9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You
The Federal Highway Administration has strongly recommended nine tools for decreasing road fatalities. You can find them at the end of this article. Most of these tools are fairly basic and simple to implement. So why aren’t they already universally used?
They’re not universally used because they don’t make money for anyone.
The government (local, regional, and national) has become more and more greedy. Instead of federal grant money going to the programs below, it goes to holiday ticketing binges, congestion charging, toll roads, red-light cameras and speed cameras — none of which have shown any positive impact on key traffic safety metrics.
These kind of enforcement and fee-based programs do make plenty of money though. Unfortunately, they do it by picking the pockets of motorists.
They get away with this blatant money grab by using powerful public relations tactics — and the implicit trust that many citizens still have in government organizations — to convince the average driver that it’s for their own good.
Shameful.
FHWA’s Nine Tools for Decreasing Road Fatalities
1) Roadway Safety Audits
State DOTs should formalize the use of these audits, which are comprehensive evaluations of existing or planned roads or intersections to identify potential safety improvements.
2) Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes
Used in centerline and shoulders, these cost-effective devices have shown demonstrable improvement in warning drivers of lane departure, reducing by 14 percent head-on collisions and opposite-direction sideswipe crashes. Shoulder rumble strips and stripes have shown a 38 percent reduction in run-off-road crashes on freeways, and between 13-18 percent on rural roads.
3) Median Barriers
Used to separate opposing traffic on divided highways, these barriers have a long track record of reducing cross-median collisions. States are encouraged to consider using cable median barriers where appropriate to further heighten roadway safety.
4) Safety Edge
This paving technique, giving a 30 to 35 degree slope to the road’s edge, reduces the risk to drivers if their tire inadvertently falls over an otherwise near-vertical road-edge leading to loss of vehicle control and rollover crashes. Safety Edge makes such notoriously severe crashes far less likely.
5) Roundabouts
Roundabouts have demonstrated a 60 to 87 percent reduction in crashes.
6) Turning Lanes at Stop-Controlled Intersections
At intersections with significant turning volume, turning lanes for right and left turns on major road approaches can dramatically reduce crashes — in some cases, by as much as 55 percent.
7) Yellow Change Intervals
Red-light running crashes at intersections, which too frequently result in fatalities, can be reduced by properly setting yellow-light signals. Studies show a one-second increase in the yellow signal interval can reduce red-light violations by as much as 50 percent.
8) Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas in Urban and Suburban Areas
Raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks have shown a 46 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes. FHWA recommends that medians be between 4 and 8 feet wide to improve pedestrian safety.
9) Walkways
Ensuring a sidewalk or pathway exists near a roadway can reduce pedestrian crashes by as much 88 percent. FHWA recommends a pathway of at least 4 feet wide of stabilized or paved surface in areas routinely used by pedestrians.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I disagree that all traffic fines are "picking the pocket of motorists" – if someone does something on a public road that seriously endangers other drivers, then they deserve to be taken to task for it. Drunk driving and not wearing a seatbelt are two well-known examples.
Texting while driving is a more recent one – this is incredibly selfish driver behavior that significantly increases drivers' risk of crashing – and what's the likelihood that they won't hurt anyone, cause any property damage, etc? Even if a texting driver only injures him or herself, society as a whole still has to shoulder a burden. If people won't stop texting or get an app like <a href="http://www.zoomsafer.com” target=”_blank”>www.zoomsafer.com to help them stop, then they deserve to be ticketed in those jurisdictions that have made texting while driving illegal.
I disagree that all traffic fines are "picking the pocket of motorists" – if someone does something on a public road that seriously endangers other drivers, then they deserve to be taken to task for it. Drunk driving and not wearing a seatbelt are two well-known examples.
Texting while driving is a more recent one – this is incredibly selfish driver behavior that significantly increases drivers' risk of crashing – and what's the likelihood that they won't hurt anyone, cause any property damage, etc? Even if a texting driver only injures him or herself, society as a whole still has to shoulder a burden. If people won't stop texting or get an app like <a href="http://www.zoomsafer.com” target=”_blank”>www.zoomsafer.com to help them stop, then they deserve to be ticketed in those jurisdictions that have made texting while driving illegal.
