Homemade Speed Trap Made By Former UVA CS Professor (cvilletomorrow.org)

An anonymous reader writes: Irritated by speeders in his neighborhood and frustrated with the City of Charlottesville's inability or unwillingness to enforce the speed limit, a former professor in the Computer Science department of the University of Virginia created a program in openCV to track vehicle speed on his residential neighborhood street: "You'll find that almost 85 percent of the cars going by are violators [of the neighborhood's 25mph limit]". This includes a city bus doing 34mph.

Comments

legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Anonymous Coward]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[codeButcher]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Probably not, as The Fine Article states near the top: "... installed a camera on his roof and began writing speed-monitoring software after a 12-year-old pedestrian was injured by a car last October."

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[houghi]

That does not mean anything if we do not know what happened or the layout of the street. Perhaps that car was speeding, but by how much? Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.

What happens in Europe is that they start making the streets in such a way that they are automatically so that you drive a lower speed. Especially in neighbourhoods where people live.

A lot of curves in the streets by placing objects in the streets., making the road more curvy and what not.

That means that the average speed will go down a lot. They just change the natural flow of traffic. and people adapt to that. Downside is that is is more expensive than placing some traffic signs and you can not generate extra income from tickets.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ledow]

Or, alternatively, the punishment for speeding isn't harsh enough.

It all depends on your point of view of whether a legal limit is a legal limit, or something you can just ignore without consequence.

If you were only allowed to bring 100 cigarettes back from abroad and you took 110, and it was plainly stated everywhere, and it was common knowledge, and you had to pass a cigarette test to be allowed abroad, and there were signs all over the place, would you expect to get away with bringing back 110 cigarettes?

Or to drink at 20 and a few months instead of 21?

Personally, I'd be all in favour of people campaigning to raise speed limits - nobody EVER does. But to expect, allow, or ignore people breaking a limit is just stupid and a bad precedent to set. And yet everyone thinks that's fine.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Muros]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Probably not, as The Fine Article states near the top: "... installed a camera on his roof and began writing speed-monitoring software after a 12-year-old pedestrian was injured by a car last October."

How fast was that person going? Was it a drunk driver? Was it a half-blind OAP? None of those details regarding the aforementioned accident are in the article, only the fact that some people drive down this guy's street at the breakneck speed of 34mph.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[jellomizer]

That is the go to fix for traffic safety. Lower the speed limit.
There was an accident where I live a few years back and they figured the speed limit was too high.
Not really thinking. It was an area of 3 intersection that had 6 lanes of traffic all going in different directions where to get to your destination you need to be in the correct lane. On a steep hill Then to top it off people j-walk across this all the time while there is a good cross walk 100 meters pass this tricky traffic intersection. The thing is people rarely ever speed on this intersection. For the most part they are just trying to get to speed.
Ok a kid died in an accident that is sad. But lowering the speed limit doesn't really solve much. Especially as the study shows that traffic wants to go faster. Perhaps you should look at the problem and find a better way for safety

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[MrL0G1C]

Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Aereus]

That's all fine and good until you throw snow and ice into the mix, then all those objects become wrapped around cars and cause accidents from the excessive braking/swerving required to navigate them during inclement weather. I've lost count of how many signs and poles I've seen bent over clear to the ground after storms, or cars losing control in S-curves from the "scenic/safer" road design.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[JasterBobaMereel]

If everbody is speeding then the road layout is encouraging them to speed, redesign the road so 30 seems fast and people will drive slower

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Aereus]

That's what a local municipality has done and its really frustrating. They've lowered the speed limits in the entire jurisdiction to mostly 25 with small sections of 35 on the two major arterials. Keep in mind, these are areas with 4 lanes of traffic + extra shoulders AND the sidewalks are set away further AND there is no residential on these roads. Most recently they changed a 45 section that was on the edge of town to 35 in an area that literally has no buildings on it whatsoever, nor any foot traffic. You can bet they now run radar at the speed limit sign of that newly lowered section. I've seen them. And another spot has a 35 sign that they follow with a 25 sign just a few dozen yards after that... at the crest of a hill.... that they run radar from the bottom of the hill and constantly bust people for that automatic +10 if they didn't slow down yet or notice the 2nd sign. And its mostly because a vocal minority of the oldest residents complain at civic meetings because they don't like how much the town has grown in the last 10-15 years.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[unami]

that's also a problem that stems from driving too fast. but at least europeans tend to drive slower when the road conditions require it. also, these obstacles are only placed in areas, that are already low-speed (30km/h = 18mph limit). sure, you can drive arount those obstacles like a slalom-racer, but then you're violating the speed limit - and common sense - again. those limitation won't hold an idiot, but they'll give the rest of the population an incentive to think about what they are doing - and thus reducing the probability of accidents. and you'll probably avoid a surveilance state, where every "concerned" citizen uploads speed-trapping software to his webcam/smartphone, and hunts for sinners.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[overshoot]

Because, of course, the great majority of people carefully analyze the potential hazards that might appear on a road, such as cars backing out of driveways, and slow down to a speed that allows time to avoid collisions.

That's why, for instance, nobody ever runs into boulders on the road when driving around curves on mountain roads -- they know that turn very well and regardless of the silly regulatory 40 mph sign they know it's perfectly safe at 65.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[AvitarX]

I suspect they hinder emergency vehicles enough to cause more deaths than loves saved.

Speed bumps do this already, and this tech seems it would do so more.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ashtead]

25 MPH (or 40 km/h) on a road of the quality seen in the video will usually feel like it is too slow, and it is not surprising that there are many that exceed this limit.

I notice that most arterial roads around here have the equivalent of 30 MPH (50 km/h) though reduced to 40 km/h or 25 MPH past schools. Where there also is at least one speed bump or raised pedestrian crossing (basically a speed bump with the crosswalk on top). Non-arterial roads have 30 km/h (which would correspond to 20 MPH), and there are always speed bumps.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[clickety6]

Not everybody was speeding, just those driving vehicles...

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[wbr1]

I live in Cville and drive through here all the time. Locust is a road that connects downtown to a highway. There are others, but this one is mostly straight and unimpeded. It is 2 lane, and largely residential. It needs to have slow speeds due to the narrowness and residential aspect. However the city classifies it as a feeder road, and does not put in slowing measures like bumps, stops or circles.

The other main roads feeding into downtown from US 250 are High to the east and Park and McIntire to the west. All three are heavily congested for various reasons. They link to other busy roads, have shopping and commercial areas, etc

I think the solution is for the city to bite the bullet and install speed bumps. It will not be a popular measure, but that is because people want to speed through there to get into or out of the downtown area. Too bad, just plan a little further ahead.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ldobehardcore]

If the city is in the business of biting the bullet, they could spring for a sidewalk on the near-side of the street (relative to the speedcam footage), and/or widen the street further so there's a better buffer zone between the street and people's lawns where children play. Not disagreeing with speedbumps.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[thegarbz]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Or maybe human beings are horrible in risk analysis when driving in built up suburban areas where something can end up on the road way faster than reflexes allow when travelling at high speed?

Or maybe humans know what they are doing and are just dicks?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[umafuckit]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Probably not, as The Fine Article states near the top: "... installed a camera on his roof and began writing speed-monitoring software after a 12-year-old pedestrian was injured by a car last October."

Single data point. Anecdote.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from introducing physical obstacles such as roundabouts and speed bumps one very effective measure to slow traffic down is simply to give it less room. Where I live (Amsterdam, Netherlands) cars get to use a much narrower part of the road than say 20 years ago in many places. I live in such a street and the result has been quite spectacular. Instead of cars speeding, ignoring right of way on zebra crossings, overtaking each other at high speed while bicicles are approaching from the opposite direction or making sudden and hasty U-turns just when it appears to be safe to start crossing the road etc., I now have pretty calm and well-behaved traffic in my street. I was used to passing the aftermath of an accident - often with ambulances for the wounded - several times a year and had a few narrow escapes myself. That has been reduced to perhaps once every one or two years, ambulances now mostly stop to visit the fine take-away restaurants in my street.

If you think this is about legalism you're missing the obvious point that reducing accidents and the damage caused by them is the motivation for having speed limits and traffic rules in general. Legalizing a dangerous situation doesn't make it less dangerous. Rules alone don't cut it, the response of drivers to the layout of the road is stronger than their response to rules. A better approach is to redesign the road to take the speed out of the traffic and keep speed limits and other rules for the few idiots who persist in dangerous behaviour.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Culture20]

What happens in Europe is that they start making the streets in such a way that they are automatically so that you drive a lower speed. Especially in neighbourhoods where people live.

I live there. What happens in practice, is that the people that were already obeying the speed limit are slowed down. And the people that were speeding before, see it as an obstacle course challenge, going as fast or faster as before, but now also swerving dangerously... Also, when you put a big obstacle on the road, people tend to focus on that, instead of watching out for pedestrians.

Where I live, there's a sudden road divider and recombiner intended to slow drivers down from a 40mph zone to a 25mph zone. But every part of the street is well lit with overhead lamps except this road obstacle. There are always dark tire marks on the curbs there.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[N1AK]

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.

In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Mr D from 63]

Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[N1AK]

Personally, I'd be all in favour of people campaigning to raise speed limits - nobody EVER does. But to expect, allow, or ignore people breaking a limit is just stupid and a bad precedent to set. And yet everyone thinks that's fine.

No, it's stupid but entirely predictable. There is a large demographic who think speed limits are fine or even too small. There's a large demographic who want to see them decreased. The status quo is political because you can't increase the limit due to one group and can't enforce the current limit due to another group.

It's a bit like drugs like weed. There have been informal policies not to police possession of small quantities for years in some places, but the law can't be changed to make possession illegal because no politician wants to piss off anti-drug voters.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[TheCastro1689]

In MD we just got speed limits on the highway approved for increase and they did it in western MD where you go back and forth with WV, no more 65 then 70 then 65 again, it's all 70.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[geekmux]

If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.

Clearly the thought process for anyone who's driven through Atlanta, GA...

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[T-ice]

It's Virginia. With a speed limit of 25, they will choose a speed of 39 or below. Because 15 over in Virginia is reckless driving, and it's a mess. They will also have a following distance not to exceed 2 yards. And if you follow those habits, and don't have any sort of military base stickers on your windshield, you likely wont get pulled over.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[wbr1]

Much of the area is historical. Widening the street would be met with far more resistance than speedbumps.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[knightghost]

Curves and obstacles do not slow people down. Instead, people have more problems staying in their own lane.

Police are not enforcing laws because they are being assaulted by the media and obnoxious part of the public. Why do your job when you're going to get prosecuted? Doubling of murders and other crimes hasn't turned things around - it'll take something big like Baltimore completely burning down before people wake up and reject anarchy.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[msauve]

"Or to drink at 20 and a few months instead of 21?"

Well if you're someone who believes that life begins at conception, then you're 21 years old when it's 20 years and 3 months after your birthdate.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[nierd]

Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.

Yeah - my seatbelts, crumple zone, side impact airbags, front impact airbags, passenger airbags, re-enforced pillars, side impact beams, automatic roll shut off, bumpers, safety glass, etc. all are very helpful at reducing the probability of an accident. That's a seriously wrong statement.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[houghi]

Then you drive too fast for the road conditions.The road signs are there to indicate the maximum speed, not the suggested speed. If you drive the maximum speed with dense fog or with ice, you are an idiot that will see the obstacles in summertime as a challenge.

There is snow in Europe as well and this does not seem to be a problem here. Sure, the occasional idiot who sees the obstacles as a challenge will hit them. Better that then a kid. And they either learn or take themselves out of the gene pool.

Remember we are talking about areas where people live, not really roads with high volume of traffic. Here an example of a street : https://goo.gl/maps/gXcAhno61U...

Similar things are on wider streets, all to naturally reduce the speed of the cars. I assure you, you are not going to speed in that street, unless you are really want to challange everyting and then for sure a sign or a toicket will not stop you. At that moment you become a person intending to kill. Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Kamokazi]

I've seen a lot of newer (mostly post-70s) suburban neighborhoods in the US use speed bumps. The roads also tend to be curvy and not a grid, but that might be more for aesthetics.

They're far from ubiquitous and older neighborhoods are often grids without speed bumps. European cities are much older in general, so I would think there would be a mix too.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one speed which is safe for adequately careless kids. 0. Anecdote. Two weeks ago I was driving home. There were a lot of cars on the side of the roads and my neighborhood has a lot of kids so though the speed limit is 25, I was doing somewhere between 10 and 15. And then right out in front of me shoots a kid out of the driveway in a gokart, he hits the road spins out and stops right in front of my car. Barely stopped in time, and had I been 1 second sooner, that kid would have been run over. He rights himself and tears off in his gokart doing about 20 mph down the street. I'm lucky I was 1 second later because no amount of careful driving would avoid an incident like that because with people with effed up views of driving like yourself, had it gone to court you'd have probably found me at fault.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Elfich47]

As a slight clarification: most of the equipment you mention does not prevent an accident, it reduces the risk of injury for the occupants of the car. It does nothing for anyone outside of the car.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[stdarg]

Are you sure? Unless you mean historical fences and walls that end very close to the street, people would only be giving up like 6 feet of yard to get sidewalks. And lots of people actually love sidewalks... having moved from an older neighborhood without them to a neighborhood with them, I think they're great.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do what is done in Austin, and have a "neighborhood patrol" consisting of people who sit on side streets, pull out in front of cars they think are speeding, and force them to stop.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Elfich47]

Well then, what is the acceptable level of accidents per mile of roadway? How is this adjusted by the speed of the vehicle and the local conditions?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[raynet]

I am not aware of any such European wide laws. Recording on any public place is ok, there might be issues if you publish said recordings and you can identify people from said clips (though often this is ok too), if you collect the register plate numbers, you might be creating a database that needs to be registered.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[JoeMerchant]

Appropriate speed is a matter of opinion, I lived in a neighborhood with narrow winding roads through a dense forest, with glass smooth pavement. Posted speed limit 20mph. Apparent opinion of appropriate speed (held by anyone who lived in the back half of the neighborhood - some over a mile from the entrance) was about 40-50mph.

In my non-scientific experience, most Florida squirrels have reflexes which will generally protect them from harm inflicted by motor vehicles traveling under 40mph (non-scientifically confirmed by the fact that all 6 or so squirrels I have observed being squashed while motoring over the years were struck by vehicles traveling at 45mph and up, whereas the 3 which were merely "clipped" were struck by vehicles traveling in the 38-42mph speed range, and never having observed a squirrel being struck by any vehicle traveling 35mph and under, having personally "played chicken" with literally thousands of squirrels, many in the neighborhood in question and roads nearby, and at speeds of 35mph and down having never so much as touched one of them.)

In the neighborhood in question, over the period of 8 years that I lived there, 2 cats were maimed, 3 killed outright, a dog lost a leg, 3 sturdy mailboxes were wiped out (more attributable to texting while driving than speed in that case), and we averaged 1 dead squirrel per month on the 3 miles of pavement. When confronted with the continuous animal and postal bloodbath, home & sports car owners in the back of the neighborhood continually shrugged off any concerns of what might happen to the children who also live in the neighborhood and play near/in the streets. The only "back end" neighbor who expressed any concern was the man whose wife had recently died rather tragically at the age of 50, of disease unrelated to speeding cars.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Lumpy]

Anyone that speeds in a residential area is the worst type of scumbag.

On an open highway, go for it, I think we should be allowed to go 100mph. Driving around people and kids only a few feet from their homes, they need a punch in the face to go along with the ticket.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Lumpy]

If the cops are killing people for speeding, they deserve all the bad press and assult. In fact ALL of the nation media is about cops murdering people or torturing them.

  I have yet to see ONE media story about the scourge of cops doing their job in a professional manner and ticketing speeders. So your point is that cops don't want to enforce speeding laws because they can't murder people without people getting outraged?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[oddaddresstrap]

(Unless the law has changed...) California law says that if a high percentage (like 85%) of drivers go at or above a certain speed, then that speed is what the speed limit should be, regardless of the signage.
There was a case in Palo Alto about 25 years ago where the police set up a speed trap on Embarcadero between the 101 freeway and El Camino and one of the drivers caught in it paid to have the traffic monitored (without police presence which obviously influences drivers) and proved that he had been driving at the same speed as most of the traffic. Somehow the driver knew that the law said that most drivers have a natural sense for what is a safe speed and will drive in a safe manner and that speed is allowed.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[zwarte piet]

Make that people on Earth

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[gfxguy]

I actually like that idea; I know there are roads I've driven on with artificial curves added (and this is in the U.S.) to keep people from going too fast; I've also seen more residential areas getting traffic circles instead of regular intersections, which can have a similar effect (depending on how the stop signs were before). I have no problem with this. In my area it's very common to have speed bumps or speed humps to slow down traffic, and it always pissed me off how my car's suspension had to suffer because some idiots couldn't restrain themselves.

Example in Sarasota.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[NeoMorphy]

What happens in Europe is that they start making the streets in such a way that they are automatically so that you drive a lower speed. Especially in neighbourhoods where people live.

A lot of curves in the streets by placing objects in the streets., making the road more curvy and what not.

That means that the average speed will go down a lot. They just change the natural flow of traffic. and people adapt to that. Downside is that is is more expensive than placing some traffic signs and you can not generate extra income from tickets.

They tried doing that in Boston, but it didn't seem to help.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[b0bby]

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

I would say that the UK is much more pedestrian friendly than the US in general. Just one example is the use of zebra crossings. Also the level of driver education is higher in the UK, in my experience.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

• A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares.
• B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets
• C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.
• D) Create town/city layouts that encourage pedestrian and bicycles instead of cars.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[DarkOx]

I live out in the middle of no where but Cville might be the nearest big city. I aggressively avoid going there because driving and parking is SO PAINFUL. It has to be the worst place I have ever driven a car. I mean driving in Boston is easier!

I can't describe the layout of streets in Cville as anything other than "aggressively stupid". Now add all the UVA students who are typical distracted, intoxicated, or stopping in completely random places for people to jump in or out of the cars and its the stuff of nightmares. There are few "main" roads other than US250 and US29 that go across town, so pretty much all travel is on "neighborhood streets". It does not surprise me that people are injured and even frequently. Speed isn't really the problem. Quite honestly I am terrified the entire time driving around there. Even crawling at 25mph anyone could step out from between two parked cars that you could not see with enough time to stop.

What Cville needs isn't speed limits and speed traps, its already got plenty (cops there are actually quite aggressive compared to most places IMHO, the professors experience not withstanding), it needs mirrors on polls so you can see around corners and over parked cars. It also seriously needs to demo some building and put in more off street parking, so it can disallow parking on the busier streets.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[AmiMoJo]

Japan started painting fake little pyramid shaped obstacles in the road. Being flat paint they don't annoy you like speed bumps, but they are quite effective at slowing down traffic. Some other east Asian and European countries have started adopting them (IIRC Denmark was one of them).

