Fatal Crashes and Fatalities Report
2013_-_2017_-_fatal_crashes_and_fatalities_report_as_of_2019-2-25-9-38.pdf | |
File Size: | 24 kb |
File Type: |
Vision Zero Network Case Studies
The Vision Zero features case studies on city and initiatives that are leading the way in Vision Zero policy and action.
Safety Over Speed
Safe speed is a core tenet of Vision Zero and the safe systems approach. Learn how cities are managing speed and more about safe systems.
VISION ZERO SUCCESS DEPENDS ON MANAGING SPEED FOR SAFETY
Reducing speed to save lives and eliminate life altering injuries is a cornerstone of Vision Zero. Unlike the traditional approach, Vision Zero brings a safe systems approach to transportation planning, priorities, and implementation. A safe systems approach recognizes that humans are going to make mistakes, and seeks to design a system that allows for these mistakes, rather than expecting perfect behavior to minimize death and injury.
Vision Zero calls on cities to manage safe speeds for everyone, whether they are driving, walking, or bicycling. Safe speeds are especially important to help protect the most vulnerable on the road, and the difference of just 5 or 10 miles an hour can literally mean life or death in a crash.
National Study Urges Safety Over Speed & Vision Zero Approach
More than 10,000 people lose their lives each year in speeding related crashes, accounting for ⅓ of all traffic crashes across the United States. We know what works to improve safety on our roadways, but a lack of national leadership and on-the-ground action has allowed thousands more lives to be lost each year.
We commend the work of the National Transportation Safety Board, the nation’s leading authority on crashes and prevention strategies, and its landmark study, published in August 2017, for recognizing the deadly problem of speed and calling for action to dramatically reduce speed-related deaths and injuries.
The study calls the problem of speed underestimated and underappreciated, and explicitly emphasizes the need for reform of outdated practices and policies, including allowing greater local control of managing speed. Read our response to the study, which includes details on study recommendations and findings here.
Effective Solutions to Slow Speeds
Three strategies are proven to be particularly effective in managing safe speeds.
SAFE STREET DESIGN
Street design is one of the single-most important strategies to slow speeds and make streets safe for everyone. Design techniques like roundabouts, speed humps, medians, and road diets are all proven solutions to slowing speeds and making streets safe.
Safe street design is the foundation for a Safe Systems approach. We simply cannot educate or enforce our way out of traffic safety problems. Cities must build a foundation of streets, sidewalks, and bikeways that prioritize safety over speed.
Streets with these designs are also referred to as Complete Streets, to accommodate everyone on the road, whether they are walking, bicycling, or taking transit. The National Complete Streets Coalition has a wealth of resources on this subject and how Complete Streets can help to build complete neighborhoods.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has numerous resources on traffic calming and extensive research on traffic calming’s benefits to reduce crashes and serious injuries.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has published a suite of design guides that provide excellent illustrations of design choices.
AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT
Research shows that safety cameras, also known as automated speed enforcement, lead to long term benefits when implemented smartly and thoughtfully. Communities that permit automated speed enforcement have experienced positive results. Data in NTSB’s report cites the review of 28 ASE studies, which collectively found that cameras reduced crashes between 8-49%.
However, because of restrictive state policies, only 14 states and Washington, D.C. currently allow for these cameras. NTSB’s study calls for states and local cities to authorize the use of automated speed enforcement because of the highly effective nature of the cameras to curb speeding.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), estimates that if all U.S. communities had speed camera programs like one in Montgomery County, MD, established in 2007, more than 22,000 fatal or incapacitating injuries would have been prevented on 25-35 mph roads nationwide in 2015.
NTSB recommends in its study that states amend laws and authorize state and local agencies to use and promote use of automated speed enforcement.
SAFE SPEED LIMITS
NTSB’s study recognizes that today’s standards for setting speed limits are, in many cases, outdated and ineffective.
Most states rely on the 85th percentile standard to set speed limits. This policy emerged as early as the 1940s and is based on the assumption that the majority of drivers can operate at reasonable speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road geometry, and other factors. Yet, this viewpoint means that drivers set the speed limit.
