Improving our Drivers, Roads, Speed Limits and Enforcement
I believe that there are several issues involved in improving our highway network. I would like to discuss ways to improve:
1. Driver training and standards
2. Road engineering and funding
3. Speed limits and proper applicability
4. Enforcement of all laws to improve safety and compliance
all together in this forum.
Please note that there might be some overlap with some already existing boards but I think that one forum to deal with these inter-related issues in a POSITIVE manner to IMPROVE the aspects under discussion might be appropriate.
Please also note that merely describing what is presently wrong is NOT enough. There must be a definite effort with implementable suggestions to IMPROVE whatever aspect you might think need improving, and the proposed solutions must be relevant to the USA.
I look forward to a positive and productive dicussion with my fellow forum members. If this board dies because of a lack of participation, then that will teach me something important as well.
1. Driver training and standards
2. Road engineering and funding
3. Speed limits and proper applicability
4. Enforcement of all laws to improve safety and compliance
all together in this forum.
Please note that there might be some overlap with some already existing boards but I think that one forum to deal with these inter-related issues in a POSITIVE manner to IMPROVE the aspects under discussion might be appropriate.
Please also note that merely describing what is presently wrong is NOT enough. There must be a definite effort with implementable suggestions to IMPROVE whatever aspect you might think need improving, and the proposed solutions must be relevant to the USA.
I look forward to a positive and productive dicussion with my fellow forum members. If this board dies because of a lack of participation, then that will teach me something important as well.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If the same people who administer the routine initial tests also administer these additional re-tests, how would that improve everyday driving standards? This would increase their workload manifold and increase wait times for new drivers to take their test.
Would these trade-offs be acceptable?
If the re-test is to be written only, how would this compare to the 4 hour "driver safety" course that is already available that gives a 20% insurance discount? Maybe this course should be made compulsory with the insurance companies' support?
Here's what I would do to improve it:
Create TWO DIFFERENT driving courses for new drivers.
Course 1 would be basic road rules, driver training, basically what we have now - but I would double or triple the written content, and increase the length of the road test - actually splitting it into 5 days of testing per student - and no one would pass without doing ALL of it well.
Course #2 would be completely focusing on SAFETY and DRIVER COURTESY.
Train young drivers about how to be courteous on the road. Show them graphic, disturbing videos of car crashes and dead people in cars. Take them to the hospital and let them see REAL dead bodies from car crashes, to impress upon them how their actions affect other people and themselves.
Make sure that stressing BLINKER USAGE, STOPPING COMPLETELY AT STOP SIGNS ( no "California stops" tolerated ), stress to them that when they see a yellow light ahead to START SLOWING DOWN AND PREPARE TO STOP instead of speeding up to make the light.
I would spend a whole half-day on the importance of not running red lights, not tailgating, and how to avoid becoming a road-rager.
I would teach them that even in a parking lot, people want to know which way you are turning, so ALWAYS use your blinkers as a courtesy to other drivers.
I would stress to them and teach them that driving is not something to put yourself on "auto pilot" but to be focusing constantly on the job of driving and paying attention to the cars and situations around you.
I would teach them anger-management skills to help them avoid being a victim of or a perpetrator of road rage, which kills a lot of people.
I would make sure that they understood WHY we have speed limits and that the speed limits are the UPPER LIMIT, not a RECOMMENDATION.
I would show them the studies which prove that speeding to a location not only increases your chances of an accident or getting a ticket, but also only minimally IF AT ALL allows you to arrive there any faster.
I would make them understand that a vehicle is not a toy, not an item to play games with, and certainly not for racing.
I will add more stuff later as it comes to me. This is only the start of how I would change the system.
I have a question though: WHO teaches a new driver all this? Presently, after a learner's permit, any family member over 21 or any other licenced driver over 21 may do the teaching, and that may not be upto the standards required, and also form the basis of bad habits handed down from generation to generation.
Much of what you say, which I mostly agree with, should already be covered, but is not under the present way of teaching new drivers. So the question of how all these goals you mention can be achieved depends greatly on who does the teaching.
Of course, restesting is an expense for government and somehow has to be paid. The cost should be paid per a fee charged to the llicensee.