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[jeffb (2.718)]

Pedestrians, on the other hand, haven't gotten a lot of upgrades during that time. It's a residential street.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Shortguy881]

I know, this is the ultimate "old man yelling get off my lawn" story.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[kilfarsnar]

Police are not enforcing laws because they are being assaulted by the media and obnoxious part of the public. Why do your job when you're going to get prosecuted?

Am I to understand that police must commit crimes in their regular course of duty? If not, for what are they being prosecuted? Or are they being framed?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[N1AK]

You should have checked more thoroughly then. As much as it would please me to get rid of the last remaining vestiges of imperial measurement I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[stdarg]

Of course I did, they were installed when the neighborhood was built, and priced into the homes.

Maybe they're more expensive to add, and definitely if yards are sloped and need regrading to add a sidewalk, but from a quick search they're not exorbitant.

I guess another factor is yard size... a neighborhood with 1 acre plots will be more expensive per homeowner than one with 0.2 acre plots.

But hey, if there's a decent chance that some overcautious nutjob is going to get the city to lower the speed limit to 15 and/or install speed cameras and/or install speed bumps, the neighborhood may rather put up with the cost of sidewalks.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Mr D from 63]

Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.

Yeah - my seatbelts, crumple zone, side impact airbags, front impact airbags, passenger airbags, re-enforced pillars, side impact beams, automatic roll shut off, bumpers, safety glass, etc. all are very helpful at reducing the probability of an accident. That's a seriously wrong statement.

None of those items has anything to do with how speed limits are set.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Mr D from 63]

Well then, what is the acceptable level of accidents per mile of roadway? How is this adjusted by the speed of the vehicle and the local conditions?

Well, the question really is the wrong one. Common sense says we will always have some risk. But there is a great body of experience that dictates speed limits, which is why there are general rules for neighborhood roads, school zones,, etc. For example, it is known that blind intersections, tight curves, and a number of other factors can increase the risks on any given stretch of road, therefore they might reduce the limit from the standard for that road type where needed. When there are no reasons to further reduce the standard speed limits for neighborhoods, then I suppose the level of incidents presently occurring is deemed 'acceptable' by default.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gavagai80]

Generally speed tables, to be specific, rather than conventional speed bumps.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Solandri]

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

I don't disagree with your point, but you're conflating a bunch of numbers which aren't really comparable.

1) Motor vehicle fatality rate doesn't tell you much about pedestrian fatality rate.

2) Driving distances area greater n the U.S. so those billion kilometers driven are not comparable. Dividing the fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants by fatalities per billion km yields 8100 km/inhabitant per year in the UK, versus 14,900 km/inhabitant per year in the U.S. So the average American travels 84% further each year than the average UK citizen. Most likely, a greater percentage of those U.S. miles are at higher speeds on highways where accidents are more likely to be fatal.

The problem at speeds higher than about 50 mph is physics. Given how bodies strapped inside a car react in a crash, 50 mph is about the point where internal organs and blood vessels start tearing apart from their own momentum in a crash. At 100 mph, accidents are almost always fatal for the same reason (energy that goes into tearing up your internal organs is 4x more than at 50 mph). So a disproportionate number of traffic fatalities come from these higher speed accidents. In other words, a single stat like fatalities per billion passenger km doesn't give you the complete picture. You need to control for traffic speed distribution within those billion km first just determine if there's any blame left over to be assigned to other factors like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design, etc.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[adhdengineer]

fairly sure it would be legal in the UK. you can have cameras that record public property and your own private property. you run into trouble if you record other peoples private property (a neighbours yard for example).

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[coinreturn]

Anyone that speeds in a residential area is the worst type of scumbag.

Only the biggest asshats use hyperbole.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[JoeMerchant]

How much texting while driving do you have in the UK? In the US texting is just the latest in a long string of traditional driver distractions - we have a "multi-tasking ethos" that deludes many people here into thinking that they can actually pay attention to the road ahead while doing all manner of other things.

I would say that driving 50mph in normal (decent line of sight) neighborhood areas _can_ be done safely by a driver 100% focused on the task. That same driver in the same car traveling at 30mph can also react too late to a "situation" if their attention is elsewhere, with fatal results for involved persons not surrounded by a ton+ of metal, airbags, etc.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Am I to understand that police must commit crimes in their regular course of duty?

Well..technically, yes. In order to stop a speeder in traffic, you must exceed the speed limit yourself. Of course that's written into the law, so it's not technically illegal. And a completely irrelevant point.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Perhaps you should look at the problem and find a better way for safety

In your example, prosecuting jaywalkers would increase safety without impeding traffic.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[JoeMerchant]

In Germany they commonly install large "BlumenPot" across one lane of residential streets for this purpose. Thoroughly screws up two way traffic, on purpose.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[danbert8]

Being a new transplant to Atlanta, what the hell? The speed limits are plenty high, but that doesn't stop a rolling roadblock of 7 cars wide on I-85 going 55mph in a 70 zone...

The related issue here is a common problem in Atlanta. Residents of huge residential developments complain about traffic cutting through their neighborhood. The problem is that their neighborhood was designed without traffic flow around and through in in mind so they didn't provide any arterial or feeder roads and expect all the cars to go around the multi-square-mile development onto the existing arterial streets that are parking lots.

They protest the cars going through their neighborhood and put up unnecessary stop signs and speedbumbs to discourage drivers. But this just slows them down and pack the residential streets into a slow moving parking lot as well. Does this make things safer for kids? No. Does this make things better for residents? No. The solution is to sacrifice some "residential" streets and upgrade them to higher speed through streets and allow the traffic to get where it's going, Impeding them just makes them angry, impatient, and distracted which doesn't help anybody.

Plus I drive a small, low car and speedbumps are the bane of my existence. I hate anyone who thinks they are a good solution anywhere.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ChrisMaple]

When I was a careless child, I ran my bicycle into a parked car. Even 0 isn't safe.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Slowing down to 65 and speeding up to 70 again uses more gas than staying at 70. Even though 70 uses more gas than 65 at a constant speed.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[danbert8]

A.5 Require new residential developments to consider traffic flow and allow for through streets that do not have residences along them.

Ah wait, who am I kidding. They have those and the residents petition the local government to put up unnecessary stop signs and speed bumps to enforce a 25mph speed limit for a wide road with painted lines, shoulders, sidewalks, and fences between the right of way and any houses. Nothing says fancy neighborhood like having a line of cars waiting to go through a stop sign where no one ever comes from the side street.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Unless you coast down to speed without brakes plenty early and gradually speed back up without the car downshifting...which doesn't happen that often.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Consciousness doesn't begin at conception. On the other hand, if you're in a coma for six years starting at 15 you're probably not mature enough to drink at 21 either, so basing age on consciousness-years is probably our best option. If you want to have a pedantic and convoluted option.

Or maybe aging isn't considered to start until delivery because you're still being built - much like a car at the factory isn't a "new car" until it's being delivered to a dealer. So if you're exactly 21 years old, you've aged 21 years. Not that you've been alive for 21 years.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ChrisMaple]

Icy roads vary a great deal. Some hills can't be climbed when they're icy, and going down you can't stop unless you steer off the road. Stop at some intersections and you won't be able to go forward without first backing up. It's not always easy, even for a careful and practiced driver.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

On an open highway, go for it, I think we should be allowed to go 100mph.

I'm not a big fan of that unless you mean completely open. An open highway is rarely that open. I'd rather not drive above 70-75 on 4-lane Interstate because it's a lot of wear and tear and lower fuel efficiency. If people are constantly aggressively passing at 100mph, there's a safety hazard in the relative speed difference. Especially when a 70-75 driver is passing a big truck going 60-65 with multiple 100mph drivers approaching from behind.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares.
B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets
C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.

If the houses and residential areas predate the highways and increased traffic, you'll have to tear down a LOT of houses to create the arterial roads you believe are needed.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[tpwade]

So some idiot bends his car because he was driving too fast. He is inconvenienced, insurance premiums go up, is late for work, etc, and just maybe learns a valuable lesson about driving defensively, all without endangering anyone else's life. Care to explain what the downside is?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[bfpierce]

If a 12 year old jumped in front of my car going 25 mph they would still get injured.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ChrisMaple]

Dog bites man is not news.

What has happened and gets little press is a policeman pulling over a vehicle for speeding, and the driver pulling out a gun and shooting the policeman.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[zmooc]

In the Netherlands we used to have a lot of cyclists without lights. As in: well over half of the cyclists would bike around in the middle of the night, ignoring traffic lights on a pitch black bike. Maybe the law was too stringent?

Then we started seriously enforcing the law. Now a cyclist without lights is a rare sight and fatalities have dwindled a lot. What I'm trying to say: never judge the value of a law by how well people abide by it if the law is not properly enforced.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ChrisMaple]

They are prosecuted for the allegation of crime.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ledow]

I live in a different country to you.

I have been pulled over several times. For car checks. Never for speeding.

If you're below the limit, why would they pull you? And in my country we hold police accountable to the reasonable cause - you can't just pull people over "just because". Even a dodgy taillight - fine. Suspicious swerving, sudden slowdown when they see the cop, fine. Because "normal" people don't do those things or have those problems.

And the vehicle is safer FOR YOU. Stopping distance at a given speed for a car with ABS hasn't really changed in decades. This is precisely the point - you FEEL safe, but that safety is only for you, inside the car. Outside the car, you're just as dangerous to other road-users or pedestrians.

And speed limits used to be "slower than the guy with the flag walking in front", so don't talk bollocks.

If you have a problem with the police state, try not breaking a quite clear, reasonable and obvious law, and hold your police accountable. And if everyone does what you do, don't be surprised that the limits keep lowering. "We lowered the limit to 20 but people are still doing 40" is a known problem. So they lower the limit more to get more of them convicted on harsher limits when they do it.

Honestly, quite what do you think you save in terms of average hassle over your life by going over that number? Because the seconds you gain each time you go over are more than cancelled out by the hour by the side of the road while you're ticketed and your car looked over, even if that's once a year.

I've been pulled over any number of times - I drive old bangers of cars and they are an instant pull because of the appearance, but are always road-legal. I've not actually had anything more than a "Sorry to keep you, sir, everything appears in order" from any of the stops and never been delayed more than a few minutes.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

You're (and more to the point, he) also lucky you weren't going faster. Braking time increases with roughly the square of the speed, and braking distance even faster than that.

The point though is not to be "safe" but to be "safeER". No amount of protection will keep a reckless idiot safe, not even a straight jacket in a rubber room. Just because you hit the kid doesn't mean you kill him. If his go cart was low enough, or unlucky enough to get stuck under a wheel, then yeah, you probably run him over. More likely though he bounces off your bumper, or gets tangled up in it and dragged along. Neither is likely to be fatal at 25mph and stopping. Serious injuries perhaps, but a really good chance he'll survive with prompt medical attention.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

How does it limit the flow of traffic? Other than making sure most people actually obey the speed limit I mean.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

I assume there's the occasional *actual* pyramid-shaped obstacle mixed in, so that drivers don't just get into the habit of ignoring the painted ones?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

Vehicle safety is rather irrelevant to the conversation, is it not? Barring a few newfangled additions that are currently not even remotely common, that refers to the safety of the occupants, not pedestrians or other drivers. THOSE are who speed limits are typically designed to protect. In fact one of the most cost-effective "safety additions", greater mass, specifically protects the occupants at the expense of anyone they collide with.

As for speed limits continuing to drop, well, people's risk tolerance seems to be steadily falling. Hell, in the US we're jumping all over ourselves to throw away our freedom for fear of terrorists, despite the fact that they're so far down the list of things likely to kill you that they're not even worth mentioning.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[cciechad]

I don't know I lived in New England my entire life and I've never had any of the troubles you mention on snow and ice. With all wheel drive, modern snow tires, keeping you speed somewhat reasonable and engine breaking its pretty hard to slide off the road or not make it up a hill.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Drethon]

The street I used to live on was one of the only non-boulevarded streets going into a quarter square mile residential area. Everyone drives 35+ despite it being a residential street with barely even two lanes. The city's preferred way of dealing with this? Put in 25 MPH speed limit signs with flags on them. Seriously, does anyone not know you are supposed to go 25 MPH on a residential side road?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[T.E.D.]

I think the solution is for the city to bite the bullet and install speed bumps.

I'm sorry, but speed bumps are never the answer. They damage every car that drives over them, and if badly designed can actually encourage speeding (at least at speed the annoying jostling is over quickly). Hurt worst will be the poor bastards in the neighborhood who have to drive over the car-manglers every day.

The circles aren't a bad idea. Another would be to repave the road to be a bit twisty. Or just suck it up. I'll bet that road was exactly like that when everyone on that street bought their houses. Why is the city supposed to spend city $ to increase only their property values by making their one street more residential than it was when they bought in?

Or they could just do what they used to do on residential streets in New Orleans back in the 80's when I lived there: Never repave them. There was one that actually had a "light chop" to the asphalt (I'm guessing due to a shoddy contractor not accounting for expansion in the summer heat). So it worked like natural speed-bumps. Why not do that on purpose? :-)

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[eth1]

That's all fine and good until you throw snow and ice into the mix, then all those objects become wrapped around cars and cause accidents from the excessive braking/swerving required to navigate them during inclement weather. I've lost count of how many signs and poles I've seen bent over clear to the ground after storms, or cars losing control in S-curves from the "scenic/safer" road design.

Also, if I have to navigate an obstacle course to get through a pedestrian crossing, I'm probably going to be looking at the obstacles, instead of the approaching cyclist or pedestrian.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Lumpy]

Not a problem. Buy those houses for 10% above fair market value and do it.

Maybe if Cities had competent leadership they would think of these solutions. If the cities had competent City managers they would already have 100 year planning and put everything in place to start those projects by buying the property decades before it is needed.

Instead, we get the drooling morons that is typical for today's leadership. Fuck the citizens and the city, What can I do to get reelected....

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Lumpy]

And you are the defacto king of the asshats baby.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Applehu Akbar]

"If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low."

There is an old highway engineering standard that the speeds at which drivers actually travel on a new stretch of road should be surveyed first, and then the speed limit set at the 80th percentile. But all too often, speed limits are set by statute, as in 'a residential area should be posted for 25'. This results in neighborhoods where such a limit is unrealistic. If a major city street that happens to have some apartments above stores gets classified as residential, it could get an unrealistically low limit. In another place you might have a hidden school driveway that is accident prone because it should lave a lower limit.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[cheater512]

How does that make sense? Do you think speed limits are based on how people think they should drive?

I hope they make the street your house is on limited to a more reasonable 60mph since I'm sure there would be some people who would much appreciate the increase.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[flug]

At 20 MPH, 5% of pedestrians involved in a car-pedestrian collision will die.

At 30 MPH, it is 37-45%.

At 40 MPH it is 83-85%.

If you are thinking of traffic as simple car vs car, then speed limit should be one thing--probably a lot higher than they are now. Because people in cars are pretty impervious to injury.

But as soon as you realize that **this street is going through a neighborhood** everything changes. Honestly we should not allow cars (or anything else) to go faster than 15-20 MPH in neighborhoods and places where there are many people.

Fast driving drives away people and endangers them. That is the opposite of what we want in our communities.

The most effective strategy for eliminating traffic fatalities has relied heavily on this approach--reduce speed, and fatalities reduce at least proportionately.

Sources:

http://www.visionzeroinitiativ...

http://humantransport.org/side...

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

If the houses and residential areas predate the highways and increased traffic, you'll have to tear down a LOT of houses to create the arterial roads you believe are needed.

Build the road elsewhere. Done.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

If you build the road elsewhere, how is that going to stop any of this?

A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares.
B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets
C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.

They aren't "made" into thoroughfares - the traffic goes the path of shortest distance and least resistance. You build a longer route a long way around the residential area and not many will take it.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[_Sharp'r_]

I used to live in Northern VA and had to commute (like most people there) 50+ minutes each way, and that was only traveling 20 miles, but it was mostly north-south. I'm sure you can do the math on average speed there. The "fastest" route for me took me about

Other than the two east-west freeways, there are typically one, or sometimes as many as two streets which "go through" from one city to the next. It's all small winding highways at best in a North-south direction. That's it. So all the traffic dumps through those north-south streets, even if they're residential streets and even if the drivers are just passing through town. Four-way stops become nightmares at some of those intersections.

They really do need to just bite the bullet and purchase/tear-down some houses to make multiple real routes between towns, rather then have all the traffic hitting mile after mile of residential areas.

But because of the focused money/population/expanding government agencies around the DC area sucking the rest of the country dry, property values are ridiculous the closer you get to DC, on the order of millions of dollars per small house, so you can see why they don't want to have to pay to demolish in order to put new roads in.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[_Sharp'r_]

Missing part of a sentence... The "fastest" route for me took me about 30% our of the way from a "direct" route, because there wasn't a direct route along a shortest path.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

It could also be a regional difference where the citizens just routinely avoid the law. I've been in some places where this seems true, but go 50 miles away and everyone seems to follow all the rules. I've seen cities on one European country where everyone waits for the pedestrian crossing light to allow them to go even though there is no oncoming traffic, and other cities where people just start wandering onto the road forcing cars to stop.

Also I have noticed that some of the drivers that seem to be the most aggressive, getting many tickets and complaining about them, are also more likely to adopt a position that the rules need to be changed, consider themselves are very good drivers, are more concerned about the slow cars being causing a hazard or being driven by untrained people, and they give these opinions loudly to anyone who cares. In other words, people who scare me enough that I won't be a passenger with them seem to think they're the ones doing things properly.

I'm of the opinion that people should just relax. Aggressive drivers are a problem, as are people in a hurry. Driving the speed limit is not hard at all. Ignoring the idiots on the road is slightly harder but quite doable. If someone cuts you off then just ignore it, don't fight for position like there's a competition. Keeps you healthier in the long run.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HiThere]

Kensington handled the problem by refusing to fill in potholes. Given that some of the roads edged cliffs, this tended to slow down traffic quite effectively.

FWIW, people in fancy cars with good suspension systems seem to nearly ignore speed bumps. Perhaps this just means they're willing to pay at the garage, but it also means the worst traffic isn't effectively slowed. (Well, half the worst traffic. The worst traffic seems to be evenly split between wealthy bastards that don't care about anyone else and stupid teenagers who haven't learned any better yet...with some who remain teenagers through their 20's and into their 30's. I know a couple of the latter.)

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HiThere]

"Among the worst kinds of scumbag?"

People who do that are showing that either they don't care about the non-central results of their actions or that they aren't aware that their actions have any results that they didn't intend. Or that they rate the lives of other people as unimportant. I count those as the worst kinds of scumbag. Do you have any categorization that you think is worse which isn't already included within that characterization?

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[T.E.D.]

I'll bet that road was exactly like that when everyone on that street bought their houses. Why is the city supposed to spend city $ to increase only their property values by making their one street more residential than it was when they bought in?

