WaPo: new writer & "war on motorists" (guest starring AAA)

[peterw_diy]

Page A2 in the dead tree edition, Dana Milbank gripes about being ticketed for trying an Idaho Stop with his car. AAA is kind enough to give him some quotes, including declaring that automated camera citations are “not strictly or even marginally related to safety.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dcs-war-on-motorists/2014/09/15/47533112-3d18-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

Topic

[Terpfan]

@baiskeli 94694 wrote:

Okay.

Well, the reason for that that isn’t entirely hard to fathom, since speeders can otherwise simply slow down before a camera and then speed back up.

What’s the difference!!!!?????

They slowed down! Who cares if they did it because they wanted to be safe or because they feared a ticket? Some people do the right thing, others do the right thing for fear of punishment – that’s how it always works. Either way, the speed camera worked exactly the way it was supposed to.

(Maybe someday anti-government types will start a movement to deny the government their hard-earned money by slowing down and not running red lights. That’ll show that government!)

If you’re going to do speed cameras effectively then they have to be mobile otherwise they have zero value. It’s the entire difference you’re talking about. They slow for 30′ and then speed up again counting on the fact that actual enforcement by LEOs has all but evaporated and memorizing location. In DC, that would be a largely accurate assessment. That’s not more safe, that’s just searching for revenue. Which brings us back around full circle to the revenue versus safety argument.

Ditto for the IID issue. Is it a tough regulation to pass? Maybe. But let’s not pretend that DOT has an issue without transportation dollars to say force seat belt compliance laws among states.

Anyway, I think everything has shifted to full circle argument now so I’m going to let whatever sleeping dogs remain, lie.

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 94696 wrote:

Maybe we could give ticket revenue to some charity, or safety institute or something, instead of the government, and neutralize the revenue argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/after-dc-hoisted-speed-limits-on-some-roads-camera-generated-tickets-and-revenue-fell/2013/09/09/5e5c67fc-1979-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

The ‘its for revenue” argument appears to me to be immune to falsification.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 94703 wrote:

As long is the money is spent to purchase bike computers/speedometers and hand them out to the many cyclists who have no way to know exactly how fast they are going, that would be fine, IMO.

They don’t need bike computers. All they need to do is check their Strava accounts.:rolleyes:

(The main point is that many cyclists would consider the 15 mph speed limit on the trails–even in times when there is no traffic–to be arbitrarily low and not enhancing safety.)

[ShawnoftheDread]

@baiskeli 94694 wrote:

Okay.

Well, the reason for that that isn’t entirely hard to fathom, since speeders can otherwise simply slow down before a camera and then speed back up.

What’s the difference!!!!?????

They slowed down! Who cares if they did it because they wanted to be safe or because they feared a ticket? !)

The point is they slow down for only a short period of time in a specific, pre-set location. The rest of the time it’s death or glory, full speed ahead. At least with LEO enforcement, the location of speed traps can be fairly random, thereby increasing compliance.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 94707 wrote:

They don’t need bike computers. All they need to do is check their Strava accounts.:rolleyes:

(The main point is that many cyclists would consider the 15 mph speed limit on the trails–even in times when there is no traffic–to be arbitrarily low and not enhancing safety.)

Then they are free to argue for a different limit. As people argue about speed limits on roads all the time. And in fact some speed limits in DC were increased. IMO many limits elsewhere are too high. In some places the movement to lower speed limits has been successful:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/nyc-lower-speed-limits/10935219/

[mstone]

@Terpfan 94704 wrote:

If you’re going to do speed cameras effectively then they have to be mobile otherwise they have zero value. It’s the entire difference you’re talking about. They slow for 30′ and then speed up again counting on the fact that actual enforcement by LEOs has all but evaporated and memorizing location. In DC, that would be a largely accurate assessment. That’s not more safe, that’s just searching for revenue. Which brings us back around full circle to the revenue versus safety argument.

