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.
Some of the speed bumps-like techniques here in Sweden will do more than just be a bump, it will severely damage the tires if you don't slow down. Curbs that require the driver to make very tight turns for example can be made from fairly sharp stone with an clear edge. A SUV/pickup truck can speed over it, but the trip to the repair shop will make it less fun.
They added some square-like flower pots in the middle of a lovely road next to where I live in order to force drivers to make a double S turn. Those are made from sharp rust-painted steel, and most of the corners are now painted with other peoples car paint. The only way to make it through is to drive at walking speed, which basically everyone do.
the SUV/pickup culture is bad enough here in the South but they place speedbumps aggressively all over the place here.
Like 4" tall ones with no curve so that it absolutely slams the shit out of your small car if you're doing anything over 3mph. And they place them like every 8 feet. If you're in the lifted trucks most people drive here you can't even tell.
But if you imported a lifted truck, or another daft US vehicle like the Cybertruck into another country it would probably not be roadworthy and the traffic and speed calming measures are more appropriate.
Bullbars used to be a trend in the UK, for example, until they were band in the late 90s/early 00s because they were fatal to pedestrians.
It did not work in the US and resulted only in excess deaths in Seattle, SF, Portland.
The reasons for that are not clear, and urbanists obviously are afraid to investigate it. For fear of being branded "car-brain" and denied the cushy positions. I have a suspicion that in the US the destruction of city streets just _encourages_ reckless behavior from drivers.
Probably it comes down to culture. Finns and Norwegians are just generally more law-abiding.
Since it started in 2015, accidents are down 50%, but deaths up 90%. This analysis leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't see per-capita stats (Seattle had massive growth during a lot of those years), and we don't really enforce traffic laws at all anyway, so IDK what to think without digging in further.
The numbers seem a bit alarmist on the fatality front, seems like it would make more sense to account for fatalities as a proportion of accidents overall. In absolute numbers, we're talking tens of deaths and thousands of accidents.
As a visitor (periodically throughout the whole timespan) it's seemed to me like there's massive growth in population in the metro area and more densification inside the Seattle downtown area. Tough to tell what geography this exactly captures. Assuming the numbers are valid, I do wonder if there's a significant demographic or exurb shift, where older drivers became a higher proportion of all drivers where they already lived, and a bunch of others either stopped entirely or moved outside the city boundaries.
If memory serves, I feel like there's also a tendency to accidentally end up committed to a toll bridge crossing by getting stuck on an exit/on ramp off one of the highways, which might make people panic and bail at the last second erratically, but that idea seems a bit farfetched
You're asking the wrong question. The answer is 10%
The interesting question is power-to-weight, which was (apparently) a direct result of EPA regulations that were enacted in 1975. The below article, which I found from a search engine copying your question and looking at a few results, is an interesting read.
Ignoring all that, the actual question would be: how have car sizes and weights changed _in this region_ during this period of time. Sizes and weights of cars in brasil have little bearing to accidents in the PNW, for example.
> Ignoring all that, the actual question would be: how have car sizes and weights changed _in this region_ during this period of time. Sizes and weights of cars in brasil have little bearing to accidents in the PNW, for example.
Sorry that I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I meant. I'm curious because it makes absolutely no sense that a safer urban design with separation of grades for cyclists, lowering speeds through design and engineering rather than just updating speed limit signs, would see an increase in deaths. Nowhere else in the world where those were implemented has had that effect, the Netherlands being the prime benchmark for it.
So there's something else at play, average car sizes in the USA are much larger than Europe (and most of the rest of the world), the urban road design is not changed that much: perhaps stroads just got new speed limits and were left at that, instead of narrowing them, adding trees and other obstacles that naturally makes driving slower and more cautious, so on and so forth.
There's also the added issue that American driving standards for a licence are incredibly low since it's kinda required for you to have a driver's licence to exist and have a life in the majority of the country.
it’s hard to isolate the effect size of policy, covid happened, car weights changed, policing may have decreased, US drivers may have driven differently, population size, etc.
