It would be a useful project to instrument a few Manhattan intersections with camera coverage from above, track all the vehicles and pedestrians, see what happens and what happened before each accident and near-miss.
If anything, this data shows how egregious speeding in NYC is. The cameras can only issue tickets if you're driving 10mph above the speed limit. Until recently this was 40mph. Now it's 35.
35 is way too fast for city driving, so even if there are concerns that this is just a money grab (only for the city; no private companies get a percentage of the tickets), it's still worth doing.
If all cars were going 25mph at all times, there would be a lot less people dying in traffic. Cycling would also be a lot more pleasant.
Are you sure, no private companies are getting a cut of ticket money? I couldn't find any information on that page either way and it is very common for governments to cut deals with private companies to let them setup cameras din return for a cut of the revenue which gives them zero incentive for the tickets to be accurate.
Right and what else can you do? Use harsh language? To a New Yorker that's like praying to the Greek gods, it only makes us more powerful. 35 is too high, 30 is too high, 25 is too high. There are so many people cycling now in the past few years alone, it's just crazy having bikes and cars at such different relative speeds. The speed limit probably should be 20mph considering the vast majority are pedestrians and bikers at least in Manhattan (most people take trains but ultimately they are all also pedestrians too).
Then we get into the argument of what constitutes city driving and that gets fun. What's a city. Is a road connecting two roads a city road? What if it has side-walks or a bike lane? What about the small town that has a bike lane, too?
We'd have to see a case-by-case basis of the speed limit in a given location to give an appropriate speed limit for an area.
.. I wrote that, but now I'm thinking that if we had a reasonable, almost static speed limit for driving inside a city, then that would be one less thing the driver has to think about while driving in the city, so that would be good. Some sort of testing would be needed to decide on an appropriate speed, but I imagine somewhere between 25 and 35 would prove to be a good speed.
> We'd have to see a case-by-case basis of the speed limit in a given location to give an appropriate speed limit for an area.
Doesn't matter. Just have a speed limit and make people obey it, and then let the traffic engineers run simulations and adjust those limits to maximize flow and minimize accident rates. But when people have a habitual disregard of speed limits[0], determining the optimal value of those limits is nigh impossible.
[0] - I don't know what's the driving culture in the US, but in Poland - where I live - most drivers show total disregard for speed limits and driving rules. They think they're the smartest, and that no accident can happen to them.
"let the traffic engineers run simulations and adjust those limits to maximize flow and minimize accident rates"
Wasn't there a discussion about how it's hard to raise a speed limit in an area? If the safe / max flow speed turns out to be higher than it currently is, I suspect it would be hard to get it raised. I am in great support of this idea, though..
I'd also like more aggressive variable speed limits instead of "60 all the time, between bone-dry land and torrential rain"
The argument is pretty easy in New York: city driving is driving within the city limits, which are largely defined by islands. Exceptions are made for fully-grade separated highways.
But one of the types of cameras generating the most revenue is on the exit ramp from a highway. They have cameras that will clock you before you're in a "city street" proper.
If the parent had said 15 or 20 mph instead of 25, there wouldn't be a significant difference in traffic deaths. If you get hit by a car at 15mph, you are highly unlikely to die. You may break a bone, but you won't be dead.
Of course, that excludes freak accidents -- you could fall onto a spike or something. But freak accidents are possible whether the car is going 5mph or 15.
This is complete bullshit. Do you live in NYC?? No, of course you don't, which is why you have no f'n idea WTF you're talking about. I do, and especially Manhattan is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike. People get hit all the time. The singular thing that keeps speeds sane is all the traffic. So when there's little traffic on a single lane side street, let alone the avenues, it's taxis and Escalades busting 40+ always. This town is adult Disney Land, and as such every vehicle should have a tracker, charging tax by the f'n mile and minute, and tracking speed and charge disproportionately for speeding - 5mph over leeway and after that it's $500 automatic account fine per mph over that. Dicks. This city is a f'n goddamn shithole mainly because of all the insane amounts of traffic. God I love this town... but it is a shithole and cars are far far far more dangerous than anything else around here. Except maybe falling cranes. And the police. OK that's not fair, I'm white I have no room to complain.
> So when there's little traffic on a single lane side street, let alone the avenues, it's taxis and Escalades busting 40+ always.
