AARoads Forum

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/five-ways-to-make-u-s-streets-less-deadly?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Quote
Let's talk about U.S. road design rules first.  They prioritize one thing: speed.  A design manual known as the "Green Book"  plays a leading role.  Never heard of it?  That's because it's written without public input by traffic engineers at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).  The Green Book has been used for decades by the federal government, all 50 states, and countless municipalities.  In general, it requires lanes that are too wide, which encourages cars to drive faster, and practically ignores pedestrians and bikers.

Fire codes, too, mandate overly wide streets, requiring 20 feet of unobstructed path for new or significantly improved streets.  But city residents can't get involved in drafting fire codes, either.  They are primarily drafted by an organization of building code officials that recently sued a group who put the code online, so people could actually read it.  Despite efforts in some cities to reduce fire-code-mandated street widths, these codes dominate street design nationally.

And then there is the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which governs signalization and, more importantly, speed limits.  This manual is published by the Federal Highway Administration, a federal agency, which is a better alternative to the private rule-making of the Green Book and fire codes.  But in one big way, it is deeply problematic: The MUTCD recommends setting speed limits that match the 85th percentile of actual free-flowing traffic, rounded up to the nearest 5 miles per hour.  In effect, drivers breaking the law by speeding justifies raising speed limits even more.  The MUTCD also standardizes signaling and pavement markings that often prioritize cars over all other road users.

Suggestions for improvements follow in the article.

Opine as you will, I have to note that Michigan's 2020 count of road-related deaths was about the same as 2019's despite significantly lower traffic volumes, especially given the lockdown months.

Proceed with discussion.

As someone who crosses busy streets quite often as a pedestrian, one thing that would help is medians at intersections. I typically don't wait for the walk signal; I go when it's clear. With a median, I only have to cross one direction at a time, and I almost never have to wait more than half a cycle to cross each half.

Where I live, there is no grid, so signals can't be timed easily. To get a greater percentage of greens, there are some intersections where left turns should be banned, making it a 2-phase signal. This also has the advantage of fewer crashes for both vehicles and pedestrians.

An especially curvy part of I-495 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.0199875,-76.9827509/38.9921404,-77.1578215/38.9908396,-77.1586798/38.9913007,-77.1552343/38.9963763,-77.1579125/39.0197802,-76.9828045/@38.999893,-77.1233737,13z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) in Montgomery County, Maryland seems to have had an increase in serious truck crashes, especially in the rain, since the COVID19 pandemic got going.  So far, I have seen no formal data about this, but it should be out soon.

So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

Quote from: behogie230 on April 04, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

Don't be so sure.  Despite the fact that most people speed, people also tend to believe the people these days drive "too fast".  The attitude seems to be "slower for thee but not for me".

Also keep in mind the perception that "if you set the speed limit for X, everyone will just go X+Y".  It's been debunked many times, but most people still believe it.

NYSDOT gets requests all the time from across the state where people and municipalities are seeking to lower speed limits.  Many of these make the news, but not all of them do.

(personal opinion)

So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

Most places out west aside from the likes of Seattle, Portland and San Francisco you really aren't going to see a huge pedestrian demand.  I know in the case of San Francisco the City went as far as shutting down certain roads so pedestrians would have greater accessibly and enough room to stay six feet apart.  Most of the newer cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are designed in a way that getting around on foot isn't practical. 

Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2021, 12:08:37 PM

Quote from: behogie230 on April 04, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

Don't be so sure.  Despite the fact that most people speed, people also tend to believe the people these days drive "too fast".  The attitude seems to be "slower for thee but not for me".

Also keep in mind the perception that "if you set the speed limit for X, everyone will just go X+Y".  It's been debunked many times, but most people still believe it.

NYSDOT gets requests all the time from across the state where people and municipalities are seeking to lower speed limits.  Many of these make the news, but not all of them do.

(personal opinion)

NYSDOT needs to raise speed limits on Long Island... max speed is 55mph, you do that in the right lane you're getting killed, do 80 mph in left lane and it isn't fast enough. Average speed here feels like at least 70 mph on all highways including the southern and northern parkways full of winding turns and lack of shoulders. Nobody does the speed limit unless you're looking to cause an accident and road rage here.

The article states "The MUTCD also standardizes signaling and pavement markings that often prioritize cars over all other road users."  Well yeah, the overwhelmingly vast majority of road users are vehicles, why would pedestrian and bicycle take precedence when they make up such a small percentage of road users? There's sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, there's shoulder widths and bike lanes already covered in the MUTCD and highway design . Do they want a separate urban roadway shared use plan instead?

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

It can also be noted that the manual has countless options where a reduction in speed should be posted or utilized, and almost nothing that encourages faster speeds.

The manual is also expanding their bike and ped guidance extensively, yet the bike people seem to have a moving target where they will never be satisfied with what's in the manual, even when it was their very suggestions that got adopted.

Quote from: 1 on April 04, 2021, 09:46:11 AM
Where I live, there is no grid, so signals can't be timed easily. To get a greater percentage of greens, there are some intersections where left turns should be banned, making it a 2-phase signal. This also has the advantage of fewer crashes for both vehicles and pedestrians.

So...New Jersey jughandles?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2021, 03:29:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on April 04, 2021, 09:46:11 AM
Where I live, there is no grid, so signals can't be timed easily. To get a greater percentage of greens, there are some intersections where left turns should be banned, making it a 2-phase signal. This also has the advantage of fewer crashes for both vehicles and pedestrians.

So...New Jersey jughandles?

There are several ways to do it. New Jersey jughandles work, as do other possibilities (such as dedicated median U-turns).

Quote from: behogie230 on April 04, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

I look to the learned experts to establish absolute limits, be it on speed, minimum yellow light lengths, building occupancy, elevator loads, ideal daily fiber intake, whatever.  I see no problem taking public opinion into consideration in determining if lower allowable limits should be set.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

I agree the author totally derailed his argument into irrelevancies.

I had to do a double-take to see that the source was not streetsblog.

For the longest time, Kentucky's fatalities were lower last year than the prior year, but something happened to make the fatality rate end up higher than 2019. No one seems to have a good guess as to why.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

I mean, I believe we do need to bring the perspective of women and people of color into the picture. But the way to do that is to encourage women and people of color to become educated as highway engineers.

Honestly, I wonder what percentage of speed-related car crashes involve drivers going over the limit. If it's a large percentage, perhaps we need greater enforcement of the limits or even greater punishment for breaking them. If it's not, then look at other factors, such as texting, automobile infotainment systems, and social factors before changing the limit. Maybe the stress during the pandemic of losing a job or a loved one caused people to not pay much attention to the road. You can't just chalk it all up to speed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the speed limit doesn't determine the dangerousness of a situation, it's the environment. Driving 55 on I-610 in Houston is much more dangerous than driving 85 on TX-130 because there's more traffic, more merging, and more distractions for drivers on 610. Dropping the speed limit on 130 to 55 wouldn't probably help out that much because the drivers would still go as fast as they were going before, and the law followers would create unsafe differences in speed on the highway which could lead to crashes.

We also need much better driver's education, and I'd argue it should be mandatory that drivers should take a defensive driving class every so often. In particular, I want to see steps taken to curb distracted driving; that is probably why many deaths on the road happen in the first place.

Also there's the fact that a lot of speed limits are set too low, such that a crash that occurs at normal speed is counted as over the limit.

