A public health approach creates different layers for how we design streets

By Streetsblock NYC

 

Mary Beth Kelly of Families for Safe Streets has been calling on state health authorities to declare this year’s increase in all city road deaths a “public health emergency,” which would give city officials emergency powers to solve the problem —

“These crashes are too frequent, too predictable, too deadly, and, most importantly, preventable!”  “We have the anti-virus — [and] this epidemic, and like any other, requires cultural and systemic intervention. … But we lack the political will to change a culture dominated by cars and speed.

And need our health community! We need you in this struggle to save lives and eliminate the intense and widespread suffering that this scourge inflicts on our families and our communities

pexels-photo-70912.jpeg

That said, New York is extremely late to the party when it comes to assessing traffic violence as a health problem rather than a transportation problem. London, for example, doesn’t merely seek to create “safe streets,” but mandates the notion of “healthy streets.” Under the “Healthy Streets for London” program started by Mayor Sadiq Khan in 2016 [PDF], roadways are not merely designed for safety for cyclists and drivers, but also to make sure pedestrians are safe from crashes, from anxiety, from noise or even from being discouraged from walking at all.

That public health lens has helped reduce fatalities, which are dramatically lower than New York this year, even though greater London has a half-million more people.

auto-show

“If 30,000 people were killed each year in the United States by a curable illness, we would call it a public health crisis. We would deploy resources, vaccines and interventions to address the spread and bring the death toll to the only acceptable level: zero,” the Vision Zero Network said in a 2016 report.

whole article: Road Carnage Caused by SUVs

Brent Toderian on urban transportation & mobility

Here is a Video where Brent, a city planner and urban designer  explains very well what we did often wrong in building urban infrastructure for cars and not for people and how it should work.

  @BrentToderian

WATCH: This is quite possibly the most comprehensive interview I’ve ever done on urban transportation & mobility. Filmed in Vienna for an upcoming Paris-based documentary. Watch it, quote it, & please spread it around.

Low Speed is a need

The most obvious immediate benefit to a fundamentally slower city is the safety boost it delivers. Reducing speeds is the best, easiest, and fastest way to quickly radically improve safety, for both drivers and anyone in front of them.

30kmh-Herz_farbig_Final_150x134

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/low-speed-limit-vehicle-safety-crash-data-traffic-congestion/588412/

Web

To get one, simply dropping speed limits isn’t the answer; street design itself—not enforcement or signage—is the most powerful governor of driver behavior. When Streetsblog compared studies looking at neighborhood slow zones in New York and London, the Big Apple didn’t see a significant drop in injuries, but London enjoyed benefits because they implemented serious traffic-calming infrastructure changes, such as raised crosswalks and street-narrowing curb extensions.

038_OVK_001_FEVR_RABBIT_A4 V_NEW _Page_4-1

A lot of bike and pedestrian advocates will also argue that Americans are just doing speed limits wrong. Most state DOTs typically follow a rough measure known as the 85th percentile rule. Traffic engineers conduct studies measuring the average speed of drivers on a road, then they set speed limits so that 85 percent of those drivers would be traveling under the speed limit. That idea, as FiveThirtyEight detailed in 2015, effectively sets a minimum speed rather than a maximum. In 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the Federal Highway Administration scrap the guideline in favor of other road factors like crash history or pedestrian counts.

Automated Or not Automated

Much is written nowadays about self driving vehicles, no more crashes, useful for elderly or people with a handicap? Could be, but not for tomorrow.

But would’nt it be a better solution, at least in urban areas to support for now more active mobility, like walking and cycling and have some of the huge space dedicated to motorised traffic during the last decades fitted for  these vulnerable road users including public ( low emission) transport.

pexels-photo-70912.jpeg

That would be Safer & Cleaner & Healthier

@FEVR.org  position autonom.driving

Radar Piéton c’est Bon

Il faut permettre la constatation sans interception, notamment par vidéoverbalisation, des infractions liées au non-respect de priorité de passage aux piétons.

Ce système est basé sur des caméras : deux fixent le piéton, deux autres l’automobiliste et la dernière filme une vue d’ensemble.

Hérault : le radar piéton testé à La Grande-Motte va être généralisé

“C’est l’avantage de ce dispositif, l’humain reste au cœur du système, il décide, il ne s’agit pas d’une simple automatisation comme les radars, analyse Jean-Michel Weiss. Et c’est valable dans les deux sens, beaucoup d’automobilistes ne respectent pas le code de la route mais on voit aussi des piétons traverser en courant, en écrivant des textos ou sans prendre la peine de regarder à droite, à gauche.”

Info

Réduire la vitesse = Réduire sensiblement le nb. des victimes

Après que la France vient de réduire la vitesse limite sur les routes de campagne, une vive discussion pour ou contre  de 90km/h à 80 km/h vient d’ être lancée.

c80 B

Premier Ministre Edouard Philippe:

Présentation mesures (video)

En Suisse,Belgique côté Flandres, et d’autres pays cette réduction s’est faite sans problèmes tandis que dans certains pays on s’oppose en majorité certains mêmes très ferme.

Cette discussion se poursuit dans les pays voisins comme le Luxembourg et l’Allemagne.

Faut il vraiment abaisser la vitesse à 80km (pdf)

Walking & cycling a natural choice for short trips

Make walking the natural choice for as many short trips as possible.

15 steps to transform Greater Manchester, by changing the way we get around.

Creating the space for walking and cycling

5.  Ensure all upcoming public realm and infrastructure investments, alongside all
related policy programmes, have walking and cycling integrated

9. Deliver year on year reductions to the risk per kilometre travelled, by establishing a task force to improve safety on roads and junctions.

10. Call for devolved powers to enforce moving traffic offences, and develop
strategies for reducing antisocial driving

more

Human Scale in urban planning

Jan Gehl: “Venice is a city made for people. The average street is 3 meters wide, which makes it a city suitable for walking with a lot of interesting public spaces. It is a city that truly has a human scale, that is small, personal, and intimate. Meanwhile, a place like Dubai is a city for dinosaurs, not for human beings.”

pedestrians-cars

more

 

Would your let your child cycle here?

“Do we want to pursue an American-style approach where kids depend on their parents to take them to school for many years? Or do we want a Nordic-style approach in which mobility considerations are integrated into urban planning, and where the necessary infrastructure is provided so kids can bike to school by themselves? “

Connie Hedegaard, former Danish EU commissioner for climate action

More

The secret behind this Nordic approach is simple: segregated, curbed bicycle lanes, where the layout of every inch has been taken into consideration – such as covering intersections with traffic lights, integrating retracted stop lines for cars and having pre-green lights for cyclists. Give-way lines (“shark teeth”) where smaller roads join bigger ones mean that everyone – including other cyclists – must make a full stop before they move on to a main road. In most places, pavements and bicycle tracks run down smaller side streets as well, illustrating how we give priority to pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started