←back to thread

1163 points DaveZale | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
1. dmix ◴[] No.44773797[source]
The same question could be asked why more cars elsewhere. If only the western municipalities could figure out how to do it without spending decade on a simple tram like they do in Toronto then the public support would very likely match the benefits people constantly claim on the internet. Ditto with high speed rail.

Things which are practical and economically feasible within the established system are much less liable to be controversial or end up DOA after having to survive through 3-4 different political administrations.