Here is what we know:
-Vehicles are safer than theyve ever been
-Miles traveled was very low last year
-And yet fatalities are almost universally up around the country.

That does indicate that the rules and guides and not working and need to be changed.

Whatever AASHTO, FHWA, and NHTSA have been doing is clearly not working, unless we want to define working as 40,000 dead Americans every year. So yeah, maybe getting outside opinions is much needed.

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 11:38:30 AM
Here is what we know:
-Vehicles are safer than theyve ever been
-Miles traveled was very low last year
-And yet fatalities are almost universally up around the country.

That does indicate that the rules and guides and not working and need to be changed.

Whatever AASHTO, FHWA, and NHTSA have been doing is clearly not working, unless we want to define working as 40,000 dead Americans every year. So yeah, maybe getting outside opinions is much needed.

With less congestion, there are more fatalities. Another thing to note is that the speed that gets the most cars through on a freeway is about 35-40 mph. This means that we should (not sure how) aim for congested freeways to be 35-40 mph consistently instead of being almost stopped in some places and times and free flow at other times. For surface roads, this is where getting consecutive greens helps: also about the same speed (depending on the road), with no stopping.

Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2021, 11:46:26 AM

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 11:38:30 AM
Here is what we know:
-Vehicles are safer than theyve ever been
-Miles traveled was very low last year
-And yet fatalities are almost universally up around the country.

That does indicate that the rules and guides and not working and need to be changed.

Whatever AASHTO, FHWA, and NHTSA have been doing is clearly not working, unless we want to define working as 40,000 dead Americans every year. So yeah, maybe getting outside opinions is much needed.

With less congestion, there are more fatalities. Another thing to note is that the speed that gets the most cars through on a freeway is about 35-40 mph. This means that we should (not sure how) aim for congested freeways to be 35-40 mph consistently instead of being almost stopped in some places and times and free flow at other times. For surface roads, this is where getting consecutive greens helps: also about the same speed (depending on the road), with no stopping.

Data from urban areas indicates this isnt just a freeway problem.

Im not convinced that consecutive greens help. Too many people in certain brands of cars (ahem, chargers and cameros) see the wave of greens and believe its the perfect opportunity to try 100mph on a local road.

I dont know if this is true across the country, but I feel like Im seeing more reports of fatal crashes with multiple deaths, because you have one driver going 112mph crashing into 4 other vehicles at once.

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 11:51:55 AM
Im not convinced that consecutive greens help. Too many people in certain brands of cars (ahem, chargers and cameros) see the wave of greens and believe its the perfect opportunity to try 100mph on a local road.

With signs saying "signals timed for 30 mph" (which doesn't exist in most places, but does in some), with the appropriate number, it should be obvious that going faster than the speed of the green wave will result in a red light.

Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
With signs saying "signals timed for 30 mph" (which doesn't exist in most places, but does in some), with the appropriate number, it should be obvious that going faster than the speed of the green wave will result in a red light.

These exist on NY 441 (I will add a link later if I can find an example). Where else do they exist?

Lanes are "too wide" and that's a problem to them? I've seen this line of thinking before (the idea of: we have it too good and need to cut back) and - if followed- it always leads to changes that suck. I've driven quite a bit in countries that have narrower lanes and people drive just as crazily but seem to have a lot more wrecks and deaths, partially as a result of roads that are designed without the "luxuries" of wide lanes and nice wide shoulders. Break down in one of those places and perhaps your vehicle will be blocking half of the right lane where it makes a fine target for a high speed hit.

Sorry, but I call BS on that entire article.  It's crap.

Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2021, 12:05:48 PM

Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
With signs saying "signals timed for 30 mph" (which doesn't exist in most places, but does in some), with the appropriate number, it should be obvious that going faster than the speed of the green wave will result in a red light.

These exist on NY 441 (I will add a link later if I can find an example). Where else do they exist?

US 202 in Holyoke MA, though for 25 MPH. Going east from where I-391 ends at US 202, driving that speed nets you a perfect string of green lights as advertised.

https://goo.gl/maps/H9VerSywcRpfmLpi8

(Also good luck reading that sign to begin with)

Quote from: Mccojm on April 04, 2021, 02:54:50 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2021, 12:08:37 PM

Quote from: behogie230 on April 04, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

Don't be so sure.  Despite the fact that most people speed, people also tend to believe the people these days drive "too fast".  The attitude seems to be "slower for thee but not for me".

Also keep in mind the perception that "if you set the speed limit for X, everyone will just go X+Y".  It's been debunked many times, but most people still believe it.

NYSDOT gets requests all the time from across the state where people and municipalities are seeking to lower speed limits.  Many of these make the news, but not all of them do.

(personal opinion)

NYSDOT needs to raise speed limits on Long Island... max speed is 55mph, you do that in the right lane you're getting killed, do 80 mph in left lane and it isn't fast enough. Average speed here feels like at least 70 mph on all highways including the southern and northern parkways full of winding turns and lack of shoulders. Nobody does the speed limit unless you're looking to cause an accident and road rage here.

I feel like there needs to be a provision in state laws that allow you to exceed the speed limit in order to keep with the flow of traffic. Something like "a person may drive at a speed that exceeds the speed limit for the purposes of maintaining within ten miles per hour of the speed of the normal flow of traffic under the existing conditions at the time, provided, however, this shall not override the basic speed law or rules governing the passing of slower traffic." Such a provision, while having obvious exceptions, would allow people who don't want to exceed the speed limit too much to be able to do so for safety.

Unfortunately, some people decided the empty roads in the lockdowns was a great time to try driving 100 mph.  At some point you always run into the "you can't fix stupid" issue.

It also doesn't help that many people were rusty when they returned to driving after the lockdowns.  Driving is very much a skill where experience matters.  This also affects things like graduated licencing programs, which are currently structured around the idea that safety issues for young drivers are solely caused by teenagers being reckless, when in reality driver experience is the more important variable.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 12:45:17 PM

Quote from: Mccojm on April 04, 2021, 02:54:50 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2021, 12:08:37 PM

Quote from: behogie230 on April 04, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
So they're implying AASHTO, FHWA and the like should take public input for something that most people know nothing about? Honestly the majority of respondents would probably think wider and faster is better.

Don't be so sure.  Despite the fact that most people speed, people also tend to believe the people these days drive "too fast".  The attitude seems to be "slower for thee but not for me".

Also keep in mind the perception that "if you set the speed limit for X, everyone will just go X+Y".  It's been debunked many times, but most people still believe it.

NYSDOT gets requests all the time from across the state where people and municipalities are seeking to lower speed limits.  Many of these make the news, but not all of them do.

(personal opinion)

NYSDOT needs to raise speed limits on Long Island... max speed is 55mph, you do that in the right lane you're getting killed, do 80 mph in left lane and it isn't fast enough. Average speed here feels like at least 70 mph on all highways including the southern and northern parkways full of winding turns and lack of shoulders. Nobody does the speed limit unless you're looking to cause an accident and road rage here.

I feel like there needs to be a provision in state laws that allow you to exceed the speed limit in order to keep with the flow of traffic. Something like "a person may drive at a speed that exceeds the speed limit for the purposes of maintaining within ten miles per hour of the speed of the normal flow of traffic under the existing conditions at the time, provided, however, this shall not override the basic speed law or rules governing the passing of slower traffic." Such a provision, while having obvious exceptions, would allow people who don't want to exceed the speed limit too much to be able to do so for safety.

