Tyranny Of The Minority: Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed
By NMA President, James Baxter
The new “energy bill” that has just been signed into law has been baking for a long time. The automakers, after months of wrangling with the petroleum industry, environmentalists, consumer watchdogs, and one another bit the bullet and signed up for new fuel economy standards. No doubt, the realization that car buyers were going to give fuel economy much higher priority with three, four, and five dollar a gallon gas prices was a factor in their capitulation.
The Petroleum industry went toe to toe with the same cast of characters, plus the farm lobby, over ethanol mandates and as yet invented alternate fuels. The final trade-off was choking down the ethanol and alternative fuel mandates in exchange for salvaging oil industry tax breaks.
With all the give and take, pontificating, finger pointing, and political theater there was one party that was not invited to the debate; you and me, and the other 220 million drivers who will suffer the results (and pay for) this legislative masterpiece. You will look hard and long for any meaningful comment or input on the behalf of motorists.
This is not unusual, motorists are seldom seen as a “special interest” or segment of the society that deserves consideration when weighing public issues, even those dealing with transportation or the vehicles we own and drive.
This isn’t the fault of our elected officials. This is our fault because we don’t really acknowledge or support our interests as motorists.
Here’s a good example of how this plays out right in our own back yard:
A road goes through our community on which there are ten adjoining residences. Two thousand people use this road each day for work, shopping, and general commerce. Three of the residents along the road dislike the heavy traffic and they petition the local government to reduce the speed limit and install stop signs to make the road “safer.”
- A public hearing is held on the petition.
- The three residents are the only ones who show up.
- They present their side of the argument, which is based solely on personal inconvenience and not traffic engineering principles.
- The speed limit is lowered and the stop signs are installed.
Not one of the 2000 motorists who use the road daily show up to object to this proposal.
Driving is ubiquitous and it is taken for granted, almost like breathing, but likewise, it is surely missed when the opportunity is lost.
We think of ourselves as union members, conservationists, farmers, music fans, Democrats or Republicans, gun owners, pilots, evangelicals, gays, bikers or belonging to hundreds of other special classes who rightfully take the podium in their own defense.
But, as motorists, we are “missing in action” when it comes to defending our interests and rights.
If we value personal mobility, economic opportunity, and individual freedom, then being a “motorist” should be one of our highest priorities. If enough of us come to this realization there will be no more speed traps, road blocks, ticket cameras, kangaroo traffic courts, or stealing of highway funds to fix budget deficits. Our opinions might even matter the next time Congress tries to fix the mess they created with the just-passed energy bill.
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.)
The municipality has an obligation to send out notices so that the many people effected by the roadway can also attend the meeting and let thier feelings of opposition to a lower speed limit known. That those who would like thier travel speeds unregulated don’t show up is testimony of thier own hypocrisy. They claim to be concerned about this portion of highway as it effects them but are too self absorbed or can’t make the time to show up at a meeting where decisions are to be made concerning this roadway and it’s users.
xoc. If the homeowners don’t want to live near a busy road, they shouldn’t move into a house with a busy road nearby. You wouldn’t move into a house on final approach to an airport if you didn’t like noisy airplanes, would you? If you do, you have no one to blame but yourself.
2000 motorist should have an EQUAL say with the 10 residents that live there in how the road is going to be administered because the taxes the 2000 motorists pay to maintain that road. By the way XOC- your argument that a CAR should not have more say than a person is totally bogus. Why? Because inside that CAR is a person- and his/her rights are just as valid as the homeowners. They are on a PUBLIC road. It is not OWNED by the homeowner. Deal with it.
“Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed” hits the nail precisely on the head. I have a prime example of that about a ¼ mile from where I’m setting right now. This road is a semi-rural road. Half in the city and half in the county and is used almost exclusively by our housing addition because the road dead ends at the end of the addition. This road went from its’ original 50 mph to a 35 all because the vast majority of users, which include almost exclusively drivers from our addition, had no say. In fact nobody even knew the speed limit change was under consideration. This happened several years ago and observations to date indicate almost nobody abides by it and non-complacence in my non-scientific notion is about 95%. It’s a classic example of why drivers speed. I wrote the county engineer who had the limit lowered and it’s obvious he’s a older, conservative gentlemen with very little traffic engineering experience. It was a forgone conclusion how this would turn out. The handful of residents (I know a couple of them) are all members of the “slower is better choir”, obviously knew this too.
