Quick question: are you an urbanist?

> "The city saw 25 traffic deaths in 2025, down from 43 in 2024"

The number of traffic deaths in SF in 2016 before the main enshittification started: 30. Deaths in 2017: 20.

Here's a chart for Seattle: https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ - it went from 6 fatalities in 2016 to 20 fatalities last year.

Same for Portland, it went up from 13 to 22.

Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous. The Zero Vision policies _at_ _best_ had no effect, and at worst resulted in additional deaths.

▲

Supermancho a day ago | parent [-]

> Sorry, but the data is completely unambiguous.

Focusing on the metrics you want to focus on, does not make the data unambiguous. eg This analysis has not accounted for cohort sizing. Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al.

	▲	cyberax a day ago \| parent [-]
		The "Zero Vision" policy has zero pedestrian deaths as its goal. It's literally in its name. Why shouldn't I look at the metric it's supposed to improve? > Are there more or less pedestrians? What is the average distance? How many bicyclists? et al. So you're saying that we should sacrifice pedestrians so that people can bike?