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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2013, 04:37 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,721,222 times
Reputation: 9029

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Well there is the problem. You want people to drive slow in your neighborhood. But you want to drive fast in other peoples neighborhoods.

I never understand people who support speed enforcement. From my experience 100% of all drivers speed. It's basic human nature. Everybody does it. The one exception might be, incompetent senior drivers, who drive at like half the speed limit. But I'm sure that they speed, before they became incompetent.
It was a freeway, i don't speed on neighborhood streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2013, 11:09 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,267,452 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
There's inherently always risks in everything. The question is the speed bumping killing more innocent people in houses or preventing innocent people in cars or pedestrians or cyclists out safely using the streets? That's all that matters to me. To put it bluntly, I don't particularly care much if a reckless driver offs himself. It's an unfortunate event, no doubt, but ultimately it's not much of a tragedy. I care about the safety of the roads for people who use them responsibly. I don't much care how safe roads are for reckless drivers. If you can improve safety for responsible drivers while increasing the risk to reckless drivers, I think that's a great thing. The increase risk for driving recklessly might cause some would-be reckless drivers to reevaluate their priorities. I think that's unlikely, in practice however.

Traffic calming has a pretty solid track record of reducing accidents and accident severity overall. There are certainly a poorly done traffic calming projects that actually increase the risks.

It's always a good thing when reckless drivers kill themselves before they kill anyone else. That's one less dangerous idiot off the road. But the excuses for reckless speeding being made by the pro-speed propagandists are not based on any facts and are just becoming more bizarre and comical by the minute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,379,471 times
Reputation: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Well there is the problem. You want people to drive slow in your neighborhood. But you want to drive fast in other peoples neighborhoods.

I never understand people who support speed enforcement. From my experience 100% of all drivers speed. It's basic human nature. Everybody does it. The one exception might be, incompetent senior drivers, who drive at like half the speed limit. But I'm sure that they speed, before they became incompetent.
Most drivers maintain a pace that is reasonable for the type of road they're on, and they typically maintain this pace regardless of the posted speed limit. On a typical residential street, you'll hardly ever see anyone going 40 mph. A street I frequent is lightly trafficked and quite straight over 1 mile and traffic flows at 25-30 mph even without traffic calming measures. FYI, the posted limit is 30 mph, 35 mph is the most I usually see, and to be a real maniac you'd have to get up to 40-50 mph, something I only see once every few years. Of course, the area is also well-served by major roads, so there is no need to cut through neighborhoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I applaud when people kill themselves rather than innocents, however. The only way to lose control over a speed bump is to be going way too fast. I've never seen one on a road with a speed limit over 35... so this guy was probably doing 45-50+ at night on a residential street while not paying attention to see that there was in fact a large painted bump reflecting light at him. Harsh. But that's a speed bump doing its job.
So you applaud speed bumps for killing people and posing a road hazard? Although both alternatives are dangerous, I think it would have been safer for him to do 40 mph - the chances of hitting a person or tree are certainly less than hitting a speed hump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
First you have to understand that there are two different types of roundabouts. Larger roundabouts, which don't have anything to do with traffic calming, and small roundabouts or traffic circles that do. Large roundabouts are designed to move traffic through an intersection without have to wait at a red light. Small roundabouts are nothing but dangerous traffic hazards placed in the middle of the road in an attempt to slow traffic. Mostly they just **** off and distract motorists.
I've seen those sort of "roundabouts", and all that they are is an island in the middle of the road. That is not a roundabout - that's just a road hazard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
I agree that 'mini roundabouts' that are tacked-on to an existing intersection are rather pointless. The same traffic calming effect can be achieved with simple stop signs. To be effective a true roundabout has to be built like one from the ground up and not just merely tacked on as a half-baked afterthought.
I agree about the roundabouts, though I have to disagree with stop signs. As a motorist, I resent the fact that there are stop signs everywhere - as soon as you get moving anywhere, you have to stop - driving and traveling are all about moving, not stopping, so I find it to be very off-putting. Not only that, but coming to a full stop so often wastes gasoline - cruising at a steady 15-25 mph is more fuel-efficient than going from 25 to 0 and then 25 again. Also, motorists will tend to ignore and/or be aggravated by stop signs that are not necessary. Studies have shown that motorists (including myself) increase their speed between the stop signs to make up for time that is unnecessarily lost, so stop signs are a very poor way to calm traffic (or motorists for that matter ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
What I suggest:
Wider streets -- so people aren't scared of hitting people or things. I feel "calm" when I can drive very safely.
Extra lanes where possible: I don't want to be stuck dealing with a bad driver. Two lanes means I can easily pull over and let him pass.
Traffic circles: They are kind of fun, they remind you to be alert, and they are often faster than a stop sign. After all, few of us want to waste our life sitting at a stop sign.

What I abhor:
Speed bumps: These are the stupidest idea possible. The goal is to slow down traffic. What it does is make people angry. If they go fast, it damages their car. However, the bad drivers I know simply go air born off speed bumps. They damage their car and drive recklessly. It's a terrible combination. If the goal is to slow down traffic, another form needs to be used. The ideal solution would be to make fast driving safer by providing a bypass. If you don't want them going fast through the neighborhood, offer them a way to avoid the neighborhood. If the offenders live in the neighborhood, you may need peer pressure as a tool.
I have to agree with all that. Big roads for through traffic should be readily accessible from anywhere in the town, so that there is no need for motorists to cut through neighborhoods. Think about it - even without traffic calming, would you rather go on a nice big wide road, or a side street? When motorists are cutting through side streets, that typically signals a problem where the side streets offer a faster route than the arterials, or congestion on the arterials to such a degree that motorists can't stand it. In other words, the need for traffic calming is a symptom of bad design of the major roads and side streets. Cities often can't be completely redesigned, but a good design for traffic purposes is one that provides ample space for traffic on arterial roads, and cuts off side streets to through traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 10:07 AM
 
195 posts, read 235,506 times
Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
A lot of people don't even slow down for speed bumps. I have witnessed a few accidents where someone ran over a speed bump too fast, lost control, and then crashed into parked cars. Apparently hitting a speed bump with too much speed can be fatal in some cases.

