Readers express praise for San Jose’s street safety plan
QI was really disappointed about your recent Vision Zero columns. The core principle of Vision Zero is that human life is more important than driver convenience. If we can’t accept the idea of slowing down commutes so others survive the day, then that is sad.
—RobinA.
AMost complaints roared in from motorists upset about lanes being removed, narrowed, turns restricted, signals shortened and bicycle lanes installed. Some labeled those ideas a failure. Today, another view.
QI can’t believe people are willing to sacrifice a few seconds shaved off their commute for human lives. Vision Zero means no more unnecessary deaths of pedestrians. It aims to make the streets safer for all.
It’s absolutely bizarre to me that there’s opposition to this. If you want to get somewhere quick, we have freeways designed for that. But a 25 mph residential street is 25 mph for a reason. Do these people really want to run over a kid just to get to work quicker?
— Michael Foster, San Jose
AOf course not.
QI am neither a pedestrian nor a bicyclist due to physical limitations, but I still support the Vision Zero changes. I see pedestrians and bicyclists dealing with speeders, red light runners, and self-absorbed people who think their schedule is more important than the lives of everyone around them.
Changing street designs to help keep them safe is a worthy goal and needs to be expanded.
It saddens me that the “me first” people complaining apparently think that the safety of others is less important than their own selfish convenience. — Rick Douglas,
San Jose
A
And…
Q
The worst thing that we as a culture have done is to build our cities and suburbs to accommodate cars as the principal method of personal transportation. We are not willing to pay our government the taxes that it will take to build our way out of congestion. Given our current transportation situation, every reasonable person has a visceral understanding of the need for less driving and fewer cars.
We can reduce driving by making it more expensive and less convenient to use a single occupant automobile. However, people will change their driving habits only when the alternatives make sense for them. Vision Zero is just a nudge in that direction.
— Ole Ohlson,
Pittsburg
AIt’s a nudge that’s going statewide and could include a push for speed cameras. We might know in another year.
QThanks for agreeing to tackle the Vision Zero debacle. It’s a very emotional subject.
— Laura Winter, San Jose A Now that is an understatement.
Join Gary Richards for an hourlong chat at noon today at www. mercurynews.com/livechats. Contact Gary at 408-920-5335.