If speed bumps are damaging your car, you need to slow the fuck down.

I'm sorry, but you aren't allowed to counter my entire argument by throwing out your Blame-the-victim Pokémon, because (as you can see from the above quote text) I already used that same Pokémon in the previous round.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

You'll be happy to know that your wonderful local governments were hard at work with NIMBY. Here is one case where full blown planned freeways were reduced to small signaled intersections. I had heard that the DC area until the late 60s or early 70s had 12 major highway rights of ways on the books, but all were eventually sold off because no one wanted a highway near them.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Grishnakh]

Widening the street will make people want to drive even faster. You need to narrow the street if you want people to drive slower. There have been tons of studies on this.

Even just painting the lines narrower (leaving a big paved shoulder or perhaps bike path) should have a good effect on speeds.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Grishnakh]

What in the hell are you talking about? I've lived in Virginia for much of my life. This state has the slowest drivers in the nation, and the slowest speed limits in the nation. With a speed limit of 25, you can expect people to drive 20. People here constantly drive 5-10 mph below the posted speed limit. And the speed limits are constantly too low: 2-lane (per side) highways are usually 55mph way out in the boonies, and then step down to 25mph (yes, on a 2-lane highway) in tiny little towns. I guess you've never driven on US-460.
.
If you're complaining about reckless or speeding drivers in Virginia, you must be in Northern Virginia, which is really a completely different state (and does not include Charlottesville). In the rest of the state, it's worse than any stereotypical retirement community you can find anywhere.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

I really like what they did to my local super market lot.

The added a chicane (in the form of a solid line of 'crete parking space stops, forcing you into the 'drive' lanes which have speed bumps), it slows down the lot some, but the increased drifting makes up for it.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[KGIII]

Not only have I spent a whole lot of time in the Boston-area, but;

my career was based on traffic modeling, I worked to computerize traffic engineering is a good way to put it.
I've driven professionally - as in that was my MOS for a long, long time (or it seemed it).
over the years, I've driven a whole lot - more than probably ten active drivers and I'm not done yet.
I've taken *many* advanced driving courses and have even raced and done well at the amateur level (rally).
I've gone to Germany, taken lessons, hired coaches, and done laps around Nurburgring in rented exotics.
I've specifically worked in Boston (note the career choice).
I visit Boston frequently, owning a place on Beech Glen Street.
I've played "halfball" at Highland Park - and helped shovel snow to do it.

I said all that just to say this... I'm probably an actual recognized authority on the subject and NOTHING is going to help Boston. Nothing...

If the rest of you have not driven in Boston, keep in mind that I've driven all across the globe (including India, Egypt, and Peru), it's something to behold. Oh, you might have your own little sections of bad driving, bad design, or bad results. They've got NOTHING on Boston.

Imagine, and this is the first I've ever tried to describe driving in Boston so it may not be polished, driving in a little European village or even in a city. Now, throw away all the small cars. No, small car doesn't necessarily mean sturdy or making a good weapon. Throw out any idea of kindness, fiduciary duty, or social contract. Throw out the idea of centralized planning. Boston wasn't blowing itself to rubble in WWII so the US didn't rebuild it.

So, you've got streets designed (literally) to drive sheep and cows, giant American cars, angry drivers, with roads that make no sense - unless you live there and then they don't make sense but you understand them, and then - add snow, rain, hail, sleet, bad pavement, frost heaves (in the right season), freezing wind coming in from the ocean, and the Irish. Also, make everyone in a hurry. Also, make it so that if the impact is behind the driver's side door then it's the fault of the other driver. Also, the white part of me is Irish - with a whole lot of family in the area and was a resident. Also important, they're in a hurry (to stop in traffic) and their car is being used like a weapon.

Add all that together, throw in a municipality that's corrupt as all hell, people who don't give a shit, outright vendettas, and ever-changing weather. Oh, and throw in that they've got shit for signs that are almost as meaningless as a drunk townie asking you for a light.

And you get driving in Boston. Suffice to say, it's not for the "weak of heart." (Pronounced "heaht you fucking queah and fuck your mothah too you fucking fudge packin' faggot and yes I'll be in church next week father, it was an excellent mass.") When I point out my perfect driving record, I'm careful only to point out that I have no at-fault accidents on my record. I've been hit, while stopped at a light, in Boston - twice and once while I was walking back to my car, I saw my car hit again. It had just been hit two days prior. Eventually, you realize that reporting it is futile as they'll just raise your insurance rates. It is actually abnormal to not have a stick or bat in your car if you live in Boston. You just might need it.

Nope. There's no fixing Boston's roads or drivers unless you're gonna tear it all down and rebuild it from scratch. If you did that, it wouldn't be Boston. I'll drive in Boston but not in Paris, France. That's a whole other set of issues. They've still got nothing on Boston.

One of my first experiences in Boston, as an adult and on my own, was living there with a cousin for a couple of months while waiting to join the military. I saw a car drive up on the sidewalk and do the movie thing where they smash into a few things and keep driving with people diving out of the way. Now, imagine 1970's police cars. About 10-15 seconds *later* the sir

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[KGIII]

Well... That's probably why we use birthday and not conceptionday. I'd think the implication is birthday and not conceptionday unless otherwise stated. Tracking conceptionday might actually be a bit of a problem.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

If you drank so much you put yourself into a six year coma, there is something medically wrong with you.

You should learn to drink BEFORE you start driving. 15 is a good age.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

Or rent a bobcat and fix the problem.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

I see you've never been to Kansas.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

I've been hooning like a mad man. No accidents or tickets in 30 years.

I can spot a cop car based on 1/4 inch of fender sticking out past a wall 1/2 mile away.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[KGIII]

Hmm... I used to be stationed at Quantico but this was, shall we say, a long time ago. Back then, if you had the appropriate stickers then you'd be allowed to get away with a whole lot of stuff. My MOS made me a vehicle operator (driver). I often spent a bunch of miles off-base with the appropriate stickers. Hell, we were doing an official convoy (I'm assuming you know what that means) and some idiot pulled in, mixed with us, and then tried to stop (seemingly to get a camera). It did not go over well and caused untold damage to their vehicle, with them in it. (The flashing lights and sign trucks should be an indication to not join in on the fun if not the fact that you've got 500 vehicles, in a row, all of which are big, heavy, and kind of scary looking. Add to that the fact that they're all going 45 MPH and haven't even stopped for red lights or any other sign...)

On our personal vehicles, well... The appropriate stickers could get you all sorts of access and mostly ignored if you didn't do anything outlandish. I mean stuff like being from up north, waiting for it to snow that half inch that shuts the city down, and then driving like a madman in the snow... Yeah, the cops just waved and laughed. We stopped and helped one out from inside the median and I spent the day teaching my buds how to drive in the snow. Speeding was assumed, driving drunk was frequent, and complete and total disregard to rules was mandatory - so long as you had the right stickers.

I take it that such has changed? Also, do not pull into an actual convoy of military vehicles and then apply the brakes. Do not mix with convoy! Convoy ahead, do not interfere! CONVOY! Those signs, on trucks with flashing lights, actually may mean something including that we're not going to stop. We're not *allowed* to stop for you or your Honda - even if you wave a gun at us and certainly not for pictures. We're OBLIGATED to move your vehicle out of the way and continue to do our best to keep up with the rest of the convoy. Do not mix with convoy. We had trucks, all along the convoy, driving beside us - with flashing lights. Yeah, they got run over. Well, more like pushed out of the way. I was not the driver of said vehicle but I didn't stop either. The law's pretty clear on this - so were my orders. Do not interfere with convoy.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[KGIII]

Actually, the vast majority of accidents are caused by driving too fast for the conditions.

I've had people get confused by that before and I hate to do the appeal to authority thing but I'm the closest we've got to an expert on the subject. If you are drunk and back into another car in the bar parking lot at 5 MPH, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you were going 30 MPH and slipped off into a snowbank, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you're sitting still and someone hits your car, they were driving too fast for the conditions.

Sometimes, the conditions are such that the speed should be zero if a modicum of safety is the goal. Chances are that you're not the driver you think you are. I'd also suggest that you do not have a "sports tuned" motorized vehicle of any type. It's unlikely that you've either the expertise to configure it, the knowledge of what to do with the configuration, or the finances to achieve it. I surprise this because I *do* have a vehicle with sport tuning - I have several. The tuning varies for the sport and can be prohibitively expensive - to the point where few people would want to use it for regular travel.

That said, there's a time and a space for enjoying oneself behind the wheel of an automobile. Limit your speeding and aggressive behaviors to those times and places. You are not the only one on the road. As someone who actually *does* get involved in some motor sports, don't give us a bad name by trying to identify as us. There are lots of ways to get your speed on. Residential streets or public highways are not usually those spots. No, you don't have the skills and training required to push your car to the envelope without risking others and others do not accept the risks you're forcing on them.

Save your speed for the track or closed circuits. Personally? I prefer rally over any other type. I've a very nice, a bit older, Saab that I use for such. Well, used... The engine is no longer working - it has completely, and totally, seized because I was unwilling to stop and bow out gracefully. If you knew how much money was in that engine, you'd probably poop a small brick - and I'm very much just an old duffer. Hell, the tires are more expensive than you might imagine. (It's not like I can get away with just one set.) I'll probably be saying to hell with it and just buying an already complete WRX or Mini. I might go with an older Mini and just enter a different class. I am not a professional so it's a money sink for me. It is a fun hobby.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

But decreasing speed is very easy, no one is hurt by it, maybe trivially inconvenienced (if you want to speed use a road that's not in a residential area, duh).
I think instead that you need to provide a credible reason why you need to go above the speed limit.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

Never understood zebra crossings. We have crossings in the US, they just don't have that pattern. The crossings with or without paint are almost always at intersections and anyone driving through a heavy pedestrian area or a residential neighborhood should automatically be slowing at intersections.

I do see one big problem in the US, and that's actually the use of traffic schools. In other words if you get a traffic ticket here you either pay the fine and get some points on your record, or you pay the same amount and attend traffic school. And those schools are usually online now. So the choice is to add up more points which could lead to the loss of a license or higher insurrance premiums, versus a really simple online course and quiz. If people lost their license they would most certainly learn their lesson, whereas a couple hours of inconvenience isn't changing anyone's behavior.

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

Well that screws up the meme that America is the stupidest country on the planet because we have to learn to divide by something other than 10.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

It's hard to switch. It worked great in France at the beginning though; rew regime comes out, chops off a lot of heads, then says "we have a new measurement system, anyone opposed raise your hand." But once you've got settled into a routine it's very hard to change it. It really helps if you have an absolute monarchy that can force everyone to switch against their will.

Unfortunately we were changing, we had cars with both miles and kilometers, road signs with miles and kilometers, measuring cups with ounces and liters, etc. But the educational push for metric was eliminated even though we had bills passed to support metric for trade (even Reagan signed such a bill in 1988). Without the educational push it meant that the general public wasn't going to convert. Earlier bills also never made conversion mandatory.

But it doesn't mean we're some archaic medieval country full of buffoons either. Every single scientist and engineer in the US understands metric. You can't do anything without it. Every track and field athlete knows what a meter and kilometer is. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology is a key player in coming up with precise physical definitions of various SI units.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

This is true. Which is why the posted speed limit is not permission to always go that fast. Almost every US state also requires to travel at a safe speed even if it less than the posted limit. Even in some states that removed speed limits you can still be pulled over for going too fast.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

People with a death wish tend to have it granted.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

I don't think these roads were designed to be thoroughfares. It just happens over time. A sleepy neighborhood can become a heavy traffic neighborhood with just a few changes, such as a new employer showing up. Sometimes there are side effects of other political decisions: the town that refuses to allow expressways can end up with heavy traffic on residential streets (ie, the houses face the street with no fences), or if they refuse to have mass transit, etc.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[mjwx]

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.

Sigh, not this red herring again. Speed limits, especially speed limits in built up areas are a balance between practicality (getting somewhere) and safety (reducing the chances of a fatality in the event of a collision). Dropping from 30 MPH to 25 MPH is a significant increase in safety for a small sacrifice in practicality in areas where pedestrians are likely to be crossing the road (and in many places in England, houses are built almost to the kurb with only a small footpath, not to mention that pedestrians are often obscured by a line of parked cars (so be doubly grateful you England hasn't fallen victim to the SUV craze).

My point is, you cant sacrifice too much practicality for safety or vice versa, too much safety for practicality. Because of this, you need a more credible excuse.

In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

The US also has very lax speeding enforcement. I drove from LA to SF and back doing 85 MPH most of the way on the I-1, 101 and 5. I got pulled over just inside Las Vegas doing 88 in a 65 zone, the first thing the officer asked is "you're coming back from the Speedway aren't you" (yes there was a speedway, I was on the way back from it and yes they let you go very fast there). He stared at my license for a bit and told me to watch my speed in the future and drove off.

Of course in the US, law enforcement changes radically depending on what county you're in, but I'm pretty sure most interstates dont even have speed cameras.

However the UK gets it right. Strict enforcement of speed on urban roads and congested motorways, lax enforcement on empty motorways, A and B roads. However the big thing is, they target poor driver behaviour, not just speeding. If you're doing 100 on the motorway in a safe and courteous manner, you're fine. If you drive like a dickhead, then you get picked up. Bad driver behaviour and poor driver training are the biggest influencing factors in increasing motoring fatalities. Whilst training should be improved, law enforcement is the only way to reduce bad behaviour and by bad behaviour I dont just mean speed discipline but everything from lane discipline to indicating to keeping a safe distance to elements of road craft like letting people in. Blocking overtakers is a common thing in the US and Australia, not because it is legal but because the police just wont enforce that law.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[mjwx]

That does not mean anything if we do not know what happened or the layout of the street. Perhaps that car was speeding, but by how much? Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.

Right, it was the kids fault. Great logic there.

In Europe, they do this think called "enforcing the law" which is why you get people in civilised nations driving at sensible speeds in town centres.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[AthanasiusKircher]

It's only a slight overstatement. My ranking of scumbaggery goes roughly (1) Hitler, Stalin, et al., (2) other mass murderers and serial killers, (3) internet trolls who'd drive a person to suicide just for the lulz, (4) people who drive like jerks in ways that endanger others.

At least lawyers and politicians mostly have self-delusions that they are helping people or society, and even most pedophiles have some warped belief they are acting out of love. Idiots who screech through residential areas showing reckless disregard for the rest of humanity just so they can get to their destination 10 seconds earlier? They have no excuse.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Jack Griffin]

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

So what are the chances of being hit?
For someone calling himself MrLogic, you failed fucking miserably at this one.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Jack Griffin]

Anyone that XYZ is the worst type of scumbag.

No, that type of thinking is...

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[tehcyder]

As a pedestrian, I hate zebra crossings. It is hard to tell if a driver has seen you and is going to stop.

I also hate them as a driver, as it's amazing the number of people who sort of hang around them with no clear indication of whether they want to cross the road or not.

They're better than nothing, but if you want cars to stop for pedestrians, put up a pelican crossing (with actual red, amber and green lights). Obviously it's a financial issue.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[tehcyder]

There's only one speed which is safe for adequately careless kids. 0. Anecdote. Two weeks ago I was driving home. There were a lot of cars on the side of the roads and my neighborhood has a lot of kids so though the speed limit is 25, I was doing somewhere between 10 and 15. And then right out in front of me shoots a kid out of the driveway in a gokart, he hits the road spins out and stops right in front of my car. Barely stopped in time, and had I been 1 second sooner, that kid would have been run over. He rights himself and tears off in his gokart doing about 20 mph down the street. I'm lucky I was 1 second later because no amount of careful driving would avoid an incident like that because with people with effed up views of driving like yourself, had it gone to court you'd have probably found me at fault.

There will always be accidents. That doesn't mean you can't reduce their number and severity.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

Or, they can make the conscious decision to actually plan their roads, and not allow housing on designated thoroughfares. It's pretty simple as enough places can and have implemented such planning over the past many decades. Note that such planning goes back at least to the 30s, so it's not "new", "novel", nor can anyone claim that they weren't aware of it. Many localities for whatever short sighted reasons chose not to engage in actual planning. Laissez faire results in the mess many have today.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[MrL0G1C]

Judging by the tens of thousands of life-changing aka serious injuries, the chance of being hit is far too high. And BTW you fail to even understand what logical thinking is.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

The article was not about any designated thoroughfare. It was a neighborhood that others decided to use as a shortcut. Any place that has two ends will be used as a thoroughfare by someone, and you can't make all residential roads have no outlet.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[hucker75]

I'm in the UK, and that is a very stupid thing they do. Built up areas are curvy and narrow, with NO PAVEMENTS! (Sidewalks) Yes, there is nowhere for the kids to walk but in the middle of the road, with blind bends. I see near misses every day. And making cars continually turn left and right is reducing grip and increasing the chances of someone coming off a bend when they aren't looking or skid, especially with speedbumps everywhere making your vehicle lose weight.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

you can't make all residential roads have no outlet.

That is incorrect. I live in an area where most developments are off of a main thoroughfare, and have only connectors back to that main thoroughfare. Yes, if you live on the edge of a sub-neighborhood and you want to visit someone behind you in another sub neighborhood, you wind up have to go out to the main thoroughfare and back around, for what might be a couple of hundred feet, but neighborhood traffic truly is only neighborhood traffic. It is essentially just a bunch of cul de sacs and half loops with entrances off of a single road.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[ebvwfbw]

They do that crap in the US too. Islands and such. Try driving a fire truck down one of those streets sometime. That stupidity makes it nearly impossible and causes a lot of accidents. Sometimes they do speed bumps or speed humps. Try being in the back of an ambulance going over one of those.

Sounds like he should just shut up. They're fine. Raise the speed limit to 35 where it should be.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Jack Griffin]

Judging by the tens of thousands of life-changing aka serious injuries,

Which were caused by what? (And don't say speed, unless you really honestly know what you are talking about)

the chance of being hit is far too high.

Compared to what? No speed? Makes it hard to get anywhere without moving.

And BTW you fail to even understand what logical thinking is.

Oh I think I have it covered. For example just making a blind statement isn't logic...

Re: legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Swave An deBwoner]

Once you get that drilled into them you don't have to worry about them getting run over as they stay away from the road and practice crossing it safely.

Well, in NYC there is a rash of cars, SUVs, buses, and trucks driving up on the sidewalk and mowing down the folks who are standing and walking there. Or plowing through the windows of restaurants and shops.

So don't stop worrying yet about your kids getting run over; they might be talking with a friend on a sidewalk or eating lunch in a restaurant.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

That does not mean anything if we do not know what happened or the layout of the street. Perhaps that car was speeding, but by how much? Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.

What happens in Europe is that they start making the streets in such a way that they are automatically so that you drive a lower speed. Especially in neighbourhoods where people live.

