Jalopnik has a story about how the Norwegian capital, Oslo, recorded only one death on its roads in 2019.
Speed limit laws and reducing the very presence of cars in the city center and downtown areas have resulted in a very aggressive, downward trend of traffic-related fatalities in the Nordic country's capital city. There was only one traffic-related death in Oslo in all of 2019.
No children were killed in traffic in Norway last year, Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported.
There was only one road-related death of a pedestrian, cyclist or child in 2019 in Oslo. No children were killed in traffic in Norway last year, either.
Norway plans to reach "Vision Zero", and eliminate road-related deaths within four years and do more to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, serious injuries.
The only person who died last year, according to Aftenposten, was a man whose car crashed into a fence in June.
This sharp decline is due to the fact that Oslo heavily regulates places where people are allowed to drive and has set strict speed limits. The city is also very friendly towards cycling and walking.
Olso's road fatality rate for 2019 was 0.1 death per 100,000 people. American States vary between 12 and 26 per 100,000 people
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:41PM (1 child)
How many innocent reindeers got murdered? Eh?
Queasling facsists.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:02PM
Oooohhh look, an evil hooman mod me down.
Quisling norsky, not doubt.
Hey, FBI, I know you are here, trace the mofo that downmodded me - s/he will bomb a synagogue soon enough.
But then the Jews revealed themselves to be pretty nasty on their own ...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:46PM
Eventually you will just not be allowed outside for your own safety!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:18PM (5 children)
Sadly in just the first 2 weeks of 2020, a 2-year old child was run over while crossing at a crosswalk. Because some junctions can have green lights for both traffic and pedestrians at the same time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:29PM (4 children)
That's not why that happened. 2 year olds are short, lacking in judgment and shouldn't be crossing the street alone. So, there's more to the story than just being allowed to cross the cross street while drivers continue driving. I'm not familiar with this incident, it could have been a kid dashing into the road unexpectedly, or it could be an inattentive driver that turned without looking for small children and animals or it could be something else, but it wasn't because both activities are allowed at the same time. This same thing could have happened with a free turn, unless your area doesn't allow free turns.
I've been crossing streets for decades and not once have I seen or been run over by a right turning car when I had a pedestrian crossing signal. It does happen, but it's not accurate to claim the cause is how the signals are timed rather than people either dashing into the street unexpectedly or cars turning without seeing pedestrians in the roadway. In the vast majority of cases, everything works out fine as both parties are supposed to be looking to see that nobody is run over.
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:18AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zinho on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:56AM (2 children)
Norway does not allow right turn on a red light. If that's what you meant by "free turn", eliminating that traffic hazard is one of the things the Norwegians have done to improve road safety.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:28PM (1 child)
New York City does not allow right turns on red lights. Lots of pedestrians get killed anyway.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @12:58AM
By muggers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:19PM (36 children)
Since this isn't reported as deaths per vehicle-kilometer, what's the point of it? It's painfully clear that Olso has crippled the use of cars in the city relative to a US city. One would naturally expect people to drive cars much less as a result and of course, see less deaths per unit population.
But this comes at hidden costs, such as people traveling less often in Oslo (and receiving less benefit when they do travel).
And that brings us to the value of such initiatives. The death rate for Norway is a bit shy of 800 deaths per 100k. Even adding a US city vehicular death rate of the above 12-26 per doesn't change that by much (and they weren't going to save that much in lives since Oslo never had US levels of auto usage). My guess is that the real reason for the "Vision Zero" program is ideological - getting rid of auto traffic, not saving a handful of lives each year.
OTOH, if they had achieved such a death rate while simultaneously maintaining auto usage at present speed and volume, that would be something quite interesting!
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:31PM (2 children)
I recall talking with a Norwegian couple years ago that got special permission to have two cars in a household. Married doctors and they both could get called.
So apparently it isn't entirely optional. Be interesting to hear from someone with more direct/current knowledge of how things play there.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:34PM (1 child)
It's also likely something that's not an issue for most people over there. It's only recently that families having more than one car was an expectation. And, if you live somewhere with functioning mass transit, you probably don't need more than one car anyways. The main thing that a typical family needs a car for on a regular basis is groceries and traveling where mass transit isn't convenient. Neither of those particularly require a second car or even a first car if mass transit is functioning well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:17AM
I spent the first 30 years of my life in a place like this - where most did not have cars - called Soviet Union. Let me tell you this. Whoever did have a car could fuck any girl he wanted.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @11:32PM (12 children)
Traveling alone in ones car less often isn't a problem in places where they have real mass transit. The extra time it takes to take a bus or subway is made up for by the reduced time it takes to find parking.
