>The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do ever

>The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on. Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour. If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds. Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking. On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.