The Lifesaving Tech Drivers Hate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 гру 2022
- Get your $100 donation matched with Givewell! To claim your match, go to www.givewell.org/citybeautiful and don’t forget to select “UA-cam” and “City Beautiful”. Thanks!
Watch this video early and ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/citybeautifu...
I’m on Patreon! Consider supporting this channel / citybeautiful
Resources on this topic:
NYC crash stats: abc7ny.com/bike-lanes-safety-...
More NYC crash stats: www.newyorkpersonalinjuryatto...
Crash stats: crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/...
NYC speed limiters: www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/...
Speed limiters: www.planetizen.com/news/2022/...
Speed cameras: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Speed cameras: speedcamerareport.co.uk/cochra...
Automated enforcement laws by state: www.iihs.org/topics/red-light...
Racial bias in policing: www.nature.com/articles/s4156...
Produced by Dave Amos and the fine folks at Nebula Studios.
Written by Dave Amos and Hannah Woolsey
Select images and video from Getty Images.
Black Lives Matter.
This is my last video of the year! It also caps six straight years of posting videos. Thanks for watching and I’ll see you in 2023!
Thanks for an amazing year full of amazing videos! See you in the new year!
Hope you have a good Christmas and see you next year!
I am anti-camera, however i'm glad the discussion is being had. Drivers have a stupidly unfair amount of privilage within our cities.
Yes lets encourage people to barrel through in the multi ton death machine.
Also: cop cars should ABSOLUTELY be tracked, videoed, and more. I want cops to feel like their every movement is being tracked and recorded. They should feel like they are under a microscope. Because I'm tired of this entitled 'we have investigated oruselves and found no wrongdoing' feel from cops.
They are here to protect and SERVE. Not Bully and Harass.
hope for another great year
Love your channel and how you approach your topics!
Road design. Road design. Road design.
Here in the Netherlands we are getting better and better at designing roads in such a way that drivers automatically drive near the speed limit.
Traffic calming measures work.
You don't need speed cameras and red light cameras if you design your roads correctly.
Also, if the only way to get somewhere is by car, then a lot of people drive who really should not. Better public transport and cycle and pedestrian infrastructure help a lot.
Well said!
I would only like to add thar speedin is far from the only or even the most contributing factor. 25mph is slower than most will drive out of their own culdesac, yet fast enough to kill in some cases.
And how much will it cost to change every single place that's already designed wrong? Speed cameras can be installed practically everywhere they're needed in the next decade if there's a will for it.
I agree BUT we should acknowledge that enforcement and road design are dealing with two distinct types of problems. Enforcement addresses knowing violations of traffic rules. After all, enforcement is meant to work by deterring violating behaviors and that can only work if a person is conscious of their violations. This is a lot of people on some issues, for instance most people know when they're speeding. But doesn't work if you're unaware of the laws you're violating. This actually helps explain the more ambiguous benefit of red light cameras. That's because the most dangerous violations of lights are NOT done consciously but done because for one reason or another, a person doesn't realize they need to stop. This is where road design comes in.
For a lot of violations, something is happening that prevents the driver from following normal rules. Driving under the influence is a common cause, but also distracted driving, driving while tired, and medical emergencies can all cause these issues. Also road design where what to do is unclear. This is where you get the wildest swerving, the blasting through lights that turned red a long time before, or running off the road into ditches or other structures. Good road design can minimize the impacts of these kinds of unintentional actions and some intentional ones, but by itself can't stop people who are willfully violating the laws (such as street racers).
So what's the answer? A combination of both are needed. Automated enforcement with low but certain fines tend to have the best impact on changing intentional behavior, with higher punishments for more egregious/repeat offenses and potentially also for richer drivers (though getting that info adds a substantial layer of complexity). Cops are a bad option for that for all the reasons noted in this video and so cameras get us closer to fair and certain punishments. But streets need to be redisgned as well to reduce the impact of those unintentional incidents. Breathilizers in cars helps with the single most common reason for bad driving (being drunk) but can't cover the full spectrum and more complex systems of monitoring driver behavior are much more likely to have either a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives (likely the latter will be preferred by manufacturers). And that's where things like narrower lanes, more round-a-abouts, and traffic calming are important.
In the end, to reach vision zero we're not talking about just street redesign or just enforcement. The two need to be intelligently combined to deal with different types of driver behavior.
Yes to good road design and transit, however, that would take a long time to implement in some places and won't solve everything. I don't think this should be an either/or, we can do both or whichever is most appropriate for the specific situation
PREACH!
fun fact: speed limiters were almost a thing way back in the 1920s before auto companies created a successful smear campaign against pedestrians
And now California will be the first state in the country to completely legalize jaywalking (mostly). The only time a pedestrian will be cited now is if they cross in a manner that poses a risk of safety to themselves or others.
@@Awesome_Aasim about time. Streets and roads are designed to transport people and goods. A person should be able to walk on the road like their ancestors could for thousands of years.
@@Awesome_Aasim we welcome California on their journey towards modern civilization. Jaywalking is the dumbest thing I've heard of, and for many years I didn't believe it was true that it's illegal to cross the street in Freedomland
Im happier and happier for the alleged smear campaign. Apparently its car manufacturing companies who saved us from orwellian urbanist dystopia.
@@Awesome_Aasim God, in that system I'd have so many tickets. I assume by American standards I cross like a madman cause tbf, anyone south of where I live thinks the same. lmao.
Kinda surprised by this video. Two thoughts:
1) My understanding was e-bikes are limited like that to prevent them from becoming classified as actual vehicles, and having to go through things like titling, crash testing, having a VIN, etc.
2) While I'm all for safer streets, I certainly think solving it with better street design is more appealing than the fear of punishment. As a pedestrian, a 6 lane road is still a 6 lane road, even if cars now go slower. I'd much prefer a road diet, tree lined streets, etc. rather than simply increasing surveillance.
2. Why can’t we have both?
the 2) has a limitation, because with bigger cars with bigger tires, drivers are less and less sensitive to what happens around the car, so the nudges outside the car work less and less, you have to get inside the car.
They're also limited for mechanical longevity, the motor could just as well overspin itself into its physical limit of speed, but it would burnout in a matter of minutes at that point.
@@50gramsof Because if I have to drive across town, that is what will happen. Making safer roads is the only solution that will benefit everyone. The current bill just means a car manufacturer will sell data to my insurance company and my insurance will go up.
This is all due to the fact that I live in a Nuclear Family Levittown. Pearly hypothetically, mind you.
@@50gramsof because being more authoritarian isn't necessary. You can have freedom and safety at the same time with well designed and thoughtful measures.
