SAFETY AND MOBILITY
Vision Zero states that the loss of human life and health is unacceptable and therefore the road transport system should be designed in a way that such events do not occur. This means that safety is a more important area than other issues in the road transport system (except for health-related environmental issues). Mobility therefore should follow from safety and cannot be obtained at the expense of safety.
With the advent of Vision Zero, says Tingvall, came the realization that mobility and safety are not mutually exclusive. “We as people today, I think we are not willing to sacrifice one thing for another benefit. Or that some should sacrifice so that someone else is getting a benefit. That time is over.”
“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.