SAFETY AND MOBILITY
The Vision Zero is the Swedish approach to road safety thinking. It can be summarized in one sentence: No loss of life is acceptable. The Vision Zero approach has proven highly successful. It is based on the simple fact that we are human and make mistakes. The road system needs to keep us moving. But it must also be designed to protect us at every turn.
“Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society”.
“Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid a similar event”.
Cost-benefit analysis always limits the lives saved as too costly for industry. Vision Zero works to save all lives. Which of your relatives would you sacrifice for cost-benefit?
NHTSA places profit of small businesses over the lives of trucking victims and their families, NHTSA claims democracy must be sacrificed to small business simplicity and cost savings. Lives of the aged and un-belted and those lost at higher speeds are not even worth counting. Desire and safety of the populace has no bearing. Underride Guard technology is held to 1950’s levels to protect small business versus societal benefits.
Vision Zero originated to remove the victim blaming approach to safety that was maintaining high death and injury rates. Do you blame distracted pedestrians or add external audible alarms to warn people when a bus driver is turning and permanently solve the problem and save lives.
I watched a local Sheriff Deputy give a presentation on victims of drinking and driving and stress the importance of enforcement to reduce the deaths and injuries. He referenced the deaths of 10 teens in drinking related crashes. They all died in crashes with roadside trees! It never occurred to him to also recommend crash cushions and removing roadside trees would probably save twice as many victims with less pain and cost. This is Vision Zero thinking. Stop just judging the behavior and solely focus on saving lives. What works? Enforce, educate, and place crash cushions – why not?
See article link below:
But in Sweden, where the program originated, there is no victim-blaming component to Vision Zero. Last summer, Claes Tingvall, director of traffic safety for the Swedish Transport Administration, said Vision Zero should involve “moving responsibility upwards” — that is, holding fleet operators, rather than individuals, responsible for street safety. To watch these PSAs, this is the opposite of what the MTA is doing.
Karth Family Vision Zero Petitions
1. Change rulemaking policy to move away from a cost/benefit model and adopt a more humanistic, rational Vision Zero safety strategy model which will impact all DOT safety regulations;
2. Apply Vision Zero principles initiating rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking on all new large trucks; and
3. Apply Vision Zero principles by requiring crash test-based performance standards for truck side and rear underride guards.