5 ms·

Helsinki just went a full year without a single traffic death

192 points by mooreds 8mo ago

MoonWalk 8mo ago
Maybe they implemented the death penalty for texting while driving.
cyberax 8mo ago
Meanwhile, pedestrian deaths are up in all the large coastal US cities that went full-on with the "Zero Vision" policies. Seattle, Portland, SF enshittified their roads, limited the traffic speed, choked the streets with bike lanes, drank all the KoolAid. Yet the deaths _increased_.
- RandallBrown 8mo ago
  Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs. So now you have a road where the speed limit used to be 35, but is large and straight enough to comfortably go 45, with a speed limit of 25. That causes people to go wildly different speeds and (in my opinion) makes it a lot more dangerous.
  - quickthrowman 8mo ago
    > Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs. As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials. My city has been doing traffic calming projects where they redesign the road for the speed they want people to drive at and that has actually worked well. All lowering the speed limit does is make it easier for cops to harass poor people, it doesn’t actually change the way people drive.
    - kerkeslager 8mo ago
      > As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials. If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential. You're blaming the rule followers, when in fact it is the people with the patience of a toddler causing the speed differential. Driving is, in most cases, the only life-and-death activity you undertake during your day, and if you don't have the emotional capacity to handle not being where you want instantly, you don't have the emotional capacity to handle a machine that can kill other people.
      - quickthrowman 8mo ago
        > If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential. But, they don’t. So there is a speed differential. That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution. Redesigning the road so people instinctively drive slower does actually work. You take a four lane road, and change it to a two-lane road with left turn lanes, concrete medians that make the road appear narrower, concrete aprons that jut out into the road at crosswalks to make it appear even narrower, wider medians, and so on. The two major roads in my neighborhood have been redesigned this way and the results have been great, if a road is properly designed for a specific speed, you can actually get people to drive slower. It works on me, and I know the tricks. What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties, relying on unreliable humans to moderate their behavior, when you could prevent it by designing the road so that even speeders drive the speed limit or slightly over. I’ve seen redesigning roads actually work, you can be dismissive and pray that people will magically follow the rules, but that won’t make it so.
        kerkeslager 8mo ago
        > That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution. This is an adult conversation, please think before you type absurdities like this. If (A) there was enough enforcement to actually catch people that speed, and (B) the punishment was rehabilitative (you have to clean up the roadway you were endangering people's lives on and take a class to retest for your license) there would be far fewer speeders. > What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties No, actually, I'd love if we redesigned roads so people instinctively drive slower. I'm not arguing against that in any way. All my post was doing was insisting that if you're going to blame someone, you place blame where it belongs. You're blaming people doing what they should be doing instead of the people endangering everyone around them.
- gizmov21 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - cyberax 8mo ago
    Quick question: are you an urbanist? > "The city saw 25 traffic deaths in 2025, down from 43 in 2024" The number of traffic deaths in SF in 2016 before the main enshittification started: 30. Deaths in 2017: 20. Here's a chart for Seattle: https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ - it went from 6 fatalities in 2016 to 20 fatalities last year. Same for Portland, it went up from 13 to 22. Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous. The Zero Vision policies _at_ _best_ had no effect, and at worst resulted in additional deaths.
    - Supermancho 8mo ago
      > Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous. Focusing on the metrics you want to focus on, does not make the data unambiguous. eg This analysis has not accounted for cohort sizing. Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al.
      - cyberax 8mo ago
        The "Zero Vision" policy has zero pedestrian deaths as its goal. It's literally in its name. Why shouldn't I look at the metric it's supposed to improve? > Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al. So you're saying that we should sacrifice pedestrians so that people can bike?
  - hsyehbeidhh 8mo ago
    [dead]
- hn_user82179 8mo ago
  Where are your stats from? Pedestrian deaths across the US are at near all-time highs, but in contrast SF reports drops: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2026/pedestrian-fatalities-sf-california/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2026/pedestrian-fatalit...
  - cyberax 8mo ago
    Sigh. You people are like these climate change deniers who are saying that "the climate is cooling" because this year is slightly cooler than the previous one. Your own article has a chart with the number of deaths by year, and the noisy upward trend from 2016 is pretty clear. But I admit that I did not check the data for 2025 before I wrote my post. So my post can be amended to: "Increased or stayed the same". There is definitely no _decrease_ compared to the previous state.
    - hn_user82179 8mo ago
      Idk who "you people" is referring to. But the trends for the cities who have been spending moneys on these improvements are better than nationwide. Not to mention the article we're discussing (improvements in Helsinki) explicitly attribute the decrease in traffic deaths to the same kind of improvements Seattle/Portland/SF have been making.
      - cyberax 8mo ago
        Better how? On what metrics? Pedestrian deaths did not go down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 > Not to mention the article we're discussing (improvements in Helsinki) explicitly attribute the decrease in traffic deaths to the same kind of improvements Seattle/Portland/SF have been making. Let me repeat another poster here: "Correlation is not causation". Who's to say that Helsinki wouldn't have had zero deaths even without these changes?
  - busterarm 8mo ago
    Population in SF is also decreasing by large single digit numbers.
- bokchoi 8mo ago
  Pedestrian deaths in Seattle did rise last year, however there were zero bicycle related fatalities which is good.
  - w55 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - autoexec 8mo ago
    There was at least one bike death last year (https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/12/14/person-biking-on-beacon-hill-killed-driver-fled-the-scene/ https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/12/14/person-biking-on-...) at least one this year (https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/02/woman-hit-and-killed-crossing-e-pine-identified/ https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/02/woman-hit-and-kil...) but it looks like 2024 might have been a year with no bicycle related fatalities.