The main problem I have with fines as punishment is that they are disproportionately punishing to the poor. Someone who has to drive to their minimum wage job because their city has shit transit will have to spend maybe two or three days' wages on a fine, while a lawyer won't even notice the money is missing. This is often compounded by late fees, license suspensions, and court costs, which fall disproportionately on those unable to pay. Road engineering solutions that discourage speeding in the first place are a superior solution.
Not to mention that if these laws were enacted, then that would likely mean that older cars would become illegal to drive unless retrofitted. I think it's fair to say that most people can't afford to just buy a new car/install whatever surveillance device
That's why I like that demerit points are a thing too. I'm not sure if you have this where you live, but we get about 4 points per year. Any time you get a fine, you also lose points depending on what you did wrong. If you run out of points, your license is suspended.
If you think assholes won't speed through "speed discouraging design" you're very mistaken. And no, if you are caught speeding multiple times just because you can afford it it's not just a fine. You risk just completely having your license revoked not to mention increased insurance premiums.
You could make the fine proportionately to one's income. That way it is still punished but doesn't incompasitate the poor.
@@sor3999 So people shouldn't try to stop crime? So people should have cops or security on their homes cause some people do crime anyways?
Come to the UK. Speed cameras are so commonplace that they rarely get commented on. Almost all journeys that I take means passing at least one within a relatively short distance of home. These days, I do little driving, maybe 2 short trips a week at the most, less than 50 km a week, and yet I pass 10 to 15 cameras. They work for most people.
The cameras that are hated here are ones to catch people entering bus lanes. They are regarded as cash machines for local government, and are often associated with insufficient warning of lane changes in order to catch the maximum number of drivers.
Good! Sounds like a win-win from where I sit. The busses can go faster and the extra money from fines against drivers breaking the rules means that my taxes can go down!
I like to say that speed limits in London are aspirational not an imparative.
@@michaelimbesi2314 believing that your taxes will go down. That doesn't happen.
@@ZestyLemonSauce happens for rich people. usually when it shouldn't.
Hah! I guess that explain why the UK has such a low number of road fatalities! Good to know.
The thing that scares me with the impaired driving detector is that it will render the car unusable if you have a neurodevelopmental disorder or if you have a dark skin tone. If the car is programmed to pull you over, that is a tone of liability for the automaker, especially if it cannot be overridden by the driver. I think that these regulations will be killed by lawsuits after the car acts autonomously and kills someone, or someone is harmed because their car will not start.
These kinds of technologies can be useful, but physical traffic calming measures (such as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, protected bike lanes, chicanes, modal filters, etc) are often a better solution. They don't raise privacy concerns, they work 24/7/365, and they make dangerous driving physically impossible rather than just discouraging it.
If only cash-strapped local governments could actually afford such measures...and still find money for public transport
Indeed.
Also, if the only way to get somewhere is by car, then a lot of people get behind the wheel who really shouldn't.
Good public transport and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure also helps a lot.
@@crash.override they problem isn't affording such measures. All roads need rebuilt at some point. The problem is these measures do not make money, while traffic cameras do.
@@evancombs5159 Something as simple as narrowing a road from 12-foot lanes to 10-foot lanes when it's due to be rebuilt will save 16% in paving costs, and by extension, that same amount in savings in maintenance costs every year until the road is due to be rebuilt again.
Busways work too
If we want people to stop speeding then we need to (re)design roads in a way that makes it harder/uncomfortable or impossible to speed.
I understand why people are mad about speed camera because our roads aren’t designed for the speeds that are posted. Sometimes I find myself going faster because it feels like the right speed to be driving but then I pass a speed sign and notice I’m going 10 mph over.
Absolutely! While rebuilding roads is certainly not free, I imagine it'd be both less expensive and more effective to rebuild problematic roads with traffic-calming measures like narrower lanes and trees alongside the road to make it nerve-wracking to go fast. There's a road on my route to the grocery store that's built the same as most 45 zones in the area, and it's posted with a speed limit of 25, and every time I drive down it, I get up to like 35 and realize it's legally a 25 zone. I sure wish my local authorities would realize that you can't build a 45 zone and just slap a 25 mph sign on it and expect people to go 25.
Making roads that are too uncomfortable to speed on makes it feel like speeding does in your car on roads today. That is a horrible feeling. I don't want to feel on edge the entire commute.
Making people uncomfortable on purpose is not progress.
Well, it will take decades in order to do so. Should we just accept the hundreds of thousands of deaths until then? Or should we start taking measures to slow people down today?
@@JDubyax2 Transporting people at speed is inherently dangerous. Freedom is inherently dangerous. Yes, we should accept some level of fatal risk for comfort and freedom.
@@LowJSamuel I don't think you understand how these factors work. Drivers subconsciously drive at different speeds on different roads, based on a variety of factors. Based on external factors, a road might be safe to drive at, say, 40, but the way the road is designed triggers the idea in the drivers' heads that "this is a 60 road."
The goal of narrowing lanes, installing trees along the road, etc is to make drivers think "this is a 50 road" or "this is a 45 road" so they are at or closer to the intended speed for the road. There's no active discomfort. Your brain just perceives the road differently.
The best solution though to influence driver behavior is not speed limit signs or red light cameras but appropriate engineering like speed bumps/tables, chicanes, and narrow lanes. This uses psychology to slow a driver down.
Exactly. Cameras attack the symptoms, not the causes. They might work as a short-term treatment, but long-term they are unviable
But the government won't like those. No money to collect on speeders.
A common objection to this is "but fire trucks and emergency vehicles"
40,000 people per year are dying on roadways NOW. I agree that road design needs to improve, but why not deploy these where it makes sense? They can be installed quickly and make an impact (while we're fixing our streets).
@@CityBeautiful Roadways, More like Stroadways. I live near rt 65 in PA which is an awful dangerous stroad that connects amazing walkable towns, and if you look on google maps, each business has its own parking lot and access to a 40mph stroad, to get from 1 business to another often involves a dangerous left turn across traffic, The route desperately needs to become a road to improve safety but business interests along the stroad don't want it to happen.
The safest driving you can do is on slow streets and on the interstates, it is the mid speeds above 25mph and below 65mph which are the most dangerous.
I love the German system for automated enforcement. There's always a sign to warn you and speed cameras are only located where they're most necessary (in pedestrian areas, towns, near schools and hospitals, etc)... I am not for too much invasion of privacy or automated enforcement everywhere, but it's a great tool when used properly.
>There's always a sign to warn you
that's not true, radar speed traps maybe, but your boring old ones: absolutely not.
>only located where they're most necessary
Also not true, they're wherever police feel like plopping one down.
