U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Will there be more or fewer auto-related fataties in the 21st century compared to the 20th?
more 14 34.15%
fewer 27 65.85%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 407,778 times
Reputation: 661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
Let me expound on "I salute the police"! As the police are increasingly becoming dependent on traffic fines for their survival, that will hopefully drive X percentage of people to throw up their hands, after the last stiff fine being paid, and saying: "That's it!!! I've had it!!! I don't care how inconvenient it may be, I'm getting a bus/rail pass!"
This is completely absurd and ridiculous, so now we should just accept the revenue enhancement nanny state system behind many local law enforcement departments is a good way of coercing people into a lesser ability to freely travel around by automobile? Complete nonsense. I'm all for law enforcement taking truly aggressive and dangerous drivers off of the road, but all over the country, municipalities have teamed up with law enforcement to create traps and set artificially low speed limits where the need simply isn't present for the sole purpose of generating money at the expense of the public. And now you think folks should just accept this corrupt bullying behavior by government agencies and just give up their freedom of mobility to just "give in" by taking the bus, like all of us good 'sheeple' should just do. Don't question big brother! Just give him your money or start taking the bus like a good citizen! One of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on here, and that's saying something based on some of the things I've read on here.

And I'm all for people who want to ride transit to be able to do so, and for the option to be available where it makes sense....but to deliberately beat down people with heavy handed fines from the "enforcement" of bogus traps and insignificant "violations" that have nothing to do with safety...and then to actually say that you approve of this because you think more people will ride the bus...absurdity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2013, 01:33 PM
 
642 posts, read 961,630 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
This is completely absurd and ridiculous, so now we should just accept the revenue enhancement nanny state system behind many local law enforcement departments is a good way of coercing people into a lesser ability to freely travel around by automobile? Complete nonsense. I'm all for law enforcement taking truly aggressive and dangerous drivers off of the road, but all over the country, municipalities have teamed up with law enforcement to create traps and set artificially low speed limits where the need simply isn't present for the sole purpose of generating money at the expense of the public. And now you think folks should just accept this corrupt bullying behavior by government agencies and just give up their freedom of mobility to just "give in" by taking the bus, like all of us good 'sheeple' should just do. Don't question big brother! Just give him your money or start taking the bus like a good citizen! One of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on here, and that's saying something based on some of the things I've read on here.

And I'm all for people who want to ride transit to be able to do so, and for the option to be available where it makes sense....but to deliberately beat down people with heavy handed fines from the "enforcement" of bogus traps and insignificant "violations" that have nothing to do with safety...and then to actually say that you approve of this because you think more people will ride the bus...absurdity.
I agree that increasing fines and penalties wouldn't cause people to ride the bus rather than driving, but I think it could be better motivation to obey traffic laws and drive more safely.