I live in Seattle and anecdotally I have seen the number of people running red lights absolutely explode in the last two years. Literally from seeing once or twice pre-COVID to at least one a day. This is not an exaggeration, there's a particular light on my commute that I see at least one driver run per day. My theory is that in an effort to make the intersection safer they adjusted the lights so now there's a period where cars all have a red light while pedestrians are crossing. Meanwhile a certain segment of the population sees all cars in the intersection stopped and decides to slam it. It's a recipe for disaster given there's a middle school down the road from that light...
Traffic behavior, in general in the PNW, has gotten way worse. When I say worse I mean selfish. I think since COVID people are just more selfish.
I don't just mean assholes who do what they want. People just don't give a crap about others on the road at all anymore. A lot of folks who probably think they're driving "safe" are just driving selfishly slow and not following the law(super late blinkers, failing to move predictably with traffic, braking in traffic long before entering a turn lane).
It's definitely worse nowadays. I can think of plenty of reasons why. But really I think our society, generally, has started to reward selfish behavior. Or at least not punish it nearly enough to deter it's spread.
I don't have an explanation for these increases, and there are no good papers that explore this in depth. I need to write a meta-research paper: "On the lack of research on urbanism-related policy failures".
I'm confused: what didn't work in Seattle/SF/Portland?
Enforcement didn't work because people won't follow the law anyway or engineering didn't work because people tried to drive through the obstacles or approach them with the same speed and smashed/smooshed more?
SF tried a multi-front approach called "Vision Zero". I think initially deaths went down for a couple years but then ticked back up. No, people aren't (usually) driving through obstacles.
As someone living in SF since before it was implemented, getting the causality right and excluding cofounders seems VERY hard. Things have changed so much here since the early 00s.
We're not talking about 2003 or something. The Zero Vision-related programs started getting serious around 2016. Deep into the iPhone era.
And there are also other facts that point out to Zero Vision being the case. Cities that did not go all-in on this program seem not to have experienced the rise in deaths. I have not researched this in detail, because quantifying the level of road sabotage is tricky. But it definitely _looks_ like it's the case just based on subjective observations.
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.
When I was 12, I watched a redneck in a pickup truck try to race the light rail downtown and cut across the road in front of it, only to get T-boned by the railcar against a nearby station. It was the middle of the day and the guy was definitely sober.
People in the U.S. are simply constructed differently, and as a result I think are unfortunately immune to a lot of the subtle forces that generally help to improve safety in other civilized societies.
People? You mentioned one person (who won a Darwin Award--hopefully he hadn't already bred).
P.S.
As for the absurd response, the assertion was
> People in the U.S. are simply constructed differently
and a handwaving reference to an intercity train system from someone who can't even be bothered to make any sort of argument does not establish the point.
I don't doubt that US voters won't want to limit speeds to 18mph and fill our roads with speed cameras to enforce it.
I'm guessing that if average commute time in Helsinki was anywhere near what it is in the US they'd probably want to get to their destinations a little faster.
We could probably get away with it if we also redesigned every city and suburb and invested massive amounts of money into public transportation to get something comparable and after all of that I'm sure that many people would probably be happy with what we ended up with, but the disruption of every person's lives in the process would be extremely painful.
We're better off focusing on making sure that new developments are better designed than bulldozing over people's homes and businesses in order to redesign everything we already have.
I find it amusing that people will quote the "Greed is Good" speech by Gordon Gecko, and they will do it unironically, I guess forgetting that he's the villain in that movie. You're not supposed to agree with him.
Every death under socialism is attributed to socialism. Every death under capitalism is attributed to individual failing or inevitability. Please follow the rules.
I'd argue that the way that socialist Russia turned out was very specifically because of very greedy people, so not negating my point. Stalin basically appointed himself kings while using anti-king rhetoric to take down the Romanovs.
We've banned this account. HN is not the place for this kind of rhetoric, and looking down your comment history, there is a recurring pattern of these kinds of comments that we can't allow to continue.
I’ll point out the obvious that this is entirely based on perspective. An individual whose dominant mode of transportation is not driving would probably disagree.
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.
I'm American and I find the way Americans misuse words, or completely misrepresent a concept, so we don't have to accept our failings to be really short sighted.