That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

If speed really is the issue, then why do many European countries have higher speed limits than the US, but their fatality rates are much lower? Also, much of Africa has low speed limits, but high fatality rates.

One of the answers is driver's education. German drivers have to take 25-45 hours of professional instruction, plus 12 hours of theory. Also, offenses such as drunk driving are punished more severely there than they are around here. They take driving very seriously, and we should, too. I see too many other drivers that frankly just don't take it very seriously. All drivers should note that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 01:34:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 02:40:46 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 01:34:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Whats your source for all this?

Because this is what I found from 2019

"Rising speed limits over the past 25 years have cost nearly 37,000 lives, including more than 1,900 in 2017 alone, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Maximum speed limits are set by the states, and they have been rising since the mid-1990s. Proponents of raising the speed limit often argue that such increases simply bring the law in line with reality, since most drivers exceed the limit. Once the limit is raised, however, drivers go even faster.

Today, 41 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph or higher. Six states have 80 mph limits, and drivers in Texas can legally drive 85 mph on some roads.

For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates – including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate – he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.

Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways – the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit – and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths – 13,638 on interstates and freeways – and 23,122 on other roads – than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.

Of the 37,133 people who died on U.S. roads in 2017, Farmer estimates that 1,934, or 5 percent, would still be alive if speed limits hadn't changed since 1993."

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years


And also, you say:
"People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  "

That very well may be true. But we're talking about safety, not comfort. 

Hypothetically, a 17mph speed limit would be really uncomfortable to drive at. But you know what, I have a feeling it would be pretty safe.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 02:40:46 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 01:34:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Human nature varies. People do drive at the speed they're comfortable at. 55mph is the max speed some people are comfortable driving at. Others, 100mph. The speed differential can be dangerous at times, especially when a slower driver wants to change lanes. There are also drivers who abide by the limit and will only go up to 5 over. Raising the speed limit will only make those drivers feel like they have to go faster. It could also possibly encourage a select few fast people to go even faster, because now, "25 over" has become "15 over" and it feels less serious. This is why giving slower drivers the option to exceed the limit when they aren't keeping up with the flow will make traffic safer while still keeping speeders in check.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2021, 09:45:40 PM

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

I mean, I believe we do need to bring the perspective of women and people of color into the picture. But the way to do that is to encourage women and people of color to become educated as highway engineers.

I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

Quote from: CoreySamson on April 04, 2021, 10:02:47 PM
Honestly, I wonder what percentage of speed-related car crashes involve drivers going over the limit. If it's a large percentage, perhaps we need greater enforcement of the limits or even greater punishment for breaking them. If it's not, then look at other factors, such as texting, automobile infotainment systems, and social factors before changing the limit.

I've heard it's a big untold secret that the majority of speed-related crashes are caused by going "too fast for conditions", not by going over the posted limit.  However, I've never seen any actual data, nor am I sure there even is a dataset available to see.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 04:46:08 PM
I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

The author said "women AND people of color"

Are we really going to act like men and women have the same travel patterns and act the same on roadways?

QuoteFor nearly every year from 1975 to 2019, the number of male crash deaths was more than twice the number of female crash deaths, but the gap has narrowed.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females

We have an ASTONISHING amount of data on how people get around thanks to this:

National Household Travel Survey

QuoteConducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the NHTS is the authoritative source on the travel behavior of the American public. It is the only source of national data that allows one to analyze trends in personal and household travel. It includes daily non-commercial travel by all modes, including characteristics of the people traveling, their household, and their vehicles.
https://nhts.ornl.gov/

If you browse the data, youll find that women take many more non-automotive trips than men.

That is, if you put 5 white males in a room, and ask them to "fix transportation" odds are, they will come up with a very different result than if you put 5 black women in the room with the same prompt. Simply put, their daily lived experience is different.

Having feedback from a diverse set of people means youre more likely to see the whole picture.

Someone who rides a bus, who is more likely to by a minority female, might say that "no sidewalks leading to the bus stop" is a serious safety concern. Your typical group of AASHTO traffic engineers likely that rode a bus in middle school and they simply wont think of it. Not because theyre bad people, but because in their daily life, its simply not something that registers.

Also, note in my comment I use "more likely", "odds are" etc. Yes, your random selection of 5 white males COULD result in 5 people who only use the bus. Absolutely possible. Its just unlikely. Thats why diversity is needed.

But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 05:19:01 PM
But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

I work with a DOT, as a consultant.

The complaint being raised right now is exactly what you said: the current volunteers do not "represent that same cross-section of America" and because of that they have giant blind spots. Those blind spots happen to be related to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, which is why it seems organizations representing those areas are speaking up louder.

"because they took the same educational route to get there"

The thing is, many of these folks are experts at what the 1991 road manual says (for example) but havent really kept up to date on the state of the practice. Yes, theyre required to get x amount of professional credits every year to maintain their license, but for some reason, this doesnt stick with many of them. I know that doctors subscribe to and read medical journals, but Ive never met a traffic engineer that does.

As someone who is brought in by DOTs to assist with Road Safety Audits (RSA's) it's frightening how much pushback we get when we submit our recommendations because of the mistaken belief that x is not allowed. I cant count how many times Ive had to print off FHWA documents to try and convince an engineer that yes, we only recommend stuff that has been approved and no Im not making up the concept of a pedestrian refuge island.

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 05:19:01 PM
But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

The reason why it'd a good thing to have people of different ethnicities and genders in the profession is that it means because of their different life experiences they'll apply that common education in different ways. Which would mean transportation systems more closely reflect how people with differing backgrounds use them, which is a good thing.

That level of education is still necessary, though. Adding the voices of someone to the process who is not trained as a traffic engineer, even if they aren't a white straight cisgender male, is going to just add meaningless noise to the process, because it will be adding points of view that aren't founded on what's feasible. One of the things education teaches you is what has been tried before and proven not to work.

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 06, 2021, 12:09:32 PM
Lanes are "too wide" and that's a problem to them? I've seen this line of thinking before (the idea of: we have it too good and need to cut back) and - if followed- it always leads to changes that suck. I've driven quite a bit in countries that have narrower lanes and people drive just as crazily but seem to have a lot more wrecks and deaths, partially as a result of roads that are designed without the "luxuries" of wide lanes and nice wide shoulders. Break down in one of those places and perhaps your vehicle will be blocking half of the right lane where it makes a fine target for a high speed hit.

I agree. I've seen urban areas near me with narrower lanes and on street parking and I frequently see busses and trucks having to partially pull off to the side and let another large vehicle traveling in the opposite direction go past.

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 03:04:08 PM...a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

More need not be said. Consider the source.

It's one of the things you see most often expressed as a dislike of AAA. They don't seem to advocate for things drivers actually want, such as the ability to get where they're going quicker. They're in the insurance business, not the motorist advocacy business. I've seen more than a few express a preference for the National Motorists Association. I'm not sure what type of roadside assistance NMA offers, if they do at all, or how many contracted providers they have, but they might be worth looking into, especially if AAA is going to discontinue its Tour Books and has already axed the Triptik strip maps.

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 03:04:08 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 02:40:46 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 01:34:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Whats your source for all this?

Because this is what I found from 2019

"Rising speed limits over the past 25 years have cost nearly 37,000 lives, including more than 1,900 in 2017 alone, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Maximum speed limits are set by the states, and they have been rising since the mid-1990s. Proponents of raising the speed limit often argue that such increases simply bring the law in line with reality, since most drivers exceed the limit. Once the limit is raised, however, drivers go even faster.

