Commentary: Vision Zero is no clear path to safety on city streets
VISION ZERO, Complete Streets, Smart Growth or any other name it is called is an attack upon drivers. Vision Zero started in Sweden as an approach to minimizing traffic accidents and fatalities, including cars hitting bicyclists and pedestrians. This initiative is being heavily pushed by the Kenney administration and the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. Basically, the initiative is designed to make life so miserable that people will not drive.
VISION ZERO, Complete Streets, Smart Growth or any other name it is called is an attack upon drivers. Vision Zero started in Sweden as an approach to minimizing traffic accidents and fatalities, including cars hitting bicyclists and pedestrians. This initiative is being heavily pushed by the Kenney administration and the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. Basically, the initiative is designed to make life so miserable that people will not drive.
The speed-camera aspect is the most outrageous one. Where these are used, the speed limits are artificially low and tickets go out to drivers just barely above the speed limit. This is designed to ticket average drivers for profit. Ignored is the fact that speed cameras have been shown to make significant errors. The readings have been wrong, stopped cars were supposedly speeding, and incorrect cars have been cited. All speed-timing devices and cameras have potential errors, which may occur, but not be obvious.
Another component is red-light cameras. It was reported multiple times that crashes increased at red-light camera intersections in Philadelphia. Will these same master planners be running Vision Zero in Philly? It is common nationwide for yellow lights to be too short, so people are cited a split-second after the light changes. Also common are tickets for stopping beyond the stop line, or a non-complete stop for a right-on-red turn. People are not blowing through lights on purpose. Every city using these might have different criteria, but the basic premise is the same. If you want real safety at traffic lights, all you need are speed limits set to the 85th percentile free-flowing traffic speed, longer yellows, decent length all-red intervals, and sensors to keep an all-red interval if someone enters late.
What would having fewer or narrower vehicular lanes do, except cause more congestion, air pollution, road rage, crashes, etc.? Isn't that what supporters are trying to stop? It was acknowledged that the purpose of bike lanes is to negatively affect car usage, not provide room for bikes. Speaking of this, why must bike lanes always be on the busiest roads, not the side streets?
How many of the crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists are the fault of these people, not the cars? The answer is quite a few. It is time for pedestrians and bicyclists to be fully aware of all laws, pay attention, and use common sense to avoid conflicts.
We need to strive for proper traffic engineering, based upon sound science. When you combine poor traffic engineering with predatory enforcement, you create a total disaster. I strongly urge all residents of Pennsylvania and the people who drive here to say no to Vision Zero.