- randerson 8mo ago
  But there's practically zero enforcement and everyone knows it. You have the few law abiding people doing 25 while others are doing 50 while stoned and texting.. on the same road. Narrowing lanes creates new hazards because cars sold are only getting larger and can barely fit. There is too often no margin for error. There are no roadworthiness inspections in these states. Many people are driving on worn tires and suspensions. Most people don't even know what types of tires they have or what the tire pressures are. Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
  - kerkeslager 8mo ago
    > Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty. Retesting is vital, too. Every 10 years. And if you have something like 3 moving violations you should have to do some community service, and retake the test. I don't believe in fines on individuals: if the punishment for a crime is a fine, that law only applies to the poor. If you insist on endangering the lives of the people around you, then you get the same inconvenience as anyone else.
  - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
    It has nothing to do with enforcement and everything to do with roads being interconnected and naturally load balancing thanks to modern gps routing. You slow down a main through road it puts that traffic right onto residential roads that formerly weren't worth taking and so someone's kid who used to ride their bike in the street has to either stop or risk getting turned into paste. I live in a state with stringent roadworthiness inspections BTW.
- bitwize 8mo ago
  The general consensus on HN appears to be that that's because Americans are just shitty.
- tablarasa 8mo ago
  In California it seems a lot of cities decided to try and add bike infrastructure but the design process yielded many compromises, since that infrastructure comes at the expense of car (and parking) infrastructure. As a result we got really bad bike lanes, but gave up few parking spots. The design process declared victory via compromise- best of both worlds. In reality, the bike lanes are worthless and cyclists like myself just use the primary vehicle lanes, since not dying is more important than protecting the convenience and respecting the supremacy of other road users. Drivers honk and yell and deliberately endanger you, but that was true before too. The article talks about using design and engineering out of the problem. I do not believe that is what was done in the cities you cite, even if that was their headline intention.
- tialaramex 8mo ago
  We can certainly guess that person who thinks "Vision Zero" is actually "Zero Vision" isn't great on details.
  - cyberax 8mo ago
    So I provided them in another post ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 ). Does that change anything in your attitude towards the Zero Vision policies? The data shows that these policies have comprehensively failed in Seattle, SF, and Portland. They did not result in a decrease in deaths through the use of traffic engineering. There are likely multiple reasons why that happened, but that's beside the point here and should be a subject of at least several PhD theses. Yet these policies measurably worsened the average quality of life by increasing congestion, and lengthening the average commutes. So given these data, what should be done next?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
RandallBrown 8mo ago
I can't say I'd be excited about 19 mph speed limits enforced by cameras, but I don't doubt it would work. I'd love for my city to just focus on making other forms of transportation more appealing. More bus lanes, more (properly designed) bike lanes, etc.
- maest 8mo ago
  Why do you need to go faster in a city center?
  - RandallBrown 8mo ago
    You probably don't need to go faster in the city center, but you need to get to the city center somehow.
    - jacquesm 8mo ago
      You don't need more speed, you need better planning.
      - RandallBrown 8mo ago
        Agreed. That's what I put in my original post.
    - maest 8mo ago
      The limit is active in city centre and residential areas only.
- tfyoung 8mo ago
  You know what makes bike lanes more appealing and safer (amongst other things)? Not being next to speeding cars.
- seizethecheese 8mo ago
  I’ll point out the obvious that this is entirely based on perspective. An individual whose dominant mode of transportation is not driving would probably disagree.
suzdude 8mo ago
It is sad how little U.S. voters seem to care about anyone but themselves. Near everything the Finns are dong could be done in here, but too many voices would complain about the cost, the paternalism, or how they might be slightly inconvenienced. Those seem like harder challenges then the changes themselves.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  Greed is good! Anything that's not greed is socialism and we can't have that now, can we.
  - tombert 8mo ago
    I find it amusing that people will quote the "Greed is Good" speech by Gordon Gecko, and they will do it unironically, I guess forgetting that he's the villain in that movie. You're not supposed to agree with him.
    - busterarm 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tombert 8mo ago
        I'd argue that the way that socialist Russia turned out was very specifically because of very greedy people, so not negating my point. Stalin basically appointed himself kings while using anti-king rhetoric to take down the Romanovs.
        busterarm 8mo ago
        Except it's not just Russia...
        tombert 8mo ago
        My point still stands. I think a lot of the awfulness that has come out of the implementations of socialism has come from greed. North Korea’s awfulness came because Kim Il Sung decided to appoint himself as king right after their revolution. Cuba’s awfulness came because Castro decided to appoint himself as king right after their revolution. I could keep going, but my point is, and call their surrounding system whatever you want, these things are still a consequence of immense greed. ETA: You keep trying to turn what I said into some anti-socialist thing, which seems to imply that you think I am a socialist. I am not. I think that a lot of the biggest issues with socialism come from greed. Greed is not good. Greed is bad. It’s bad when it’s in a capitalist context, it’s bad when it’s in a socialist context. It’s bad in every context. You can keep going on about how horrible you think socialism is if you want but that’s orthogonal to what I was saying.
philip1209 8mo ago
Oslo has been doing this for years. I wrote a blog post about my learnings there - "Engineering over enforcement": > Enforcement philosophy is rooted in the idea that behavior can be controlled by threatening punishments. Engineering philosophy believes that infrastructure can be designed to incentivize desired behavior. When Oslo sought to reduce pedestrian deaths, it turned to engineers. > [ . . .] Intersections are one small example where philosophies can diverge. But, as I learned in Oslo, engineers have a whole toolkit of methods to make cities safer. Bumping out a curb slows down turning speeds and protects pedestrians. Bike lanes can be safer by being raised above the street instead of relying on a painted barrier. Limiting how far cars can see ahead of them slows them down. Behavior can be designed rather than just enforced, and in aggregate these small changes can make a city safer. https://www.contraption.co/engineering-over-enforcement/ https://www.contraption.co/engineering-over-enforcement/
