• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
The US has gotten more dangerous and the Dutch way more safer.

Also the US is just way behind here as well worldwide:
For the last 50 years, the U.S. has increasingly fallen behind most other industrialized countries when it comes to traffic fatalities. But the Biden administration's transportation strategy offers an opportunity to change that trajectory — Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has called the U.S. traffic fatality rate a "crisis" and promises to release a first-ever National Roadway Safety Strategy.

One way we can take maximum advantage of this opportunity is to seek lessons learned from countries that have blazed a path toward Vision Zero, the goal for zero traffic fatalities that has been embraced by policy makers around the globe.

Exemplar countries have embraced a holistic approach to traffic safety. This is an important strategic reframing of the issue, grounded in the belief that improving safety is about much more than just changing user behavior or developing better technology.

Our recent research focuses on the Netherlands, which went from a traffic fatality rate that was almost as bad as that of the U.S. in 1970 to now having one of the lowest rates in the world. The top-line numbers are eye-opening: In 1970, the Netherlands experienced 245 traffic fatalities per million people, almost as high as the U.S. rate at 257 per million. The U.S. also had a much lower rate of fatality when measured in relation to fatalities per miles driven. But by 2019, the fatality rate in the Netherlands had plummeted to 34 per million, 70% lower than that in the U.S.

But what is even more astonishing are the outcomes for different classes of road users. As a backdrop, over the last 10 years or so, traffic fatality rates for pedestrians have been on a troubling upwards trend in the U.S. — a trend that has gotten a lot of media coverage, and rightly so. But if we just look at the last decade, we miss the true tale of the public policy disaster that these numbers tell. In 1970, the traffic fatality rate for pedestrians in the Netherlands was 430 per million pedestrians, making them much more at risk than people in vehicles, who had a rate of 200 per million. The corresponding numbers in the U.S. were 600 and 240, for people on foot and in vehicles, respectively.

But what is even more astonishing are the outcomes for different classes of road users. As a backdrop, over the last 10 years or so, traffic fatality rates for pedestrians have been on a troubling upwards trend in the U.S. — a trend that has gotten a lot of media coverage, and rightly so. But if we just look at the last decade, we miss the true tale of the public policy disaster that these numbers tell. In 1970, the traffic fatality rate for pedestrians in the Netherlands was 430 per million pedestrians, making them much more at risk than people in vehicles, who had a rate of 200 per million. The corresponding numbers in the U.S. were 600 and 240, for people on foot and in vehicles, respectively.

The US model is also way too focused on blaming the victim instead of looking at things systematically:
The U.S. also focuses on user impairment or distraction as the primary cause of crashes. We've been bombarded with the message that more than 90% of all crashes are caused by driver error, a statistic that been latched onto by the promoters of autonomous vehicles as a major rationale for pursuing self-driving technology. The idea is that if we can somehow remove error-prone human drivers from the equation, we will significantly reduce fatalities.

There are lots of reasons to question this premise, but for the sake of this conversation let's assume that the 90% number is a true reflection of reality. Given this very tenuous assumption, how much could autonomous vehicles reduce fatalities? Perhaps by 70%? In that case, is the push for autonomous vehicles justified based on this safety argument? (Again, let's ignore that autonomous vehicles, should they ever materialize, will likely bring new types of crashes.) What is also ignored by those making the safety case for AVs is that the traffic fatality rate in countries like the Netherlands is already 70% lower than it is in the U.S.

www.bloomberg.com

How the Dutch Delivered a Traffic Safety Revolution

Drivers and pedestrians in the Netherlands faced injury risks similar to those in the U.S. in 1970. Since then, American streets have become far more dangerous. What happened?

Autonomous vehicles won't improve this if the underlying systems are terribly designed.
 

FliX

Master of the Reality Stone
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
9,867
Metro Detroit
I'd be lying if I said I felt safe riding my bike in the US... There's a reason a never get on my bike without a high viz vest.... I still ride every day though...
The main problem is car drivers just don't expect cyclists anywhere... As opposed to Europe where everyone basically has to expect cyclists behind every turn.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
I'd be lying if I said I felt safe riding my bike in the US... There's a reason a never get on my bike without a high viz vest.... I still ride every day though...
The main problem is car drivers just don't expect cyclists anywhere... As opposed to Europe where everyone basically has to expect cyclists behind every turn.
That's a nice a side effect, but even drivers are more unsafe in the US than Dutch cyclists!

Even people inside vehicles in the U.S. are at much greater risk of dying in a motor vehicle crash than any class of road users in the Netherlands, including people on foot and people on bikes. In other words, even when protected by tons of metal, Americans still face a greater risk of fatality than people without such armor in the Netherlands.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,506
This tracks. Every part of life that would be improved by building cities around people instead of cars would solve so much. And yet we refuse in this country. Because muh freedoms.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
This tracks. Every part of life that would be improved by building cities around people instead of cars would solve so much. And yet we refuse in this country. Because muh freedoms.
The pandemic taught us that half the country has a weird pro-death stance lol.

