Yes, still pathetically small. The DOT spent $375 billion on roads in 2022. Most of it went towards making roads more dangerous by increasing traffic volumes and speeds.
Increasing throughput could result in a safety gain if density is reduced.
The thing is, none of this will address the real issue - drivers making bad decisions because they're ignorant. Education, testing, and consistent enforcement is how things get better.
The built environment can make a huge difference to how dangerous drivers are. Slip lanes that allow right-turns without slowing down could be eliminated, thus reducing or slowing many vehicle/pedestrian crashes. Right-turn-on-red could be eliminated. More speed bumps or other traffic calming measures, separated bike lanes, bike-priority streets - all these things can help to make pedestrians and cyclists less likely to be killed by drivers making bad decisions.
Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes. I would love to see more enforcement however.
I agree with the overall premise. However, some of it depends on location and specific factors. Right turn lanes could be less dangerous overall in areas with little to no pedestrians as distracted drivers would be more likely to rear-end a turning car. In a city with lots of traffic, that right turn lane might be more dangerous.
"Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes."
It very well could. Many of these mistakes are founded in ignorance. I see people doing things like passing on the right/shoulder and having no idea why that's dangerous. Or they have no idea what the vehicle dynamics are like for their car. Doing something like a skid pad or autocross (TireRack had a driver safety program associated with them) can really wake people up to their vehicles limitations. Things like following too closely on the road is generally not a true mistake, but a product of what is essentially negligence.
As long as safety for people is not prioritized over car speed, no amount of spending will make streets substantially more safe. Cars are the problem, they cause all the deaths.
The problem is simpler than your framing alludes. There are other modes of transit that are much safer with far fewer negative externalities than private cars, like walking, bike, bus, and rail. We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them. This spending for street safety is a step in the other direction, but by and large does very little to change the dominance of public spending on private cars in the US.
That political decision is due to a lack of support. Preferences have to change. One major factor standing in the way is the overwhelmingly poor service by most cities. So it's a bit of a catch-22 since service can't improve without money.
I'm not even going to bring up places like rural or lower density suburbs as the service there is almost non-existent.
I agree with everything you said in this comment, except for the lack of support. It's kind of a meme in online urbanist circles at this point that in the US you can pick either walkable or affordable. There's incredible demand for walkable places where you don't have to use a car, to the point where these places are not affordable for most people (I'm not saying all the demand for these dense places comes from walkability, but there is good research saying it's a strong factor). Your comment is also sort of based on the view that "whatever the (federal) government is doing is what the public ultimately demanded", which is clearly not true. Federal government agencies like USDOT act with a certain degree of autonomy, and their actions are very much open to public criticism as we are doing in this thread.
To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here. That is changing with more dense transit-oriented development happening across the country, but it will probably take decades for the needle to move significantly. And unfortunately the street safety measures that this money is going to are not going to help very much with this, which is sort of the point of the original comment.
These issues are all intertwined, but I don't understand the arguments in these comments that point out the problems are intertwined and stop there, as if that's a death knell for change (for example, political support for transit service is tied to the quality of that service). Yes, no one is denying they are intertwined, that is even why urbanists have started using terms like "car culture" that encapsulate the messy ball of issues. The more we discuss these issues, even online, the more consciousness arises in the public about how things can change; and things eventually do change. Hence the use of attention-grabbing call to action phrases like "cars are the problem" that started this thread, which provide an alternate framing.
I agree that the government isn't always following popular opinion. However, there is also a difference between idealistic opinion and reasonable opinion. People want better transit, but fewer people with to raise taxes for it, and fewer still can pock a tax they want to raise.
"To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here."
The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.
> We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them
Public transit can be fast and efficient if it is prioritized. That may require raising the federal tax on gasoline (last raised thirty years ago!!!) and directing that overdue increase to funding alternative transportation options.
One other possibly is due to the lower density in many areas.
For the higher density cities, cost is a major factor. I remember seeing a study or article comparing cost and time to build a subway in the US vs a European country. If I remember correctly, it tooks years longer and cost tens of millions more for a similar route even adjusted for local cost differences.
