But as is often the case with feel-good, word-salad progressivism, Vision Zero’s results fall somewhere between mixed and disappointing. San Diego, Portland, Las Vegas, Denver, Charlotte, Philadelphia — the list of underperformers isn’t short. One elected official in Seattle grew so frustrated, he requested an investigation. In April, Rob Saka called for an audit to “take a hard look at what’s working, what’s not, and where we need to sharpen our approach to prevent further tragedies on our roads.” The councilman lamented that despite Vision Zero, “too many people are still dying and suffering serious injuries on our streets.”
No kidding. As The Seattle Times noted, almost “twice as many pedestrians were killed … last year compared with the year before.” Not the kind of spotlight — er, trend — the city sought when, in 2015, it adopted 2030 as its Vision Zero target year.
Seattle still has time. But several Vision Zero cities have already flunked. In 2024, New York did not eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on its streets. In 2025, Los Angeles and Austin followed suit. And Chicago’s 2026 goal — delayed four years from the city’s original target — collapsed on the first day of the year. Yet despite its subpar performance, scrutiny of the Vision Zero movement remains scarce. Too many politicians, members of the media and activists continue to believe the hype, and ignore the numbers.
You wouldn’t know it from Vision Zero’s savvy publicity machine, but any data-driven examination of traffic safety in the United States should begin by acknowledging remarkable progress. The most useful determinant of roadway safety is fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In 1950, the figure stood at 7.24. By 1980, it had plunged to 3.35. In 2024, the rate was a truly impressive 1.19.
Vision Zero advocates refuse to confront a question that, while indelicate, must be asked: Is there simply not much improvement left to be achieved in traffic safety? The nation’s rate of deaths per 100 million VMT has refused to budge in recent decades. It is possible that the low-hanging fruit — e.g., seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, electronic stability control, crumple zones, an overdue stigmatization of and penalty-stiffening for drunken driving — has been harvested. What’s left to be done?
Plenty, say Vision Zero proponents. Their preferred interventions, as described by a National Public Radio correspondent, are “lowering speed limits and making automobile lanes narrower while adding protections for pedestrians and cyclists.” It’s the same prescription Smart Growthers have long recommended. (Seattle’s Vision Zero effort asserts that “changing the way our roads are designed can encourage and influence better behavior.”) But given the approach’s failure, no one can be blamed for sharing transportation scholar Randal O’Toole’s suspicion that “Vision Zero is really more about inconveniencing auto drivers than increasing safety.”
As difficult as it is to accept, many drunks cannot be convinced to eschew their cars. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that in “2022, 13,524 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers, accounting for 32% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.” In addition, many reckless speeders will not stop speeding. And some motorists refuse to buckle up.
Davontay Robins is an excellent example of someone who shouldn’t be behind the wheel. Last summer, Los Angeles prosecutors say, he hit and killed a woman walking to her car in Hollywood, then fled the scene. Driving on a suspended license due to a DUI, Robins was tracked down, charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor, then released on a $50,000 bail. (The victim’s husband observed: “It cost me more to bury her than it did for him to get out.”) But Vision Zero devotes little attention to Robins and his ilk. Lifestyle adjustment is preferred to tougher treatment for the worst violators of traffic-safety norms.
Another inconvenient fact disregarded by Vision Zero is the irresponsibility of their favorite type of travelers: pedestrians. Distracted driving is dangerous, but so is distracted walking. Several years ago, The New York Times reported that “around 2009, American roads started to become deadlier for pedestrians,” and almost “all of this rise in … pedestrian deaths has come at night.” Homelessness is surely a contributing factor.
Again, however politically incorrect, the data are clear. A December study of Portland’s most-populous county found that “people experiencing homelessness” had “23 times the risk of death due to any transportation incident, and 54 times the risk for pedestrian or cyclist transportation incident.” As any urban-dweller can attest, street people regularly defy rules. Per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2023 74% of “pedestrian fatalities occurred at locations that were not intersections.” A reader of The San Francisco Standard who lives in the city’s West Portal neighborhood put the problem succinctly: “Pedestrians jaywalk, walk drunk or stoned. Nothing is going to stop those accidents.”
Perhaps Vision Zero’s greatest flaw is its refusal to explore technological breakthroughs. NHTSA finds that “advanced driver assistance system technologies already in use on the roads and future automated driving systems at their mature state, have the potential to reduce crashes, prevent injuries, and save lives” — and in “some circumstances, automated technologies may be able to detect the threat of a crash and act faster than drivers.”
Safer travel, without traffic calming, road diets, more bicycle lanes and enhanced “public investment” in transit? In Vision Zero World, it’s a scary thought. Social engineers have mouths to feed, too.
D. Dowd Muska is a researcher and writer who studies public policy from the limited-government perspective. A veteran of several think tanks, he writes a column and publishes other content at No Dowd About It.
