Post

Conversation

“Vision Zero” is a perfect example of SF gov incompetence: It has noncontroversial, well-specified goals (lower traffic deaths) There are well-understood ways to meet those goals (police, bollards, speed bumps) SF refuses to do SF spends a ton ($25M/yr) anyways Deaths go up
Quote
San Francisco Chronicle
@sfchronicle
An official body of S.F. citizens that the city empanels each year finds San Francisco “failed by its own metrics” to make streets safer. sfchronicle.com/sf/article/vis
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

The tried speed reductions and the net result was more speeding:
Quote
Kane 謝凱堯
@kane
Very on-brand San Francisco policy-making and enforcement: 9 streets lowered speed limits 5 of those drivers just ignored 4 of those drivers sped up Bravo x.com/sfchronicle/st…
Image
It’s also impossible: expecting zero fatalities in a dense urban environment is not a realistic goal. In past years, some of the deaths were entirely self-inflicted. I also think focusing entirely on deaths doesn’t show the full picture - they need to look at injuries as well.
Vision Zero has good intentions, but is based primarily on ideology. It will never make a dent unless it is completely overhauled.
LA's Vision Zero wasn't too hot either 👇
Quote
SASBoomstick
@SASBoomstick
LA's Vision Zero... Despite an abundance of bike lanes (60+ miles in 2020) & $50.6M spent in '22-'23, fatalities jumped from 245 in 2015 to 302 in 2024. It seems every mile of new bike lane brings more death. That money could have saved lives through treatment & recovery 😔
Screenshot of KTLA headline Los Angeles tried to eliminate traffic deaths by 2025 instead they increased
Vision Zero always seemed like a trojan horse for the real intent: punish car drivers. Removing lanes on main thorough fares like Folsom just resulted in crazy traffic and desperate drivers (not safe!)