Why Traffic Enforcement Isn’t Enough To Save Lives
Recently, in Ontario, a young man crashed his car into another vehicle, apparently from behind, apparently at violent speed, then went off the roadway and hit three people, killing one of them. The driver has been charged with multiple crimes, including driving while impaired. It’s a horrific story.
It’s also a very common story, one that plays out tens of thousands of times each year. I would not have even taken note of this particular tragedy if it weren’t for the tweet from the local police department:
The police department is doing an investigation — pulling out all the stops — so that the driver is held accountable.
It seems that the 22-year-old driver made some horribly bad decisions here. If so, let’s certainly hold that person accountable for what they have done. Still, everyone knows that even the public execution of this young man for crimes committed wouldn't have a meaningful impact on the number of people who behave irresponsibly while driving. And no one’s going to execute this person, publicly or otherwise.
So, how does after-the-fact punishment reduce the number of driving fatalities? I recognize the need to hold people accountable and the cultural need for some degree of punishment. What I’m frustrated with is accountability that ends with the driver, especially when the punishment of drivers labeled irresponsible has only a marginal impact on changing human behavior, at best.
"I’m not reckless. You’re not reckless. Let’s go after the person who is. After all, it’s only a small percentage of people who drive recklessly, like speeding. Right?"
Understanding that all drivers are reckless drivers (at least by blame-allocating industry definitions), Strong Towns has called for the installation of a billion bollards, something that would protect people walking and biking where the street design makes them vulnerable. Traffic engineers and other traffic safety professionals tend to reject that approach to safety, citing the damage that drivers suffer when they run into such an unmovable object. Overlooking the obvious arguments about who has agency as well as the nature of risk compensation, it doesn’t seem that Ontario has a problem with using bollards adjacent to the driving surface on this street.
Now, let’s use them to protect people as well as electrical gear. People are more important, in my opinion.
Another city stuck in the enforcement futility loop is Charlotte, North Carolina. A recent article in the Charlotte Observer noted that the city has spent $21.1 million on Vision Zero efforts since 2019, but traffic deaths and injuries are going up. Charlotte is committed — they are spending the money — but not getting results.
Some of this is bad luck. As we’ve documented here extensively, dramatically reduced levels of driving during the pandemic eliminated the unintentional traffic calming that congestion creates. This exposed a higher percentage of trips to the most dangerous conditions — overengineered roads with minimal traffic — so crashes, deaths and traumatic injuries increased. With more people shifting back to normal commuting patterns, congestion is increasing and deaths are returning to pre-pandemic levels. That is reflected in Charlotte’s data, as reported in a recent audit.
Even so, it is unlikely that the millions Charlotte is spending on Vision Zero is having any meaningful impact on safety. That is because they are still treating traffic safety as an enforcement problem and not as the systemic design problem it actually is.
A couple of things jump out. First, while the motto of Charlotte’s Vision Zero program is “Our Streets, Our Responsibility,” it is not clear who the “our” is meant to be.
The word “our” is plural and it denotes a shared responsibility. Yet, as the audit points out, safety is merely an organizational afterthought to the core engineering operation. Charlotte is not alone in this. Most Vision Zero coordinators show up in the city's organizational chart with little authority and even less influence to institute changes.
Can the Vision Zero coordinator in Charlotte halt a project they know is dangerously designed? Can they force department heads to sit down and work out a safety-first approach? Are they free to do an all-factor analysis of crashes (as modeled in the Crash Analysis Studio) to identify ways to make the city’s streets safer? I’m not positive, but it seems like the answer is firmly “no” in all instances.
What is apparent from the audit is that Charlotte’s Vision Zero program is heavily reliant on using law enforcement, not only to compensate for dangerously designed streets but also to inform the community about the causes of traumatic crashes after they have occurred. Here’s the process as detailed in the audit:
The audit suggests that members of law enforcement are not very good at collecting crash data. And why should they be? Immediately following a traumatic crash, where people have been seriously injured or even killed, can people really expect an officer to pause and grab geographic coordinates, accurately assess the weather, analyze the cross section of the street and collect other data that is otherwise not urgent? And then do it consistently with great precision? That is not reasonable for most humans, let alone people who are on call to respond with haste to the next emergency.
Charlotte, like all cities, needs a Crash Response Team. If safety is really the priority — if it's truly committed to Vision Zero — then the city needs to activate a team to analyze each fatal and traumatic crash (there are currently around 150 of them each year). That team needs to visit the site and consider all of the factors, large and small, that contributed to the crash.
This becomes a learning opportunity, a way to drill down into local practices and conditions and rework systems to get better outcomes. To make zero deaths a reality, not just a slogan.
Incidentally, near the bottom of Charlotte’s Vision Zero website is a video about the local hospital’s trauma team. When there is a traumatic crash, the hospital’s trauma team mobilizes to bring specialized expertise in this type of injury to improve outcomes. As with all hospitals, this kind of response team is the byproduct of a systemic effort to improve outcomes. Central to that process is a morbidity and mortality conference, a studio session that examines all the factors that contribute to adverse outcomes. It’s the medical version of a committed Vision Zero approach.
Strong Towns studied and documented this process and modeled the Crash Analysis Studio on it. If you’re not making a Crash Analysis Studio the center of your Vision Zero efforts, we can help you get started. You can review past sessions, take the free course, or get coaching and assistance from the Strong Towns team. We want to help you save lives.
Charles Marohn (known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) is the founder and president of Strong Towns and the bestselling author of “Escaping the Housing Trap: The Strong Towns Response to the Housing Crisis.” With decades of experience as a land use planner and civil engineer, Marohn is on a mission to help cities and towns become stronger and more prosperous. He spreads the Strong Towns message through in-person presentations, the Strong Towns Podcast, and his books and articles. In recognition of his efforts and impact, Planetizen named him one of the 15 Most Influential Urbanists of all time in 2017 and 2023.