> I am not for too much invasion of privacy or automated enforcement everywhere, but it's a great tool when used properly.
yes.
@@MilitantPacifista bro you're not on 4chan you can't greentext here
@@MilitantPacifista they are only talking about in germany, and my driving there finds this to be absolutely correct
you clearly havent been to one of the million motorcycle hating villages where there like 50 people in it but 3 speed cameras
The "only where most necessary" is just not true. There are absolutely money making bullshit speed cameras in Germany.
At least in Germany (and my guess is its similar in the US/Canada) the speedlimiter on a bicycle (ebike, pedelec) is there, so they do not count as motor vehicles and can be ridden by children and people without a license.
Also a lot of cars have a limiter. In Germany it is set to 250km/h by default (some insurance thing I believe) and can only be shut off by the manufacturer (in the garage).
I think he bought a speed limiter for his own bike. I have never seen one in person in my life.
@@TheRockkickass all electric bikes in the Netherlands and Germany (the one without a license plate that is) come with a limited by default
I suppose it's a thing with the Autobahn but I can't comprehend going 250 km/h safely. Even on the straightest smoothest roads here I'd be terrified to go more than 170.
@@ofjeworstlust69 yea they don’t come like that in the US. At least not in Denver where I am. It would piss me off frankly
@@sebastianjoseph2828 whats 170 in mph
It all started with me wanting to be better at Cities: Skylines.
Now, because of you and other youtubers like Jay Foreman, Not Just Bikes, RM Transit and Adam Something, I've become an avid promoter of public transportation and aware of the issues we have due to our car-centric lifestyle. Thank you so much, Dave. The rabbit hole you brought me in has changed my life.
Happy 2023
Soviet microdistrict vs USA Suburbia
Going to be fully honest, I feel safer in my 2013 model year vehicle that doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a 2020 vehicle with the things listed at 8:12. Those things make it easier to feel like the car will drive for you (especially adaptive cruise control), and the all the other things listed come more chimes and alarms that feel like they're heard so often it turns into alarm fatigue. Trying to park the car in the garage is 100% guaranteed to set off proximity warnings, and it's the only car we've ever hit the wall of the garage with. It makes driving even more exhausting.
Exactly! We need pople to be more responsible at the wheel, not more nennies. People do not fear the vehicles anymore, and therefore do not respect the potential damage they can cause.
I say bring back the manuals and make everyone take one track day a year. That will scare drivers straight!
In most new cars, you can turn all the safety crap off. First thing I did when I got my 2019 car was disable park assist, speed limit assist, AEB, and all the other annoying and useless beeps and bongs.
Alarm fatigue is definitely a real issue.
@@lifeinhd4053 even my '12 car has a speed limit warning, it goes off every time the thing goes over 75mph, pretty sensible and I love it. I can still go over 75 if I want but I appreciate the warning. Recently found the option to disable it and thought about it and kept it on.
I can't stand the parking warning alarms in new cars when parking in a parking garage
I have no issue w cameras as long as the money from the ticket goes back to the city/county, and they can't program their yellows to be abnormally shorter than the rest in the county or state. Some counties strategically put cameras on high speed roads with short yellows to catch people in the middle zone of slowing down to stop vs. safely rolling through at speed.
That's what happens when you have a central government. I'm originally from Israel! But it's mostly the same in most countries. Local municipalities can decide on installing a trafic light but the law specifies all aspects of the way it should work, it's not up to the municipalities and courts cancel tickrts if the signage was not according to the specifications in the law.
As for higher speed roads, in Israel on road with speed od 60 km/h or higher (about 37 mi/h) before the light changes to yellow the green light flickers a few times (specified in the law times and flickering speed) to give drivers an extra alert. The problem with all warnings is that many drivers just speed up instead of slowing down to stop. A combo of red and speed cameras will do the trik, thoe who cross on red and those who speed to make it on yellow will get a ticket.
Going back to the city/county is the worst scenario. It encourages setting lower limits for the purpose of revenue.
The yellow lights in the city of Chicago are significantly shorter than the nearby suburbs, even for roads with the same speed limit. The city of Chicago has an extensive red light/speed camera program, and has 3 second yellow lights for its 30 mph streets. By contrast, the adjacent suburb of Oak Park has no automated traffic enforcement, and has 4-4.5 second yellow lights. The extra yellow light time is better for pedestrians and cyclists as well, as it gives them extra time to clear the intersection.
In addition, there has been plenty of political corruption regarding red light cameras used by private operators in Chicagoland (in suburbs such as Crestwood and Oakbrook Terrace) and the vast majority of the tickets are from drivers not coming to a complete stop turning right on red. The intersection of Harlem/Cermak in Berwyn/North Riverside is one of the most profitable in the area, and brings in $2.2 million a year, and the North Riverside portion has been used to pay for its annual police and fire pension obligation. The intersection is designed to increase citations, as all 4 approaches have right turn slip lanes that encourage drivers not to come to a complete stop. In addition, there is no pedestrian countdown meter at any of the sidewalks, so drivers can't look at that to see when the light will turn yellow. (In Chicago, one of the highest grossing red light cameras is at the intersection of Lake Shore Drive [a freeway offramp] and Belmont Ave, which only recently installed a pedestrian countdown timer where the light turns yellow when the timer counts down to zero.)
Nah, no way speed limiters. Just make proper road designs.
I prefer going at 30 on a road designed for 30 then forcibly going 50 on a road designed to 80. My brain sees open space and wants to push the pedal, is just human nature
Design the roads on a proper way and thats it.
Although I wouldnt mind speed limiters when true autonomous vehicles becomes common place. If I am not driving I dont really care about the speed. I am already not in control
The problem with speed cameras is they don't take context into consideration. If you're over, you're illegal, if you're under your safe. But this doesn't reflect reality...most accidents take place because of dangerous context. This can include snow/rain, tailgating, blind corners, poorly engineered merging lanes, confusing intersections, tail-gaiting, etc... Driving 56 in in a 55 mph zone may be incredibly safe in the day in good conditions and little traffic. But that same road driving 45 on a dark snowy night in heavy traffic could be quite dangerous.
yet most people feel confortable deiving 10/20 over the limit on a constant basis, i'm in italy and speed limits whereever there is no speed camera, are ignored in favour of the "Flow of traffic" even if in urban context you may not notice a pedestrian as the "dangerous context" is the norm there and those 10/20 km/h may be the difference between injury or even death.
I think I prefer NJB solutions better such as narrower streets, raise crossings, roundabouts, and cobbled streets. These passive designs work on older vehicles.
I've posted a ton about better street design as well. This is something IN ADDITION to better street design.
what’s wrong with both?
