More than a quarter of a century ago, the parliament of Sweden adopted a policy known as “Vision Zero,” aimed at eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on roads and highways. It was a radical reimagining of what is possible for road safety. The idea has since caught on around the world. Dozens of U.S. communities have adopted Vision Zero goals, and the U.S. Department of Transportation committed to the goal of zero fatalities in the National Roadway Safety Strategy released in 2022.

Many countries and some U.S. communities are making good on their Vision Zero commitments, gradually chipping away at the number of people needlessly killed on the roadways. But in the U.S., the goal of zero fatalities has been moving farther and farther out of reach. In 2022, a total of 42,514 lives were cut short on U.S. roads, representing an increase of nearly 30% since 2014.

It appears that Vision Zero is too much to expect. In response to this, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute are proposing a more realistic goal — 30 X 30 — a 30% reduction in fatalities by 2030. It’s ambitious, but also achievable, as the experience of other countries shows. Among 29 high-income countries, the U.S. has the highest crash fatality rate — more than twice the average of the others. There’s no excuse for the U.S. to lag so far behind.

There are multiple routes we can take toward reducing fatalities by 30%, or nearly 13,000. The IIHS estimates a few major changes could get us most of the way there. For example, a national maximum speed limit of 65 mph could save 3,910 lives. Increasing seat belt use to 100% would help 2,463 people survive their crashes. Reducing the legally allowed blood-alcohol concentration for drivers from 0.08% to 0.05% in all states would cut 2,018 fatalities.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But it’s hard to imagine Congress passing a national maximum speed limit like we had decades ago. And no institution can snap its fingers and get every driver and passenger to buckle up. All state legislatures can’t be expected to change their impaired driving laws instantly.

As the IIHS points out, a more realistic scenario is that we’ll be able to make more incremental progress in each of these areas, reducing speed limits and implementing speed management practices on many roads, promoting better seat belt reminders in vehicles and stricter belt use laws, and reducing the legal intoxication limit to 0.05% in a few more states (Utah took that step in 2018).

Why do we leave helmet laws up to each state? Why not a federal law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmets? And, why not mopeds and e-bikes as well?

Why don’t we have a federal law requiring all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to have daytime running lights (DRLs) like the European Union and Canada have had for decades? And vehicles should automatically turn on headlights at dusk, or when wipers are on, or when visibility is obscured by fog and snow.

We can also reduce risky behaviors by utilizing intelligent speed assistance technology and requiring driver monitoring systems (see previous DYK articles on this). The technology is available for all these safety systems at a small extra cost — why don’t we use it? How much is a life worth?

We can do this. Let’s get started.