Today, 41 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph or higher. Six states have 80 mph limits, and drivers in Texas can legally drive 85 mph on some roads.

For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates – including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate – he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.

Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways – the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit – and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths – 13,638 on interstates and freeways – and 23,122 on other roads – than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.

Of the 37,133 people who died on U.S. roads in 2017, Farmer estimates that 1,934, or 5 percent, would still be alive if speed limits hadn't changed since 1993."

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years


And also, you say:
"People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  "

That very well may be true. But we're talking about safety, not comfort. 

Hypothetically, a 17mph speed limit would be really uncomfortable to drive at. But you know what, I have a feeling it would be pretty safe.

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Quote
Lowering or raising the posted speed limits at the experimental sites had little
effect on driver behavior as reflected by the 85th percentile speeds. Lowering the
speed limit by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 32 km/h) at the study sites did not
result in major reductions such as 5 mi/h (8 km/h) or more in the 85th percentile
speeds. Raising the speed limit by 5, 10, o r 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 24 km/h) at the study
sites also did not result in major increases such as 5 mi/h (8 km/h) or more in the
85th percentile speeds.

Quote
At sites where speed limits were lowered, percentile speeds below the 50th percentile speed tended to increase, and percentile speeds above the 50th percentile
speed tended to decrease. However, as shown in figure 18, a similar trend occurred at
the comparison sites where the posted speed limits were not changed. The net effects,
shown in figure 20, indicate that when speeds were reduced by 10 mi/h (16 km/h), the
slowest drivers (1st percentile) increased their speed approximately 1 mi/h (1.6 km/h).
There were no changes in the highest speed drivers (99th percentile); however, when
speed limits were lowered by 15 or 20 mi/h (24 or 32 km/h), there was approximately a
1-mi/h (1.6-km/h) increase in the 95th percentile speed.
At sites where posted speed limits were raised, generally there was a small
increase in speeds below the 75th percentile (less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 km/h)). The net
effects, shown in figure 21, indicate that there was a small decrease in the 99th percentile speed when speed limits were raised by IO or 1 5 mi/h (16 or 24 km/h).

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 05:19:01 PM
But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

Perhaps someone who actually works with a DOT could chime in on this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the author wanted diversity to include non-engineers as well.  A bike advocate or urban planner, for example, is going to have a very difference perspective than a traffic engineer.  The April Fool's Day prank by the Albany Bike Coalition this year was to send an official-looking email to its mailing list with a fake press release purporting to be from NYSDOT claiming that Central Ave (NY 5, a four-lane, 40 mph arterial with an AADT ranging from 20k-45k) would get a road diet to add a planted tree median, bike lanes, and a speed limit reduction to 25 mph.  I'm sure if our traffic engineers saw that, they'd have a heart attack, but out planners loved it.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 10:08:57 PM

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Is a study that was conducted in 1986 really the best we have? Thats a full decade before the national 55mph limit was revoked.

And this is a red flag:

collection of the after data ranged from several days to as much as 2 years following the speed limit change

Im sorry, but "several days" is not enough to determine the effects of a speed limit change. Most daily drivers wont even notice!

I noticed you attacked the IIHS report without any discussion on their methodology. Unless your accusation is that they doctored the data or are wrong, the source simply doesnt matter, just the facts.

Modern traffic engineering has not advanced by focus grouping how to engineer safer roadways.  User preferences are only a small part of the picture.  Most traffic engineering is study-based with physics playing a role.  The fact that five black women might highlight the need for a sidewalk at the bus stop based on anecdotal or empirical knowledge has nothing to do with traffic engineering insofar as the MUTCD doesn't dictate whether bus stops should or shouldn't have sidewalks.

The correct question isn't what five black women would say, it's what five black female traffic engineers would say that is different from their white male counterparts when it comes to traffic safety.  The author of the article blithely assumes based solely on their gender or ethnicity they would have different approaches to traffic engineering than white males, despite the fact that regardless of race or gender they are all being taught the same traffic engineering theories, reviewing the same data and studies, etc.

A law professor who teaches land use does not have the experience or training to opine on whether current traffic engineering curricula is fatally biased due to the race or gender of its teachers.  She makes facile assumptions based on an underlying implication that race and sex have resulted in flawed and faulty conclusions about how to most safely engineer a roadway.

Ultimately, her objection is that as a society we've prioritized speed over other factors more than she believes is appropriate. That's a public policy argument, with the "blame"  falling on the public and politicians rather than traffic engineers or groups like AASHTO.  But to correct the problem she's targeting the wrong group based on unproven claims of inherent bias.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 07, 2021, 02:28:13 AM
The correct question isn't what five black women would say, it's what five black female traffic engineers would say that is different from their white male counterparts when it comes to traffic safety.  The author of the article blithely assumes based solely on their gender or ethnicity they would have different approaches to traffic engineering than white males, despite the fact that regardless of race or gender they are all being taught the same traffic engineering theories, reviewing the same data and studies, etc.

Someone with a different background may well have a novel way of looking at traffic engineering, given the same training, that allows them to develop novel traffic engineering theories that advance the state of the art. But in order for that to be possible, they need to have the same starting point (i.e. education) as any other traffic engineer.

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 04:46:08 PM
I'm curious to know why the author assumes black women wouldn't be trained to prioritize driver speed.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2021, 07:04:37 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2021, 05:19:01 PM
But are "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD" going to represent that same cross-section of America?  Considering that it's the DOTs that form AASHTO voting membership, for example, I'd suppose that the members would by and large be trained similarly regardless of ethnicity or gender–because they took the same educational route to get there.

The reason why it'd a good thing to have people of different ethnicities and genders in the profession is that it means because of their different life experiences they'll apply that common education in different ways. Which would mean transportation systems more closely reflect how people with differing backgrounds use them, which is a good thing.

That level of education is still necessary, though. Adding the voices of someone to the process who is not trained as a traffic engineer, even if they aren't a white straight cisgender male, is going to just add meaningless noise to the process, because it will be adding points of view that aren't founded on what's feasible. One of the things education teaches you is what has been tried before and proven not to work.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2021, 02:39:12 AM
Someone with a different background may well have a novel way of looking at traffic engineering, given the same training, that allows them to develop novel traffic engineering theories that advance the state of the art. But in order for that to be possible, they need to have the same starting point (i.e. education) as any other traffic engineer.

I never questioned the diversity of life experiences and priorities between races and sexes.  I also never denied that different people apply their educational training in different ways.  What I said is that I wondered why the author assumes it would only be white males who are trained to prioritize driver speed.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 10:08:57 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the author wanted diversity to include non-engineers as well.  A bike advocate or urban planner, for example, is going to have a very difference perspective than a traffic engineer.

That's a good take.  Perhaps the author would rather the decisions not be made not so much on the basis of engineering decisions, but more on other "soft" factors that matter more to the author.  If that's the case, then the author should at least admit that, rather than making any baseless claims about the engineers' training.

Quote from: jamess on April 07, 2021, 12:09:03 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 10:08:57 PM

How about the FHWA, a source FAR less biased than the IIHS (which shouldn't even be allowed to comment on such things due to the profit motive in using speeding tickets to raise premiums on otherwise safe drivers)?
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Is a study that was conducted in 1986 really the best we have? Thats a full decade before the national 55mph limit was revoked.