NTSB concludes in its study that using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits may have unintended consequences, and more specifically, that raising the speed limit to match the 85th percentile speed may lead to higher operating speeds, and hence a higher 85th percentile speed and more dangerous speeds. NTSB recommends revising traditional speed-setting standards to balance with the safe systems approach to incorporate other critical factors, such as crash history and the safety of people walking and bicycling.
Currently, speed limits on many roads are controlled by the state. If a city wants to lower the speed limit on local roads, many are forced to laboriously move state legislation to make the change. We commend cities like Portland, Seattle, New York City, and Boston — all Vision Zero cities — for working on legislative change to lower speed limits for the sake of safety.
RESOURCESSafe Street Design:
Reducing speed to save lives and eliminate life altering injuries is a cornerstone of Vision Zero. Unlike the traditional approach, Vision Zero brings a safe systems approach to transportation planning, priorities, and implementation. A safe systems approach recognizes that humans are going to make mistakes, and seeks to design a system that allows for these mistakes, rather than expecting perfect behavior to minimize death and injury.
Vision Zero calls on cities to manage safe speeds for everyone, whether they are driving, walking, or bicycling. Safe speeds are especially important to help protect the most vulnerable on the road, and the difference of just 5 or 10 miles an hour can literally mean life or death in a crash.
National Study Urges Safety Over Speed & Vision Zero Approach
More than 10,000 people lose their lives each year in speeding related crashes, accounting for ⅓ of all traffic crashes across the United States. We know what works to improve safety on our roadways, but a lack of national leadership and on-the-ground action has allowed thousands more lives to be lost each year.
We commend the work of the National Transportation Safety Board, the nation’s leading authority on crashes and prevention strategies, and its landmark study, published in August 2017, for recognizing the deadly problem of speed and calling for action to dramatically reduce speed-related deaths and injuries.
The study calls the problem of speed underestimated and underappreciated, and explicitly emphasizes the need for reform of outdated practices and policies, including allowing greater local control of managing speed. Read our response to the study, which includes details on study recommendations and findings here.
Effective Solutions to Slow Speeds
Three strategies are proven to be particularly effective in managing safe speeds.
SAFE STREET DESIGN
Street design is one of the single-most important strategies to slow speeds and make streets safe for everyone. Design techniques like roundabouts, speed humps, medians, and road diets are all proven solutions to slowing speeds and making streets safe.
Safe street design is the foundation for a Safe Systems approach. We simply cannot educate or enforce our way out of traffic safety problems. Cities must build a foundation of streets, sidewalks, and bikeways that prioritize safety over speed.
Streets with these designs are also referred to as Complete Streets, to accommodate everyone on the road, whether they are walking, bicycling, or taking transit. The National Complete Streets Coalition has a wealth of resources on this subject and how Complete Streets can help to build complete neighborhoods.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has numerous resources on traffic calming and extensive research on traffic calming’s benefits to reduce crashes and serious injuries.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has published a suite of design guides that provide excellent illustrations of design choices.
AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT
Research shows that safety cameras, also known as automated speed enforcement, lead to long term benefits when implemented smartly and thoughtfully. Communities that permit automated speed enforcement have experienced positive results. Data in NTSB’s report cites the review of 28 ASE studies, which collectively found that cameras reduced crashes between 8-49%.
However, because of restrictive state policies, only 14 states and Washington, D.C. currently allow for these cameras. NTSB’s study calls for states and local cities to authorize the use of automated speed enforcement because of the highly effective nature of the cameras to curb speeding.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), estimates that if all U.S. communities had speed camera programs like one in Montgomery County, MD, established in 2007, more than 22,000 fatal or incapacitating injuries would have been prevented on 25-35 mph roads nationwide in 2015.
NTSB recommends in its study that states amend laws and authorize state and local agencies to use and promote use of automated speed enforcement.
SAFE SPEED LIMITS
NTSB’s study recognizes that today’s standards for setting speed limits are, in many cases, outdated and ineffective.
Most states rely on the 85th percentile standard to set speed limits. This policy emerged as early as the 1940s and is based on the assumption that the majority of drivers can operate at reasonable speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road geometry, and other factors. Yet, this viewpoint means that drivers set the speed limit.
