidents for example). On 70% there is an advisory speed limit of 130kph. This means, it is inadvisable to exceed this speed even under the best of circumstances. Now in practice this has very little meaning. You may speed with impunity. Until there is an accident. Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit. This is even true, if the other party to the accident is completely at fault. The only exception would be, if it can be shown beyond a doubt that the accident would have happened at the recommended speed of 130kph as well. In practice this is next to impossible. There have been several attempts to change the advisory speed limit to a mandatory speed limit. Albeit the arguments aren't clearly on the side of the proponents. Regarding accidents, a statistic from the German autobahn ministry in 2018 stated that 71% of all deaths on the autobahn occur in places with no mandatory speed limit. Since 70% of the autobahn have no speed limit, one might wonder, what the expected result of a mandatory speed limit is expected to be. In addition 33.6% of all kilometers are driven on the autobahn while only 12% of all deaths occur on the autobahn. 60% of all traffic deaths do occur on rural roads which have speed limits throughout. Regarding climate change argument, the estimated reduction of total CO2 with a mandatory speed limit of 120kph would be 0.2% or even less if the mandatory speed limit were 130kph. A visit to the neighbors Austria and Switzerland (both have speed limits on the autobahn) would also destroy the expectation, that smaller cars would be bought, if there were a mandatory speed limit on the autobahn.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Double_a_92 7y ago
I live in a city that has lots of external commuter coming into it, and traffic is becoming a problem. And politics are going a bit haywire here... They have been arguing for years about some expensive, 2-station, city train in some inaccessible edge region of the city. And now they even proposed to tax driven distances on our roads, with some GPS tracking device or so in every car.
hannob 7y ago
At multiple points the article tries to argue that things are outside the cities control. But this often sounds more like a cheap excuse. From the text: "Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders." Some of those, ok. But well, you can't stop people from buying SUVs, but nobody says you have to give them free or cheap parking spaces in dense cities or make streets wider for them. You can't stop ride-hailing services, but you can police them to follow traffic rules. You can't control gas prices, but you can control parking fees (and police them). You can't change state-level safety-laws, but you can make sure the existing ones are followed.
Proven 7y ago
or, how to spend a crapload of taxpayer money on "its for the children" projects oh and let's not forget the read too may deaths problem in that bastion of cronyism and public sector socialism
segmondy 7y ago
I wonder if people from such region are more likely to become victims when they go outside of their city since they might be less attentive to traffic else where.
sliken 7y ago
I live in a "bike friendly city", competing for the friendliest bike cities. Yet bikes seem like a distant after though. Things like putting "share the road" signs IN the bike lane during the day. Even worse at night they don't move them, but fold them down so they are near invisible (black cloth) even with a light. They re-engineered intersections with big cement islands to protect pedestrians... but force bikes into traffic right at the intersection. When they want to slow down a bike trail they put a "S" in it, then line it with large boulders... typically where there's no street lights.

55 points by luu 7y ago

At the same time, in Norway: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic-road-deaths-accidents-norway-a9269441.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic... Road deaths in Oslo (pop. 673.000) in 2019: Pedestrians: 0 Cyclists: 0 Children: 0 Totally different outcome from ”vision zero” - actually 0. Impressive.

