How Sweden has cut traffic fatalities to zero

[Slick Vik]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html?hpw&rref=nyregion&_r=0&referrer=

Would be nice to see some of these initiatives implemented in Houston

[gmac]

"While roadway deaths have not been eliminated..."

 

"Last year, 264 people were killed..."

[sevfiv]

It's a good goal! 

 

Last year, 264 people were killed, less than half the number in 1997. The fatality rate in Stockholm, 1.1 deaths per 100,000, is less than one-third of New York City’s rate. The national rate, 2.7 deaths per 100,000, is the lowest in the world, according to transportation officials.

 

 

[Nate99]

The Swedish seem to be a very orderly people. 

[IronTiger]

The result has been a sort of social contract between state and citizen: If residents follow the most basic traffic laws, engineers can design roads to guard against all fatalities.

Unfortunately, that won't happen. All too often I see pedestrians wander out onto the streets, bicyclists who selectively only traffic laws that benefit them, and drivers who will jump out in front of cars when one's coming straight for them.

The only way you could catch anyone is to have cameras installed at—oh. Right.   

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Unfortunately, that won't happen. All too often I see pedestrians wander out onto the streets, bicyclists who selectively only traffic laws that benefit them, and drivers who will jump out in front of cars when one's coming straight for them.

The only way you could catch anyone is to have cameras installed at—oh. Right.

I would put most of the blame on the drivers

[The Pragmatist]

I would put most of the blame on the drivers

 

I would put blame on anyone who doesn't have the right of way or who is negligent in following the specific laws established for a particular mode of travel.

Edited May 13, 2014 by The Pragmatist

[Slick Vik]

I would put blame on anyone who doesn't have the right of way or who is negligent in following the specific laws established for a particular mode of travel.

Doesn't matter about right of way even if you have it drivers are antagonistic to anyone that dares to step on roads which they think belong to them only.

[democide]

So does anyone think that they will reach their goal of no traffic fatalities?  I don't, so I'm against this.

[Slick Vik]

So does anyone think that they will reach their goal of no traffic fatalities? I don't, so I'm against this.

Cutting down to the lowest level in the world isn't good enough?

[arche_757]

So does anyone think that they will reach their goal of no traffic fatalities?  I don't, so I'm against this.

 

What would you propose?

[IronTiger]

What would you propose?

Some trolling attempts in progress, I see, but one realistic and cheap is thing is a bucket of flags at pedestrian crossings with busy roads.

Edited May 13, 2014 by IronTiger

[mollusk]

Some trolling attempts in progress, I see, but one realistic and cheap is thing is a bucket of flags at pedestrian crossings with busy roads.

 

They tried that in Berkeley.  The flags kept getting stolen, and apparently went completely unnoticed by the drivers - in a city and state where the pedestrian is king, and cars are supposed to come to a complete halt even for jaywalkers.

[Ross]

Doesn't matter about right of way even if you have it drivers are antagonistic to anyone that dares to step on roads which they think belong to them only.

 

There's always people who do stupid stuff to mess up the goal of no fatalities. Pedestrians crossing against the light during night while not wearing any reflective clothing, but wearing headphones and not paying attention. The idiots who try to walk across a freeway, because it's too far to go to the next intersection. Drunks who stumble into the roadway just as a car passes. The list goes on. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that something that works well in a homogeneous population like Sweden will work here, with a very diverse population, and a large number of people who don't pay attention, and others who don't think the laws of physics apply to them.

[Slick Vik]

There's always people who do stupid stuff to mess up the goal of no fatalities. Pedestrians crossing against the light during night while not wearing any reflective clothing, but wearing headphones and not paying attention. The idiots who try to walk across a freeway, because it's too far to go to the next intersection. Drunks who stumble into the roadway just as a car passes. The list goes on. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that something that works well in a homogeneous population like Sweden will work here, with a very diverse population, and a large number of people who don't pay attention, and others who don't think the laws of physics apply to them.

What about all the drivers that are texting, talking, or god knows what else? What about the ones that are drunk? What about the ones that are hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists in the first place? Your post seems to say these people killed themselves, but who can cause the death, a vehicle or pedestrian/bicyclist? I'll give you a clue it weighs thousands of pounds.

[Nate99]

I'm proposing a resolution to require everyone to acknowledge that just because something sounds good and worked to some extent in a culturally homogeneous Scandinavian country with less than 3% of the population of the U.S. doesn't mean it should be attempted here. 

 

Stockholm has roughly as many cars per person as NYC with a population density that is 1/3 of that of NYC total (not just Manhattan). To achieve the same results as Stockholm, NYC would have to implement vastly different approaches that would necessarily be more restrictive to all types of traffic, even if all New Yorkers behaved identically to Swedes.  