Cement does take a while to lay, good to start with limiters and cameras while we work on the roads
@@CityBeautiful Both require political will to do. If we're going to going to beg our politicians to do the right thing, might as well use that energy on lessening car dependence first than this bandaid solution of putting limiters and cameras.
@@aneutralparty542 I think of speed limiters/cameras as a replacement for other speed enforcement techniques (police) and complimentary to street redesigns.
There was a speed camera at the bottom of a hill near me and it caused so many collisions, none fatal but loads of written off cars as they had to very harshly break. It was an area with loads of through traffic so lots of people were unfamiliar with the area. They replaced it a bit further down the road in a village with a digital one that smiled if you were in the limit. That was much more effective
I definitely think the signs that just show your speed back too you and blink if you are way to fast are more effective as they just provide immediate feedback and get you attention that "here is a speed zone, slow down".
But like everything it requires maintenance, and while this isn't the scope of the video in my area their are many signs that have been swallowed by trees so its become very easy to miss a speed sign. It also doesn't help that the set limit and the actual "natural speed" aren't in sync when this happens.
The public attitude towards speed fines is also interesting: People always react like getting fined is just a matter of bad luck or some sort of inconvenience which happened to them by accident.
Because it is. Speed limits do not match road design. When 100% of the drivers are speeding, being targeted by speeding fines when not everyone else is genuinely *is* bad luck and inconvenience. Unless we're talking about flagrant speeding, of course, which someone certainly deserves, but at that point we're talking about reckless endangerment.
Sometimes it is bad luck. It's not always obvious when speed cameras exist or even when they work. I've lived in a place where there are cameras but they were disabled so drivers learned to routinely ignore them even when they knew they were around.
@@azuarc Interestingly, turns out speed limits in the USA are routinely set ... I think it was 10mph lower than they should be... because no matter what the traffic engineers did, enough drivers would go at least 10mph over the set speed limit that it wasn't safe for anyone else to not do so. So they set the limits lower to compensate, so when you're going 10mph over the speed limit... you're going at what the speed limit should be.
Of course, they also frequently determine what speed limits should be by measuring the speeds drivers go at without them, finding the average, and setting it just slightly lower than that. This is a bit of a problem, because what should actually happen is that the road's speed limit be set by its intended use, and then the road itself designed to encourage drivers to remain close to that speed.
@@laurencefraser if you make the roads narrower and zigzag you feel like you have to drive slower. Then set the speed limit to the safe driving speed.
@@azuarc why do you guys have speed limits if you don't bother enforcing them? Seems like a pointless endeavour
Speed limits can also be 'enforced' by making the road feel more dangerous. In the Netherlands a lot of roads are optically narrowed to slow drivers down.
"Let’s make some drivers angry after the bike bell" I love this
I'm not a driver and I'm angry since this solution is EXTREMELY anti-right to repair, it ignores that it's perfectly legal to modify an ebike to have no limits as long as you only take it on public roads if you have it registered and you are licensed, unlike Cars ebikes can go above the speed if manually powered or on hills, and that even though we need to find a better solution the situation in America means that if ambulances can speed but normal vehicles can't then you are forced to pay for them in an emergency. Also IDK if it's this way in other States but in mine you can get a duii on a bike (doesn't even need to be electric) but nobody is proposing the same lockout mechanisms as he is for cars. Not to mention that if you are too tired for work you are ****ed, and if there's a solution to driving for people who need to get there then it doesn't matter if cars can detect drowsiness or not. Not to mention all the modification that will need to happen to cars that already exist which owners would need to pay for.
@@RRW359 I'm not angry. These drivers put my life at risk every day. They need to slow down, and they won't do that voluntarily.
@@karikling6751 Then either do cameras or make license requirements more intense. Don't prevent people from doing what they want with their property, even if you don't care about Cars it sets a bad precedent (especially when the government mandates it by law).
I like the average speed cameras we have here in the UK. Not only do they give drivers time to correct their high speed but they actually keep people at a low speed throughout the whole ‘zone’. If you notice you are doing 42 in a 40 you just drop your speed to 38 to compensate rather than normal speed cameras where people slam the breaks to avoid a fine and then speed back up again.
Interesting. I haven't heard of those before. That seems like a more fair (and safer) way to do it.
I think the next big law will be against big screens in cars - the other day I was cycling through Walthamstow (N. London) and the fella driving badly besides me as I cycled - over-revving, breaking hard, slight lane lapse, etc. As we both hit lights at the same time I could see he was watching I think a Nollywood music video in the car.
And this isn't the first time I've seen someone watching something on those big screens - we ban the use of phones, surely we must ban the use what is essentially a tablet.
true, the modern infotainment system in cars is incredibly distracting and on top of that flimsy, old physical switches were the best and actually gave you feedback
... How on earth do you not Already have such laws? I know we do here. Can't have television screens or the like in the driver's field of view.
Made somewhat awkard by vehicles that have reversing cameras (with screen) rather than mirrors, and the modern tendency to use basically android tablets to control things instead of physical buttons. (A pracitce that needs to die in a fire, they're pretty much universally implemented Badly such that you have to take your eyes off the road to control fairly basic functions of the car.)
The problem with speed limiters in cars are the edge cases, when things go wrong. If there's an error, either interference or a malfunction, and it limits you to a slow speed in a high speed area creates a whole hazard of it's own.
They should only cut out the gas, which at least means that your car won't decelerate too hard. And once you are in that situation, you'd do the same thing that you'd do with any other kind of defect of your car: put your hazard lights on and drive along the shoulder.
But I agree that dynamic speed limiters need to be properly designed for edge cases if you want anyone to accept them. There's enough cases where navigation systems annoy you by showing wrong speed limits that you usually experience this once a year. Causing less accidents than they help avoid *should* be reason enough to mandate them, but drivers won't want to give up their freedom for only that much.
Another feature that I would implement is the ability to exceed the speed limit for a few seconds. Although illegal, going over the speed limit may make overtaking safer. (My thinking here is that some drivers would rather spend a long time in an overtake near the speed limit and hope that they can finish it instead of aborting the process. However, the ability to speed during an overtake might actually ENCOURAGE those drivers to start overtakes at almost identical speeds, and then run out of grace time.)
@@Pystro Sometimes accelerating while already at the speed limit is exactly the thing that needs to happen to avoid a collision.
These sorts of technologies are not a good idea. Driving is just an inherently unsafe activity, and putting funds towards surveillance and automated enforcement only mitigates the issue. If we want to make transit safer, the best way to do is to reduce driving. If these funds were out towards public transportation infrastructure, they would not only reduce driving fatalities, but reap economic and sustainability benefits as well.
