Safety corridors may come to Kansas

[J N Winkler]

The Wichita Eagle story may be found here:

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article10459544.html

The proposal currently under discussion is an enhanced-fine zone with a penalty regime similar to that already existing for workzones.  The article does not mention typical features of safety corridors in other states, such as mandatory daytime headlamp use.

I laid out my opinion of the proposal in a comment on the article.  I do not think it is appropriate to have safety corridors on freeways like the lengths of Kellogg and K-96 mentioned in the article text.  It is also very important to have signing on a strict zone basis so that there is no ambiguity as to where the special requirements apply.  Any safety corridor that requires daytime headlamp use also must have "Check lights" signing on exit to avoid the inconvenience to the motorist and damage to the environment associated with battery discharge.

[kphoger]

Hasn't this been under consideration already in the past?

[J N Winkler]

It has, but owing to the state's (self-inflicted) budget difficulties, the current climate is unusually favorable to revenue grabs ("Bank of KDOT is open" and so on).

[triplemultiplex]

"Traffic Fines Double in Revenue Generating Corridors"

That's how I read the signs I see in various places in New Mexico.  Have fun with them, Kansas. 

[formulanone]

Palm Beach County has one of these on I-95; it lasts about 5-6 miles for a rather nondescript section of interstate with nothing particularly challenging nor unusual about it. They call it an "Enhanced Penalty Zone", and all they do is charge double for traffic fines. Sounds like a hockey term, but reeks of nonsense, to put it mildly.   

It might make sense for a dangerous section of road, with sharp or blind curves, or narrow sections, but that recently-widened section features none of those difficulties.