Even Senators quoted deaths by cars stats as an argument to why we should accept pandemic deaths. We are that debased.
 

bionic77

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,888
I'd be lying if I said I felt safe riding my bike in the US... There's a reason a never get on my bike without a high viz vest.... I still ride every day though...
The main problem is car drivers just don't expect cyclists anywhere... As opposed to Europe where everyone basically has to expect cyclists behind every turn.
I tried riding a bike in DC, Philly and NYC and eventually I always decided it was too dangerous (for me).

I just can't find it in myself to trust the other drivers on the road.

I love riding my bike though. It would be awesome if we designed neighborhoods and cities to be more walkable and more bike friendly. At least for me. A lot of people I know don't feel the same way and are happy driving everywhere.
 
Jul 1, 2020
6,531
Judging by all of the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube videos I've seen, the Dutch have a fundamentally different way of thinking about transportation versus the US. In the US a car is pretty much your default mode of transportation unless you are in a big city that existed before cars.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,081
Arkansas, USA
One of the best things about where I live is the biking culture. There is dedicated infrastructure for it and at least an awareness of cyclists from drivers. I can't wait for my kids to get a bit older so I can take advantage of all the trails and paths nearby.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003

FeD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,275
Here in the Netherlands law appoints cyclists and pedestrians as vulnerable road users. What that means is that when there's an incident between a motorized vehicle and a cyclist/pedestrian the motorized vehicle will automatically be the responsible party. If the motorized vehicle can prove a case of force majeure then they will be partly held responsible. But in the case of kids 14 and under it will always be the motorized vehicles responsibility. Even if a kid runs up the road without looking from a corner you can barely see you will still be responsible if you are the driver.

It basically causes a different mentality while driving. Basically when you begin your lessons this will all be handled and made sure that you know the responsibility you're carrying. It's not perfect of course, but I do feel very safe cycling in a big city here.
 

solisolisoli

Member
Jul 30, 2020
556
Las Vegas, NV
It's terrible, but I haven't walked or ridden a bike in like 5 years. There's literally no sidewalks from my building into a gas station that's the next lot over. I feel like a lot of cities were built solely for cars and it really makes it worse in every way.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
Here in the Netherlands law appoints cyclists and pedestrians as vulnerable road users. What that means is that when there's an incident between a motorized vehicle and a cyclist/pedestrian the motorized vehicle will automatically be the responsible party. If the motorized vehicle can prove a case of force majeure then they will be partly held responsible. But in the case of kids 14 and under it will always be the motorized vehicles responsibility. Even if a kid runs up the road without looking from a corner you can barely see you will still be responsible if you are the driver.

It basically causes a different mentality while driving. Basically when you begin your lessons this will all be handled and made sure that you know the responsibility you're carrying. It's not perfect of course, but I do feel very safe cycling in a big city here.
If you were to read US traffic reporting. Pedestrians and cyclists are always blamed. It's awful.

Even the whole cellphone stuff. Someone using a cellphone is not a license to run them over.
 

Deleted member 55524

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 31, 2019
693
This tracks. Every part of life that would be improved by building cities around people instead of cars would solve so much. And yet we refuse in this country. Because muh freedoms.
I think car culture has a lot to do with it, too. It seems 7 out of every 10 people I meet describe cars as an interest or hobby. Modern US infrastructure is entirely car based and American convenience culture means exchanging car rides (stationary activity) for short walks (non-stationary activity) is a tough sell. Most people couldn't imagine what that life would be like because it would require radical geographical change.
 

Piston

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,157
My company has started looking at safety from a human performance/error perspective and I think it has helped a lot. The assumption is that humans are going to make mistakes due to external factors and that we need to reduce the severity of those mistakes by implementing better safeguards when a mistake does happen.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
I think car culture has a lot to do with it, too. It seems 7 out of every 10 people I meet describe cars as an interest or hobby. Modern US infrastructure is entirely car based and American convenience culture means exchanging car rides (stationary activity) for short walks (non-stationary activity) is a tough sell. Most people couldn't imagine what that life would be like because it would require radical geographical change.
While not the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Japan have deep car culture and brands and they seem to be doing better with safety as well.
 

Deleted member 55524

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 31, 2019
693
While not the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Japan have deep car culture and brands and they seem to be doing better with safety as well.
True, but the US is unique in how early widespread adoption of the automobile was, thanks to Ford making cars accessible to lower incomes (and probably other stuff but idk). It feels like it's more baked into our infrastructure since we had a few more decades than most countries of integrating cars into society.
 

