the same special interest groups that brought us "road diets" & "traffic calming" will allowed to dominate traffic planning & street design at the State level!
The bill in question: AB-2363 Vision Zero Task Force
SECTION 1. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 3095) is added to Division 2 of the Vehicle Code, to read:
CHAPTER 8. Vision Zero Task Force
3095. (a) On or before July 1, 2019, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish and convene the Vision Zero Task Force.
(b) The task force shall include, but is not limited to, representatives from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the University of California and other academic institutions, the Department of Transportation, local governments, bicycle safety organizations, road safety statewide motorist service membership organizations, transportation advocacy organizations, and labor organizations.
(c) The task force shall develop a structured, coordinated process for early engagement of all parties to develop policies to reduce traffic fatalities to zero.
Special interests are PUSHING legislation to make californians give up their cars.
A recent Bill Introduced in the California Legislature seeks to hand decision-making about local roads to the same people who have been foisting Arterial road diets onto our communities to devastating effect.
The bill seeks to put the whims of a very small special interest group, above the needs of the majority of Hardworking CAlifornians. these are the people who have bastardized the original mission of Vision Zero, who have have Manipulated and Ignored data* to further their anti-car agenda. They've pushed for road diets that don't comply with federal standardS, causing gridlock on essential roads, creating hazardous conditions and wiping out local businesses.
Please write the bill's sponsors, Jim Frazier and Laura Friedman and let them know you think their AB-2362 Vision Zero Task Force bill is a stinker. Tell them we need safer, smarter approaches to transportation planning, We don't need them handing our streets over to anti-car zealots.
The current system for setting speeds has problems. But handing authority over speed limits to California's "bastardized Vision Zero" proponents is a recipe for gridlock. The data simply doesn't support their inflammatory rhetoric.
For instance, a recent LA Times article completely misrepresents the history of accidents on Zelzah, in Granada Hills. The death of the 60 year old woman cited in the article didn't occur on Zelzah at all...it happened on a cross street, Lassen. The car that hit the woman was making a right turn off of Lassen onto Zelzah and the pedestrian was crossing Lassen. Speed had absolutely nothing to do with this accident and a lower speed limit would make no difference.
Historically the entire 3.5+ mile stretch of Zelzah is actually very safe for pedestrians and cyclists. There have been 0 fatalities in the past 5 years and 1 fatality in the past 10 years. And in accidents leading to injuries of pedestrians, speed was not cited as a factor in a single one.
The paper's assertion about speed and fatality rate are not true:
The article's claim that "A pedestrian struck by a driver going 20 mph has a 90% chance of survival, but a 20% chance of survival at 40 mph" is simply not true, and any basic attempt to verify those statistics reveals this very quickly.
In reality the survival rate at 40 mph is actually closer to 50%, not 20% as claimed in the Times.
Background: This incorrect claim is based upon 2 studies, one from Great Britain in the other done in 1992 which attempts to fit the data to fatality estimates. Neither study directly measured the link between speed and fatality that is being claimed in the Times article.
Some of this data is over 50 years old. Advances in car breaking system, car design, EMT response time and medical knowledge render this very old data totally obsolete, as has been proven by subsequent studies. For instance, a study done in 2001 assets that the methods used substantially weighted the more severe data and skewed the data to achieve a pre-desired outcome.
In fact the UK government who ran the original campaign with this claim admitted in print that the data was incorrect.
KeepLAMoving will be mounting a campaign to fight off this ill-advised effort to steal your streets. Please sign up for our mailing list and we'll be sending out update for how you can get involved.