Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Research on speed cameras show that they reduce collisions and fatalities: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/speed.html

They are an effective instrument and save lives but are not sufficient to completely eliminate road fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Traffic cameras give drunk drivers a free pass. People know they can drive drunk and no one is going to do anything about it. They’re by far the most dangerous people on the road

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

You didn't answer my question. If you're driving the speed limit on I-95, that means if a pedestrian comes out of nowhere, you are likely to kill that pedestrian, which would not happen if you were going 20. The simple point here is that all speed limits are a cost-benefit calculation; it's not as simple as saying as we want zero pedestrian deaths or traffic fatalities. In the end, society is willing to accept some deaths because people need to get places in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the speed limit would be 20 mph on I-95.

Here's another death from a pedestrian on a highway: https://fox8.com/sports/911-call-dwayne-haskins-car-had-run-out-of-gas/

[Anonymous]

The DMV has access to the fair market value for any registered vehicle. They should just use that to scale fines according to the value of the vehicle. It’s not a perfect system but much better than what is being proposed.


So you are suggesting that someone who owns a 2022 Mercedes should pay more for the same traffic violation than someone else who owns a 2000 Ford? SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember folks, payment is optional if you're from MD or VA:

http://thenewspaper.com/news/70/7088.asp

Does it work the same way for a DC resident who receive a red light or speed camera ticket in Maryland and Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Surprising number of traffic deaths blamed on the people who aren’t driving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

So, we should spend more on crime enforcement instead of speeding enforcement. Cameras are just a cash grab not a safety concern.

If they are a “cash grab”, then they by definition more than pay for themselves. Please decide what your argument is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DMV has access to the fair market value for any registered vehicle. They should just use that to scale fines according to the value of the vehicle. It’s not a perfect system but much better than what is being proposed.

So you are suggesting that someone who owns a 2022 Mercedes should pay more for the same traffic violation than someone else who owns a 2000 Ford? SMH

Absent the DMV being able to access the IRS database, using FMV to scale traffic fines sounds like a good compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

You didn't answer my question. If you're driving the speed limit on I-95, that means if a pedestrian comes out of nowhere, you are likely to kill that pedestrian, which would not happen if you were going 20. The simple point here is that all speed limits are a cost-benefit calculation; it's not as simple as saying as we want zero pedestrian deaths or traffic fatalities. In the end, society is willing to accept some deaths because people need to get places in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the speed limit would be 20 mph on I-95.

Here's another death from a pedestrian on a highway: https://fox8.com/sports/911-call-dwayne-haskins-car-had-run-out-of-gas/

It actually is. I don't think someone else's death is an acceptable price for me going somewhere by car. Why do you? This is the result of choices we've made. We could make different choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

You didn't answer my question. If you're driving the speed limit on I-95, that means if a pedestrian comes out of nowhere, you are likely to kill that pedestrian, which would not happen if you were going 20. The simple point here is that all speed limits are a cost-benefit calculation; it's not as simple as saying as we want zero pedestrian deaths or traffic fatalities. In the end, society is willing to accept some deaths because people need to get places in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the speed limit would be 20 mph on I-95.

Here's another death from a pedestrian on a highway: https://fox8.com/sports/911-call-dwayne-haskins-car-had-run-out-of-gas/

It actually is. I don't think someone else's death is an acceptable price for me going somewhere by car. Why do you? This is the result of choices we've made. We could make different choices.

NP but are you then saying that you think every road in this country should have a speed limit to 20 mph because there could be a pedestrian on any roadway? If so it’s hard to take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

You didn't answer my question. If you're driving the speed limit on I-95, that means if a pedestrian comes out of nowhere, you are likely to kill that pedestrian, which would not happen if you were going 20. The simple point here is that all speed limits are a cost-benefit calculation; it's not as simple as saying as we want zero pedestrian deaths or traffic fatalities. In the end, society is willing to accept some deaths because people need to get places in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the speed limit would be 20 mph on I-95.

Here's another death from a pedestrian on a highway: https://fox8.com/sports/911-call-dwayne-haskins-car-had-run-out-of-gas/

It actually is. I don't think someone else's death is an acceptable price for me going somewhere by car. Why do you? This is the result of choices we've made. We could make different choices.

NP but are you then saying that you think every road in this country should have a speed limit to 20 mph because there could be a pedestrian on any roadway? If so it’s hard to take you seriously.

The US has over twice as many deaths in traffic per capita, compared to other wealthy countries. And deaths are increasing. In other wealthy countries, people somehow manage to get places in a reasonable amount of time without killing so many people, and deaths are decreasing. We could have many, many fewer people killed on the roads each year, if we wanted to. But apparently we don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

You didn't answer my question. If you're driving the speed limit on I-95, that means if a pedestrian comes out of nowhere, you are likely to kill that pedestrian, which would not happen if you were going 20. The simple point here is that all speed limits are a cost-benefit calculation; it's not as simple as saying as we want zero pedestrian deaths or traffic fatalities. In the end, society is willing to accept some deaths because people need to get places in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the speed limit would be 20 mph on I-95.

Here's another death from a pedestrian on a highway: https://fox8.com/sports/911-call-dwayne-haskins-car-had-run-out-of-gas/

It actually is. I don't think someone else's death is an acceptable price for me going somewhere by car. Why do you? This is the result of choices we've made. We could make different choices.

NP but are you then saying that you think every road in this country should have a speed limit to 20 mph because there could be a pedestrian on any roadway? If so it’s hard to take you seriously.

The US has over twice as many deaths in traffic per capita, compared to other wealthy countries. And deaths are increasing. In other wealthy countries, people somehow manage to get places in a reasonable amount of time without killing so many people, and deaths are decreasing. We could have many, many fewer people killed on the roads each year, if we wanted to. But apparently we don't want to.

All of ten people were killed last year in DC by speeding drivers. Not many more than the number of Washingtonians eaten by great white sharks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should a family be plunged into the red over a traffic ticket?

Ummm, because they broke the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

So, we should spend more on crime enforcement instead of speeding enforcement. Cameras are just a cash grab not a safety concern.

No, cameras are a safety concern. Here's a great way to avoid having your cash grabbed: DON'T SPEED.

Funny how everyone wants to reduce penalties on violent criminals, claiming they don’t deter crime, but they want to increase penalties of drivers, claiming they deter dangerous driving. Can’t have it both ways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

+1