6 ms·

This type of thinking would do humanity a lot of good if applied to cars & rules of the road. In my opinion using a public resource (roads) you should be compel

by teagee 8y ago

This type of thinking would do humanity a lot of good if applied to cars & rules of the road. In my opinion using a public resource (roads) you should be compelled to follow the rules - Speed Limits - Stop Signs - ...

clay_the_ripper 8y ago
While I think applying this to scooters is one thing, I do not want to live in a world where my car is artificially limited to 15mph in a 15 zone. Yeah maybe we could reduce accidents by 0.1% or whatever. But you just know the damn thing will go on the fritz at some point or gps will be wrong and you’ll be going too slow somewhere else, or you’ll be a rush in an emergency and be unable to get where you’re going...plus (and this May be unpopular) that world just sounds boring and crappy. I don’t want my life controlled by the cloud.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  "I do not want to live in a world where my car is artificially limited to 15mph in a 15 zone." 15 - 20mph is a pretty significant speed limit. At that speed a car - pedestrian collision is highly unlikely to be fatal. Much faster and the chances of a fatality increase quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero I would really like to see 20mph speed limits become much more common and strictly enforced. There's no reason we need to risk killing people just to get someplace faster.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    More crosswalks, and enforcement of their use, could also reduce the risk to pedestrians. There is room for give and take here. Trying to retroactively enforce 20mph limits on fast roads is pretty silly, just design the damn roads better and it wouldn't be necessary.
    - meej 8y ago
      Safer road design is a big part of Vision Zero.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    There's a difference between saying we should have speed limits and forcing cars to follow the limit. That's like having your computer checking the hash for every image it renders in case you're trying to view something illegal. It just opens itself up to a lot of abuse.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >While I think applying this to scooters is one thing Yeah. The top of a slippery slope that ends in skateboard insurance, bicycle licesnes the DOT setting up stings to catch overweight wheelbarrows. No thanks. The level of regulation that applies to mopeds is too damn high. The last thing I want is a precedent for regulating even smaller things.
  - throwanem 8y ago
    How do you feel about getting your ass beat for endangering pedestrians with a scooter on a sidewalk, instead?
    - adamiscool8 8y ago
      If it's only done when actual endangerment has occurred, seems like the most efficient solution.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
This is a case of "just enforce the existing laws, you don't need to pass new ones". Road users are already supposed to follow all signage.
- Arubis 8y ago
  If all existing laws were 100% enforced, you and I would both be in prison.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    If we creep toward perfect enforcement the legislators and the cops should be in prison long before you or I and there will be nobody left to write laws or enforce laws. Of course that's assuming that they have to follow the same laws that we do. /s
patcheudor 8y ago
It would have to apply to all vehicles because any new vehicle which enforced either would be unmarketable to a large number of people. Honestly, as much as I hate the idea, I do like the fact that the value of my non-nanny vehicles would likely increase if such a thing were to be mandated in new vehicles.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  The likely truth is that any attempt at gov't enforcement of driving behavior at this level would immediately result in the politicians suggesting it losing their job. Maybe in Europe it would fly (I'm not convinced, though), but in the USA definitely not.
gwbas1c 8y ago
Local interpretations of laws are important. Where I live, lawmakers and police openly admit that 10-15 mph over is perfectly fine, and expected. Judges throw certain speeding tickets out of court for being unreasonable. (Speed limit too low, fine too high.)
- jdavis703 8y ago
  I don't care if someone does 10-15 MPH over on a highway. However doing 40 MPH in a 25 MPH zone could have fatal consequences for pedestrians, bicyclists and scooter riders. That should not be open to "local interpretation," that's one of the reasons America's roads are much more dangerous than European roads. Speed, stop light and stop sign cameras should be placed in areas of high and/or recent injury areas to ensure that people who don't have 2 tons of metal protecting them can use the streets safely.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    How about we design the roads to be safer (and slower if necessary) instead of giving the government more money?
    - jdavis703 8y ago
