4 ms·
Regarding "Vision Zero": I find it unrealistic, for the simple reason that you can't stop people from dying. I think Sweden must share the same way of counting
by ptaipale 12y ago
Regarding "Vision Zero": I find it unrealistic, for the simple reason that you can't stop people from dying. I think Sweden must share the same way of counting as my country (Finland) where the traffic death statistics include suicides and "natural" deaths.
We have around 250 road deaths per year in a country of 5 million, and about 50 of these are suicides.
This means that practically every week there's someone who kills him/herself by an intentional act in traffic. For instance, a couple of months back a mother killed herself and her three children by driving 100 km/h head-on at a bus where his husband was travelling. This was just an act of defiance, desperation and hate.
When suicides count for about one fifth of traffic deaths, it is not insignificant and leaves the number of traffic deaths well above zero. Also, natural deaths - people dying of a heart attack or a stroke while driving - account for a significant part of the statistics (somewhere around 10-15 %). They're counted as traffic deaths even in cases where no one else is hurt and even the vehicle is unscathed.
- akgerber 12y agoIt's a statement of engineering priorities, not an literal goal. This is in contrast to the United States, where only very recently has anything other than maximum automotive throughput been prioritized.
- spdustin 12y agoI wouldn't say that throughput is the priority. The typical speed limits on interstates were optimal for fuel efficiency. Convenience highways are revenue generating through the use of automatic toll collection, but in my experience, only have higher speed limits when they have more limited access (read: fewer exits/on-ramps).