Traffic deaths continue to soar despite cities' pledges to get them to 'Zero'

[SectorZ]

Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?

[texaskdog]

It's the opposite problem around here.  Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way *

* They have the right of way when the light is in their favor.  If they step into a crosswalk against a red light or a red 'Don't Walk' symbol, the ped don't have the right of way.  Also, they are supposed to make sure that it's safe to cross.  If they step into the crosswalk with a car 3 feet away, they technically don't have the right of way because it would be impossible for the car to properly see them and stop.

Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.

[vdeane]

Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.

Did they have the walk signal?  All-ped phases are the current trend around here.

[jakeroot]

It's the opposite problem around here.  Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way *

* They have the right of way when the light is in their favor.  If they step into a crosswalk against a red light or a red 'Don't Walk' symbol, the ped don't have the right of way.  Also, they are supposed to make sure that it's safe to cross.  If they step into the crosswalk with a car 3 feet away, they technically don't have the right of way because it would be impossible for the car to properly see them and stop.

What difference does it make when they do or don't have the right of way? You can't intentionally hit a pedestrian. The only real difference is deciding when to stop to let a waiting pedestrian cross.

[texaskdog]

Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.

Did they have the walk signal?  All-ped phases are the current trend around here.

Nope, totally red for both of us but i can make a right turn on red.  they shouldn't be crossing on red.

[Hurricane Rex]

Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?

That is funny.


The vision zero cap is also in Portland and wr just reduced our speed limits from a default 25 to a default 20. This is in addition to other speed decreases (division street is down to 30 from 40) and traffic deaths also rise here. The Sherwood police department chief said: "speed is a factor in every crash."    So... I won't rant again here (there is a rant by me on this in the Northwest board, if you feel like getting mad) but you should get the point. As others have pointed out, its all for $$$$$ because of the effects it has proven to show on these roadways.

[adventurernumber1]

...and it is definitely good that some people in charge have the mindset of aiming toward "zero fatalities," which ties into a very good quote I actually saw for the first time earlier today (though it was completely unrelated to this), which said something along the lines of "Perfection is impossible, but if we aim for perfection, we might catch excellence."

This is a minor tweak, but I just saw that quote again, and the exact wording of it is as goes:

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

It is a great quote indeed, and it especially is so for this.

[cpzilliacus]

Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?

Muriel Elizabeth Bowser.  Years ago, she worked down the hall from me. Nice person.

I don't always agree with her policy pronouncements, but she has done an acceptable job as mayor (I do not live in the District of Columbia).  There have been others in that job that were better and there was one that was dramatically worse.

[kalvado]

...and it is definitely good that some people in charge have the mindset of aiming toward "zero fatalities," which ties into a very good quote I actually saw for the first time earlier today (though it was completely unrelated to this), which said something along the lines of "Perfection is impossible, but if we aim for perfection, we might catch excellence."

This is a minor tweak, but I just saw that quote again, and the exact wording of it is as goes:

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

It is a great quote indeed, and it especially is so for this.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Tarkus]

This is in addition to other speed decreases (division street is down to 30 from 40) and traffic deaths also rise here.

Coincidentally, guess where the most recent traffic-related fatality in Portland was?  Right smack dab in the middle of that new 30 zone (which also has speed cameras).  Apparently, compared to this time last year, fatalities are currently trending up 75% in Portland.

I don't think you'll find any reasonable person out there who doesn't want to see traffic deaths eliminated, though the simple law of averages suggests that's never going to be a reality.  Vision Zero, as it's being implemented, has just been a thinly veiled excuse to implement poor engineering practices, and subsequently profiting from their failure.  The fact that they seem willing (and eager) to repeat the same mistakes over and over suggests to me that they don't really care about safety at all.

Between this and the whole snow debacle last year, I'm constantly amazed at how PBOT actually manages to make ODOT look halfway competent.

[Road Hog]

Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.

[Hurricane Rex]

Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.

Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.

LG-TP260

[SP Cook]

Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.

Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.

LG-TP260

No, since every increase in SLs was followed by a decrese in fatalities, they did if for the $$$$$$$$.

[jakeroot]

Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.

Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.

No, since every increase in SLs was followed by a decrese in fatalities, they did if for the $$$$$$$$.

The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2016/05/i90nospeedincrease.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm

WSP's speed enforcement is pretty lax compared to ten years ago. They mostly focus on mobile device usage and left lane camping these days, although seeing cops doing radar isn't that rare.

[hotdogPi]

The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).

[jakeroot]

The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).

There are other factors obviously, but safety is a bigger concern (to WSDOT at least). If the study estimated fewer deaths, I'm 99% sure they'd have increased the limit (since it would save lives).

[Hurricane Rex]

The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).

There are other factors obviously, but safety is a bigger concern (to WSDOT at least). If the study estimated fewer deaths, I'm 99% sure they'd have increased the limit (since it would save lives).

If safety is a concern, they should recognize that the 85% rule especially on freeways makes it safer. I'd be willing to bet that this is due to the argument that speed kills and the studies on that. An average at 73 mph in a 70 would spell even to ODOT to raise the speed limit. I can't get my head around what they've said.

For fuel, I think we all can agree on what they've said here.

On enforcement: In the last 2 years, I've been on rural Washington interstates 16 times. Of those 12 times, 6 were on I-90 (only once on the entire Seattle to Spokane route though with a Wenatchee detour), 6 were on I-82, 10 were on I-5. I saw 1 cop on I-90. None on I-82 and an average of 2 each time on I-5. Don't know why the increased amount on I-5 though.

LG-TP260

[SP Cook]

The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...

Umm, thank you for that.  The "study" is wrong.  Just like every other doomsday scenario dating back to our long and eventually successful fight against the evil NMSL. 

What is more amazing.  That these people, wrong so often (or just lying) still speak?  Or that they are taken seriously?

It is all about the $$$$$$$$$.

[jeffandnicole]

The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...

Umm, thank you for that.  The "study" is wrong.  Just like every other doomsday scenario dating back to our long and eventually successful fight against the evil NMSL. 

What is more amazing.  That these people, wrong so often (or just lying) still speak?  Or that they are taken seriously?

It is all about the $$$$$$$$$.

You have the media, who hates government in general, yet always seems to side with them when they want to loosen restrictions such as speed limits.  The media could easily show that since speed limits have gone up traffic deaths have gone way down, but they choose not to engage in any studies.  Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.

[jakeroot]

Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.

Worse yet, cite the IIHS.

[Hurricane Rex]

Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.

Worse yet, cite the IIHS.

Or the MUTCD if it gets rid of the 85% rule (its been proposed).

LG-TP260

[seicer]

NYC on track to see lowest traffic fatalities since 1910

• 5th consecutive year of declining fatalities
• Fatalities declined by a third since 2013
• 2018 fatalities: 196; 2017 fatalities: 222

[tradephoric]

These Vision Zero campaigns should be renamed Vision Delusional.

[seicer]

Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.

[1995hoo]

Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.

Heh. Drive on Sixth Avenue after midnight. If you're going 40 mph, you may be the slowest person on the road.