State DOT offices probably do not have the capacity or personnel available to do retesting on regular intervals. DOTs could collaborate if they like to design standardized training/testing packages. Hgih school or community college teachers could be certified to run these courses and do the testing. These courses would be classroom based to start with.
We need some kind of person or organization such as, but not limited to, Obama Cabinet Transp Secty, MADD, IIHS, etc., to champion the cause of better driver training - classroom and road in the U.S.
It is disgusting that we as a nation apparently accept approximately 800 deaths per week in traffic crashes. Add in the thousands of injuries, some putting people in wheelchairs. We would not tolerate terrorists or a war-mongering country attacking and killing/injuring our citizens to the numbers we accept. Apparently, traffic deaths/injuries do not rise to the level of national attention.
Those are very good points. It is tragic that we allow it and accept it as OK.
At the same time, merely making laws piled upon existing laws without proper enforcement mechanisms, or all sorts of people and organizations making noble statements without any intelligently though-out actions, is obviously not going to be enough to improve the situation.
Safety, especially safety at speed, requires a lot of resources and has a lot of costs, both start-up as well as on-going. Any suggestions we make here need to have some thoughts related to how one can fund any related costs, direct as well as indirect.
However, WE in this forum can attempt to start changing this.
Perhaps this too should come from the gas tax, since it is directly related to driving and policing of the roads? I know they get part of their funds from there now, but it is a small part.
I will echo the call for MUCH better, institutionalized driver training courses run by either DMV or DOT, that MUST be passed before one can test for a license. Bearing in mind that a license is a privilege, it would be OK to charge prospective drivers a fee to cover the costs of these courses.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We all need a well funded and well trained police force. One sure way to expose these valuable individuals to corruption is not to fund them properly at local, state and federal levels.
However, given resource constraints, the funding can never be open-ended. Further, how do we ensure adequate funding for a small police force in a small mid-western town vs a big police force in a rich suburb on the coasts and every size and situation in between? And how does one keep out local politicians out of this process that will surely want in on this potential gravy train?
Now to take the cheap, easy way out that could be done with speed traps and other cheezy operations, but it doesn't have to be. All you gotta do is enforce dangerous, foolhardy, negligent violations, you can easily meet your quota and you are doing a valuable service to the motoring safety of the public.
No officer ever has to feel he's cheap shotting the public by writing speed trap tickets at 8 MPH over on a dry street with no traffic. Simply do the above and enforce the real dangerous violations, I assure you they are out there in plentitude. Do the job, the real job. And the beauty of this is that no police department administration will find fault with this, the revenue stream is the same, so great, they're happy.
The only possible damper in this is it is slightly harder work, but hell I feel good knowing I removed a selfish, reckless nut from the road for at least a short while.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/26/fy10.budget.pdf
Page 91 and 92 of 146 (one table not copied):
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATiON
Funding Highlights:
• Commits to better target surface transportation spending and explores options to make the Nation’s communities more livable and less congested, such as through road pricing.
• Increases funding for public transit to support commuters, improve air quality, and reduce greenhouse gases.
• Supports development of high speed rail networks across the country to link regional population centers.
• Supports the Next Generation Air Transportation System to modernize the air traffic control system.
Commits to developing Sustainable Solutions for Surface Transportation Programs and to improving Program Performance.
Surface transportation programs are at a crossroads.
The current framework for financing and
allocating surface transportation investments is
not financially sustainable; nor does it effectively
allocate resources to meet our critical national
needs. The Administration intends to work with
the Congress to reform surface transportation
programs both to put the system on a sustainable
financing path and to make investments in
a more sustainable future, enhancing transit options
and making our economy more productive
and our communities more livable. Further, the
Nation’s surface transportation system must generate
the best investments to reduce congestion
and improve safety. To do so, the Administration
will emphasize the use of economic analysis and
performance measurement in transportation
planning. This will ensure that taxpayer dollars
are better targeted and spent.
Initiates a New federal Commitment to high Speed Rail.