These are just a couple of examples! Ever wonder who pays for all this technology to protect the idiots who refuse to learn how to drive? It is you and I because EVERY vehicle is required to have it whether you want it or not. And since the road warriors know they have these safety features, they simply take more chances than they would otherwise. This results in a greater business for automobile repair shops, parts dealers, recyclers, engineers, inspectors, etc, etc. But wait, all these people have to be paid for the work they do! Oh, that's right, the insurance company has to pay the tab…wonder where their money came from? From increased insurance rates of course!
Bottom line: You are paying dearly for that small modicum of 'safety' both when you purchase the vehicle and then every time you pay your ever increasing insurance premiums. So just how much is that split second of extra crumple time worth again? No matter what it is worth, we as a nation are paying literally BILLIONS and BILLIONS for it! Think about it next time you write that insurance check or make that car payment?
Just to name a mere couple of things…
Crumple Zones: Sounds great to slow vehicles down without passing those forces of momentum on to occupants. But at what cost? Besides engineering costs and specialized materials to pull off this trick, what about the added repair costs when you do have a wreck? Instead of simply bending a fender, you now also involve the frame and other large integrated components of the vehicle that may be far removed from the initial point of impact.
Air Bags: Yes these modern miracles do save some lives in severe crashes. Bet yet again, at what overall cost? The technology and materals for these gadgets are not cheap. Sure those side curtain air bags help you survive a severe side impact but would not some personal responsibility do the same thing? You don't have side air bags, don't pull out in front of that bus coming down the road! And yet again, look at the repair costs. Now instead of just replacing the sheet metal on the car, you now have to replace all the air bags and associated electronics and sensors.
Safety at what cost? Why should everyone have to pay these ludicrus expenses to idiot-proof the system for the few? If you wanted to stop at least half of the accidents in Texas, simply outlaw talking on cell phones (or as is happening more and more, texting while driving). I have traveled in every state in the United States (except for Maine and Rhode Island) as well as Southern Canada and it is absolutely amazing how much money is wasted across these lands in the name of safety. Have you ever even thought about how much more expensive an automobile is simply in the name of safety?
Texas is a perfect example of how idiotic some of this stuff can be. Rather than spend millions putting up barricades in the middle of every divided roadway, what is wrong with expecting people to learn how to drive and pay attention to what they are doing? Rather than spend more millions on putting up signs that tell you the speed limit is going to change somewhere further down the road, why not just change the speed limit and give people a little leeway to slow down? But then that cuts into revenues to hire more cops and buy more cop cars to generate even more money!!!
Texas is a perfect example of how idiotic some of this stuff can be. Rather than spend millions putting up barricades in the middle of every divided roadway, what is wrong with expecting people to learn how to drive and pay attention to what they are doing? Rather than spend more millions on putting up signs that tell you the speed limit is going to change somewhere further down the road, why not just change the speed limit and give people a little leeway to slow down?
Before you take this idiotic rant as gospel read what else the NMA provides for us on this subject.
In the editorial entitled “9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You” look at way #6:
6) Turning Lanes at Stop-Controlled Intersections
At intersections with significant turning volume, turning lanes for right and left turns on major road approaches can dramatically reduce crashes — in some cases, by as much as 55 percent.
Then look at # 3 in the editorial entitled “6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed” by By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist:
3) No Left At Light
Cousin to the no-right-on-red rule, this is the one where you find yourself at an intersection wanting to make a left turn across an opposing lane of traffic onto a sidestreet. But instead of a “yield to oncoming traffic” green light – sensible policy – you’re stuck with a red light made just for you – on the assumption you’ve got inch-thick cataracts and the ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic of Mr. Magoo. You’re supposed to wait patiently for the green arrow — even when there’s no oncoming traffic at all and you could literally get out and push the car safely across the intersection. Like no right on red, it’s a well-intended law designed to protect the worst drivers out there from their own marginal skills and poor judgment — at the expense of everyone else.