- mooreds 8mo ago
  AKA "make the right things easy" and "build sensible defaults" rather than "all the responsibility is the individuals".
  - philip1209 8mo ago
    there's a reason speedbumps are called "silent policemen"
    - Scoundreller 8mo ago
      I call them SUV/pickup truck sellers or reasonably-sized-vehicle killers. Alternatively, greenhouse-gas bumps. Dunno which genius in my town put them on a road riddled with potholes, poorly filled road cuts and marsh-related unevenness.
      - philip1209 8mo ago
        We should return to the original double-humped design from Compton: https://libanswers.wustl.edu/faq/76174?ref=contraption.co https://libanswers.wustl.edu/faq/76174?ref=contraption.co
mianos 8mo ago
Masses of speed cameras and a 30kph speed limit. We have this here in Sydney, but it's mixed 30/40/50 between every intersection and most of the major intersections have red light cameras as well as speed cameras. It's godammned utterly horrible to drive in. Most people I know, who when they were young never got a ticket, have now a few fines. If you try and drive somewhere unfamiliar here you are pretty much guaranteed to get some sort of ticket as half the roads are one way, and you can't turn into the other half for random reasons. Oh, most left hand red arrows in the city, start red when the main light goes green, and they have cameras on them too. You can literally see the camera lights flashing non stop when you walk along. Add to this, zero rules for pedestrians, no one waits for the lights if they can see a break in the traffic.
puskavi 8mo ago
whole city has been made incredibly painful to drive your own car, so no wonder. still not worth it, as public transport can only get you so far
- tstrimple 8mo ago
  “These saved human lives aren’t worth my inconvenience.” What the actual fuck is wrong with you?
- piva00 8mo ago
  You can drive a car until public transit isn't an issue and change modes there. Removing cars from city centres should be the bare minimum for a more livable city, and in decently planned cities the area where cars are inconvenient to drive intersects exactly where public transit is good.
jacquesm 8mo ago
The Helsinki bike infrastructure is even better than the Dutch one, if you spend time there, get a bike!
gnfargbl 8mo ago
On the other side of the coin, a wide-scale introduction of 20mph speed limits in Wales has been generally unpopular. This is despite a relatively small (but real) reduction in casualty figures that came with the change. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93jvpjwdezo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93jvpjwdezo
- enaaem 8mo ago
  Amsterdam also reduced many roads from 50 to 30 kmph. Accidents have reduced by 11% and travel time has only increased 1-5%. That is less than one minute on a 20 minute trip. https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/124453/onderzoeksrapport-30-km-u-in-de-stad https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/124453/onderzoeksrapp...
  - wileydragonfly 8mo ago
    A 40% reduction in speed only causes a 5% increase in travel time? Are the majority of car trips spent sitting at stop lights??
    - owenversteeg 8mo ago
      I haven’t looked into this specific case, but most of the time the limiting factor is other traffic. You’re not traveling at full speed the whole time. If a lower speed adds 10 minutes to the average trip, but it reduces 9 minutes’ worth of traffic, you’ve only lost net one minute. A lower speed limit will often reduce traffic because the speed-up-slow-down behavior is reduced. Personally, I have driven around the Netherlands a fair bit and this sort of thing does seem to be roughly true for the median case. It can definitely be annoying when the streets are empty, though. For those journeys you’re obviously losing a fair bit of time.
      - wink 8mo ago
        It's never that easy to calculate. I have a long stretch of road near me that used to be 50 km/h and is now 30 km/h. If you take that road during rush hour, yes - there's no meaningful difference in time spent. You'd be going traffic light to traffic light slightly faster. The problem is that I personally use that road (in a car) more to pick up/drive my wife from and to early and late shifts at work than during rush hour, and this makes it take a significantly longer time. Like, I am not complaining at all, but it takes something like 20 minutes instead of 15, so like a 33% increase. And then again on the way back. But in the end being lucky with the traffic lights is still the main point.
fnord77 8mo ago
funny the "vision zero" attempts in SF have actually caused traffic deaths to go up
rhet0rica 8mo ago
I am reminded of a certain Mitchell and Webb skit that suggests the absence of deaths by drowning in a county indicates perhaps too much public funding has gone into preventing them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU
- owenversteeg 8mo ago
  Of course, in that sketch, David is right!
SilverElfin 8mo ago
These data free claims don’t ever honestly talk about how they simply made driving so inefficient and bad on purpose so that the other, slower modes, don’t look as bad. Increasing travel times and inconvenience isn’t a win and safetyism is irrational. If you can’t make fast driving safer you haven’t achieved anything really. And as for vision zero - you’ll never get perfect safety and it isn’t worth the tradeoffs.
- loloquwowndueo 8mo ago
  Never takes long for the car-centric “anything that inconveniences my driving sucks” point of view to appear.
- paulryanrogers 8mo ago
  > Increasing travel times and inconvenience isn’t a win and safetyism is irrational. By very narrow definitions of win. Perhaps more time in transit is worth fewer deaths and less pollution. (I rode a bike daily and year round in northern Ohio for 8y.) > If you can’t make fast driving safer you haven’t achieved anything really. By what measure of achievement? Zero traffic deaths in a heavily populated city is quite an accomplishment IMO. But I'm not a racecar driver so maybe I'm unqualified to judge.
- enaaem 8mo ago
  Can you tell us about your experience driving in Helsinki?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- kerkeslager 8mo ago
  And speediots' data free claims don't ever honestly talk about how they're totally okay with letting thousands of people die every year so they can save a few seconds that they're just going to waste posting their self-centered opinions to Hacker News. There's no ethical justification for speeding--you're just okay with being unethical if it allows you to not have to learn patience.
- 8mo ago
tl2do 8mo ago
Contrast with Japan, my country, where bike accidents have risen 3 years straight and now make up 20%+ of all traffic incidents. Japan's response: heavier fines. Helsinki's: redesign the system. Big difference in philosophy.
- cyberrock 8mo ago