To provide Americans a 21st
Century transportation system, the Administration
proposes a five-year $5 billion high-speed
rail State grant program. Building on the $8 billion
down payment in the American recovery
and reinvestment Act of 2009, the President’s
proposal marks a new Federal commitment to
give the traveling public a practical and environmentally
sustainable alternative to flying or
driving. Directed by the States, this investment
will lead to the creation of several high-speed
rail corridors across the country linking regional
population centers.
Modernizes the Air Traffic Control System.
The Budget provides approximately $800
million for the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, a long-term effort to improve the
efficiency, safety, and capacity of the air traffic
control system. The 2010 Budget supports moving
from a ground-based radar surveillance
system to a more accurate satellite-based surveillance
system; development of more efficient
routes through the airspace; and improvements
in aviation weather information.
Improves Rural Access to the Aviation System.
The Administration is committed to
maintaining small communities’ access to the
National Airspace System. The Budget provides
a $55 million increase over the 2009 level to
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to fulfill
current program requirements as demand
for subsidized commercial air service increases.
However, the program that delivers this subsidy
is not efficiently designed. Through the budget
process, the Administration intends to work with
the Congress to develop a more sustainable program
model that will fulfill its commitment while
enhancing convenience for travelers and improving
cost effectiveness.
Makes Budgetary Treatment of Transportation Programs More Transparent.
Budget authority for highway, transit, highway safety,
and airport improvement programs usually has
been defined as mandatory contract authority
provided in authorizing legislation. However, the
levels of contract authority have been, for the
most part, controlled by obligation limitations in
appropriations acts. Outlays from the obligation
limitations have always been scored as discretionary.
To more transparently display program
resources, the Administration proposes changing
the budgetary treatment of transportation programs
to show both budget authority and outlays
as discretionary. For 2009, the discretionary budget
authority top line would be increased by approximately
$53 billion, increasing DOT budget
authority total from $17 billion under the typical
presentation to $70 billion. Similar budget
authority adjustments would be made for each
outyear. The change would not affect outlays or
the deficit or surplus—just more transparently
convey to the taxpayer the real costs of supporting
the transportation infrastructure our Nation
needs.
Therefore, as the self elected dictator of the USA, I'd immediately implement the following:
Upon decision of a driver being at-fault in a vehicular accident with at least 1 other vehicle involved in damages, I'd do the followign:
1. Fine them $1,000 for poor driving.
2. Fine them an additional $5,000 if the accident impeded traffic flow causing the back up of traffic.
3. Allow Officers to ticket (at-fault) drivers for violations at-will).
4. Force the at fault driver to take a mandatory retest of a comprehensive road driving exam and also written test.
5. Pay fees for the re-test.
6. Pay excess insurance cost fees above and beyond raised insurance premiums.
And for good drivers, that don't and haven't caused accidents:
1. Ban officers from issuing citations other than reckless or negligent driving to them.
2. Waive tickets that are not true safety issues, which pretty much needs to be a reckless or negligent driving act (running a red light at 40 MPH, not 1 MPH on a right turn, for example).
3. Enforce left lane courtesy strictly. Meaning any slow pokes meandering along in the left lane impeding traffic will be ticketed.
4. Teach all that the left most lane is for the fastest of traffic, and as you go right, you go slower. Slower traffic must yield to the right. I'd enforce this strictly because if this was obeyed there would be an elmination of 99.9% of road rage.
Also, accidents due to varying velocities of vehicles in the same lane would be reduced significantly.
But seriously: Assuming that you were the Transportation Secretary, how would propose implementation of these ideas, working within the bounds of our Constitution, given that the implementation mechanisms will involve local politicians and police forces, not to mention the training and habits of all US citizens of varying abilities and outlooks on driving?
(Phew, that's a looong question. Did I just write that?
Also, what about the Insurance industry and their responses to your ideas? What be the the hikes in insurance premiums, and how would deal with a larger and larger number of uninsurable drivers?
How about if the driver simply did not have the resources to pay the proposed fines? Please keep in mind that amongst the industrialized nations, we ALREADY jail a larger percentage of our population than any other on Earth.
How about if the driver simply did not have the resources to pay the proposed fines? Please keep in mind that amongst the industrialized nations, we ALREADY jail a larger percentage of our population than any other on Earth.