It's mainly in America where we allowed the auto industry to destroy our mass transit that having a car in a city is seen as somehow an essential liberty. If we were talking about a place in the middle of nowhere, having a car would likely be essential, but in a city like Oslo?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:12AM (9 children)
Depends. Does that real mass transit go where you want it to go?
Since, our betters have been trying for decades to get mass transit working again. They have yet to succeed except in some isolated cases (like downtown New York City). Point to point transport beats mass transport that doesn't go where you want to go at the time you want to go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:45AM (4 children)
After sufficient education you simply do not want to visit places where the mass transit doesn't go. Easy to do to city consumers. People who live in villages are a different story if outside of just living they need to work - and mass transit does not deliver you to fields and farms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:50AM (3 children)
That's the thing, rural people are likely to always need their own car. In the city, things should be zoned so that mass transit can get people where they reasonably want to go. With the odd taxi trip when that's not the case. But, most of the time you should be able to get to and from where you want to go on mass transit in a reasonable period of time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Wednesday January 15 2020, @06:10AM (2 children)
Part of the problem is that in the US you're rarely permitted to live and work in the same neighborhood due to zoning restrictions. This necessitates commuting.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @09:07PM (1 child)
That's not really an issue. You'd still commute, but proper mass transit wouldn't require long distances or long waits to transfer.
Mixed use neighborhoods can work, but it's not what messes up mad transit.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:22AM
In the old days lots of people lived upstairs from their shop. Current zoning prohibits this in many areas.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:48AM (1 child)
There have been improvements, but without a lot of cash to properly build out the systems, it's going to remain that way. In places like Norway where corporations and the rich haven't stolen control of the government, they can do things like this as they can build the mass transit needed to get people around town.
Places with real mass transit are arranged so that mass transit takes you where you want to go in a convenient fashion and you're able to live close enough to where you work and shop that it's not an issue. In much of the US, that's not the case because we prioritize allowing the rich to get richer over livable cities and functioning mass transit.
After a point, point to point just sucks. I've been watching as driving gets more and more miserable and less and less efficient every year because buses aren't routed to take people where they want to go in an efficient manner. The routes are largely based upon what the traffic patterns were 50 years ago with relatively minor revisions as time goes by. Half the buses in the county go through a very narrow area that often suffers from the worst traffic in the entire county.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @01:02AM
Of course they go through there! Obviously that's where people want to be or there wouldn't be so much traffic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @11:31PM (1 child)
Yes [lifeinnorway.net], it [globalmasstransit.net] does [businessinsider.com].
Your betters aren't good enough, then. That's telling about the "lessers" too.
True for certain values of "beat" - in real world that's mostly bullshit [cnn.com].
Which is showing the khallow lesser doesn't live in the real world. Now, we could accept that as an excuse for his failings, if only he were to refrain from delusional suggestions on how to organize the real world. But he compounds his delusions with a compulsion to show them, his case is hopeless.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:10PM
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:41PM (1 child)
I've lived in New York City for 20 years and Chicago for 7 years before that, both places with good public transportation. You need to commute less by car, but there are still enough use cases for car ownership to keep lots of automobiles on the road.
Here are a handful:
1) You need to travel late at night. Subways don't run all that often in the wee hours, and there are weird characters who bray and spray the crazy in those stations.
2) You have small children who need strollers and diaper bags and lugging that kit up and down subway stairs and through turnstiles, or clambering over others in the bus while dragging a toddler along, just doesn't f-ing work.
3) You need to shop for a family and want to save thousands of dollars by doing that at box stores instead of the corner market. Trying to cart 100lbs of groceries onto the subway or bus does not work.
4) You or somebody in your family has limited mobility. Access-A-Ride sucks, the subway is not accessible, buses are limited, and almost no taxis can accommodate people in wheelchairs.
5) You like to hike or boat or camp outside the city, and nothing but a car will get you there.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Wednesday January 15 2020, @09:05PM
Didnt you get the memo?
'Urbanisation' will save the planet (and being vegan, of course.. and soy lattes....)
You are supposed to live in a 30 sq.m 'appartment' by yourself, with no children, interacting with others only in expensive coffee shops and social media.
