SCM1002 and the War on Road Safety: Debunking Misinformation About Vision Zero
In February 2025, the Arizona State Senate introduced and passed Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 (SCM1002), urging the President and Congress to eliminate the Vision Zero approach to transportation planning. The bill is now under consideration in the Arizona House, where the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee recommended a "Do Pass" with a vote of 4-2 on March 19, 2025 (LegiScan). The bill is expected to be heard next week in the House Committee of the Whole.
Understanding Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a comprehensive strategy initiated in Sweden in the 1990s, aiming to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, equitable mobility for all (Vision Zero Network).
Unlike conventional traffic safety approaches, which focus on individual responsibility, Vision Zero focuses on system-wide design improvements that prevent fatalities and injuries. The strategy prioritizes infrastructure and policy changes, such as reduced speed limits, improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, and vehicle design enhancements.
Debunking Claims Against Vision Zero
Recent public comments by Greg Blackie of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club suggest that "Vision Zero’s poor safety record in the United States demonstrates it’s more of an ideology than a methodology" and that it is "making roadways more dangerous." These claims do not align with real-world data from cities implementing Vision Zero effectively.
Vision Zero’s Safety Record
While some U.S. cities, such as Portland, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Jose, have seen increases in traffic fatalities despite adopting Vision Zero, this is not due to a failure of the program itself but rather the incomplete or slow implementation of its principles. A study of 18 Vision Zero cities found that only two had statistically significant reductions in fatalities, while one saw a significant increase (ScienceDirect). In contrast, cities that fully implemented Vision Zero strategies—such as New York City and Charlotte, NC—experienced significant declines in traffic deaths (NYC DOT, WCNC Charlotte). Hoboken, NJ, has experienced eight consecutive years since its last traffic-related death (Spur).
Factors contributing to the increase in traffic fatalities in some cities include:
Inadequate Implementation: A CBS News analysis found that only 7.5% of federally funded Safe Streets projects have reached implementation, delaying real safety improvements (CBS News).
Larger Vehicles on the Road: SUVs and trucks now comprise over 75% of vehicle sales, increasing the severity of crashes and pedestrian fatalities (The Guardian, Vox).
Rising Distracted Driving Incidents: Increased smartphone use has led to higher crash rates (Harvard Public Health).
Vision Zero is not a failure; rather, cities that have not fully committed to implementing its core policies continue to see high traffic fatality rates.
Emergency Response Times and Vision Zero
One of the criticisms often levied against Vision Zero is that road safety improvements hinder emergency response times. However, research and real-world data show that Vision Zero initiatives can actually improve response times or have a neutral impact.
For example, cities like New York have implemented traffic calming measures without seeing a decline in emergency response efficiency. The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) reported that Vision Zero street design changes, such as protected bike lanes and pedestrian islands, have not negatively impacted response times (NYC DOT).
Moreover, strategies like signal prioritization for emergency vehicles and improved street layouts help ensure that emergency responders can navigate cities efficiently while also making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Research by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports this approach, emphasizing that modern road safety design incorporates emergency vehicle access into planning (FHWA Safety Strategies)
Vision Zero is about Safety, not Socialism
On March 19, 2025, Jay Beeber, Executive Director of the National Motorist Association stated similar rhetoric to Greg Blackie in the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee that "Vision Zero does not work because it’s more of an ideology than an actual engineering practice." He also referred to Vision Zero as "socialism for roadways where it’s all equitable" and claimed that "the goal of this really is to prohibit cars."
Engineering, Not Ideology: Contrary to Beeber's claim, Vision Zero is based on well-established engineering and safety principles endorsed by agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The approach incorporates data-driven interventions, speed management strategies, and infrastructure improvements designed to reduce fatalities (FHWA Vision Zero).
Equitable Road Safety is a Public Good: Describing Vision Zero as "socialism for roadways" misrepresents its goals. The initiative aims to create safer streets for all users—drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and people with disabilities—regardless of socioeconomic status. Ensuring public safety on roadways is a fundamental responsibility of transportation planning and not a political ideology.
Vision Zero Does Not Seek to Prohibit Cars: Nowhere in Vision Zero policies is there an attempt to eliminate cars. Instead, the strategy seeks to make streets safer by implementing speed controls, better crosswalks, and improved vehicle design standards. Cities implementing Vision Zero still invest in road infrastructure, traffic signal optimization, and freight mobility improvements to facilitate efficient transportation.
The Efficient Movement of Goods and Freedom to Travel
The argument that Vision Zero undermines the movement of goods and individual travel freedom is misleading. Studies show that well-planned road safety measures, such as improved pedestrian crossings and lower speed limits, reduce congestion and make road networks more efficient. In Stockholm, where Vision Zero originated, traffic fatalities were cut in half without negatively impacting traffic flow (Stockholm Vision Zero Report). Moreover, reducing car dependence through better urban design increases mobility choices rather than restricting them.
Roundabouts, Narrow Lanes, and Freight Mobility
Senator Werner has claimed that Vision Zero makes navigating roundabouts and narrow lanes difficult for large trucks. However, modern roundabouts and street designs incorporating Vision Zero principles consider freight mobility. The Federal Highway Administration has published extensive guidance on designing roundabouts with truck-friendly features, such as truck aprons and wider turning radii, which allow large vehicles to maneuver safely while improving traffic safety (FHWA Roundabout Guidelines). Many states have implemented truck-friendly roundabouts that enhance safety for all users without hindering freight movement.
On March 24, 2022, the City of Phoenix officially activated its 75th HAWK — High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK (photo courtesy of City of Phoenix).
What We're Laughing At
In an attempt to mischaracterize Vision Zero, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Werner also made an unrelated claim, stating that 'Vision Zero is also trying to take your gas stove away.' This assertion is entirely unfounded and misleading. Vision Zero focuses solely on traffic safety and has no connection to policies regarding household appliances. There is no documented instance of Vision Zero initiatives influencing regulations on gas stoves. This statement appears to conflate separate policy discussions unrelated to transportation safety.
Conclusion
With SCM1002 advancing through the Arizona legislature, it is essential to recognize the misconceptions it promotes. Rather than eliminating Vision Zero, policymakers should support its proven strategies that enhance safety, reduce economic burdens, and improve quality of life.
Take Action
SCM1002 is expected to be heard next week in the Arizona House's Committee of the Whole. This is a critical opportunity for residents to voice their opposition to this bill. Concerned citizens can email their lawmakers to express their support for Vision Zero and urge them to vote against SCM1002.
Contact information for Arizona state legislators can be found here.