While the taxis are a separate kettle of fish, the existence of off-hours speeding by local traffic f'n tells me that your own f'n neighbors do not agree with you. I suggest you f'n take it up with them.
In spite of what you think, speed cameras will only be a temporary solution if people do not think the speed limit is fair. This happened in California with red light cameras. Once enough people knew someone who got busted and thought it was unfair, there was enough political will to scrap them altogether even though there really were intersections that desperately needed them.
This also happened in Pittsburgh with parking boots. Once the city got the biggest scofflaws, they didn't have the usage they expected. So, they started using them for even first time offenders. Well, people didn't find that very fair, so cottage businesses to acetylene torch the boot off sprung up and cost the city a lot since they now had to buy a new boot every time one got torched. Very quickly, the city figured out that over-use of that enforcement tool cost more than it helped.
Enforcement does not create compliance. Enforcement is simply an adjunct to something that most people are complying with already.
If you want people to slow down, you have to engineer the road so that they want to slow down. Speed humps, roundabouts, curb extensions, etc. are all tools to make that work.
For city streets, it doesn't matter what speed people _want_ to drive. You need to be able to come to a stop when kids playing ball on the sidewalk run out in front of your car chasing the ball.
Of course, most of the time, there is nothing out of the ordinary happening, and so people happily drive 45 in residential zones. The one time something out of the ordinary happens, you have dead pedestrians. Hundreds of them a year in NYC alone.
So, what you are telling me is that we need to put fences on all sidewalks except at the crossings to prevent pedestrians from doing something stupid that could get them killed? That would save hundreds of lives a year, right? Much easier than getting millions of drivers to comply with speed limits they don't agree with, right?
Everything has a cost, and it's very easy to blow that off if you don't have to pay it.
And, before you suggest that no one would ever put up a fence like that, California actually does occasionally. Generally where pedestrians try to cross a 12-freakin'-lane-superhighway on foot.
These are city streets. They can't put up fences because the UPS guy couldn't unload, your trash couldn't be picked up, you couldn't get to the sidewalk after parking your car, etc.
> These are city streets. They can't put up fences because the UPS guy couldn't unload, your trash couldn't be picked up, you couldn't get to the sidewalk after parking your car, etc.
Exactly. There is a cost, and you're not willing to pay it. Fair enough.
However, that also holds for speed limits. There are costs. In this instance the costs probably appear as clogged courts. If you make traffic regulations too stringent or too punitive, everybody starts to fight them in court.
As other commenters wrote, you want drivers to always follow the speed limits. Moreover, I can tell you how things look when drivers know where cameras are placed. In Poland, we have an actual Android app that will tell you not only where stationary cameras are but also where the police currently is monitoring the traffic. It's a hit among drivers, and people use it to look like law-abiding citizens next to a camera, while not giving a fuck about road safety and speeding like crazy the moment they're sure they're not being monitored.
Seriously, the more drivers I know, the more I want linear speed tracking and ALPRs to be deployed everywhere, on every single damn road.
> As other commenters wrote, you want drivers to always follow the speed limits.
Then you need to set sane limits. A speed limit that 80+% of the people violate isn't a sane limit.
Or, you need to reengineer the road so that you basically can't speed. However, you have to accept that you are going to lose a lot of traffic and, with that, a lot of business.
Creating a 6 lane wide street and then slapping a 20 mph limit on it doesn't make sense.
You can't have sane limits because people don't give a damn about them out of habit, hence you can't really observe the impact of them and adjust accordingly. At this point I believe drivers need to be forced to obey the law by any means necessary in order to create room for traffic engineers to do their job of optimizing limits.
And then you still need to force drivers to obey, because as far as I know, most of them are not able to comprehend that they're not the smartest people around. Just because a limit doesn't make sense to you, desn't mean it's not right and optimal in the overall context of traffic flow in the city.
EDIT: Another thing. Have you ever seen a driver maintaining safe distance? Me neither. It's impossible, because even if you try, you quickly get overtaken by an asshole who knows better. And then we have accidents like the one near me two days ago, when a girl started braking because there was a cat on the road, and she got a whole bunch of people behind her to rear-end one another...
Forcing will not work. If there in anything that the old 55mph limits in the US showed, it's that.
