Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[SammyOES]

Why would this be better than ranking them by absolute number of deaths and injuries?  What is the goal?  Achieve no deaths or injuries, as Sweden aims to do?  Because if that's the goal then that is not a good way to rank intersections.  In fact, that ranking seeks to achieve the goal of kill or injure this number of people.

Please, answer for me, why are people in Sweden not willing to kill people, but we are?

Maybe I should move there...

It’s not an exclusive choice we have to make.  We can (and do!) do both.  But if you have a low usage intersection that is producing a relatively large number of fatalities there - we should look at that!  There’s more likely to be low hanging fruit changes that can be made there.  

Remember, our resources are limited and perfection is impossible.

People in Sweden are willing to kill people. That why they still have a lot of fatalities (in an absolute sense) from roads and are in no way close to actually having zero fatalities.

You can’t give the majority of a population complete control over a high mass device that can travel at speeds of 100km/h or more and actually think there’s a way to never have fatalities.  Sorry.

Edit: Reading the other posts it seems pretty clear this isn’t worth continuing. I think peoples actions reflect their beliefs and not the words they use. Semantics means little to me if it doesn’t change actions. Sweden can *say* they don’t accept casualties but their actual actions don’t reflect that.

As for the barrier idea, it’s probablu a good idea in many places here. It’s probably a bad idea in many other places. It again comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.