Vision Zero mea culpa in DC

 I've written about traffic safety initiatives for awhile, including what are called "Vision Zero" initiatives in DC specifically.  Last year I wrote a piece about the failure of such efforts in DC and NYC ("Revisiting Vision Zero in DC and NYC ").  And I made a bunch of points.

1.  How to measure and benchmark traffic deaths?
2.  The issues are unchanging.
3.  Government has a bias for inaction*.
4.  Planning for mode versus planning for place and livability.
5.  Not treating the road system as a network.
6.  Traffic deaths can be broadly categorized into three segments.
7.  How do you get reckless drivers off the street?
8.  Traffic enforcement.
9.  Oversight Committees at the City/County and District/Ward scales.
10.  Systematic review of crashes/accidents in a public fashion. 
11.  Mapping pedestrian, bicycle, transit and car accidents.

The Washington Post reports that "D.C. says it has ‘fallen short’ of goal to end traffic deaths."  I didn't realize there was reporting earlier in the year on where a majority of the deaths occur, in Wards 7 and 8, the "poor" wards, which dovetails on discussion in comments on various articles about how a big problem in DC and traffic deaths is aggressive driving ("D.C. traffic deaths at 14-year high with low-income areas hardest hit").  

Although those wards also have the presence of DC 295 which is designed in ways that promote accidents.

Much better website, still disappointing.  The article reports that DC has a new Vision Zero website. 

I will say they seem to have addressed some of my complaints in the past on this, that the DDOT "dashboard" didn't provide actionable information.  I'd say, they are addressing points 10 and 11 definitely, although...

The much more comprehensive website actually has "crash analysis memos" online, which are what should be used to identify areas of opportunity for structural improvements.

But it appears that the crash investigation memos are cryptic and deficient.  E.g. the one on the crash at Massachusetts Avenue that I wrote about last year doesn't say that the operator of the striking vehicle was driving recklessly, no recommendations about identifying bad drivers systematically.

The point about making separated bicycling infrastructure was indirect.  Safety would be improved by moving bikes away from cars.  It's not clear that they are using Federal Highway Administration protocol systems to actively identify systematic problems.

I wrote about this incident too, on I Street NW a few months back ("Bicyclist deaths-bicycle safety").

The memo doesn't discuss the fact that the cyclist "rode into" the situation instead of avoiding it.  And that this is an indicator of the need for more widespread bicyclist safety training.  

Aggressive driving.  While in many places the biggest reasons for crashes are (1) poor road design and (2) driver expectation that there won't be pedestrians and bicyclists on the road, especially in sprawl/suburban settings ("Teen hit by truck in Springville dies of injuries," KSL-TV), (3) in traditional cities like DC or New York City, especially those constructed during the Walking and Transit City eras, with reasonably sized streets, a grid and block network, etc., the biggest cause of traffic crashes is aggressive driving.   

People drive on streets as if they are highways, not home to houses, parks, commercial districts, etc.

That's about vehicle operator behavior and the most difficult to address.  I do believe that people who commit multiple incidents should lose their licenses.  But that doesn't prevent them from driving without a license.

I don't know if there are successful programs that identify aggressive drivers and provide behavioral interventions.