Lowering the speed limit where there are sidewalks next to cars driving seems to work well in Europe. But that also requires policing of those speed limits so they are not considered mere suggestions by drivers.
Europe has a lot more roads with a lower design speed. Curves, narrow lanes, on-street parking, trees/poles/etc close to the road. These things cause people to drive slower, because it doesn't feel safe to go fast.
In North America, roads are usually built in the complete opposite way, with long straight roads and wide lanes, so the design speed is actually quite high -- even if that wasn't the intent. People go fast, because it feels safe to go that speed, but isn't, because there are pedestrians and turns. We then "fix" that shit road design by having low speed limits.
The problem we keep having is that you have a highway that goes through a town, and it should be a highway. Its purpose is to connect the larger cities on either end of the highway at high speed. And it's perfectly simple to do that, you just make it a limited access road and then the town has other roads with lower speeds for local people.
But the local residents don't want that, because they want the traffic from the road to come into the little town and patronize local businesses. So they put the businesses along the main road and put pedestrians where the traffic is, and then complain about the speed limit on the road whose purpose was supposed to be high speed travel.
Just put enough speed cameras, they are much cheaper than any human police guys in long run, can watch 24/7 things like red lights, stops, seat belts, using of phones while driving etc. They can be even connected together for those a-holes who slow down in front of them just go enter again lightspeed right after, its not rocket science in 2024 and all required tech is there for decade and a half.
Here in Switzerland even foreigners have their cheeks so tight on the roads even sharpened hair wouldn't cross, they behave like angels and traffic is generally well behaved. And when they don't, punishment is heavy and it doesn't matter how many millions you have on your account or whom you know.
Have this, and peace comes. Don't have it, fast a-hole drivers doing whatever they want is not your biggest problem anyway.
These are only useful for otherwise-law-abiding people who go a little too fast. The trend in big cities in the US is to joyride/race with your license plates removed, obscured, or fake, and that's assuming the car isn't stolen (Kia/Hyundai.)
Cameras only catch criminals after the fact. Bollards directly save lives. In the example here, even if the law is a potential deterrent, killing a person was only punished with three years in prison. Bollards work even if the courts don’t.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. Until then, we have bollards.
Or even better: put speed bumps, narrow lanes, add chokepoints, lots of design features that physically force drivers to slow down instead of speed cameras that don't impede anything for someone wanting to speed.
And raising speed limits where appropriate. US speed limits right now are often set at about the right level on urban and suburban roads, but far too low on highways and other roads intended for long-distance travel. This effectively causes people to speed at dangerous levels in the suburbs and cities - it does not slow everyone down everywhere.
Edit: The statement "speed limits are about right" does not mean "current travel speeds are about right." If you read the rest of the comment, it means that current travel speeds are about 5-10 mph too fast for most roads, but you don't actually need to change any signs if you start making speed limits a credible fact about the actual speed limit of the road.
I'm very curious where your data comes from to back up this statement. "The current level of pedestrian fatalities from motor vehicle collisions is the right level" just seems wrong to me.
gregmac|1 year ago
In North America, roads are usually built in the complete opposite way, with long straight roads and wide lanes, so the design speed is actually quite high -- even if that wasn't the intent. People go fast, because it feels safe to go that speed, but isn't, because there are pedestrians and turns. We then "fix" that shit road design by having low speed limits.
This video is all I think of when this discussion comes up now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc
AnthonyMouse|1 year ago
But the local residents don't want that, because they want the traffic from the road to come into the little town and patronize local businesses. So they put the businesses along the main road and put pedestrians where the traffic is, and then complain about the speed limit on the road whose purpose was supposed to be high speed travel.
Vinnl|1 year ago
jajko|1 year ago
Here in Switzerland even foreigners have their cheeks so tight on the roads even sharpened hair wouldn't cross, they behave like angels and traffic is generally well behaved. And when they don't, punishment is heavy and it doesn't matter how many millions you have on your account or whom you know.
Have this, and peace comes. Don't have it, fast a-hole drivers doing whatever they want is not your biggest problem anyway.
hombre_fatal|1 year ago
In Houston, bollards and raised pedestrian paths were removed recently (after being installed last year) because drivers kept hitting them.
It's not a tech issue.
briHass|1 year ago
janalsncm|1 year ago
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. Until then, we have bollards.
piva00|1 year ago
Physical features are much harder to ignore.
pclmulqdq|1 year ago
Edit: The statement "speed limits are about right" does not mean "current travel speeds are about right." If you read the rest of the comment, it means that current travel speeds are about 5-10 mph too fast for most roads, but you don't actually need to change any signs if you start making speed limits a credible fact about the actual speed limit of the road.
esteth|1 year ago
aspectmin|1 year ago