I would like additonal funding for many things. I would first like to explore efficient use of the money we do have in order to make it all more effective.
Yeah, I took public transportation for a while. It went from a 20 or so minute drive to about an 80 minute commute with 2 trains, a shuttle, and about a mile of walking.
They don't have all the utility. In fact, they're grossly overused for the utility they do provide.
There was a great article on here the other day about the evolution of pickup trucks, the user-survey statistics about how trucks are typically used was pretty eye opening. As was the size of the forward facing blindspot for your everyday stock F-150. Kids don't stand a chance.
Did they give any stats on the percentage of pedestrian accidents where visibility was a factor? It doesn't seem like it would be a major factor if the driver is paying attention to objects entering and leaving their blind spots, as well as the increasing use of cameras, collision detection, etc.
It seems the biggest factor is alcohol, which played a role in around 50% of pedestrian fatalities (not all on the part of the driver).
The ever growing size of trucks is in part because the government outlawed the more reasonable economical compact trucks, through an absolutely bone-headed combination of CAFE and the chicken tax and various regulation.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I'm hoping that is just a bad faith attempt at trolling. Because otherwise I'm speechless. Though it sure would explain a lot about how some folks on HN arrived at the conclusion they did.
And good luck not having your bikes get regularly stolen in places like SF or NYC. You better ride the most revolting beater you can find, and even then.
eh...decent hardware fits on an old steel frame. and while yes, it does suck to lose a bike...I still end up way way ahead of someone paying to park, fuel, and maintain a car. and I'm much more fit and enjoy my commute more.
Might want to check the deductible on your renters insurance. For me it'd be a total loss. Basically only worth it if someone drives up with a moving truck and just steals half the house or if someone gets hurt and sues me for medical bills.
This sounds right, but the actual statistics show that—for the average American—every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute.
Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.
The average American is biking for leisure. If they had to bike on their commute it totally changes and instead of a planned low-risk leisure route you're on the highway to hell in the thick of rush hour traffic. It's completely incomparable.
I bicycle commuted for years in an American city. It is as safe as your local council decides it should be, and my commute always felt safe. Don't give in to the belief that unsafe cycling is inevitable.
I biked for over a decade without incident for leisure.
Then I started bicycle commuting. Within one year I had not one but two occasions where I was knocked unconscious by angry rush hour drivers. I no longer could plan my destination but rather had to fight the entirety of traffic trying to get downtown at the same time at once. I still have trouble with one arm and the other time I believe I got a concussion after the driver destroyed my bike hitting me broadside and drove off.
I have about 3-4 years of biking as only transport including working as a full time professional bike messenger. I have never been hurt outside of rush hour. I have never been hurt on a planned leisure route. Only when I cannot pick the destination.
The hostility in my experience is like 10x dealing with angry to/from work rush-hour traffic headed to a dense job-rich area, especially with folks like soccer moms desperate to pick up their kiddy from daycare in time, etc.
Hard won wisdom, I am glad you made it through your injuries. I generally will only cycle in my area on weekdays around 09:30 to 13:30 or so in order to avoid any rush hour or high traffic times as much as possible. It makes a significant difference.
As you note and in my experience the school drop off / pick up times are the scariest as you near schools and arteries on the school destination paths. There are frequently backups and gridlock situations at these times, coupled with palpable driver anxiety and hurriedness, which just seems like a recipe to get killed or maimed as a cyclist
I mean, it's inevitable for a lot of Americans unless they're willing to devote a significant amount of resources and / or time to try and convince local politicians to spend a bunch of money and fix decades of misguided urban planning, while potentially trying to dodge pushback from local interests who think that changes to make biking safer and more convenient is a zero-sum situation that comes at the expense of others.
I would never bike commute where I live currently, and I don't think that will change any time soon despite it being a relatively left leaning urban area.
What does this have to do with my comment? I was replying to the statement that
> If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo
That said, I used a bicycle as my primary mode of transportation in the Atlanta, Decatur, and Northern suburban areas for several years. It wasn't really all that bad despite a near-total lack of cycling infrastructure (this was before the Beltline).