  I'm not sure where I saw it but I think I read that most recent increases in Japanese bicycle accidents are from bicycles turning right. It seems like the push to make bicycles use the road more (to reduce pedestrian vs bicycle accidents, which are still rising) had the unintentional consequence of making cyclists more likely to perform right turns like cars and motorcycles. However the road law actually requires bicycles to do two-stage turns, which they were more likely to do when they were riding on the sidewalk, and what cyclists in Amsterdam and Copenhagen recommend doing. So, I mean, sure, more cycling paths would improve the situation by making cyclists perform 2 stage turns, but there's nothing really stopping us from doing it now.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 8mo ago
Not yet discussed is that European countries have standards mandating lower hoods that are not as hazardous to pedestrians in a collision. Getting hit by a pickup or high profile SUV is much more likely to kill you than a compact. Adding bull bars to the front virtually guarantees a fatal head injury to a child.
dang 8mo ago
Related. Others? Helsinki records zero traffic deaths for full year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736025 - July 2025 (652 comments)
owenversteeg 8mo ago
This is certainly a good thing, but for all the Americans self-flagellating in the comments, it is mostly because Helsinki is wealthy, tiny (600k people), and doesn’t drive that much - mostly because of its high population density. Compare it to wealthy US states and you’ll see similar numbers: Mass has 4 deaths per billion km, RI/MN/NH have 5, Switzerland/Sweden has 3, Germany has 4, Finland has 5, France has 6. If you compare instead per 100k people, ignoring distance driven, that’s 6 in RI/NY/MA, 2 in Sweden, 3 in Finland, 5 in France - and 3 in NYC.
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  All of the people who self flagellate on these topics know that the wealthy urban Northeast has similar stats to Europe on any given issue. They're self flagellating because they can't just come out and say what "those people off in Iowa, yeah, well F them" or something along those lines.
  - chneu 8mo ago
    I'm American and I find the way Americans misuse words, or completely misrepresent a concept, so we don't have to accept our failings to be really short sighted. Americans lie to ourselves constantly to perpetuate our mistakes. We twist the meaning of words so we don't have to admit how selfish/shitty we can be. You're right. Most Americans won't come out and say what they mean, so they'll dance around it. That's how so many racist Americans can say they aren't racist.
khelavastr 8mo ago
Limiting drunk driving is huge
Markoff 8mo ago
Helsinki has population 690K as they mention in the article, while Berlin with 5 deaths 3.7M and also many people commuting, so it's not really that big of an achievement. Also the article is missing their definition of traffic death, here in Prague is basically impossible, even if cars killed nobody people jump in front of the trams and buses (let alone suicides in subway thanks to no platform doors) and limiting trams and everyone to like 20-30kmph would make transportation even worse than it is. Plus all European countries define traffic death differently, if car will hit you and you won't die immediately you won't be counted as traffic death if you die after 2, 4 weeks or more depending on country, so I would question all these stats since I find it hard to imagine there can be zero traffic deaths in 700K city. EDIT: Gemini says: "In Norway, a road traffic death is defined as any person killed immediately or dying within 30 days of a road traffic accident, including drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians." So if you will be in coma for a while and die after one month you are not traffic death anymore. Though it seems France, Germany, Czechia and maybe US ("While NHTSA uses a 30-day cutoff for "traffic fatalities", the National Safety Council (NSC) uses a 1-year cutoff for "motor-vehicle-related deaths," which can lead to higher, more comprehensive total fatality numbers.") uses same definition.
angiolillo 8mo ago
For many years I commuted by bike in a city that prioritized driving convenience, speed, and free parking over safety and sense of place. I tried convince my neighbors that we ought to make different tradeoffs to improve safety and I volunteered at and financially supported various transportation safety groups. Ultimately I gave up and moved to a place that was a better fit and my only regret is not doing so sooner. I still believe that it's possible for any city to eliminate traffic deaths, but I no longer believe that this obligates every city to make the tradeoffs this requires. It reminds me of the Paul Graham essay [1] about the benefits of surrounding yourself with people who care about the things you care about: > It's not so much that you do whatever a city expects of you, but that you get discouraged when no one around you cares about the same things you do. [1] https://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html https://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html
- hn_user82179 8mo ago
  Very curious what city you moved to if you don't mind sharing! I live in a small city that in its downtown proper has good bike infrastructure but everywhere else it is terrible and the broader area is very anti-cyclist unfortunately.
  - angiolillo 8mo ago
    My situation was similar. I lived in a small city that trumpeted their aspirational walking and biking infrastructure but did nothing to change a driving culture and police force that were actively and physically hostile to anyone on foot or bike. We initially moved to Arlington, MA. The Minuteman Bikeway runs right through the center of town and it's packed with commuters in the morning heading into Cambridge or Boston. It's also adjacent to Cambridge and Somerville where more than one in ten commutes are by bike, and fewer than half are by car.[1] We eventually ended up moving slightly further out and sacrificing some walkability/bikeability for lower housing costs. But the bike racks at our schools are well-used even in the winter and I'm never the only cyclist on the road. There's also a growing network of rail trails like the Bruce Freeman and the Mass Central that are bringing out a lot more recreational cyclists. And contrary to their reputation, I've found Massachusetts drivers basically respectful of other road users, at least insofar as they generally give a wide berth and I've never had a MA driver throw something at me or do a punishment pass. If you're curious about moving to a bike-friendly town in MA more generally, see https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-bikeable-cities-in-massachusetts/ https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-bikeable-cities-in-massachu... and peopleforbikes.org ratings. [1] In 2024 Cambridge had ~11% bike commute mode share https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/PTDM/2024tdmprogramreportfinal.pdf https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation... and in 2021 Somerville had ~15% bike commute mode share https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema-live/s3fs-public/HSH_599%20Somerville%20Ave%20TIS%20FINAL_20211029.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema-live/s3fs-public/HSH_5...

