[GhostVII]

It seems unrealistic to try and get to 0 deaths on the road. Just with every other activity, there are risks that come with driving and I think people should be allowed to accept those risks, just like they do with any other somewhat dangerous activity. Are we going to introduce regulation to prevent people from doing other dangerous things like biking, or skiing?

[meej]

Vision Zero is about _designing_ roads to be safe for all users. It is not just about driving, nor is it just about speed limits. The "zero" part is the driving vision of the program, it is not a target.

Vision Zero Principles, as stated in the linked Wikipedia article:

Vision Zero is based on an underlying ethical principle that "it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system." As an ethics-based approach, Vision Zero functions to guide strategy selection and not to set particular goals or targets. In most road transport systems, road users bear complete responsibility for safety. Vision Zero changes this relationship by emphasizing that responsibility is shared by transportation system designers and road users.

[GhostVII]

> it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system

This is the part I don't agree with. What makes it unethical that people die while choosing to participate in a somewhat dangerous activity? Sure, we could halve all of the speed limits and put speed cameras everywhere. We could also force people to wear face helmets and kneepads when riding their bike, and wear a life jacket while swimming. But I don't think we should do any of those things since people should have the freedom to take reasonable risks.

[meej]

What do you mean by "choosing to participate in a somewhat dangerous activity"? Are you talking about driving, or are you talking about using roads in general? 40% of the traffic deaths in my city last year were pedestrians. This is a risk people are exposed to just by choosing to leave their homes on foot, which I find completely unacceptable.

[bryanlarsen]

"choosing to participate"

Using the streets and sidewalks to get to work and/or school is not an optional activity for most people.

[apcragg]

Your libertarian fantasy would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that you 2 tonne steel box can kill /other/ people when you drive excessively fast and crash.

[GhostVII]

I'm not a libertarian, I just think the current speed limits should be increased to the speed people actually drive at, and then enforced. Speed differential is a big component of what makes driving dangerous, rather than just speed itself. 120km/h-130km/h is not excessively fast on a highway when everyone else is going that speed. If you don't want to take the risk of going on fast roads, that's fine, just take country roads or slower city roads, pretty much the only risk you have is crashing on your own.

[bryanlarsen]

Speed differentials increase the probabilities of accidents.

Speed increases the severity of accidents.

Decreasing the probability while increasing the severity may not provide any benefits.