Just a couple thoughts. We have a 25 mph speed limit on the street I live on, and have had some troubles in the past with speeders. I do happen to be friendly with the local police, and after one young lady who sometimes zipped down our street at around 55 miles per hour, I got her license plate and gave it to him. As it turns out, people who like to drive 55 in a 25 zone tend to drive really fast everywhere. So he just waited for her, and enriched the township's coffers. After a couple tickets, she saw the error of her ways, and now drives within the speed limit I think her insurance company is aware of her problem.

I don't really care how fast people drive on the interstates. In a neighborhood totally lined with houses, that is a non-starter.

Our neighbors were also aware of her and a few others speeding. If my officer friend didn't take care of the problem, we planned on turning the street into an obstacle course by parking our cars as far in the road as possible.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

That's all fine and good until you throw snow and ice into the mix, then all those objects become wrapped around cars and cause accidents from the excessive braking/swerving required to navigate them during inclement weather. I've lost count of how many signs and poles I've seen bent over clear to the ground after storms, or cars losing control in S-curves from the "scenic/safer" road design.

Bolshy yarblockos. If a person slips going around a curve, and hits something, they would have trouble braking in a straight line. Your bizzare analogy is trying to argue that going in a straight line on ice is safe. Drive for the conditions, and don't blame a curvy road for bad driving decisions.

Which by the way, I've seen street signs taken down by idiots on nice straight roads. Usually sent flying because those straight roads allowed them to have greater speed before they hit the brakes and plowed into the sign.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

Also, if I have to navigate an obstacle course to get through a pedestrian crossing, I'm probably going to be looking at the obstacles, instead of the approaching cyclist or pedestrian.

So you are admitting you can't drive for shit? Is there some vision problem? Or bad reflexes or mental fog or what? Most of us can go around corners without plowing into things. Better get that checked out.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

I don't know I lived in New England my entire life and I've never had any of the troubles you mention on snow and ice. With all wheel drive, modern snow tires, keeping you speed somewhat reasonable and engine breaking its pretty hard to slide off the road or not make it up a hill.

I have a late model Jeep with electronic traction control. It does have one issue though. The traction control is so good that I can take off n a hill on glare ice in 4WD, at angles up to the point that the thing will just slide backwards from gravity. It's actually fun to watch people's reaction to the trick.

But ice is ice, and while the antilock brakes help a lot, I really have to remember that it will go a whole lot better than it will stop, so the driver as you note has to be really careful. And at some point being on a highway under glare ice conditions is simply unwise without chains. Even then there are limits.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

Curves and obstacles do not slow people down. Instead, people have more problems staying in their own lane.

You live in Northern Ohio where all the roads can be straight or something? We don't have your problem here in the no a straight roads PA.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Ol Olsoc]

It must be great to have superhuman powers and be able to pay attention to an infinite number of things at the same time without impairing any of the other tasks at hand. For us mere mortals, throwing in additional distractions will always increase the odds of missing something else.

Yeah, like driving safely in icy/snowy conditions requires infinite multitasking. Move to northwestern Ohio where all of the roads are on a grid pattern since anything other than straight roads are scawy for you.

Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[strikethree]

At 100 mph, accidents are almost always fatal for the same reason (energy that goes into tearing up your internal organs is 4x more than at 50 mph).

This is why I prefer to drive over 100 mph. I want to be 100% certain that I will die in a wreck, not 68%.

How to improve Slashdot

[enriquevagu]

Add a link to the summary.

Re:How to improve Slashdot

[Thanshin]

http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/...

http://myinforms.com/en-gb/a/2...

http://www.dailyprogress.com/n...

(Maybe he read from one of the above)

Re:How to improve Slashdot

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

There should not be a "mobile" version to begin with. This is 2016, adaptive websites have existed for quite some time now.

Also, putting links next to the title seems counter-intuitive. There's so many icons and other details that it just gets lost as visual noise. What's wrong with adding links to the summary text anyway? That's how the Web works.

Re:How to improve Slashdot

[HalAtWork]

Oh you mean hidden behind the icon of a truck and some green rainbow shape? Brilliant! Don't know why I didn't intuit that.

Escaped review?

[Daemonik]

How did this submission get through review? There's no link to the source article.

Slashdot's accepting citations from anonymous sources with no supporting evidence now?

Re:Escaped review?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are sources, next to the title.
Anyoing, but they are there, nonetheless.

Speed limit reality check

[Viol8]

Authorities all over the world know that people will always go a little bit over the speed limit and hence set the limits accordingly. I know this isn't what the road safety warriors want to hear but its the truth - if they want vehicles doing around 35 authorities will set the actual limit to 30 and so on.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[JumperCable]

Except in West Virginia. If you are not doing the speed limit or below, it is your own neck you are risking.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[thegarbz]

they do everything but just goddamned move

Move? Where to? How do you commute to work if there's no streets?

Re:Speed limit reality check

[buck-yar]

No no, children shouldn't be afraid of cars. There should be nothing bad if a kid streaks out into the street. Everyone should be traveling 20 in a 25mph because... what about the children?

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??

Re:Speed limit reality check

[Lawrence_Bird]

one area of a town near me just started an "experiment" of dropping limit from 30 to 25. Its all about a) the children and b) money. Never mind town population has been stagnant for 40+ years with 30 mph limit and a stellar safety record or that few, if any, children play in the street anymore.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[drinkypoo]

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??

I sure did, when I was a kid, after seeing that PSA with the steamroller. I stayed the fuck out of the street.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[Darinbob]

Just because they build in a leeway is not a right to exceed the limit. We're also not talking about people going 35 in a 30mph zone, but people going 50 in a 30mph zone.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[Darinbob]

Getting a lot of traffic on your street does not raise property values. Very often it lowers the values. The more newer neighborhoods (which are often more affluent) will have speed bumps, traffic circles, roads the bend, etc. The older neighbhoods on the other hand will have very little in the way of traffic abatement.

Moving is hard, and expensive, and completely impractical for many people. The self entitled jerks should just learn to obey the law instead.

Re:Speed limit reality check

[Darinbob]

The problem is not that children routinely play in the street or that they're taught to play in the street. The problem is that they will dart out into the street to retrieve a ball, often when they're too young to know better.

And what exactly was wrong with dropping the speed limit? Did it harm anyone?

Re:Speed limit reality check

[Lawrence_Bird]

Yes it does. It impeeds people who have people to see, things to do and places to go. As I stated, this town has had the same population for nearly 50 years and the same speed limit. The one death I am aware of happened in a crosswalk at a major multi-road intersection. So to argue 'do it for the children' because they might dart out is to ignore all evidence, including the fact that few of them even play in streets or yards anymore. Those that do "play" do so at organized sporting type events on gated fields with parking lots.

Grace?

[Etherwalk]

There is also an unwritten "grace" that is given in many areas, where you don't ticket someone until they go 10 mph above the speed limit. To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop, you were doing it in bad weather or at some other time when it was unsafe, or you wandered into a local town's legal extortion racket--excuse me, speed trap.

It is constitutionally questionable because of vagueness and due process, but it's still how driving works in a good part of the United States.

Re:Grace?

[drinkypoo]

There is also an unwritten "grace" that is given in many areas, where you don't ticket someone until they go 10 mph above the speed limit. To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop,

Yeah, that's just for selective enforcement, so they can punish brown people for being.

Re:Grace?

[RavenLrD20k]

Actually, In the Official Code of Georgia, there is a written grace:

Title 40 Chapter 14 Article 2 Section 8 subsection (a)
40-14-8 - When case may be made and conviction had

(a) No county, city, or campus officer shall be allowed to make a case based on the use of any speed detection device, unless the speed of the vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit by more than ten miles per hour and no conviction shall be had thereon unless such speed is more than ten miles per hour above the posted speed limit.

Note that it does not specify the same restriction for Georgia State Patrol / Department of Public Safety. They're the only ones who can make a case for 1 MPH above the limit (but will usually not enforce and only provide warnings until 5+ mph due to possible speedometer calibration miss adjustments...or they're just having a bad day). The only noted exception to this limit on county, city, and campus officers is in marked historic districts, marked residential zones, or inside designated school zones during the time period of one hour before and one hour after the times that school is in normal operation (zone active times are normally posted or the reduced speed limit signs are equipped with flashing amber lights. In this case, speed limits are automatically reduced up to 20 mph lower than standard posted limits [65+ mph areas will have school zone limits no lower than 45 mph; 55 mph areas will have school zone limits no lower than 35 mph; 45 mph areas and lower will have school zone limits no lower than 25 mph]). Definitions of marked historical districts and marked residential zones are noted in other parts of the O.C.G.A.

Re:Grace?

[petergriffinismyhero]

This is both true and false at the same time :). I was pulled over in Boston once by a cop for doing about 60 in a 45 on a highway in Boston. Cop said to keep it under 55 in the future. But then on a similarly sized but much busier road elsewhere in the city, you can get pulled over for doing anything over the speed limit because that road is frequently traveled by out of state and long commute drivers headed out of town, and has many speed traps in a short span. It seems that revenue has quite a bit to do with how strictly LE chooses to enforce the law. I will also say this. I see more and more evidence of lower speed limits being put in place for purposes of driving up ticket revenue. I see new roads having much lower speed limits than similarly sized roads and traveled roads elsewhere for no good reason I can discern. Things like tunnel roads, where there is near zero possibility of harming a non driver, are arbitrarily low and frequently have speed traps.

Re:Grace?

[thoromyr]

I know a traffic engineer who works for [censored] and is [censored]. Speed limits are essentially never set based on an analysis of roadway and traffic other than to estimate how much revenue will be gained. If the limit is absurdly low, there's a politician behind it. If the limit is absurdly high, there's a politician (and possibly the same one) behind it.

Part of the job of a traffic engineer is to produce studies supporting a politician's stance. Failure to do so can cause tension in the workplace. Which is really fun when two politicians are aiming for opposite goals for the same section of roadway.

Yay politics.

Re:Grace?

[Solandri]

To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop,

Doesn't really work like that. You're assuming there are two variables - how fast you were going, and the speed limit.

There are actually three variables. How fast you're going, the speed limit, and how fast the cop says you were going. I was going about 45 mph in a 40 mph zone (used to be a 55 mph zone when I lived there a decade ago so I thought I was far under the limit). On the ticket, the cop wrote that I was going 55 mph just to get around that pesky 10 mph grace. Best I can tell, he was upset that I did a jackrabbit start from a red light, which I did to pass a slow car I'd been stuck behind (the road split into two lanes for a short span at the light). I'm a pretty safe driver and very aware of what I'm doing - that's my only ticket in over 30 years driving.

Re:Grace?

[eth1]

There is also an unwritten "grace" that is given in many areas, where you don't ticket someone until they go 10 mph above the speed limit. To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop, you were doing it in bad weather or at some other time when it was unsafe, or you wandered into a local town's legal extortion racket--excuse me, speed trap.

It is constitutionally questionable because of vagueness and due process, but it's still how driving works in a good part of the United States.

I've done quite a few ride-alongs with my local PD, and almost universally, for the officers not dedicated to traffic enforcement, they couldn't care less about run-of-the-mill speeding. They would home in on people doing so supidly/unsafely instead, or going way over the limit. (Me: "that one was 15 over" Him: "nah, just wait, we'll get one doing 20-25 over")

Re:Grace?

[labnet]

Wow.
In Australia we have almost zero tolerance as most speed traps are now semi automated in mobile vans. 5MPH over will get you ticketed. As a consequence we have very little speeding in Oz.

Re:Grace?

[HiThere]

I can accept that that is true where you were working, but it's not a universal, and I don't know if it's even especially common. I do know of many areas where the neighborhoods have campaigned for slower speeds and stricter enforcement, so this might be what you are seeing. And it's true, the neighborhoods don't ask traffic engineers. They ask "Are people driving here faster than is safe?", and believing their own judgment rather than that of some traffic engineer, whose goals they neither know or care about.

As someone who lives in an area where that is happening, I agree with the neighborhood. I'm a pedestrian in this area, and around here I'm not real interested in pushing the cars through, I'm interested in being safe when I cross the street. (That said, I also consider the number of jaywalkers incredible. The other day I saw someone crossing a main street diagonally while apparently texting on their phone. I would have considered this both illegal and reckless even on a residential street.)

Re:Grace?

[KGIII]

The part of me that isn't white is brown and brown is the majority of what I have. I get ticketed about as often as my more-brown relatives and my not-brown relatives. Which is to say, none. I've not had a speeding ticket since something like 1972. I've never picked up a DWB or anything - but I've had some interesting encounters that I think could have resulted in a DWB arrest and fine. I've also driven all over the place - including other countries which, presumably, I'd get a DWnvB ticket or something but that never happened.

This doesn't mean that DWB doesn't happen. It shouldn't be misconstrued as anything other than my anecdote and those of others who have discussed it with me. Driving is a very popular discussion topic with me - I can talk about it and cars for hours. I do mean hours. No, cocaine does not "help" with that.

But, to my point (and I have one!), I'm not really sure that it's just DWB. A lot of it has to do with how you carry yourself and how you present yourself. Are you polite? Do you turn the radio down? Do you acknowledge guilt - if guilty? Do you have paperwork ready? Is your car clean and reasonably organized? Are you clean and sober? Are you buckled in? Is your car in good repair? Is your exhaust quiet? Did you move slowly and keep in mind that cops are herd animals and subject to spooking?

It's true that we'd not have to worry about those sorts of things in an ideal world. However, if it were an ideal world, we'd not be having this discussion at all. We'd not need to. But, I don't think selective enforcement (or selective prosecution) is always used to persecute brown people. Nah, they'll persecute most anyone they don't like. That doesn't mean I know how to (effectively and realistically) change it.

Missing link

[crath]

http://www.nbc29.com/story/311...

Re:Missing link

[wbr1]

Another link: http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/...

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

But the Think Of The Children campaigners will tell you that injuries to kids are X % less at 25 mph than 35 (or whatever). Which of course is a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument since you can then argue than 15mph causes less deaths than 25 etc and eventually get to the point where you end up with a 5mph limit and a man walking in front of the vehicle with a red flag and a whistle to warn people ahead. These people refuse to countenance the fact that there must be a trade off between road safety and society - which like it or not depends on motor vehicles - being able to function.

therefore the speed limit is invalid

[dltaylor]

At least in California, other than the absolute maximum, and things like school zones, roads have to be surveyed periodically, and the speed limits must reflect the prevailing speed. If it is 85% near some higher number, including mass transit, then the limit is too low.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[thegarbz]

Easy solution. Just put a speed camera on the side of the road, bright and visible. Then survey the area the speed camera is pointed at.

Still "too low"? By who's judgement? Mass swarms of human have absolutely no judgement or ability to perform risk analysis at all so they are probably the single worst source of information as to how a speed should be set. The only exception to this rule is large well built highways. Humans are good at judging risk when there's nothing unexpected that can come from a side street, down a driveway, etc.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[silas_moeckel]

If that 85% are not crashing into things seems rather safe to say they are correct. Would be hard to find any road where nearly 1 in 6 cars has an accident each time they drive through.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[bluegutang]

It's 85% in general and 50% in pedestrian-heavy areas.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[scorp1us]

This is technically incorrect. As I see it cited many times, the real deal is:
There is a FEDERAL GUIDELINE - no legally binding statute or regulation - that says the speed limit should be at the 85th percentile of what people drive. There is no suggested time to update the speed due to changes in traffic patterns or increasing vehicle capabilities. For example a car designed in 1970 handles terrible out of the factory compared to one built today. We've made the tire sidewalls smaller, moved from gearbox to rack and pinion steering, added ABS, and a whole host of other improvements that make modern vehicles safer to operate at speed.

I'd love for the guideline to be enforced, with a periodic 10-year revaluation. But keeping antiquated speeds low helps police departments and governments collect revenue, and every traffic stop is a change for the police to apprehend someone with an outstanding warrant.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[thoromyr]

You are correct about there not being anything binding. And, contrary to what I'd thought, no one really knows what speed makes a roadway safer. When I mentioned the "greater the speed delta the greater the risk" to a traffic engineer I was set straight. That's a bit of urban folklore with no basis in scientific study. It may be true, but it is not *known* to be true.

And there is precious little interest in setting speed limits for any scientific or engineering reason. Anyone who has driven for any length of time has come across gems -- like reverse banked curves that do not have a reduced speed, but nice, gentle curves in farmland with excellent visibility for miles that have substantially lowered speed.

It isn't just speed limits, either, but passing zones as well. No passing in areas of perfect visibility, with passing allowed in areas with poor or deceptive visibility.

No, unfortunately the rules of the road are made by politicians who order traffic engineers to produce data to support what they want.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[PAjamian]

Technically in California there is no law that says you have to go the posted speed, except for the "maxiumum speed law" which states that you can not go faster than 65 unless the speed is posted as 75. The actual law that people are written up on for speeding at lower speeds is the "basic speed law" which states that you must not drive faster than is "safe and prudent". Therefore it is a valid defense to say that you were doing 35 in a 25 zone but that 35 is safe and prudent. That is why they have the road surveys, to establish the safe and prudent speed for a particular section of road and that is the speed that they are supposed to post.

I do recall once seeing one of those surveys done *after* they had dropped the speed, and while the survey was being done the cops were sitting there clocking the traffic very visibly and therefore causing everyone to slow down to avoid a ticket (during the survey).

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[Ol Olsoc]

At least in California, other than the absolute maximum, and things like school zones, roads have to be surveyed periodically, and the speed limits must reflect the prevailing speed. If it is 85% near some higher number, including mass transit, then the limit is too low.

Fascinating. Here in Pennsylvania, most people travel about 10 MPH higher than the posted speed. Since when the speed was raised from 55 they rtravelled 65, then it became 65, and they travelled 75, now in places where it has been riesd to 70 they are going 80, often 85 I think you can see where this little positive feedback loop will end up. How fast yo can go is how fast your vehicle can go.

Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid

[Ol Olsoc]

For example a car designed in 1970 handles terrible out of the factory compared to one built today. We've made the tire sidewalls smaller, moved from gearbox to rack and pinion steering, added ABS, and a whole host of other improvements that make modern vehicles safer to operate at speed.

And yet, we have not seen any improvement in driver reaction time, have we? You can have a formula 1 car, but if the operator doesn't react in time, it will crash just as easily as that 1970's vehicle.

Things happen very quickly at 80 miles per hour and above. I'd surmise that 80 percent of people do not have the reaction times to drive in traffic at that speed.

Re:25 mph?

[Anonymous Coward]

hogwash.

In my city (in the netherlands) residential streets have a speed limit of 30km/h (~19mph).

I have yet to see a car which can't do that. If your car refuses to go that slow comfortably it's time for a visit to a mechanic for a tune-up.

Re:25 mph?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed

Put it in second or third gear? Sometimes it's like people don't even know how to drive a car.

Re:25 mph?

[TonyJohn]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.

Odd. My car drives at about that speed idling in third gear. It takes no effort at all. If I want a slower speed I pick a lower gear. It is a high volume production car with no mods.

