Having driven throughout Europe and as a non-Scandinavian I have to say that this impressive result has a lot to do with the ways scandinavians behave in traffic. As car-drivers as well as cyclists.
If urban politicians in cities "just short of the border" to Scandinavia like Berlin or Hamburg propose such measures, residents with traffic experience in both places will often chuckle, because car drivers but even more so cyclists are much more aggressive in Germany than in Scandinavia.
It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.
I think the cause and effect may be reversed from what you imply here. Having been a cyclist in both Berlin and in Oslo, I was much more aggressive in Berlin, out of necessity. When there is not appropriate infrastructure and traffic does not respect you, it creates a sort of Max Max mentality where you do what you have to do.
I completely agree. Traffic culture really seems driven by traffic infrastructure, rules and enforcement than the other way around.
I traveled to Mumbai, India twice in the last year a few months apart. Certain intersections that I traveled through on a daily basis used to have vehicles inching into the intersection well before their lights turned green, which usually caused problems, in the first trip. In the second trip, only a few months later, this had almost completely disappeared. The reason was the installation of I believe cameras, that ticketed cars if they entered the intersection on red, and this created enough of a change that two people visiting a few months apart would have diametrically opposite views of the driving culture of that region of the city.
Yeah, and I think there's some selection bias here too. Cities where cyclists have a reputation for being aggressive tend to be cities where the non-aggressive are afraid to cycle.
I haven't heard of aggressive cyclists is the Netherlands. The image that comes to my mind is a slow bicycle with an upright position and a basket at the front. No helmet.
The truth about cycling in Netherlands is that these complaints usually come from tourists (you won’t see them from the Dutch for the simple reason that most Dutch pedestrians are cyclists themselves).
Tourists who are simply not used to a system where cyclists get equal importance as cars.
Of course, since cyclists are humans, I’m sure there are some assholes, and there are probably cases where non assholes also make mistakes.
The difference, as the numbers clearly show, is that in cities where the biggest fear is mad max cyclists, the number of deaths are hundreds fewer than where car driving is the norm.
I spent a few days in Amsterdam, albeit in peak tourist season, and witnessed a fair few near misses and angry Dutch screaming! The cyclists are scary, but stick to their bike lanes. It works as long as pedestrians aren't being dumb, which probably happens all too often in peak seasons.
I disagree: What has 'lack of infrastructure' to do with aggressiveness against vulnerable pedestrians? How should a pedestrian "respect" you, the "mad max" cyclist?
Mad max cyclists exist in the US because for decades the US has promoted vehicular cycling, and built infrastructure accordingly. It was basically the concept that cycles should be treated on par with cars, share the same roads, commute at similar speeds, etc. As a result, the majority of American cyclists are people who are more risk taking, want to bike fast on super lightweight racing bicycles, and have built an aggressive cycling culture thanks to the fact that they’ve been trained to bike with cars.
Most European cities advocated a different approach, where bikes had their own infrastructure built out that meant European cyclists ride slow “Euro” style bikes with baskets, usually don’t go very fast, etc.
Further, good infrastructure means that bicyclists never have to interact with pedestrians other than in well controlled areas with proper signals etc that make clear when the cyclists should be moving and when the pedestrians.
There are a lot of well behaved cyclists, but there is also a hard-core of aggressive cyclists who seem to take it as their right to never have to slow down for anyone or anything, and woe betide you if you get in their way (e.g. the guy in that article above who was jailed after killing a pedestrian had the excuse that he shouted at her to get out of his way, so it was her fault for getting hit). They will go through red lights, turn the wrong way, go down the wrong way of one-way streets, barrel through pedestrian crossings while people are crossing, ride along pedestrian paths etc etc etc.
They are much more dangerous than cars purely because of their unpredictability (compared to cars which 99.9999% of the time do what you expect - like follow the rules, don't drive along the pedestrian paths etc) and sense of being untouchable I guess. Not everything ends in a death like this poor lady, but there are countless near-misses and people having to jump out of the way from cyclists who refuse to slow down or go through red light etc etc every day - it is happening all the time in London and you see it multiple times each day.
