cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/53463866
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/53463841
Before the cameras were installed four years ago, roughly 17 per cent of motorists followed the posted speed limits. … In the last year before the cameras were banned, compliance reached 87 per cent.
Within a week of the cameras’ removal, that fell to 62 per cent, and three weeks later, it had dropped to 50 per cent.
…
Carlucci says it’s time for drivers to reflect and consider one simple question.
“Why are you speeding in a school zone?”
Eliminating speed cameras is tacit approval of speeding.
That’s because driving the speed limit on those roads feels downright painful and the speed cameras were just a bandaid solution to begin with. You want people to slow down? Change the road design so it doesn’t feel like driving on a highway. Narrow it down and make it windy. People will naturally slow down and will feel comfortable doing it too.
You need to design slower roads for people to drive slower.
Speed limits are dumb. Don’t ask, FORCE people to slow down.The dirty secret of speed limits is that they’re often just the engineer’s best guess as to how fast the drivers who use the road will go, on average. Because they know that speed limits are useless for actual regulation.
Yup, they estimate the 80th percentile.
Basically, civil engineers estimate the top speed that 80% of drivers will be comfortable going on the road. And that estimated number is now the speed limit. That’s also the number they use to time traffic lights for ideal flow. That means 20% will naturally feel like it’s too slow, and will naturally end up speeding unless they constantly watch their speedometer. Because the number is estimated off of comfort, and 20% of drivers naturally feel comfortable going faster… And anyone below that 80th percentile will end up causing congestion as they crawl along below the limit and cause traffic lights to stop drivers who otherwise would have had a green.
And it’s worth noting that, in many cases, very little actual math or real world data goes into that estimation. It frequently boils down to a civil engineer basically going “well other streets like this one have a speed limit of 40, so 40 will probably work for this one too…” Civil engineering does have a lot of math for traffic, (for instance, turn lane length is determined by how many vehicles they expect to use it per hour,) but speed limits are often just a best-guess situation.
Exactly. I got a ticket for Huntclub west of Conroy back in August. When it turns to a 60 zone nothing changes and nothing indicates that you should pay that “60” sign, which look an awful lot like an “80” sign, any extra attention. Like, a 60 zone with merge lanes?!? And a central median two lanes wide?!?
I asked for a trial and, if needed, I’m straight-up going to say that I don’t see why I need to take this seriously if the city won’t even do that. Of course, they’ve completely fucked up getting me that trial so that time may never come.
For context: I’m a huge advocate for walkable cities, public transit, etc. I’m not against the slower speed limit, I’m against the stupidity.
I asked for a trial and, if needed, I’m straight-up going to say that I don’t see why I need to take this seriously if the city won’t even do that.
Fascinating. What is the name of this legal principle?
The principle of the trial or the principle of telling them to stuff it? Because I know that’s not a way out, but if I’m stuck with it I’m still happy to tell them to fuck off if it won’t cost anything extra.
BINGO!!!
You do that, and people will complain about the traffic.
The best way to reduce car crashes is to build public transit infrastructure.
But that’s about as likely as repaving all the roads to force drivers to slow down.
People complain about traffic anyway.
Besides traffic calming doesn’t proclude transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure, in fact they go hand in hand often.
Eliminating speed cameras is tacit approval of speeding.
It’s a little insane to me how speeding is handled.
If it’s a serious law, it should be uniformly enforced. None of this “cops pull over some people” nonsense that opens the door to harassment and quotas.
Furthermore, fines need to scale with wealth.
“If it’s a serious law, it should be uniformly enforced. None of this “cops pull over some people” nonsense that opens the door to harassment and quotas.”
I agree, but I disagree with speed limits all together, or better put not also deciding whether the speeders are good enough at those speeds to be safe!
“Furthermore, fines need to scale with wealth.”
I love that when I heard that a EU country is already doing this.
It must become illegal to use cameras in any public setting, for any reason(s), PRIVACY & ELIMINATE THE PROFITS MOTIVE, FOR MOVED-UP TO RICH-SUPER RICH ECONOMIC CLASSES/OWNERS.