NTSB concludes in its study that using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits may have unintended consequences, and more specifically, that raising the speed limit to match the 85th percentile speed may lead to higher operating speeds, and hence a higher 85th percentile speed and more dangerous speeds. NTSB recommends revising traditional speed-setting standards to balance with the safe systems approach to incorporate other critical factors, such as crash history and the safety of people walking and bicycling.
Currently, speed limits on many roads are controlled by the state. If a city wants to lower the speed limit on local roads, many are forced to laboriously move state legislation to make the change. We commend cities like Portland, Seattle, New York City, and Boston — all Vision Zero cities — for working on legislative change to lower speed limits for the sake of safety.
RESOURCESSafe Street Design:
- Institute of Transportation Engineers traffic calming
- Federal Highway Administration speed management
- WHO speed management manual for decision-makers and practitioners
- NACTO urban street design guide
- IIHS roundabout page
- FHWA Modern Roundabouts
- Crash Modification Factor website
- FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions
- FHWA Traffic Calming Primer
- Guidelines for speed enforcement cameras, NHTSA, FHWA, 2008
- Automated Enforcement for Speeding and Red Light Running, NCHRP, TRB, 2012
- Automated Speed Enforcement IMplementation: Survey Findings and Lessons Learned from Around the Country, City, and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller, 2015
- Outcome Evaluation: Fixed Photo Radar System, City of Portland, 2015-2017
- Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report, New York City, 2014-2016
Equity
CENTERING EQUITY: SAFE MOBILITY IS A RIGHT
Vision Zero Cities Should Commit to Equity From the Start
Vision Zero is based on the premise that all people have the right to move about their communities safely.
If done well, Vision Zero can help transform broken systems into safe systems. This entails recognizing that many of our communities have been systemically discriminated against in transportation practices, and that not all communities are starting from the same place, in terms of safety investments. In addition, problems of racial bias in policing raises urgent questions about how we must use Vision Zero to improve – not inadvertently exacerbate – negative, unintended consequences, particularly in communities of color and low-income communities.
Read about successful strategies U.S. Vision Zero cities are using to integrate equity into their work in our report: Centering Equity in Vision Zero.
Three broad goals for integrating equity into Vision Zero are to:
Vision Zero is a data-driven approach, and as cities dig into the data, most find that a relatively small percentage of streets are the sites of the majority of deaths and serious injuries over a period of time. These streets are often labeled High Injury Networks and should be prioritized for safety improvements. Cities should invest in proven strategies in smart, equitable ways, such as safe street design and speed management efforts, especially to protect the most vulnerable on the road.
Many cities are overlaying their High Injury Networks with equity priorities sometimes called Communities of Concern. This allows them to identify and communicate funding priorities to multiple city departments and the general public. .
Engage the Community
While data is important, it does not tell the full story on its own. Assessing which needs are greatest requires data combined with a robust community engagement process. If done well, both the city and the community will learn new information, and community members will be empowered to continue participating in Vision Zero.
This is particularly important because some communities have been systematically marginalized and under-resourced, and some may be less likely to report traffic crashes. In addition, some locations may feel so dangerous and unwelcoming that people avoid walking or biking there, which means these locations are not elevated as problem spots with high injuries, yet are still unsafe.
How can engaging the community be done successfully? Part of the answer includes collaborating with community groups that are genuinely engaged in the neighborhoods, who have strong connections with and respect of locals, and who can help share the hopes and fears of long-time residents. And, it is important to understand that this is work, and work comes with a price tag. Cities should be ready to compensate the efforts of hard-working community groups sharing their time and expertise to help advance Vision Zero.
The cities of Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco are demonstrating how to meaningfully engage communities as part of a larger Vision Zero initiative. Learn more about their work in our blog.
Examine the Role of Enforcement
Vision Zero does not call for more traffic enforcement. Given express concerns around racial bias in police actions, it is important to understand that the risk of over-policing runs counter to the goals of Vision Zero of ensuring safety for all, particularly those disproportionately impacted by traffic violence in the U.S., including people of color and low-income communities.
Recognize that Vision Zero is not built on the traditional E’s approach to traffic safety (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, etc.). Instead, it is built on a safe systems approach to traffic safety. We know that not all E’s are created equal: roadway design and speed management are paramount to Vision Zero success, while appropriate education and enforcement efforts play supporting roles. And within those roles, much needs to be examined and improved to ensure that traffic enforcement in the name of Vision Zero is not resulting in unintended consequences of racial bias or discrimination in other forms.