There was talk after the events in the linked article about forced registration plates for cyclist to try and bring some sort of accountability, but I think that was shelved "because environment" or something.
I’m a cyclist in London and I do agree this with this. A lot of cyclists forget that the rules of the road apply to them.
However what I fear the most isn’t cars or other cyclists but mopeds and motorcycles, especially ones with high acceleration. I’ve seen mopeds sneak up on cycle lanes, block up the cycle bay at the front of intersections (which is scary when you are on a bicycle in those bays because the mopeds don’t necessarily accelerate in a straight line) and worst of all, accelerate fast when the light turns from red to orange. The last is an issue because unlike cars the acceleration is much quicker - I’ve witnessed last-minute pedestrians crossing an intersection get startled or almost hit by mopeds accelerating too early.
> It is not uncommon for urban pedestrians in Germany to be more concerned with danger posed to them by cyclists than by cars.
As they should! Cyclists are often closer by and silent.
Add to the fact that many cyclists are using the bike for exercise and seem to want to keep pace at any cost.
But mostly - a car is made for running in to humans at relatively low speed, causing as little damage as possible.
Bikes not so much.
I’d much rather be hit by a car at 30km/h than a bike.
Come to think of it - drivers license for cars probably makes a difference as well.
Edit - anecdote:
A co-worker of mine got hit by a bike at a buss stop.
Not really super fast, but oh my he got tangled.
Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc.
He was off work for almost a year in total.
A modern car would most likely not have caused him, or the rider the kind of damage they incurred.
While a bicycle probably isn't going to be going as fast as a car, at equal speeds bicycle collisions aren't going to be that much less dangerous than car impacts. 30 km/h is a quite attainable speed for a bicycle. I definitely wouldn't assume <<1%.
"When considering the average length of hospital stay, the majority of pedestrians involved in collisions with cyclists were admitted for fewer than two days (53.1%), while only 7.7% required a hospital stay greater than 7 days. Compared to pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles, the duration of hospital stays were significantly shorter (χ2(1)=27.5, p < 0.01, φc=0.06), furthermore the severity of collisions were also significantly lower compared to collisions involving motor vehicles (χ2(1)=9.85, p < 0.01, φc=0.04)."
> A modern car have deformation zones and angles for you to basically slide along -
That protects the people in the car, not those outside. Being hit by those deformation zones _will_ hurt.
There is one thing that makes modern cars less dangerous to pedestrians, and it's that when someone is hit by a car they are more likely to roll over the hood than under the wheel. HOWEVER this is only the case for sedans, and definitely NOT for SUVs. Now look at the proportion of SUVs in your area.
Deformation zones are designed to protect the car's occupants in the event of a collision with a tree. They are not designed to protect a pedestrian. (Although some modern cars are beginning to have proximity sensors that can launch an automatic emergency brake. That would help the pedestrian. The deformation zone certainly doesn't.)
None of which is meant to imply that being hit by a speeding bike is harmless, of course.
> Deformation zones are designed to protect the car's occupants in the event of a collision with a tree. They are not designed to protect a pedestrian.
Nonsense, all modern cars have deformation zones specifically for protecting pedestrians during collisions. All modern crash tests by EuroNCAP etc. have tests for such impacts and current results speak volumes for the improvements in this area.
That's probably true, but death isn't the only negative outcome. I'm regularly buzzed from behind by bicyclists passing me at high speed on sidewalks. It's quite unnerving, since most of our local cyclists are idiots, generally untrained, unable to quick stop, and often riding without any brakes at all.
I've taken to carrying an umbrella everywhere, swinging it quite dramatically as I walk. This seems to be an effective way to cause cyclists to keep a safe distance.
>Punctured lung, ruptured spleen, broken ribs etc.
What in the hell was going on there? I mean, I get GP's point about aggressive cyclists. I noticed them in Berlin especially (straight, wide roads on flat terrain), but even then people will usually try to brake before they run into you. This kind of damage sounds insane. Was the cyclist hitting him at full-speed? If so, how???