And this is a red flag:

collection of the after data ranged from several days to as much as 2 years following the speed limit change

Im sorry, but "several days" is not enough to determine the effects of a speed limit change. Most daily drivers wont even notice!

I noticed you attacked the IIHS report without any discussion on their methodology. Unless your accusation is that they doctored the data or are wrong, the source simply doesnt matter, just the facts.

Ever hear the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?  It's possible to make statistics say anything you want, especially when you have an agenda.  In any case, it doesn't say anything about the speed people actually drive, so it's not really relevant to my point that people won't just go "even faster" by raising the limit to match the speed of travel.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 04, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
So many things wrong with this article.  First, I'm a lawyer just like the author, but I would never purport that my opinion on road design trumps that of an engineer.  Second, this paragraph: "AASHTO, the code councils and the federal agency writing the MUTCD are dominated by white, male engineers who are trained to prioritize driver speed. We need women, people of color, transit users and bike-pedestrian advocates to bring new perspectives and cultural competencies into the conversation."

Lawyers think they know everything.  Law professors even more so.  Adding a gender and ethnicity slant to it is the icing on the cake.

Thank you for so eliminating the need for me to read the article. That sentence alone proves its utter trash. Having actually read a highway engineering manual or two, I will say that prioritizing speed is not really the main theme anyway. But what a load of BS.  :banghead:

I also want to point out that the one female member who has posted in this thread is a DOT employee and disagrees with the article.

<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 08, 2021, 04:21:41 PM
<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

By not reading the article, youve simply chosen to embarrass yourself instead.

Heres a hint at how off base you are:

QuoteFourth, federal regulators must start integrating the safety of non-drivers in vehicle safety tests. While this seems obvious, it has virtually never been done in the U.S. We know that roads have gotten less safe for non-drivers, but we don't know exactly how dangerous some cars are. Tests that can measure non-driver safety will pull back the curtain.

Quote from: jamess on April 08, 2021, 07:32:57 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 08, 2021, 04:21:41 PM
<rant>

I'm not able to read the article because they want my email address, and I'm not interested in providing that for what sounds like to be a shit article. From what I understand skimming this thread, it's mostly a political grandstand about how white men are bad at engineering and are all just Gotta go fast! and that diversity will fix all our problems. There are problems with road design, absolutely, but if you're going to default to that argument, then I think I can look to someone else for actual insight.

If you have ideas to improve road safety design, just propose your ideas. Don't talk about how we need diversity quotas to propose ideas.

</rant>

By not reading the article, youve simply chosen to embarrass yourself instead.

Heres a hint at how off base you are:

QuoteFourth, federal regulators must start integrating the safety of non-drivers in vehicle safety tests. While this seems obvious, it has virtually never been done in the U.S. We know that roads have gotten less safe for non-drivers, but we don't know exactly how dangerous some cars are. Tests that can measure non-driver safety will pull back the curtain.

Of course, by reading the article, you just accepted what was written without any basis.  And what does "virtually never been done" mean?  Are they practically literally saying they're sure about that?

Whenever they can site stats for some things, they show the stats.  Whenever they use "we know that..." for other things, they're basically saying based on a few news stories where a pedestrian got hit, we'll assume that roads are less safe for non-drivers.

In reality, we have to look deeply at the accidents in the first place.  If bicyclists and pedestrians are getting hit where they're ultimately at fault, that's not the roadways being unsafe. That's bicyclists and pedestrians failing to follow the basic signs and signals, many of which were installed for their very safety.  The number of times I've read "bicyclists can go thru a red light because it's safer" is mind-blowing, because that's basically speaking that they don't want to follow the traffic rules.  If they were getting hit sitting at red lights, let's see that data.  And if that data reveals there's an insignificant number of accidents at red lights, that doesn't mean that bicyclists should start blowing thru red lights. 

And the number of times when a pedestrian was hit and "the nearest light/crosswalk was 500 feet away", that's used to make it appear 500 feet is a realllllly loooooonnnnngggggg distance.  In reality, if a slow walker takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, it would take them about 2 minutes to walk 500 feet.  No doubt they've walked longer than that to get to the point where they decided to fatally cross the street.   Add on that quite often they illegally cross the street, but then continue down thru the intersection that they could've crossed at legally, and there's no question that roads aren't unsafe for pedestrians...they just choose to ignore the laws meant for their safety because they already know that they can just argue that the police should be doing more important things.

When there's a ped/bike accident reported in the news, I generally look at this:  If there's a followup story, the motorist was at fault, and the media will do whatever it can to pick on the motorist.  If there's a story that says "It's being investigated/stop back for more updates" and there aren't followup stories or updates, the ped/bicyclist was at fault, and the newspaper decided to drop the story.

I typically don't wait for the walk signal to cross; I just cross when it's clear, taking advantage of medians when possible. (It helps that the Northeast has few undivided multilane roads.) I make sure that if the cars don't see me at all, I'll still make it across. I also cross behind cars quite often so that I'm not blocking their way, even at intersections.

If I absolutely need to cross at a specific spot, and there's no traffic signal nearby, I'll step into the shoulder if it's wide enough and wait for the cars to stop (where I typically did this before I moved into an apartment, it would be almost guaranteed within the first 6 cars). I would never do this on a road that's more than one lane in each direction, though.

Is this a problem?

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 08:36:58 AM
I typically don't wait for the walk signal to cross; I just cross when it's clear, taking advantage of medians when possible. (It helps that the Northeast has few undivided multilane roads.) I make sure that if the cars don't see me at all, I'll still make it across. I also cross behind cars quite often so that I'm not blocking their way, even at intersections.

If I absolutely need to cross at a specific spot, and there's no traffic signal nearby, I'll step into the shoulder if it's wide enough and wait for the cars to stop (where I typically did this before I moved into an apartment, it would be almost guaranteed within the first 6 cars). I would never do this on a road that's more than one lane in each direction, though.

Is this a problem?

Other than the fact that you make up your own rules?

The biggest problem tends to be pedestrians cut things closer than they should, especially in the eyes of a motorist.  If you're crossing when there's no cars in sight, then there's generally no issues.  But if you're crossing just in time, then you may unwittingly causing motorists to slow down so that they don't hit you.  You think you're doing fine in your eyes, but in a motorists eye, they're doing what they can to avoid hitting you.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
When there's a ped/bike accident reported in the news, I generally look at this:  If there's a followup story, the motorist was at fault, and the media will do whatever it can to pick on the motorist.  If there's a story that says "It's being investigated/stop back for more updates" and there aren't followup stories or updates, the ped/bicyclist was at fault, and the newspaper decided to drop the story.

Not always.  There was a case where someone was killed jaywalking near Cohoes and not only did the story get continued coverage, it was used as an example of dangerous road design and even became the centerpiece of the political push for rebuilding the road narrower with a 10 mph lower speed limit.

Basically, a road that felt slow at anything below 55 but which was signed for 45/40 was redesigned to be comfortable at 40 but signed at 35/30.  The engineering improvements are good, though with the speed limit drop the road still feels a bit on the slow side, and speed didn't kill the person whose death motivated the change - jaywalking did - but it seems like the answer to every issue on the roads these days, if you ask the advocates at least, is to lower speeds.

(personal opinion)

Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2021, 12:53:16 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
When there's a ped/bike accident reported in the news, I generally look at this:  If there's a followup story, the motorist was at fault, and the media will do whatever it can to pick on the motorist.  If there's a story that says "It's being investigated/stop back for more updates" and there aren't followup stories or updates, the ped/bicyclist was at fault, and the newspaper decided to drop the story.