> every minute of cycling increases expected lifespan by at least one minute
I just found a hack, I'm going to spend 12 hours a day cycling and extend my lifespan by at least 50%. All joking aside, cycling as travel is a fantastic way to add physical activity into your daily life.
Just remember that this is a societal choice. Biking can be safe and efficient. In Vancouver BC they have prioritized modes of transportation other than driving, including creating a dense network of cycling paths and slow-streets.
There is a big difference between what is, and what must be. Improvements are possible, which is what the linked article is all about. These are baby steps, but if you want to bike more (and get healthier and live longer and live happier and pollute less) then demand more from your local politicians.
It's more of a choice by the elites which deprioritize the needs of the actual populace. Often they do this by mixing the zoning of cities with surrounding suburban areas who have deeply conflicting interests and lifestyles
Biking means you’re close to your destination. In most American cities, offices are downtown, where cost of living is extreme. I save thousands a month by commuting 20 minutes.
Until cities get affordable to live in, us “poor” will continue to exist in the reality that is now, and commute for two times the square footage, and a backyard, for less than a studio apartment.
I wouldn't feel safer if food, medical products, construction materials, and other materials for our wellbeing became less accessible due to the increased labor cost of transport associated with significantly lower speed limits, however.
The separarion of streets for people and roads for cars means better, faster car flow too. The problem America has is that it tries to smoosh cars and peds on the same roads, making them terrible for both. Instead of being able to do 40 on every road, think instead of doing 15 on some roads and 60 on others.
The amount of actual ped zones in America is pretty small anyway, think downtown shopping precints and stuff like that, so the majority of roads would still be car dominant.
North American goods actually make most of their way through water and rail but the "final mile" costs are much higher and therefore still significant. In places like Africa this effect is probably more magnified as rail system is far more limited and you must drive from the port.
It's prohibitively expensive, better would be to sacrifice some city corridors as pedestrian only. Cars don't need to be in the city centre on every street.
Most pedestrian friendly streets that do mix in cars actually do the opposite to grade separation, slow down the cars a lot and make it clear that they are in a pedestrian space by removing demarcation between cars and people,which changes behavior.
My city introduced car free streets, then they introduced mall cops to them and they effectively became unwelcoming commercial strip malls. America has an America problem, and the solution won't be simple.
Would you rather share a grade with slow cars or have actual physical barriers between you and fast cars? Exactly. Separating traffic of different types/speeds is paramount to safety. We've known this for going on 150yr.
> Sub-state municipal governments, MPOs, and tribes will be able to apply for grants to develop Vision Zero plans ... At least 40 percent.. $400 million of the up-front $1 billion.. would have to go for the planning grants to develop Vision Zero plans.
> First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe — and now it’s gaining momentum in major American cities ... Vision Zero focuses on preventing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This starts with understanding what and where the most problems are, then prioritizing resources to make systemic improvements. Data should be analyzed over at least five years to identify locations and types of serious crashes and to identify patterns. It is important to supplement police crash records, which can omit important information, with public health and equity data for a fuller picture.
> Speeding kills more than 10,000 people each year in the U.S. – on par with drunk driving – yet, the act of speeding does not carry the same social consequences as drunk driving. Vision Zero calls on communities to prioritize safe speeds through safe street design, automated speed enforcement (or safety cameras), and setting safe speed limits.
"Speeding kills more than 10,000 people each year in the U.S."
That's a little misleading. Excessive speed is a factor in about 30% of US traffic fatalities. That can have an overlap with other factors, like DUI, inattentive driving, or failure to yield. Speed itself is not the issue, as we see with lower fatality per mile on the autobahn, including areas without limits or with high limits. Speed mixed with bad decisions are the real problem. Driver education, testing, and consistent enforcement are really where the safety gains are.
"The way posted speed limits are set in the US is not based on safety."
That's an opinion. Any source to back that up? The limits are set based on safety and flow considerations, with safety taking precedent.
""Excessive speed" in the statistics is purely based on posted speed limit."
Not true. This can include going too fast for conditions, such as in snow. Or exceeding the recommended speed for a turn, even if you're going the posted speed limit.