 

There may be some good ideas here and there, but just like a bucket of flags that keep getting stolen in Berkeley, they may not work here for all kinds of reasons. Everything has a tradeoff. Zero fatalities sounds great, but at what cost? At the end of that spectrum, making everyone's commute more miserable and expensive so that people who refuse employ common sense to manage their own safety don't get hurt doesn't sound worth it to me.  

 

Edited May 14, 2014 by Nate99

[IronTiger]

I'm proposing a resolution to require everyone to acknowledge that just because something sounds good and worked to some extent in a culturally homogeneous Scandinavian country with less than 3% of the population of the U.S. doesn't mean it should be attempted here. 

 

Stockholm has roughly as many cars per person as NYC with a population density that is 1/3 of that of NYC total (not just Manhattan). To achieve the same results as Stockholm, NYC would have to implement vastly different approaches that would necessarily be more restrictive to all types of traffic, even if all New Yorkers behaved identically to Swedes.  

 

There may be some good ideas here and there, but just like a bucket of flags that keep getting stolen in Berkeley, they may not work here for all kinds of reasons. Everything has a tradeoff. Zero fatalities sounds great, but at what cost? At the end of that spectrum, making everyone's commute more miserable and expensive so that people who refuse employ common sense to manage their own safety don't get hurt doesn't sound worth it to me.

The first step would be trying to figure out what actually causes traffic-related fatalities, and I'd say drunk driving sets up a significant number of that. OK, so for instance, let's lower the speed limit at night to prevent high speed accidents. Well guess what? It gets ignored, and the drunk driver kills an orphan's puppy before veering off the road, hitting a gas pump, and burns to his death.

Changing the speed limit proved sadly ineffective in that case.

Pedestrians onto freeways are another thing--people will jump over fences and try to cross the freeway that way--unless it's completely deserted and the driver has very long distance, the Darwin Award nominee will be turned to putty thanks to the laws of physics--and that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that the ped's monumental display of grossly ignoring common sense will cause a multiple-car pile-up, killing and injuring many more.

One thing that would work in theory is a total separation of bike and car lanes, reconfiguring a road to have a dedicated bike lane on one side taking up what was a whole lane (this might not even reduce traffic lanes provided they already had bike lanes on either side of the road).

Well guess what? Some bicyclists are going to think "Screw that, I have a right to the vehicular lanes just as much as the cars do" (and you know they will--many bicyclists take the main lane, which is perfectly legal). People are going to be hurt, and your bicycle lane separation technique doesn't work like it should.

tl;dr Never underestimate human stupidity

Edited May 14, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

The first step would be trying to figure out what actually causes traffic-related fatalities, and I'd say drunk driving sets up a significant number of that. OK, so for instance, let's lower the speed limit at night to prevent high speed accidents. Well guess what? It gets ignored, and the drunk driver kills an orphan's puppy before veering off the road, hitting a gas pump, and burns to his death.

Changing the speed limit proved sadly ineffective in that case.

Pedestrians onto freeways are another thing--people will jump over fences and try to cross the freeway that way--unless it's completely deserted and the driver has very long distance, the Darwin Award nominee will be turned to putty thanks to the laws of physics--and that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that the ped's monumental display of grossly ignoring common sense will cause a multiple-car pile-up, killing and injuring many more.

One thing that would work in theory is a total separation of bike and car lanes, reconfiguring a road to have a dedicated bike lane on one side taking up what was a whole lane (this might not even reduce traffic lanes provided they already had bike lanes on either side of the road).

Well guess what? Some bicyclists are going to think "Screw that, I have a right to the vehicular lanes just as much as the cars do" (and you know they will--many bicyclists take the main lane, which is perfectly legal). People are going to be hurt, and your bicycle lane separation technique doesn't work like it should.

tl;dr Never underestimate human stupidity

1. How about don't allow cars to start if alcohol breath is in the car? Or something to that effect?

2. How many people run across freeways, seriously?

3. Again in this situation I don't think that many bicyclists are going to put themselves in danger as you predict.

In general I see a tone of blaming pedestrians and bicyclists when in reality it's drivers that cause the vast majority of accidents.

[IronTiger]

1. How about don't allow cars to start if alcohol breath is in the car? Or something to that effect?

That's been discussed, but it's not particularly pertaining to this topic.

 

2. How many people run across freeways, seriously?

3. Again in this situation I don't think that many bicyclists are going to put themselves in danger as you predict.

In general I see a tone of blaming pedestrians and bicyclists when in reality it's drivers that cause the vast majority of accidents.

Again, right now, we don't know exactly how it happens, and while automobile vs. pedestrian/bicyclist collisions are very common, it's a gross misstatement to say that "vehicles cause accidents".