Not always.  There was a case where someone was killed jaywalking near Cohoes and not only did the story get continued coverage, it was used as an example of dangerous road design and even became the centerpiece of the political push for rebuilding the road narrower with a 10 mph lower speed limit.

Basically, a road that felt slow at anything below 55 but which was signed for 45/40 was redesigned to be comfortable at 40 but signed at 35/30.  The engineering improvements are good, though with the speed limit drop the road still feels a bit on the slow side, and speed didn't kill the person whose death motivated the change - jaywalking did - but it seems like the answer to every issue on the roads these days, if you ask the advocates at least, is to lower speeds.

(personal opinion)

In cases like this, and I've seen other examples too, instead of blaming the pedestrian for jaywalking, they STILL blame others.

In a case we've talked about on these boards in the past, in Burlington City, NJ, the state actually created a law to make a specific area of US 130 25 mph at all times near a school because a student was killed, and speeding fines were tripled. https://goo.gl/maps/GwHTEY5bH9RCP2Tg7 . It was usually skimmed over that he was killed by a drunk driver after midnight walking on a sidewalk.  This article, written after the speed limit signs were posted, indicates that it's caused more issues on other streets: https://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/20191117/road-of-good-intentions .  Based on what I read (the article was written in 2019), there's been way more tickets written on side roads for people trying to get around congestion than written on 130 itself, and, while not said, few if any tickets may have even been written for speeding on 130.

What I would love to see is a followup article...of the students that lead these rallies to have the speed limit reduced.  What speeds do they do thru this same area.  Have they ever received a speeding ticket anywhere?  Have they ever drank, then gotten behind the wheel of a car?  Did they care much about this issue after they graduated from school?

Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 03:04:08 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 02:40:46 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 06, 2021, 01:34:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
That would require states to admit that speed limits are set too low... and if you're going to do that, why not raise the limit?

Because then people will just go even faster than the already high speed they're currently going. And since so many states are reluctant to admit speed limits are low while also refusing/being unable to post higher ones, this would provide a way to bypass that.

The idea that everyone speeds for the sake of speeding has been debunked.  People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  When that speed is well above the speed limit, the speed limit tends to be too low, and that tends to be true often enough that people may ignore a speed limit that's properly set for non-obvious reasons.  There have been studies done where states have raised their speed limits but average speeds changed by less than the increase, and 85th percentile speeds changed by very little if not gone DOWN.

Honestly, the fact that people refuse to accept that this has been debunked and continue to believe that everyone will just go faster if the speed limit is raised are part of the problem.

Whats your source for all this?

Because this is what I found from 2019

"Rising speed limits over the past 25 years have cost nearly 37,000 lives, including more than 1,900 in 2017 alone, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Maximum speed limits are set by the states, and they have been rising since the mid-1990s. Proponents of raising the speed limit often argue that such increases simply bring the law in line with reality, since most drivers exceed the limit. Once the limit is raised, however, drivers go even faster.

Today, 41 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph or higher. Six states have 80 mph limits, and drivers in Texas can legally drive 85 mph on some roads.

For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates – including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate – he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.

Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways – the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit – and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths – 13,638 on interstates and freeways – and 23,122 on other roads – than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.

Of the 37,133 people who died on U.S. roads in 2017, Farmer estimates that 1,934, or 5 percent, would still be alive if speed limits hadn't changed since 1993."

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years


And also, you say:
"People drive the speed they are comfortable at.  "

That very well may be true. But we're talking about safety, not comfort. 

Hypothetically, a 17mph speed limit would be really uncomfortable to drive at. But you know what, I have a feeling it would be pretty safe.

A red flag: this is presented as a scientific result, but there is no link to a peer-review paper. I bet they don't expect results to pass scrutiny.

I went through some of IIHS work a while ago - I don't believe their work has actual scientific value. At least this is not the papers I looked at.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
If bicyclists and pedestrians are getting hit where they're ultimately at fault, that's not the roadways being unsafe.

Engineering 101.

If many of your customers are using your product incorrectly, you don't have a customer problem, you have a design problem.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
That's bicyclists and pedestrians failing to follow the basic signs and signals, many of which were installed for their very safety.

Perhaps if pedestrians and bicyclists were included in the design process - one of the points of the original article - they would explain why those signals and signs are not being used as expected.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
In reality, if a slow walker takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, it would take them about 2 minutes to walk 500 feet.  No doubt they've walked longer than that to get to the point where they decided to fatally cross the street. 

Surely youre familiar with level of service (LOS).

A delay of 2 minutes is simply unacceptable.

Here is the location of a recent pedestrian fatality.
https://goo.gl/maps/dRFmjQXVMcmi6XzdA

Article:
https://www.app.com/story/news/local/emergencies/2021/03/21/pedestrian-killed-after-trying-cross-hazlet-highway/4792278001/

That is clearly a design problem. According to google, its an 11 minute, 0.5 mile walk to cross a 120 feet roadway. None of the folks who designed the road obviously traveled the area on foot toe experience their designs.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 04:52:23 PM
Here is the location of a recent pedestrian fatality.
https://goo.gl/maps/dRFmjQXVMcmi6XzdA

I'm not sure if this would comply with guidelines, but if pedestrians commonly cross here (meaning it isn't a one-off incident), there should be a 4-foot gap between every third barrier to allow for pedestrians to wait in the middle. The gaps would still be raised an inch or two, though; we don't want cars that barely stray into the center by accident to hit the end of a Jersey barrier.

I'm not sure how to handle wheelchairs without making the cars vulnerable to hitting the end or putting crosswalks absolutely everywhere.

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 05:05:16 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 04:52:23 PM
Here is the location of a recent pedestrian fatality.
https://goo.gl/maps/dRFmjQXVMcmi6XzdA

I'm not sure if this would comply with guidelines, but if pedestrians commonly cross here (meaning it isn't a one-off incident), there should be a 4-foot gap between every third barrier to allow for pedestrians to wait in the middle. The gaps would still be raised an inch or two, though; we don't want cars that barely stray into the center by accident to hit the end of a Jersey barrier.

I'm not sure how to handle wheelchairs without making the cars vulnerable to hitting the end or putting crosswalks absolutely everywhere.

One of the rules that make US roads so deadly (again pointing to the original article) is that the MUTCD has rules that make it very difficult to add pedestrian infrastructure due to the arbitrary warrants.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/fig4c_05_longdesc.htm

So unless you get 107 peds an hour crossing here (such a random number) youre not getting a signal.

An unsiganlized crosswalk wont pass muster here either, using the same MUTCD rules and common sense.

The end result is a rule book that basically says "pedestrian deaths are ok as long as they dont happen too often" which is certainly not the standard being used for motor vehicle safety interventions.

You don't need a pedestrian warrant to install a simple median. (My proposal above assumes that the Jersey barriers are currently serving a useful purpose; if they aren't, you can just replace the barriers entirely with a median.)

It's much easier to cross two one-way lanes twice than four lanes with two in each direction once.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 05:05:16 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 04:52:23 PM
Here is the location of a recent pedestrian fatality.
https://goo.gl/maps/dRFmjQXVMcmi6XzdA

I'm not sure if this would comply with guidelines, but if pedestrians commonly cross here (meaning it isn't a one-off incident), there should be a 4-foot gap between every third barrier to allow for pedestrians to wait in the middle. The gaps would still be raised an inch or two, though; we don't want cars that barely stray into the center by accident to hit the end of a Jersey barrier.