Driver dies after hitting speed bump, utility pole | khou.com Houston
After reading your comment I assumed that the driver must have been an idiot because in my head I imagined someone driving down a neighborhood street at 50 miles per hour. But after reading the story, it seems that the driver is not entirely to blame. The street where the accident took place is a 2 lane rural street, probably the last place you would expect a speed bump to be. There were no signs indicating where speed bumps are, and the speed bumps themselves are not very visible. The speed limit was 35 mph.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Allis...,,0,15.42&z=19

Judging by the skid marks, this person was not the first one to have not seen the speed bump. I think blame partially lies with the driver, and partially lies with the street design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,803 posts, read 10,715,921 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Think about it - even without traffic calming, would you rather go on a nice big wide road, or a side street? When motorists are cutting through side streets, that typically signals a problem where the side streets offer a faster route than the arterials, or congestion on the arterials to such a degree that motorists can't stand it. In other words, the need for traffic calming is a symptom of bad design of the major roads and side streets. Cities often can't be completely redesigned, but a good design for traffic purposes is one that provides ample space for traffic on arterial roads, and cuts off side streets to through traffic.
you seem to be assuming that its possible and desirable, to build sufficient arterial capacity so that there is minimal congestion, even at peak hours. Thats generally either not possible, or not financially feasible, or involves too many traffic focused arterials with the impacts of such. thats why surbubs have often been designed to cut off through traffic on side streets - but that can reduce access for emergency vehicles, can cause additional circuity for auto trips among adjoining neighborhoods by forcing them all onto the arterials. Additionally, where Radburn style trails are not provided it adds circuity for walkers and cyclists (and there are issues with such trails where they are provided) Traffic calming seems like a reasonable alternative in many instances. Generally it will present no safety problems to drivers going at the speed limit.

Some have said that simply making residential streets narrower will serve as sufficient visual cue to slow down - for a variety of reasons such street design is not always possible.

Im sorry that driving at the limit, and dealling with traffic calming is annoying - thats part of being a driver in a large metro area, for the most part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,379,471 times
Reputation: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
you seem to be assuming that its possible and desirable, to build sufficient arterial capacity so that there is minimal congestion, even at peak hours.
Is that not the whole point of a transportation system? To move people and their vehicles efficiently ? If it isn't then what is the point? It is sometimes not feasible to change bad design, but it should be recognized as such and mitigated as much as possible. Peak hours represent the real test of whether your road system is working, since that's when most people are using it. Although such a system would represent perfection, it certainly isn't practical for every arterial to have sufficient capacity for rush-hour traffic to be speeding along at the limit, but I would think 20 mph would be a reasonable expectation. However, most cities can't even manage that - in many (if not most) cases traffic is idling half the time. In most cities gridlocked traffic is a daily occurrence on arterial roads, and that represents failure of the road system to achieve its purpose, and it's a failure we should be ashamed of and want to fix.

Quote:
Im sorry that driving at the limit, and dealling with traffic calming is annoying - thats part of being a driver in a large metro area, for the most part.
Unfortunately, you would have us accept this blight upon our cities, and that sort of acceptance is something which can only lead to a worse future for us all. The world that the anti-road ilk would have us live in, where traffic flow is strangled, and drivers are obstructed and punished at every turn, is not one that has a happy ending, and it is certainly not a world I would like to live in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 05:43 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,466 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Is that not the whole point of a transportation system? To move people and their vehicles efficiently ? If it isn't then what is the point?
The point is to move people between destinations as best as resources allow. People then make a decision, based on their available resources (knowledge of local conditions included), on where to live, work, and be entertained.

That we have so many "agents" (workers, parents, children, retirees, etc.) in play, each with individual targets (work, shopping, school, etc.), it is a wonder the system semi-self regulates as well as it does and is nothing short of amazing.

Sometimes, these competing uses are mutually exclusive and arterials become gummed up. Poor design? Sure. But sometimes a bad design is the best design possible given reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Out West
22,750 posts, read 16,836,071 times
Reputation: 26299
Or you could just have a cop who always sits out, waiting for speeders in the 25mph zone like one does in a particular town I drive through 10 times a week.

He is always there. And he catches people left and right.

Knowing that if I speed through there I'm probably going to get a hefty fine has a tendency to calm me down and go the speed limit. Watching some yahoo race past me and get pulled over also gives me a calming affect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 07:19 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,105,609 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
Or you could just have a cop who always sits out, waiting for speeders in the 25mph zone like one does in a particular town I drive through 10 times a week.

He is always there. And he catches people left and right.

Knowing that if I speed through there I'm probably going to get a hefty fine has a tendency to calm me down and go the speed limit. Watching some yahoo race past me and get pulled over also gives me a calming affect.
I would love to have a cop stationed in my neighborhood all the time. So would everyone else. Just not in this city (or any other's budget). Far cheaper to physically slow the speeding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2013, 07:23 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,803 posts, read 10,715,921 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Is that not the whole point of a transportation system? To move people and their vehicles efficiently ?
to move all modes as efficiently as possible, given constraints and trade offs.

Building arterials to get to LOS A at any cost is not necessarily efficient. Building arterials to LOS A at the expense of making an area unpleasant to walk through, killing commerce, etc is not efficient either.
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
Similar Threads
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