Your interpretations seem very biased so far. I'd love to see your data/facts and not just opinion.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends a speed study, setting the posted speed limit to the nearest 5 mph mark of the 85th percentile of observed speed. Safety is not the primary design consideration when it comes to roads in the US.
> The way posted speed limits are set in the US is not based on safety.
You need to advocate for street redesign, then.
In California, most speed limits have a relation to the median speed that drivers drive on the roadway. If you want them to drive slower, you need to design the roads so that they drive slower.
Unfortunately, you will be fighting the local residents who don't want to spend extra time on every task because their local roads are so slow.
In my state, I've seen multiple roads reduce speeds. It's not solely based on median speed (per federal guidelines). The speed limits are based on multiple factors that can reduce the speed below the current median, such as on street parking and terrain. I would be very surprised if CA didn't account for other factors like these.
There are issues other than just speed, but it's not a matter of bad decisions, unless you mean bad planning decisions. The autobahn is a great example: it might be really fast, but how many pedestrians ever have to cross it? How many entrances and exists are you finding per mile? The autobahn is pretty safe, so the speeds can be high. In a similar fashion, pedestrian deaths are rare in US highways, because it's unlikely you are going to find a pedestrian in the highway.
But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US. They all have a pedestrian use case: People need to cross them. And yet, their lanes are as wide as highway lanes, are often at least 4, if not 8 lanes across, and so straight that, once you take away pedestrians and traffic, the design feels like an autobahn. They are often rated as 40mph streets, where people might do 50 or 60. A street like that will kill people if they try to cross, as many forms of failure lead to a 4000 pound vehicle going fast colliding the pedestrian, and that's often fatal. If there is a real pedestrian use case for the street, either the pedestrians need an easy way to just never step on the asphalt, or affordances that lower the risk need to be added in.
Again, basically every lethal mile of road in America has the same design characteristics and use cases, which aren't shared by safer roads. So it's not that no road can let you do 60mph: It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40, while pedestrians have to cross them. You might as well say that deaths in a very narrow bridge with spikes at the bottom is a matter of lack of education in funambulism.
"The autobahn is a great example: it might be really fast, but how many pedestrians ever have to cross it? How many entrances and exists are you finding per mile?"
Even compared to US interstates, which have similar attributes, the fatality rate is lower.
"But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US."
I haven't seen any with more than 4 lanes to cross. Even those have extensive traffic and pedestrian control signals. Do you have some examples?
"It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40"
I've crossed a few with similar speeds. I never felt unsafe though through the use of common sense and traffic/pedestrian controls. It seemed the safety was adequately designed. I'd like to see more info on the actual factors involved in pedestrian deaths. The one with the most attention seems to be alcoho, at about 50% prevalence.
So people pay taxes to the federal government, who then doles it back out to the cities and states to spend it, after taking a big cut for their own legions of bureaucrats.
If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.
Sure, except for the vast majority of spaces in the US that don't have a tax base that could support any sort of infrastructure network, but still provide vital goods for the country as a whole. The majority of US agricultural output would fall under this category, for one example.
Three quarters of highway and road spending is done by state and local government [0]. I'd be interested in seeing if rural spending has a higher ratio of federal spending than urban spending, but unless data is provided I will doubt your claim.
It seems most people -- including you -- do not know they need safer roads, inspite of all evidences. It is extremely dangerous to bike anywhere in most cities of the US, and this is just an example.
> If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.
Your state rep can listen all they want but they won't have the means.
Because after fed taxes the states are left with a stone they can't squeeze blood from or at least not without pissing people off.
Secondly, there's a tradeoff here. If you take something out of the purview of the feds so that your state can do it "right" you lose the ability to force Alabama or West Virginia or whatever to do it your way.
> $10.4 million to address roadway departure crashes along approximately 50 miles of roadway through shoulder widening, rumble strips and other low-cost treatments.
They including a road widening as 'street safety'. Very generous interpretation of the term.
Adding more shoulder space induces higher speeds, unless you also add obstructions in the widened shoulder.
If it feels like your car is not squeezed, the natural inclination is to drive faster. You need to resist that inclination to stay within the speed limit. Basically, increasing the perceived width of the lane you’re in increases speed, and speed of crash is one of the core determinants of crash fatality.