I'm not sure how to handle wheelchairs without making the cars vulnerable to hitting the end or putting crosswalks absolutely everywhere.

One of the rules that make US roads so deadly (again pointing to the original article) is that the MUTCD has rules that make it very difficult to add pedestrian infrastructure due to the arbitrary warrants.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/fig4c_05_longdesc.htm

So unless you get 107 peds an hour crossing here (such a random number) youre not getting a signal.

An unsiganlized crosswalk wont pass muster here either, using the same MUTCD rules and common sense.

The end result is a rule book that basically says "pedestrian deaths are ok as long as they dont happen too often" which is certainly not the standard being used for motor vehicle safety interventions.

ANYTHING in safety is " deaths are OK as long as they dont happen too often". It is also "deaths are OK as long as it is too expensive to avoid them"

Regarding 107 number - you realize that it is about situations when traffic doesn't warrant the signal otherwise?  And would it make you feel better if it was 100 pedestrians per hour?

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 05:17:36 PM
You don't need a pedestrian warrant to install a simple median. (My proposal above assumes that the Jersey barriers are currently serving a useful purpose; if they aren't, you can just replace the barriers entirely with a median.)

It's much easier to cross two one-way lanes twice than four lanes with two in each direction once.

I agree with you, but I see that proposal being stuck in circular logic.

-Adding a gap will encourage pedestrians to cross
-It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross due to the high speed limit and traffic volume
-Ergo, we cannot add a gap for pedestrians.

Quote from: kalvado on April 09, 2021, 05:26:14 PM
ANYTHING in safety is " deaths are OK as long as they dont happen too often". It is also "deaths are OK as long as it is too expensive to avoid them"

Actually, our peers in Scandinavia which developed Vison Zero have show that this is in fact not true. Deaths are preventable. The fact that our guidance is not designed around that, and instead prioritizes traffic movement, is the problem the article is talking about.

Quote from: kalvado on April 09, 2021, 05:26:14 PM
Regarding 107 number - you realize that it is about situations when traffic doesn't warrant the signal otherwise?  And would it make you feel better if it was 100 pedestrians per hour?

Nope. If there is demand for 99 pedestrians every hour to cross here, they dont deserve a safe crossing because of arbitrary reasons?

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 06:54:56 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 09, 2021, 05:26:14 PM
ANYTHING in safety is " deaths are OK as long as they dont happen too often". It is also "deaths are OK as long as it is too expensive to avoid them"

Actually, our peers in Scandinavia which developed Vison Zero have show that this is in fact not true. Deaths are preventable. The fact that our guidance is not designed around that, and instead prioritizes traffic movement, is the problem the article is talking about.

Yes, unfortunately education problems and prevalence of agenda over facts is not a US-only problem 

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 06:54:56 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 09, 2021, 05:26:14 PM
Regarding 107 number - you realize that it is about situations when traffic doesn't warrant the signal otherwise?  And would it make you feel better if it was 100 pedestrians per hour?

Nope. If there is demand for 99 pedestrians every hour to cross here, they dont deserve a safe crossing because of arbitrary reasons?

More like they don't create enough problems in a low-traffic area to warrant a light. It's an < OR > list of conditions, and summary is that if there are no pedestrians and no cars - there no need for traffic signal.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 06:54:56 PM

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 05:17:36 PM
You don't need a pedestrian warrant to install a simple median. (My proposal above assumes that the Jersey barriers are currently serving a useful purpose; if they aren't, you can just replace the barriers entirely with a median.)

It's much easier to cross two one-way lanes twice than four lanes with two in each direction once.

I agree with you, but I see that proposal being stuck in circular logic.

-Adding a gap will encourage pedestrians to cross
-It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross due to the high speed limit and traffic volume
-Ergo, we cannot add a gap for pedestrians.

Quote from: kalvado on April 09, 2021, 05:26:14 PM
ANYTHING in safety is " deaths are OK as long as they dont happen too often". It is also "deaths are OK as long as it is too expensive to avoid them"

Actually, our peers in Scandinavia which developed Vison Zero have show that this is in fact not true. Deaths are preventable. The fact that our guidance is not designed around that, and instead prioritizes traffic movement, is the problem the article is talking about.

I believe that Vision Zero doesn't claim as a goal to prevent ALL traffic related deaths.  That's not possible in any meaningful way.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 04:52:23 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
If bicyclists and pedestrians are getting hit where they're ultimately at fault, that's not the roadways being unsafe.

Engineering 101.

If many of your customers are using your product incorrectly, you don't have a customer problem, you have a design problem.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
That's bicyclists and pedestrians failing to follow the basic signs and signals, many of which were installed for their very safety.

Perhaps if pedestrians and bicyclists were included in the design process - one of the points of the original article - they would explain why those signals and signs are not being used as expected.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
In reality, if a slow walker takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, it would take them about 2 minutes to walk 500 feet.  No doubt they've walked longer than that to get to the point where they decided to fatally cross the street. 

Surely youre familiar with level of service (LOS).

A delay of 2 minutes is simply unacceptable.

None of these arguments make any sense.  There's no "delay" of 2 minutes.  That's just 2 minutes walking on a sidewalk.  Peds and bicyclists are included in design processes...which is how ped signals are now timed, and how bicyclists are given the very specific lanes they requested (bicyclists themselves can't agree on what design they want though).   And the road design is fine in most cases.  You say how there was a single pedestrian death...yet what about all the other pedestrians that managed to get from one side of the highway to the other?  The design clearly works...it's someone who decides they want to shortcut the system that often causes their own death.

Quote from: 1 on April 09, 2021, 08:36:58 AM
I typically don't wait for the walk signal to cross; I just cross when it's clear, taking advantage of medians when possible. (It helps that the Northeast has few undivided multilane roads.) I make sure that if the cars don't see me at all, I'll still make it across. I also cross behind cars quite often so that I'm not blocking their way, even at intersections.

If I absolutely need to cross at a specific spot, and there's no traffic signal nearby, I'll step into the shoulder if it's wide enough and wait for the cars to stop (where I typically did this before I moved into an apartment, it would be almost guaranteed within the first 6 cars). I would never do this on a road that's more than one lane in each direction, though.

Is this a problem?

The first part is certainly not a problem. I often do the same.

The second part depends on the context. If it's an urban or heavily developed area, it's probably fine, but there's no expectation for the drivers to stop unless there's a crosswalk, so I wouldn't do it on a rural road or any road with a speed limit higher than 40.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 10:11:26 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 04:52:23 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
If bicyclists and pedestrians are getting hit where they're ultimately at fault, that's not the roadways being unsafe.

Engineering 101.

If many of your customers are using your product incorrectly, you don't have a customer problem, you have a design problem.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
That's bicyclists and pedestrians failing to follow the basic signs and signals, many of which were installed for their very safety.

Perhaps if pedestrians and bicyclists were included in the design process - one of the points of the original article - they would explain why those signals and signs are not being used as expected.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
In reality, if a slow walker takes 20 minutes to walk 1 mile, it would take them about 2 minutes to walk 500 feet.  No doubt they've walked longer than that to get to the point where they decided to fatally cross the street. 

Surely youre familiar with level of service (LOS).

A delay of 2 minutes is simply unacceptable.