Additionally, no surveillance or enforcement technology can be free of bias or error. Every machine can fail, and even if injuries caused by malfunctioning speed limiters are outweighed by the injuries they prevent, those injuries must be weighed against investment in another mode of transport. Additionally, speed and red light cameras are absolutely vulnerable to racial bias. The machine obviously can’t discriminate itself, but the planners who decide where they go and what standards they enforce absolutely can.
If we want a safer transit, we need to build better infrastructure, not further restrict and double down on the already dangerous and inefficient systems we have.
I'm one of those people that got an incorrect ticket for speeding in NYC. i do not speed because I am mainly a pedestrian/cyclist. I was "clocked" at 32, but I am positive i was going 25-26. Couldn't really do anything because it's my word vs the state of NY. also I don't live there so it would have been a huge, expensive headache to save ~$50
It's not the money that's the issue it's the points on your license and insurance premiums. That's the big issue with these cameras: they have no Lee way, go 1 mph over and you get license points and increased insurance
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv, you don’t get points removed from cameras because it’s an automated system, and prone to errors - and they cannot prove that you were the one driving the vehicle that is registered to you. You only get fined for allowing a vehicle that you own to be driven in such a way.
So one of the reasons why you tend to get some leeway with cops is because there is no guarantee your speedometer is accurate. That should be considered with cameras.
Or add more trains. The train doesn't care if you are drunk, and always drives the speed limit.
well... it certainly comes closer to that than cars do, at least. (stations without platform screen doors, level crossings, and a variety of other points where trains interact with 'things that are not trains' can all lead to fatal consequences if one interacts with them poorly while drunk, after all, and various driver/software/hardware faults Can caus trains to occassionally do things they really shouldn't, such as speeding, though is certainly far less common.)
It will probably take any half talented young mechanic about an hour to figure out how to somehow disable a speed limiter.
Sure but what if your auto insurance is now void because you did this?
i’m all for speed limiters but if that doesn’t work out we can rely on physical infrastructure such as road narrowing
Better road design is much cheaper and more reliable than all these technological babysitting options.
Traffic calming works.
And better public transport and pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. If the only way to get somewhere is by car, then people will drive even if they should not.
If you can only get to the bar or restaurant by car, then you have a lot more DUI than if most people can just walk to the local pub.
I'm in favor of better road design and traffic calming features over intrusive devices installed in our vehicles any day.
The way most roads and neighborhoods are designed in the US right now is just plain bad. It's unwalkable, unsustainable, plain dangerous, and creates unsightly wastelands of strip malls that no one cares about.
@@rogerwilco2 i agree
Roger is right
i am not because i would just ban people who cant ride bisicles from owning them like make the fast ones an option for motorcycle license holders
Or...we could increase public transportation options and limit driver's licenses to those who are competent, then raise the speed limits to something more reasonable (and eliminate them altogether for bicycles).
If we stopped letting just anyone drive, we would all be safer.
yea the driving test in the US is way way to easy and the mentality of americans also makes them very incompetent, unsfae drivers.
Speed limits on city streets should stay at 25 miles per hour and below, but other than that I agree. Especially on limited access highways, there's no reason why drivers shouldn't be allowed to go 150 miles per hour on the freeway in broad daylight on the weekend
If bikes have speed limiters for safety why cars do not
My guess is because bikes don't have insurance most of the time, are easy to get and harder to drive at high speed than cars
Emergency situations, software problems, hacks, other nonsense by the government...
Because a bike without a speed limiter is a motorcycle. It's just a bureaucratic distinction.
@@justinoblanco It could be based on horsepower and weight instead.
It would be also interesting if speed limit signs changed their limits depending on the traffic too. There are some places where the speed limit does not match the road or conditions of the road at the time
Used to have these on I-66 into Washington DC!
They have those on a couple highways near me, I think it's a great system. It also gives different limits to the HOV and general traffic lanes
Seattle had those on highways. It's really really stupid. When you have congestion people can't exceed the limits anyways, sometimes they lower the limit in front of congestion and nobody follows it because they are not to the slow traffic yet.
@@awsomevideoperson They improve traffic flow, they reduce rear-ending and if people don't listen to them, combine them with speed cameras. People will learn to obey them, it works well where I live. But of course it helps if it becomes commonplace so people get used to them.
That's a recent addition to I-76, I only ridden once or twice with the new sign but I think it improved it traffic jam (not by huge margin) by keeping traffic flowing rather than stopped.
Speed limiters are stupid for vehicles because of safety, sure the limit might be 30, but there's many instances where an accident can be avoided by you guessed it, by accelerating, and this is especially the case for motorcycles, other reasons would be overtaking, if you have a limiter you wouldn't be able to exceed the limit, which may make an overtake take longer, and by extension more dangerous in many cases.. it's not the vehicles that need to be limited but the design of the roads, you cannot expect drivers on a 4-6 lane avenue to drive slowly, on the other hand a narrow road with many obstacles and difficulties like chicanes and speedbumps would actively discourage fast speeds by design.
Why would you need to overtake if everybody is going the speed limit?
@@nathanashley623 many old people drive under the speed limit and you have to overtake them otherwise you will create a traffic jam, (i hate when people who never used a car want to dictate what should be done)
I've been thinking about speed limits over the last couple of years, mostly motivated from seeing a speed limit that was too low for safety.
It was a roadwork zone on a major highway. There were major works underway and the temporary speed limit was slightly higher than half the regular speed limit. But the speed was reduced a couple of weeks before the works impacted on the highway, and the zone extended significantly beyond where the works were happening. So most people learnt to speed through that stretch, right up until suddenly the traffic conditions changed and everyone was travelling too fast for them because the speed limits were previously meaningless.
But most egregious imo, is in one direction of travel, after the works were passed the highway opened up into a wide, straight stretch up a long hill. But the roadwork zone didn't end until the top of the hill. No sign of any roadwork on the hill except for the temporary speed limit signs. So everyone sped up the hill. Instead of recognising that there was no compelling reason to follow the speed limit, they added permanent speed limit signs at the bottom of the hill at the unsafe low speed, so that everyone learnt to ignore permanent speed limit signs too.
To compare that with another major works on a highway at the same time, with a slightly lower regular speed limit, but usually the temporary speed limit was higher. They dropped the speed limit when conditions changed, because they could, they hadn't dropped it all the way down from the start, so drivers had additional warning. They also physically encroached on drivers space with concrete barriers, and the works were closer to traffic. I don't think I ever saw someone speed through those works.
And since then, I've been noticing instances where the arrangements of speed limits appear to be optimised for encouraging people to ignore speed limits. Often it is a case of a road being designed for one speed, and a lower speed limit being retroactively applied, but there are other factors. Road design matters.
