San Francisco has updated its high-injury street network map, giving us a fresh look at where the city's most severe crashes are happening — and where new danger zones are emerging. It's a useful tool. It's also an indictment.

Let's start with the good news: some corridors are actually getting safer. That's worth acknowledging. Infrastructure changes, redesigned intersections, and targeted enforcement can work when they're actually implemented with competence and follow-through.

Now the bad news: new high-risk areas are popping up, which raises an uncomfortable question — what exactly has the city been doing with all the Vision Zero money?

San Francisco launched its Vision Zero initiative back in 2014 with the ambitious goal of eliminating traffic deaths by 2024. Well, 2024 came and went, and people are still dying on our streets. The goalposts have been quietly moved, the bureaucracy has kept humming, and the budget lines keep growing. Meanwhile, new stretches of road are earning their way onto the high-injury list.

This isn't just a traffic engineering problem. It's a spending accountability problem. The city has poured tens of millions into street safety programs, yet we can't seem to stay ahead of the curve. Part of the issue is that San Francisco treats every project like a years-long process requiring fourteen community meetings, three environmental reviews, and a blessing from the transit gods before a single bollard gets installed.

Other cities move faster. Other cities spend less. Other cities get results.

The map itself is actually a great piece of transparency — it shows residents exactly where risk is concentrated and gives them data to hold City Hall accountable. We'd encourage every San Franciscan to pull it up and see what their commute looks like through the lens of crash data.

But a map is not a plan. And a plan is not results. If the city is serious about street safety, it needs to cut the red tape, prioritize high-impact fixes over politically popular ones, and start measuring success by outcomes — not by how many studies got commissioned.

Show us fewer dots on the map next year. That's the only metric that matters.