1nterceptor

"This isn’t rocket science. A century ago, society took driving and road fatalities very seriously. It was understood that automobiles were dangerous machinery, and that drivers had to be held to a standard of responsibility that reflected the damage they were capable of causing. That is why drivers were required to be licensed, and driving was considered a privilege. And it’s why drivers in countries like the Netherlands are held to higher standards today. So why are we so lax in the US now? The sad reality is that most people would rather blame the victims of bad driving than accept that they are part of the problem. As a result, dangerous drivers receive more protection from the law than their victims do. Prosecutors say that their hands are tied in trying to bring appropriate charges. And police neglect to enforce existing laws (except when they are cracking down on the victims of traffic violence)."

Read the full article: What Can Be Done About Dangerous Drivers? | Road Rights | Bicycling.com

B. Carfree

Two days ago, my local police department did a rare traffic enforcement operation. Among other violations by this crowd, 30% of the motorists who received speeding citations did not have their legally-required insurance. In spite of that, they let all but one of them drive away after citing them. How can they be allowed to drive off when they don't have insurance? It's as though violations of the law by motorists is seen as simply some sort of trivial clerical oversight.

mconlonx

What have we done to address the situation here in the USA? Nothing, that's what. Or very, very little anyway. Vulnerable road user laws are not popular and run into opposition at the state level; there doesn't seem to be any kind of push for strengthened negligent or distracted driving laws, outside targeting specific distractions and impairment like DUI, texting, and cell phone use.

JeffreyGlobe

States don't have any incentive to take dangerous drivers off the roads. A driver with their license suspended or revoked doesn't put anywhere near as much money in a state's coffers as leaving them on the road. A bad driver who is still allowed on the road generates all sorts of revenue for a state. Fees from fines/tickets, gas purchases, car registration fees, insurance purchases, sales taxes not only from vehicle purchases, but also from having increased cargo space to make extended shopping trips, car vacations, etc. States rely heavily on gas taxes for road maintenance costs, they don't really want to take drivers off the roads. The poorer they drive, the more revenue generated.

B. Carfree

It's not the state that benefits economically from leaving poor drivers on the road. The state loses since motorists don't pay nearly the cost of maintaining the infrastructure with the paltry taxes and fees we charge them. However, the gravel industry, the oil industry, the hospital industry, the car manufacturers, the mortuaries and a host of other industries all benefit from creating the notion that everyone has a right to drive however they want without fear of sanction.

JeffreyGlobe

I have to disagree with you on the first part of your statement. During the recent gas price spikes in the USA, gasoline purchases dropped significantly. States immediately started crying the blues that the drop in gas tax revenue was ruining their road maintenance budgets and would make even some critical/mandatory repairs unaffordable. Many states announced that this drop in gas tax revenue was making them look into the 'taxation based on mileage' models that some states have been testing/investigating to generate additional revenue. So, while I'm sure that currently in place fees and taxes on motor vehicle operations do not cover the entirety of the costs of maintaining the roadway infrastructure, those fees/taxes do pay a significant portion (approximately 1/3 of an average state's DMV operating budget according to one article: Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending | Tax Foundation).

mconlonx

I suppose the other thing that could be done is to start and keep on reporting dangerous drivers. Drive with a dash-cam; ride with a camera on your bike, and file police reports with video when you see drivers doing dangerous things.

walrus1

Traffic enforcement is such a mix bag of tricks and no treats in the States. I grew up in a suburb outside of Atlanta where the local police would spend most of their time setting up speed traps. And of course the traps were never on surface or neighborhood streets but state highways leading into the highway where pedestrian and cyclist traffic was sparse. They issued so many speeding tickets yet walking across the street with the light and in a crosswalk was like playing russian roulette against turning vehicles. I never once saw them pull over a car for failing to yield. It was most assuredly revenue based enforcement and not safety based enforcement. Hence they had no reason to pull dangerous drivers off the road when writing repeat tickets keep the city's coffers full. For example a guy I knew in high school got pulled over for doing over a hundred on a highway. He was told by the cop that had he kept clocking kid up to a hundred miles per hour he would get arrested and lose his license. I mean come on! You know he is breaking the law in a extreme fashion yet you're choosing not to enforce it.

