12 ms·

The real way to make people drive a certain speed - is to design a road that makes people drive that speed. It's been a really slow process, but bit by bit we

• obstinate 9y ago
  Many ways to skin a cat. Design roads properly, sure. But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. Red light cameras certainly have that effect on red light running, and the negation just seems absurd to me. As a bonus, aggressive ticketing requires no new infrastructure.
  • Retric 9y ago
    Red light cameras increase accidents because people speed up if they think they are even slightly close to the limit. Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.
    • obstinate 9y ago
      Your ideas about what red light cameras do are contradicted by the actual studies done to see what red light cameras do. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
      • AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        Red light cameras increase rear end collisions and decrease side impact collisions; but side impact collisions are more dangerous. The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light. But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
        • obstinate 9y ago
          I'm interested to read a citation that shows that increasing yellow light length is superior to RLCs. Please send it my way. Thank you.
          • AnthonyMouse 9y ago
            Compare the percentages for right-angle crashes on page 63 of your link to the numbers here: http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Compendium%20of%20Yellow%20Interval%20Increase%20Studies.pdf http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com... Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
            • obstinate 9y ago
              This is interesting, but it seems to mostly be focused on violations rather than crashes. I can see how the two might be related. But I also somewhat suspect that early into red violations may not be the type of red light running that causes accidents the most.
        • douche 9y ago
      • reitanqild 9y ago
        Around here red light cameras where removed. I heard it was because they where found to significantly increase accidents.
        • LoSboccacc 9y ago
          It's a complex matter. The company demands to retain control over the camera and makes the municipality pay rent if not enough tickets are issued. Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
          • reitanqild 9y ago
            Around here is not US and while I haven't seen anything written about such incentives I think that might be because any setup like that would be found illegal.
        • obstinate 9y ago
          Your "I heard" is not a relevant response to my linked meta-analysis.
      • Retric 9y ago
        That's not what your link says, there is a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. It found this by: The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes. Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
        • obstinate 9y ago
          It examined the extent to which the rear end crashes negated the economic advantages, and found that they did not fully negate the economic advantages. They instead had an economic advantage of ~40-50k USD per site per year. See pages 5, 68, 74. This is why it's important to go further into papers than just reading the abstract.
          • Retric 9y ago
            I say they increase accidents you say, that's not true they lower costs. I say that does not mean they lower accidents. You respond yes they do, they lower cost. Do you really want me to say that's not my argument using different words? If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs. PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.
  • bsder 9y ago
    > But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect. The question is: What's the goal? The article shows you how to increase safety. What is your goal in busting speeders?
    • obstinate 9y ago
      Where in the article is there any experimental evidence, or evidence of any kind, that increasing speed limits increases safety? They found one guy who thinks it does, which is not very convincing. My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
      • mos_basik 9y ago
        >When the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile speed, the minority of drivers that do conscientiously follow speed limits are no longer driving much slower than the speed of traffic. The choice of the 85th percentile speed is a data-driven conclusion -- as noted Lt. Megge and speed limit resources like the Michigan State Police’s guide -- that has been established by the consistent findings of years of traffic studies. >This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
        • LoSboccacc 9y ago
          And again, because everyone thinks a speed it's safe doesn't mean a speed it's safe. People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
          • 9y ago
  • zaphar 9y ago
    What you propose is taking something that has essentially 0 effect on speed right now. And then doing that thing harder. Furthermore the result of not having an effect on speed but posting an authoritative sign that has little to no reflection of the actual speed has a detrimental effect on safety for pedestrians and non-automotive traffic. There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result." The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.
    • obstinate 9y ago
      I don't think either of the following have been established: 1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed. 2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all). Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
      • AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        The problem is that it's really an economic problem. The existing enforcement is a revenue generation method -- everybody exceeds the speed limit, so you can put a cop anywhere who can just sit there and hand out tickets. It's net income for the government, but there isn't enough enforcement to actually change behavior. If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
        • obstinate 9y ago
          That's an interesting technical problem. PID controllers answer a similar problem in control theory. I don't have the answer here, and I'm not certain there is one. It really depends on how many more cops we'd need to get to a state where enforcement can be rigorous, and whether we as a society prefer the tradeoff of paying for those enforcers to get safer roads. Tough question. But I like tricky questions aimed in a true direction better than easy, wrong answers like, "ticketing people has no effect on speeding."
  • feld 9y ago
    You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. Traffic cameras have got to go.
    • Godel_unicode 9y ago
      This has been covered to death on here, but your accuser is the officer of the court who signs the ticket, not the camera.
      • feld 9y ago
        Has there been something more recent than this case? http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf "Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg. In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable." The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.
        • Godel_unicode 9y ago
          Yes, there have been a lot of unsuccessful defenses based around the camera being your accuser, here's the first one I found. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html
      • u801e 9y ago
        For traffic violations where a law enforcement officer initiates a traffic stop, it's clear that the officer witnessed the violation and when issuing a citation, list details such as the make and model of the vehicle, the identity of the driver, the location of the offense and what what the offense was. If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc. He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
  • jakobegger 9y ago
    The way to go are automated radars, that are clearly visible. They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit. Everyone sticks to the speed limit now. A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either. With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.