None of these arguments make any sense.  There's no "delay" of 2 minutes.  That's just 2 minutes walking on a sidewalk.  Peds and bicyclists are included in design processes...which is how ped signals are now timed, and how bicyclists are given the very specific lanes they requested (bicyclists themselves can't agree on what design they want though).   And the road design is fine in most cases.  You say how there was a single pedestrian death...yet what about all the other pedestrians that managed to get from one side of the highway to the other?  The design clearly works...it's someone who decides they want to shortcut the system that often causes their own death.

There were two fatal accidents within a month with people trying to cross same road in the same general area.
There is a clear issue of pedestrian infrastructure along the road, if you move around in google maps. But, as far as I can tell, this is one of those roads which collect traffic at a highway and operate close to the limit - if not beyond the limit. 
Unfortunately, the way things are set up - for  example, general American public being unable to use underground cossings due to crime issues, and ADA effectively banning such crossings - there are no good ways to resolve such issues.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
So unless you get 107 peds an hour crossing here (such a random number) youre not getting a signal.

107 strikes me as the opposite of random.  100 would strike me as random, but 107 strikes me as a number that was reached by doing actual research and calculation.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
The end result is a rule book that basically says "pedestrian deaths are ok as long as they dont happen too often" which is certainly not the standard being used for motor vehicle safety interventions.

Yes, pedestrian deaths are OK as long as they don't happen too often.  This is true.  In order to ensure roads have zero deaths, the only approach that would actually work is to physically prevent anybody from using those roads.  Humans by nature make mistakes and poor choices, and some percentage of those mistakes and decisions will result in injury or death.  Somewhere between zero and 'too many', a line needs to be drawn.  You may disagree about where the line is drawn, but the line still needs to be drawn.

Quote from: kphoger on April 13, 2021, 01:45:30 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
So unless you get 107 peds an hour crossing here (such a random number) youre not getting a signal.

107 strikes me as the opposite of random.  100 would strike me as random, but 107 strikes me as a number that was reached by doing actual research and calculation.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
The end result is a rule book that basically says "pedestrian deaths are ok as long as they dont happen too often" which is certainly not the standard being used for motor vehicle safety interventions.

Yes, pedestrian deaths are OK

Odd, I dont remember us covering that topic in ethics class, nor in my annual ethics recertification

You must have had a shitty ethics professor, then. They covered it in mine back in 2007.

Quote from: jamess on April 13, 2021, 02:11:31 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 13, 2021, 01:45:30 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
So unless you get 107 peds an hour crossing here (such a random number) youre not getting a signal.

107 strikes me as the opposite of random.  100 would strike me as random, but 107 strikes me as a number that was reached by doing actual research and calculation.

Quote from: jamess on April 09, 2021, 05:12:56 PM
The end result is a rule book that basically says "pedestrian deaths are ok as long as they dont happen too often" which is certainly not the standard being used for motor vehicle safety interventions.

Yes, pedestrian deaths are OK

Odd, I dont remember us covering that topic in ethics class, nor in my annual ethics recertification

The cost of a human life is estimated at somewhere around $7 million (and non-fatal injuries also have numbers, but obviously much lower). It all just gets factored into calculations.

Quote from: kphoger on April 13, 2021, 01:45:30 PM
<snipped> In order to ensure roads have zero deaths, the only approach that would actually work is to physically prevent anybody from using those roads.  Humans by nature make mistakes and poor choices, and some percentage of those mistakes and decisions will result in injury or death.  Somewhere between zero and 'too many', a line needs to be drawn.  You may disagree about where the line is drawn, but the line still needs to be drawn.

Indeed.  In my world (mainly rubber-tired driverless AGT systems), the only way to achieve a zero-fatality safety certification is to prevent anything from accessing the guideway.  This not only includes passengers and maintenance personnel, but also large animals, trees, rocks, and other debris.  This means that the guideway must be fully enclosed with barrier walls and all access points must be fault alarmed using fail-safe detection.

Even with all of that, the current methodology of system safety (and related calculations) have eroded so far from the standards set in the mid-1970s that the industry now occasionally experiences some accidents that were never envisioned.  Once upon a time, it was required that an AGT contractor would need to mathematically prove that there would be no unacceptable risk accidents per every million hours of operation (for the uninformed, that's more than 100 years of continuous operations).  The rules were even more stringent for failure modes that could occur per train, per vehicle, per axle, per doorset, etc.  That paperwork was mighty expensive, but resulted in several generations of near-perfect operations (even with less stringent safety designs).

Mixed bag here.

I give the author credit for doing her homework and bringing up the Green Book first, as opposed to simply dumping on the MUTCD as has become trendy. The Green Book is what actually covers geometric design of roads, not the MUTCD (which is, as the name implies, strictly focused on "traffic control devices").

The author is likely also correct that the large pickups and SUVs that have become popular in the US are one contributing factor to the rate of pedestrian fatalities seen here.

On the other hand, the author starts to falter by correctly identifying that adjustments to geometric design of streets are needed to slow traffic, but then also dumping on the 85th percentile rule. While her argument against it sounds reasonable, this is a classic case of "people don't understand how speed limits work". The 85th percentile rule, while recommended by the MUTCD, is rarely actually followed in practice because a speed limit at the 85th percentile speed is frequently in excess of what state law permits to be posted, and even in cases where it isn't speed limits are usually posted below this level due to politics.
There is a problem with the 85th percentile rule, but that problem isn't that the rule is misguided - it's that in practice it's not actually followed. We'd be much better off if it were, since this would permit lower speed limits to be posted where they are actually warranted (due, perhaps, to a road feeling deceptively safe at higher speeds) and people would pay attention. Instead, drivers have been conditioned to speed limits always being underposted and just routinely disregard them. Thus, changing the speed limit on a given road without making any other changes often fails to alter vehicle speeds much (and this is true of raising speed limits too, not just lowering them!). We've destroyed our ability to use speed limits as a safety tool by constantly misusing them to the point of dulling their effect.

And then of course, the "we need a wider group of people involved in making the rules" bit is a load of anti-intellectual garbage. If anything there is already too wide a group involved because politicians keep meddling in it instead of leaving it to the people who are experts in the field.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 13, 2021, 07:38:59 PM
And then of course, the "we need a wider group of people involved in making the rules" bit is a load of anti-intellectual garbage. If anything there is already too wide a group involved because politicians keep meddling in it instead of leaving it to the people who are experts in the field.

I doubt that would help. Average engineering qualification takes a nosedive as baby boomers expire...

Quote from: Duke87 on April 13, 2021, 07:38:59 PM
And then of course, the "we need a wider group of people involved in making the rules" bit is a load of anti-intellectual garbage. If anything there is already too wide a group involved because politicians keep meddling in it instead of leaving it to the people who are experts in the field.

I've railed on this before, but sometimes local officials with really good intentions cause some of these issues.  Here in Orange County, North Carolina our planning regulations require new subdivisions over a certain size (it was 14 or more lots in my zoning area back 10 years ago) to provide for wide roadways on a 60-foot right of way with no cul-de-sac.  The hope was encourage more development creating a new network of through roads where emergency vehicles and school buses could access from both directions.  For developments that built to these standards, we now have high speed thoroughfares posted at 25 mph and cobbled with speed tables or speed bumps to try to keep traffic "calm".  Fortunately, Orange County residents are for the most part very sensible, so high speed chases through neighborhoods are still very rare.