192 points by mooreds 8mo ago

Maybe they implemented the death penalty for texting while driving.

Meanwhile, pedestrian deaths are up in all the large coastal US cities that went full-on with the "Zero Vision" policies. Seattle, Portland, SF enshittified their roads, limited the traffic speed, choked the streets with bike lanes, drank all the KoolAid. Yet the deaths _increased_.

RandallBrown 8mo ago
Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs. So now you have a road where the speed limit used to be 35, but is large and straight enough to comfortably go 45, with a speed limit of 25. That causes people to go wildly different speeds and (in my opinion) makes it a lot more dangerous.
- quickthrowman 8mo ago
  > Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs. As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials. My city has been doing traffic calming projects where they redesign the road for the speed they want people to drive at and that has actually worked well. All lowering the speed limit does is make it easier for cops to harass poor people, it doesn’t actually change the way people drive.
  - kerkeslager 8mo ago
    > As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials. If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential. You're blaming the rule followers, when in fact it is the people with the patience of a toddler causing the speed differential. Driving is, in most cases, the only life-and-death activity you undertake during your day, and if you don't have the emotional capacity to handle not being where you want instantly, you don't have the emotional capacity to handle a machine that can kill other people.
    - quickthrowman 8mo ago
      > If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential. But, they don’t. So there is a speed differential. That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution. Redesigning the road so people instinctively drive slower does actually work. You take a four lane road, and change it to a two-lane road with left turn lanes, concrete medians that make the road appear narrower, concrete aprons that jut out into the road at crosswalks to make it appear even narrower, wider medians, and so on. The two major roads in my neighborhood have been redesigned this way and the results have been great, if a road is properly designed for a specific speed, you can actually get people to drive slower. It works on me, and I know the tricks. What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties, relying on unreliable humans to moderate their behavior, when you could prevent it by designing the road so that even speeders drive the speed limit or slightly over. I’ve seen redesigning roads actually work, you can be dismissive and pray that people will magically follow the rules, but that won’t make it so.
      - kerkeslager 8mo ago
        > That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution. This is an adult conversation, please think before you type absurdities like this. If (A) there was enough enforcement to actually catch people that speed, and (B) the punishment was rehabilitative (you have to clean up the roadway you were endangering people's lives on and take a class to retest for your license) there would be far fewer speeders. > What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties No, actually, I'd love if we redesigned roads so people instinctively drive slower. I'm not arguing against that in any way. All my post was doing was insisting that if you're going to blame someone, you place blame where it belongs. You're blaming people doing what they should be doing instead of the people endangering everyone around them.
gizmov21 8mo ago
[flagged]
- cyberax 8mo ago
  Quick question: are you an urbanist? > "The city saw 25 traffic deaths in 2025, down from 43 in 2024" The number of traffic deaths in SF in 2016 before the main enshittification started: 30. Deaths in 2017: 20. Here's a chart for Seattle: https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ - it went from 6 fatalities in 2016 to 20 fatalities last year. Same for Portland, it went up from 13 to 22. Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous. The Zero Vision policies _at_ _best_ had no effect, and at worst resulted in additional deaths.
  - Supermancho 8mo ago
    > Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous. Focusing on the metrics you want to focus on, does not make the data unambiguous. eg This analysis has not accounted for cohort sizing. Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al.
    - cyberax 8mo ago
      The "Zero Vision" policy has zero pedestrian deaths as its goal. It's literally in its name. Why shouldn't I look at the metric it's supposed to improve? > Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al. So you're saying that we should sacrifice pedestrians so that people can bike?
- hsyehbeidhh 8mo ago
  [dead]
hn_user82179 8mo ago
Where are your stats from? Pedestrian deaths across the US are at near all-time highs, but in contrast SF reports drops: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2026/pedestrian-fatalities-sf-california/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2026/pedestrian-fatalit...
- cyberax 8mo ago
  Sigh. You people are like these climate change deniers who are saying that "the climate is cooling" because this year is slightly cooler than the previous one. Your own article has a chart with the number of deaths by year, and the noisy upward trend from 2016 is pretty clear. But I admit that I did not check the data for 2025 before I wrote my post. So my post can be amended to: "Increased or stayed the same". There is definitely no _decrease_ compared to the previous state.
  - hn_user82179 8mo ago
    Idk who "you people" is referring to. But the trends for the cities who have been spending moneys on these improvements are better than nationwide. Not to mention the article we're discussing (improvements in Helsinki) explicitly attribute the decrease in traffic deaths to the same kind of improvements Seattle/Portland/SF have been making.
    - cyberax 8mo ago
      Better how? On what metrics? Pedestrian deaths did not go down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 > Not to mention the article we're discussing (improvements in Helsinki) explicitly attribute the decrease in traffic deaths to the same kind of improvements Seattle/Portland/SF have been making. Let me repeat another poster here: "Correlation is not causation". Who's to say that Helsinki wouldn't have had zero deaths even without these changes?
- busterarm 8mo ago
  Population in SF is also decreasing by large single digit numbers.
bokchoi 8mo ago
Pedestrian deaths in Seattle did rise last year, however there were zero bicycle related fatalities which is good.
- w55 8mo ago
  [dead]
- autoexec 8mo ago
  There was at least one bike death last year (https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/12/14/person-biking-on-beacon-hill-killed-driver-fled-the-scene/ https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/12/14/person-biking-on-...) at least one this year (https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/02/woman-hit-and-killed-crossing-e-pine-identified/ https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/02/woman-hit-and-kil...) but it looks like 2024 might have been a year with no bicycle related fatalities.
randerson 8mo ago
But there's practically zero enforcement and everyone knows it. You have the few law abiding people doing 25 while others are doing 50 while stoned and texting.. on the same road. Narrowing lanes creates new hazards because cars sold are only getting larger and can barely fit. There is too often no margin for error. There are no roadworthiness inspections in these states. Many people are driving on worn tires and suspensions. Most people don't even know what types of tires they have or what the tire pressures are. Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
- kerkeslager 8mo ago
  > Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty. Retesting is vital, too. Every 10 years. And if you have something like 3 moving violations you should have to do some community service, and retake the test. I don't believe in fines on individuals: if the punishment for a crime is a fine, that law only applies to the poor. If you insist on endangering the lives of the people around you, then you get the same inconvenience as anyone else.
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  It has nothing to do with enforcement and everything to do with roads being interconnected and naturally load balancing thanks to modern gps routing. You slow down a main through road it puts that traffic right onto residential roads that formerly weren't worth taking and so someone's kid who used to ride their bike in the street has to either stop or risk getting turned into paste. I live in a state with stringent roadworthiness inspections BTW.
bitwize 8mo ago
The general consensus on HN appears to be that that's because Americans are just shitty.
tablarasa 8mo ago
In California it seems a lot of cities decided to try and add bike infrastructure but the design process yielded many compromises, since that infrastructure comes at the expense of car (and parking) infrastructure. As a result we got really bad bike lanes, but gave up few parking spots. The design process declared victory via compromise- best of both worlds. In reality, the bike lanes are worthless and cyclists like myself just use the primary vehicle lanes, since not dying is more important than protecting the convenience and respecting the supremacy of other road users. Drivers honk and yell and deliberately endanger you, but that was true before too. The article talks about using design and engineering out of the problem. I do not believe that is what was done in the cities you cite, even if that was their headline intention.
tialaramex 8mo ago
We can certainly guess that person who thinks "Vision Zero" is actually "Zero Vision" isn't great on details.
- cyberax 8mo ago
  So I provided them in another post ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242382 ). Does that change anything in your attitude towards the Zero Vision policies? The data shows that these policies have comprehensively failed in Seattle, SF, and Portland. They did not result in a decrease in deaths through the use of traffic engineering. There are likely multiple reasons why that happened, but that's beside the point here and should be a subject of at least several PhD theses. Yet these policies measurably worsened the average quality of life by increasing congestion, and lengthening the average commutes. So given these data, what should be done next?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

