If we want to take an all encompassing approach, we have to tackle motonormativity. Here’s an idea: maybe we should ban car and truck commercials just the way the US banned cigarette commercials in way back in 1971. I did some quick research.
While exact numbers from 1970 are not available, estimates put the number of smoking related deaths in 1970 in the US at around 430,000, with about 40% of Americans being regular smokers at the time. With the US population at around 203 million at the time, that works out to a rate of 211 per 100,000.
Vehicle related death and injuries (traffic fatalities and injuries, pedestrian deaths and injuries) in the US tally up to over 2.3 million. With the US population now around 340 million, that works out to a rate of about 680 per 100,000, more than triple the rate that triggered the ad ban in 1971.
Small warning about the peanut analogy. It actually turns out that Peanut Zero caused an *increase* in severe allergies, and it probably killed more kids than it saved. Only in 2017 did the reommendations change back.
I’m sympathetic to your aims here but your logic re: the comparison to peanuts is sadly very poor. The reason society was able to quickly organize around “peanut zero” is that removing peanuts from shared spaces is VERY LOW COST.
Removing cars, or smartphones for that matter, is VERY HIGH COST. This distinction overshadows your entire thoughtful piece.
A terrific piece on how traffic safety is all encompassing. Your health, your mood, and of course, our devices. But the numbers are staggering and despite technical safety innovation, its only gotten worse. In large part because a lot of automotive innovation is incredibly dangerous: high power, speed and poor visibility. Amsterdam was the leader in traffic story telling, perhaps the Grimm Fairy Tales version. Each child death was emphasized on the evening news until cars were labeled "Baby Killers". Ultimately this led to the proliferation of bicycles and bike safety infrastructure. The US has a very long way to go.
Amsterdam didn't mess around with the PSAs, and you're right, it played an important role. Fun fact, in the early 1900s, newspaper headlines and cartoons were just as direct.
Grist had a great piece “What we lost when cars won”. https://grist.org/culture/cars-crashes-books-culture/
If we want to take an all encompassing approach, we have to tackle motonormativity. Here’s an idea: maybe we should ban car and truck commercials just the way the US banned cigarette commercials in way back in 1971. I did some quick research.
While exact numbers from 1970 are not available, estimates put the number of smoking related deaths in 1970 in the US at around 430,000, with about 40% of Americans being regular smokers at the time. With the US population at around 203 million at the time, that works out to a rate of 211 per 100,000.
Vehicle related death and injuries (traffic fatalities and injuries, pedestrian deaths and injuries) in the US tally up to over 2.3 million. With the US population now around 340 million, that works out to a rate of about 680 per 100,000, more than triple the rate that triggered the ad ban in 1971.
So where is the outrage?
Small warning about the peanut analogy. It actually turns out that Peanut Zero caused an *increase* in severe allergies, and it probably killed more kids than it saved. Only in 2017 did the reommendations change back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/20/well/peanut-allergy-drop.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E8.Tj47.-rsWv_BmXmpm&smid=nytcore-android-share
I'm not suggesting Peanut Vision Zero (kids need exposure). My point is the way cultur changes.
I’m sympathetic to your aims here but your logic re: the comparison to peanuts is sadly very poor. The reason society was able to quickly organize around “peanut zero” is that removing peanuts from shared spaces is VERY LOW COST.
Removing cars, or smartphones for that matter, is VERY HIGH COST. This distinction overshadows your entire thoughtful piece.
The point is the culture change was based entirely on emotion, not facts. Many such examples of culture change.
A terrific piece on how traffic safety is all encompassing. Your health, your mood, and of course, our devices. But the numbers are staggering and despite technical safety innovation, its only gotten worse. In large part because a lot of automotive innovation is incredibly dangerous: high power, speed and poor visibility. Amsterdam was the leader in traffic story telling, perhaps the Grimm Fairy Tales version. Each child death was emphasized on the evening news until cars were labeled "Baby Killers". Ultimately this led to the proliferation of bicycles and bike safety infrastructure. The US has a very long way to go.
Amsterdam didn't mess around with the PSAs, and you're right, it played an important role. Fun fact, in the early 1900s, newspaper headlines and cartoons were just as direct.