But this makes no sense. Whenever I see such bus stops I wonder who designed them in this way. It makes pedestrians and cyclist compete for the same area without any obvious sign. Pedestrians need to act quickly, otherwise they will miss the bus. Cyclists don't see any red light or other signal to stop from afar, and when they got closer and realize people start pouring from the bus stop to the road, they need to breake in the last moment. Sometimes you don't even realize what's going on as the bus is hidden from your view by trucks.
This is why a call them “stupid”. They are obviously dangerous, still I have one just like it around the corner from my home.
Just the other week a guy got hit in the arm by a slow riding bike while waiting, which made him so pissed he grabbed the bike rider by the arm and kind of threw him to the ground.
I've seen these kind of stops in the Netherlands and can totally understand your point. I am all for separate bike lanes but why you would do it in a way to have this separate "bus island" I couldn't see.
Cyclist-pedestrian collision fatalities (or even serious injuries) are very rare. In the UK they make national news. This is far far less than motorist - anything else collisions.
Important factor for Helsinki: the nicest bike path in the North, below grade. It's an old repurposed railroad which gives the bulk of the city near instant access to split level cycling infrastructure.
Vision Zero is a part of national traffic policy, enacted by Parliament in 2002 according to the Directorate of Roads. Apparently the goal for 2030 is a maximum of 350 severe injuries and deaths, but the overarching goal for traffic policy is to get to zero.
One has to keep in mind that Norwegians are excellent drivers. Requirements to get a driver license are ridiculously difficult there, exams are almost unpassable. Probably because of difficult climate and sometimes difficult terrain - thus icy roads etc - which makes driving dangerous.
Impressive result, but i don't think it's reproducible much elsewhere.
Excellent drivers maybe, but slightly psychotic when it comes to twisty roads!
I got overtaken over a blind corner in a 50 zone, by a car doing around 100... Had to quickly get off the road once when I realised an oncoming truck wasn't going to slow down or budge, one tyre slipped off the road (or rather there was a crack on the edge of the road, flicked my steering into the woods). Also experienced being in a Tesla driven by an otherwise calm girl, was both fearing for my life and excited the entire time haha.
Would definitely do a road trip around Norway again, and stick to the more scenic routes again, however. So much fun, and so much beautiful scenery. Maybe the latter was what impeded my driving ability :)
It sounds like this is really more, "What happens when a city says they're going to end traffic deaths, then completely half-asses it."
It was super obvious when these cities committed to Vision Zero on hilariously overoptimistic timelines that they weren't taking it seriously at all. It was just a bullet point to signal that they cared, without having to do actual work or sacrifice any convenience for cars.
Well, to be fair, it's very very hard to take away any conveniences for cars because of the strong opposition by pro-car people.
Just recently there was a proposition in Germany to enact an absolute speed limit on the Autobahn. The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit (in reality you only have that in some parts though), so you can imagine how well that went...
It's one of the "drawbacks" of living in a democracy I guess: Revolutionary changes are basically impossible to implement, because the disadvantaged side also has a right to be heard.
> The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit
30% of the Autobahn have a mandatory speed limit for varying reasons, mostly safety (high incidence of accidents for example). On 70% there is an advisory speed limit of 130kph.
This means, it is inadvisable to exceed this speed even under the best of circumstances. Now in practice this has very little meaning. You may speed with impunity.
Until there is an accident. Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit. This is even true, if the other party to the accident is completely at fault. The only exception would be, if it can be shown beyond a doubt that the accident would have happened at the recommended speed of 130kph as well. In practice this is next to impossible.
There have been several attempts to change the advisory speed limit to a mandatory speed limit. Albeit the arguments aren't clearly on the side of the proponents. Regarding accidents, a statistic from the German autobahn ministry in 2018 stated that 71% of all deaths on the autobahn occur in places with no mandatory speed limit. Since 70% of the autobahn have no speed limit, one might wonder, what the expected result of a mandatory speed limit is expected to be.