> You can't have sane limits because people don't give a damn about them out of habit
Look, there is science behind this--people drive the speed they feel is safe--they basically don't listen to speed signs. If you want them to drive slower, you have to engineer the road so that they don't feel safe at 45 but do at 35.
> Another thing. Have you ever seen a driver maintaining safe distance? Me neither.
In San Diego? Never. In Pittsburgh? All the time. Guess which one gets frequent enough bad weather to clean the idiots that don't leave following distance off the road?
> Look, there is science behind this--people drive the speed they feel is safe--they basically don't listen to speed signs. If you want them to drive slower, you have to engineer the road so that they don't feel safe at 45 but do at 35.
I've heard that idea before somewhere, and I quite like it. Making the environment seem unsafe on purpose so that people adjust their behaviour. I'm interested if anyone tried that on larger scale somewhere, and what were the results.
* always use blinker when turning / change lanes cameras
* turn your lights on:
* 30 minutes from dusk / dawn
* when it's raining
cameras
* bikers without safety lights cameras
* runners without reflective gear yet running in the
road at night cameras
* hand-held cellphone while driving and not stopped
cameras
* tailgating cameras
Speeding is the least of my worries about the road.
30 is still a very painful accident for a pedestrian; but, yes, ideally there'd be less pedestrian incidents... [1, random thought footnote]
That said, most of the things I was suggesting had more to do with highway situations, where I imagine most of the speed cameras would be situated. I was mainly ranting about things that I see almost every single time that I go driving, if not every single time I go driving, that erks me as a safety hazard that seems more dangerous than speeding (where speeding is defined as above the posted limit, but within a modest delta of other adjacent cars on the highway)
[1, random thought footnote] Unless we had some sort of ironic situation where since cars are going slower, pedestrians become more presumptuous about their powers and the car's stopping abilities / driver's attentiveness and it'd result in more accidents. Who knows
No, these are not on highways in NYC. These are on roads directly in front of schools, as per state law. (I guess.)
Some of these roads are called highways ("The West Side Highway" is a surface street), some feel like highways (Queens Boulevard) but they differ from highways in that people cross them to get to school.
How could enforcing the law be a kickback scheme? Don't want a ticket? Don't speed!
As a pedestrian I would personally prefer that drivers always feel they are in danger of getting a ticket, so drivers always have an incentive to follow the law.
Well what if the people enforcing this particular law do so only because they are getting some percentage of the ticket fee?
It could lead to, for instance, inappropriately low speed limits and an inordinate amount of police work on traffic violations instead of things that are more dangerous but make less money.
I completely agree with the sentiment, those are all valid concerns. But in the context of New York City I strongly believe the dangers to pedestrians are paramount.
> inappropriately low speed limits
It's hard to imagine speed limits too low for a pedestrian intensive area like lower Manhattan. According to this fact sheet [1], "In the City of London, the rate of crash-related deaths and serious injuries within 20-mph residential zones dropped by 42 percent." ... probably worth it in an area where pedestrians greatly outnumber drivers.
> inordinate amount of police work on traffic violations instead of things that are more dangerous
I'm not sure there's anything in the city right now more dangerous to the average citizen than unsafe driving, given that there are on average 4,250 permanently-debilitating injuries from traffic injuries due to traffic injuries each year in the city. [1]
If I'm reading this correctly, homicide still kills more people than traffic accidents. So while the injury rate may be higher for traffic, death rate still seems to be biased toward homicide.
As for how to make the traffic better, your source indicates 1/4 of fatalities are from drivers failing to yield right of way. One idea is that if intersections in cities had turn arrows and different parts of the cycle for turning cars and pedestrians, that could reduce that significantly. Doing an analysis of why people get hit even though they're in the crosswalk or whatever might be informative here rather than just going straight for speed limit or installing airbags on the fronts of cars.
Of course, I think the real solution is not better traffic laws, but self-driving cars. People are fundamentally poorly suited to driving cars and only a machine can do a consistent job without getting bored or impatient. Once we have a decent number of self driving cars, any ways to improve pedestrian safety will probably look totally different.
It might save a lot of lives to focus less on new traffic laws and more on making autonomous cars a reality (the legal side of that seems to be progressing very slowly).