Vision Zero Cities Should Commit to Equity From the Start
Vision Zero is based on the premise that all people have the right to move about their communities safely.
If done well, Vision Zero can help transform broken systems into safe systems. This entails recognizing that many of our communities have been systemically discriminated against in transportation practices, and that not all communities are starting from the same place, in terms of safety investments. In addition, problems of racial bias in policing raises urgent questions about how we must use Vision Zero to improve – not inadvertently exacerbate – negative, unintended consequences, particularly in communities of color and low-income communities.
Read about successful strategies U.S. Vision Zero cities are using to integrate equity into their work in our report: Centering Equity in Vision Zero.
Three broad goals for integrating equity into Vision Zero are to:
- Invest where needs are greatest
- Engage the community
- Examine the role of enforcement
Vision Zero is a data-driven approach, and as cities dig into the data, most find that a relatively small percentage of streets are the sites of the majority of deaths and serious injuries over a period of time. These streets are often labeled High Injury Networks and should be prioritized for safety improvements. Cities should invest in proven strategies in smart, equitable ways, such as safe street design and speed management efforts, especially to protect the most vulnerable on the road.
Many cities are overlaying their High Injury Networks with equity priorities sometimes called Communities of Concern. This allows them to identify and communicate funding priorities to multiple city departments and the general public. .
Engage the Community
While data is important, it does not tell the full story on its own. Assessing which needs are greatest requires data combined with a robust community engagement process. If done well, both the city and the community will learn new information, and community members will be empowered to continue participating in Vision Zero.
This is particularly important because some communities have been systematically marginalized and under-resourced, and some may be less likely to report traffic crashes. In addition, some locations may feel so dangerous and unwelcoming that people avoid walking or biking there, which means these locations are not elevated as problem spots with high injuries, yet are still unsafe.
How can engaging the community be done successfully? Part of the answer includes collaborating with community groups that are genuinely engaged in the neighborhoods, who have strong connections with and respect of locals, and who can help share the hopes and fears of long-time residents. And, it is important to understand that this is work, and work comes with a price tag. Cities should be ready to compensate the efforts of hard-working community groups sharing their time and expertise to help advance Vision Zero.
The cities of Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco are demonstrating how to meaningfully engage communities as part of a larger Vision Zero initiative. Learn more about their work in our blog.
Examine the Role of Enforcement
Vision Zero does not call for more traffic enforcement. Given express concerns around racial bias in police actions, it is important to understand that the risk of over-policing runs counter to the goals of Vision Zero of ensuring safety for all, particularly those disproportionately impacted by traffic violence in the U.S., including people of color and low-income communities.
Recognize that Vision Zero is not built on the traditional E’s approach to traffic safety (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, etc.). Instead, it is built on a safe systems approach to traffic safety. We know that not all E’s are created equal: roadway design and speed management are paramount to Vision Zero success, while appropriate education and enforcement efforts play supporting roles. And within those roles, much needs to be examined and improved to ensure that traffic enforcement in the name of Vision Zero is not resulting in unintended consequences of racial bias or discrimination in other forms.
Vision Zero Cities Map
From Seattle to New York City, San Diego to Washington, D.C. a number of leading cities have committed to Vision Zero — while many others are considering and working toward such a commitment.So what makes a Vision Zero City? One that meets the following minimum criteria:
- A clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries has been set.
- The Mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero.
- A Vision Zero plan or strategy is in place, or the Mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame.
- Key city departments (including police, transportation and public health) are engaged.
vision-zero-cities-jan-2019.pdf | |
File Size: | 484 kb |
File Type: |
Webinar Recordings
The Vision Zero Network hosts numerous webinars each year to highlight successful strategies in Vision Zero cities across the U.S.
Communications
Effective Vision Zero campaigns use a sophisticated, data-driven approach, ensuring that the right message reaches the right audience at the right time. Communications strategies should be tailored to the local audience, and followed up with evaluation.
Core elements
vzn_coreelements_final.pdf | |
File Size: | 423 kb |
File Type: |