No, that brings us back to the “stupid rules promoted by the automobile lobby to cripple speed cameras” argument. If speed cameras were everywhere, this wouldn’t be an issue. But their numbers are limited and their locations need to be published. Yeah, your stealthy secret camera plan would be better for safety, but in general that has not been permitted. Neat that people who didn’t want cameras managed to pass laws restricting the cameras so that other people can point to the restrictions and say that it’s all about revenue rather than safety.

As far as the IID thing, you seem really hung up over it. The stupid things cost $75/month for calibration, etc. As far as I know, no country in the world requires them to be standard. Nobody in the world really wants to huff and puff all over their dashboard before starting their car. I don’t see any data that suggests that making them standard would have a safety benefit commensurate with the costs, especially since I’m more likely at this point to be run over by someone texting than someone drinking. But for some reason you really, really want to talk about them rather than speeding.

[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 94708 wrote:

The point is they slow down for only a short period of time in a specific, pre-set location. The rest of the time it’s death or glory, full speed ahead. At least with LEO enforcement, the location of speed traps can be fairly random, thereby increasing compliance.

In fairfax there is minimal speed enforcement by LEO, because there is not enough LEO. So I do not buy the notion that the increase in speed cams is offset by reduced LEO. There simply wasn’t that much LEO speed enforcement in major cities to begin with.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 94710 wrote:

Then they are free to argue for a different limit. As people argue about speed limits on roads all the time. And in fact some speed limits in DC were increased. IMO many limits elsewhere are too high. In some places the movement to lower speed limits has been successful:

Please stop with the false equivalencies. You’re trivializing the real social cost of motorists speeding in order to try to gain debating points. Until you can point to some studies that show some correlation to pedestrian deaths and cyclist speed limits on MUPs, let’s stick to reality.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 94712 wrote:

In fairfax there is minimal speed enforcement by LEO, because there is not enough LEO. So I do not buy the notion that the increase in speed cams is offset by reduced LEO. There simply wasn’t that much LEO speed enforcement in major cities to begin with.

This is a favored tactic of the anti-speed-camera crowd. They call for enforcement only by cops, knowing full well that means significantly less enforcement and a better chance to speed without penalty.

[dasgeh]

mstone;94711 wrote:

i don’t see any data that suggests that enforcing traffic laws / mup rules / speed limits on bicycles would have a safety benefit commensurate with the costs, especially since i’m more likely at this point to be injured/killed by someone driving a car

ftfy

[DismalScientist]

The solution for everything is more enforced rules for automobile drivers and no rules at all for cyclists.:rolleyes:

No wonder everyone loves us!

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 94713 wrote:

Please stop with the false equivalencies. You’re trivializing the real social cost of motorists speeding in order to try to gain debating points. Until you can point to some studies that show some correlation to pedestrian deaths and cyclist speed limits on MUPs, let’s stick to reality.

I only spent a trivial amount of time on HS debate, but the logic holds. If its wrong to defend Milbank, even IF speed limits on MUPs are equivalent (because cyclists who dislike enforcment would have the oppornity to argue for more logical limits) than a fortiori, its wrong to defend Milbank if speed limts on MUPs are, empirically, not equivalent. Ergo, I beleive my point strengthens yours. Sorry if the tone is not right. I believe not HS debate, but rather the Talmud, and perhaps economics, ruined me. I have no problem with positing hypotheticals to demonstrate the falseness of an argument, without acctually needing to believe the hypothetical.

[OneEighth]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m going for a ride.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 94717 wrote:

The solution for everything is more enforced rules for automobile drivers and no rules at all for cyclists.:rolleyes:

No wonder everyone loves us!

The first is largely corerct (as far as traffic safety – it wont solve the ukraine problem, and enforcement only is not enough – we need more infra ) and the second is a strawman.

[sjclaeys]

i think that the Washington Post runs these pieces in order to increase clicks on the Bike Arlington Forum. Seems successful.

[Author]

Replies