RandallBrown 8mo ago

I can't say I'd be excited about 19 mph speed limits enforced by cameras, but I don't doubt it would work. I'd love for my city to just focus on making other forms of transportation more appealing. More bus lanes, more (properly designed) bike lanes, etc.

maest 8mo ago
Why do you need to go faster in a city center?
- RandallBrown 8mo ago
  You probably don't need to go faster in the city center, but you need to get to the city center somehow.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    You don't need more speed, you need better planning.
    - RandallBrown 8mo ago
      Agreed. That's what I put in my original post.
  - maest 8mo ago
    The limit is active in city centre and residential areas only.
tfyoung 8mo ago
You know what makes bike lanes more appealing and safer (amongst other things)? Not being next to speeding cars.
seizethecheese 8mo ago
I’ll point out the obvious that this is entirely based on perspective. An individual whose dominant mode of transportation is not driving would probably disagree.

suzdude 8mo ago

It is sad how little U.S. voters seem to care about anyone but themselves. Near everything the Finns are dong could be done in here, but too many voices would complain about the cost, the paternalism, or how they might be slightly inconvenienced. Those seem like harder challenges then the changes themselves.

pixl97 8mo ago
Greed is good! Anything that's not greed is socialism and we can't have that now, can we.
- tombert 8mo ago
  I find it amusing that people will quote the "Greed is Good" speech by Gordon Gecko, and they will do it unironically, I guess forgetting that he's the villain in that movie. You're not supposed to agree with him.
  - busterarm 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tombert 8mo ago
      I'd argue that the way that socialist Russia turned out was very specifically because of very greedy people, so not negating my point. Stalin basically appointed himself kings while using anti-king rhetoric to take down the Romanovs.
      - busterarm 8mo ago
        Except it's not just Russia...
        tombert 8mo ago
        My point still stands. I think a lot of the awfulness that has come out of the implementations of socialism has come from greed. North Korea’s awfulness came because Kim Il Sung decided to appoint himself as king right after their revolution. Cuba’s awfulness came because Castro decided to appoint himself as king right after their revolution. I could keep going, but my point is, and call their surrounding system whatever you want, these things are still a consequence of immense greed. ETA: You keep trying to turn what I said into some anti-socialist thing, which seems to imply that you think I am a socialist. I am not. I think that a lot of the biggest issues with socialism come from greed. Greed is not good. Greed is bad. It’s bad when it’s in a capitalist context, it’s bad when it’s in a socialist context. It’s bad in every context. You can keep going on about how horrible you think socialism is if you want but that’s orthogonal to what I was saying.

philip1209 8mo ago

Oslo has been doing this for years. I wrote a blog post about my learnings there - "Engineering over enforcement": > Enforcement philosophy is rooted in the idea that behavior can be controlled by threatening punishments. Engineering philosophy believes that infrastructure can be designed to incentivize desired behavior. When Oslo sought to reduce pedestrian deaths, it turned to engineers. > [ . . .] Intersections are one small example where philosophies can diverge. But, as I learned in Oslo, engineers have a whole toolkit of methods to make cities safer. Bumping out a curb slows down turning speeds and protects pedestrians. Bike lanes can be safer by being raised above the street instead of relying on a painted barrier. Limiting how far cars can see ahead of them slows them down. Behavior can be designed rather than just enforced, and in aggregate these small changes can make a city safer. https://www.contraption.co/engineering-over-enforcement/ https://www.contraption.co/engineering-over-enforcement/