In addition 33.6% of all kilometers are driven on the autobahn while only 12% of all deaths occur on the autobahn. 60% of all traffic deaths do occur on rural roads which have speed limits throughout.
Regarding climate change argument, the estimated reduction of total CO2 with a mandatory speed limit of 120kph would be 0.2% or even less if the mandatory speed limit were 130kph.
A visit to the neighbors Austria and Switzerland (both have speed limits on the autobahn) would also destroy the expectation, that smaller cars would be bought, if there were a mandatory speed limit on the autobahn.
I don't really have a stake in the matter, but as your response clearly shows even just mentioning the topic triggers vehement defenses. You clearly have done your research though, so I respect your argument.
What I will say however, whenever I drive on the german Autobahn at some point it happens to me that I'm in the left lane to take someone over and another car comes speeding towards me from seemingly kilometers away at the speed of a damn rocketship. Whatever the hard numbers may be, this causes high amounts of stress and makes me feel very uncomfortable on the road every time. Not a good state to be in while operating high-velocity death machines!
@FDSGSG: That's why I said "from seemingly kilometers away". Like, I base my decision on if I have enough space to take over by assuming reasonable[0] speed levels and suddenly someone comes along going 250 km/h
[0] I guess reasonable in this case means what I'm used to from driving on other countries' highways
EDIT: Sorry, I changed my response while you were actively responding it seems! You can call me a bad driver all you want. The fact is that the rules should be made to accommodate bad drivers also. Survival of the fittest is not a good rule when it comes to traffic law!
Yeah, but you know very well that many people drive 250km/h on the autobahn. If you decide to assume "reasonable speed levels" and try to overtake someone in a corner that's just you being a bad driver.
But sure, maybe the rules should better account for bad drivers.
E: > The fact is that the rules should be made to accommodate bad drivers also. Survival of the fittest is not a good rule when it comes to traffic law!
Of course, but people also need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Statistically the autobahn is quite safe, it's not clear that adding global speed limits would make it much better. It's very difficult to balance this possible minor safety increase with the fact that many (perhaps even most?) people find it vastly more comfortable to drive on the autobahn as is.
There are places where I refuse to drive because I'm not comfortable with the environment, there's no way you'll find me driving in a city like Barcelona or London. Perhaps you should do everyone (especially yourself!) a favour and consider the same in regards to the Autobahn?
For some reason now I have a reply button again. I want to use it to tell you that I find your suggestion based on the remarks I made here very rude. The driving skill you infer on my part probably says more about your interpretation of my comment than on my actual ability to navigate a vehicle safely. That said, I detest cars and wish cities were free of them. THAT said, I never posted this to take any stance on the "global speed limit on the Autobahn"-topic, so this will be it for me.
You yourself admitted to driving dangerously by overtaking in corners while ignoring the prevailing traffic conditions, for some reason you’ve now edited that part out.
Pointing this out isn’t an attack on your character. I’m a bad driver too, I get far too stressed out while driving in busy cities so I just don’t do that.
If you as a driver or your vehicle cannot move quickly enough to overtake another car on the autobanh then the fault is with you. That “rocketship” behind you should not have to decelerate because of this. The other poster is right: you are at fault here.
No, you are wrong here. §5.2 StVo[0] says (my bad translation) "You may only overtake if your speed is significantly higher than the one being overtaken."
So let's assume the one you're overtaking is going with a solid 100. What's significant? Let's say 150? +50%. The one approaching with 240 is still the perceived rocket ship.
Also, just for completeness, here's a blog post about some case[1] where the speed was being judged, 10km/h is barely enough. So let's be generous and change my example to 100+120.
Did you reply to the wrong person? By my reading we are saying the same thing. If a person cannot overtake quickly enough then they are at fault for impeding the “rocketship” traffic behind them.
>whenever I drive on the german Autobahn at some point it happens to me that I'm in the left lane to take someone over and another car comes speeding towards me from seemingly kilometers away at the speed of a damn rocketship
It sounds like you're doing something wrong if this happens regularly. Either you're overtaking without paying attention to your surroundings or you're overtaking cars your vehicle isn't reasonably capable of overtaking.
Going slow on the fast lane is supposed to be uncomfortable.
> Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit.
Does that make any difference if you’ve got reasonably good insurance?
"revolutionary" doesn't mean what people think it means. There's always someone paying a price for change; and literally no-one is willing to be at the receiving end of the stick.
What people also tend to forget is that a healthy, functional democratic state doesn't protect individual interests, it protects the collective by majority vote, for better or worst. As an individual, the state will protect you in so far that your protection benefits the collective.
The main difference with other forms of governance, such as a technocracy, is that you, as an individual, at least have a vote every so often and the chance to participate in an open public debate.
If the majority of people are pro-cars, then a democratic society will spawn politicians and politics that are largely pro-car. That's just par for the course. The prerogative of the minority is the freedom to voice their dissent.
The main reason why pro-car politics lead to half-baked policies, is because no car driving individual likes to see how their peers run over their close friends and family members. Crosswalks or bicycle lanes don't just exist to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, they also exist because a high number of traffic deaths is comes with political consequences on their part.
As such, the quality of public transport, pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, or how the justice system deals with traffic incidents, is a reflection of how important the majority deems to the safety of those who aren't in a car when they are behind the wheel.
At the end of the day, I feel there's a ton of cognitive dissonance involved when you are used to driving a ton of steel hurtling 20, 30 or 40 miles an hour down the road. Car constructors have made cars so much safer... for drivers and their passengers. Sadly, it often takes an accident before one starts to realize the impact and the consequences of their behavior in reality. That doesn't mean this isn't true for pedestrians and cyclists as well: you can't reasonably expect that every driver is going to yield every single time.
The crux is to approach a workable balance in that shared responsibility through sensible policies. And that's an ever-lasting exercise. Throwing your arms up and giving up fundamental freedoms in order for a technocratic regime to make sweeping policy changes, that's just throwing the good away with the bad parts.
I didn't mean to criticize living in a democracy in any way, just highlighting the effects of it. But you expanded quite nicely on that point, thank you!
Sadly, I think the goal of implementing policies in support of "the collective" largely got replaced with populism and catering to and never ever doing anything to anger our holy cow "the economy"[0]. IMO the politicians in my parent's time where held to a higher standard than the general populace and that's why they could implement policies that, while maybe frustrating to people in the short term (remember when seatbelts weren't a thing? I don't!), lead to a positive outcome in the long run and people instinctively knew this and trusted their elected representatives.
Today... well Donald Trump sits in the White House and populists are flooding european governments, so of course nothing can get done if nobody is willing to make principled decisions.
[0] Maybe I should make it clear that the people who speak for "the economy" are oftentimes a small minority of leaders of very big organizations not actually representing the bulk of what makes up the economy of a country.
I don't understand. We had Rahm Emmanuel on the job.
Seriously though, this is classic pablum. The kind of thing that gets whispered and then can't be turned off, and ends up being eagerly adopted by people who know they're going to half-ass it.
A big part of why LA has so many pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities is because the mass transit system is awful and the sprawl. A ton of people in LA still just drive drunk because ridesharing and cabs are too expensive. Lots of people can’t afford to pay $30 to get home and would rather risk it.
I've wondered for years why we don't have more tow trucks on the road for this, and bars need to have X amount on retainer per Y seating capacity.
It's not just the cost of the cab / uber, it's not having your car when you wake up, no good way to get it, and not being sure if the lot you left it in is going to have it impounded / booted or something.
Still waiting for the uber/tow combo that guarantees your car arrives before you wake up, and in the exact condition it was in when they went to pick it up.
I've heard of services where you call, and someone cycles (on a folding bicycle) to your location. They then put their bicycle in your car, and drive you home.