Do they want the crash reduction of upto 55% or the ability to choose when to cross by themselves. Before eric Peters went off on his rant did he read the other editorial that would have told him that having the left turn lane and arrow would decrease his risk of crash by as much as 55% in some cases, apparently not. These are the things I get annoyed at on the website both are presented as fact but they contradict each other. Additionally the 1st editorial says that the turning lanes will improve traffic safety but the government refuses to initiate them because the government is corrupt and would rather ticket you instead of impliment this intersection feature. Apparently the author of that article has no clue what he is talking about based upon Eric peters rant because he is complaining that this feature is implimented way too often and is an annoyance to him. So is it safer and not implimented enough because the venues are greedy and want to ticket drivers or is it implimented way too often in an attempt by the government to dumb down the traffic control. This is the kind of crap the NMA provides for us. They obviously both can’t be correct so which one should we believe?
“7) Yellow Change Intervals
Red-light running crashes at intersections, which too frequently result in fatalities, can be reduced by properly setting yellow-light signals. Studies show a one-second increase in the yellow signal interval can reduce red-light violations by as much as 50 percent.”
This is absolute BS the length of the yellow light has absolutely nothing to do with red-light running crashes. Instead of lengthening the yellow light so that motorists are successful in getting through the intersection before the red without crash why don’t we reinforce the CORRECT way to drive through the intersection and what the CORRECT meaning of the yellow light is. The yellow light is not there to warn you that the light is about to turn red and that you need to hurry up if you want to beat the red. The yellow light has two meanings depending where you are in relationship to the intersection 1)If you have not entered the intersection do not enter the intersection and 2) If you are within the intersection you must clear the intersection. The problem of red-light crashes can only be inproved a fraction of what they could be if we lengthen the yellow light vs reinforcing what the yellow light means and how to properly react to it illuminating as you approach the intersection. Lengthening the yellow light only reinfoces the negative behaviors of beating the red and makes that behavior available to more drivers approaching the intersection. If a method exists that will decrease red-light crashes more than lengthening the yellow why does the NMA insist that lengthening the yellow is the only rational solution. The NMA is a grass roots organization that began life by trying to get increased speed limits. To this day speed limits are a major part of thier agenda if we lengthen the yellow lights it allows for drivers with unlawful approach speeds to be able to brake for the light without going through the red. Yellow lights are engineered to the speed limit and if traffic approaches at the speed limit and the yellow illuminates it lasts long enough so that traffic too close to stop can make it through before the red and consiquently the opposing green. If we lengthen the yellow then traffic can approach at faster speeds and not be panic stopping as the light is turning red. The rational solution I see is that drivers comply with speed limits and the yellow lights will be long enough for those drivers they apply to. Instead of lengthening the yellow I find it more appropriate for the red to illuminate stopping traffic and then the green be delayed by 3 seconds so that the green light drivers can check to make sure the intersection is clear and that opposing traffic has stopped moving. The NMA will never support such a rational approach because it doesn’t work to further thier increased speed limit agenda.
I also agree with Rick Gunther we need to ask questions about where the numbers came from and are these verifiable results of some study or just nade up figures as part of a propaganda effort. I would caution every reader to check any statistic that the NMA gives them and check the facts of every article on this site, I have found many factual errors. Additionally would lengthening the yellow light decrease red-light violation by 50%? The NMA says it will and that there is a study that proves it but the don’t give you a link to that study or tell you who authored it. how would increasing the time interval between red and green by 1 second effect red-light crashes if this study shows that adding 1 second to the yellow decreases red light violations by 50%. I would think that the rational approach and the one most benefitting safety would be adding 1 second between the red light and opposing green light. It may not decrease the number of red-light violations but it will most definitely decrease the number of red-light crashes.