You must be available 24/7 for 'Gig' work as your overlords deem they need you.
You will not own any personal transportation, as that would give you too much freedom to see the real world.
You will assume the world will end in the next 10 years, hence not worry at all about your personal future, you will not invest or save, you will NEVER purchase a major asset. Your money is for spending. Debt is your friend.
You will be Fitter, Happier, like a.......
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:36AM (2 children)
My beef was the statistic they were quoting.
Those three nouns at the end. Maybe they don't keep track of vehicular deaths in general, but that seems oddly specific.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:38AM
Let's rephrase it, then: "of the most vulnerable road users"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:24AM
In the actual article and numbers, it makes clear that is a combined statistic. Norway tracks the deaths of cyclists, drivers, passengers, "sledgers" (I can't read the definition in the official language), motorcyclists, and pedestrians according to sex and age, and a few other factors. According to the unofficial counts, there were no minors killed involving a vehicle of any type the entire year and only a handful were injured. In Oslo specifically, no pedestrians or cyclists of any type (in addition to most other groups) were killed in addition to the no-child-deaths statistic.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @03:41AM (12 children)
Fucking statisticians and their thing beyond damn'd lies.
Does Oslo regressed in the quality of life there? 'Cause if not, what's the point of having the same level of car usage as a US city if you can do the same with less?
Even more: what's with the fetish for "deaths per vehicle-kilometer"? A death is as definitive as a death, not reversible and without alternative solutions.
Are the Gods of transportation (oh, hello Hermes Mercury) so inflexible that they do require a human cost or else...? Like, do we need to sacrifice a certain amount of lives (to be determined by statisticians) to actually move stuff around? If so, I'd be willing to round all khallows in US and sacrifice them to have the transportation in Norway without anyone dying; a win-win solution for both countries, those khallows are a drag on the Americans anyway.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:01AM (10 children)
What's the point of deliberately discouraging car usage just so someone can game a statistic?
The "fetish" is that it's a serious measure of the safety of cars as opposed to a proxy measure for car usage! As to your thing about death, a lot of people are concerned about death, but that doesn't mean that they know how to do anything about it!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:34AM (5 children)
Stubbornly idiot, aren't you? Is the statistic your very purpose in life? (of course it is, why do I even need to ask?).
Here [wikipedia.org]: "vehicle-kilometre as a measure of traffic flow, determined by multiplying the number of vehicles on a given road or traffic network by the average length of their trips measured in kilometres".
Is the traffic flow an asset or liability? To my mind, traffic is a cost to be paid for some other advantages, as such is a liability. Bottom line, I would want less traffic flow for the same advantages, not more, thank you very much.
So, "deaths per vehicle-kilometer"? The liability of a liability? How the hell do you expect this to be a meaningful measure for the quality of life in Oslo? Or anywhere else?
So the ones that know how to do something about (a certain kind of) death and they do it and demonstrate that the same advantages can be obtained in their conditions with a smaller number of deaths? There's nothing to learn or try to understand from them, they need to be bashed over their head with meaningless metrics and statistics.
'cause those statistics are the very purpose of humanity to exist and you don't fuck with statistics. Righto, that's "The khallow Way", all bow to it.
The AC you relied to was almost right: khallows are a liability for all this world not only for the Americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:57PM (4 children)
So you can link to Wikipedia articles. Congrats, Buttercup. Let's attempt to extract something of value from your post.
Your "mind" is irrelevant here. Like almost everything else, traffic flow is both benefit and cost. It means that people are getting where they want to go, which is good for them and for society (benefit), but it comes at a price, like pollution and traffic congestion (cost). When one only considers half of that, they're merely being extremely biased.
Let's think about this rather than be an idiot. In 2016, he US had 7.3 deaths per billion vehicle-km driven. Mexico had 27.5, almost four times as much. If the US had Mexico's higher fatality rate, it'd be almost 100,000 more people dead each year. Are you really going to claim that 100k less deaths from vehicle accidents each year is not a meaningful change in quality of life?
So when was that done in the Oslo case? And why does the really small change in deaths matter more than the impositions made on the Oslo public? We are after speaking of a few dozen deaths per year versus a huge imposition on over half a million people. In comparison, the US road laws and engineering would equivalently save up to an order of magnitude more people with less disruption of society (something like 200-400 people per year for a city the size of Oslo).