The stated goal of the improvement is not to reduce speeds, but to reduce roadway departures. I would wager wider shoulders can do that even in the face of marginally higher speeds.
And your assumption that higher speeds are unsafe is unfounded- unless you want to eliminate cars altogether (“there is no safe sex/speed”), a given roadway has a generally safe speed and typically this would be calculated and considered in the widening of the shoulders
I've alluded to this before on Hacker News, but the supposedly residential road that I live on is wide enough to fit approximately 7 full-size Hummer H1s side by side. The posted speed limit is 30 mph, and just riding with my elderly father-in-law today I noticed he was going 45 mph and being tailgated. I have personally lost a (thankfully parked and unoccupied) car to a collision, which wound up 100 ft down the road from where we left it. Many garbage cans have also fallen victim over the years.
Calculations and considerations are all well and good, but when the rubber hits the road, wide straight roads will lead people to reason that it's fine to drive fast. I'd much, much rather have people think it's a pain to take my road because it's too skinny than to have 50-60 mph traffic accidentally kill my son or my neighbors when they choose to go outside.
They're all like that here… Phoenix is used as a case study in urban planning failure. The point isn't that it can or cannot be fixed (it's been decades; I'm not holding my breath), the point is that wider roads do not lead directly to safer outcomes-- probably by the same mechanism that better safety equipment in sports do not make for better injury outcomes.
"and speed of crash is one of the core determinants of crash fatality."
I mean, you have to strike an object. Adding obstacles on the shoulder seems like it would increase that likelihood. It would also prevent the option to avoid oncoming traffic, or a sudden braking vehicle in front. I have seen both of those happen multiple times.
81 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadThe thing is, none of this will address the real issue - drivers making bad decisions because they're ignorant. Education, testing, and consistent enforcement is how things get better.
Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes. I would love to see more enforcement however.
"Education and testing alone won't stop drivers from making mistakes."
It very well could. Many of these mistakes are founded in ignorance. I see people doing things like passing on the right/shoulder and having no idea why that's dangerous. Or they have no idea what the vehicle dynamics are like for their car. Doing something like a skid pad or autocross (TireRack had a driver safety program associated with them) can really wake people up to their vehicles limitations. Things like following too closely on the road is generally not a true mistake, but a product of what is essentially negligence.
Edit: why disagree?
And have all the utility, too. It's not a simple problem.
I'm not even going to bring up places like rural or lower density suburbs as the service there is almost non-existent.
To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here. That is changing with more dense transit-oriented development happening across the country, but it will probably take decades for the needle to move significantly. And unfortunately the street safety measures that this money is going to are not going to help very much with this, which is sort of the point of the original comment.
These issues are all intertwined, but I don't understand the arguments in these comments that point out the problems are intertwined and stop there, as if that's a death knell for change (for example, political support for transit service is tied to the quality of that service). Yes, no one is denying they are intertwined, that is even why urbanists have started using terms like "car culture" that encapsulate the messy ball of issues. The more we discuss these issues, even online, the more consciousness arises in the public about how things can change; and things eventually do change. Hence the use of attention-grabbing call to action phrases like "cars are the problem" that started this thread, which provide an alternate framing.
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/What-Do-Americans-Think-a...
"To bring up one more thing related to your point on rural and suburban areas, the low-density car-dependent development across the vast majority of the US is a deeply ingrained problem here."
If it's such low density, is it really a problem?
The current reality is that these aren’t options, in most American cities. My 20 minute commute is a 2.5 hour bus ride, according to google. My 20 minute commute also puts me into a neighborhood that I can afford.
> We repeatedly make a political decision in the US not to prioritize them
Public transit can be fast and efficient if it is prioritized. That may require raising the federal tax on gasoline (last raised thirty years ago!!!) and directing that overdue increase to funding alternative transportation options.
For the higher density cities, cost is a major factor. I remember seeing a study or article comparing cost and time to build a subway in the US vs a European country. If I remember correctly, it tooks years longer and cost tens of millions more for a similar route even adjusted for local cost differences.
I would like additonal funding for many things. I would first like to explore efficient use of the money we do have in order to make it all more effective.