Around where I live there is a road where the limit changes from 70 km/h to 50 km/h due to a pedestrian crossing. They also placed a speed camera just after the crossing. When driving there I always find my self checking and double checking my vehicle speed and not paying full attention to the crossing. But in this specific case I guess that the "forced" speed reduction due to the camera is a bigger benefit (fewer accidents and less serious if they do happen) than the distraction caused by it.
I won't get into the efficacy/need for ticket cameras, but I
will share something I have thought about for a long time.
A poor-middle class guy gets a ticket, and it can affect their ability to pay rent.
A rich guy get's a ticket and he tells his wife over dinner.
How about tying your first ticket(reasonable mistake--like a California stop, etc.) to income, but only every 5 years. If
poor person get's another ticket in five years all fees go back to normal levels?
There would be upper limits on ticket price, so millionaires
wouldn't be gouged too much. I think they tried this in Switzerland, but the law didn't have upper limits for the wealthy? Some guy got a $100,000 ticket--which is crazy!
A $500 ticket can really cause pain for students and the poor? I have thought about this since I was sixteen?
Some countries (eg. Australia, can't comment on others but I'm sure there's many), in addition to the monetary fines, have a demerit point scheme. Each offence gives you a set number of points (eg. 20km/h over might be 3 points, drink driving I think is 8-10 points, etc), and if you accumulate a certain number of points over a three year rolling period (24 I think in my state), then your license is suspended/cancelled. So you might be able to afford the tickets, but if you do it more than a few times then you're still stuffed.
New York has the same thing. 11 points in 18 motnhs and you lose your license. Violations go from 2 points to 11. Speeding 1-10 MPH is 3 points, 11-20 4 points, 21-30 6 points, 31-40 8 points, and >40 or 11 points. The full list is at:
Though I expect the speed cameras are not actually giving out points. They don't for the red light cameras. You need a "real" ticket from a cop to get points for that.
Also, depending on the part of the state if you hire an attorney, then there is a good chance you'll get any points reduced. You might even get a parking violation instead and just pay a fine. In NYC, being able to plead and get a reduced point sentence is less likely than in other jurisdictions.
> Though I expect the speed cameras are not actually giving out points. They don't for the red light cameras. You need a "real" ticket from a cop to get points for that.
Correct! At least where I live, since points are tied to your license and the cameras can't accurately identify who is actually _driving_, this is the result.
The ticket is delivered to the owner of the vehicle, but they can't prove it was you driving the car at that time so there is no point penalty.
I agree. Tickets tied to income would be much better. Also, tickets IMO should be tied to insurance. As you do stupid things on the road, your insurance rate should rise (again, maybe proportionally to income), until you just can't afford to drive anymore. From my experience, poor middle-class drivers are actually very wary of insurance costs. My very close friend attributes insurance premiums as her primary reason for always driving safely.
They are already (in certain states) via the point system.[0] Getting a point tells your insurance company, and your premiums skyrocket. Insurance companies also pull your driving record periodically, and if you've had a ticket, the same thing happens.
I'm not sure that ticket is crazy. Having fixed price tickets disproportionally punishes the poor. Having them based on income seems much more fair. $500 may be worth more to someone who can barely afford gas for their car to get to their minimum wage job than $100,000 is to a guy who can't decide which yacht to buy.
The fine ought to float to make the person reconsider their behavior. If that's $100 for a cabbie and $10000 for a hedge fund manager, then great. The problem is, the income disparity in the city is immense.
When I lived in Boulder, we had a 3-4 month period in the winter where water usage was the "base usage" for the rest of the year and if you went over that, i.e. in the summer, you got nailed a higher rate for water consumption. So it was a got scaled system, whether you were a single person or a family, you were paying an affordable base rate always and including in the summer, but if you watered your lawn, you paid a much higher rate for the overage above base.
So what you'd need to avoid having to invent a new layer of bureaucracy to NYC is something like that. "Zones" based on your NYC income tax for example (yes NYC has city income tax) to base your traffic fines on. So, it'd be a course granularity, not exactly fair within each zone, but overall it'd make everyone "wince" and change their stupid behavior that risks others' lives unfairly. The speeding thing gets my goat, but running red lights is like - you should lose all your registered cars, your license, and get massively fined. You run red lights you should stop driving. Idiots.
"A poor-middle class guy gets a ticket, and it can affect their ability to pay rent."