Wereroku

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,204
This tracks. Every part of life that would be improved by building cities around people instead of cars would solve so much. And yet we refuse in this country. Because muh freedoms.
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,506
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.
I never championed whatever nonsense you're arguing against here. A comprehensive approach is obviously required. Abolish automobile traffic into major metro areas. Use the sudden increase in space to expand pedestrian, bus and bike infrastructure. Rezone major urban areas for mixed commercial/residential use and make affordable housing a major priority. Stop widening highways.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,156
I think the real key paragraph in the article is this one. We have a cemented set of policies that prioritize traffic flow (and is obviously doing a stellar job of that, right?). And, of course, the true underlying problem is that our system is so resistant to change. Any changes that might be begun by Buttigieg could easily be shelved by his successor, because we're incapable of keeping competent people in charge in this country.


Unfortunately, for much of the U.S., these ideas are still literally foreign concepts. The current battle pitting safety advocates against an obscure government-published document called the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is illustrative of the institutional sclerosis that keeps us from making real headway in traffic safety. The MUTCD plays an oversized role in determining how our streets look, feel and function. Groups such as National Association of City Transportation Officials rightly contend that this document is single-mindedly fixated on the efficient movement of vehicular traffic, sometimes at the cost of safety. It is an illustration of the institutional mindset that still, at its core, treats streets as if they are primarily for vehicles and fails to adequately consider other users or the welfare of the city.
 

turbobrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,063
Phoenix, AZ
True, but the US is unique in how early widespread adoption of the automobile was, thanks to Ford making cars accessible to lower incomes (and probably other stuff but idk). It feels like it's more baked into our infrastructure since we had a few more decades than most countries of integrating cars into society.

Yeah, I think affordable cars contributed to a lot, as well as a lot of cities being built more recent. I live in Phoenix, most of which was built after cars became popular, so the entire city was built for them. Everything is so spread out
 

ivantod

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,492
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.
As far as US cities are concerned, isn't "bulldoze and rebuild" exactly what was done to many of them after WWII to make them more "car friendly" at the expense of pedestrians and general QOL?
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,003
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.
The article isn't even talking about rebuilding the US. It's about changing some things to improve overall safety. Heck, that Dutch cyclists are more safe than US drivers says something really bad.

Density does help, but density is not the overall solution here. NYC is dense, but it has broken records in cyclists and pedestrian deaths in the past few years because NYC follows the federal models.
 

Wereroku

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,204
The article isn't even talking about rebuilding the US. It's about changing some things to improve overall safety. Heck, that Dutch cyclists are more safe than US drivers says something really bad.
I was responding to the person saying cities should be built around people. I was just pointing out that in the us this is basically impossible in many areas not to mention small towns that might be 30 or more miles away from the closest other town. Hell I'm in a pretty big city for my area and I'm 10 miles from a grocery store.
 

Deleted member 55524

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 31, 2019
693
I was responding to the person saying cities should be built around people. I was just pointing out that in the us this is basically impossible in many areas not to mention small towns that might be 30 or more miles away from the closest other town. Hell I'm in a pretty big city for my area and I'm 10 miles from a grocery store.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. Your local food supplier should be right around the corner. 10 miles is insane.

We wouldn't get it done by demolishing cities overnight, but by slowly transforming them over the course of a decade or two. Building housing near grocery stores, constructing new sidewalks and bike lanes and widening existing ones, putting physical barriers between roads and bike lanes, building more parks, improving public transit systems, converting parking lots into shops and housing, etc. Incremental things like that. It would improve air quality, encourage citizens to be physically active and social, as well as ease the financial burden that cars bring, since many people would be able to live without owning a car at all.
 

Carn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,911
The Netherlands
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.

You know that most Dutch (and European) cities pre-date every American city right? :P It's not like they "bulldozed" those to make them more cycle-friendly. There are tons of measures that can be applied to lower risk for cyclists without flattening out total neighbourhoods. I mean, it's not like they're going to destroy Paris :P
 

Peru

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,126
I mean how are you going to remake cities that are already established? Just strip ownership and bulldoze everything and rebuild? You know this will inevitably hit lower income groups much harder then the highest earners that are already in areas that meet your ideal. It has very little to do with freedom.

Many dutch and European cities were also pedestrian-unfriendly only a few years/decades ago. You don't have to start radically taking away people's cars or bulldozing cities. It's actually cost-effective, good for traffic flow and smart to remake roads into streets with separate and effective pedestrian and bike paths - and fewer and more narrow car lanes. In 10 years a huge difference can be made. It's fully possible for US cities to get that infrastructure in place, without taking away the access to cars for those who still need them.