Speed cameras are used as an alternative form of tax on the Dutch highways. Its a fully automated system..
Yeah, sure, the government needs to develop, install, and maintain a fully automated system on the highways for speed control, to bring in an alternative form of tax. Makes so much sense....not. 🙄
best way to make the streets safe is to get people out of their cars. I'd rather governments be spending the political energy and money on public transport and walkability improvements than trying to police drivers harder.
Oh wow, I thought everywhere used speed cameras.
Australia has red light cameras, fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras and cameras that catch you using your mobile phone while driving.
The speed limit of e-bikes is totally arbitrary and not directly related to safety. e-bikes are regulated like bicycles but mopeds and motorcycles are regulated like cars requiring insurance, tax and licening. The only thing the differentiates them is the power output and speed but the difference between an electric moped and an e-bike is marginal.
Penalising drivers for speeding on roads designed like highways but in an urban settting is unreasonable. You need to get the road design right and do better at segregating pedestrian and bicycle traffic so conflict is avoided, mitigates or handles safely. The US is quitte poor at this.
Speed camera can work well if they are targetted properly and used in conjuction with other measures to improve safety at particularly unsafe bits of road that cannot easily be redesigned, but they are a bandaid and always will be, with insentives that make them liable to be abused.
There are problems with speed cameras in their implementing that isn’t discussed here. The issue is they are often done as a speed trap where the speed limit drops in one area without very clear wings the speed limiting is dropping. In Chicago that often means a park or a small school that isn’t very visible and they put up just one sign saying speed limit drops. If they really cared about protecting people, they would make sure the sign has flashing lights or something to draw your attention. Chicago can’t be the only place where it’s obviously a money machine first and care for people second.
Also a problem with red light cameras but that was discussed.
With the recent railroad crossing crash in Tennessee, I began to wonder what would be the ideal city planer perspective on designing adequate overpasses in addition to general railroad and automobile safety.
Speed/Redlight cameras dovetail nicely with something I recall reading about how the best way to deter crime (or in this case speeding) isn't to make punishments severe, it's to ensure enforcement. Folks are going to be MUCH more likely to avoid a $10 fine the KNOW they'll get running a red light camera than a $1000 fine that'll only happen if they're witnessed doing the same by a police officer present at the scene.
Speed limiter tech included in vehicles? Oh boy, PragerU's going to explode over that
Can you make a video on the pros and cons of brick, cobblestone, asphalt and concrete roads covering safety, labor, maintenance and expense?
Concrete
Pro: long lasting
Cons: diffficult to patch, entire "block" must be done in one go
Cars make noise as gap is driven over
Water can pool on flat
Brick:
Pro: looks nice, good drainage
Con: chips easily
Cobblestone:
Pro: looks medieval, chic elegant,
Excellent drainage
forces drivers to slow down
Cons: forces drivers to slow down
Bitumen: very fast, smooth, water drains easily unless flat
Cons: fast, smooth, tempts drivers into speeding, water can pool on flat
I live in Belgium, we have 25km/h limit for the assist on ebikes. Here the argument is that the limit is there to protect the cyclist in case of a fall/accident. For the speed limiters on the road I expected you to mention camera systems that measure speed over a traject. If you go over the limit for that road, you get fined but it's fairer as it's the average over a distance. It also prevents the sudden braking when drivers notice a speeding camera and hard accerelating when they're past it.
One simple solution that isn't used often enough is to use pedestrian countdown timers system-wide that reach zero one second before the light turns yellow. Argument against is that people speed up to make the light. Counter-argument is that people adjusted their speed to make the light and avoided running a red or amber light.
Hi City Beautiful! I’m subbed here and on Nebula, what’s better for you in terms of where I view your videos?
Situational counterpoint, there's a road in Australia connecting Perth to Sydney, where temporarily disabling speed cameras and removing the speed limit actually reduced fatalities by reducing driver fatigue because there's nowhere to stop for up to 6 hours at a 70mph speed limit
This is, however, only viable in the countryside where pedestrians are rare
Sorry I didn't understand this comment. Can you explain please. (And document) Cheers.
@@jack2453 I believe the road in referring to is highway 1, Australia, though I may be incorrect. There was a short lived period where sections of it (in northern Queensland if I'm right) were temporarily derestricted, fatalities at the site of accidents went up by a small amount, overall fatalities and injuries both dropped significantly, but because of that small increase in fatalities on the scene and a significant drop in revenue from fines along that stretch of road, it was deemed a failure and the speed limit was reintroduced at a slightly higher speed
@@jack2453 I was incorrect and have found the actual location, that being the Stuart Highway from Darwin to Port Augusta, the experiment having run from February 2014 to September 2015, the other details are, to my knowledge, correct
Since you're in California (as am I), a big reason why there are essentially no speed or red light cameras is because of a combination of laws that state that speeding and red-light-running are offenses of the driver, so the driver should be ticketed. But cameras cannot identify and cite the driver, so instead they cite the vehicle (well, the owner of the vehicle). However, this doesn't work if someone other than the owner is driving. Like sure, the owner can receive a monetary fine and that would incentivize them to go after the driver (such as a rental company fining a speeding customer), but where would the licenses points go? There is no way to verify who was speeding so who should have points added to their license. This is why just about the only automated enforcement you'll see in California are bridge and express lane tolls, as those are pegged to the vehicle regardless of who is driving with no "points" involved. On the other hand, red light cameras are used exclusively as a police assistance device, to alert officers to speeding drivers and help collect evidence. But ultimately, it must be an officer on the scene and in the flesh handing a ticket directly to the driver. For red light and speeding cameras to work in California from a legal standpoint, this conflict needs to be resolved.
We need to also talk about designing the streets SAFER !!! ...i.e. narrower lanes with trees on the sides or other objects which psychologically make a driver feel the street is narrow.
I am very against making people feel more uncomfortable expressly to make them feel more uncomfortable. That is not progress.
Road design beats speed cameras 10 out of 10 times. In NYC with the expansion of operating hours of speed cameras, more and more people are obscuring their plates or straight up driving with fake paper "temp plates". The biggest perpetrators are off-duty cops. What use is automated enforcement if the information that the cameras are catching is fake? In my anecdotal experience as a NYC driver, 1 in 10 cars on the street is using a fake plate and 1 in 5 is blocking their license plate either through stripping paint, putting stickers on it, or flat out putting a tinted cover over the plate.
Every street in NYC has its road conditioned assessed and gets repaved once it reaches a specific level of disrepair. I don't see why we aren't just using that opportunity to redesign our streets to discourage speeding, even if that's just adding a speed bump or two per block. My own block has two 15mph speed bumps because of a nearby school. If you hit the bump even at 20mph it'll rattle your car enough for you to think twice about doing it again.