mooreds 8mo ago
AKA "make the right things easy" and "build sensible defaults" rather than "all the responsibility is the individuals".
- philip1209 8mo ago
  there's a reason speedbumps are called "silent policemen"
  - Scoundreller 8mo ago
    I call them SUV/pickup truck sellers or reasonably-sized-vehicle killers. Alternatively, greenhouse-gas bumps. Dunno which genius in my town put them on a road riddled with potholes, poorly filled road cuts and marsh-related unevenness.
    - philip1209 8mo ago
      We should return to the original double-humped design from Compton: https://libanswers.wustl.edu/faq/76174?ref=contraption.co https://libanswers.wustl.edu/faq/76174?ref=contraption.co

mianos 8mo ago

Masses of speed cameras and a 30kph speed limit. We have this here in Sydney, but it's mixed 30/40/50 between every intersection and most of the major intersections have red light cameras as well as speed cameras. It's godammned utterly horrible to drive in. Most people I know, who when they were young never got a ticket, have now a few fines. If you try and drive somewhere unfamiliar here you are pretty much guaranteed to get some sort of ticket as half the roads are one way, and you can't turn into the other half for random reasons. Oh, most left hand red arrows in the city, start red when the main light goes green, and they have cameras on them too. You can literally see the camera lights flashing non stop when you walk along. Add to this, zero rules for pedestrians, no one waits for the lights if they can see a break in the traffic.

puskavi 8mo ago

whole city has been made incredibly painful to drive your own car, so no wonder. still not worth it, as public transport can only get you so far

tstrimple 8mo ago
“These saved human lives aren’t worth my inconvenience.” What the actual fuck is wrong with you?
piva00 8mo ago
You can drive a car until public transit isn't an issue and change modes there. Removing cars from city centres should be the bare minimum for a more livable city, and in decently planned cities the area where cars are inconvenient to drive intersects exactly where public transit is good.

jacquesm 8mo ago

The Helsinki bike infrastructure is even better than the Dutch one, if you spend time there, get a bike!

gnfargbl 8mo ago

On the other side of the coin, a wide-scale introduction of 20mph speed limits in Wales has been generally unpopular. This is despite a relatively small (but real) reduction in casualty figures that came with the change. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93jvpjwdezo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93jvpjwdezo

enaaem 8mo ago
Amsterdam also reduced many roads from 50 to 30 kmph. Accidents have reduced by 11% and travel time has only increased 1-5%. That is less than one minute on a 20 minute trip. https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/124453/onderzoeksrapport-30-km-u-in-de-stad https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/124453/onderzoeksrapp...
- wileydragonfly 8mo ago
  A 40% reduction in speed only causes a 5% increase in travel time? Are the majority of car trips spent sitting at stop lights??
  - owenversteeg 8mo ago
    I haven’t looked into this specific case, but most of the time the limiting factor is other traffic. You’re not traveling at full speed the whole time. If a lower speed adds 10 minutes to the average trip, but it reduces 9 minutes’ worth of traffic, you’ve only lost net one minute. A lower speed limit will often reduce traffic because the speed-up-slow-down behavior is reduced. Personally, I have driven around the Netherlands a fair bit and this sort of thing does seem to be roughly true for the median case. It can definitely be annoying when the streets are empty, though. For those journeys you’re obviously losing a fair bit of time.
    - wink 8mo ago
      It's never that easy to calculate. I have a long stretch of road near me that used to be 50 km/h and is now 30 km/h. If you take that road during rush hour, yes - there's no meaningful difference in time spent. You'd be going traffic light to traffic light slightly faster. The problem is that I personally use that road (in a car) more to pick up/drive my wife from and to early and late shifts at work than during rush hour, and this makes it take a significantly longer time. Like, I am not complaining at all, but it takes something like 20 minutes instead of 15, so like a 33% increase. And then again on the way back. But in the end being lucky with the traffic lights is still the main point.

fnord77 8mo ago

funny the "vision zero" attempts in SF have actually caused traffic deaths to go up

rhet0rica 8mo ago

I am reminded of a certain Mitchell and Webb skit that suggests the absence of deaths by drowning in a county indicates perhaps too much public funding has gone into preventing them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU

owenversteeg 8mo ago
Of course, in that sketch, David is right!

SilverElfin 8mo ago

These data free claims don’t ever honestly talk about how they simply made driving so inefficient and bad on purpose so that the other, slower modes, don’t look as bad. Increasing travel times and inconvenience isn’t a win and safetyism is irrational. If you can’t make fast driving safer you haven’t achieved anything really. And as for vision zero - you’ll never get perfect safety and it isn’t worth the tradeoffs.

loloquwowndueo 8mo ago
Never takes long for the car-centric “anything that inconveniences my driving sucks” point of view to appear.
paulryanrogers 8mo ago
> Increasing travel times and inconvenience isn’t a win and safetyism is irrational. By very narrow definitions of win. Perhaps more time in transit is worth fewer deaths and less pollution. (I rode a bike daily and year round in northern Ohio for 8y.) > If you can’t make fast driving safer you haven’t achieved anything really. By what measure of achievement? Zero traffic deaths in a heavily populated city is quite an accomplishment IMO. But I'm not a racecar driver so maybe I'm unqualified to judge.
enaaem 8mo ago
Can you tell us about your experience driving in Helsinki?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
kerkeslager 8mo ago
And speediots' data free claims don't ever honestly talk about how they're totally okay with letting thousands of people die every year so they can save a few seconds that they're just going to waste posting their self-centered opinions to Hacker News. There's no ethical justification for speeding--you're just okay with being unethical if it allows you to not have to learn patience.
8mo ago

tl2do 8mo ago

Contrast with Japan, my country, where bike accidents have risen 3 years straight and now make up 20%+ of all traffic incidents. Japan's response: heavier fines. Helsinki's: redesign the system. Big difference in philosophy.