      Designing and building safe roads costs money. Of course that money should be raised primarily from taxes. But that doesn't remove the need to punish dangerous driving (red light running can still happen even on the safest street). I would personally rather pay a fine than go to jail or spend the day in the stocks and pillory.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        Red lights are a whole conversation by themselves. One of the jurisdictions local to me makes the yellow light 4 to 5 seconds long, depending on road speed, and puts a 2 or 3 second delay after one light goes red before the opposing signal goes green. They have no red light cameras for enforcement. Another jurisdiction, adjacent to the first, has lowered their yellow light timing below 4 seconds, sometimes lowering it to the point where it takes as long to go across some intersections as the length of the time is yellow, assuming you are at the speed limit. They love red light cameras. Until we remove the monetary incentive from enforcement, we have no business further automating it. Use points, remedial training, reduction in driving privileges, whatever, but the incentives currently benefit those who make the rules, and the result is not safer roads.
X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
If we are actually going to enforce this stuff: Many speed limits are unreasonably low. Many stop signs should really be yield signs.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  In my opinion, most non-freeway speed limits in the US are too high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
  - GhostVII 8y ago
    It seems unrealistic to try and get to 0 deaths on the road. Just with every other activity, there are risks that come with driving and I think people should be allowed to accept those risks, just like they do with any other somewhat dangerous activity. Are we going to introduce regulation to prevent people from doing other dangerous things like biking, or skiing?
    - meej 8y ago
      Vision Zero is about _designing_ roads to be safe for all users. It is not just about driving, nor is it just about speed limits. The "zero" part is the driving vision of the program, it is not a target. Vision Zero Principles, as stated in the linked Wikipedia article: Vision Zero is based on an underlying ethical principle that "it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system." As an ethics-based approach, Vision Zero functions to guide strategy selection and not to set particular goals or targets. In most road transport systems, road users bear complete responsibility for safety. Vision Zero changes this relationship by emphasizing that responsibility is shared by transportation system designers and road users.
      - GhostVII 8y ago
        > it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system This is the part I don't agree with. What makes it unethical that people die while choosing to participate in a somewhat dangerous activity? Sure, we could halve all of the speed limits and put speed cameras everywhere. We could also force people to wear face helmets and kneepads when riding their bike, and wear a life jacket while swimming. But I don't think we should do any of those things since people should have the freedom to take reasonable risks.
jrockway 8y ago
This was my first thought as well. The article quotes a councilmember as saying: "Can we make sure that if you’re going down a sidewalk and you’re going bump bump bump because you hit everything on the sidewalk — that the scooter knows you’re on a sidewalk and really compels you get off the sidewalk," Ward said. It would be interesting to apply this technology to cars, as well. Driving or parking in the bus lane or bike lane? "Really compel the driver to get out of that lane." Speeding in a school zone? "Really compel the driver to slow down." It would be nice if public transportation was faster (the point of bus lanes) and if kids could get to school without being mowed down by speeding cars. A much bigger problem than scooters, however annoying they may be on boardwalks. We have played with such technology in NYC from time to time. One state Senator's vehicle has been caught going 36+ mph in a 25mph school zone 10 times and the same Senator is responsible for renewing the speed camera trials. Needless to say, he is opposed and the state Senate took no action: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/marty-golden-school-speed-camera-ticketed-10-times.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/marty-golden-sch... This article ended up making the state Senate look so bad that the Governor apparently unilaterally extended the "trial" of the speed cameras, so maybe progress is being made. It still tends to be widely opposed by those in power (police officers are the other loudest anti-advocates); people do not like perfect enforcement of laws that they can't weasel their way out of with "do you know who I am!?" It's unfortunate.
xfitm3 8y ago
A lot of rules are created and enforced under the premise of safety but my opinion is that the motives shift to profit rather quickly. I think raising the barrier to get a driving license would be much more effective in reducing MVAs.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Sure, as long as we remove the financial aspect of it. Right now enforcement is more about revenue, so we need to cut that link before we get wild with automating enforcement.

