When are the “Vision Zero” actions balanced? The causes and the price.

When introduced to the world in 1997, the “Vision Zero” project seemed to be the bright spot among the darkness created by numerous traffic fatalities. The laudable goal of achieving zero traffic deaths has been kept in the minds of lawmakers ever since. However, very often this desire to see zero in the statistics would blur the border between reasonable and excessive.

One group of people that happened to suffer from this border’s invisibility were the workers of TWU Local 100 transport union in New York City. What before seemed to be a quite common and “natural” occurrence became a punishable action. As claimed by the members of the union, the definition of required “due care while driving” was too vague, which caused misinterpretation and led to arrests of six bus drivers (Rivoli, 2015).

Even though the Right of Way Law is crucial in maintaining pedestrian safety, the union workers have achieved what they call “justice” – the newly established court settlement safeguards all bus drivers and other MTA drivers from arrest if involved in an accident lacking recklessness (Denney, 2016). Here, again, the question arises as to what actions are considered to be “reckless.” Furthermore, John Samuelsen, TWU Local 100 President, emphasizes the absence of distinction between acceptable and immoral in the eyes of law enforcement: “Under this well-intentioned but poorly crafted law, Bus Operators were arrested and handcuffed like common criminals (Rivoli, 2015).” Figure 1 below displays the message from TWU Local 100 workers to the public and law enforcement. As it appears to be, the government has to come up with a fair, acceptable price that members of the community have to pay to ensure safety and protection against excessive punishment at the same time.

 

 

As it is widely known, commonly used passenger cars are operated by human drivers. The majority of the accidents and traffic fatalities are resulting directly from human error or carelessness. Figure 2 below shows that 91% of crashes are caused by human error. Reasons behind a traffic death could vary from speeding or failure to yield to impaired driving. In any case, the person behind the wheel is the contributor to the accident. That is exactly why David Ryu, Los Angeles City Councilman, envisions no human-operated vehicles within 20 years (Zhang, 2016). Ryu was inspired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s policy addressing self-driving cars. The policy is aimed at providing manufacturers with guidelines on how to develop driverless technology, and David Ryu is motivating the developers by promising guaranteed use of the innovations: “we need these companies to focus on the largest market and the one that will benefit most: Los Angeles (Zhang, 2016).” Hopefully, autonomous cars will resolve the issue of traffic fatalities and turn their amount into zero.

In order to deal with traffic fatalities, we have to understand that one of the key reasons behind them is impaired driving. About 32% of fatal car crashes involve an intoxicated driver or even pedestrian (Thames, 2016). Over 1.2 million drivers were arrested in 2011 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Thames, 2016). Alcohol impairs judgment, comprehension, coordination, concentration, visual acuity, and, most importantly, the reaction time, which is the crucial factor required for safe driving. Drugs can also impair perception, judgment, motor skills, and memory; furthermore, young adults aged between 18 and 25 are more likely to drive after taking drugs. This raises the need for harsh punishment and high insurance premiums for drivers aged 18 to 25.

 

Source: ODOT crash data

 

Another aspect about traffic deaths that must be taken into consideration is distracted driving. Figure 3 below displays the breakdown of fatal and non-fatal auto accidents by cause, emphasizing the contribution of drunk and distracted driving. Even though it doesn’t involve “impaired” judgment, the use of cell phone, texting, and eating can cause a major distraction. Texting while driving is the worst type of distraction, since it alienates the driver from the concentrated state in three different ways: visual – taking your eyes off the road, manual – taking hands off the wheel, and cognitive – taking your mind off driving (Thames, 2016). Interestingly enough, FOMO (fear of missing out) is a common phenomenon among young adults that drives them towards checking Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, or any other social media sites while driving (Bowerman, 2016). This means that the road safety lawmakers have to come up with an alternative for in-car social media entertainment, since, as it appears to be, different punishments like adding points to one’s license do not seem to be working.

 

Source: ODOT crash data

 

Works Cited (MLA Format)

Bowerman, Mary. “Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Leads Motorists to Check Social Media While Driving.” Insurance Journal. 26 Aug. 2016.

Denney, Andrew. “Queens Judge Strikes Down Pedestrian Protection Law.” New York Law Journal. NYLJ, 28 June 2016.

Rivoli, Dan. “New York City, Union Settle Suit Over ‘Vision Zero’ Plan.” Claims Journal. Claims Journal Associated Press, 02 Sept. 2015.

Thames, Amanda. “Annual ‘Operation Firecracker’ Removes Drunk Drivers from N.C. Roadways.” Bladen Journal. Bladen Journal, 12 July 2016.

Zhang, Natalie. “Los Angeles Business Journal”. Councilman Calls for Autonomous Driving in Los Angeles by 2035. 23 Sept. 2016.