Re:25 mph?

[Etherwalk]

It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed

Put it in second or third gear? Sometimes it's like people don't even know how to drive a car.

Yes, that would work, but almost nobody under the age of 40 changes gears when driving, so it doesn't solve the basic problem that you need to adjust the environment if you want speeds that slow.

Re:25 mph?

[Dog-Cow]

You are too stupid to be allowed to drive.

Re:25 mph?

[Calydor]

He might be American and have no idea how to drive a stick shift.

Re:25 mph?

[Etherwalk]

I suppose if you want to go ten mph or if you have it at cruise control at 19mph it might work. But if you're driving 25 in a small zone chances are you're on the pedals, and if you're actually trying to get somewhere a city you're going to want to be going 20-24 in the small 25mph zone, not waxing poetic as your car creeps along at ten. Hit the gas too hard and you're at 26, which is a double problem with photo cameras. Add to that that it just plain feels completely wrong when you're driving. They need to either change the roads so it's a driveway, or change the roads so that there is a physical encouragement to make the 24 mph be the sweet spot, and in the meantime drop the photo-ticketing at 26 mph.

Re:25 mph?

[MrL0G1C]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.

Utter crap. Does this mean you are not capable of driving your vehicle at 15mph or 10mph or 5mph? It must be excruciatingly difficult for you to drive at 5mph eh, god your brain must practically be hemorrhaging.

I had some kid run out in front of the car and the fact that I was only doing 15mph instead of the limit of 30mph is what stopped the kid from ending up dead or in hospital, the speed difference gave me the reaction time and stopping distance needed to avoid hitting the kid - with all of a few inches spare.

Re:25 mph?

[kaur]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen.
.. It means that the street should not be a public street at all.

Then you have not seen much.
Most of the world was populated BEFORE motorised vehicles arrived, and the cities are not designed around car traffic.
Visit any city outside US and you will see. Hell, even San Francisco or Boston would do.

I live on a street with 30 kph (19 mph) speed limit. The street is narrow, winding and currently completely covered in snow. It is nothing exceptional - all European cities older than 100 years have plenty of areas like this. Hilly towns add another layer of complexity to this. Get a car and drive some in Mediterranean, or Norway, or Switzerland and you will see.

Re:25 mph?

[MrL0G1C]

There is no necessity for you to drive fast around residential areas, you want to go fast, hit a highway or a racetrack or quit whinging, FML.

More info?

[stevegee58]

Link to original article, name of the professor please.

Re:More info?

[ldobehardcore]

Link to original article is in the header.

Re: More info?

[AlexSzczybor]

I'd like the link too

Re:More info?

[wbr1]

Paul Reynolds, http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/...

Re:25 mph?

[Etherwalk]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.

Utter crap. Does this mean you are not capable of driving your vehicle at 15mph or 10mph or 5mph? It must be excruciatingly difficult for you to drive at 5mph eh, god your brain must practically be hemorrhaging.

I had some kid run out in front of the car and the fact that I was only doing 15mph instead of the limit of 30mph is what stopped the kid from ending up dead or in hospital, the speed difference gave me the reaction time and stopping distance needed to avoid hitting the kid - with all of a few inches spare.

It means that ordinarily you don't have to think in order to concentrate to stay within the speed limit, because speed limits are generally chosen that make sense for the road. But when you are using stop-and-go traffic with speed limits which are designed for the safety of pedestrians on roads that are designed for and comfortable for faster traffic, and the vehicle is actually designed to make the faster speed the sweet spot, the amount of attention it takes to drive within the speed limit jumps up by about two orders of magnitude, as does the amount you have to take your eyes away from the road to check the speedometer.

I may have a different experience with it than you do--but it doesn't make one more valid than the other. The solution I propose would make the kids in a 25 mph zone safer and would make it easier for drivers to adhere to the limit. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Re:25 mph?

[Etherwalk]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen. .. It means that the street should not be a public street at all.

Then you have not seen much.

Most of the world was populated BEFORE motorised vehicles arrived, and the cities are not designed around car traffic.

Visit any city outside US and you will see. Hell, even San Francisco or Boston would do.

I live on a street with 30 kph (19 mph) speed limit. The street is narrow, winding and currently completely covered in snow. It is nothing exceptional - all European cities older than 100 years have plenty of areas like this. Hilly towns add another layer of complexity to this. Get a car and drive some in Mediterranean, or Norway, or Switzerland and you will see.

Fair enough. There are areas where 25 mph fits the road. But the story is set in North Carolina. It's not a ten-century old Italian town with narrow roads winding around the side of a hill. I suppose my claim is true primarily for most areas of the United States that do not have absurd amounts of traffic (so now downtown cities at rush hour).

Re:25 mph?

[drinkypoo]

If you had said 5 mph, you would have an argument. It actually is difficult to make a car go 5 mph. A lot of them won't even read their speed accurately when going that slowly. Hell, mine doesn't even indicate any speed less than 10 mph!

25, on the other hand, should be no problem whatsoever, and if it is, you should give up driving immediately and go back to walking, because you can't drive for shit.

Here is a Raspberry Pi version FYI

[pageauc]

Last summer I wrote a python opencv program for a Raspberry Pi computer and Pi camera module. This monitors in real time. It has a lower fps due the hardware capability but does work Ok when calibrated for the distance. Here is my YouTube video https://youtu.be/eRi50BbJUro github repo is here https://github.com/pageauc/mot.... This was just done for fun after reading a forum article on the subject.

Re:Here is a Raspberry Pi version FYI

[pageauc]

I agree that a sensor to measure speed/distance, connected to an arduino would do the job if you could position it near the road. The arduino solution would still need a computer to save and display data, trigger a camera for speed photo, Etc. Monitoring remotely using only a camera needs a bit more. At least the RPI can do all of the imaging, data processing, display as well as being able to communicate with the internet and other devices. Attaching a speed/distance sensor to the RPI would work as well. The arduino solution would be hard pressed to do this without the help of another computer attached in some way.

I like the small-town Mexican solution

[overshoot]

Take some discarded automotive parts (coil spring, shock absorber) and fine steel cable (the original reputedly used piano wire) and run it across the road under tension a few inches above the pavement. Go over it slowly (with the speed set by the shock absorber) and you never notice it's there. Go too fast and it slices the tire right off of the rim.

Re:I like the small-town Mexican solution

[Waccoon]

Of course this means that driving over the cable at slow speeds causes no damage or premature wear on the tires. It's never a problem if you don't notice.

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

"There is no necessity for you to drive fast around residential areas,"

Define "fast"? I don't consider 35 fast, certainly not 25. And some suburbs go on for miles.

I use Waze and put up hidden speed traps

[AlexSzczybor]

I consider this the electronic form of a homemade sign. Occasionally I put up messages like "slow down"

Re:I use Waze and put up hidden speed traps

[silas_moeckel]

So your polluting the commons by reporting false information.

Re:I use Waze and put up hidden speed traps

[tnurt]

I use 'Animal on Shoulder,' but you would not believe how many people I've run over while I was digging through the Hazard Selector looking for Child on Road. A real solution would be for the guy to just get a lobbyist. Then he could issue tickets himself and collect a little revenue to pay for his effort plus trickle a little down to the local government and even set up his own injured pedestrian foundation and don't forget the squirrels.

Re:25 mph?

[ldobehardcore]

Lol, someone claiming a reductio ad absurdum, then offers up a slippery slope as what we should really be afraid of.

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

People like would be the first to whine if there was no ambulance crew to collect you after you'd fallen off your pedal bike because they got stuck in slow traffic getting to work.

Re:Overkill

[Ashtead]

Loops in the road would work, but that would require permission from the city to make the grooves and put down the wire into the top layer of pavement. The non-contact nature of this camera approach does not require anything to be done to or on the actual road.

Dear black and whiter

[Anonymous Coward]

The context was *a residential street*. Stop generalizing something which was very obviously not meant to be general, that's just intellectually dishonest. Alternatively you're suggesting that you're too stupid to realize that.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[stdarg]

You're not considering that the 4 lane avenue is wider and probably busier, and thus scarier to kids. A sleepy residential street on the other hand is the kind that a kid might cross without really thinking about because 9 times out of 10 (or more) a car isn't coming.

Therefore you can't assume the streets have to be treated the same just because of proximity.

Re: Dear black and whiter

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your assumption that the residential public space is for cars. Why not "teach drivers that they are risking lives and need to slow down"?

Ultimately of course kids are kids and drivers are selfish. I strongly approve of dio called "traffic calming" to cause selfish drivers to protect themselves and their cars; resulting for safer public spaces for kids, pedestrians, pets, block parties, pickup soccer, and life in general.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[ultranova]

The residential street is 100m from a 35mph four lane avenue. No fence, no limits. What stops the same careless kid to step onto the avenue to the left, instead of the street in front?

The fact that it's a four lane avenue rather than a residential street. Kids aren't generally stupid, just inexperienced about entitled assholes who think they're above the law.

Following the "think of the careless children!" reasoning, we'd either have to:

No, we don't "have to". We also have the option of simply enforcing existing speed limits with a special emphasis on residential streets and other low-limit areas. Just make the fine proportional to ((speed - limit) / limit) and unwillingness to enforce shouldn't be an issue anymore.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Immerman]

Don't forget to also make it proportional to the income of the offender, or you still get self-important assholes who consider speeding tickets to just be the trivial "driving as fast as I want tax".

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Archangel Michael]

I grew up less than 100M from a busy 4 lane street, where traffic often moves at 40MPH. The street where I grew up, was "sleepy" except for the idiots who thought that 40MPH traffic was too slow, and went 50 MPH down my street (25MPH residential) to get around the "slow" mainstreet. And now, with apps like WAZE telling people how to bypass the busy streets for the less busy streets, the road I grew up on, is no longer safe for kids, at anytime.

What I don't get, is why people feel the need to justify Speeding down Residential streets where kids want to play, simply because they are inconvenienced by normal traffic.

Following your logic, we would need a $50,000/6 Month traffic study to justify wanting 25 MPH residential street speeds for every neighborhood that wanted them. Here's a fucking thought, how about you drive 25MPH in a residential neighborhood, and if you can't, then don't drive those streets.

People complaining about residential neighborhoods aren't the ones that usually live there.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Archangel Michael]

So, you're the selfish twit that drives 50 MPH on a residential street, expecting kids to dodge your car. Got it.

Re: Dear black and whiter

[Obfuscant]

Ultimately of course kids are kids and drivers are selfish.

Why not teach kids not to run into ANY street, to cross at the crosswalks, to look both ways, and that the people who live on that street need to be able to drive away from their homes so they can go to work and earn a living to feed those very same children? Of course, drivers are drivers and kids are selfish...

; resulting for safer public spaces for kids, pedestrians, pets, block parties, pickup soccer, and life in general.

There are other places than the middle of the street for "block parties" and playing soccer; places where cars are absolutely prohibited. So you suggest the selfish attitude that you can run a soccer match anywhere you like instead of in a place devoid of any possible car-player interaction?

And "life in general" is untrue. When fire response is slowed because they cannot navigate the streets safely in a timely way, people die. That's a fact.

I've been through this "traffic calming debate" over my residential street. People who wanted their kids to play in the middle of the street, or were just tired of other people driving by. People drive "too fast", they said.

So I did exactly what this guy did -- fifteen years ago. It's not rocket science. You take a video camera and a digitizer. You write a bit of software that gathers all the pixels that fall on a line from point A to point B on the street and store just those, because those are all you need. You measure the distance from point A to point B on the street. You look in the images for blobs moving along that line and time how long it takes for them to get from A to B. Distance divided by time -- speed. It's good enough for government work, because that is effectively the same way the government measured the speeds on our street. Pneumatic tubes separated by X distance.

I brought my results to the public meeting about the plan to deliberately degrade the road I've been paying taxes to maintain. I talked to the city engineer in charge of such stuff, showed him my numbers. He said yeah, they were the same as what he'd measured, but the city reports the results in a way that artificially inflates the "mean" speed. My numbers showed there was no speed issue.

I also pointed out that there was no speed limit sign on our street until almost a block after the end where people on a higher limit street turned onto it. They turn from a 35MPH zone onto a 25MPH zoned street but aren't told of the change until a block later. If speed is an issue, why isn't the street marked better? The engineer said that wasn't a problem because speeds were lower there anyway due to more cars being parked there on a regular basis.

Eventually the plan was dropped. Thank goodness. And we've had just the same number of gruesome deaths on our street before the plan was proposed as after it was dropped. Zero.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Obfuscant]

the road I grew up on, is no longer safe for kids, at anytime.

How about the time when they are standing on the sidewalk and not playing in the middle of a place designed for the transit of multi-ton vehicles? Are they still unsafe then?

What I don't get, is why people feel the need to justify Speeding down Residential streets where kids want to play, simply because they are inconvenienced by normal traffic.

Yeah, that's a problem. But the answer is not to deliberately degrade public streets so you cannot physically drive faster than ten miles an hour less than the speed limit on them. Honest, law abiding citizens get punished for the acts of a few, and that's not a good answer.

It also hinders emergency response, so even people without cars who live on that street are endangered by "traffic calming" devices.

Re: Dear black and whiter

[KenHansen]

Why offer poor people a discount for speeding? Can someone on public assistance speed without a penalty?

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Archangel Michael]

The street I grew up on was designed for horses, not multi-ton vehicles.

Or are you saying kids should have to transverse a mile of crosswalks to play in a park infested with transients simply to avoid commuters looking for "shortcut"?

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Obfuscant]

The street I grew up on was designed for horses, not multi-ton vehicles.

I didn't know you were that old. I am sure that if it is still a street, it has been reworked to handle multi-ton vehicles, otherwise, there is little danger of children being hit by them today. I mean, the horsepath you lived on would be impassible by today's modern conveyances.

Or are you saying kids should have to transverse a mile of crosswalks to play in a park infested with transients simply to avoid commuters looking for "shortcut"?

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I'm sure they are quite safe from cars when they cross the horse paths that you grew up with.

Re: Dear black and whiter

[Immerman]

Who said anything about a discount? A $50 fine means a poor person doesn't eat that week, while the rich person won't even notice it compared to the cost of the drink they had with lunch. Why shouldn't the rich person be equally penalized?

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Archangel Michael]

You said the street was designed for multi-ton vehicles, I corrected you, the street was designed for horses, and adapted for multi-ton vehicles. The street existed long before cars.

But I get it, you're one of those assholes who think that ruining someone else's neighborhood for your convenience is okay. The only solution is to block the roads with guard houses for neighborhoods like they do in the Philippines ...

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/...

Re:Dear black and whiter

[lsatenstein]

The context was *a residential street*. Stop generalizing something which was very obviously not meant to be general, that's just intellectually dishonest. Alternatively you're suggesting that you're too stupid to realize that.

SPEED BUMPS WORK!
In the beginning we saw many cars launched into space. As they flew though the air, for the two to three feet, we watched the amazed eyes of the teenager driver as the car fell back down to it's shock absorbers.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[stoatwblr]

The best speed bumps are 12 to 15 feet across and 6 inches high in the middle. The faster you go, the bigger the launch.

The stupid 12 inch across ones have less effect on a car the faster the car's going when it encounters them.

The downside is that people slow down for them and then floor it afterwards, making for pollution hotspots and noise issues.

The fastest way to slow down traffic is quite simple:

1: Widen the footpaths to make...
2 ...the road width narrow enough so that when cars are parked on both sides, traffic can't travel in both directions.
3: Put a high curb to make sure assholes don't park on the footpath, however a few sets of footprints over the vehicle can make the point quite well.

Instant slowdown. no speedbumps needed

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Obfuscant]

You said the street was designed for multi-ton vehicles, I corrected you, the street was designed for horses, and adapted for multi-ton vehicles.

"Adapted" requires design. They didn't just pour a layer of concrete over the horsepath and call it good. There are people who get paid to do this stuff and they don't let it get done without their input.

But I get it, you're one of those assholes who think that ruining someone else's neighborhood for your convenience is okay.

You're one of those assholes who will put words in other people's mouths when you cannot browbeat them into agreeing with you. I did not say anything about ruining someone else's neighborhood and you know it. Other people have the right to use public streets no matter how much you don't like it, and the taxpayers who paid for that street have the right to object to deliberate degradation of the street just to force people to drive below the speed limit.

Streets are neither designed nor intended for children to play in. They are designed (yes, even when a horse path is converted to a street) for cars. Cars and children do not mix. Those streets are also not designed for "block parties".

So, if you think that keeping children from playing in the street or having a "block party" somewhere besides in the middle of a road is "destroying" a neighborhood, then you are one of those self-entitled assholes who thinks that public facilities belong to you instead of the public as a whole.

There, I insulted you using the same terms you thought were appropriate to apply to me because I disagree with you. Wasn't that fun and productive? How about suppressing your urge to resort to such insults next time? Oh, how dare I suggest that.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[RockDoctor]

SPEED BUMPS WORK!

...but not very well.

My former address was on a street built in the late 1930s, with the expectation that the road would be used for deliveries and no-one would actually own a vehicle. So, no-off-road parking space. When I moved there in the early 1990s, maybe 1/3 of the houses had cars (obviously there was no off-road parking). When I moved away most houses had a car. Obviously the road was packed with parked cars, with only one lane for both directions of traffic.

Speed bumps were installed at every leg of every junction, and that dropped speeds by about 5 - 8 mph, though people were still speeding between the bumps. An improvement, but not a great improvement.

When I moved out, I went to an area where the roads had been designed with car ownership in mind, so every house had at least one parking space off-road (and one house still had four cars!). But more importantly, there was no straight stretch of road longer than about 10 metres. Everywhere was twists and turns ; corners were abrupt ; parking bays (for guests or deliveries) swapped from one side to the other unpredictably. Driving along the road was limited to about 10mph - far slower than on the road retro-fitted with speed humps.

Speed humps are better than nothing, but designing roads to slow traffic is much more effective. Speed humps are only a cheap retro-fit solution to roads designed without the needs of pedestrians in mind.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Swave An deBwoner]

Often the transition from a high-speed road to a low-speed (e.g., "residential") road is essentially seamless, and drivers don't get the immediate feedback needed for them to quickly adjust their vehicle's speed even if they wanted to (and some don't).

That's where making the slower road less easily navigable comes in. When a driver sees a tree or a concrete pillar directly in front of him, he will usually slow down and begin to pay more attention the road.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, that's a problem. But the answer is not to deliberately degrade public streets so you cannot physically drive faster than ten miles an hour less than the speed limit on them. Honest, law abiding citizens get punished for the acts of a few, and that's not a good answer.

Tough shit. As I posted in a previous post, some asshole who had to go down our 25 mile an hour street at 55 was going to be hit with a deliberate maze of our cars parked as far out in the street as possible. Fortunately, the local cop I tipped off to her playing NASCAR nailed her with a couple of tickets and made certain her insurance rates went up. She drives a nice 25 mph down the street now.