Speed limiters make sense in theory but there'd almost instantly be a massive black market for getting rid of them just like there's a ton of cars on the road that should be failing inspection but still pass because of greased palms. And depending on enforcement people will simply procure vehicles from elsewhere and ship them to overcome it. You'd be surprised just how bad people don't want to be "infringed upon".
I’d rather speed cameras rather than a cop pulling me over
Where I live in Nassau County NY. They briefly enacted speed cameras in front of schools. Man did residents put up a stink. So much of a stick that they were removed.
It takes a special kind of person to complain about not being able to speed in front of a school anymore (without having to pay)...
@@Snowshowslow That’s Long Island for you.
@@WiseAssGamer That sounds miserable 😕 I hope it has lots of other nice features to make up for the quality of the neighbours 😉
Glad you are talking about one of the leading causes of death in the US for those under 50.
I think cars are also one of the leading cause for people over 50. At least by proxy. Sedentary lifestyle is aided by cars, making it easy for you to accept having bad health and wellbeing.
@@mrmaniac3 corn syrup is good tho
43,000 people dying a year from car accidents isn’t that bad. It’s probably a good thing. Less people on the roads due to them dying
@@TheRockkickass Good point. Increase speed limits
@@ireminmon thank you
It's really nice and important, that you include your sources in the description. Thank you for doing that.
As the brother in law of an orthopaedic doctor he says ” it frustrates me that ebike people think the speed limiters are to protect pedestrians. that the reason is that fall off a bike at more 25 mph is 50 percent fatal and 90 per cent major injury.
As my defensive driver said during my course, "bad driving is good business."
I think the best solution is no more monkeys driving cars.
I like the idea of designing to road for the desired speed, with physical cues that result if typical driver behaviour being people driving at the desired speed. Then add the enforcement after that.
I have seen speed cameras telling me to go at 30mph although the road allows 90mph by design. Usually happens when a major road becomes Main St for a small town. Another effective way is designing the road for the speed.
Stroad moment
The problem is that Mainstreet existed and became a major tavel path to the nearby towns and then 50years later the car was invented and eventually a state/national highway was built to connect the town up the the network and so the most used travel path is now a class A highway and Mainstreet gets upgraded to the same standards.
And then the "outer Mainstreet" becomes a classic "natural stroad" which is kinda inevitable and fortunately the least offensive class of stroad. The purpose built stroads are what end up as a 6lane one way monstrosity, atleast the natural ones are usually just 2lanes + shared left hand turning lane which is relatively safe, and definitely more comfortable than a 4lane stroad.
I would be ok with stronger enforcement of speed limits if those limits accurately reflected the max speed where it's safe to drive. The reality is that it often isn't causing unnecessary slowdowns and despite speed limit enforcement being unpopular there's also a weird backlash against raising speed limits
Yeah, Seattle arbitrarily set limits on arterials to 25 for "vision zero" BS. Most drivers go 35-50, including the police. Safety should start with good design, anything else will be ineffective or enrage infrastructure users.
Wholeheartedly agree, it's the same issue in the UK with arbitrarily low limits on main roads that just slow things down, even where there are no pedestrians in sight. Conversely, I feel no need to speed on European motorways when the limit is set at 130kph and it seems fair based on the conditions.
NA is infamous for their road design, which tends to leave drivers with the impression that speeding is safe when it actually isn't. It is more likely that the speed limits are correct or too high, and drivers are just overestimating the safe speed, than the other way around.
The UK has a big network of automated number plate recognition systems all across the nation which log all number plates read along with the location where it was seen. It's very useful in catching car thieves as the police can get live updates on the whereabouts of a car (though plates can be swapped relatively easily). For people just going about their lives, it looks like a massive invasion of privacy, with the government being able to track your movement. It can even be used against you in court if for example the system your car, or your number plate, was seen near a crime scene. As far as I'm aware, they don't store photos (or if they do, it's not for long), meaning it may be impossible to prove it was either not your car (but your copied number plate) or that you weren't the driver. Many ethical problems with it.
I am for speed cameras, red light cameras and passive monitoring systems in cars but I’m against speed limiters and breathalyzers since they go too far. Imagine a mom having to take a breathalyzer every day just to drop her kids off at school
The downside of speed cameras is that it forces people to pay fines. People need their physiological needs met but are unable to if they don't have the money for it.
There'd have to be a massive cultural change for folks to take highway speed limits seriously. And we'd probably have to raise the limits so they're closer to reality. We no longer have the Arab oil embargo that justified some of these limits.
Speed cameras are the WORST as it is a bandaid to poor road design. Roads are designed for 80 km/hr and signed for 60. Setting up the driver for a ticket and people wonder why drivers universally hate them.
yet people ask for speed cameras to be banned rather than streets being redesigned. the results tho should be first and formost to make streets safer
I'm sure City Beautiful would agree, so I'm not calling him out, but the best way to limit crashes and car related deaths is to have fewer of them on the road. I agree with all the ideas put forward in this video, but I feel they will only scratch the surface of reducing injuries and death, when reducing the number of cars on the road is the real solution
There have been more and more cameras going up in MN & they are viewable on MN 511. That’s very helpful. In the winter I can use those to check road conditions before going out on drives to other towns.
I say this as someone who was a pedestrian in a hit and run that left my sister with permanent, life altering injuries and both of us with PTSD. Why should the wants and preferences of drivers be coddled, when safety is a consideration? Safety should be paramount, and those who don't like safety measures can keep their self indulgent whining to themselves. Driving is an inherently dangerous activity even for a skilled and considerate driver, but people don't like to acknowledge this because they want to go vroom vroom
So let's go all in and ban driving altogether then! Why not?
I have a legitamete question for you. Were the curcumstances of your accident trully a result of high speed? By how much? 5, 10, 25 mph? Or was it possibly other factors, like innatentive driving or perhaps fauty equipment? How slow would that car (no excuses for the driver) would need to be traveling to prevent the outcome you, unfortunately, had to experience?
I am trully curious to hear some stiff facts, because so far it seems like you are the self indulgent one.
if the guy hit and run then the speed limit wouldnt do anything anyway because he was most likely drunk or on drugs, so we should ban all alcohols and drugs. And if you dont like it then i dont care because.
Why should the wants and preferences of drinking people be coddled, when safety is a consideration? Safety should be paramount, and those who don't like safety measures can keep their self indulgent whining to themselves. Drinking is an inherently dangerous activity even for a skilled and considerate drinker, but people don't like to acknowledge this because they want to get drunk
@@faustinpippin9208 You really thought you did something clever there, but I unironically agree with you.