For example, last year there was an accident involving the light rail and a bicyclist, wherein the bicyclist was riding on the tracks with headphones on. Despite others trying to signal to her to get off the tracks, the inevitable grisly end result happened. You wouldn't blame the light rail would you? Of course not. It's the bicyclist's fault. The same thing happens in accidents involving vehicles.

(P.S.: in case there's any confusion above, I wasn't blaming arche for trolling, it was in response to other messages on the thread--I'm sorry for the confusion caused)

Edited May 14, 2014 by IronTiger

[arche_757]

Sweden doesn't have the population of NYC, the density, or the complexity of Manhattan to deal with.  I also don't believe the fact the country is 93% Swede has anything to do with traffic accidents or pedestrian deaths.  Just a casual once over of the Chronicle on Monday's shows that drunk driving isn't a white/black/hispanic problem - its just a problem.

 

NYC needs more pedestrian only zones in my opinion - many European cities have entire districts closed off to traffic except the occasional delivery truck.  I don't see why this couldn't be implemented slowly in some areas in NYC (more so than what they have already).  Given the number of streets and relative closeness of alternative routes it wouldn't be a big deal to close some blocks here and there to create safer pedestrian zones.

 

One really quick way to reduce fatalities is to lower the speed limit:

Shifting over to Houston - why can't Post Oak and Westheimer (and all side streets) around the Galleria have a posted speed limit of 25 or even 20?  Much of the time people travel through there around that speed any way due to traffic, lowering the speed limit wouldn't cause that much of a headache but it would allow drivers a chance to brake in time, and avoid pedestrians with ease.  Just an idea.

[Slick Vik]

That's been discussed, but it's not particularly pertaining to this topic.

Again, right now, we don't know exactly how it happens, and while automobile vs. pedestrian/bicyclist collisions are very common, it's a gross misstatement to say that "vehicles cause accidents".

For example, last year there was an accident involving the light rail and a bicyclist, wherein the bicyclist was riding on the tracks with headphones on. Despite others trying to signal to her to get off the tracks, the inevitable grisly end result happened. You wouldn't blame the light rail would you? Of course not. It's the bicyclist's fault. The same thing happens in accidents involving vehicles.

(P.S.: in case there's any confusion above, I wasn't blaming arche for trolling, it was in response to other messages on the thread--I'm sorry for the confusion caused)

Yes, sometimes pedestrians and bicyclists are to blame. However, the vast majority of the time I would say distracted, drunk, or aggressive drivers are to blame. To add to that, a bike or pedestrian is not going to cause a fatality by a collision, but a car will. That's why the focus should be on drivers for safety.

[IronTiger]

Yes, sometimes pedestrians and bicyclists are to blame. However, the vast majority of the time I would say distracted, drunk, or aggressive drivers are to blame. To add to that, a bike or pedestrian is not going to cause a fatality by a collision, but a car will. That's why the focus should be on drivers for safety.

Well, actually, the first felony manslaughter case involving a bicycle has happened. And before you say "That's just one incident, X incidents happen every day involving cars", remember--human stupidity is endless.

Also, remember that people are also strange--I read enough transit-related literature to know that even though many freeways are depressed or elevated, a total grade separation to entirely avoid interaction with cars (and thus, accidents), many people prefer to have surface boulevards and would like to cross the street instead of going over or under, thus INCREASING chances for pedestrian/vehicle accidents. Imagine that.

[Nate99]

 I also don't believe the fact the country is 93% Swede has anything to do with traffic accidents or pedestrian deaths.

 

My reference to their cultural homogeneity was more general in its implication. 

 

Sweden seems to be held out as a model in many ways these days, but they are a global anomaly for many reasons, even if one accepts that their way of doing things is ideal. 

[arche_757]

^You are correct.  Sweden/Norway/Finland etc. are all placed on a pedestal as if they are the model country for the rest of the world.

 

One plus that these Nordic countries have over much of the rest of the world is a very high level of education.  Not everyone has a college degree, but their primary schools are quite well regarded internationally (which this might be where lack of diversity helps them - perhaps?).  Certainly helps to have so many people fairly well educated and literate.

 

But I don't want to pull this off topic.

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Well, actually, the first felony manslaughter case involving a bicycle has happened. And before you say "That's just one incident, X incidents happen every day involving cars", remember--human stupidity is endless.

Also, remember that people are also strange--I read enough transit-related literature to know that even though many freeways are depressed or elevated, a total grade separation to entirely avoid interaction with cars (and thus, accidents), many people prefer to have surface boulevards and would like to cross the street instead of going over or under, thus INCREASING chances for pedestrian/vehicle accidents. Imagine that.

