|
It really sounds like Sweden seems to be suffering an epidemic of strangers hijacking cars in order to drive 10 percent faster than the speed limit on their normal commuting route before returning it. They should probably do something about that. I mean clearly the cases are clogging up their court system.
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Does Sweden distinguish between civil and criminal matters? Speaking broadly, in the US you couldn't charge someone with a crime based on a camera shot of their license plate (without other corroborating evidence), but you can issue them a ticket/fine. I can't really tell from the outside. Sweden is fairly atypical when it comes to their approach to traffic cameras specifically, even compared to nearby Scandinavian countries. In Finland or Switzerland, for example, identification is done by license plate and the owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying traffic camera liabilities unless an alternative driver is identified. That's the global standard, more or less. It's not a moving violation that can directly result in non-monetary punishment. Sweden has the normal legal take on parking tickets and other forms of vehicular liability, so I'd expect that there is at least a broad similarity to be found.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:this is incredibly stupid If traffic cameras enforcing speed limits makes you squirm, wait until you hear about Scandinavian day fines! If you're caught speeding your penalty can be based on your daily income (it varies based on the speed and country). If you're driving 82 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, you can expect a fine equal to a week's pay more or less. The wealthy absolutely hate it! There's all these amazing examples of these "captains of industry" throwing a fit because they get fined $100,000 for running a red light. 😂😂 https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:I'm not sure what you're saying about not being a moving violation. That term doesn't really exist in Swedish but you can indeed have your license suspended for speeding past a speed trap, if you're going enough over the limit. Might even be prosecuted for reckless driving. So a moving violation is when a ticket can impact your ability to drive, and often your car insurance premiums. They're distinguished because typically non-moving violations like a parking ticket or getting your car towed won't affect your driver's license no matter how often they happen. In most countries traffic camera fines are levied out under similar laws against the owner of the vehicle. Much like how the owner of a dog is held liable for when the dog misbehaves. And while Finland is most notorious for them, I believe the day fines are relatively common throughout Scandinavia. In Swedish I believe they are called dagsbot? They're typically applied to different types of misdemeanors. I'm not professing to be a cultural expert here, it's just what I've read. https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagsb%C3%B6ter Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
There definitely has been a shift towards parents not permitting their children to walk to school or take buses. I think there's a variety of reasons including socioeconomic distaste for public transit, suburbanism spreading people out, parents competing for favorite schools that are geographically distant, and students emulating their peers who are getting private rides or driving themselves. I'm not really sure what the best solution would be, and certainly they would vary based on the age of the children. Likely any answer would mirror that of how airports are struggling with the rise of private taxis like Uber and Lyft, which have overwhelmed their drop-off lanes. Modernizing airports have largely pushed to developing specific areas for those companies to operate, often in more distant parking lots rather than curbside (though sometimes the more premium options are still allowed that luxury). Perhaps schools will adopt that sort of mentality. I remember when I was in a rural preschool that families would drive their kids to a central bus stop, and then the bus would continue on for the 20 minute drive into the hills where the school was located.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:If I understood your definition of a moving violation, then yes a speed ticket is definitely a moving violation in Sweden, since it's levied against the person committing the offence rather than the vehicle, and can affect you license. From our conversation, I would expect that this distinction is likely the heart of the cultural difference between Swedish takes on traffic cameras and that of other countries. Because they are typically singled out as being distinct from other types of speeding tickets. If an American cop pulls you over for speeding then it is a moving violation, while if an American traffic camera sees you speeding then it is not (you receive a Notice of Liability and a lesser monetary fine). quote:IMO your comparison with a dog falls flat on its face. A dog will do stuff even if you don't tell it to, and if someone should be responsible for its actions, it has to be either the dog or its owner. Since dogs aren't legal entities, the owner will be the one prosecuted. Cars, in general, don't do stuff. They're considered fairly similar issues in court. The owner is held liable for property that is in violation of the law. That property might be a dog biting someone, a car in the wrong place, a tree falling on a neighbor's shed, a firepit getting out of control, etc. The expectation is that the owner will keep a leash on the dog, park cars legally, maintain their trees, watch over their fires, etc, or be held responsible. From what little I've read of Swedish parking tickets law, for example, they use the same principle of owner liability. In the case of a non-Swedish traffic camera, the owner is held liable for allowing their car to be traveling at an unsafe speed. I think that we've talked the issue to death at this point, but apparently in 2006 Finland transitioned from requiring photo identification for a ticket to be issued, to issuing a ticket based on vehicular licenses. I'm sure there was a variety of discussion about the matter at the time that could still be pulled up for the folks who are interested in a more culturally nuanced take on the issue. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Since the entire purpose of the policy is to reduce emissions, you'd think people would be interested in talking about that. NOx is a major air pollutant responsible for 8 million premature deaths each year, and the European Union actually takes that seriously. On top of the existing moral and economic damage of treating all the additional patients created by those emissions, EU courts are threatening major fines against countries that refuse to reduce their pollution levels. The Netherlands is also considering halving livestock populations in order to meet emissions standards. A moderate reduction in vehicular top speeds is completely reasonable in the face of all that. If improving millions of lives and saving billions of euros means that drivers occasionally miss ten minutes of their Netflix queue, that's an acceptable compromise. If people want to resume traveling at 130 km/h during peak times, then they can implement an electronic monitoring system so that limits can be linked directly with vehicular emissions (I.e. electric vehicles could travel at top speed, whereas gas vehicles would be limited by engine efficiency). For the American audience, I'd point out that environmental speed limits are not purely a European idea either. States as varied as Texas and Oregon have limited highway speeds specifically to limit environmental damage. Dropping freeway speeds down to 65 mph, where gasoline engines typically have their best efficiency levels, is absolutely reasonable and residents quickly adjust to the new limits. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Most trips in urban areas probably wouldn't see an appreciable difference between between 65 and 75 mph, but say, Santa Fe to Flagstaff is 4.5 hours at the usual 85 mph+ flow of traffic, 5.1 hours at the current 75 mph speed limit, and 5.9 hours at a theoretical enforced 65 mph. Dallas to El Paso - not even leaving the state - is 8.5 hours at the current 75 limit for most of that trip, that goes up to 9.8 hours at 65 mph. And those edge cases are what, maybe one percent of total trips? Less than one percent? it depends a lot on how you count it. The US Federal Highway Administration estimates that trips over 100 miles represent less than 1 percent of total trips, whereas the majority are between 1-10 miles. So obviously a lower speed limit is not materially affecting those drivers, unless it's saving their lives from pollution or speed-aggravated collisions. Even if you prefer to count trips based on miles traveled, journeys over 100 miles constitute only 15 percent of all household vehicle miles. Even in your example of performing a cross-state journey of 8 hours, proceeding at 65 mph rather than 85 mph will only slow you by perhaps an hour - and if you plan to stop for gas or food or the restroom, then your percentage time savings go down even further. Meaning that on the handful of times per year you drive more than 100 miles, you're missing perhaps two episodes of Friends (one with traffic). Think back about the last time you took a cross-country road trip, versus the last time you watched some TV because you were bored and had nothing to do. This is an extremely minor inconvenience that is worth making. And the moderately longer travel times only build public support for the perennial thread favorite - high speed trains. If humans are ever going to stabilize their negative impacts on each other and the planet, they're going to have to get used to making these sorts of compromises. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The fact that most people don't take long distance trips in the outer high speed limit interstates in Texas should certainly indicate that reducing speed limits on those roads wouldn't be useful for handling and reducing emissions or most other things. The reason those roads have high speed limits is because the American leaders didn't care about the environment at all regardless of the impact, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. If you want to develop a system that can moderate emissions while also allowing long-haul drivers to watch their Netflix, go right ahead. But until that happens, 8 million people around the Earth are dying prematurely each year specifically because of NOx emissions. You might not care, but it's terrible policy to just ignore environmental impact and pretend that it isn't happening. And NIMBYing Texas desert highways as a reason to preempt national speed limits is exactly the kind of shortsighted thinking that has landed the world with such environmental problems. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
The high speed Texas freeways, like SH 130 which is the fastest at 80-85 mph, are typically built for commuters. The idea that they're mainly being driven by a handful of long-haul rebels without a cause is pure fancy. As is the idea that a road can be too important to have less than maximum speed limits, but not important enough to impact the environment. Fishmech isn't ever going to agree with me or anyone, but the purpose of these environmental speed limits is both very worthwhile and remarkably low-impact. I'm totally open to developing an American equivalent of the Autobahn, where low-emissions vehicles driven by trained and law-abiding drivers have free reign. But that is not the American freeway system, which is largely filled with idiot drivers commuting 1-10 miles to and from work as fast as humanly possible. And it is certainly not the Netherlands, which is twice the size of New Jersey and has far more typical roads than Texas. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Separated bike lanes should be the goal of every municipality. Bike Bros that want to fight trucks for their morning commute do not represent community interest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Most cities would probably be better off if every other road was closed off to cars. 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th streets can handle cars, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th are for public transport, pedestrians, and bikes. Even just closing off roads to thru traffic (by installing a handful of bicycle gates that prevent cars from traversing significant lengths of the road without going around) can go a long ways to reviving areas. Local traffic and emergency vehicles have all the access they need, and commuters go around because the major avenues are more convenient. Businesses do better, non-vehicular use of all kinds skyrockets, and traffic is actually improved because it's contained to well-regulated thoroughfares.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Mostly the very loud petulant meltdowns of car people writing thousands of letters to the editor every day about how their house will burn down because the fire trucks won't be able to reach them in time due to all the bike lanes and crosswalks. What if the firemen forget how to use GPS!?!?!!!
