StrangeWill

You do realize thats a huge waste of taxpayer's money with that strict enforcement, the penalty is too light (and heavier penalties could probably be fought as unconstitutional), inaccuracies in both configuration of police equipment and car's speedometers taken into account generally comes out with a 10% leniency combined (a strong backup on the previous statement). Basically if you're not dumb, most of those tickets would just get thrown out of court.

Obviously on the right track, it's not the speed, it's the lack of a brain. Solving the root of the problem (bad drivers) is what REALLY needs to be done.

Funny you should mention that, the only traffic calm areas are typically upper-crust neighborhoods or where typically old people live, the hilarious part is that this is where you're LEAST likely to see any amount of people really walking around, I've seen more strays than people on these "traffic calmed areas" (and typically they're better at looking out for traffic too!). Of course where there are kids in more busy neighborhoods where motorists and cyclists can't be bothered with the same 15mph speed limit because they're not that important it's a different story...

Of course I think 15mph even for calmed is pretty low, thats barely above parking lot speed, but thats typically the speed limit for calmed areas here. Never mind the fact that you picked an important road between two major high-volume roads to live on, you'll change the way it's been because you're arrogant and you'll fight to get those damn large speed bumps and 15mph limits (actually the road is posted 25, but the speed bumps are rated 15 O_o... whatever I'll do 25 in 1st at 11pm.)

Not to mention, I'm much more likely to take a serious opinion on driving from a cyclist like you, than a cyclist that believes he's God's gift to the world because he doesn't drive a car. It's an unrealistic approach. You live on both ends of the spectrum, you will know better.

Of course unless people want a 400%+ markup on deliveries(pre-tip, we'll be putting a mandatory 30% gratuity too), and willing to increase delivery times 200%+, then I'll be more than happy to ride my bike at work! To be honest I've always wanted to, but the exhaustion of riding 60+ miles a day plus time constraints would make it impossible unless I lived in a dense city...

BarracksSi

You're right, it shouldn't be...

... but those moms & dads aren't doing any better as drivers, either. How many of those drivers out there would you trust to teach anybody's kids (including their own) how to drive?

The Human Car

Liner thinking that one extreme is good and the other is bad is really not applicable to vehicular crashes. It is the areas between (or just outside) congestion or high density development that are the most dangerous. Baltimore City's bike crash rate is over twice that of NYC which is certainly more densely populated.

While adjusting for just drivers (vs population) does flatten the curve a bit you still end up with basically the same thing with the lower speeding ticket rates toward the left side of the graph.

Actually anyone can know what the non-local police policy is, just ask. In MD counties that contribute most significantly to the high bike/ped crash ratio the general answer is no speeding tickets for 0-15mph above the speed limit. You may be right that this forum may not be the best context for that chart but I presented as at least something to consider, not hard proof but something to consider.

crhilton

This would be unsafe. Occasionally a driver needs to speed to avoid a dangerous situation. And, more importantly, digital technology has failed consistently in the automobile industry. Do you really want another $200 ($10 might approximate the actual cost) chip in your car? One that controls how much gas the car will let you pump out?

A smarter restriction might be a power to weight ratio for non-utility vehicles. Say, around 80 horsepower for a typical 3,000lb sedan. That plus street lights will keep speeds more ... um ... "honest".

crhilton

I think the best thing would be mandatory drivers education. Few schools seem to be up to par, but that's something that would have to be worked on. In order to cause a great drivers education you might have a good drivers test: A long, difficult, written test followed by a driving test. It'd be expensive. It might be good to propose it to the insurance companies and see if they can guarantee a price cut; if they can guarantee a good cut for it you might be able to make it optional and just remind people how much it'll save them in the long run.

BarracksSi

Hands-on training would be even better than just a written test. I'm not talking about tooling around in a parking lot or a student-instructor car with doubled brake pedals, either. Even these courses would be better than a lot of current education programs:
https://www.yorkregionsavealife.ca/erase/Video.htm

Throw in several sessions of inclement weather and night driving, and you're about halfway there.

StrangeWill

I think we should go simulator instead, being as you can create weather, traffic, pedestrian and unforeseen hazards on the fly in a multitude of vehicles and conditions.

BarracksSi

A simulator could be good. I wonder how far they've come since I've never been in one. If it can be set up to duplicate the characteristics of my own car (such as a touch of drop-throttle oversteer near the limit ), I wouldn't have a problem using them for training.

Then again, seeing how accurately video games can render a car's physics (I can duplicate my car in GT4), I guess it's not much of a stretch to build a viable trainer.

StrangeWill

I know they're training truckers on simulators now at the better schools, I was uber-jealous hearing about how they can place you on icy mountain roads and such...

They aren't cheap, but they're worth it I think. Especially seeing how well the truckers generally come out.

The Human Car

Ya and its a huge waste of taxpayers money to enforce drunk driving laws too. Keep in mind Baltimore bike/ped portion of traffic fatalities is 39%. High high does it need to get before it becomes an issue?

FWIW I grew up with a 5mph tolerance before you got ticketed for speeding and I really don't get why people now days "need" a 15mph tolerance. I'll agree that ticketing 1-5mph over the speed limit is on the ridiculous side of things but over that it should be valuable thing for socity.

njkayaker

I don't understand this. I'm suggesting that the simple correlation shown in the graph doesn't explain causation.

Maybe, there are more bicyclists per capita in Baltimore than in NYC.

But the graph doesn't show that. Thus, the graph appears to be exaggerating the correlation in an attempt to make a point.

