Edinburgh doesn't enforce its 20mph zones, I follow them anyway. And I don't believe I actually make progress through the city any less quickly than drivers who speed, because it's rare that I'm not in any case sitting behind the speeders at the next red light.
Arterial roads are normally still 30mph, and it's not a huge city so it doesn't take that long to get from the outskirts to the centre. Or when it does, it's not because of low speed limits.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
21 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 39.0 ms ] threadSeattle, Portland, SF enshittified their roads, limited the traffic speed, choked the streets with bike lanes, drank all the KoolAid.
Yet the deaths _increased_.
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.
Arterial roads are normally still 30mph, and it's not a huge city so it doesn't take that long to get from the outskirts to the centre. Or when it does, it's not because of low speed limits.
Those seem like harder challenges then the changes themselves.
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/
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.
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
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.
Helsinki records zero traffic deaths for full year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736025 - July 2025 (652 comments)
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.
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