For today, I"ll answer the two issues above. Uninsured drivers would not be allowed to drive, have a license, and the penalties would be severe (more jail crowding if they choose to drive anyway).
Driver without resources to pay would have their vehicle confiscated, sold, and the proceeds would pay off the fine with the remainder going back to the owner. No vehicle = no way to drive (sounds good to me since they are bad drivers anyway).
They'd have to ride the bus, take a cab, walk, bike, jog, or run to wherever they needed to go. Carpooling would be an option but they'd have to be a passenger.
I bet if jailtime for bad driving were a possible threat, it would work as a great deterant to the bad driving in the first place; which would reduce the need to build more prisons.
Like the girl who ran a stop sign and broadsided my friend's babied 85 Monte SS which then had about 60K miles on it. He was getting the runaround to get the claim going, so he called her insurance company - they started giving him info, and it was about an at-fault crash she had 3 weeks before hitting him. She shouldn't have been back on the road.
Increased enforcement would be good, I agree. However, just a simple "lock'em up!" strategy won't work. Our society, for better and worse, is totally car-based, especially in a wide swathe of the country away from the coasts. Taking away a person;s mobility will surely remove them from the ability to have even a minimum wage job, further increasing the overall burden to society.
If we implement these proposals, the driving experience for the rest of us would surely improve, but the overall costs to provide alternate public transport services would be prohibitive. Not doing so would dramtically increase a potential underclass, who simply will not be able to deal with the increased costs and punishments of stricter enforcement. Enough of a disenfranchised underclass, and we would have wider issues with law and order, I fear.
Please note that I am no bleeding heart liberal.
But, mindset of many American drivers is no doubt different than European drivers. I have always had the sense that many European drivers (generalizing) aprreciate fine handling vehicles and expert drivng skills. American drivers, for the most part, are mainly interested in an appliance with cup holders, a bluetooth, navi and mp3 socket.
Mindset is perhaps reflected in the motorsports that Europeans follow vs the Americans. They follow Formula One road races and off-road rallye/races while Americans watch cars going around in circles or cars(?) accelerating in a straight line.
With these mindsets, would Americans balk at having to possess driving skills similar to in Germany? Would they ask why they need anything more than already required to siimply drive down an intersate or surburban road ?
I once read an article about how the German passion for driving contributed to its engineering excellence, not only in the motoring world, but elsewhere as well. Germany is the #1 exporter in the world of high tech eengineered goods, not Japan or the USA for good reason I think.
(at least it was until last before the proverbial excreta hit the round air circulatory device all around the world)
Maybe I should disown the USA and move there :P. If only I knew the German language.
It has much potential, both for good and bad, I think.
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/31/surveillance-transport-communication-bo- x
Big Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is backed
Privacy row brewing over surveillance on the road
Box could reduce accidents, pollution and congestion
Paul Lewis in Brussels
The Guardian, Tuesday 31 March 2009
The government is backing a project to install a "communication box" in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.
Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant "heartbeat" revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions. A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as 2013.
However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.
Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project, a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.
But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it could have profound implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre - more accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.
The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency on the 5.9 Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on which CVIS technology will work.
The Department for Transport said there were no current plans to make installation of the technology mandatory. However, those involved in the project describe the UK as one of the main "state backers". Transport for London has also hosted trials of the technology.
The European Data Protection Supervisor will make a formal announcement on the privacy implications of CVIS technology soon. But in a recent speech he said the technology would have "great impact on rights to privacy and data".
Paul Kompfner, who manages CVIS, said governments would have to decide on privacy safeguards. "It is time to start a debate ... so the right legal and privacy framework can be put in place before the technology reaches the market," he said.
The system allows cars to "talk" to one another and the road. A "communication box" behind the dashboard ensures that cars send out "heartbeat" messages every 500 milliseconds through mobile cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave or infrared.
The messages will be picked up by other cars in the vicinity, allowing vehicles to warn each other if they are forced to break hard or swerve to avoid a hazard.
The data is also picked up by detectors at the roadside and mobile phone towers. That enables the road to communicate with cars, allowing for "intelligent" traffic lights to turn green when cars are approaching or gantries on the motorway to announce changes to speed limits.