One can find out a lot of things by asking. So what?

But that data wasn't shown and it still hasn't been presented in any comprehesive and useful matter.

The graph has no context here or anywhere because it is inherently bad since it is an attempt to imply a cause for an effect with insuffucient data. Note that the assumption (again, no data is presented) is that the rate of speeding is constant (or nearly so) per capita.

One wonders why Baltimorians select to crash into bikes/peds instead of other drivers. It also appears that 50% of people in Somerset county get speeding tickets!

The Human Car

While I do appreciate your critics the plain and simple fact is that the data I need to show causation does not exist. So that leaves me with two options do not present anything or present something that provokes further investigation. It is the latter that I hoped to invoke.

All the major MD counties have a higher then the National average of bike/ped fatalities that alone is a significant issue. That slide is just one of many where I tried to show what might be some of the causes behind that issue.


MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK per 2006 American Community Survey: NYC 0.6% - Balto 0.2%

Half the battle is knowing what questions to ask and what solutions might do the most good in solving a problem. One has to begin somewhere.


That is really close to what I hoped to get from presenting that slide.

njkayaker

I kind of suspected that the right data does not exist. There might be an equivalent direct correlation or %bike/ped fatalities to number of public transportation riders. If so, would it be OK to present that data to "prove" that mass transit is dangerous?

It seems that the slide is less designed to provoke discussion than to "convince" people. The hint that it's the latter is the "chart junk" (https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/) background to the slide.

If you think there are potential difficulties with the data or that the data is incomplete, then it is less than honest not to divulge those concerns.

The slide was not presented in the balanced way that the word "might" implies. It's presented as a simple "fact".

If this information is on a website, you should provide the link.

Don't begin with dishonest statistics.

StrangeWill

Why did you argue with me when you agreed that 1-5 is ridiculous? Not only is it ridiclous, if you fight it there is no way that the officer can win in court due to inaccuracies in the equipment they use and the accepted inaccuracies in car's speedometers.

With drunk driving you get a breathalyser, usually multiple ones, as evidence, which those machines are typically pretty accurate 9/10 times. I'm just saying it isn't legally feasible to enforce something that strict if people catch on.

I'd be more interested in knowing how many bike/ped crashes have speed as the ONLY factor, and by how much. I'm really doubting that theres going to be only speed as a factor, and that it's going to be under 5mph over the speed limit.

crhilton

Simulators aren't very valuable. They don't give the driver experience with the things that make difficult situations hard:
1. Risk of imminent injury and death. A.K.A. fear.
2. Inertial forces (not just being shoved side to side, but the effect on ones sense of balance and direction as well).
3. Failing equipment: Simulating a blown tire isn't feasible with modern, affordable, computer systems. Simulating real ice is probably doable but difficult (that's programmer speak for it won't get done in the schedule, it'll get cut before release).

My high school had the dumbest simulators from the 70's. They were nothing like a modern simulator (a video game). They were video, with consoles you sit in that can tell if you're steering, have your signal on, etc. Basically they run a video and you turn your wheel to it; then the instructor yells at you for something about not turning your wheel enough or too much.

BarracksSi

1. It does no good to actually kill someone you're trying to teach (or to let them kill someone else because of a mistake). You'll never create fear without real consequences, but real consequences will get people killed, too.
2. Worthwhile simulators (not like the ones you mentioned that your high school had) can replicate a lot of the forces that you'd feel. Pretty much any force that you're going to feel while driving is less than 1 G anyway (we're not talking about training drivers for the Indy 500), so tilting & shaking the simulator will cover everything besides an end-over-end crash. The only drawback -- for some people -- is that there's a barely-perceptible delay between control input and physical movement.
3. Even readily-available driving games for last-gen home consoles can simulate equipment failures such as broken suspension, loss of tire grip due to rising temperatures, etc.

Replace the racing game in this system with a real-life street driving simulation, and you might have a pretty capable system that can be afforded by a decently-funded driving school:

https://www.force-dynamics.com/content/whatis401.php

StrangeWill

Taking 30 year old technology and trying to use it as leverage when trucking companies are investing a lot of money in good simulators, along with the fact that truckers are generally much better drives provides supporting evidence for my idea.

Not to mention, coming FROM a programmer, simulating a blown tire is feasible, it mainly depends on R&D and finding ways to make the equations to simulate the effects accurate and efficient. Personally I haven't sat in any, but apparently the trucker simulators can simulate blown tires too.

njkayaker

The issue is whether simulators would be significantly better than nothing at all. There is nothing practical that would give drivers the "experiences" you list. Bringing up junk from the 70s doesn't do much to suggest that simulators are not worthwhile (though, maybe, the 70s story was an aside).

=============

The simulator might not need to deal with rather-rare situations like "equipment failure" and "death" to be valuable. Most of normal safe driving is visual and anticipation. The idea of safe driving is to avoid getting into situations where "death" is likely.

An inexpensive simulator might work very well for giving new drivers some experience with normal, basic driving skills. It certainly would be easy to simulate the difficulties of, let's say, "texting" while driving.

=============

The economics of expensive simulators for driving trucks works out much better than they would for normal passenger vehicles (especially, concidering that everybody has a car, pretty much).

The capital outlay for a truck simulator is probably close to that (or less) than a real truck.

BarracksSi

Not to mention that you can "wreck" hundreds of virtual trucks after that initial cost.

StrangeWill

And paying people to walk out from between cars or dart in front of the truck and slam on it's brakes may have quite steep hazard pay.

dmac49

You can always tell when there's bad weather outside.