It’s always easy for a jurisdiction to lower a speed limit. Particularly when its a very unpopular limit there’s gonna be a lot of speeding and traffic tickets (read revenue) involved. So there’s a powerful incentive to lower a limit. And anybody can always use safety as an excuse. Conversely, there’s no incentive to maintain a 85% speed limit or higher. There’s no penalty for unjustly lower speed limits. The incentive is on the wrong side. It’s no wonder that in many situations we have unrealistic speed limits. The motive for these handful of citizens is “getting even with all those so-called fast drivers” while the motive for the municipality is revenue. It’s a recipe for continuing slower limits. Drivers are not going to win under these circumstances especially when they are so uninvolved with government. And I don’t know how you change that.
In smaller jurisdictions you often end up with city council members or county civil engineers, instead of the expertise of trained engineers in traffic control, making the decisions. In most cases city council members have no traffic engineering sense at all. It therefore becomes a political speed limit as opposed to a scientific one. I’ve always believed that if your being charged with speeding and you feel it’s a unjust speed limit, you should be able to challenge the validity of the speed limit based on sound traffic engineering principals. Some of these ridiculous speed limits could be rolled back.
In the particular case above, it doesn’t seem to me that the text of the situation and the pix match. I believe you have to ask what kind of road we’re talking about. What circumstances surround the situation. Judging from this pix it looks to me like this road is almost a residential street. In that case I believe residents should have a say. If your talking about a primary road beyond a residential area then I believe the users and tax payers of the road deserve the say.
I work in the aviation business. There’s a saying that goes something like this; If you build an airport soon there will be homes built around it and then the people start bitching about the noise. Same for streets and roads; If you build a road then soon there will be residences or businesses built next to them and the people start bitching about all the traffic, noise, speed, and safety concerns.
Fortunately there does seem to be a trend around here to require newly built housing additions to have only one or two egress points. But even then I see speed limits lowered for no apparent good reason except a handful of residents bitched about all the traffic going by when they were trying to egress their addition. Sometimes one of them gets in a hurry to egress and then they get into an accident. Even though it was their fault they play the blame game and blame the speed limit or all speeding going on. In either case the city or county is all to glad to oblige them under the false pretense of safety. The driver whose fault it was gets their revenge and the city gets to make more money. It’s a win win for the two parties but a screwing for the majority of the driving public. It’s a waist of valuable transportation resources to have a unjust speed limit. One way to look at it is the lower the speed limit, the lower the transportation value of the road. Lower limits means the road can carry less traffic at any given time and waists drivers valuable time not to mention the increasing chances of getting a expensive traffic citation.
I can’t think of a single case locally where anybody but the perpetrators even knew of a proposal to lower a limit. It’s a bad flaw in our system. I see roads around here that are expanded from narrow two lanes to wide four lanes and the speed limit is dropped. What’s up with that? Around here when a property zoning change is in the works a sign is posted at or near the property to indicate the time and place of a meeting to decide. The same needs to be done for speed zone changes or other traffic control measures. This is NOT a unrealistic requirement. If the driving public knew up front about proposed changes in traffic control we would see far less problems with traffic control.
It’s kinda funny that we must pay taxes to build and maintain roads but end up having literally no say about anything including traffic control on the roads. In my notion it’s kinda like somebody using your money to buy you a new car but you get no say in the color, brand, or accessories it has. It’s another example among many where citizens are completely disengaged from their government. So much for our democracy.
Oh, and while I agree with Rick Gold on a lot of things it’s always been proper Internet practice NOT to use caps except to emphase something. It implies screaming or hollering.