Data will also be sent to "control centres" that manage traffic, enabling a vastly improved system to monitor and even direct vehicles.
"A traffic controller will know where all vehicles are and even where they are headed," said Kompfner. "That would result in a significant reduction in congestion and replace the need for cameras."
Although the plan is to initially introduce the technology on a voluntary basis, Kompfner conceded that for the system to work it would need widespread uptake. He envisages governments making the technology mandatory for safety reasons. Any system that tracks cars could also be used for speed enforcement or national road tolling.
Roads in the UK are already subject to the closest surveillance of any in the world. Police control a database that is fed information from automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, and are able to deduce the journeys of as many as 10 million drivers a day. Details are stored for up to five years.
However, the government has been told that ANPR speed camera technology is "inherently limited" with "numerous shortcomings".
Advice to ministers obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act advocates upgrading to a more effective car tracking-based system, similar to CVIS technology, but warns such a system could be seen as a "spy in the cab" and "may be regarded as draconian".
Introducing a more benign technology first, the report by transport consultants argues, would "enable potential adverse public reaction to be better managed".
Simon Davies, director of the watchdog Privacy International, said: "The problem is not what the data tells the state, but what happens with interlocking information it already has. If you correlate car tracking data with mobile phone data, which can also track people, there is the potential for an almost infallible surveillance system."
Why the sector of society that has done nothing properly in perhaps a century should be trusted with this is beyond compehension.
"enable potential adverse public reaction to be better managed". = "have mercenaries ready to fire upon the plebes should they become fed up and march against their inept controllers".
The EU vision of government needs to be sent to a fiery hell.
Those same people probably believe that even though statistics show lengthening yellow lights by just 1 second DRASTICALLY reduces the amount of red-light runners, that if you lengthen yellow lights, people will "learn" and modify their driving practices to adjust for the longer yellow and start running red lights 1 second further into it.
The truth is that there is no "learning effect" from modifying yellow lights. The NMA has done studies to this affect and it shows that if the yellow is lengthened, it has a significant and PERMANENT effect on safety by reducing red light runners more then cameras or photo enforcement ever could. People do not run red lights or alter their driving because yellows are made to last longer.
Also, not everyone will be driving 100 MPH just because it is legal to do so. People in general drive a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Mostly, it is frustrated drivers from being behind people going way too slow or holding up traffic that are forced into speeding even more to catch up to their "reasonable and prudent" speed. Having to weave out of the fast lane in order to go a reasonable speed in the slow lane is a big problem. People will learn better lane courtesy through effective strong enforcement of that rule of law saying slower traffic MUST yield to the right.
The truth is most people will maintain their current freeway speeds whether or not the speed limits are reduced to 55, or increased to 105 from the current standards of either 65 or 70. People don't really CARE what the speed limits are, because they are artificially low, and don't pay any attention to them anyway except to avoid tickets by cops enforcing NON saftey hazards.
It is as simple as that. With technological improvements, the limits can go up. With dumb drivers content on yapping on their cell phones, the limits can move down.
However, real life is NOT that simple!
Fighting the Tickets for Revenue Scam (Straightline)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
May as well spoil it - you know what the #1 is:
SLOW TRAFFIC STAY RIGHT
In Europe, LLCing is seen as a social taboo rather than a god-given right.
Lots of well-hidden cops in Germany though, especially in urban areas...they blend in more than those in NA. The speed trap mentality isn't as big, enforcement actually centers around problem areas rather than revenue enhancers.
The roads are vastly superior, but that's one reason fuel costs twice as much. The US would have to tax fuel similarly to avoid the second world conditions which are quickly approaching :sick:
I have NO HOPE that there will ever be enough popular support for improving driver training in the U.S. to actually make it happen. LLC will continue to be the norm.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree about the driver training. This is, after all, the land of the lowest common denominator :lemon:
Green is good; red is bad.
I am amused to see this is one of the few places that California comes up red. But California drivers being unfit to drive more than the average doesn't surprise me at all.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Pacific Coast Highway Turns More Pacific Than Highway, Collapses Near Big Sur (Straightline)
Mercedes-Benz Offering Teen Driving Academy in the U.S. (Straightline)