Well, if you're ever going to make rational choices about large groups of people (or large groups of anything else), then statistics naturally rears its ugly head as the way to do it. Further, my post came because of an abuse of statistics not because I was extolling it. Sorry, I'm just not fitting the narrative.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:34PM (3 children)
Yeah, right, how dares Oslo improve the quality of life for it's citizens when this throws sand in khallow's psychopathologic-post-factum-rationalized choice of statistics, when they could increase the cost of living and sacrifice human lifves in the process.
I'm letting here [bbc.com], on the remote chance you'll find intriguing that none of the American cities qualify in the top 20 most livable cities, a feat that Oslo manages frequently.
A good thing his ramblings are irrelevant and his existence inconsequential to this world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 16 2020, @02:53AM (2 children)
As to the claim of "most livable" city, it's by a particular choice of standard. Why are we to consider that choice as more valid than our own?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 16 2020, @03:20AM (1 child)
Indeed, why?
Like, why should they consider your choice as more valid than their own?
So, they'll go ahead with prioritizing "liveability, sustainability, mobility and citizens’ empowerment – ideals manifest in green parks, well-lit public spaces, strong transport networks and accessible local facilities for children and the elderly." Because putting the "emphasis on building more equal societies, he says, an aim accompanied by “a strong discipline of participation” which encourages decision-makers to think about diverse groups when planning new urban areas and include them directly in discussions." seems to work better for them than your statistics.
So, you can sleep well, they aren't going to call you and ask what do you consider "rational" in your parallel universe. The irrelevancy of your statistics may depress you, but nothing a good sleep at night can't cure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:56PM
Statistics will work better than spouting buzzword salads. When you don't know what you're doing because you aren't paying attention to important information like relevant statistics, then how you ever going to get what you want? Well, I guess we know how. The power of assertion.
While googling for information on "Vision Zero" (an apt name), I've already run across clueless pundits and bloggers who are asking "Why can't we do this here?" as if it were a simple matter to turn off activity that relies on tens of trillions of vehicle-km. This sort of stupidity crosses national borders. It's not just a Norwegian affectation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:25AM (3 children)
Because cars ARE dangerous! How dangerous? About 35k to 40k fatalities a year in USA.
If the airline industry had these numbers NOBODY would fly, ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]
To put that in perspective. When opiates kill this many people it's a huge scandal. We ban other drugs we merely perceive to be dangerous, (some with 0 body count). Maybe we should brand driving as a drug. We lost about 50k soldiers in Vietnam during the whole war.
Car centered infrastructure burdens the individual with the upkeep and maintenance of their motor vehicle, a complicated machine with many moving parts. A very expensive proposition. You many not feel that way but that's because you've accepted and come to terms with the high costs. Never mind the inefficiency of everyone driving around with their own internal combustion engine to generate power, and the consequences like global warming and the 3 wars in the middle east we are engaged in to pay for this luxury. If you build infrastructure to favor bicycles/walking/public transport you can eliminate the cost in body count as well as minimize other externalizes. Non car centric infrastructure also has the benefit of slimmer waist lines due to more physical activity.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:07PM (2 children)
That's a lot of people killed in/by cars. Let's check the CDC's page [cdc.gov] (2017) on other causes of death to better judge if that is disproportionate for a country the size of the US:
It looks like household accidents far, far outstrip the number of deaths caused by motor vehicles. The CDC's PDF (linked on the page given above) says that's the #3 cause of death. What are the #1 and #2 causes? Heart disease and cancer, respectively. In fact the CDC's list of the top 15 causes of death doesn't even include cars:
So if we carry your stated logic of, "If the airline industry had these numbers NOBODY would fly, ever." and apply it to those factors above, would you also say that "nobody should ever get out of bed or walk down stairs, ever?" How about, "Nobody should ever eat anything with fat or sugar again, ever?" How about, "Nobody should ever grow old again, ever?"
Well you're in luck for the relative complexity of cars; EVs require much lower maintenance than ICEs. Also, as we shift to EVs the need to fight wars for oil vanishes. EVs also don't themselves add to CO2 in the atmosphere (which gets even better as power is generated by renewable means).
As far as roads and highways go, we already lived through the utopia you imagine. That utopia is called "the past," when farmers and producers were held over the barrel by the one railroad company that ran through their area and could take their products to market. You should read about that, and get back to us on whether it's good for people to have other transportation options or not.