I am not sure we have enough tow trucks for this, and it seems unnecessary if the public transportation is robust enough. Even if you leave your car at the pub, it should be a minimal hassle to use public transportation the next day to get it back - or to simply use it in the first place. I do think we should disallow booting/towing for cars in those situations, so perhaps having a "safe" parking lot to keep one's car would be prudent.
The good thing is that the tow trucks wouldn't have to drive them all at 3am.. they could drive some at 3am some at 3:30am... most people don't need them until 7am or later - so you'd have 4 hours or more..
getting people to use public transportation - haha that's a whole 'nother podcast I'd like to do.. it's just not happening.
The booting, and LAZ parking's new "barnacle" - it's just absurd, as are the prices they charge.
Vars could start fixing the problem with tows - or the double drivers as another pointed out below, is popular in Japan..
or the cops could start pulling licenses for the places that are over serving.. or do the Salt Lake law where bars have to stop serving an hour before close / stay open an hour later than they stop serving..
I mean, something should be done. It's a true safety issue, and people are profiting by looking the other way every day in just about every city as far as I know.
In Japan there are taxi services that will drive you home in your own car (and they have a follow car to pick the driver up). They are reasonably priced.
LA is made at every level as a “car scale” metro region. Asking for it to be different is nearly an impossibility, given the amount of resources needed.
> Despite its efforts, San Francisco is facing headwinds. By October of this year, the city had counted 25 crash-induced fatalities, already higher than last year’s total.
The most notable change in SF has been the delayed light cycle after pedestrian crosswalk comes on. There was a spike in deaths after that change and I understood why immediately - drivers were timing the light by watching the crosswalk countdown and/or the cross traffic's light cycle. Your light used to turn green just as the other direction's light turned red. When they suddenly changed all the light I noticed a fair number of cars jolt forward then stop, confused, until their light actually changes 4 seconds later.
I'm not sure how this change results in deaths directly, but it definitely added to road rage out there. When the light does change and a car is turning, the expectations are different now. Pedestrians are in the middle of the street already and are less wary of cars jumping out because before there was a moment when everyone would figure out the situation before moving (ideally). Now people are mid-crosswalk and have no idea when the cars' light is going to change which leaves pedestrians more vulnerable.
Another issue I imagine is cars that are making a legal right turn on a red light. The driver looks to see if they can go and have their head turned the exact opposite direction of the crosswalk and wouldn't be aware of when the crosswalk symbol changes. Meanwhile, pedestrians aren't expecting a car to suddenly turn into them 2 seconds after they step into the crosswalk and it is a recipe for disaster. I don't see how they can fix that now without banning all turns on red.
There is also a particularly ugly intersection at Laguna and Geary where they instituted a delayed green when crossing over Geary. People were getting run over in the crosswalks because there is an extra long crosswalk on both sides and cars were turning from both directions with other cars getting backed up and unable to go around them. Because there isn't room for dedicated turn lanes, they have one side go then the other side go, but people lose their shit when they see the southbound cars coming at them for 15 seconds while their light is still red because all prior experience at other lights indicates they should also have a green light when other cars are going... I have seen multiple cars simply drive through that red light and one time 3 cars in a row just decided to go despite the red. They finally put up a sign that says "delayed green" which seems to be helping, but it is an imperfect solution and another counter-intuitive solution.
Just goes to show how many motorists drive around with a „the road is mine“-attitude.
If that doesn‘t change and people have no actual interest in the well-being of their fellow humans (which exceeds their interest to be home 10 seconds earlier) you can tout 0-fatality plans all you want, they will never pan out.
(Laguna and Van Ness are parallel N/S streets, maybe you meant a different intersection?)
Not to detract from your point, though. A lot of the Market St. intersections are deathtraps because of the diagonal grid-cutting nature of that street. You get really weird 5-way intersections that are confusing to navigate by drivers, illegal Uber/Lyft pickups, and mentally ill people (esp. near Civic Center) wandering aimlessly into the street. Hopefully the recent car ban will fix these issues.