Americans lie to ourselves constantly to perpetuate our mistakes. We twist the meaning of words so we don't have to admit how selfish/shitty we can be.
You're right. Most Americans won't come out and say what they mean, so they'll dance around it. That's how so many racist Americans can say they aren't racist.
Amsterdam also reduced many roads from 50 to 30 kmph. Accidents have reduced by 11% and travel time has only increased 1-5%. That is less than one minute on a 20 minute trip.
I haven’t looked into this specific case, but most of the time the limiting factor is other traffic. You’re not traveling at full speed the whole time. If a lower speed adds 10 minutes to the average trip, but it reduces 9 minutes’ worth of traffic, you’ve only lost net one minute. A lower speed limit will often reduce traffic because the speed-up-slow-down behavior is reduced.
Personally, I have driven around the Netherlands a fair bit and this sort of thing does seem to be roughly true for the median case. It can definitely be annoying when the streets are empty, though. For those journeys you’re obviously losing a fair bit of time.
Maybe people got so frustrated by having to drive at a snails pace that it became preferable and/or faster to just use other modes of transportation which cut down on traffic improving travel times?
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.
I'm not sure where I saw it but I think I read that most recent increases in Japanese bicycle accidents are from bicycles turning right. It seems like the push to make bicycles use the road more (to reduce pedestrian vs bicycle accidents, which are still rising) had the unintentional consequence of making cyclists more likely to perform right turns like cars and motorcycles. However the road law actually requires bicycles to do two-stage turns, which they were more likely to do when they were riding on the sidewalk, and what cyclists in Amsterdam and Copenhagen recommend doing. So, I mean, sure, more cycling paths would improve the situation by making cyclists perform 2 stage turns, but there's nothing really stopping us from doing it now.
You can drive a car until public transit isn't an issue and change modes there. Removing cars from city centres should be the bare minimum for a more livable city, and in decently planned cities the area where cars are inconvenient to drive intersects exactly where public transit is good.
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.
But there's practically zero enforcement and everyone knows it. You have the few law abiding people doing 25 while others are doing 50 while stoned and texting.. on the same road.
Narrowing lanes creates new hazards because cars sold are only getting larger and can barely fit. There is too often no margin for error.
There are no roadworthiness inspections in these states. Many people are driving on worn tires and suspensions. Most people don't even know what types of tires they have or what the tire pressures are.
Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
It has nothing to do with enforcement and everything to do with roads being interconnected and naturally load balancing thanks to modern gps routing.
You slow down a main through road it puts that traffic right onto residential roads that formerly weren't worth taking and so someone's kid who used to ride their bike in the street has to either stop or risk getting turned into paste.
I live in a state with stringent roadworthiness inspections BTW.
> Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
Retesting is vital, too. Every 10 years. And if you have something like 3 moving violations you should have to do some community service, and retake the test.
I don't believe in fines on individuals: if the punishment for a crime is a fine, that law only applies to the poor. If you insist on endangering the lives of the people around you, then you get the same inconvenience as anyone else.
Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs.
So now you have a road where the speed limit used to be 35, but is large and straight enough to comfortably go 45, with a speed limit of 25. That causes people to go wildly different speeds and (in my opinion) makes it a lot more dangerous.
> Seattle lowered the speed limit on a lot of roads, but didn't do much else beyond add a few "No turn on red" signs.
As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials.
My city has been doing traffic calming projects where they redesign the road for the speed they want people to drive at and that has actually worked well.
All lowering the speed limit does is make it easier for cops to harass poor people, it doesn’t actually change the way people drive.
> As you said, that doesn’t do anything since the road is designed to go 35-45 MPH, that is how fast people will go, with the exception of inflexible rule followers that drive 25 MPH and cause dangerous speed differentials.
If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential. You're blaming the rule followers, when in fact it is the people with the patience of a toddler causing the speed differential.
Driving is, in most cases, the only life-and-death activity you undertake during your day, and if you don't have the emotional capacity to handle not being where you want instantly, you don't have the emotional capacity to handle a machine that can kill other people.
> If speediots followed the rules, there wouldn't be a speed differential.
But, they don’t. So there is a speed differential. That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution.