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
peepeepants posted:Biking owns. Comfortable biking infrastructure and destinations that are within a reasonable distance will override a lovely climate. Yeah biking is great, and it's very popular anywhere that introduces protected bike lanes. Climate has nothing to do with it, and cities from Austin to Minneapolis have lots of cyclists due to their investments in basic infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:Everything goes fucky when you have to plan around reversible lanes Reversible lanes are one of those ideas that just creates far more problems than it solves. Removing them and changing nothing would certainly be an improvement, and would probably reduce congestion at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Devor posted:That one is apparently at a tunnel, which, along with long bridges, is probably the one reasonable use case for having reversible lanes. When the eastbound lanes on the Bay Bridge are closed for an accident/construction work, you need a way to make the diversion not take an hour and a half. I can be convinced if it's a heavily signalized place like a tunnel. But basically what I want is a full scale HALO ODST Superintendent. Usually what we get is a few static signs with scheduling and a bunch of honking / fender benders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
pkells posted:I took the Civil Transportation PE exam last week, so hopefully they'll be another official engineer in the thread shortly. Unfortunately, I'm in the southeast US, so the most I can do is design some multiuse paths along roads in richer communities and some half-hearted attempts at bike lanes in my projects, but I can assure you we try. Hey congratulations!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Who does one call, in the US, to report traffic lights behaving badly? My protected left turn into my workplace no longer senses cars waiting to turn left. You just sit there until someone approaches from the cross street and forces the light to change. Then, it cycles to my protected left turn before opening both directions back up (so maybe it IS sensing me at some point, but it does fuckall about it until there's crossing traffic). But nothing makes that light change if you just sit at it. You just.... sit. You want to contact your municipal Public Works department. Many cities have set up 3-1-1 numbers and websites that consolidate the various service directories and often offer ways to make reports about local issues with roads, infrastructure, civic infractions, etc. If you can't figure it out or nothing seems to be working, you can contact your local town hall, or call the police / sheriff non-emergency line. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Sep 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Devor posted:99.99% of any bike alignment that does not have cars running next to it and that isn't a mountain bike trail will be a shared use path because it's not a good use of our time to formally separate the bikes and peds Maybe that’s a local policy decision, but that’s not a separated bike lane. In particular that creates a lot of issues for slow moving pedestrians, people walking dogs, or kids running around, who are having to contend with fast-moving cyclists and e-scooters using it as a through-fare. The rise of electric vehicles is putting a lot of pressure on pedestrian spaces, and it will only continue to build moving into the future. Best practices are to create a separated bike lane alongside roads that are rated for at least 50 kph (30 mph. One term for this is “unbundling”, or intentionally disaggregating road networks in order to reduce conflicts. https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl18004/fhwapl18004.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
So here's an example from that DOT planning document I referenced above. In short, they explore the principle of unbundling in the example of retrofitting an urban multi-use path into a separated fast cycle route and a pedestrian walkway. Their goal is to reduce congestion and collisions by improving the bicycle facilities and encouraging commuters to use them:quote:3.4.2 Unbundling bicycle and car networks
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I feel like this is the best place for me to ask this: why is this loop 2 roads instead of 1? At a guess, it used to be two roads before it was looped and the locals didn’t want to change their addresses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
Chicanes are generally built so that large vehicles can drive over them when necessary. Typically emergency services will perform drive-throughs of new road elements or major sub-divisions, in order to best understand how to respond promptly. That being said, European emergency service vehicles are often built with urban landscapes in mind and tend to be more nimble than American ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
The downside of speed bumps are also their upside - they make roads less fun and efficient to drive on. There's certainly better alternatives, from easy stuff like chicanes or road narrowing to more significant changes like gating off roads halfway through so cars can't use neighborhoods as a shortcut, but they attract a lot of opposition. Much like speed limits and cameras, speed bumps are the sort of low-impact control device that people are willing to tolerate. One of the universal truisms of policymaking is that people only want change if they think they'll be unaffected. People like the idea of a clean environment - so long as they don't have to do anything and their gas prices stay the same. People like cycleways - as long as they aren't on any of the roads they drive on. People want safe streets - so long as their commute time is unaffected. While obviously this makes it very difficult to get anything done, it's also a guide for how to craft policy so that it will be accepted by the majority of people. Speed bumps, cameras, and speed limits get tolerated because people tend to envision themselves as being admirable and law-abiding drivers who would never be affected by them. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Users can also send in reports that are monitored by software (like for accidents and traffic jams) and human managers (to report a more enduring change like a road closure).
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2024 04:02
|
|