←back to thread

1163 points DaveZale | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tlogan ◴[] No.44771408[source]
Maybe Helsinki isn’t special: just fewer cars. And they apparently only 21% of daily trips used a private car.

Helsinki has about 3x fewer vehicles per capita than the average U.S. city. So it’s not surprising it’s safer since fewer cars mean fewer chances of getting hit by one. Plus their cars are much smaller.

In fact, there are probably plenty of U.S. towns and cities with similar number of cars that have zero traffic deaths (quick search says that Jersey City, New Jersey has zero traffic deaths in 2022).

So maybe it’s not about urban planning genius or Scandinavian magic. Maybe it’s just: fewer things that can kill you on the road.

I wonder how the numbers will change when majority of cars are autonomous.

replies(12): >>44771469 #>>44771494 #>>44771498 #>>44772194 #>>44773223 #>>44773250 #>>44774089 #>>44774580 #>>44774620 #>>44774831 #>>44775458 #>>44779603 #
eCa ◴[] No.44771498[source]
The question to ask is, why are there less cars?

Public transport. As an example, just the tram network had 57 million trips in 2019. The metro, 90+ million trips annually. The commuter rail network? 70+ million. (Source: wikipedia)

So yes. Urban planning has a hand or two in it.

replies(6): >>44771634 #>>44771734 #>>44771971 #>>44773257 #>>44773797 #>>44775104 #
silvestrov ◴[] No.44771634[source]
How people in Helsinki get to work: Car: 23% ; PublicTransport: 47% ; Walk: 12% ; Bike: 15%

How pupils in Helsinki get to school: Car: 7% ; PublicTransport: 32% ; Walk: 45% ; Bike: 14%

source: https://www.hel.fi/static/liitteet/kaupunkiymparisto/julkais...

replies(1): >>44771742 #
tlogan ◴[] No.44771742[source]
I completely agree. Though implementing it is far easier said than done.

Here in San Francisco (and much of California), things are incredibly complicated.

Take this example: in SF, there’s a policy that prevents kids from attending elementary school in their own neighborhoods. Instead, they’re assigned to schools on the opposite side of town. In places that are practically inaccessible without a car. And there are no school buses.

Changing that policy has proven nearly impossible. But if kids could actually attend local schools, biking or walking would be realistic options. That one shift alone could make a huge difference in reducing car dependence.

replies(3): >>44771931 #>>44771958 #>>44773423 #
pantalaimon ◴[] No.44771931[source]
What kind of policy is that based on? Seems very counter intuitive, aren't are supposed to meet your classmates after school?
replies(2): >>44772090 #>>44772162 #
1. derektank ◴[] No.44772090[source]
It was a decision intended to foster racial and socioeconomic diversity, adopted in 2020[1]. It will likely be reversed in the 2026/2027 school year[2]

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WxAVUXfKCdhSlFa8rYZqTBC-Zmz...

[2] https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-poli...

replies(3): >>44772488 #>>44774703 #>>44775282 #
2. tlogan ◴[] No.44772488[source]
The key of the new proposal is how they are going to define zones (neighbourhoods). Knowing the politics in SF, I think they will probably say that zone is 7-miles radius (and SF is 49 square miles).
3. coccinelle ◴[] No.44774703[source]
The lottery has been around since way before 2020, I believe. You do get preferential assignment to one school close to you. Most schools can take in all the kids that have this neighborhood preference but I believe there are a couple that don’t. (This is for Kindergarten, TK is more of a mess).
4. inglor_cz ◴[] No.44775282[source]
I wonder if future centuries will look at the current obsession with diversity (tbh the peak is visibly behind us) the same way that we look at the ancient Egyptians collecting amulets with holy dung beetles: an utterly incomprehensible ritual.