The delayed lights are actually intended to address a pedestrian safety issue (see starting at slide 21 here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68...). I'm not aware of any spike in deaths, but it's possible there were unintended consequences as you described. IMO unprotected lefts at signals and right-on-red are inherently unsafe, but they're too integral to American driving culture to change at this point.
I don’t understand when I visit SF and as a pedestrian when my light is go there still seem to be cars allowed to cross my path. Why don’t they stop cars entirely for pedestrians to cross? And why don’t the lights in SF allow you to cross diagonally?
If you're referring to right turns on red, the US decided that it was OK as a means to save a very small amount of fuel in the 1970's, and it's been a menace for pedestrians ever since. Typically a driver sits there, stares left blankly, waits for an opening in traffic and then turns right without ever looking for pedestrians.
I'm curious where you live and what the signals are like there, because what you describe is how almost all the traffic signals I see work.
When the light is green on the N-S street, pedestrians have the right of way to cross N and S (on the E and W sides of the intersection). Cars going straight N and S also have the right of way, and cars can turn left or right from the N-S street after they yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
There are a few intersections in Ontario with a dedicated phase for crossing in any direction, including diagonally, but they're rare.
Anyway, I bet the different ways traffic signals work inform people's perception of traffic and streets in different places.
> I'm curious where you live and what the signals are like there
In the UK. Where I am if there is a light for a pedestrian to cross that guarantees no car will be trying to cross your path. I feel like you shouldn’t show a pedestrian a light if cars are still allowed to cross their path! Seems dangerous and misleading and it scares me every time.
In most cases what happens here is that the whole intersection gets stopped for pedestrians periodically, so you can cross diagonally as well.
Why isn’t that popular in North America? Trying to interleave cars and pedestrians and let cars edge towards you menacingly as they try to turn across your path is absolute madness to me.
I don't know how common each system is worldwide, but the UK system (no traffic against a "green man") is different to the system in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and California ("green man" but turning traffic must give way to pedestrians).
I do prefer the UK way, but the downside in a car-centric place like most of Britain is there's much less time for pedestrians to cross. You often wait over a minute for the pedestrian light to go green.
This is relatively normal in European mainland and it drives me daft. When both cars and pedestrians are technically "green" the cars should be extra cautious and slow down when they see someone approaching the crossing, but they just plough on through as they know no normal person will risk walking in front of a car going 30-40mph.
The intersection on 4th and Howard works mostly the way you describe, but still doesn't have lights to indicate that it is safe to cross diagonally. Most people I've walked through the area with were shocked when I cut across that way, including one who straight up refused to cross.
I live in a "bike friendly city", competing for the friendliest bike cities. Yet bikes seem like a distant after though. Things like putting "share the road" signs IN the bike lane during the day. Even worse at night they don't move them, but fold them down so they are near invisible (black cloth) even with a light. They re-engineered intersections with big cement islands to protect pedestrians... but force bikes into traffic right at the intersection.
When they want to slow down a bike trail they put a "S" in it, then line it with large boulders... typically where there's no street lights.
I live in a city that has lots of external commuter coming into it, and traffic is becoming a problem. And politics are going a bit haywire here... They have been arguing for years about some expensive, 2-station, city train in some inaccessible edge region of the city. And now they even proposed to tax driven distances on our roads, with some GPS tracking device or so in every car.
At multiple points the article tries to argue that things are outside the cities control. But this often sounds more like a cheap excuse.
From the text: "Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders."
Some of those, ok. But well, you can't stop people from buying SUVs, but nobody says you have to give them free or cheap parking spaces in dense cities or make streets wider for them. You can't stop ride-hailing services, but you can police them to follow traffic rules. You can't control gas prices, but you can control parking fees (and police them). You can't change state-level safety-laws, but you can make sure the existing ones are followed.
I wonder if people from such region are more likely to become victims when they go outside of their city since they might be less attentive to traffic else where.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oslo-traffic...
Road deaths in Oslo (pop. 673.000) in 2019:
Pedestrians: 0 Cyclists: 0 Children: 0
Totally different outcome from ”vision zero” - actually 0. Impressive.