4 ms·

Europe is absolutely concerned with safety... but actual safety. Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic f

by Pxtl 12y ago

Europe is absolutely concerned with safety... but actual safety. Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic fatalities down to zero. Compare vs. the USA where over 30,000 Americans die on the road every year. That's like if 9/11 happened 10 times per year, instead of once per century. My kids don't walk to school alone... and it's not because of my worries about paedophiles lurking around every corner, it's the very real risk that they could be hit by a car - the leading cause of death for their age-bracket.

mcphage 12y ago
> Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic fatalities down to zero. > Compare vs. the USA where over 30,000 Americans die on the road every year. That's a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. For starters, the US has over 320 million people—Netherlands has less than 20 million, and Sweden half of that. In addition, the US has a lot of heavily used, very long distance roads. It's a lot bigger than both countries, and so a lot more driving is required to get around. The number of driving deaths in the US is depressing, but trying to compare it to what's happening in countries a fraction of its size is not useful.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  It isn't more complicated. Just look at the numbers [1]. Sweden has between 2x and 3x less deadly road accidents, depending on whether you look at it per mile driven or per capita. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... edit: deadly
- dagw 12y ago
  So let's ignore the numbers for while and just look at the difference in attitude. The US implicitly accepts road deaths as a reasonable price to pay for keeping their car based society, Netherlands and Sweden have explicitly stated that no road deaths are acceptable and are willing to pay the price necessary to work towards that goal.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    Not only that, when I worked in LA people would joke about dead bicyclists. They knew I cycled to work. It was sickening.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  "In addition, the US has a lot of heavily used, very long distance roads. It's a lot bigger than both countries, and so a lot more driving is required to get around." Nobody's commuting from Wyoming to Oregon. This fallacy is often presented as a reason people here need to drive more, as though having a larger country obliged people to drive across it routinely. Besides that, the EU is pretty sizable too. People here drive so much because cities are HORRIBLY designed, so everything is spread out. Why is everything spread out? Because people drive so much that any new development is required to be primarily a giant parking lot with a building in the middle. But then everything is really spread out, so you have to drive even farther, meaning more cars on the road, meaning more road space is built, meaning things are even farther spread out, etc. etc. etc. Why is this? * Racist, classist suburbanites don't want "those people" taking the train to their neighborhood. Likewise, they abhor the thought of even being seen on the bus. * People think transit should pay for itself, nevermind the millions of untolled roads in the US (fuel taxes cover less than half the cost of construction/maintenance) * Design decisions made in the 30's-50's meant for convenience (zoning rules, parking minimums, Level-Of-Service dictated building rules) had horrible, horrible knock-on effects (people have to pay for parking spots they don't even need, it's illegal to build dense neighborhoods, and roads are widened to the terror and death of cyclists and pedestrians everywhere) How can it be fixed? * Get rid of parking minimums. Overpower the NIMBY's politically. Build transit. Raise fuel taxes. Change culture to respect walkers and cyclists.

by Pxtl 12y ago

mcphage 12y ago

> Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic fatalities down to zero. > Compare vs. the USA where over 30,000 Americans die on the road every year. That's a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. For starters, the US has over 320 million people—Netherlands has less than 20 million, and Sweden half of that. In addition, the US has a lot of heavily used, very long distance roads. It's a lot bigger than both countries, and so a lot more driving is required to get around. The number of driving deaths in the US is depressing, but trying to compare it to what's happening in countries a fraction of its size is not useful.

m_mueller 12y ago
It isn't more complicated. Just look at the numbers [1]. Sweden has between 2x and 3x less deadly road accidents, depending on whether you look at it per mile driven or per capita. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... edit: deadly
dagw 12y ago
So let's ignore the numbers for while and just look at the difference in attitude. The US implicitly accepts road deaths as a reasonable price to pay for keeping their car based society, Netherlands and Sweden have explicitly stated that no road deaths are acceptable and are willing to pay the price necessary to work towards that goal.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  Not only that, when I worked in LA people would joke about dead bicyclists. They knew I cycled to work. It was sickening.
CalRobert 12y ago
"In addition, the US has a lot of heavily used, very long distance roads. It's a lot bigger than both countries, and so a lot more driving is required to get around." Nobody's commuting from Wyoming to Oregon. This fallacy is often presented as a reason people here need to drive more, as though having a larger country obliged people to drive across it routinely. Besides that, the EU is pretty sizable too. People here drive so much because cities are HORRIBLY designed, so everything is spread out. Why is everything spread out? Because people drive so much that any new development is required to be primarily a giant parking lot with a building in the middle. But then everything is really spread out, so you have to drive even farther, meaning more cars on the road, meaning more road space is built, meaning things are even farther spread out, etc. etc. etc. Why is this? * Racist, classist suburbanites don't want "those people" taking the train to their neighborhood. Likewise, they abhor the thought of even being seen on the bus. * People think transit should pay for itself, nevermind the millions of untolled roads in the US (fuel taxes cover less than half the cost of construction/maintenance) * Design decisions made in the 30's-50's meant for convenience (zoning rules, parking minimums, Level-Of-Service dictated building rules) had horrible, horrible knock-on effects (people have to pay for parking spots they don't even need, it's illegal to build dense neighborhoods, and roads are widened to the terror and death of cyclists and pedestrians everywhere) How can it be fixed? * Get rid of parking minimums. Overpower the NIMBY's politically. Build transit. Raise fuel taxes. Change culture to respect walkers and cyclists.