Fast forward to NYC where the NYPD for the longest time simply didn't give enough of a **** to pretend to enforce the law. Or when they suddenly did they do **** like block bike lanes with cruisers and issue tickets to cyclists for not being in the blocked bike lane! Pop quiz time!
You are a precinct commander and your precinct just got a citibike rack. As a result you do what of the following?
A. Go along like nothing has changed.
B. Issue tickets to drivers driving in a dangerous manners?
C. Institute a ticking blitz for citibikes going through red lights?

Full credit for C and half credit for A.

The NYPD is slowly beginning to change. I haven't heard any stories of drunk drivers killing pedestrians only for the NYPD to declare no criminality suspected after they run off. OK, that last statement might have been an exaggeration but seeing how many people were and are getting killed and yet so few drivers got as much as a ticket. I think this is partly do to the culture in NYC. New Yorkers think fast, act fast, move fast and by extension drive fast. We are all in such a hurry that it's viewed as natural that we drive fast and aggressively so a few people get squished eh it's New York freaking City **** happens.

Another problem is the modern day NYPD was not set up to enforce traffic laws or even to police modern day NYC. The NYPD was formed to counter the NYC of the 70's, 80's and the early 90's. They were and still are centred around combating rampant violent crime, drugs, prostitution and gangs. I never knew the city at it's worst yet I know how bad it was. yes violent crime is a significant problem but in far out areas of Brooklyn and the Bronx. Manhattan up to Harlem is now pretty safe for tourists. Mission accomplished.

So a guy on a bike got run over, or a kid in a crosswalk got clipped, this is NYC **** happens and the NYPD doesn't give a ****. They were for decades told not to give a **** unless someone gets shot at this point it has become ingrained in the whole department. Things are slowly starting to change but until those who see traffic violence as a non problem are gone and replaced by those who take traffic deaths seriously.

howsteepisit

At some point we as a society need to decide how serious we are about enforcing safe driving. We see the costs of inattentive and intoxicated driving every day, as well as the impacts of discarding adherence to traffic regulation. The cost to change this goes far beyond that incurred by increased education and enforcement. At some point we will have to start suspending the licenses and strictly enforcing laws designed to prevent driving w/o a valid license, and probably new strict laws involving jail time and seizure of assets for those scofflaws will be needed.

Then issues of transportation webs for those who are not allowed to drive need to be addressed; unless we want to just support the scofflaws because they cannot get to jobs, or do we want to let them starve and rot? Do we pay for them to move to an urban area with public transportation, and help them to find a job? In some ways, I fear that we have created a unsurmountable disaster in the US related to bad driving because the dispersion of housing/jobs/food makes driving nearly mediatory, excepting those few that are able to successfully live car free. But in reality, how many people can live truly car free?

The libertarian in me says pull their license, put them in jail if they continue to drive, and let them suffer the consequences of not being able to drive, but I am not sure thats in any way a reasonable stance.

El Cid

That's totally reasonable. Criminals have to learn that there are consequences for their actions, period.

kickstart

Black boxes,

Conway trucking has installed cameras in their tractors that are event triggered. Its just a matter of time that all road users will be constantly monitored unless it runs afoul of privacy advocates and voters.

keyven

Cyclists don't contribute to road taxes, drivers do. Far more politicians drive than cycle.

Politicians generally don't care too much about cyclists other than to score cheap political points. Cars will almost always take precedence over cyclists as drivers represent a far bigger pool of voters.

Maybe try to get Al Gore to jump into the fray?

howsteepisit

If Al Gore jumps in as pro cycling I will give up cycling.

