Licence to kill: The pandemic on our roads

The number of victims of road violence is “catastrophique,” says Fady Dagher, Montreal’s chief of police. “L’arme ultime reste le véhicule.” (The ultimate weapon remains the vehicle).

Dagher’s warning proved prophetic April 26, when a 30-year-old man drove an SUV into the Lapu-Lapu festival crowd in Vancouver, killing 11 people and injuring 21 more.

The tragedy was preventable – barricades were not deployed by police.

What’s also tragic is that preventable traffic violence happens frequently but we don’t take these incidents seriously, judicially, socially nor traffic engineering-wise.

In the late 2000s, my family and I were driving home from floor hockey when we were struck by a person evading police who had run a red light in a residential zone at more than 100km/hour, resulting in concussions, a head laceration, abdominal bruising that lasted for months and mental trauma. Despite the litany of infractions and nearly killing at least three people, the police recommended that we not testify since it probably wouldn’t impact the legal repercussions. This may come as a surprise to many, but motorists often get away with injuring and killing others with little to no judicial consequences.

It seems that having a driver’s permit is a licence to maim and kill.

Le Devoir conducted an analysis of 89 coroner reports from 2019-24 in which a driver was found to be at fault for killing a pedestrian. Of these, 32 (36 per cent) were given a fine and only eight went to court (9 per cent). The latter requires proof of criminal intent or actions that are considered beyond the norm (fleeing the scene, excessive speeding, driving under the influence, etc). Currently, “recklessness, simple negligence, or an error of judgment are insufficient for an individual to [be held] criminally responsible.” The lack of accountability is distressing given we often blame the victims and put their behaviour under a microscope while turning a blind eye to the other parties and their responsibilities.

Six concerning cases of fatal collisions in Canada

Why do we have a zero tolerance policy for death in the airline industry, with every incident investigated, yet shrug at an airplane’s worth of people dying in road crashes daily? As the Guardian points out, “If road deaths were a virus, we’d call it a pandemic” since 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes yearly and is the leading cause of death of people aged 5-29. The deaths are viewed as “non-events” and often labelled as a “freak” or “one-off isolated accidents” (a term that also has been criticized for its use in workplace deaths).

However, we know we can prevent these deaths via better urban planning. In Confessions of a recovering engineer, Charles Marohn notes how civil engineers consider four elements when designing a street or road (listed in order of priority):

1)         Traffic speed.

2)         Traffic volume.

3)         Safety.

4)         Cost.

If, instead, you were to ask the public how they would prioritize these, the order is nearly reversed:

1)         Safety.

2)         Cost.

3)         Traffic volume.

4)         Traffic speed.

As such, speeding and other dangerous behaviour is largely not social deviancy but a result of street over-engineering. The extent of the overbuilt nature of our roads are revealed via sneckdowns. Sneckdowns show the wasted space allocated to cars through driving patterns revealed post snowstorms when drivers are forced to dramatically reduce speed and curbs are extended by piles of snow.

In high-speed zones, traffic engineering employs forgiving design meant to mitigate harm when drivers make mistakes. One of these is clear zones, a buffer area that is free of any potential immovable objects that an out-of-control vehicle can collide with. Though this concept was meant for highways, often aligned with tree-free patches of grass, in cities with high-speed streets, the buffer zones ultimately become the businesses, sidewalks and the people walking and going about their daily lives. To even further prioritize drivers’ safety, our streetlights are designed with breakaway bases to not injure vehicle occupants.

Where does that leave everyone else? In the kill zone.

A tool developed by Québec researchers found that out of 13 Montréal boroughs, the top-ranking borough had 52 per cent of its roads deemed acceptable, 27 per cent a bit dangerous, 16 per cent dangerous, and the remaining 5 per cent very dangerous. We have enabled a built environment that favours driver’s convenience (i.e. speed) over the safety of vulnerable road users.

The most common counterpoint is that this is simply the price of freedom. Afterall, the lack of a license is associated with a $12,700/year loss of income in the U.S. This is presumably the reason why Québec allows new immigrants to continue to drive even if they’ve failed their driving exam. However, accepting this idea means disregarding the fact that driving is a privilege and not a right and driving, in its current form, causes preventable harm. Not being able to choose other viable transportation methods, like walking, biking and public transit, which all have their own advantages, and only having one option, isn’t freedom. In reality, driving only gives the illusion of freedom.

Travelling by car is often the fastest way to get around, but this breaks down quickly at a societal level. This is addressed in Thinking Basketball, in which Ben Taylor compares city traffic to one of basketball’s greatest scorers, Wilt Chamberlain. In 1966, Chamberlain had both the most shot attempts and highest scoring efficiency on his team. Logically, his team’s efficiency could be further increased if he shot the ball even more. However, the increased shot attempts would be more difficult and come at the expense of easier ones by teammates. In 1967, Chamberlain was asked to shoot less; his team’s efficiency reached record highs by distributing the work/shot attempts. Ultimately, a basketball team’s success and winning is determined by team and not individual points. Taylor compares this to Braess’s paradox: If everyone acts in their own best interest and takes the theoretically fastest path via car (i.e., Chamberlain shooting more), the overall performance of the network suffers and results in slower trip times for everyone (i.e., the team scores less and will lose more).

Cars give the illusion of control, and like any other mode of transportation, the time to get to your destination is largely pre-determined by when you leave. Currently, we are focusing all our shot attempts/resources on the car, which is both the least efficient way of moving people and is prohibitively expensive.

Individually, driving costs the average Canadian more than $16,000 per year; transportation is the second biggest expense that Canadians have. In addition, Canadians’ biggest expense, housing, is made more expensive by car-centered design that takes a disproportionate amount of land – think of the significant portion of urban space allotted to roads, parking lots, vehicle-related infrastructure – as well as for parking. In Toronto, the cost of a single underground parking space in multi-unit complexes ranges from $48,000-$160,000. In addition, parking minimums block affordable housing and business development.

From a societal standpoint, factoring in not only the construction, operation, maintenance and policing, but also the costs of pollution (greenhouse gas emissions and air contamination), congestion and collisions, drivers don’t pay their fair share or the true cost of driving either through fuel taxes, licensing or other revenues. Property and sales tax and debt, which everyone pays for, makes up for this shortfall. In 2014, Patrick Johnstone (current mayor of New Westminster, BC) did an excellent breakdown of how much British Columbia drivers pay both privately and in provincial and federal taxes and how this money is allocated. The organization StrongTowns whole premise is based on how car infrastructure is being subsidized and is fiscally irresponsible and an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

In summary, we’re essentially working to drive rather than working to live, and this life is being cut short and limited by our current car-centric infrastructure. Human error and collisions will happen, but as stated by the Brazilian lyricist and novelist Paulo Coelho “When you repeat a mistake, it is not a mistake anymore: it’s a decision.” It’s time to decide to restructure our built environment in a way that is more secure, free, financially savvy, and pleasant for everyone.