by teagee 8y ago

clay_the_ripper 8y ago

While I think applying this to scooters is one thing, I do not want to live in a world where my car is artificially limited to 15mph in a 15 zone. Yeah maybe we could reduce accidents by 0.1% or whatever. But you just know the damn thing will go on the fritz at some point or gps will be wrong and you’ll be going too slow somewhere else, or you’ll be a rush in an emergency and be unable to get where you’re going...plus (and this May be unpopular) that world just sounds boring and crappy. I don’t want my life controlled by the cloud.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
"I do not want to live in a world where my car is artificially limited to 15mph in a 15 zone." 15 - 20mph is a pretty significant speed limit. At that speed a car - pedestrian collision is highly unlikely to be fatal. Much faster and the chances of a fatality increase quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero I would really like to see 20mph speed limits become much more common and strictly enforced. There's no reason we need to risk killing people just to get someplace faster.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  More crosswalks, and enforcement of their use, could also reduce the risk to pedestrians. There is room for give and take here. Trying to retroactively enforce 20mph limits on fast roads is pretty silly, just design the damn roads better and it wouldn't be necessary.
  - meej 8y ago
    Safer road design is a big part of Vision Zero.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  There's a difference between saying we should have speed limits and forcing cars to follow the limit. That's like having your computer checking the hash for every image it renders in case you're trying to view something illegal. It just opens itself up to a lot of abuse.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>While I think applying this to scooters is one thing Yeah. The top of a slippery slope that ends in skateboard insurance, bicycle licesnes the DOT setting up stings to catch overweight wheelbarrows. No thanks. The level of regulation that applies to mopeds is too damn high. The last thing I want is a precedent for regulating even smaller things.
- throwanem 8y ago
  How do you feel about getting your ass beat for endangering pedestrians with a scooter on a sidewalk, instead?
  - adamiscool8 8y ago
    If it's only done when actual endangerment has occurred, seems like the most efficient solution.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

This is a case of "just enforce the existing laws, you don't need to pass new ones". Road users are already supposed to follow all signage.

Arubis 8y ago
If all existing laws were 100% enforced, you and I would both be in prison.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  If we creep toward perfect enforcement the legislators and the cops should be in prison long before you or I and there will be nobody left to write laws or enforce laws. Of course that's assuming that they have to follow the same laws that we do. /s

patcheudor 8y ago

It would have to apply to all vehicles because any new vehicle which enforced either would be unmarketable to a large number of people. Honestly, as much as I hate the idea, I do like the fact that the value of my non-nanny vehicles would likely increase if such a thing were to be mandated in new vehicles.

rootusrootus 8y ago
The likely truth is that any attempt at gov't enforcement of driving behavior at this level would immediately result in the politicians suggesting it losing their job. Maybe in Europe it would fly (I'm not convinced, though), but in the USA definitely not.

gwbas1c 8y ago

Local interpretations of laws are important. Where I live, lawmakers and police openly admit that 10-15 mph over is perfectly fine, and expected. Judges throw certain speeding tickets out of court for being unreasonable. (Speed limit too low, fine too high.)

