red light camera ban bill waiting on governor signature (Dallas: credit report, attorneys)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

More people die in car "Accidents" per year than American GIs in Vietnam at its peak. Go to a cowboys game, 4 of the people in the building with you will be dead from a car accident that year.

There are lots of reasons for this, but one that people constantly ignore is road design. Arterial Roads that are wide, fast and have lots of people turning in and out are very dangerous. What makes an interstate safe: Wide, fast lanes, are what makes city streets dangerous. Most traffic engineers are looking to solve one singular issue: How to move as many cars per hour as they can through a given stretch of road. Safety is secondary and they follow old debunked standards to a large degree.

Cars kill many more people than violent crime. If you are worried about being killed by a stranger, driving in the suburbs is much more dangerous than walking in the hood.

I know you don't like rates and such but they apply in this context really well.

1). 2017 data - Motor vehicle death rates were 11.40 per 100,000 and 1.16 per 100,000,000 miles driven. Both are near all time lows.

2). Rural driving is much more dangerous than city driving. In 2014 54% of MV deaths occurred in rural areas.

3). Safety isn't secondary as safety numbers have improved fantastically over my lifetime.

[stan4]

Agreed that rates are lower MOSTLY bc of car safety.
That will plateau.
It's still unacceptably high.
And people only count deaths, nit ruined or half-lived lives. Disability is a huge loss, as well.

We can do better. If people won't take responsibility for the privilege of driving, the cost of willingly threatening the lives of others needs to have a higher price.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I know you don't like rates and such but they apply in this context really well.

1). 2017 data - Motor vehicle death rates were 11.40 per 100,000 and 1.16 per 100,000,000 miles driven. Both are near all time lows.

2). Rural driving is much more dangerous than city driving. In 2014 54% of MV deaths occurred in rural areas.

3). Safety isn't secondary as safety numbers have improved fantastically over my lifetime.

Rates are fine as long as they are relevant. The problem with statistics is they can basically say whatever you want them to. "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" as they say.

You can say it has improved, but I say it's still unacceptable.

1) That is still way too high. That's more like 10 people at a cowboys game. We already have the solutions, we just don't value human life enough.

Pedestrian death rates are approaching all-time highs which is nuts for how little people walk these days.

High speeds and distracted driving are the biggest factors in pedestrian deaths. As you can imagine the increase in speed to fatality rate isn't linear. Driving over 35mph is almost always deadly to pedestrians. 20mph isn't.

People drive as fast as they feel comfortable driving. Making wider roads means people drive faster. People drive faster, more fatalities. Separated highways are the exception to this rule. Some of the most dangerous roads are strodes.

2) Everyone already knows this. People in rural areas drive much more, drive fast and have lots of unexpected conflict points. Lots of single car accidents as well.

3) That has a lot to do with people wearing their seatbelts and cars, in general, getting safer/ larger. The biggest change is in single-car crashes.

Sure, some roads have been improved. Highway design is better.

But on the standard street level, we are mostly still using way too wide midcentury designs that don't work well and are unnecessarily dangerous. For just about every road that isn't a highway, we have way too wide lanes.

Better highway interchanges do nothing for cyclists and pedestrians. Also, people in smaller cars are at risk as the big car always wins.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by stan4

Agreed that rates are lower MOSTLY bc of car safety.
That will plateau.
It's still unacceptably high.
And people only count deaths, nit ruined or half-lived lives. Disability is a huge loss, as well.

We can do better. If people won't take responsibility for the privilege of driving, the cost of willingly threatening the lives of others needs to have a higher price.

And Driving is a Privilege, one that old people who shouldn't be on the road won't give up because we have built our whole society around the car and they would be isolated without one.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by stan4

Agreed that rates are lower MOSTLY bc of car safety.
That will plateau.
It's still unacceptably high.
And people only count deaths, nit ruined or half-lived lives. Disability is a huge loss, as well.

We can do better. If people won't take responsibility for the privilege of driving, the cost of willingly threatening the lives of others needs to have a higher price.

I agree with you.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

Rates are fine as long as they are relevant. The problem with statistics is they can basically say whatever you want them to. "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" as they say.

You can say it has improved, but I say it's still unacceptable.

1) That is still way too high. That's more like 10 people at a cowboys game. We already have the solutions, we just don't value human life enough.

Pedestrian death rates are approaching all-time highs which is nuts for how little people walk these days.

High speeds and distracted driving are the biggest factors in pedestrian deaths. As you can imagine the increase in speed to fatality rate isn't linear. Driving over 35mph is almost always deadly to pedestrians. 20mph isn't.

People drive as fast as they feel comfortable driving. Making wider roads means people drive faster. People drive faster, more fatalities. Separated highways are the exception to this rule. Some of the most dangerous roads are strodes.

2) Everyone already knows this. People in rural areas drive much more, drive fast and have lots of unexpected conflict points. Lots of single car accidents as well.

3) That has a lot to do with people wearing their seatbelts and cars, in general, getting safer/ larger. The biggest change is in single-car crashes.

Sure, some roads have been improved. Highway design is better.

But on the standard street level, we are mostly still using way too wide midcentury designs that don't work well and are unnecessarily dangerous. For just about every road that isn't a highway, we have way too wide lanes.

Better highway interchanges do nothing for cyclists and pedestrians. Also, people in smaller cars are at risk as the big car always wins.

I agree with you generally. We can do better. I'm pretty sure your claim about people rural areas driving "more" isn't germane. I'll have to look for data later but IIRC rural death rates per mile driven are multiples higher than more urban areas.

[Gone Again]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

And the citations issued for violations reported by the camera are civil, not criminal. There's no obligation to pay them, or any penalty for non-payment. Most county Tax Collectors have already said they will not hold someone's car registration renewal for non-payment of a red light camera citation.

You're correct, but they will try to collect and if unpaid, report it to the credit agencies. I made a right on a red on Lancaster, just past Dottie Lynn Pkwy. I didn't pay it, and ignored the repeated notices. Eventually I received a notice from a debt collection agency. So there's a mark on my credit.

[Bbalive]

THere is no mark on your credit. It is against the law for it to go on your credit. Even if they tried the CRAs are not accepting those for your credit file. People assume since they get a letter from a collection agency that it means it hurts your credit. Everyone gets those and no one has it on their credit.

Originally Posted by Gone Again

You're correct, but they will try to collect and if unpaid, report it to the credit agencies. I made a right on a red on Lancaster, just past Dottie Lynn Pkwy. I didn't pay it, and ignored the repeated notices. Eventually I received a notice from a debt collection agency. So there's a mark on my credit.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by Gone Again

You're correct, but they will try to collect and if unpaid, report it to the credit agencies. I made a right on a red on Lancaster, just past Dottie Lynn Pkwy. I didn't pay it, and ignored the repeated notices. Eventually I received a notice from a debt collection agency. So there's a mark on my credit.

Only at TransUnion, but that still matters.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by Bbalive

THere is no mark on your credit. It is against the law for it to go on your credit. Even if they tried the CRAs are not accepting those for your credit file.

Sorry. You're wrong. TransUnion accepts and reports these "debts".