But the neighbors and I will do it if we need to. And do stop by to complain, we'll give your license number to our buddy and you can have further discussions with him, because people who speed in residential zones usually speed everywhere.

Re:Dear black and whiter

[Ol Olsoc]

The street I grew up on was designed for horses, not multi-ton vehicles.

Or are you saying kids should have to transverse a mile of crosswalks to play in a park infested with transients simply to avoid commuters looking for "shortcut"?

So many people believe that their right to drive whatever speed they desire, down any street they desire is somewhere in the constitution. They tend to believe they are superior drivers, have almost superhuman reflexes, and that laws are for other people.

I know it is fashionable on slashdot to jump on the "Won't someone think of the Children?" meme, but some of these folk better hope they never kill a kid, and their posting behavior is illuminated in a criminal or civil trial.

Because it is our neighborhood, it is our children's neighborhood. and they are a guest in it. And we rather like our children, and if some asshat thinks that reckless disregard for them is also a right, well, they might just find our reactions less than accomodating.

Re:25 mph?

[ldobehardcore]

Could you try that again, in English?

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

"Many roads in London are being limited to 20mph|"

Only by car hating left wing councils.

"a lot of the time the traffic wasn't going faster than that anyway."

Not in the day maybe. Try 2am instead then tell me 20mph is a sensible limit.

OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[The Cornishman]

> exponentially
Nope. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed v:
ke ~ v^2
"Exponentially" means ke ~ C^v for some constant C, which it isn't.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[MrL0G1C]

Which has f' all to do with the fact that a car travelling at 20mph is not likely to kill someone it hits and a car travelling at 30mph is massively more likely to kill anyone it hits.

I see nothing in your calculation about the probability of brain damage or death from high speed collisions.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Gr8Apes]

A car traveling 10mph is less likely to kill someone it hits. A car traveling at 5mph is even less likely. Let's make all cars travel at 5mph because... "think of the kids!!!!"

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[The Cornishman]

That's because I'm not offering any such calculation. OT means off-topic, right? I just pointed out that, somewhat like "literally", the term "exponentially" is being abused.

As far as calculation goes, the energy of a collision between two objects at a relative 30 mph is exactly 1.5^2 = 2.25 times larger than one between the same two objects at 20 mph, so yes, of course the damage is much larger. Nothing I wrote should be seen as favouring high speeds, rather just exact use of language.

Re: OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[The Cornishman]

Hi, AC. Yes, I understood what I wrote. Where the exponent in a function is a constant (in this case 2), that function is polynomial. An exponential function has the parameter in the exponent. The energy in a collision is not an exponential function of the speed. Sheesh, Slashdot used to be populated with geeks!

You can brush up yourself, at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialGrowth.html

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

the term "exponentially" is being abused.

No. Unless you're talking about x^1, exponentially is not being abused. What else are you going to call it? Linear? What's your threshold for exponential? x^3?

Re: OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

Exponential function is not the same as an exponential relationship. You're using the term "exponential function" as equivalent to exponential.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[suutar]

I think technically it ought to be called "quadratic", but not many would understand that.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[epine]

the energy of a collision

Yes, but the energy/time (power) goes up closer to the cube, because the delta_t smunch (for a head-on collision, or large solid object) also diminishes with impact velocity (though, like a memristor, you can work up counterexamples).

Like the modern-day paleolithic societies that can only count "one, two, many" it goes "linear, quadratic, exponential" in the vocabulary of most STEM fugitives.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[omnichad]

You're referring to the equation itself. Not the relationship. That's a different usage of the word exponential. The inverse square law is another example of a (quadratic) physics equation describing an exponential relationship.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

Yes, it is. The "threshold" for exponential is that your variable is in the exponent. Full Stop.
1.0001 ^ x = exponential
x ^ 238762340985723409 = polynomial

In terms of growth rates, exponential growth is directly proportional to the current size of the population (or in terms of the geometry of the graph, the slope of the curve is a constant multiple of its current value). Also, given a large enough value for x an exponential growth function will always eventually become larger than any given polynomial, though for practical purposes that may not be relevant.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Immerman]

That would be true if kinetic energy were the value under consideration. However, we're not discussing the kinetic energy of impact, we're discussing the probability of serious bodily harm. And the human body's resistance to injury is potentially extremely nonlinear with respect to the kinetic energy of the impact. Whether it's exponential or not... I have no idea.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[suutar]

yep. But unless you can point to a name for the relationship based on a quadratic equation (I haven't found one), I figure following the trend of "the relationship is named after the equation" is the way to go, because "exponential relationship" has a specific definition, which is that the variable is in the exponent, not the base.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[doggo]

I see this crap all the time in my neighborhood. People seem to think traffic regulations don't apply *to them*. Entitlement is ubiquitous.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[IcyHando'Death]

the term "exponentially" is being abused.

No. Unless you're talking about x^1, exponentially is not being abused. What else are you going to call it? Linear? What's your threshold for exponential? x^3?

So it's true...all the nerds really have abandoned Slashdot. We now have a place where the parent comment, which a high-school algebra student should recognize as foolish, gets modded "Insightful". I think I've finally had enough of this place.

So where do the cool kids hang out now? Oh my god, look who I'm asking!

For the record: x^2 is quadratic, x^3 cubic, x^4 quartic, etc., c^x is expontential

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[HornWumpus]

On the flip side I've seen idiots put up private 15 mph signs.

I made a point to run that sign over, every time I went buy in the beater.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

Also at 20mph it is much more easy to stop quickly.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

I had a coworker like this. Loud, brash, supremely confident that he knew how to do it. Either how to speed safely, or how to win money in Vegas, etc.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

You may have someplace to be but it won't matter when you're spending time in jail because your schedule will be cleared up.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Darinbob]

Because we've actually measured stopping distances at various speeds, we know what people's reaction times are. Sure the kid could jump out into the street just one foot in front of you, but if the kid chases a ball two houses away will you have enough time to stop. That's why you do not drive 50mph in front of a school that's in session unless you're a moron; and yet there are people who think it's possible for them. For a school the law here says 25mph, but I am personally dropping to 15-20 in that situation. If you are indeed in a hurry then use an express road rather than speeding through a residential neighborhood.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Jack Griffin]

Which has f' all to do with the fact that a car travelling at 20mph is not likely to kill someone it hits and a car travelling at 30mph is massively more likely to kill anyone it hits.

Couple of issues with this "Logic":
1. What are the increased/decreased chances of being "hit" at various speeds? Without this data, any claims are bunk
2. If 20mph is better than 30mph, that implies 10mph is better than 20mph, and 5 is better than 10, and 1 is better than 5. Applying your exact same logic, should the speed limit be zero (The only truly 'safe' speed)?

Re: OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[StikyPad]

It's not just stopping distance. Energy = mass * velocity squared, so getting hit at 35MPH is twice as energetic as getting hit at 25MPH.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would speed on a residential street unless they haven't thought about it at all. Car doors can open at any time, people can be backing out of their driveway, and of course, kids and pets can run out into the street at any time. I just sort of assume it's going to happen and give every blind spot a wide berth and/or slow down a bit more than 25MPH.

I am the second fastest vehicle you will see on the highway (because the other guy can have that prize in the form of a ticket) but there are just too many potential hazards on a residential street. Even if you, dear reader, believe that a kid deserves to get hit, by you, for running into the street in front of his house just as much as if he ran into a freeway, an accident still takes up hours of time to resolve, and potentially years in jail for killing a pedestrian, if that happens, and you happened to have been speeding. At best, you're spending lots of money for a good lawyer, and many days at criminal trial, not to mention the wrongful death civil trial that's sure to follow. It's just a shitty risk/reward ratio, in purely selfish terms. Make up that time on the freeway, or by making sure you're not staring at your phone the next time the light turns green, or by learning to merge properly so as not to cause traffic jams.

God, I can't wait for autonomous vehicles to be mandated.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[MrL0G1C]

"Applying your exact same logic, should the speed limit be zero (The only truly 'safe' speed)?"

Indeed and that is why I support closing down through roads to rat-running, allowing only bikes and pedestrians through to encourage cycling and walking and to reduce injuries and deaths from unnecessary traffic around where people live.

The simple fact is there are far too many serious injuries and deaths here in the UK and the US is twice as bad, so 30mph isn't suitable in residential area here, note - higher speeds on some main roads is ok depending on circumstances. Some London Boroughs have changed to 20mph and life goes on.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[Jack Griffin]

Indeed and that is why I support closing down through roads to rat-running, allowing only bikes and pedestrians through to encourage cycling and walking and to reduce injuries and deaths from unnecessary traffic around where people live.

Only some roads? Why not all? If it's unsafe why do you accept that in some places and not others?
Those bikes and pedestrians will also operate at some speed (otherwise they won't move). Can't some pedant then apply your same speed kills "logic" to your same solution until no-one moves ever?

The simple fact is there are far too many serious injuries and deaths here in the UK and the US is twice as bad, so 30mph isn't suitable in residential area here, note - higher speeds on some main roads is ok depending on circumstances. Some London Boroughs have changed to 20mph and life goes on.

You're failing this logic thing again.
How many is too many?
Why isn't 30mph suitable?
What is a suitable speed?
What method do you use to determine this?
Can't then your same argument be used against any number you come up with?
Higher speeds are ok when?
By what definition?

I really think you should change name, because it's very misleading. Unless it's some kind of irony that I've missed.

Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[dl_sledding]

Cars kill. We should ban all cars. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!

If we can't get that, then we should ban all cars with horsepower above 10, or with spoilers, or electric windows, because these enhancements make the vehicle into an assault vehicle, and no one really needs these options anyway. Also, it shouldn't hold more than 5 gallons of gas, and it should only be 80 octane gas, all other high-powered gas should only be sold to government agencies or, of course, private security firms.

The proof that the only use of cars is contained in the fact that 32,719 people were killed by cars in 2013. Look at the road rage, look at the GTA, look at the drunk drivers.

Think of the children!!!

Re: OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy.

[dl_sledding]

Well said.

I hope that we see, in our lifetime, the autonomous vehicle take over for human driving. I believe that will lower the number of roadway fatalities by a massive amount.

Re: This is a site for the technically competent?

[fistfullast33l]

I'm on mobile, and there is no link I can see next to the headline. This is the first article I've seen like this in...ever?

postal codes

[dltaylor]

Several years ago, it was decided to standardize the abbreviations for the various states in the USofA. I presume that however it was decided, it was partly for readability. Way back when, an envelope might have "California", "Calif." (quite common), or "Cal", or whatever, making it difficult to quickly route mail.

VirginiA is VA, VermonT is VT, for example, but that pattern is not universal, as CAlifornia, ORegon, and WAshington are CA, OR, and WA, respectively.

If only the initial letter of the state is used in an abbreviation, the UV, could be University of Virginia, University of Vermont, or UltraViolet, so sometimes the longer form is used.

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

Oh wosdamatter diddums, can't think of a riposte so try for a deflection? Bless.

Re:25 mph?

[ldobehardcore]

Eh. I was hoping to argue with a smart person. I guess I'll have to swallow my disappointment.

This speed limit is reckless

[coats]

It is very well established in the civil engineering literature how to set the speed limit for safety. Outside of exceptional circumstances the best rule is to establish the speed limit at the 85th percentile of traffic speeds (i.e., so that 85% of the traffic is going less than that limit). Unfortunately, politicians think they know better than the established engineering. They think that their wishes trump the facts.

Those who set that speed limit are acting in reckless disregard for the safety of the public. As is that CS professor--and he should know better!

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[jratcliffe]

It is very well established in the civil engineering literature how to set the speed limit for vehicle usersafety.

That 85% rule of thumb might work well for an Interstate highway, but it's a terrible metric for a local street, where the priority should be the safety of pedestrians.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Trickster Paean]

I don't know. LMGTFY. Here's two links from that google search on "speed limit 85th percentile."

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/eng_spd_lmts/

If you do a Google scholar search with those same terms, you bring up a number of traffic studies.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Trickster Paean]

The 85th percentile works well for most streets, even local streets, and various traffic studies have backed this up, noting no increase in accident rates even with increases in speed. Most people will drive in a reasonably safe and prudent fashion, and won't go faster than they think is safe for them to drive on the road. The biggest problem is when there are road conditions or hazards that won't be immediately apparent to the average driver.

And that happens often in narrow residential streets, where there is less traffic, the traffic is intermittent, or there are other concerns like frequent pedestrian crossings of the road. In those cases, reductions in traffic speed are certainly justified and rational, and uniform lower traffic speeds on residential streets is certainly one way to achieve that. The speed limit on the road I live on is 25 mph, and I certainly don't like it when people speed through it.

But in general, if you have a road, most drivers are going to drive a speed that they think is safe, regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I've read traffic studies of a four lane road near my house. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. In the study, over 50% the cars were going faster than that, and the study justified a speed limit of 40 mph. People drove at speeds they considered to be reasonably safe, and they will continue to do so even if a lower posted speed limit is set. Speed limit enforcement is of limited value in those cases, because it will only be effective during periods of strict enforcement. Once the cops are gone, people go back to their speeding ways.

If you really want to lower the speeds of cars on the road, you have to do other things, like install traffic bumps or other obstacles that slow or interrupt the flow of traffic, not merely set a speed limit.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Ichijo]

According to the first link:

Use of the 85th percentile speed concept is based on the theory that: the large majority of drivers: are reasonable and prudent

Unfortunately, 80% of participants in one study rated themselves as above-average drivers. This disproves the above theory that "the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent."

So the rationale behind the 85th percentile rule doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

If you have any further doubts that traffic engineers are raving lunatics, please watch this short video created by a recovering engineer. It's absolute madness.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[HiThere]

Actually I feel that 25 mph is too fast on a residential area street. Unfortunately most cars seem to be so designed that it becomes increasingly difficult to drive as you go slower than about 25 mph. But I've seen 4 year olds driving their toy cars enter the street without looking. I've seen 6 year olds chase a ball into the street without looking. And they often aren't dressed to be particularly visible.

Residential areas should not be driven faster than about 15 mph between the hours of 10am and 9pm. This is just a rule of thumb, and depends on the composition of families in the neighborhood...but a driver can't tell. And people have a poor estimate of their reaction time in a high velocity situation. (I consider even 10 mph to be a high velocity situation...that's faster than most people run, or even sprint.) There are good reasons why suburbs are composed of small residential streets pierced through by arterial roads. The fast traffic should ALL be on the arterials.

P.S.: I'm responding to the discussion, not to the article, which I haven't read, so I don't know what kind of street he set up his "speed trap" on.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Grishnakh]

Right, that's why you design the road so that people naturally don't want to drive so fast on it. It's called "traffic calming": make the road narrower, windier, put in circles to drive around, then people won't want to drive as fast, and your 85th percentile speed will go down.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[KGIII]

Hmm... I guess you could say that's informative? I'm a traffic modeler who, well... Hmm... You could say that I helped change the industry. I worked as, more or less, a traffic engineer. I'd submit a couple of things... That's probably something decided by a traffic engineer and not a civil engineer - though the two are not dissimilar, one is a more specific subset than the other, if you'll allow me to be a bit rough. I'd like to also submit that, while often quoted, I don't actually don't think you fully understand that 85% thing.

Well, for starters, it's 50% and 85%. That's not actually, entirely, about safety. It's about 'credibility.' Yup... Safety is in there but it's about not having a stupidly unbelievably low speed-limit. The safety is actually in that it is not ignored. Just letting a bunch of random people drive the road and setting it to 85% is not quite how it is done. It's kind of complicated and entails many, many things. I'm going to presume that you don't actually want to understand all this information.

If you do want to understand than you can start at this link:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/spe...

So, starting from there... Well, do you actually want to discuss the rest of your conclusions or?

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[HornWumpus]

Unrelated statistics prove nothing.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[KGIII]

Oh, I forgot to add...

It's about what 85% of the people will obey - not about the actual speed they drive. I should have made that a bit more clear. It actually... Err... It actually makes you a bit less correct but I can't speak for this particular stretch of road.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Trickster Paean]

Again, I'm concerned with pedestrian safety. As for the lowering the speeds aspect, I agree, physical changes help, but they're not entirely necessary. Speed cams, coupled with effective enforcement, work well too. First time somebody goes 35 in a 25 zone, and gets hit with a $200 ticket, they'll start to modify their behavior.

That's true for a while. However, studies on the long-term efficacy of enforcement have mostly shown that enforcement has an effect for a while, and then wears off once enforcement goes away. So a community must be willing to accept long-term strict enforcement if that's going to work. Otherwise, once the police are gone, people eventually go back to their speeding ways. Speed cameras are effective, but publicity and warning signs are necessary for actually getting people to slow down. I think if a community is really concerned about pedestrian safety, the best way to do that means separating pedestrians from cars, and where they can't be separated, forcing cars to slow down, preferably by physical alterations like speed bumps, traffic circles, and other measures.

The DOT has a summary of various speed research in the page below, with some notes on the efficacy of enforcement :
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/speed.cfm

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Trickster Paean]

No, what the study you cite shows is that people are bad at evaluating themselves. The fact that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent is proved by the accident rate of cars on the road and how low it usually it. Otherwise, there would be far more accidents, far more injuries, and far more fatalities than there are. But that's not where the 85th percentile comes from. That comes from statistics and empirical research.

The rationale behind the 85th percentile rule is statistical, that traffic speeds follow a normal distribution, and that the mean speed plus one standard deviation approximates the 85th percentile speed for a normally distributed sample of speeds. Speeds over the 85th percentile are more than one standard deviation over the mean. Two standard deviations over the mean will get you the 95th percentile, and speeds in that region are where enforcement should be concentrated.

And generally, when you look at traffic studies, studies of the speeds of passing cars on the road, that's what you find: speeds follow a normal distribution for most roads. People drive speeds that they believe are safe, regardless of the posted speed limit, and it generally follows a normal distribution.

I believe that the recovering engineer you link to would agree with me that in designing roads, speed limits, and other traffic features, we have to take into account what people actually do, not simply what we tell them to do. This isn't a blind engineering standard: this is based off studies of how people actually behave when they are driving. You can find multiple engineering and traffic surveys done by cities in California on the web (partly because to enforce their speeding tickets they have to do the surveys), and see the actual data, see the bell curves of speeds time after time.

Setting speed limits without regard to how people actually behave and drive is madness. It encourages disrespect for the law, reduces compliance where speeds are reduced because of road conditions that aren't readily apparent, and in general, makes driving less safe. The 85th percentile rule is grounded in science. It isn't the most important thing to consider when setting speed limits (that would be actual accident rates), but it should always be considered.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Ichijo]

The fact that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent is proved by the accident rate of cars on the road and how low it usually it.

Compared to what? Exactly how many crashes would make the crash rate no longer be low, and how would you objectively determine this number? The answer to this question is important in determining whether the rate if crashes is truly "low."

The 85th percentile rule is grounded in science.