jdavis703 8y ago
I don't care if someone does 10-15 MPH over on a highway. However doing 40 MPH in a 25 MPH zone could have fatal consequences for pedestrians, bicyclists and scooter riders. That should not be open to "local interpretation," that's one of the reasons America's roads are much more dangerous than European roads. Speed, stop light and stop sign cameras should be placed in areas of high and/or recent injury areas to ensure that people who don't have 2 tons of metal protecting them can use the streets safely.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  How about we design the roads to be safer (and slower if necessary) instead of giving the government more money?
  - jdavis703 8y ago
    Designing and building safe roads costs money. Of course that money should be raised primarily from taxes. But that doesn't remove the need to punish dangerous driving (red light running can still happen even on the safest street). I would personally rather pay a fine than go to jail or spend the day in the stocks and pillory.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Red lights are a whole conversation by themselves. One of the jurisdictions local to me makes the yellow light 4 to 5 seconds long, depending on road speed, and puts a 2 or 3 second delay after one light goes red before the opposing signal goes green. They have no red light cameras for enforcement. Another jurisdiction, adjacent to the first, has lowered their yellow light timing below 4 seconds, sometimes lowering it to the point where it takes as long to go across some intersections as the length of the time is yellow, assuming you are at the speed limit. They love red light cameras. Until we remove the monetary incentive from enforcement, we have no business further automating it. Use points, remedial training, reduction in driving privileges, whatever, but the incentives currently benefit those who make the rules, and the result is not safer roads.

X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago

If we are actually going to enforce this stuff: Many speed limits are unreasonably low. Many stop signs should really be yield signs.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
In my opinion, most non-freeway speed limits in the US are too high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
- GhostVII 8y ago
  It seems unrealistic to try and get to 0 deaths on the road. Just with every other activity, there are risks that come with driving and I think people should be allowed to accept those risks, just like they do with any other somewhat dangerous activity. Are we going to introduce regulation to prevent people from doing other dangerous things like biking, or skiing?
  - meej 8y ago
    Vision Zero is about _designing_ roads to be safe for all users. It is not just about driving, nor is it just about speed limits. The "zero" part is the driving vision of the program, it is not a target. Vision Zero Principles, as stated in the linked Wikipedia article: Vision Zero is based on an underlying ethical principle that "it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system." As an ethics-based approach, Vision Zero functions to guide strategy selection and not to set particular goals or targets. In most road transport systems, road users bear complete responsibility for safety. Vision Zero changes this relationship by emphasizing that responsibility is shared by transportation system designers and road users.
    - GhostVII 8y ago
      > it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system This is the part I don't agree with. What makes it unethical that people die while choosing to participate in a somewhat dangerous activity? Sure, we could halve all of the speed limits and put speed cameras everywhere. We could also force people to wear face helmets and kneepads when riding their bike, and wear a life jacket while swimming. But I don't think we should do any of those things since people should have the freedom to take reasonable risks.

jrockway 8y ago

This was my first thought as well. The article quotes a councilmember as saying: "Can we make sure that if you’re going down a sidewalk and you’re going bump bump bump because you hit everything on the sidewalk — that the scooter knows you’re on a sidewalk and really compels you get off the sidewalk," Ward said. It would be interesting to apply this technology to cars, as well. Driving or parking in the bus lane or bike lane? "Really compel the driver to get out of that lane." Speeding in a school zone? "Really compel the driver to slow down." It would be nice if public transportation was faster (the point of bus lanes) and if kids could get to school without being mowed down by speeding cars. A much bigger problem than scooters, however annoying they may be on boardwalks. We have played with such technology in NYC from time to time. One state Senator's vehicle has been caught going 36+ mph in a 25mph school zone 10 times and the same Senator is responsible for renewing the speed camera trials. Needless to say, he is opposed and the state Senate took no action: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/marty-golden-school-speed-camera-ticketed-10-times.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/marty-golden-sch... This article ended up making the state Senate look so bad that the Governor apparently unilaterally extended the "trial" of the speed cameras, so maybe progress is being made. It still tends to be widely opposed by those in power (police officers are the other loudest anti-advocates); people do not like perfect enforcement of laws that they can't weasel their way out of with "do you know who I am!?" It's unfortunate.

xfitm3 8y ago

A lot of rules are created and enforced under the premise of safety but my opinion is that the motives shift to profit rather quickly. I think raising the barrier to get a driving license would be much more effective in reducing MVAs.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Sure, as long as we remove the financial aspect of it. Right now enforcement is more about revenue, so we need to cut that link before we get wild with automating enforcement.