Wait, you mean the thing where people who do the speed limit have to stop at 3 straight reds while people doing 15 over are able to squeeze through all of them is the result of an intentional choice? It irritates the hell out of me how often that kind of thing happens in my town, but I always thought it was just some kind of oversight or inefficiency on the part of the engineers who set up the timing cycles, given how how clearly and directly it incentivizes speeding…
If driving the speed limit is the most efficient way to get where you’re trying to go, people will tend to drive the speed limit. Seems like that should be pretty obvious, imo.
The engineers who set up the timing cycles in my DOT planning department set the cycles to run over the speed limit intentionally to get more cars per hour through the same roadway compared with moving them slower. Accident statistics were equivocal - similar accident rates at or +10 above the speed limit, but that is a politically charged statement, so you don’t say it loudly.
Interesting… I’m curious to know more about the details of that experiment. I could think of a few hypotheses for why that might’ve happened.
My first thought is maybe that particular road’s speed limit was just lower than what it should be? If the road design and location allow for a similar level of safety at a higher speed, the limit itself might just be a bit too conservative.
Or, perhaps the previous cycle timings weren’t as effective at slowing down drivers as first thought? I don’t know the previous circumstances, though.
There’s also the possibility that speed-reducing measures just don’t have much of an impact on overall safe driving behaviors, and that dangerous drivers are going to drive dangerously no matter how fast they’re able to go. I could even see the possibility of a negative feedback loop in which being constantly being slowed down by red light cycles frustrates aggressive drivers into engaging in other dangerous behaviors, i.e. running reds.
If it’s that last case… Yeah, I don’t really know what you do with that one. I would hope that safer driving could be encouraged through positive reinforcement, because the alternatives for negative reinforcement are either a massive ramp-up in police traffic enforcement, or aggressive use of speed cameras and automated ticketing. I do not think that making people have more encounters with US police officers would do anything good for public safety, and while speed cameras could work in principle, they would be massively unpopular, and career suicide for any politician that tries to make a push for it.
Speed-reducing measures just don’t have much of an impact on overall safe driving behaviors, and that dangerous drivers are going to drive dangerously no matter how fast the speed limit and green light sync are, that’s pretty much a given.
In another county, somebody decided they wanted to screw with a 2 lane road out in the country and they narrowed the lanes - didn’t change the existing 40mph limit, not putting in space in the median, but squeezing the oncoming lanes together in the middle. Said it would “increase safety” through reduced speed, meanwhile the lanes were so narrow that school buses had to drive over the rain/rumble strips in many places to not cross the center line. Sometimes BS is just BS, a politician wanted it, so a politician got it. I called them on it, asked to see the studies backing up their statements, they didn’t have any.
Wait, you mean the thing where people who do the speed limit have to stop at 3 straight reds while people doing 15 over are able to squeeze through all of them is the result of an intentional choice? It irritates the hell out of me how often that kind of thing happens in my town, but I always thought it was just some kind of oversight or inefficiency on the part of the engineers who set up the timing cycles, given how how clearly and directly it incentivizes speeding…
If driving the speed limit is the most efficient way to get where you’re trying to go, people will tend to drive the speed limit. Seems like that should be pretty obvious, imo.
The engineers who set up the timing cycles in my DOT planning department set the cycles to run over the speed limit intentionally to get more cars per hour through the same roadway compared with moving them slower. Accident statistics were equivocal - similar accident rates at or +10 above the speed limit, but that is a politically charged statement, so you don’t say it loudly.
Interesting… I’m curious to know more about the details of that experiment. I could think of a few hypotheses for why that might’ve happened.
My first thought is maybe that particular road’s speed limit was just lower than what it should be? If the road design and location allow for a similar level of safety at a higher speed, the limit itself might just be a bit too conservative.
Or, perhaps the previous cycle timings weren’t as effective at slowing down drivers as first thought? I don’t know the previous circumstances, though.
There’s also the possibility that speed-reducing measures just don’t have much of an impact on overall safe driving behaviors, and that dangerous drivers are going to drive dangerously no matter how fast they’re able to go. I could even see the possibility of a negative feedback loop in which being constantly being slowed down by red light cycles frustrates aggressive drivers into engaging in other dangerous behaviors, i.e. running reds.
If it’s that last case… Yeah, I don’t really know what you do with that one. I would hope that safer driving could be encouraged through positive reinforcement, because the alternatives for negative reinforcement are either a massive ramp-up in police traffic enforcement, or aggressive use of speed cameras and automated ticketing. I do not think that making people have more encounters with US police officers would do anything good for public safety, and while speed cameras could work in principle, they would be massively unpopular, and career suicide for any politician that tries to make a push for it.
Speed-reducing measures just don’t have much of an impact on overall safe driving behaviors, and that dangerous drivers are going to drive dangerously no matter how fast the speed limit and green light sync are, that’s pretty much a given.
In another county, somebody decided they wanted to screw with a 2 lane road out in the country and they narrowed the lanes - didn’t change the existing 40mph limit, not putting in space in the median, but squeezing the oncoming lanes together in the middle. Said it would “increase safety” through reduced speed, meanwhile the lanes were so narrow that school buses had to drive over the rain/rumble strips in many places to not cross the center line. Sometimes BS is just BS, a politician wanted it, so a politician got it. I called them on it, asked to see the studies backing up their statements, they didn’t have any.