cyberrock 8mo ago
I'm not sure where I saw it but I think I read that most recent increases in Japanese bicycle accidents are from bicycles turning right. It seems like the push to make bicycles use the road more (to reduce pedestrian vs bicycle accidents, which are still rising) had the unintentional consequence of making cyclists more likely to perform right turns like cars and motorcycles. However the road law actually requires bicycles to do two-stage turns, which they were more likely to do when they were riding on the sidewalk, and what cyclists in Amsterdam and Copenhagen recommend doing. So, I mean, sure, more cycling paths would improve the situation by making cyclists perform 2 stage turns, but there's nothing really stopping us from doing it now.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 8mo ago

Not yet discussed is that European countries have standards mandating lower hoods that are not as hazardous to pedestrians in a collision. Getting hit by a pickup or high profile SUV is much more likely to kill you than a compact. Adding bull bars to the front virtually guarantees a fatal head injury to a child.

dang 8mo ago

Related. Others? Helsinki records zero traffic deaths for full year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736025 - July 2025 (652 comments)

owenversteeg 8mo ago

This is certainly a good thing, but for all the Americans self-flagellating in the comments, it is mostly because Helsinki is wealthy, tiny (600k people), and doesn’t drive that much - mostly because of its high population density. Compare it to wealthy US states and you’ll see similar numbers: Mass has 4 deaths per billion km, RI/MN/NH have 5, Switzerland/Sweden has 3, Germany has 4, Finland has 5, France has 6. If you compare instead per 100k people, ignoring distance driven, that’s 6 in RI/NY/MA, 2 in Sweden, 3 in Finland, 5 in France - and 3 in NYC.

cucumber3732842 8mo ago
All of the people who self flagellate on these topics know that the wealthy urban Northeast has similar stats to Europe on any given issue. They're self flagellating because they can't just come out and say what "those people off in Iowa, yeah, well F them" or something along those lines.
- chneu 8mo ago
  I'm American and I find the way Americans misuse words, or completely misrepresent a concept, so we don't have to accept our failings to be really short sighted. Americans lie to ourselves constantly to perpetuate our mistakes. We twist the meaning of words so we don't have to admit how selfish/shitty we can be. You're right. Most Americans won't come out and say what they mean, so they'll dance around it. That's how so many racist Americans can say they aren't racist.

khelavastr 8mo ago

Limiting drunk driving is huge

Markoff 8mo ago

Helsinki has population 690K as they mention in the article, while Berlin with 5 deaths 3.7M and also many people commuting, so it's not really that big of an achievement. Also the article is missing their definition of traffic death, here in Prague is basically impossible, even if cars killed nobody people jump in front of the trams and buses (let alone suicides in subway thanks to no platform doors) and limiting trams and everyone to like 20-30kmph would make transportation even worse than it is. Plus all European countries define traffic death differently, if car will hit you and you won't die immediately you won't be counted as traffic death if you die after 2, 4 weeks or more depending on country, so I would question all these stats since I find it hard to imagine there can be zero traffic deaths in 700K city. EDIT: Gemini says: "In Norway, a road traffic death is defined as any person killed immediately or dying within 30 days of a road traffic accident, including drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians." So if you will be in coma for a while and die after one month you are not traffic death anymore. Though it seems France, Germany, Czechia and maybe US ("While NHTSA uses a 30-day cutoff for "traffic fatalities", the National Safety Council (NSC) uses a 1-year cutoff for "motor-vehicle-related deaths," which can lead to higher, more comprehensive total fatality numbers.") uses same definition.

angiolillo 8mo ago

For many years I commuted by bike in a city that prioritized driving convenience, speed, and free parking over safety and sense of place. I tried convince my neighbors that we ought to make different tradeoffs to improve safety and I volunteered at and financially supported various transportation safety groups. Ultimately I gave up and moved to a place that was a better fit and my only regret is not doing so sooner. I still believe that it's possible for any city to eliminate traffic deaths, but I no longer believe that this obligates every city to make the tradeoffs this requires. It reminds me of the Paul Graham essay [1] about the benefits of surrounding yourself with people who care about the things you care about: > It's not so much that you do whatever a city expects of you, but that you get discouraged when no one around you cares about the same things you do. [1] https://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html https://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html

hn_user82179 8mo ago
Very curious what city you moved to if you don't mind sharing! I live in a small city that in its downtown proper has good bike infrastructure but everywhere else it is terrible and the broader area is very anti-cyclist unfortunately.
- angiolillo 8mo ago
  My situation was similar. I lived in a small city that trumpeted their aspirational walking and biking infrastructure but did nothing to change a driving culture and police force that were actively and physically hostile to anyone on foot or bike. We initially moved to Arlington, MA. The Minuteman Bikeway runs right through the center of town and it's packed with commuters in the morning heading into Cambridge or Boston. It's also adjacent to Cambridge and Somerville where more than one in ten commutes are by bike, and fewer than half are by car.[1] We eventually ended up moving slightly further out and sacrificing some walkability/bikeability for lower housing costs. But the bike racks at our schools are well-used even in the winter and I'm never the only cyclist on the road. There's also a growing network of rail trails like the Bruce Freeman and the Mass Central that are bringing out a lot more recreational cyclists. And contrary to their reputation, I've found Massachusetts drivers basically respectful of other road users, at least insofar as they generally give a wide berth and I've never had a MA driver throw something at me or do a punishment pass. If you're curious about moving to a bike-friendly town in MA more generally, see https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-bikeable-cities-in-massachusetts/ https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-bikeable-cities-in-massachu... and peopleforbikes.org ratings. [1] In 2024 Cambridge had ~11% bike commute mode share https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/PTDM/2024tdmprogramreportfinal.pdf https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation... and in 2021 Somerville had ~15% bike commute mode share https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema-live/s3fs-public/HSH_599%20Somerville%20Ave%20TIS%20FINAL_20211029.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema-live/s3fs-public/HSH_5...