From 1964, to be exact, before airbags and crumple zones reduced the need to avoid crashes.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[Jack Griffin]

Actually I feel that 25 mph is too fast on a residential area street.

Good thing policy is deciding on more than just your feelings eh?
I can't see how anyone can argue for a single number to represent every single residential street ever built. I drive at whatever speed I feel like, and find some streets you have to go slower, and some allow you a bit more freedom. Road safety requires that users buy into the rules and play along. If you simply set super strict speed limits that make no sense, people won't go along with it, and hence you end up with a good portion of the population ignoring stupid speed limits.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[jratcliffe]

That's true for a while. However, studies on the long-term efficacy of enforcement have mostly shown that enforcement has an effect for a while, and then wears off once enforcement goes away. So a community must be willing to accept long-term strict enforcement if that's going to work. Otherwise, once the police are gone, people eventually go back to their speeding ways. Speed cameras are effective, but publicity and warning signs are necessary for actually getting people to slow down. I think if a community is really concerned about pedestrian safety, the best way to do that means separating pedestrians from cars, and where they can't be separated, forcing cars to slow down, preferably by physical alterations like speed bumps, traffic circles, and other measures.

The DOT has a summary of various speed research in the page below, with some notes on the efficacy of enforcement :
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...

Totally agree with you. Road alterations are best, speed cameras second best.

Re:This speed limit is reckless

[ebvwfbw]

It still applies for the same reasons. If there really are pedestrians and such, 85% of the people will be going slower because there is a problem.

The real problem is a lot of people want to abdicate their responsibilities. Like the street outside is a campus or something. Everyone just do 10 MPH, don't even bother to look both ways. Don't worry about kids either. Dumb hippies.

Live in the real world, teach the kids like us kids 50 and older were taught.

Re:25 mph?

[thebigmacd]

Um...no not crazy. Most people drive automatics...you put it in drive until you get to your destination. No gear changes required by the driver.

Pedestrians are squishy

[Anonymous Coward]

In my city, we've had a trend lately of pedestrians being wiped out by cars. Most of the occurrences have been on major roads where there are 3 or 4 lanes in each direction and there are marked crosswalks in certain areas. Of course the pedestrians who have been hit were not crossing at the crosswalks. In one instance, a pedestrian was hit by 3 separate cars. Each time the local news reports about a new incident, they always make sure to throw in that 'the police are investigating who was at fault'.

Therein lies the problem. If you think that you should be able to freely walk into the road where there are cars travelling, you are part of the fucking problem. Changing the speed limits to accommodate your particular idiocy, alarmism and lack of personal responsibility will NEVER solve the problem. What solves this problem is having the pedestrians cross at the marked crosswalks (there are shittons of them, I know from experience because I have to stop at about 8 of them in a stretch of 2 miles of my commute).

PSA for the idiot parents reading this article: your kids are not special and vehicles will still splatter them all over the roadway. The problem isn't the vehicles, the problem is your kid walked into the roadway because their parents did not a) supervise them closely when crossing the street while young AND b) instill in them an understanding and appreciation of using marked crosswalks in order to not walk randomly into the road in front of cars.

Re:25 mph?

[Etherwalk]

Maybe 3% of the cars in the US have stick shifts. Of cars with automatic transmissions, most people put it into drive and leave it there. The only exceptions I have every seen, aside from dealing with mountains, trailers, and other specialized situations, are older drivers who will sometimes downshift the automatic.

Re:25 mph?

[thegarbz]

It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly

In first gear without the foot on the accelerator, or with an automatic without your foot on the accelerator cars do about 5kph and are easily overtaken by mothers pushing prams.

If you find driving slow too difficult then maybe you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery. ... or be near anything hard.

"85%"

[Dereck1701]

"You'll find that almost 85 percent of the cars going by are violators"

Then your speed limit is set too low, unless there is some compelling reason for it to be that low speed limits should be set by the average traffic speed (within reason). I think my state even has a law to that effect.

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I highly doubt that law says what you think it says. The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so.

Re:"85%"

[Drethon]

If I remember correctly, the Michigan law is that the speed limit must be set so that 85% (maybe 65%?) of the traffic is driving at or under the speed limit. Unless the street has a certain number of driveways per mile, in that case it can be considered residential and have a 25 MPH speed limit.

Re:"85%"

[Drethon]

"Plenty of research has shown that the safest group of vehicles are traveling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. At the 85th to 90th percentiles we tend to find drivers with above average skill and competence, and this is why their crash risk is the lowest. Above the 90th percentile we tend to find drivers exceeding safe limits and their accident risk increases as a consequence. Note that the "average" driver at the 50% percentile has a greater crash risk than the 85th percentile driver. Below the 30th percentile crash risk is significantly increased and these speeds tend to be used by less skilled and competent drivers." http://www.michigan.gov/docume...

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Good grief. Where to begin?

1. You said your state has a law. What you provided was (sort of -- see #2 below) a booklet by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you live in Michigan and didn't just paste in the first Google hit you found, this isn't a Michigan law.
2. The text you put in quotation marks before the web link isn't in the linked document. You seem to have stitched the two together. Back to my Google hit theory.
3. Right out of the chute on page 3, the booklet (first written back in the 70s, mind you) discusses the increasingly blurred distinction between rural and urban areas and thus the need to establish "modified speed limits in these transitions between rural and urban areas." This would be your first clue that this booklet might not be about setting speed limits in residential neighborhoods.
4. Removing all doubt, on page 7 the booklet discusses the difference between statutory speed limits (i.e., those actually set by the legislature) and modified speed limits (those set by administrative agencies). It explains that modified speed limits are "utilized in areas requiring speed limits between the statutory maximum speed limits on state and county roadways and the 25 mph prima facie speed limits in business and residential areas." Then at the bottom of the page, it says: "The remainder of this booklet describes how modified speed limits are established..."

So, in sum, even ignoring the fact that the quote and citation you provided don't match, you, in the midst of a discussion about speed limits in residential neighborhoods, provided as support of your contention that residential speed limits should be determined by some kind of a prevailing speed rule, a booklet that says in so many words that it doesn't apply to residential speed limits, which are universally set (by Michigan statute) at 25 mph. Your source actually contradicts your position rather than supporting it.

Re:"85%"

[Drethon]

You never said your house qualified as a residential area. That law has upped the speed limit on plenty of four lane streets that have lots of houses with driveways on those streets.

I don't have time to track down the specific law as everything comes up with discussions about upping our highway speed limits to 80 and it was about four or five years ago the city I live in was forced by the state to up the speed limit on a number of streets for the 85% law (maybe it is a regulation or something).

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

You never said your house qualified as a residential area.

Irrelevant distraction. Your original comment I responded to wasn't, of course, directed to the speed limit going by my house -- it was directed to the speed limit going by the professor's house, described as: "the neighborhood's 25mph limit" "on his residential neighborhood street." Strike two.

Re:"85%"

[Jack Griffin]

The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so.

No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.
Just because it feels bad to you, doesn't make it bad. This is why science was invented.

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.

Crashing isn't the point in a residential neighborhood. In that kind of a situation, things change rapidly -- one moment you're gunning down the street seeing nothing in front of you, the next moment a pet or a kid has run out in the street. As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting. The faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop and the more damage you do when you can't stop, and that doesn't change simply because everyone else around you is being just as short-sighted and selfish as you are.

This is why science was invented.

Ah, the "because science -- shut up" meme has reached the reckless driving community. Since you went there, please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Thanks.

Re:"85%"

[Jack Griffin]

Crashing isn't the point in a residential neighborhood. In that kind of a situation, things change rapidly -- one moment you're gunning down the street seeing nothing in front of you, the next moment a pet or a kid has run out in the street.

And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents. And you could measure those rates against such claims. Since that isn't the case, "reckless" is a description that exists only in your head, which the scientific method has proven time and time again to be flawed.

Ah, the "because science -- shut up" meme has reached the reckless driving community.

There is a reckless driving "community"? Interesting...

Since you went there, please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Thanks.

Sure
When you work it out, come back and we'll discuss further....

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents.

Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes: There are. Thousands of them. Educate yourself.

* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.

Re:"85%"

[Jack Griffin]

Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes:

Um are we even having the same discussion?
Now let me break it down since you clearly missed it:
You: "As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting."
This is called a claim. Using the scientific method, there is now a burden of proof on you to back this claim up with some evidence.
Nothing you have posted backs this up, in fact most of what I saw in *your* links concurs that street design has the biggest impact in road improving safety. The 85% rule is still applies.

the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.

Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash. And like most ideologists, your first reaction when faced with questioning of your religion was a personal attack. How is that working out for you?

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash.

Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.

This is called a claim.

Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe. If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.

Nothing you have posted backs this up [blah blah it's not my fault shut up blah blah]

If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion. Feel free to change that if you can. I'll not hold my breath.

Re:"85%"

[Jack Griffin]

Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.

Nope, that is backed by science. Try again Strawman.

Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe.

I never claimed that, Strawman.
I said I drive as fast as I want and I haven't crashed in 30 years. I'd like to know how does this fit in with your "speed kills" hypothesis? As on the surface it seems to blow a big hole in it.

If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.

Wrong again. Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
"The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so."

You made the first claim and are still yet to back it up with anything other than opinion
You then backed it up with another claim
"this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting"
This also hasn't been backed up by anything yet.

If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion.

Yes you posted actual research to something other than the topic at hand, as I already pointed out. I posted a reference to the scientific method because you seem to not know how it works.
Like every other "speed kills" dogma I've ever seen, it's pseudo-science at it's finest.

Re:"85%"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I said I drive as fast as I want

This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it? It's a free country, mate -- carry on, and hopefully any bad consequences only happen to you and not the people around you that you put at risk by driving as fast as you want. But man up and own that reckless, selfish choice, and quit it with the vague and unsupported appeals to science.

Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.

Finally, something on which we can agree. But I'll even go one step further and paste my simple request again, for all to see: "please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on [the 85% rule]."

You've provided nothing. Because there is nothing. Just as I suspected from the beginning.

And with that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.

Re:"85%"

[Jack Griffin]

This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it?

Um no, but keep on with the strawmen, if it makes you feel better about your inability to argue the point.

Re:25 mph?

[dissy]

Does this mean you are not capable of driving your vehicle at 15mph or 10mph or 5mph?

My last car had an engine idle speed around 7-8mph, meaning it was not possible to drive 5mph at all. Simply letting up on the break and not touching the gas at all would result in the car moving faster than 5.

It was also not possible to consistently drive 10mph, as the slightest touch of the gas pedal would cause the car to accelerate to just over that speed.

Mind you that doesn't mean I couldn't abide by a 10mph speed limit, it just means I can't do so while driving AT that limit, I have to not touch the gas and let the engine pull the car along at idle speed just a touch under 10.

However where I live the lowest posted limit on a public road that I've ever seen is 25mph, including the road I live on.
I have seen 10mph limit signs at a mall parking lot once, and fair enough since anywhere in the lot where there was people walking idle speed was about the safest one could move at, but I've never seen 10 (or even 5) posted on a public road before so all of this has never really been an issue.
(Not to mention I don't own that car anymore)

Re:25 mph?

[silas_moeckel]

My first house was at the far end of a large condo complex to the tune of 2 miles or so. The posted limit was 5. Now the main road was just that road to get feeder strs to the parking lots with a nice wide sidewalk where children road their bikes. 30ish minutes to drive what amounts to your driveway (shared condo property not a town road) is insane. The safe speed is easily determined as what a large percentage of the people normally drive at.

Seems like a physics problem to me

[Marrow]

Maximum line of sight. Inclination, curve, drainage, presence of sidewalk, distance to intersection, distance to driveway, populaton of children, proximity to school, width, apparent width.

Then setup a traffic cone at various detail points in the road and measure the distance to the cone to make cars stop. You just need a cone, adjustable speed limit indicator, and a tape measure.

Re:Seems like a physics problem to me

[jeffb (2.718)]

This will afford an acceptable level of safety for pedestrians who are standing motionless in the middle of the road.

Re:25 mph?

[silas_moeckel]

Low speed limits steal time. Transportation is just the a means to get from a to b in the least amount of time possible. If pedestrians or bikes are a problem limit their access, roadways primary function it to allow cars to travel efficiently.

Re:25 mph?

[buck-yar]

Got people like you Mrlogic in our area. They campaigned for 25mph speed limits on my road and got it. Then I drive 25 and get a line of cars 2" from my bumper. After about 2 weeks of this, the speed limit went back up to 35.

I litterally had a woman that was waiting on the side of the road for her kid from school jump back and throw her arms up as I came around the corner at.... 37 in a 35. I would bet a large sum of money she'd be tailgating me in the same spot at 37 (I get a line of cars behind me wherever I go as I drive no more than 5-7 over).

Lithopolis, OH; RIP

[Theovon]

On my way to Canal Winchester on OH-674, I’d pass through a small section of Lithopolis, where the speed limit inexplicably drops to 45mph. It’s a well-known speed trap, for the locals, so the village makes(or made) money mostly from visitors. One time, an Ohio state legislator was caught in that speed trap, and there was a bit of a smack-down that ensued. But that wasn’t the beginning of the end of Lithopolis. That started when they closed the only interesting thing in the whole village, which was the Wagnalls memorial library.

Re:Lithopolis, OH; RIP

[Gilgaron]

I remember when New Rome, Ohio was dissolved for similar reasons. I wonder how widespread it is for states to dissolve speed trap towns.

Re:25 mph?

[buck-yar]

"Fast" is a weasel word in this context used by the nanny staters.

Re:25 mph?

[buck-yar]

"The safe speed is easily determined as what a large percentage of the people normally drive at."

I fail to see logic in this.

His next project

[camg188]

The project he's working on now is a Raspberry PI that automatically shouts "Get off my lawn!" whenever it detects someone under 18 encroaching on his property.

Re:25 mph?

[houghi]

Third what? Lower how? You must be some sort of European Socialist Wizzard to be able to drive a deathtrap with three pedals.

Re:25 mph?

[Muad'Dave]

But the story is set in North Carolina.

Not to be a pedant, but the story is set in Charlottesville, Virginia. Home of UVA and a ton of snooty liberals.

Re:25 mph?

[Viol8]

Been talking to yourself?

Google streetview of video

[Fly Swatter]

Google streetview of location in video.

Honestly those driving sight lines look pretty good to me.

But if speeding is truly an issue, then the squirrel up there on the electric line has the right idea. (see link)

Re:25 mph?

[dunkelfalke]

Falling off a bicycle seldom requires an ambulance crew. Besides, it is not like a cyclist can't stop and wait for the traffic to continue.

Re:25 mph?

[silas_moeckel]

If the vast majority can safely navigate at that speed then how can it not be a reasonable safe speed?

If we're trying to engineer it then driver competency, response time, vehicle characteristics, and road conditions would all come into play. But it's reasonable to assume if most people are capable of that speed in whatever car they are driving etc. More importantly differences in vehicle speed are a danger so you want everybody going about the same speed which will be that average regardless of posted.

Re:25 mph?

[110010001000]

Charlottesville is not in North Carolina. Jesus. You can't drive 25 mph? That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on the Internet.

One By One

[JimSadler]

If he goes to the PD and files a complaint with the recorded evidence the PD has no choice other than writing a ticket for every violation. It is handy for bicyclists to know this as with a cam mounted on the handlebars, one can get the plate number of every car that tries to pass you in the same lane or in a no passing zone.

Re:One By One

[phorm]

Right, Mr Anonymous troll, and the charge would be?

Re:This is a site for the technically competent?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I disagree on the "clearly" visible. For me it gets lost as visual noise, same as the icons in the title bar.

Re:UvA is University of Amsterdam not Verginia

[jeffb (2.718)]

University of Amsterdam didn't take that name until 1961. The University of Virginia was founded and named in the early 1800s. If it bothers you, petition University of Amsterdam to change their name (again).

Re:This is a site for the technically competent?

[hymie!]

You think green text on a green background is "clearly visible" ?

Good way to die.

[The Last Gunslinger]

There are things I love about this town, and things I despise; and this sort of sanctimonious bullshit ranks high on the latter.

I actually hope someone gets killed doing that. You have absolutely *no* idea why any person at any given moment is driving in a particular manner. Could be they're just late, could be a life-threatening medical emergency. What gives *you* the right to presume anything and then try to impose your presumption onto anyone else?

Seriously, that's the worst sort of selfish assholery. And while I might not shoot you dead myself for deliberately impeding my way, if such a case came before me as a juror, it's unlikely I'd convict someone else for doing it.

Re:25 mph?

[thoromyr]

But its more fun to drag race on the side streets. If you haven't done it, then you wouldn't know.

Why can't you think of me and my need for speed? I'm an adrenaline junky whose too important to be slowed down by some laws and crap-trap about other people's safety.

Re:25 mph?

[thoromyr]

how dare you interfere in Darwin's Great Work! You must expunge children who have not had a fear of the roadway deeply ingrained to them!

And how moronic to drive 15mph in a 30mph zone! Why, its only natural that a normal driver would be doing at least 35mph there, if not 40mph or more, and how dare *you* slow them down? Can't you think of others you selfish get?

Re:Overkill

[Culture20]

If my matchbox car sets from my youth are any indication, loops in the road would require a significant increase in vehicle speed to work. And they'd have to be really big.

Histogram

[Latentius]

I'd like to see a histogram of the speeds, just out of curiosity. The article (side note: why not link in the description?) states 63% of the cars were speeding, but are we talking about 5 mph in excess, or 10+? Additional statistics would be very useful in this case.

Yup.

[The Last Gunslinger]

Amen, brotha.

news?!

[awilden]

Not sure why this is news. In ECCV95 (European Conference on Computer Vision) there were two separate papers published on exactly how to do this with to different methods in realtime with what then was high end but non-specialized computer hardware. The fact that somebody chose to do this twenty years later really seems to not be newsworthy.

Re:25 mph?

[tibit]

Here's how I handle it, and it's how mostly everyone else in the U.S. can handle it too:

1. Set cruise control - on most models the lower limit is around 19MPH, so setting to 20 or 25 is not a problem.

2. Pay attention to the fucking road while your car pays attention to staying the speed. Downshift to 2nd or 1st gear (yeah, on an automatic, too) if you're on a downgrade and need some engine braking.

I routinely drive through 20MPH school zones. On cruise control. With a long line of cars behind me - but I don't care. They all vote, they can fucking change the law if they're too inconvenienced.

Now I do agree that the school speed zones are stupid, but I'm not going to be whining about it. I vote instead, and I make my views known to the lawmakers, and I go to relevant meetings and provide comments on this. If enough so-called "citizens" actually took their civic duty seriously, we wouldn't have such stupid laws in place.

Re:Overkill

[tibit]

He should really do something much more direct: a camera that faces the drivers, and a screen that displays their face along with the speed they drove at, if they were speeding. When no traffic is around, it should cycle through faces of past speeders. The problem would resolve itself in a few weeks, tops.

