I was particularly drawn to the similarities between this week's topic covering Vision Zero and the adverts I've been seeing for TAC’s Towards Zero campaign, asking Victorians to aim for zero deaths on our roads each year. The angle of the Towards Zero campaign is to put a face to road trauma - it is not just a number, but rather someone's brother, sister, father. This appears to be an expression of the ethical imperative within the vision, 'it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system.'
Towards Zero is a departure from past campaigns such as 'if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot' or raw imagery of fatal crashes. This new approach is a change from an emphasis on current problems to being guided by what the optimum state of the road transport system should be - the basis of Vision Zero. Now more than ever, it seems cars are negatively impacting the lives of individuals - through congestion, air pollution and car crashes. In some respects, we have created a mentality that prioritises the automobile over human life. I wondered if the goal of zero deaths is achievable as outlined in the SMART acronym. That aside, I think for me it gives a new perspective, especially on the need for better system design. The transport system is so intricately interwoven in our lives that human health and life needs to be a key integrating factor in policies. If we want increased accessibility, but we can only reach that by an increased inherent safety.
Towards Zero is a departure from past campaigns such as 'if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot' or raw imagery of fatal crashes. This new approach is a change from an emphasis on current problems to being guided by what the optimum state of the road transport system should be - the basis of Vision Zero. Now more than ever, it seems cars are negatively impacting the lives of individuals - through congestion, air pollution and car crashes. In some respects, we have created a mentality that prioritises the automobile over human life. I wondered if the goal of zero deaths is achievable as outlined in the SMART acronym. That aside, I think for me it gives a new perspective, especially on the need for better system design. The transport system is so intricately interwoven in our lives that human health and life needs to be a key integrating factor in policies. If we want increased accessibility, but we can only reach that by an increased inherent safety.
Looking at predecessor campaigns such as that of Sweden and NYC, it was interesting to recognise a number of shocks that prompted and provoked policy change, particularly in NYC where the city experienced three deaths in a matter of days - and particularly that of young Cooper Stock. I see shocks happening in other systems all the time - asylum seekers, shootings, domestic violence, healthcare - but we see little policy change occurring. I think this highlights the real role political will and agenda play.
Lastly on this topic, something else which struck me from the NYC case study was the shared responsibility of the transport system between civilians and policymakers and new challenges for planners and designers arising with the advent of technology - ie. drivers looking at their GPS and pedestrians distracted looking down at their phones. While driving can be regulated and governed by laws, walking is an everyday part of life. Walking laws doesn't seem fair. Perhaps the answer is in smart design, alerts and education.
No comments:
Post a Comment