B. Carfree

As someone noted above, user fees account for less than half the cost of building and maintaining roads. Do you think the rest comes from fairy dust? Of course cyclists pay for the roads. In fact, we overpay since our income, property, sales and excise tax payments go to repair damage we don't do.

On the last statement, I'd like to see uncle al jump, but not necessarily into the fray.

B. Carfree

2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure | Transit

It looks like the majority of Americans have access to public transit. Of those remaining who don't, I don't see why they can't either ride a bike, walk or beg rides from people who are more responsible than they are.

I think bearing the consequences for one's actions is a very responsible stance, and I'm not much of a libertarian.

I-Like-To-Bike

Doesn't seem that empathy for those who don't share your profile is your strong suit either.

B. Carfree

I ran out of empathy for scofflaw motorists a long time ago when I had a friend killed by one of them. In my view, the lives of innocent people trump the convenience of lawless rogues. YMMV.

keyven

The problem is driving is very much an American custom - it's not merely a convenience, it's pretty much a rite of passage.

I guess as roads become increasingly untenable in the big cities, greater numbers will take to the bikes, but it won't happen overnight. You can encourage people, but you can't force them.

I'm sure many people are also hesitant to start cycling with every cyclist death that appears in the local paper.

JeffreyGlobe

As with most changes in behavior, it takes time. One article (ACS: Bike Commuting Continues to Rise | League of American Bicyclists) calculates that there has been a 61% increase in bicycle commuting between 2000 and 2012. I have seen other studies that place that number as high as 70%. I commute, in part, by bicycle and have noticed a dramatic increase in others doing the same over just the past two years. The local mass transit system here used to have no accommodations for handling bicycles. Now, all buses have a front rack that holds at least two bikes with newer racks being installed that hold three. The county rail system used to relegate bikes to one car and bikes would be bumped off if that car could be filled with non-bikers. Now, bikes are allowed on any car and riders are never asked to get off, no matter how packed the cars are. We also have a tri-county rail system that used to barely tolerate bicycles. Now, bikes are allowed on every car and they are planning to add special cars to each trip that are set-up specifically to carry bicycle commuters. The county also has a greenway plan for completion and expansion of a very nice bicycle path system. So, change has been slow in coming but as the number of bicycle commuters increases, the area I live in seems to be responding positively to the trend in terms of accommodations.

kickstart

You can't really say you over pay or don't do damage, because you still are entirely reliant on the transportation system.

It is the same for those who cry foul about bike lanes, public transit, bridges, ferrys, airports or any other asset they don't use directly, because it still benefits them indirectly.

We all pay, and we all benefit.

Feldman

This will all be smacked in the head the day that jihadis overthrow the Saudi royal family and embargo oil to the US--it slapped us straight for a short while 40 years ago, maybe an overthrow of the Saudi regime will double our gas prices overnight and shock us into some behavioral changes. Where speed is concerned, most cars eat cheaper when they're driven slowly.

El Cid

The majority of road damage comes not from the weight of vehicles, but weather and time. A road that stayed empty would still need almost as much maintenance, although we might question the need to maintain an empty road.

As for dangerous driving, the situation is pretty much the same in Canada as in the US. We could learn a lesson from Europeans, where a license is very hard to get and easy to lose. My sister, who lives in Holland, joked once that if you hit a guy with a car, you may as well get out and stab him because you'll do less time in jail that way.

Compare the number of deaths from car accidents to all sorts of other crimes -- bad drivers kill far more people than gangsters and drug dealers. I am frequently critical of police, but I will never say anything bad to a highway patrolman going after aggressive drivers -- he will save more lives in one day than an entire department of drug cops.

Keith99

What holds for Minnesota does not hold for California. That is not to say roads here do not eventually wear out, but an untraveled road here can last for several decades.

That said I'm not that sure that ordinary cars cause all that much wear. I have been places where on a 4 lane highway 3 lanes are fine, only the right lane, the lane most used by heavy trucks was half way to being a roller coaster.