Like most articles on this topic, this one also ignores the most basic question, which is whether a goal of 'zero deaths' is desirable. Any such goal must be co

Like most articles on this topic, this one also ignores the most basic question, which is whether a goal of 'zero deaths' is desirable. Any such goal must be considered against the tradeoffs. Life in general, is not safe. If someone desires perfect safety, they would need to shelter themselves aggressively, avoid people, avoid activities, and minimize risks from all angles as much as they can. This is of course, unrealistic and undesirable for most people. Everyone is assuming risks all the time for purposes they think are worth the risk. The Vision Zero goal of 'zero deaths' isn't a more virtuous balance between risk and reward than any other goal. Now onto the tradeoffs: Cars have many advantages over walking, cycling, and public transportation. If you avoid the tipping point of building too much density, cars are simply much more convenient and faster. You don't have to build your life around public transportation schedules. You don't need to wait for a bus or train to arrive. You don't need to plan walking time to/from the bus stop or train station into your schedule. You can avoid the harassment, filth, and hazards (like uncapped needles) that come with public transportation. Cycling has its own inconveniences from dealing with steep slopes, to arriving sweaty at your destination, to weather exposure, to rampant bike theft, and more. In terms of raw speed, cars are are simply much faster than either public transportation or cycling unless the city has purposely made driving significantly worse (with poor road design, by eliminating parking spaces or lanes, building too much density, setting artificially low speed limits, etc.). Another element that I often see ignored is what life is actually like in the pedestrian/cycling-heavy Northern European cities that are so often painted as utopias. As someone who has spent lots of time in these cities/countries, I have to disagree with the notion that quality of life is somehow better there. Self-reported happiness surveys are not good evidence. Life there felt boring to me. It feels like you have a playpen within which you can move around and live, but that's it. If you want to have full/productive days where you can visit friends, go out of town for a hike, do your shopping, shuttle kids to a game, and so forth - it's simply not possible. Any travel outside the playpen (city centers) is difficult and inconvenient, and you simply don't have time to go do things to the same extent you would in many US cities. In part due to transportation choices and city design, but also due to other things that add up to "culture", life there is distinctly less social and more introverted relative to American cities. This doesn't have to be your set of values and preferences, but I feel it's important to recognize why many of us value cities and countries that have great infrastructure for cars. Often times, I see comments that express incredulity that others may value these things and bemoaning the slow adoption of [their preferred modes of transportation]. The reality is that many of us simply value different things.