About the 60 to 87 percent reduction in accidents when roundabouts are used, it is important to ask ourselves how this number was reached. Where were the roundabouts used (cul de sacs, residential streets, highways)? Also, what was the control for their expirement. Its very nice to have these numbers and all, but before we jump to conclusions we should ask ourselves if these numbers are verifiable, or just made up by someone whom advocates the use of roundabouts
Excellent article on the 4.3 second yelow light time as recomended by the state.
I received a red light ticket from a CHP officer who claimed i ran the red light because his light was green when I enetered the intersection.
In checking and observiung the lights in this intersetion I noticed that the yellow light time varied from 3.5 seconds to 4.3 seconds depending upon the time of day.
In the mnorning hours between 6;00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. the signals changed at the rate of 3.0 seconds from yellow to Red. Thgen betweem 8:00 a.m. and Noon they were changing at thr rate of 4.0 secomds from yellow to Red and that the light on the opposing street changed from red to green before the yellow light changed to red.
The city of Santa Ana, California claims their lights are set at 4.3 seconds as required by State law. What do you recomend?
FM, I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. Judging from your comment about people in the circle letting other drivers in, I assume you are referring to the style of traffic circles found in New York and other large east coast cities. These circles operate differently than the modern roundabout. In order to prevent congestion like you are talking about, traffic approaching a modern roundabout is faced with a yield sign. By giving the ROW to traffic in the circle we can successfully prevent it from jamming shut. Typically such circles are one or two lanes, and are smaller in diameter than the old style circles. Traffic engineers do often build them slightly too small though, and inexperienced engineers will angle the approaches wrong. Typical speed through one of these will average at about 20-30 mph. They are particularly useful in residential areas, collector roads, and junctions with more than 4 approaches (size of circle must be increased, shape may be altered as well)
Additionally, talking to everyone this time, one topic I did not see the article mention was other dangerous driving behaviours. They try to give us the impression that if only we could eliminate speeding our roads would be safe, but there are so many other factors that play a far bigger role in contributing to crashes. For example, driving slow in the left land, weaving, turning into the incorrect lane, tailgating, not using directionals, etc.
Highway:
“FM is talking about something completely different from what the article is.”
HIGHWAY, You obviously did not read this article. My point directed to…
5) Roundabouts:
Roundabouts have demonstrated a 60 to 87 percent reduction in crashes.
[...] Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too 9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing… September 4th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets The Federal Highway Administration has strongly [...]
FM is talking about something completely different from what the article is. The article is not advocating large traffic circles or rotaries. Modern roundabouts are smaller, deal with smaller volumes better, and reduce conflicts.
Matta, that’s one of the beautiful things about roundabouts. Being slightly uncomfortable with the traffic flow keeps you paying attention to other cars, and reduces accidents. Additionally, if you miss your turn, you can just go around again with very little added travel time. The worst things that happen in them is when people don’t do this and stop or try to cut hard right to get out of them.
Just go around again, folks.
ROUNDABOUTS ?!?!?!
I’ve been in and also parked to watch many roundabouts across America, my observations are…
When it’s crowded, those who are already in one will either not let another driver in, or simply, their is no SAFE room to get in. So you have to sit and wait.
AND WHEN you’re in one & it’s crowded,… DO NOT get caught in the inside lane, you’ll NEVER get out!
This Roundabout system is just a little less dangerous that a “figure 8″ race. Then again, maybe the “figure 8″ might do more good than the Roundabouts?…
…naw, BAN THE DAMMMN things.
HI
What ever is written here completely makes sense i drive 4hrs a day on highway and I agree with this report.
I am not very comfortable with roundabouts though, if you donot know the directions it is very confusing.
These are measures that should be implemented world wide. The money coming from this of course will come from excessively mean transport traffic fines, and a large proportion going into the pockets of money hungry speed camera organizations, who deliberately mislead governments on the reason fro speed being a “major” factor in accidents. We know different. We should refuse to pay all fines till there is some sanity in the way people are ticketed, and the way safe motorists are ticketed fro minor infractions, as the real ratbag problem drivers seems to easily avoid fines by various means.
10. Improve the signage. The US has really bad traffic signs or lack of them – particularly regarding directions and right-of-way.