We could further discuss factors like snow, or -70F windchill and the 30 mile ride to town to get groceries to see if that's really a trip you want to make on a bike or on a horse, but I think we've established that on balance you really didn't think things through.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:14PM (1 child)
You just took a bunch of deaths with no clear cause injury/fall/poisoning, why not add old age in there. The point is cars are a clear preventable cause of death. If you incentivize other safer modes of transport car deaths go down, as in Norway.
Your food choices are just that, CHOICES. While driving in USA is an inevitability. It is forced upon you by the infrastructure. You have the freedom to drive or die.
https://www.faithpot.com/fedex-worker-car-surprise/ [faithpot.com]
EV's are not going to drastically solve any of the problems associated with car ownership, and they'll probably just create new ones. It's not an all or nothing though. Norway did not destroy all their motor vehicles/roads, as there are clear useful use cases. It just seems like forcing the whole population to use them is bad policy. Those 30 mile trips you mention would be non-existent if the infrastructure wasn't car centric.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:01PM
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:17AM
Apparently, yes [asirt.org]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @06:56AM (1 child)
Fewer deaths, perhaps? I see more point in relating deaths to lives than to vehicle-kilometers.
I don't know about Oslo, but I've lived in an area with excellent public transport (in and near Amsterdam) for all my life and never felt an urge to get a drivers licence, because I've never felt limited in my abilitiy to get around. I'm nearly 60 now and still perfectly happy without a car.
Of course I would miss a car if I was used to having and constantly using one and would suddenly have to do without. That doesn't mean I'm currently living with a hidden cost, I've just adjusted to different circumstances. A different job leads to different adjustments, a different partner leads to different adjustments, life is full of adjustments; it would be nonsensical to label them all as hidden costs. You can live a perfectly satisfying life without having a car in an area where your transportation needs are covered in a different way. Don't assume that a different life style than you are used to represents hidden costs, just because you would have some trouble adjusting to it. It's quite possible that the opposite transition would be just as troublesome and that what you're used to has its own share of "hidden costs".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:15AM
"Adjustments" are typical signs of hidden costs. And why do they need to remove cars from the city centers, if mass transit is so much better? People aren't acting in ways that indicate they agree with your assessment.
(Score: 1) by pD-brane on Thursday January 16 2020, @09:48AM (1 child)
The word ideology has at least some negative connotations, which makes me believe that you think you are raising a problematic issue here. I'm not arguing the goods and bads of ideology. But I am wondering whether proponents of reducing auto traffic in cities now feel obliged to defend their ideas because of your somewhat provocative comment.
Is one allowed to have ethics still, or is that too "ideological"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 17 2020, @08:17AM
That is indeed my intent. This is a problematic issue and not just one restricted to the gaming of traffic accident statistics. Another common example is GDP, a measure of economic activity, which is often used incorrectly as a proxy for economic health or societal benefit. Forcing cars out of society to game a statistic is much like forcing society to greater activity (for example, the Broken Window fallacy) to game GDP.
And they did. For example, "Is the statistic your very purpose in life? (of course it is, why do I even need to ask?)."
Moral claims are a pretty standard refuge for dogmatic, ideological arguments. Assert the opposing viewpoint is wrong and go from there. As long as "having ethics" is actual well-thought out ethics, you're standing on good ground. But is it?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:24AM (1 child)
How many Norwegians were killed by Muslim jihadi terrorists last year?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:44AM
Quisling Norskies killed way more Jews.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 15 2020, @12:54AM
What about skimobiles, reindeer sleighs, and reindeer school-sleighs? And, the skier mortality rate? I think they're just hiding the true costs of living up north.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @06:16AM
Fucking reporters shilling for Big Auto.
Whenever it's a car driver at fault, it's always reported that the car did something wrong. No such denial of responsibility for people driving motorbikes or bicycles or wheelchairs. Or walking.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:13PM (1 child)
Count on Norwegians to leave the job to reach Vision Zero half done. If they kept going until actual zero they'd be Finnish.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:38PM
Monkeyman flings poo at the comedian.
(Score: 1) by zion-fueled on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:29PM
Norway stops use of cars in city center: Sees drop in CAR accident fatalities.
Need to call the airlines quick! Crashes are going to be a thing of the past... nobody steal this; I'm going to be RICH!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday January 15 2020, @07:28PM
On topic Rush song,
Red Barchetta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U [youtube.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam