Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In

The tragic deaths on San Francisco streets keep increasing. San Francisco’s Vision Zero is not making progress. The city is forming an action plan, but it’s not aggressive enough: how about day-lighting every single intersection? Congestion pricing may reduce overall traffic, resulting in fewer death agents.

However, the city has no solid plan for the real killer: speed.

High speed, regardless of limit, is a factor in every traffic fatality. It leaves little time for drivers to become aware and react (avoid). It takes longer for braking to take effect (minimize). And finally, it inflicts higher blunt force trauma on victims (mitigate). That is why less than 7 percent of collisions at 20 mph are deadly, while 45 percent of collisions at 40 mph kill.

There is usually another factor in traffic fatalities: most often a driver error, such as ignoring the pedestrian right of way, running a red light, glare, lack of visibility, inattentiveness, negligence, DUI, etc. We can and should try to minimize such errors by improving visibility (day-lighting) and enforcing traffic violations (e.g. using red light cameras) like the action plan proposes. But as long as speeds are high, a single driver error will remain fatal. It is a single point of failure, therefore high-speed streets are deadly by design.

Today, speed limits in California are set based on the 85th percentile rule: out of 100 drivers observed, the limit is set to the speed of the 15th fastest driver. That means that wide streets where traffic is unimpeded result in higher speeds, and higher speed limits. There are efforts to change that, but failure to change state law has been used as a crutch for San Francisco to do nothing. Furthermore, speed limits without corresponding design and enforcement changes may or may not be effective but will provide a false sense of security. In deadly situations, what matters is not the speed limit, but the actual driver speed, which is typically higher than the limit.


To address this challenge, San Francisco must actually prevent speeds higher than 20 mph city-wide, as follows:

    1. Measure the speed percentile distribution on every single block.
    2. Set a goal of 20 mph 99th percentile speed everywhere, in particular at intersections, crosswalks or streets where bike lanes are present. The posted speed limit may itself be lower (or higher, if the 85th percentile rule survives).
    3. Track progress towards the goal, to keep SFMTA and City Hall accountable. The same way SFMTA tracks Muni on-time performance, it should track its progress towards the 20 mph goal.
    4. Prioritize changes to design and enforcement on streets where the goal is not being met.

The city should implement any and all approaches to achieve the speed reduction, such as:

    1. Traffic calming, such as lane reduction, lane narrowing, speed bumps, raised crosswalks, optical treatments.
    2. Enforcement, such as automated speed enforcement (currently illegal in California). The absence of automated enforcement, however, should not prevent the city from doing everything else.
    3. Speed limit reduction, which can be effective on its own, or when coupled with enforcement and design changes.
    4. Signal timing, to reduce incentives to speed.
    5. Roundabouts to reduce speeds at intersections and improve turn visibility.

The city should rapidly pilot different approaches on different streets of the high injury network to see which approaches achieve the desired speed reduction.

Some may ask, how about transit? Average transit speed today is 8 mph. The reason for that is not the speed limit, but traffic interference. The way to improve transit is via transit-only lanes, signal priority, congestion pricing, and grade separation. The San Francisco Transit Riders ambitious 30x30 campaign is fully compatible with speeds under 20 mph: the Geary lines (6.4 miles) need to only average 12.8 mph to take riders end-to-end in 30 minutes.

Some may ask, how about arterials, such as Oak and Fell? First, we should make safety the default and speed optional, rather than the other way around. To institute higher speeds, SFMTA must identify and propose alternative solutions that result in zero deaths.

Until then, 20 is plenty.

Mario Tanev is a long-time member of Walk SF, SF Bicycle Coalition and SF Transit Riders, where he led its first successful campaign to institute Muni All-Door Boarding.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

Opinion: Is Kamala Harris ‘The Climate President We’ve Been Waiting For’?

Kamala Harris fought hard for a better transportation plan in the San Diego region despite big political risks. If elected president, will she do the same for the country?

July 24, 2024

L.A. Leaders: “Pull the Plug” on Metro/Caltrans 91 Freeway Expansion in Long Beach

The community felt dismissed and disrespected by Metro's earlier response. This time Supervisor Hahn and Councilmember Ricks-Oddie heard them loud and clear: they don't want this project

July 24, 2024

Join the Campaign Kickoff for Ocean Beach Park

Advocates release logos, FAQs, media kits, and plans for the first rally for the Ocean Beach Park campaign

July 24, 2024

America is Setting Micromobility Records — But That Boom Could Go Bust Without Public Funding

Shared bike and scooter trips soared 20 percent in a single year. So why are so many U.S. systems shutting down — and what will it take to keep the revolution rolling?

July 24, 2024

Wednesday’s Headlines

Road diets don't slow emergency response; E-bikes are changing family life; Bad sidewalks are costing cities $$$; More

July 24, 2024
See all posts