32 ms·

> perhaps they need to be more aggressively punished for doing so. In general I am for more aggressive fees, sentencing and punishment for violating driving rul

> perhaps they need to be more aggressively punished for doing so. In general I am for more aggressive fees, sentencing and punishment for violating driving rules. That's unlikely to happen. Such drivers make up a large and vocal section of society and would push back on those policies. Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down like it's some how unfair to automatically point out that almost everyone is breaking the law.

bsder 9y ago
> Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down The problem with both of those is that they get put in places where they maximize revenue rather than maximize safety. San Diego has several extremely dangerous intersections which regularly result in fatalities--which never so much as see a policeman let alone a red light camera. Instead of putting them on those dangerous intersections, the cameras got placed on high-volume intersections that weren't particularly dangerous but were particularly good at trapping people at a yellow light--especially during rush hour. The cameras had the added bonus that they increased the number of accidents at those intersections. Speed cameras tend to be similar. Rather than speed cameras getting placed on stretches of road where it's critical to get people to slow down, they get placed on roads where the speed limit is particularly out of whack with the 85th% speed.
rootusrootus 9y ago
That speed limits are law does not make for a particularly good argument; automated enforcement gets shouted down because it is nearly always implemented as a revenue generation service instead of a method to improve traffic safety. We know very well how we can make our roads safer, and it has essentially zero to do with the printed legal speed limit. You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.
- deschutes 9y ago
  I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area. Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them. In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit. I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk. On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway. The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.
  - rootusrootus 9y ago
    Having just now commuted to the office (not driving, I'm not native) in Hyderabad, India, I have a whole different viewpoint on the road rules we have in the states :). This is the very definition of casual disregard for the rules, by comparison in America we are puritanical. In the end I support data-driven lawmaking. We know that speed limits are ignored by 90% of everyone, and we know very well how road design parameters such as lane width affect the way people drive. I think we should ditch speed limits altogether in the city and focus on these things which work. The actual risk of driving a vehicle is astoundingly low given the physics involved. Wrecks are somewhat common but injuries relative rare and death is such a remote possibility that most people can disregard it compared to all the other ways the universe is out to get them :-).
wwweston 9y ago
> Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down like it's some how unfair to automatically point out that almost everyone is breaking the law. Probably because (a) in theory there are several good reasons for caution in automating law enforcement and (b) in practice speed/red light cameras often turned out to be unfair. https://uspirg.org/trafficcamreport https://uspirg.org/trafficcamreport http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-cities-hit-brakes-red-light-cameras.html http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ci... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/red-light-cameras-may-issuing-tickets-based-bogus-math/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/red-light-cameras-may-issuing-...
DrScump 9y ago
almost everyone is breaking the law What is your estimate of percentage of cyclists who obey traffic laws? (stopping at stop signs, right side of the road, off sidewalks, etc. as applicable for a given jurisdiction)

bsder 9y ago

> Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down The problem with both of those is that they get put in places where they maximize revenue rather than maximize safety. San Diego has several extremely dangerous intersections which regularly result in fatalities--which never so much as see a policeman let alone a red light camera. Instead of putting them on those dangerous intersections, the cameras got placed on high-volume intersections that weren't particularly dangerous but were particularly good at trapping people at a yellow light--especially during rush hour. The cameras had the added bonus that they increased the number of accidents at those intersections. Speed cameras tend to be similar. Rather than speed cameras getting placed on stretches of road where it's critical to get people to slow down, they get placed on roads where the speed limit is particularly out of whack with the 85th% speed.

rootusrootus 9y ago

That speed limits are law does not make for a particularly good argument; automated enforcement gets shouted down because it is nearly always implemented as a revenue generation service instead of a method to improve traffic safety. We know very well how we can make our roads safer, and it has essentially zero to do with the printed legal speed limit. You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.

deschutes 9y ago
I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area. Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them. In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit. I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk. On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway. The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.
- rootusrootus 9y ago
  Having just now commuted to the office (not driving, I'm not native) in Hyderabad, India, I have a whole different viewpoint on the road rules we have in the states :). This is the very definition of casual disregard for the rules, by comparison in America we are puritanical. In the end I support data-driven lawmaking. We know that speed limits are ignored by 90% of everyone, and we know very well how road design parameters such as lane width affect the way people drive. I think we should ditch speed limits altogether in the city and focus on these things which work. The actual risk of driving a vehicle is astoundingly low given the physics involved. Wrecks are somewhat common but injuries relative rare and death is such a remote possibility that most people can disregard it compared to all the other ways the universe is out to get them :-).

wwweston 9y ago

> Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down like it's some how unfair to automatically point out that almost everyone is breaking the law. Probably because (a) in theory there are several good reasons for caution in automating law enforcement and (b) in practice speed/red light cameras often turned out to be unfair. https://uspirg.org/trafficcamreport https://uspirg.org/trafficcamreport http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-cities-hit-brakes-red-light-cameras.html http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ci... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/red-light-cameras-may-issuing-tickets-based-bogus-math/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/red-light-cameras-may-issuing-...

DrScump 9y ago

almost everyone is breaking the law What is your estimate of percentage of cyclists who obey traffic laws? (stopping at stop signs, right side of the road, off sidewalks, etc. as applicable for a given jurisdiction)