Re:Radar?

[tibit]

You don't need a permit for using a camera that sees the public road - in most sane jurisdictions, that is.

Open Source..

[slashkitty]

It really should be. He apparently codes in a language called "OpenCV"... I've only heard of a package called that. Anyway, it'd be good to have the source reviewed. It'd be easy to have a coding error that judges everyone as speeding.

Re:25 mph?

[danbert8]

Obviously you don't live in an area with traffic... I cut through residential neighborhoods because I can go 5-10mph in them instead of the 0-3mph on the main arterials. If it weren't for the unnecessary stop signs for a side street with 7 houses on it, traffic might be able to get up to 25mph. Forget about the highway... And I do get to the racetrack as often as I can.

Re:25 mph?

[Cro Magnon]

On my current car, and the car I had before, my Cruise Control's lower limit was 25, not 19. My GF says hers is 35! That doesn't mean I can't drive on the 25 MPH streets, but I can't rely on the cruise control for that.

Re:25 mph?

[omnichad]

Wait...so if you take your foot off the brake and don't hit the gas, your idling engine will take you to 26mph and beyond?

I'm not buying it.

Re:25 mph?

[omnichad]

At that rate, most of the bicyclists are speeding.

Re:25 mph?

[omnichad]

You're the one who was speaking in Latin.

Re:25 mph?

[omnichad]

Yes.

Link to more information

[kevink707]

http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/...

Too slow

[phorm]

Or it might just be that the average person in that area drives at an unsafe speed. This isn't a freeway.

Frankly, around here exceed the limit in large quantities all the time. Often they do so regardless of road conditions or weather. In most cases, they still arrive home. However every now and them somebody will hit that nice skiff of snow or black ice and "oops" - perhaps doing 110kph in a 90zone with icy roads ISN'T a good idea - now you have an accident. Even better, since the average person is already driving at unsafe speeds for the conditions, everyone else who suddenly has to avoid the fishtailing pickup also gets to experience the joys of winter acrobatics on ice, resulting in a multi-car pile-up.

Similarly, we have big issues with people passing school-buses that are unloading kids. Apparently the huge, flashing stop sign doesn't mean much to most people. Just because your average person doesn't have the intelligence to drive safely, should we just say "screw it, let's let everyone pass the stopped bus and speed on through crosswalks!"

In this case, it's a residential street. The "oops" might happen with weather, or it could be a kid crossing the street, a stray animal that somebody swerves to avoid and loses control, whatever. Sure, in most cases that won't happen, but in the other cases you could probably have avoided hitting that kid by DRIVING THE F***ING LIMIT.

Re:therefore the roads should be redesigned

[CityZen]

Many people say that the problem is the speed limit. It may be better to look at this from the other side: If, for proper safety of the neighborhood, the cars should only be going 25 mph, then the roads should be redesigned such that cars can only go 25 mph.

This can be done several ways:
- speed bumps
- adding islands to intersections that must be driven around
- extending curbs into the street to make straight streets curvy
- blocking off some streets (or making some parts one-way)
- etc.

85th percentile

[Meniconi,Nando]

As required by law, speed limit is set to the 85th percentile of the operating speed on that road. Looks like that speed sign needs to be changed.

"Easy fix" for that

[laurencetux]

If you hit someone younger than say 13 while driving more than 15 miles above the speed limit in a Residental Area then you get charged with "Attempted Vehicular Homicide" (with any possible racial factors as riders).

Hit a Not Your Race Kid and you go "UpState" for 20-30 maybe then they would get the message

Re:25 mph?

[Drethon]

Pray tell how do you drive down a side road like this comfortably at over 25 MPH? If the google map image comes across right, the image shown is when there are hardly any cars parked. Often the street has cars parked on both sides for multiple houses with barely enough gap between to get a normal size car in between. https://www.google.com/maps/@4...

Re:25 mph?

[Drethon]

Three pedals? I'm pretty sure this car comes with two pedals and and nice selection of gear settings. http://images.thecarconnection...

Those who live by the sword

[Thundercleets]

One wonders if this same professor is making sure his dalliances with the throttle are censored out. It would be rich if this idiot forces the town to place a speedcam and he became one of its earliest victims.

Re:25 mph?

[istartedi]

My car is almost 8 years old and it will let you set the cruise control at 25 mph. If anything it's the *older* cars that are harder to drive at slow speeds--they either wouldn't let you set cruise below 35, or they didn't even have it.

Hidden GPS on his car

[slazzy]

Would be interesting to hide a GPS speed reporter on his car for a month and see how he drives through everyone else's neibourhoods.

Re:25 mph?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Most in the US drive automatics, but worldwide they drive manual transmissions.

Automatics have gears as well, but most people just put the car in drive (or overdrive) and forget about it. You really should put the car in a lower gear if you're driving on slippery pavement or going downhill.

I had a Saturn SL2 with bad solenoids in the valve body (transmission would slam when engaging gears, especially reverse) and it was much more pleasant to drive with the car in 2 or 3 instead of D since I could control the shifting.

Re:25 mph?

[MrL0G1C]

So go by bicycle it'd be a lot quicker.

Traffic Calming

[jonhainer]

There is well established precedent on how to reduce speeds on highly used residential roads. It's called "Traffic Calming". Essentially, you redesign the road so that it is narrower, curvier and gives better access to pedestrians and bikers. The basics of Traffic Calming can be found here:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/TrafficCalming/trcalm_brochure_2000.ashx?la=en

Generally, urban roads that have traffic where it's even possible to move at 50 mph are straight, wide and flat. That is definitely the case with Locust Ave, as seen below.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0343513,-78.4694989,3a,75y,173.55h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLC2p-2vz-idXmvJ1TaBg7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Some suggestions for slowing traffic on this street might include:

- Put curb extensions at the sidewalks to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to walk to cross the street. This also makes the intersections tighter for cars, requiring them to slow down.

- Currently, parking is only on the left side of the street. About every half a block alternate parking between the left and the right sides causing the traffic to have to curve back and forth. This will slow down the traffic.

- Mark the parking with stripes, making the traffic lanes look smaller.

- If there is room, add another bicycle lane to the left side of the street.

Here is an example of traffic calming.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3652093,-71.0988748,3a,75y,14.17h,59.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssPfDs88GgNpRJgOTW2Z7mA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Although this street is in a more dense urban area (Cambridge, MA) than Locust, it used to look similar to it. All parking was on one side, and there were no curb extensions. Now you can see the tightened intersections and the curvy traffic lanes. Speeds have dropped significantly on this road. It's worth a try.

Re:25 mph?

[HiThere]

I'm well past "old enough to drive", and on a residential street 25 mph is too fast. The only reason calling you "boy racer" might be inappropriate is that I'm not sure you're a boy.

If you can't sprint that fast, then you're going too fast for a residential street. That's why they have arterials every few blocks. Of course, I'm talking about a designed suburb. One that just grew is still designed that 25 mph is too fast for a residential street, but there may not *be* a nearby arterial. Sorry, that area wasn't designed for through traffic. Either go around it or don't go. There are good reasons why the designers of residential areas like cul de sacs nearly as much as the fire department hates them. As a compromise you can turn most intersections into low lying parks, with barriers in them that are low enough for a fire engine to drive over, but which route cars along a twisting route. People who live there and know the area can figure out a reasonable way to get through at low speed, but strangers will need directions. And it will still be slow.

If you want I'll agree that it's a shame that areas should need to go in for such measures. Arterial streets are a much better solution (though they generally should have much better separation from the residential areas than they do). But when an area has been designed with the assumption that there will be no through traffic, then to just route traffic through it anyway is just asking for problems. Perhaps elevated roadways would be a better answer, but I think you'll find them too expensive, and that the inhabitants would vociferously object. I also understand the tremendous objections that arise when PART of a property is condemned to allow a street to be put through. This frequently destroys half the value of the property to the inhabitants, but the compensation doesn't generally allow them to purchase an equivalent habitation elsewhere...not to mention the considerable costs of moving. Then there's the matter of people who have an emotional attachment to their home. There's really no way of compensating for that.

So the best answer is to route around the places that weren't designed to allow for through traffic. It's unfortunate that various on-line services have started to find routes for people to travel that lead directly through areas that should not be for through traffic. Understanding why they do that, and why non-residents like them, does not lead to forgiveness and acceptance, but only to the desire to do things which cause them to choose some other way. Fast traffic on residential streets is unforgivable, and when it results in death the charge should be murder.

Re:25 mph?

[tibit]

You need a Volvo, then :)

Re:25 mph?

[HiThere]

Well, idling speed is adjustable, so OK. Earlier I posted that going slower took a lot of concentration, but I live in a hilly area, where there literally *aren't* any level streets. So I can see that as feasible on a flat street. (As well as the respondent who said he idled at 30 mph...idling speed being adjustable.)

Re:25 mph?

[Ichijo]

Mind you that doesn't mean I couldn't abide by a 10mph speed limit, it just means I can't do so while driving AT that limit

Then don't drive AT the speed limit.

Speed kills

[emj]

When pedestrians are hit at 20 mph less than 10 % die, if they are hit at 32 mph about 80% die. So anything over 20mph is fast in a residential area. This is a fact that has been used all over the world to lower the fatalities on roads, and it actually works.

Re:25 mph?

[silas_moeckel]

Considering that it was a hill yup.

Re:25 mph?

[omnichad]

On flat ground, it's easy to hit 12mph bicycling without breaking a sweat. A fast walk would come close and a run would definitely be over the limit.

Re:25 mph?

[Cro Magnon]

My GF told me her car's cruise control has a minimum of 35 MPH. My current car, and the one I had before do 25. The ones I had before that didn't have CC.

Consistency is the key

[gordguide]

I am one of those people who think speed limit changes are an issue. A city or town or highway should have consistent, predictable speed limits, so drivers "know" how fast they should be going, and can intuitively know how fast they are actually driving.
If in a city, I am OK with two non-freeway speeds ... 25mph and 35 mph, for example. EVERY residential street is 25 mph, EVERY thoroughfare is 35 mph, done.
Same thing on a urban freeway or rural highway ... say 45 mph and 70 mph, or whatever ... the community can decide on the actual limits, but you only get two choices. No more.
I am OK with exceptions for obvious safety issues ... an unusually tight curve, for example. But don't take that to mean you can have more than two limits on otherwise ordinary streets or highways.
People will learn how fast they are driving, by looking at the speedo and correlating it with how the vehicle feels. If you speed, well, then you should be consistent when you speed (I'm 5 mph over, usually), so again you know intuitively how fast you are going.

I don't like a huge set of speed limits, where in one town or city you might find 15, 20, 25, 30 ... etc mph limits posted. Now, you have to hunt for speed limit signs everywhere, instead of watching where the hell you are going.

It does lead to greater ticket revenue, and never assume that isn't the motive when your local or state/provincial government can't get it together on speed limits. It is far from unheard of for a local administration to set out to deliberately confuse drivers with constant changes in speed limits, but it's wrong and in essence is trading dollars for safety.

Keeping your eyes on the road is way more important, and will lead to much fewer accidents, than trying to fit into some traffic engineer's idea of how fast a given section of pavement is "safe" at.

If you can't build a municipal road that is safe at 25 mph, you (or your civic administration, more precisely) are failing in more ways that matter, and they should be shit-canned at once. They simply don't get it, period.

Re:Consistency is the key

[Jack Griffin]

I am one of those people who think speed limit changes are an issue. A city or town or highway should have consistent, predictable speed limits, so drivers "know" how fast they should be going, and can intuitively know how fast they are actually driving.

I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding.
And don't confuse "I drive as fast as like" with "I drive like a lunatic", I believe awareness is the biggest asset in road safety, so that means never taking you eyes off the road. Fuck the speed signs, or the speedo, monitor every other moving object like a CS enemy about to shoot you and you'll get by fine.

Improve Story - Send Paul and email for more info!

[dsmatthews9379]

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/pe...

Re:25 mph?

[dissy]

Like I already said, I don't drive at the limit when it is that low...

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me to do what I literally just said I already do, but thanks for the accusation anyway.

Re:25 mph?

[dissy]

Seeing as it isn't illegal to drive 3mph under the posted speed limit, I don't see why they wouldn't let me have a license...

Re:25 mph?

[KGIII]

I think they're just saying that they're unable to maintain their speed without constant attention. They mentioned something about getting a ticket for 26 in a 25 because of a photo but I didn't actually see any instances of that actually happening when I used Google. I prefer a manual, to the point of exclusion where possible, but I can maintain my speed at 25 MPH (or close enough) in either.

In an automatic (and in a manual - if done properly) your car will move if you take your foot off the brake. This is normal behavior. However, it doesn't (on a reasonably level surface) just keep accelerating forever. If it exceeds somewhere around 5-8 MPH, while on a level surface, with no use of the accelerator pedal, see a mechanic.

If you're driving a manual and you're having issues remaining below a certain speed, while not using the accelerator, then simply shift into a lower gear and use the engine to brake and better maintain speed. If it's an automatic, let up off the gas pedal. This is not complicated. If you can't do these things and your car is in good repair, do not drive. Hire a driver. These are basic skills that should be taught to children who are learning to drive.

Hell, mine both learned to drive and are reasonably adept on it. Of course, they've driven some of my cars over the years and I've owned some unique automobiles - some with absurd amounts of power, that you strap on a five point restraint, and make loud noises with quick responses. Hell, my current daily driver (the one with me) only has 450 ponies under the hood but I imagine it'd scare quite a few people. Me? I love the low, throaty, growl and the privilege of operating such a fine tuned piece of machinery. I'm actually a (mostly) responsible driver when I'm on a public street. It's not just my safety that I'm putting at risk.

Re:25 mph?

[mjwx]

A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.

Odd. My car drives at about that speed idling in third gear. It takes no effort at all. If I want a slower speed I pick a lower gear. It is a high volume production car with no mods.

Gears? most steering wheel attendants will have no idea what these "gears" you speak of are.

Most of them have trouble moving their slovenly fingers to flick on the indicator (turn signals).

Re:25 mph?

[Darinbob]

It's very easy to drive that slowly. I do it all the time. I drive slower than that in some places (like in front of schools). Anyone who can not drive that slowly has a problem, they need to learn some basic patience, learn to relax, take some time to enjoy the drive. If they're going to be late then they should have started sooner. How do you drive in a parking lot? No way can you do 25mph while looking for a parking space. Zero sympathy. Consider walking instead.

Re:25 mph?

[Darinbob]

Most suburbs have roads to get through that have higher speed limits. I've never heard of a place that goes on for miles with house after house and only single lane roads, no mass transit, no expressways, no thoroughfares, etc. Where do they put the shops?

Re:25 mph?

[Darinbob]

Transportation means a way to get form A to B, there is no "least amount of time" in that definition. If pedestrians or bikes are a problem then why not limit cars or at least the assholes in cars who think that speed limits don't apply to them? Pedestrians arrived before the cars did, they drove slowly on the roadways before the assholes showed up later. Drivers have no special rights in this regard. On a freeway or highways sure, pedestrians and bikes may not be allowed, but that's not the same as the one lane road in front of your house.

It's the victim's fault!!!

[michael.karl.coleman]

My God you're right! How could we have been so stupid! Clearly the reason 40,000 people are killed each year by cars is that they're all leaping in front of them! Kill the pedestrians! Kill! Kill!!!

Re:25 mph?

[Jack Griffin]

I had some kid run out in front of the car and the fact that I was only doing 15mph instead of the limit of 30mph is what stopped the kid from ending up dead or in hospital, the speed difference gave me the reaction time and stopping distance needed to avoid hitting the kid - with all of a few inches spare.

Actually if you had been going 30mph you would have been way past the end of the street before the kid ever ran out. Maybe if you we're doing 16mph you would've hit him. Had you been doing 100mph you would've been home by the time he walked out his front door so at zero risk of you running him over.
So yeah, going much faster or slower would both have helped in this example, only going a specific speed around 16-18mph would've caused any issues.

Re:25 mph?

[Jack Griffin]

My last car had an engine idle speed around 7-8mph, meaning it was not possible to drive 5mph at all. Simply letting up on the break and not touching the gas at all would result in the car moving faster than 5.

You realise the brake is not an on/off switch right? You can apply and release it gradually...

Re:25 mph?

[silas_moeckel]

Overy low speed limits steal time from drivers the predominant method of daily transportation and the only effect method for most of the country. That why a 85% rule makes sense people are more than capable of determining the correct speed.

Re:25 mph?

[MrL0G1C]

Asinine.

Re:25 mph?

[danbert8]

Assuming that bicycles don't have to obey the law (stopping at the stop signs)? Or that there isn't a 14 mile commute with hills where it rains probably once a week?

Re:25 mph?

[Jack Griffin]

But logically correct, yet you still can't bring yourself to accept it. Maybe you should change your name to MrIde0logy instead?

Re:Open source?

[Swave An deBwoner]

Coming soon to github, according to Paul Reynolds:

Paul Reynolds 3 days ago I plan to post the source to Github by the end of the month (Feb 2016). Gotta do some more commenting. A computer science prof who dinged a lot of students for poor commenting practices has to proceed carefully on that matter. I could put a precompiled exe there as well, but that would require a few changes to the UI. Some of the parameters you'd need to set for your camera and view of the street are currently constants in the code. Not too many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVkKysDvGA

Re:Open source?

[Swave An deBwoner]

He's planning on making it available on Github according to his comments on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVkKysDvGA

I plan to post the source to Github by the end of the month (Feb 2016). Gotta do some more commenting. A computer science prof who dinged a lot of students for poor commenting practices has to proceed carefully on that matter. I could put a precompiled exe there as well, but that would require a few changes to the UI. Some of the parameters you'd need to set for your camera and view of the street are currently constants in the code. Not too many.

and

Folks: Progress is good. I'm expecting a public github posting of the source, a characterization of all of the strings you can pull via various in-code constants and input parameters, and a combined VST overview and simple user manual soon now. Keep an eye on https://github.com/pfr/VideoSp.... I'll be making it public as soon as I can. And thanks to help from my Github son, there will be Mac and Linux compilable versions available in addition to my Wintel version.

Re:25 mph?

[strikethree]

There is no necessity for you to drive fast around residential areas, you want to go fast, hit a highway or a racetrack or quit whinging, FML.

On straight residential streets with no cars parked on the side of the road and nobody outside, I will occasionally hit up to 35mph. If there are vehicles parked on the side of the road and there are kids of any age playing anywhere near those cars, I will probably be going 15mph or maybe even 10mph. I have gone even slower at times.

Honestly, numbers (speed limits) being posted are so we can legally tag/ticket morons. I am 48 years old. I have never ran over or hit a person. I have only ever received 1 speeding ticket in my life (despite driving over 150mph quite a bit) and have never been in accident that was my fault (yet!). I have been rear ended twice at a stoplight. :(

Wanting to get somewhere without delay and being impatient are two totally different things.