Redesigning the road so people instinctively drive slower does actually work. You take a four lane road, and change it to a two-lane road with left turn lanes, concrete medians that make the road appear narrower, concrete aprons that jut out into the road at crosswalks to make it appear even narrower, wider medians, and so on. The two major roads in my neighborhood have been redesigned this way and the results have been great, if a road is properly designed for a specific speed, you can actually get people to drive slower. It works on me, and I know the tricks.
What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties, relying on unreliable humans to moderate their behavior, when you could prevent it by designing the road so that even speeders drive the speed limit or slightly over.
I’ve seen redesigning roads actually work, you can be dismissive and pray that people will magically follow the rules, but that won’t make it so.
I think redesign is the way to go, but there are places that are only separated from the U.S. in terms of education and enforcement, and compliance is excellent there. Really we can do both.
> That’s reality, you aren’t going to change that unless you start executing people that speed, and that isn’t a realistic solution.
This is an adult conversation, please think before you type absurdities like this.
If (A) there was enough enforcement to actually catch people that speed, and (B) the punishment was rehabilitative (you have to clean up the roadway you were endangering people's lives on and take a class to retest for your license) there would be far fewer speeders.
> What you’re arguing for is akin to operating industrial machinery without safeties
No, actually, I'd love if we redesigned roads so people instinctively drive slower. I'm not arguing against that in any way.
All my post was doing was insisting that if you're going to blame someone, you place blame where it belongs. You're blaming people doing what they should be doing instead of the people endangering everyone around them.
Sigh. You people are like these climate change deniers who are saying that "the climate is cooling" because this year is slightly cooler than the previous one.
Your own article has a chart with the number of deaths by year, and the noisy upward trend from 2016 is pretty clear. But I admit that I did not check the data for 2025 before I wrote my post.
So my post can be amended to: "Increased or stayed the same". There is definitely no _decrease_ compared to the previous state.
In California it seems a lot of cities decided to try and add bike infrastructure but the design process yielded many compromises, since that infrastructure comes at the expense of car (and parking) infrastructure. As a result we got really bad bike lanes, but gave up few parking spots. The design process declared victory via compromise- best of both worlds. In reality, the bike lanes are worthless and cyclists like myself just use the primary vehicle lanes, since not dying is more important than protecting the convenience and respecting the supremacy of other road users. Drivers honk and yell and deliberately endanger you, but that was true before too.
The article talks about using design and engineering out of the problem. I do not believe that is what was done in the cities you cite, even if that was their headline intention.
The data shows that these policies have comprehensively failed in Seattle, SF, and Portland. They did not result in a decrease in deaths through the use of traffic engineering. There are likely multiple reasons why that happened, but that's beside the point here and should be a subject of at least several PhD theses.
Yet these policies measurably worsened the average quality of life by increasing congestion, and lengthening the average commutes.
Focusing on the metrics you want to focus on, does not make the data unambiguous. eg This analysis has not accounted for cohort sizing. Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al.
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.
> Increasing travel times and inconvenience isn’t a win and safetyism is irrational.
By very narrow definitions of win. Perhaps more time in transit is worth fewer deaths and less pollution. (I rode a bike daily and year round in northern Ohio for 8y.)
> If you can’t make fast driving safer you haven’t achieved anything really.
By what measure of achievement? Zero traffic deaths in a heavily populated city is quite an accomplishment IMO. But I'm not a racecar driver so maybe I'm unqualified to judge.
In London they've deliberately made driving more of a pain doing thing like removing parking and reducing lanes with the idea of making it better for walking and cycling. Most people seem ok with the trade off.
I don't know about travel times and convenience. The last couple of years I've mostly switched to ebike and it's faster than anything in central London. The same journey of say 2 miles can take 10 mins by ebike, 15 taxi, 30 tube/bus, 20-40 private car driving in circles trying to park.
And speediots' data free claims don't ever honestly talk about how they're totally okay with letting thousands of people die every year so they can save a few seconds that they're just going to waste posting their self-centered opinions to Hacker News.
There's no ethical justification for speeding--you're just okay with being unethical if it allows you to not have to learn patience.
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/
reply