Toll Road within a Toll Road

[jeffandnicole]

Not necessarily. All the statement is saying is that "you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely". I think there's an "innocent until proven guilty" clause in there.

[bzakharin]

A lot of the drivers around here seem to think that it is the responsibility of traffic to let them in when they want to merge onto the highway or make a lane change (or even pull out of a driveway).  That probably causes quite a few accidents, but it's not something one would get a ticket for.

I don't get it. It doesn't matter what people think the law ought to be, or even what it is. If doing something causes *you* injury, you're not going to do it whether it's legal or not. Even if you're a pedestrian in a crosswalk and have undisputed right of way, you are still going to look both ways. It's not like someone wants to be hit and then say "oh it's the driver's fault, so I don't care".

[jakeroot]

If someone isn't regularly being retested on how to drive, to whom are they demonstrating an ability to drive safely?

Themselves, I suppose. If they fuck up, the police I guess.

Just because someone hasn't gotten a ticket or in a reported accident doesn't mean they're a safe driver.  They could just be lucky.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my problem.

A lot of the drivers around here seem to think that it is the responsibility of traffic to let them in when they want to merge onto the highway or make a lane change (or even pull out of a driveway).  That probably causes quite a few accidents, but it's not something one would get a ticket for.

Right-of-way rules are very clearly laid out in each state. Failure to respect this ROW is cause for a ticket.

hmm

If you don't fuck up, you're demonstrating your ability to drive safely. The same way that people are not guilty of a crime until it has been proven that they committed the crime, driver's are considered competent until they are proven not to be.

[Rothman]

If you move into a community that has an established light rail or other rail system, you would be willing to use it to and from work. However, you build one after you move in, you will not as you are already too comfortable with your own car and freedom that you would not give it up.

This is far too simplistic.  I would only use the rail system if it was more economical than using my car.

I'm not anti-public transit, either.  My wife took the bus to work...until she changed locations and the bus wasn't convenient any longer (not that it was very convenient in the first place time-wise).  Worked out well compared to how much we would have spent on a car to do the same job.

However, I like what your statement implies:  If you get people on public transit, they won't see how much more freedom they'd have with a car!  Can't get much more Orwellian than that!

...

As I've posted elsewhere, all of my graduate school electives were in planning and I was shocked by the mantras taught there and how unfriendly they were to families.  The mantra was to build mixed-use "transit-friendly" development that essentially meant apartments above businesses along narrowed roads for buses or streetcars.  The house-with-a-lawn -- the American Dream -- was scoffed at as inefficient and even unneeded.  In my classes, there were cries of, "Who needs that, anyway?" as professors and classmates cast judgment on basically all of suburban and rural America.  There was no consideration of family needs, whether they were carting groceries or carting kids, and no consideration of the diversity of our society.  Some people want the apartment and don't want to care for a lawn.  Others want space.  However, cramming everyone on top of each other isn't going to result in a very happy society.

In any matter, the car is here to stay for the freedom advantage it has over public transit.  We see that demand for freedom to the point where congestion is tolerated.  However, from my point of view, HOT lanes and the like do cause socioeconomic divisions between the haves and have-nots.  That's why I think tax structures to support our infrastructure are more egalitarian and fair than just letting the Lexuses use their Lexus Lanes.

[bzakharin]

You will always have divisions. Some people I know drive as little as possible because they can't afford the gas. The US government is not subsidizing that (in fact they tax it). Other governments do. Some people can't afford to live in places where they can find jobs. Lexus lanes are not unlike first class in planes. You fly in crowded cramped seats instead of legroom and free alcohol. You sit in traffic if you can't afford to pay extra. I'm not saying HOT lanes are the right way to go, but you have to decide where to draw the line.

[Pete from Boston]

I still don't get how driving being a right or not affects whether it's practical or even possible.  Even if it's a right, you don't have a right to enough road capacity wherever you want to go or park, which seems to be the real issue here. 

If one makes an arbitrary right like "you have the right to play professional basketball," the NBA will be overloaded and terrible, the teams will lose money, and everyone will be unsatisfied.  This is true for roads with the arbitrary right of driving.

Society is not obligated to build you a nice road just because you want it.

[kkt]

Of course driving is a privilege, not a right.  Rights are things like freedom of the press or freedom of worship.  You don't have to get a shouting license or a printing press license.  If you abuse it through libel or shouting fire in a crowded theatre there can be consequences afterwards, but no license required first.  Also since driving is a privilege, it can be taken as consent to drunk driving tests.

That said, I think it's kind of sad how HOT lanes are one more way the rich can be exempted from life's inconveniences that everyone else has to tolerate even in a public facility.

[NJRoadfan]

Shh, do not give the NJTA in NJ ideas to find that way to toll the 129 to 140 section they made the deal with the state not toll any of it when they bought the road from them.  Just join the trend and build new lanes and charge them instead.

HOT lanes would actually work well on the section from Exit 129 to 145. Finding space to build them along with crossover ramps is another matter entirely.

[SteveG1988]

Of course driving is a privilege, not a right.  Rights are things like freedom of the press or freedom of worship.  You don't have to get a shouting license or a printing press license.  If you abuse it through libel or shouting fire in a crowded theatre there can be consequences afterwards, but no license required first.  Also since driving is a privilege, it can be taken as consent to drunk driving tests.

That said, I think it's kind of sad how HOT lanes are one more way the rich can be exempted from life's inconveniences that everyone else has to tolerate even in a public facility.

One could argue that the toll roads are "one more way the rich can be exempted from Life's inconveniences" For example the NJ turnpike has free Us routes near by, for example once you cross over to NJ from DE you can take US 130 to US 1 near New Brunswick NJ, and then US 1 to the GWB. The rich get to take it at 65mph.

[vdeane]

A lot of the drivers around here seem to think that it is the responsibility of traffic to let them in when they want to merge onto the highway or make a lane change (or even pull out of a driveway).  That probably causes quite a few accidents, but it's not something one would get a ticket for.

I don't get it. It doesn't matter what people think the law ought to be, or even what it is. If doing something causes *you* injury, you're not going to do it whether it's legal or not. Even if you're a pedestrian in a crosswalk and have undisputed right of way, you are still going to look both ways. It's not like someone wants to be hit and then say "oh it's the driver's fault, so I don't care".

The point is that there's a world of difference between keeping your licence contingent on on demonstrating to the state that you can drive safely (such as by getting periodically re-tested with a test that is orders of magnitude more difficult than current road tests, which I support) vs. keeping your licence as long as you pay fees and don't get caught doing something bad (the current model).

[mrsman]

Of course driving is a privilege, not a right.  Rights are things like freedom of the press or freedom of worship.  You don't have to get a shouting license or a printing press license.  If you abuse it through libel or shouting fire in a crowded theatre there can be consequences afterwards, but no license required first.  Also since driving is a privilege, it can be taken as consent to drunk driving tests.

That said, I think it's kind of sad how HOT lanes are one more way the rich can be exempted from life's inconveniences that everyone else has to tolerate even in a public facility.

One could argue that the toll roads are "one more way the rich can be exempted from Life's inconveniences" For example the NJ turnpike has free Us routes near by, for example once you cross over to NJ from DE you can take US 130 to US 1 near New Brunswick NJ, and then US 1 to the GWB. The rich get to take it at 65mph.

I note a distinction between legacy toll roads like the NJTP and the NY Thruway versus more recent HOT lanes like in Los Angles and Northern Virginia.  HOT lanes will have price increased for congestion - and that encourages other traffic to use the free lanes.  For legacy toll roads, the only alternative is generally surface streets, so using the toll roads have been more accepted by the public.