And if the additional funds were applied to improving busses/trains, giving up driving wouldn't have to equate to giving up their 'freedom of mobility.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 01:35 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,105,609 times
Reputation: 3117
I don't know, I had a bad car accident ... and years of court and lawyers as a result ... that has definitely had a real impact on my desire to be behind the wheel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 01:40 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
I don't know, I had a bad car accident ... and years of court and lawyers as a result ... that has definitely had a real impact on my desire to be behind the wheel.
I'm very certain that car accidents happen to other people, so I'm not too worried.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 407,778 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by abqpsychlist View Post
I agree that increasing fines and penalties wouldn't cause people to ride the bus rather than driving, but I think it could be better motivation to obey traffic laws and drive more safely.
Right, but the problem here that we're talking about isn't designed to keep people from driving in an unsafe manner. The problem is where you have artificially low speed limits to enhance revenue.. I get the whole idea of "if you want people to go around 55, set the speed limit at 45", but why do we even have to play this game? Many roads can be designed to handle adequate traffic speeds much faster than posted, by a longshot. There are highways around my area that have speed limits of 50 mph....completely absurd. I get that we are within the city and urban freeways realistically cannot usually be 60-65mph roads, but theres a huge difference between that kind of limit on this road and this one. The former is the FDR Drive in Manhattan, and honestly the posted 40 is pretty fast sometimes in inclement weather, however most stretches of it you can maintain 50-55 with traffic and slowing down on the curves. The latter, the West Shore Expressway was built to interstate standards and is in a remote corner of the city, could easily handle a speed limit of 65 mph safely. Instead, it's a HUGE speed trap especially with out of state drivers heading between NYC/Long Island and New Jersey/points south. I'd rather they just make the speed limit 65 and enforce the people going 80-85 if they want, since then more people could reasonably travel a more reasonable speed based on the traffic volume and roadway design. But nope, keeping it at 50 allows the NYPD to "shoot fish in a barrel" every day, just as I saw no fewer than THREE motorists pulled over in the usual spots below exit 4 this afternoon. It's not about safety and convenience of the public, it's about revenue generation. And that's complete bull%@#&.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abqpsychlist View Post
And if the additional funds were applied to improving busses/trains, giving up driving wouldn't have to equate to giving up their 'freedom of mobility.'
Yes and no. Yes, theoretically we could create better commuter rail and help fund more reasonable transit opinions for people to get to work from park and rides in the suburbs and remote corners of the city. However, I don't see how building more mass transit, unless you have buses and trains going down every arterial and past every single business, building, subdivision, home, school, etc can ever equate to 'freedom of mobility'....of course unless we just turn every human-inhabited space into, at the very least a Brooklyn-type density in my opinion. And that simply isn't (and shouldn't be) happening, because people prefer a variety of lifestyles and will vote with their dollars. Adding transit can theoretically add to people's mobility and giving people new options can enhance the choices available, however I don't see how it could replace the freedom, independence, comfort and convenience of the car altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 04:20 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
I've done 70 on the West Shore Expressway myself though it was 1 am.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 06:31 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,838,412 times
Reputation: 9769
I've been in two major car accidents including a rollover, and I've been jailed as a result of a stop for speeding, and I still drive and prefer it to transit. I don't think enhanced harassment by the police is going to do much; for one thing, once they start harassing local middle-aged white professionals they're likely to get forced to turn it down some.

Nobody's going to be taking the bus as a result of traffic fines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,744,100 times
Reputation: 32304
Factors contributing to fewer deaths in automobile accidents:

1. Seat belt use. Seat belts didn't even start to come into general use until the 1960's.
2. Advances in medical care.
3. Advances in rapid transport of seriously injured people to hospitals (helicopters, etc.)
4. ABS brakes.
5. Draconian penalties for drunk driving. (Hasn't eliminated the problem, I know, but it has reduced it.)
6. Increasing age for driver licensing over the past 50 years.
7. Increasing cost of fuel will reduce the miles driven for many people.

Factor contributing to more deaths in automobile accidents: People are living longer so there are more seniors behind the wheel. Don't think this is a problem? Talk to anyone who lives in south Florida!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 10:13 PM
 
642 posts, read 961,630 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
I've been in two major car accidents including a rollover, and I've been jailed as a result of a stop for speeding, and I still drive and prefer it to transit. I don't think enhanced harassment by the police is going to do much; for one thing, once they start harassing local middle-aged white professionals they're likely to get forced to turn it down some.

Nobody's going to be taking the bus as a result of traffic fines.
I think this is pretty much how most people feel.

There was a girl here in March of 2010 who was driving erratically and ended up going off the road and smashing into a guy on his bike who was riding on a bicycle/pedestrian trail about 40 feet off to the side of the road.

Woman charged in NM bicyclist's death | Albuquerque, N.M. | KRQE News 13

She was facing up to 3 years of jail, but I don't think jail time in her case would've been an appropriate sentence. What I would've like to have seen is for her to do some community service hours, and to have her license stripped for life.

There was also a guy here in the early 90's who was driving the wrong way and crashed head-on into another car killing a woman and her 3 daughters on Christmas Eve. When he was released, he was allowed to drive, but not allowed to drink. I think it should have been the opposite - let the guy drink but don't ever allow him to drive again.

Unfortunately this would never fly though, since people wouldn't be able to get around or have a decent quality of life without a car here. There are people here with 5+ DUI's and they're still out on the roads, and even if they had they're licenses taken away for good they would still drive since there's no other decent alternative for them to get around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 10:37 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,716,650 times
Reputation: 2538
Safety improvements reach point of diminishing returns and only marginal gains. Traffic fatalities will continue at brisk pace for about the next 50 years and then decline over the latter part of the century when personal car use becomes an increasingly rare thing and something of an activity only the very wealthy or the very poor (condemned to lve in decaying auto dependent suburbs) do. By year 2100 I would expect fatality rates to be similar to those in 1900. We're kind of in the middle of a bell curve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top