There was a great article on here the other day about the evolution of pickup trucks, the user-survey statistics about how trucks are typically used was pretty eye opening. As was the size of the forward facing blindspot for your everyday stock F-150. Kids don't stand a chance.
It seems the biggest factor is alcohol, which played a role in around 50% of pedestrian fatalities (not all on the part of the driver).
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
There was a period right during/after the pandemic where things were really bad but it’s settled to a fairly decent situation.
If you ride a $500 bike then you will probably be fine factoring in a $50-$100 theft cost at most.
Finally, most bike theft is covered under rental insurance, which isn’t all that expensive to begin with, and is highly recommended anyways.
Obviously this is an average and won't hold true for every American in every locale.
I biked for over a decade without incident for leisure.
Then I started bicycle commuting. Within one year I had not one but two occasions where I was knocked unconscious by angry rush hour drivers. I no longer could plan my destination but rather had to fight the entirety of traffic trying to get downtown at the same time at once. I still have trouble with one arm and the other time I believe I got a concussion after the driver destroyed my bike hitting me broadside and drove off.
I have about 3-4 years of biking as only transport including working as a full time professional bike messenger. I have never been hurt outside of rush hour. I have never been hurt on a planned leisure route. Only when I cannot pick the destination.
The hostility in my experience is like 10x dealing with angry to/from work rush-hour traffic headed to a dense job-rich area, especially with folks like soccer moms desperate to pick up their kiddy from daycare in time, etc.
As you note and in my experience the school drop off / pick up times are the scariest as you near schools and arteries on the school destination paths. There are frequently backups and gridlock situations at these times, coupled with palpable driver anxiety and hurriedness, which just seems like a recipe to get killed or maimed as a cyclist
I would never bike commute where I live currently, and I don't think that will change any time soon despite it being a relatively left leaning urban area.
> If you live in most American cities, biking is basically a life hazard on par with smoking imo
That said, I used a bicycle as my primary mode of transportation in the Atlanta, Decatur, and Northern suburban areas for several years. It wasn't really all that bad despite a near-total lack of cycling infrastructure (this was before the Beltline).
I just found a hack, I'm going to spend 12 hours a day cycling and extend my lifespan by at least 50%. All joking aside, cycling as travel is a fantastic way to add physical activity into your daily life.
There is a big difference between what is, and what must be. Improvements are possible, which is what the linked article is all about. These are baby steps, but if you want to bike more (and get healthier and live longer and live happier and pollute less) then demand more from your local politicians.
Until cities get affordable to live in, us “poor” will continue to exist in the reality that is now, and commute for two times the square footage, and a backyard, for less than a studio apartment.
The amount of actual ped zones in America is pretty small anyway, think downtown shopping precints and stuff like that, so the majority of roads would still be car dominant.
It’s possible to have both. It’s why we have grade separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_separation
Most pedestrian friendly streets that do mix in cars actually do the opposite to grade separation, slow down the cars a lot and make it clear that they are in a pedestrian space by removing demarcation between cars and people,which changes behavior.
> Sub-state municipal governments, MPOs, and tribes will be able to apply for grants to develop Vision Zero plans ... At least 40 percent.. $400 million of the up-front $1 billion.. would have to go for the planning grants to develop Vision Zero plans.
https://visionzeronetwork.org/where-to-start/
> First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe — and now it’s gaining momentum in major American cities ... Vision Zero focuses on preventing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This starts with understanding what and where the most problems are, then prioritizing resources to make systemic improvements. Data should be analyzed over at least five years to identify locations and types of serious crashes and to identify patterns. It is important to supplement police crash records, which can omit important information, with public health and equity data for a fuller picture.
https://visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Wha...
> Speeding kills more than 10,000 people each year in the U.S. – on par with drunk driving – yet, the act of speeding does not carry the same social consequences as drunk driving. Vision Zero calls on communities to prioritize safe speeds through safe street design, automated speed enforcement (or safety cameras), and setting safe speed limits.