{BTW, THE CAPS STAY ON. EASIER TO READ AND FASTER TO TYPE. GET USED TO IT.}
All caps are much more difficult to read and detract greatly from your message. If your message is powerful enough, you don’t need to yell.
for SHARON:
ACTUALLY SHARON, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT MORE AMERICAN CARS WILL PROBABLY GET BUILT OUT OF COUNTRY. IF THIS BILL CONTAINS THE SLICK CAVEATS THAT THE PRECEDING ONE DID, THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN 2019 COMES AROUND ALL THESE DOG AND PONY SHOW SPECIALISTS IN OUR CONGRESS WHO PUT UP THIS ABOMINATION WILL DECLARE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE AS REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND SCIENCE. IF THEY DON’T ?? LOOK FOR THE UAW TO PETITION CONGRESS FOR SUCH. MILLIONS OF AUTOWORKERS OUT OF A JOB BECAUSE THE FACTORIES ARE CLOSED MAKES FOR AN ANGRY ELECTORATE.
REGARDS – RICK GOLD
for XOC:
SIR, YOU NEED TO GET YOUR INFO FROM A BETTER SOURCE.
SEE: Manufacturing.net – 12/19/07 – Assoc Press Writer H.J.HERBERT:
“The requirement for automakers to increase their industrywide vehicle fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 mpg by 2020 compared to today’s 25 mpg is viewed by many lawmakers and environmentalists as historic and groundbreaking.”
AND: L.A.Times – 12/19/07 – RICHARD SIMON:
“The measure would require a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020, for a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon, and would be the first congressional raising of the standards since they were established in 1975.”
BTW, THE CAPS STAY ON. EASIER TO READ AND FASTER TO TYPE. GET USED TO IT.
REGARDS,
RICK GOLD
xoc writes: {What a bizarre world you propose, where a car is more important than a person! Why should 2000 motorists get an equal say in setting the road rules outside the 10 home-owners homes?}
That was not what was proposed. Just as 2,000 motorists cannot dictate what rules apply inside those homes, likewise, 10 homeowners cannot dictate the rules of the road. Traffic engineers use the behavior of **drivers** to set speed limits and this has been well established as the safest speed.
{Those motorists may spend a total of 5 minutes a week on that part of the road while the 10 families must live there 24 hours a day 365 days a year.}
Those people don’t live on the roads. Their influence should stop at the curb.
{When motorists start driving in silent, pollution free vehicles that never run over pedestrians, crash through the front fence, or contribute to respiratory illness, then they can complain about being unfairly treated by the people whose lives they no longer damage.}
Non-sequitur. I’m reluctant to require perfection in one group before other special interests afford them fundamental rights.
Sharon writes: {I agree with xoc. You have some very good points. If we as motorists would vote with all safety measures considered, it would be ok, but the majority will vote for faster travel issues without considering safety to other issues involved.}
There has never been a vote on “faster travel issues,” whatever that means. The most effective “vote” by motorists is to simply ignore the rules that don’t make sense.
Rick, watch that TECHNOLOGY start coming out of the woodwork now! :)
I agree with xoc. You have some very good points. If we as motorists would vote with all safety measures considered, it would be ok, but the majority will vote for faster travel issues without considering safety to other issues involved. Good post.
The traffic system is outrages as it stands now, we don’t need to go blindly into another level without taking the issues that xoc mentioned into consideration.
What a bizarre world you propose, where a car is more important than a person! Why should 2000 motorists get an equal say in setting the road rules outside the 10 home-owners homes?
Those motorists may spend a total of 5 minutes a week on that part of the road while the 10 families must live there 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
Taking that logic to its conclusion would mean that the average taxi driver would be dictating the road rules that would affect millions of homes.
When motorists start driving in silent, pollution free vehicles that never run over pedestrians, crash through the front fence, or contribute to respiratory illness, then they can complain about being unfairly treated by the people whose lives they no longer damage.
@Rick Gold – you need to get your information from a more reputable source (and turn off CAPSLOCK).
FOLKS,
THE MANDATE OF A 40% INCRREASE IN FUEL MILEAGE (JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE), AS WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN THIS “ENERGY BILL”, WHEN THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY YET INVENTED TO PRODUCE SUCH AN INCREASE IS BEYOND ABSURD AND GIVES US JUST AN INKLING INTO GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES WHERE DOG & PONY THEATRE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL ELSE.
HOW RIDICULOUS; AND WE’RE PAYING THE TAB.
RICK GOLD