It’s insane the lengths that some people will go to save a few seconds on their commute, while also endangering others.

  • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wishing and hoping for people to be better than they are isn’t a solution. Just because traffic calming is more expensive, that’s not a reason to not do it. It is something that needs to be done if you want to break car dependency.

    We should be doing that, but local councils don’t have the money after more than a decade of tory austerity. I also believe that driver’s should be able to drive below the speed limit even if the road isn’t correct for it, because there will always be places like that (around construction, for example), and like you say we can’t just wish and hope for them to follow that rule so some enforcement is needed.

    • OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In engineering, there is an idea called hierarchy of controls.

      Traffic calming is a “substitution” of the hazard. It, like unexpected construction, forces drivers to slow down due to the road not being psychologically safe to drive fast on.

      Speed limits are an “administrative control” on the other hand.

      People will drive as fast as they (possibly incorrectly) feel is safe, and a lot goes into that, of which speeding fines are only one very small part. If you really want safe streets for pedestrians and motorists, it is just not as effective an option.

      Additionally, I’m level certain that Tory austerity is not really a viable excuse here, because I’m sure that there are ongoing efforts to “alleviate the traffic problem” by adding capacity. It’s not that the money doesn’t exist, it’s that the money doesn’t exist for this. Because elected officials aren’t interested in this, because they’re more interested in fine revenue and keeping car people happy.