arnsholt 7y ago
Vision Zero is a part of national traffic policy, enacted by Parliament in 2002 according to the Directorate of Roads. Apparently the goal for 2030 is a maximum of 350 severe injuries and deaths, but the overarching goal for traffic policy is to get to zero.
LeonidasXIV 7y ago
Similarly, another nordic capital, Helsinki (pop. 631.000): https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/17253-no-pedestrians-died-in-traffic-accidents-in-helsinki-in-2019-writes-helsingin-sanomat.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/1...
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Important factor for Helsinki: the nicest bike path in the North, below grade. It's an old repurposed railroad which gives the bulk of the city near instant access to split level cycling infrastructure.
iso947 7y ago
That link literally says 1 death, not zero It also says Norway as a whole has a death rate of 23 per million, not much lower than the uk (1 in 26)
- Arnt 7y ago
  The correct number is 1, a car driver who drove into a fence. Speed is not reported, but the speed limit there is low. Where do you get that 23? I looked it up and see 21.6. The average before the vision zero stuff started was much higher, BTW.
  - iso947 7y ago
    120 deaths, 5.2m people
    - Arnt 7y ago
      Whence 120? https://www.ssb.no/transport-og-reiseliv/artikler-og-publikasjoner/79-menn-og-30-kvinner-omkom-i-trafikken-i-fjor https://www.ssb.no/transport-og-reiseliv/artikler-og-publika... https://www.tryggtrafikk.no/pressemeldinger/109-omkom-i-trafikken-i-2019/ https://www.tryggtrafikk.no/pressemeldinger/109-omkom-i-traf... I don't suppose it really matters, considering how the graph for the past 20 years looks ;)
- jordanbeiber 7y ago
  That’s 1 in norway as a whole, but Oslo 0? It’s probably easier to keep numbers down in less populated areas as well. I’ve driven in London, as a rightie, and if those numbers checks out I’m equally impressed! Narrow, people, cars and scoters everywhere. It felt crazy at times, but I’m sure using the “wrong” side of the street compounded the issue. :)
woodpanel 7y ago
Having driven throughout Europe and as a non-Scandinavian I have to say that this impressive result has a lot to do with the ways scandinavians behave in traffic. As car-drivers as well as cyclists. If urban politicians in cities "just short of the border" to Scandinavia like Berlin or Hamburg propose such measures, residents with traffic experience in both places will often chuckle, because car drivers but even more so cyclists are much more aggressive in Germany than in Scandinavia. It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.
- jordanbeiber 7y ago
  > It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars. As they should! Cyclists are often closer by and silent. Add to the fact that many cyclists are using the bike for exercise and seem to want to keep pace at any cost. But mostly - a car is made for running in to humans at relatively low speed, causing as little damage as possible. Bikes not so much. I’d much rather be hit by a car at 30km/h than a bike. Come to think of it - drivers license for cars probably makes a difference as well. Edit - anecdote: A co-worker of mine got hit by a bike at a buss stop. Not really super fast, but oh my he got tangled. Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. He was off work for almost a year in total. A modern car would most likely not have caused him, or the rider the kind of damage they incurred.
  - Joe-Z 7y ago
    >Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc. What in the hell was going on there? I mean, I get GP's point about aggressive cyclists. I noticed them in Berlin especially (straight, wide roads on flat terrain), but even then people will usually try to brake before they run into you. This kind of damage sounds insane. Was the cyclist hitting him at full-speed? If so, how???
    - jordanbeiber 7y ago
      Yeah, so at places in Sweden we have the most stupid buss stops. You have main road, then a curb followed by a bicycle lane followed by a buss stop with a pedestrian sidewalk behind it. If you want to get to the buss you need to cross the cycle-lane. If the cyclist is careless and speeding, and you maybe are not paying enough attention, bad stuff can and do happen.
sundvor 7y ago
Don't forget that Oslo all but banned cars in the CBD.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  That is probably an excellent thing to do if the aim is to end traffic deaths.
anovikov 7y ago
One has to keep in mind that Norwegians are excellent drivers. Requirements to get a driver license are ridiculously difficult there, exams are almost unpassable. Probably because of difficult climate and sometimes difficult terrain - thus icy roads etc - which makes driving dangerous. Impressive result, but i don't think it's reproducible much elsewhere.
- sk0g 7y ago
  Excellent drivers maybe, but slightly psychotic when it comes to twisty roads! I got overtaken over a blind corner in a 50 zone, by a car doing around 100... Had to quickly get off the road once when I realised an oncoming truck wasn't going to slow down or budge, one tyre slipped off the road (or rather there was a crack on the edge of the road, flicked my steering into the woods). Also experienced being in a Tesla driven by an otherwise calm girl, was both fearing for my life and excited the entire time haha. Would definitely do a road trip around Norway again, and stick to the more scenic routes again, however. So much fun, and so much beautiful scenery. Maybe the latter was what impeded my driving ability :)