Every street can't be grade separated. This has more to do with the mindset regarding pedestrians and bikers than anything. Drivers see them as a nuisance instead of admitting they a user of roads as well.

[arche_757]

I would say drivers see pedestrians as a nuisance when pedestrians aren't being mindful.  Granted there are always exceptions to the norm - just saying in general.  But how many of us are really, truly bothered by someone crossing the road?  I see people every day all over Galveston (which is probably one of the most walkable cities in this state) and drivers don't seem to mind people walking across the street provided they do so in an orderly fashion.  It does irk me when people cross without looking at the lights to see if they have a safe crossing signal and just run across when they should wait a few seconds.

 

I still say slowing traffic through major urban zones is one simple, cheap (cost of how many signs - paid by traffic tickets) answer.  In small towns throughout California there are posted speed limits of around 15-20mph everywhere.  While initially annoying, I enjoyed the idea that people walking are given a greater chance at being safe.  Plus, there is a law requiring drivers stop at certain areas marked as pedestrian crossings.  Again, initially I thought "this is odd, and annoying" but when I used it, and saw how easily people there adapted and didn't mind stopping for 20 seconds to allow someone a chance at safely crossing the road it didn't bother me.  I'm not saying all urban streets should have this or all urban streets should be lowered to 20mph, just some.

[DNAguy]

I love how the American 'can-do' spirit has been reduced to 'can't win, don't try' in this thread.

 

I mean, has anyone here worked in a dangerous industry? I work at a chemical plant. Do we have injuries? Yes. Do we have recordable releases? Yes. Does that prevent us from engineering solutions to reduce those things? No. Companies take stances like - Zero recordable rates all the time. Do they always achieve them? No. But that doesn't mean they stop trying. And like the government mandate of zero fatalities on roads, industry probably wouldn't take steps on safety and environmental compliance if it wasn't the law / mandated by the government. 

Safety costs $$$$$$. No free lunch. 

The problem is that people have just come to except that driving is dangerous and people die all the time. What's funny is that if the amount of people that die in automobile accidents every year was a result of a terrorist attack or war casualties, we'd be on the verge of a 60's-esque revolution.

 

 

[Slick Vik]

I love how the American 'can-do' spirit has been reduced to 'can't win, don't try' in this thread.

I mean, has anyone here worked in a dangerous industry? I work at a chemical plant. Do we have injuries? Yes. Do we have recordable releases? Yes. Does that prevent us from engineering solutions to reduce those things? No. Companies take stances like - Zero recordable rates all the time. Do they always achieve them? No. But that doesn't mean they stop trying. And like the government mandate of zero fatalities on roads, industry probably wouldn't take steps on safety and environmental compliance if it wasn't the law / mandated by the government.

Safety costs $$$$$$. No free lunch.

The problem is that people have just come to except that driving is dangerous and people die all the time. What's funny is that if the amount of people that die in automobile accidents every year was a result of a terrorist attack or war casualties, we'd be on the verge of a 60's-esque revolution.

Excellent post

[IronTiger]

I love how the American 'can-do' spirit has been reduced to 'can't win, don't try' in this thread.

 

I mean, has anyone here worked in a dangerous industry? I work at a chemical plant. Do we have injuries? Yes. Do we have recordable releases? Yes. Does that prevent us from engineering solutions to reduce those things? No. Companies take stances like - Zero recordable rates all the time. Do they always achieve them? No. But that doesn't mean they stop trying. And like the government mandate of zero fatalities on roads, industry probably wouldn't take steps on safety and environmental compliance if it wasn't the law / mandated by the government. 

Safety costs $$$$$$. No free lunch. 

The problem is that people have just come to except that driving is dangerous and people die all the time. What's funny is that if the amount of people that die in automobile accidents every year was a result of a terrorist attack or war casualties, we'd be on the verge of a 60's-esque revolution.

I think that while zero fatalities is an admirable goal, I don't think it's fair to immediately start pointing fingers at automobiles and blame them for traffic fatalities--yes, cars ARE involved in the most accidents, but while it's the largest automobile that "wins" (because no one actually "wins" in an accident), it doesn't mean that it's always their fault. In other words, drivers can't be babysitters at 20 in downtown streets because Baby doesn't know when/where to cross the street.

[IronTiger]

Before you respond, it is worth noting about my own experiences with this: a pedestrian-heavy (bars mostly) district did some work in the area so the end result was that the main road had a speed of 35-40 (can't remember exactly) with a wall (the wall replacing some parallel parking, which became a wider sidewalk) and pedestrian signals that announced "Wait" and the time left, while a side street (two way) has a speed of 20 mph. The area is also crawling with cops due to the increased crime at night.

I don't know the results of any deaths or not, but there's some things done to make things safer.