Traffic Fatalities Are a Choice

Speed Limits, Road Design, and Enforcement

• Debate over speed cameras: some see them as easy, profitable, and safety‑improving; others say US limits are often set too low to raise revenue or appease “think of the children” politics, making strict automated enforcement feel unfair.
• NYC cited as a counterexample where limits are deliberately set for pedestrian safety, not driver comfort.
• Strong argument that drivers respond mainly to geometry (lane width, sightlines, straightness) rather than posted limits; many US “stroads” are engineered for high speeds through populated areas, making simple re-signing ineffective.
• “Traffic calming” (bumpouts, narrower lanes, visual complexity) is defended as focusing driver attention and physically capping speeds; critics say it adds cognitive load and hinders flow.
• One proposal: completely separate pedestrian crossings from vehicle intersections; others argue this is infeasible in existing cities and would massively lengthen walking trips.

Driving Behavior, Culture, and Law

• Ongoing clash between “drive the limit or below” safety mindset and “follow the flow of traffic” to avoid being a hazard; heated subthread over whether slow drivers are “road boulders” versus simply obeying the law.
• Legal discussion around minimum speeds, “obstructing traffic,” and how vague statutes give police broad discretion.
• Broader cultural critique: US tolerance for traffic deaths linked to individualism, “liberty over safety,” and reluctance to regulate, with comparisons to Europe on guns, police violence, and transit.
• Others emphasize federalism, constitutional constraints, and regional diversity rather than pure cultural indifference.

Autonomous Vehicles vs. Street Redesign

• Several commenters think AVs (e.g., robo-taxis) are more likely than collective behavior change to cut fatalities, especially by eliminating DUI/distracted/drowsy driving.
• Optimists foresee huge economic gains, less need for parking, calmer traffic, and fewer human-error crashes.
• Skeptics warn AVs could justify higher speeds, more noise and particulate pollution, and even worse car-centric design if not planned for.
• Some argue we must still fix “stroads,” prioritize walkability and transit, and treat AVs as one tool, not the strategy.

Urban Form, Metrics, and “Choice”

• Disagreement over the right safety metric: deaths per capita (article’s framing) vs deaths per vehicle‑km driven.
• Counterargument: high VMT itself is a policy choice (sprawl, zoning, car dependence), so per‑capita is the relevant measure; reducing the need to drive is itself a safety intervention.
• Suburban form, long commutes, and poor bike infrastructure push people into cars even for very short trips; others note that road design and urban planning are intertwined.

Vehicles, Demographics, and Risk

• Missing focus on large pickup/SUV growth is flagged; these are heavier, more lethal in collisions, and increasingly optimized for passengers rather than cargo.
• Discussion of elderly drivers: higher fatality rates may reflect frailty more than crash causation; Dutch context shows infrastructure makes it easier to revoke licenses without stranding people.
• Strong evidence cited that male drivers, especially young men, are dramatically more dangerous than women; suggestions for more training and oversight for high‑risk groups.

Norms, Risk Tolerance, and Tradeoffs

• Some view US traffic deaths as an implicit social tradeoff: we accept N deaths for speed, convenience, and freedom.
• Thought experiment of “steering wheel spikes” illustrates how dramatically behavior would change if risk were made more salient.
• Others argue that treating car use as optional and dangerous—rather than a default necessity—should be the long‑term goal.