Working class people in NYC can't afford cars whether they violate the law and pay fines or not. I don't know how it works in places that require everyone to own a car because there are no alternatives, but NYC has good walking and transit.
So I find this interesting; and, I'm glad they provided at least this statistic:
Vehicle crashes near cameras declined 3.9%
Crashes with injuries near cameras declined 13.4%
If that's the case, I'm pleased. That's a noticeable decline. I wonder what else could be done to safely reduce the number of crashes, while still allowing drivers the freedom to drive.
Another interesting piece:
Referring to 'The Busy Crossing', "This is the kind of location one might expect for a speed camera. They target busy crossings near some of the city's most dangerous boulevards. These cameras are more common than the "speed traps" but they issue far fewer tickets."
I imagine knowing that there is a speed camera near a given light reduces the amount of people willing to test that. When it comes to traffic lights and busy crossings, I think this is a good thing; and not having very many tickets there should by no means be indicative of the systems failing. In fact, I would argue they might be working. You'd have to do a blind test of some sort with unmarked cameras (that don't give out tickets either) at other locations; but ... that's most likely illegal. (IANAL)
And then regarding this:
"Almost half of the city's speed cameras are mobile — mounted on NYPD vehicles, they watch different spots for a day or two. Officials won't say how those spots are picked, though school principals and community groups can make requests. The mobile cameras each issue just a few tickets a day; as a group they issue only 11.5% of all tickets."
That's to be expected. It's a camera mounted to a police vehicle. People tend to act more civil on the road and more accurate to the rules when there's a police officer around.
Personally, I'd love to find out the statistics around red-light cameras, as well. I imagine they might be even more useful in quelling negative activity (though they probably won't bring in as much money as speeding cameras)
If you are going for full enforcement of traffic laws, distraction/intoxication would seem many times more important than speed.
Why do bars have parking lots? Why doesn't first-offense drunk driving destroy your life like drug possession? Why does it remain socially acceptable to text and drive? Why do photos clearly taken while driving on the freeway gather tens of thousands of upvotes on Reddit and not criminal prosecution?
Forgive me for answering your rethorical questions ;).
> If you are going for full enforcement of traffic laws, distraction/intoxication would seem many times more important than speed.
Can't provide a citation right now, but I recall that apparently most accidents are caused by distraction and/or speeding, often during the day, and not by drunk-driving.
> Why do bars have parking lots?
Because it's apparently not banned, and even if it was, someone would stand to make money by providing said lot next to a bar.
> Why doesn't first-offense drunk driving destroy your life like drug possession?
I don't know, but I very much feel this should be reversed.
> Why does it remain socially acceptable to text and drive?
People don't expect to get in an accident + well, no offense, but most of the drivers I know behave like entitled assholes when it comes to driving-related things. "Speed limits are stupid, and no accident could ever happen to me.".
> Why do photos clearly taken while driving on the freeway gather tens of thousands of upvotes on Reddit and not criminal prosecution?
I guess it has to do with the fact that it's hard to take a picture posted on the Internet and turn it into a lawsuit.
And to clarify - you're right asking those questions. IMO traffic laws should be enforced much, much more decisively.
>Because it's apparently not banned, and even if it was, someone would stand to make money by providing said lot next to a bar.
Not only isn't it banned, it's required. American cities require enough parking for all commercial uses to match the absolute largest amount of car drivers that might want to visit simultaneously on the busiest day of the year if parking is assumed to be absolutely free. [0] The Institute for Transportation Engineers publishes a manual of uses with maximum imaginable parking 'generation' and most cities follow it closely.
Since parking is a pure private good, it's an obvious thing to leave to free markets to decide how much to provide, but the Soviet mentality of city planners is firm. Of all the bad rules and plans Americans impose on their cities, minimum parking requirements are the single most destructive. Parking socialism is the biggest reason among many why American cities are the ugliest with the worst quality of life among all first world cities.
Bizarrely even bars are required to make driving alone the best way to access their establishments. And that requirement is firm in the law.
Everything else that changed over the course of the study period. Speed limits might have been lowered, enforcement patterns might have been revised, the congestion charges might have changed, the weather might have been different. It would be more helpful to see a graph showing historical trends stretching back at least ten or twelve years, just to give us an idea of the standard deviation.