That's a little misleading. Excessive speed is a factor in about 30% of US traffic fatalities. That can have an overlap with other factors, like DUI, inattentive driving, or failure to yield. Speed itself is not the issue, as we see with lower fatality per mile on the autobahn, including areas without limits or with high limits. Speed mixed with bad decisions are the real problem. Driver education, testing, and consistent enforcement are really where the safety gains are.
That's an opinion. Any source to back that up? The limits are set based on safety and flow considerations, with safety taking precedent.
""Excessive speed" in the statistics is purely based on posted speed limit."
Not true. This can include going too fast for conditions, such as in snow. Or exceeding the recommended speed for a turn, even if you're going the posted speed limit.
Your interpretations seem very biased so far. I'd love to see your data/facts and not just opinion.
Speeds of motorists in normal conditions
Traffic volume
Roadway type (e.g., interstate, freeway, city street)
Roadway features (e.g., curves, hills, number of lanes)
Roadway setting (e.g., urban, rural, residential, woodland, farmland)
Number and spacing of driveways or intersections
Sight distances
Presence of on-street parking
Pedestrian or bicyclist activity
Crash history
Pavement condition
You need to advocate for street redesign, then.
In California, most speed limits have a relation to the median speed that drivers drive on the roadway. If you want them to drive slower, you need to design the roads so that they drive slower.
Unfortunately, you will be fighting the local residents who don't want to spend extra time on every task because their local roads are so slow.
But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US. They all have a pedestrian use case: People need to cross them. And yet, their lanes are as wide as highway lanes, are often at least 4, if not 8 lanes across, and so straight that, once you take away pedestrians and traffic, the design feels like an autobahn. They are often rated as 40mph streets, where people might do 50 or 60. A street like that will kill people if they try to cross, as many forms of failure lead to a 4000 pound vehicle going fast colliding the pedestrian, and that's often fatal. If there is a real pedestrian use case for the street, either the pedestrians need an easy way to just never step on the asphalt, or affordances that lower the risk need to be added in.
Again, basically every lethal mile of road in America has the same design characteristics and use cases, which aren't shared by safer roads. So it's not that no road can let you do 60mph: It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40, while pedestrians have to cross them. You might as well say that deaths in a very narrow bridge with spikes at the bottom is a matter of lack of education in funambulism.
Even compared to US interstates, which have similar attributes, the fatality rate is lower.
"But compare this to, say, any of the deadliest roads in the US."
I haven't seen any with more than 4 lanes to cross. Even those have extensive traffic and pedestrian control signals. Do you have some examples?
"It's that too many American roads let you do at least 40"
I've crossed a few with similar speeds. I never felt unsafe though through the use of common sense and traffic/pedestrian controls. It seemed the safety was adequately designed. I'd like to see more info on the actual factors involved in pedestrian deaths. The one with the most attention seems to be alcoho, at about 50% prevalence.
If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.
The richer states and cities subsidize the poorer states and cities via this exchange.
This should be considered a good thing.
[0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
Your state rep can listen all they want but they won't have the means.
Secondly, there's a tradeoff here. If you take something out of the purview of the feds so that your state can do it "right" you lose the ability to force Alabama or West Virginia or whatever to do it your way.
They including a road widening as 'street safety'. Very generous interpretation of the term.
If it feels like your car is not squeezed, the natural inclination is to drive faster. You need to resist that inclination to stay within the speed limit. Basically, increasing the perceived width of the lane you’re in increases speed, and speed of crash is one of the core determinants of crash fatality.
And your assumption that higher speeds are unsafe is unfounded- unless you want to eliminate cars altogether (“there is no safe sex/speed”), a given roadway has a generally safe speed and typically this would be calculated and considered in the widening of the shoulders
Calculations and considerations are all well and good, but when the rubber hits the road, wide straight roads will lead people to reason that it's fine to drive fast. I'd much, much rather have people think it's a pain to take my road because it's too skinny than to have 50-60 mph traffic accidentally kill my son or my neighbors when they choose to go outside.
If you want to do something about it you can lobby for a traffic study
I mean, you have to strike an object. Adding obstacles on the shoulder seems like it would increase that likelihood. It would also prevent the option to avoid oncoming traffic, or a sudden braking vehicle in front. I have seen both of those happen multiple times.