Comments on: Tyranny Of The Minority: Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/ News For Drivers Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:16:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Phil Mckrackin http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-12040 Phil Mckrackin Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:58:57 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-12040 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. 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.

]]> By: Mark http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-4983 Mark Tue, 20 May 2008 15:49:09 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-4983 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. 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.

]]> By: Diamond Jim http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1275 Diamond Jim Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:37:53 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1275 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. 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.

]]> By: Joe http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Joe Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:55:32 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1208 “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. “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.

]]> By: James Young http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1174 James Young Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:38:55 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1174 {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. {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.

]]> By: RICK GOLD http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1170 RICK GOLD Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:31:31 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1170 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 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

]]> By: RICK GOLD http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1169 RICK GOLD Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:23:24 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1169 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 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

]]> By: James Young http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1167 James Young Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:54:21 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1167 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. 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.

]]> By: Sharon http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1164 Sharon Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:04:38 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1164 Rick, watch that TECHNOLOGY start coming out of the woodwork now! :) Rick, watch that TECHNOLOGY start coming out of the woodwork now! :)

]]> By: Sharon http://blog.motorists.org/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/comment-page-1/#comment-1163 Sharon Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:02:23 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/tyranny-of-the-minority-why-bad-traffic-laws-get-passed/#comment-1163 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. 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.

]]>