    • terryf 9y ago
      So you like the fact that the police know exactly where and when you drove? Because the licence plate tracking cameras require that, you know. Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly. Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5 Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
      • nicky0 9y ago
        I see. Your'e saying: since speed limits aren't perfect in all cases, so lets not have them at all.
        • terryf 9y ago
          I do believe in increasing personal responsibility of people and having less of a nanny state, so I do tend towards that answer, but it's really not that black and white. On highways and places where pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed - yes, no speed limit makes a lot of sense (and is available in Germany for example) In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution. I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.
  • godshatter 9y ago
    I live near a couple of rural small-town speed traps. Yes, I have learned to set my cruise control to 45mph at the sign that is a ridiculous distance from town on otherwise normal highway to avoid tickets. The problem is, not everyone is a local, so you have people driving 45 and people trying to drive 60+ on a two lane highway with all the tailgating and reckless driving that entails. The speed trap isn't making anyone safer, it's just making those police departments richer.
• wvenable 9y ago
  What makes a road a 25mph road? One dangerous enough that people don't feel comfortable driving faster -- how is that a solution?
  • smileysteve 9y ago
    Yes. This is a reason why a lot of one way streets are being made into 2 way streets. And why closing streets temporarily increases traffic but decreases fatalities (and eventually decreases traffic)
  • mirimir 9y ago
    Yes, basically. You make traffic lanes narrower, with much wider shoulders that are textured to discourage use. If there are bike lanes, you separate them with rounded dividers. Trees in the center divider also help. As do curves, and bumpouts around on-street parking.
    • jdavis703 9y ago
      People will just drive over textured bumps, I've seen it. You need to design the road such that people will damage their vehicle if they drive dangerously (things like on street parking, concrete bollards, tall curbs etc).
      • mirimir 9y ago
        Those are good points. Bollards, tall curbs, etc are appropriate for urban streets, because they protect pedestrians on sidewalks. But curbs are hazardous to bicyclists. More generally, you want streets that seem more dangerous than they actually are.
        • masklinn 9y ago
          > But curbs are hazardous to bicyclists. You can easily cut a bypass through the curb or chicane.
• tropo 9y ago
  Better idea: make the road actually safe at higher speed. If you don't want people getting hit by cars, you need to make them visible. Get rid of parallel parking. Get rid of bushes and mailboxes near the road. If there is a sidewalk, put it 10 feet from the road. Get rid of roadside advertising. With those changes, highway speeds are perfectly safe. People don't pop out from behind opaque objects if there are no opaque objects near the road, and people don't fall into the road if the sidewalk is set back. Drivers have plenty of warning when somebody approaches the road, and there they can pay full attention because the distractions have been removed.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • rocqua 9y ago
    Giving drivers sight of pedestrians is good, but giving drivers to much open sight lines is bad. Open sight lines are exactly what make people drive faster. Mailbox near the road seem like a great idea to me. It communicates that people might be here, creates a visual obstacle that will get people to drive slower, and if you hit one, it doesn't cause a shit ton of damage (unlike, say, a tree).
    • douche 9y ago
      As a counterpoint, having mailboxes right next to the road is a great way to wind up with your mailbox absolutely obliterated by the snowplow as it goes by...
• halloij 9y ago
  In the UK we have "average speed cameras". They are dotted along a road, and monitor cars individually by their license plate. I would argue they make drivers far less safe, because whilst on such a road, drivers are glued to their speedometers to make sure they're not going over the limit. Drivers should be concentrating on driving safely. Not on driving at a specific arbitrary speed.
  • karlmdavis 9y ago
    Or they could just, you know, use cruise control. I almost never touch the gas pedal once I've reached the speed limit: I just turn on cruise control and focus on the road, rather than my speedometer. Makes me a far safer driver, with the added bonus of also being a law-abiding one.
    • halloij 9y ago
      I would also say Cruise control results in more dangerous driving. If you're traveling at a constant speed, things get boring FAST. It's easy to just get bored, stop paying attention and zone out. Cruise control isn't as big a thing in the UK. We have bendy roads and drive manual cars not automatics.
      • kileywm 9y ago
        My suggestion for people who find cruise control makes driving boring, disengaging, and thus more dangerous is to instead focus on other aspects of driving - perhaps unobvious ones. It's surprisingly effective. Personally, I use cruise control very often, and the attention freed up by it I typically put toward maintaining lane position and checking my mirrors more often. It keeps the trips engaging and makes me a safer, more consistent driver. I'm also convinced that traffic flow would be much better if people used cruise control more often. Speed variability seems to cause excessive lane changes as a driver inadvertently slows down and the cars following attempt to pass so that they don't have to slow down too.
        • gsnedders 9y ago