Re: Who to contact about a deadly stretch of road.

John Lansford wrote:
> "gpsman" <gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >John Lansford wrote: <brevity snip>
> >> "gpsman" <gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> >Maybe, I guess.  I don't know anything about road design.  But I think
> >> >any expectation that any road will be safe at any velocity would be
> >> >presumtuous.
> >
> >> Well, there's your error.  I never said "any road will be safe at any
> >> velocity".  I DID say that drivers have an expectation that a road
> >> would be safe at the posted speed, and that a design that does not
> >> convey that expectation would be considered unsafe.
> >
> >Your error is that I said that you said: "any road will be safe at any
> >velocity".  You didn't say it and neither did I.
> >
> >I effectively said that drivers should not expect the road to be "safe"
> >at any velocity regardless of the speed limit... and that the speed
> >limit is -not- an indication of a safe velocity and is not -intended-
> >to convey the expectation that the limit -is- a safe velocity.  A speed
> >limit is a limit, nothing more.
>
> Uhhh, no, it is more than that. Perhaps you feel it is just "a limit",
> but motorists have come to view a speed limit as a certification that
> a road is safe -at that speed-.  When it is not, then the state is
> misleading the motorists.
>
> >Any state dictating that any velocity is safe would be opening a door
> >to litigation, pretty damn wide.  No velocity is inherently "safe"
> >regardless of the vehicle.
>
> Well I never said that, nor have I ever seen a state make such a
> statement.  If a road is signed at say, 65mph, however, it damn well
> had better be safe to travel at that speed or there certainly WILL be
> lawsuits.
>
> >  Driving, contrary to popular opinion, is a
> >dangerous activity at every speed.
>
> Well I don't disagree with that either.
>
> >> >  Drivers often assume 45 is a safe speed if the speed
> >> >limit is 45.  I'd agree that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption, it
> >> >just isn't true.
> >>
> >> It should be.  Considering that the design standards used by the vast
> >> majority of states disagrees with you, I think I'll go with their
> >> explanation over yours.
> >
> >Well... what "should" be and what actually "is" are quite often 2
> >different things.
> >
> >Please cite one state's design standard that says the intention of the
> >design or standard is to provide safety at x velocity.  You won't find
> >it.  The function of design and speed limits are to "facilitate"
> >safety, not to ensure it, or provide it, or to provide the
> >-expectation- of it.  Only drivers can do that.
>
> The Green Book disagrees with you, then.  When a road is designed to
> their standards for a given speed, then the state has certified it to
> be safe at that speed for drivers operating their vehicles in the
> proper manner.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/

This is all very interesting, but in my view, is still dodging the
question of who a citizen is to contact if he/she suspects a dangerous
location.

A citizen has possibly three choices. A politician, a policeman or a
highway engineer. Notice that these three will seldom be in the same
room at the same time when the question is asked.

The answer to the dangerous location question will have two aspects. If
your tool is a hammer, the problem must look like a nail. The other
aspect is that it is not my job, this safety correction belongs to the
other two, who are not here, and the one you are talking to doesn't
know who is responsible either. If someone knew who had the answer,
there would be no need to ask the question. Roads would be safer.

To my way of thinking, a public disclosure of the top ten dangerous
locations needing some type of mitigation, be it road engineering,
people education, or vehicle design would not only answer the question,
but would result in safer roads.

GASB-34 requires public bodies to keep an inventory of assets that they
"own". It is not a stretch of the imagination to identify the top ten
road locations that are costing the most in terms of lives lost plus
insurance crash payments.

What is the criteria for determining whether the location is dangerous?
Recorded crashes is my candidate. Not the crashes recorded by the
police. The crashes reported to Insurance companies. Weighted for lives
lost, personal injury, corrective action and senescence.

Public disclosure is necessary. For starters, if the location continues
on the list for year after year, someone had better be able to justify
their salary. All three players have to be in the same room at the same
time for answering to the public why this location continues to be on
the list year after year. Increasing traffic is not an answer.
Increasing traffic is an excuse. All three, the politician, the
engineer and the police have to do their part to compensate for the
increased traffic. The politician may have to release funds for
specific education. More later.

Lacking a public disclosure, anyone needing highway funds can come to
the finance table and make a case for safety mitigation funds. Usually
the squeaky wheel wins out over an objective claim. Why? Because there
is no single agreed objective criteria to determine where the greatest
return on safety investment will be. Everyone has their own criteria on
where to spend money to get safer roads.

Witness the red light camera kerfuffle.

Another aspect of who the public contacts is the updating of standards
and laws. At some point, the standardization body has to decide if the
standard needs updating. The legal body has to decide if the laws need
updating. The education community has to decide if the curriculum needs
updating.

.
Loading