josh2600 7y ago

A big part of why LA has so many pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities is because the mass transit system is awful and the sprawl. A ton of people in LA still just drive drunk because ridesharing and cabs are too expensive. Lots of people can’t afford to pay $30 to get home and would rather risk it. Note that the economically less fortunate districts of LA dominate the drunk driving fatalities by capita: https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-drunk-driving-los-angeles/ https://starpointinjurylaw.com/research/deadliest-cities-dru...

stevenicr 7y ago
I've wondered for years why we don't have more tow trucks on the road for this, and bars need to have X amount on retainer per Y seating capacity. It's not just the cost of the cab / uber, it's not having your car when you wake up, no good way to get it, and not being sure if the lot you left it in is going to have it impounded / booted or something. Still waiting for the uber/tow combo that guarantees your car arrives before you wake up, and in the exact condition it was in when they went to pick it up.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Quite the opposite, LA requires bars to have X amount of car parking for Y seating, which is insane, but there you go.
- Broken_Hippo 7y ago
  I am not sure we have enough tow trucks for this, and it seems unnecessary if the public transportation is robust enough. Even if you leave your car at the pub, it should be a minimal hassle to use public transportation the next day to get it back - or to simply use it in the first place. I do think we should disallow booting/towing for cars in those situations, so perhaps having a "safe" parking lot to keep one's car would be prudent.
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    The good thing is that the tow trucks wouldn't have to drive them all at 3am.. they could drive some at 3am some at 3:30am... most people don't need them until 7am or later - so you'd have 4 hours or more.. getting people to use public transportation - haha that's a whole 'nother podcast I'd like to do.. it's just not happening. The booting, and LAZ parking's new "barnacle" - it's just absurd, as are the prices they charge. Vars could start fixing the problem with tows - or the double drivers as another pointed out below, is popular in Japan.. or the cops could start pulling licenses for the places that are over serving.. or do the Salt Lake law where bars have to stop serving an hour before close / stay open an hour later than they stop serving.. I mean, something should be done. It's a true safety issue, and people are profiting by looking the other way every day in just about every city as far as I know.

lubujackson 7y ago

> Despite its efforts, San Francisco is facing headwinds. By October of this year, the city had counted 25 crash-induced fatalities, already higher than last year’s total. The most notable change in SF has been the delayed light cycle after pedestrian crosswalk comes on. There was a spike in deaths after that change and I understood why immediately - drivers were timing the light by watching the crosswalk countdown and/or the cross traffic's light cycle. Your light used to turn green just as the other direction's light turned red. When they suddenly changed all the light I noticed a fair number of cars jolt forward then stop, confused, until their light actually changes 4 seconds later. I'm not sure how this change results in deaths directly, but it definitely added to road rage out there. When the light does change and a car is turning, the expectations are different now. Pedestrians are in the middle of the street already and are less wary of cars jumping out because before there was a moment when everyone would figure out the situation before moving (ideally). Now people are mid-crosswalk and have no idea when the cars' light is going to change which leaves pedestrians more vulnerable. Another issue I imagine is cars that are making a legal right turn on a red light. The driver looks to see if they can go and have their head turned the exact opposite direction of the crosswalk and wouldn't be aware of when the crosswalk symbol changes. Meanwhile, pedestrians aren't expecting a car to suddenly turn into them 2 seconds after they step into the crosswalk and it is a recipe for disaster. I don't see how they can fix that now without banning all turns on red. There is also a particularly ugly intersection at Laguna and Geary where they instituted a delayed green when crossing over Geary. People were getting run over in the crosswalks because there is an extra long crosswalk on both sides and cars were turning from both directions with other cars getting backed up and unable to go around them. Because there isn't room for dedicated turn lanes, they have one side go then the other side go, but people lose their shit when they see the southbound cars coming at them for 15 seconds while their light is still red because all prior experience at other lights indicates they should also have a green light when other cars are going... I have seen multiple cars simply drive through that red light and one time 3 cars in a row just decided to go despite the red. They finally put up a sign that says "delayed green" which seems to be helping, but it is an imperfect solution and another counter-intuitive solution.

Joe-Z 7y ago
Just goes to show how many motorists drive around with a „the road is mine“-attitude. If that doesn‘t change and people have no actual interest in the well-being of their fellow humans (which exceeds their interest to be home 10 seconds earlier) you can tout 0-fatality plans all you want, they will never pan out.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

It sounds like this is really more, "What happens when a city says they're going to end traffic deaths, then completely half-asses it." It was super obvious when these cities committed to Vision Zero on hilariously overoptimistic timelines that they weren't taking it seriously at all. It was just a bullet point to signal that they cared, without having to do actual work or sacrifice any convenience for cars.

Joe-Z 7y ago
Well, to be fair, it's very very hard to take away any conveniences for cars because of the strong opposition by pro-car people. Just recently there was a proposition in Germany to enact an absolute speed limit on the Autobahn. The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit (in reality you only have that in some parts though), so you can imagine how well that went... It's one of the "drawbacks" of living in a democracy I guess: Revolutionary changes are basically impossible to implement, because the disadvantaged side also has a right to be heard.
- redprince 7y ago
  > The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit 30% of the Autobahn have a mandatory speed limit for varying reasons, mostly safety (high incidence of accidents for example). On 70% there is an advisory speed limit of 130kph. This means, it is inadvisable to exceed this speed even under the best of circumstances. Now in practice this has very little meaning. You may speed with impunity. Until there is an accident. Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit. This is even true, if the other party to the accident is completely at fault. The only exception would be, if it can be shown beyond a doubt that the accident would have happened at the recommended speed of 130kph as well. In practice this is next to impossible. There have been several attempts to change the advisory speed limit to a mandatory speed limit. Albeit the arguments aren't clearly on the side of the proponents. Regarding accidents, a statistic from the German autobahn ministry in 2018 stated that 71% of all deaths on the autobahn occur in places with no mandatory speed limit. Since 70% of the autobahn have no speed limit, one might wonder, what the expected result of a mandatory speed limit is expected to be. In addition 33.6% of all kilometers are driven on the autobahn while only 12% of all deaths occur on the autobahn. 60% of all traffic deaths do occur on rural roads which have speed limits throughout. Regarding climate change argument, the estimated reduction of total CO2 with a mandatory speed limit of 120kph would be 0.2% or even less if the mandatory speed limit were 130kph. A visit to the neighbors Austria and Switzerland (both have speed limits on the autobahn) would also destroy the expectation, that smaller cars would be bought, if there were a mandatory speed limit on the autobahn.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Double_a_92 7y ago

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

hannob 7y ago

At multiple points the article tries to argue that things are outside the cities control. But this often sounds more like a cheap excuse. From the text: "Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders." Some of those, ok. But well, you can't stop people from buying SUVs, but nobody says you have to give them free or cheap parking spaces in dense cities or make streets wider for them. You can't stop ride-hailing services, but you can police them to follow traffic rules. You can't control gas prices, but you can control parking fees (and police them). You can't change state-level safety-laws, but you can make sure the existing ones are followed.

Proven 7y ago

or, how to spend a crapload of taxpayer money on "its for the children" projects oh and let's not forget the read too may deaths problem in that bastion of cronyism and public sector socialism

segmondy 7y ago

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

sliken 7y ago

I live in a "bike friendly city", competing for the friendliest bike cities. Yet bikes seem like a distant after though. Things like putting "share the road" signs IN the bike lane during the day. Even worse at night they don't move them, but fold them down so they are near invisible (black cloth) even with a light. They re-engineered intersections with big cement islands to protect pedestrians... but force bikes into traffic right at the intersection. When they want to slow down a bike trail they put a "S" in it, then line it with large boulders... typically where there's no street lights.