Penalties for speeding, driving under the influence, etc should be a lot stronger than they are. Maybe people wouldn't be such shit heads behind the wheel if there were actual consequences
@@faustinpippin9208 And by the way, the guy was eventually caught. He was sober when he did it, so there goes the basis for your snark.
@@VasyaIvanovichPupkin It was the result of speed. That's why I commented.
Interesting that now two people have felt upset and defensive enough to snark at an accident survivor with lasting trauma because of it.
If you feel attacked, you might want to introspect on why. Kicked dogs holler.
I would prefer speed cameras to speed limiters in cars just because if it's a system where older cars are grandfathered in it's gonna be tough to match the flow of traffic and it's gonna be miserable being the car getting tailgated, honked at, or being the target of every coal roller's road rage.
not every one that drives a older car is a"coal roller" they are probably poor or just like older cars
@@CMG78 or are attempting to avoid all the malicious nonsense car manufactureres have taken to including in the vehicles that reduce their utility and convenience. And I don't mean the safety features and environental stuff, I mean the things that prevent you from repairing the car, or can lock you Out of the car with far too much ease when they shouldn't... or charging you full price for a car that they've actively disabled features on but can reenable those features digitally... if you pay a repeating subscription fee... or flat out unsafe digital interfaces that really should be seeing the car fail any and all certification due to how often they require the driver to take their eyes off the road to deal with basic vehicle controls (or similar issues that amount to 'the car is being run by a PC and the car manufacturers don't no jack about making non-terrible PCs') and on and on and on.
We have speed cameras here in Chicago only by the schools and parks. However they are only active between 6 A.M. & 11 P.M. if I am not mistaken!
"Warning sign ahead of the red light camera"
We already have this it's the yellow light. Unfortunately drivers mistake this for "speed up" instead of "slow down".
Its entitlement. Drivers feel entitled to kill pedestrians.
I've been dinged by a red light camera. Got the ticket in the mail with a photo of me, my face scrunched up because I was clearly thinking, "Wait a second, am I flying through the intersection and the light had already changed?" Whoops. I paid the ticket immediately, $125. It was my first ticket, and I'm glad they didn't let me off the hook as a first-time offense. I was going fast enough (probably 45mph) that if I'd hit a pedestrian I would have murdered them. The lesson needed to be learned.
I just bought a 2019 RAV4 and it has an icon that notifies me if I go over the speed limit. The biggest problem I have noticed this far is that it doesn't always notice when the limit changes. Coming into town it goes from 55 to 45 to 35. It misses the 35mph sign almost every time.
I feel exactly the opposite regarding all three issues.
1) Speeding: Speeding is dangerous when someone drives faster then the condition of the road, not driving over frequently underposted limit. The speed cameras i see cleaely have the sole purpose of mulcting money. They are all located on multi-lane freeways and not on urban streets or rural roads where speeding is more dangerous. Even when they catch reckless driving this does not result with suspension as there is no proof of drivers identity. To suspend a licence an actual officer is required.
2) Running red: It's way more dangerous then speeding and usually more fatal to anybody involved, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Little rear-ending is a good cost to pay to prevent the more dangerous t-bones and running over pedestrians.
3) Speed limited e-bikes and e-scooters: You can mod them to go fast and i saw modded e-scooters going 80 km/h on a freeway. Riding those can be done without a license and even by teenagers and they can crash fatally because of the smallest road irregularity. They also can speed on sidewalks crashing into pedestrians..
A lot of these systems/ideas remind me of what Captain America said, "your putting a gun to everyones head and calling it freedom." There is too much to say to fit in a UA-cam comment so please don't read too much into this or make assumptions of my stance/ideas.
The speed limitor in ebikes are because they are often not insured. Also bikes are harder to drive at higher speeds, which is why in many countries including many states in USA your required to take a class on how to drive a motercycle and in most places outside of usa have a power limit and have to have a learners permit to get a higher power motercycle.
Maybe pedestrian and cyclist crash victims and insurers would be well advised to sue automakers for not limiting speeds in their fleets even though they already install the technology in their vehicles that could do it, and drivers who remove it would be violating their insurance policy
It's the same reason "motor scooters" are limited to 25mph and 50cc.
The problem with tech in cars is, they have to bear stresses and environmental changes no other electronics have to go through. In some places in the US, your car interior can have temperature fluctuations from -40 to 140 or greater, changes in humidity, have to endure a lot of turbulence, and depend on expensive components that will break, will break spectacularly, will break soon, and will be extremely expensive. You're looking at NASA level engineering for consumer products.
I don't necessarily disagree with speed limiters and speed cameras on the road, but I feel like this is a bandaid solution.
Focusing our energy on lessening car dependence like sensible mass transportation, allowing mixed-used zoning, turning stroads into either a street or a road, traffic calming solutions like narrowing streets, putting trees, etc. so that the drivers slow down naturally by themselves, better road designs, etc.
Let's all do this first, and if that doesn't work then yeah go put speed limiters in everyone's car.
Speed really doesn't Kill, Stroads Kill. We need to design our streets to be slow, and safe for pedestrians, that means bollards, speed Bumps, narrowing the street, Larger Sidewalks, etc. And we need good roads where speed and safety for drivers is the priority, Large shoulders, Direction Separated Traffic, Large Clear Zones, etc.
These devices don't really do anything that better street and road design cant do better.
yes,the road should be a obstacle course to a point that makes everone driving a car miserable so they are forced to walk
@@faustinpippin9208 Streets should be an Obstacle Course, Roads should be smooth, forgiving, desolate and easy to navigate.
It is the difference between a town or city street and a highway, there is a huge difference between the two, and both are incredibly important
This is one reason I love my motorcycle; no computer telling the bike what it can or can't do except for a simple ECU to control fuel injection.
And no, I'm not some sort of hooligan. I haven't had a speeding ticket in almost 20 years and I do my best to be polite to other traffic on the road. I'm just a responsible grown adult who doesn't want the government sticking its hands in my business or intruding on my property.
Here in Beijing e-bikes have limiters restricting speeds to 25 km/h. However, many people go to certain garages and pay to have the limiter function disabled.
"Use physics not street signs"
-a certain UA-camr we love
Honestly good video for what it is but i personally dont think we shouldnt depend on that solution because it's still more freedom for cars than using actual physics
Speed cameras were so corrupt in my town we had to pass a law against them.
Speed limiters would be really cool to see in action and see how it goes. I'm a delivery driver. I drive safely and flawlessly and I observe so many horrible drivers on a regular daily basis and seeing any kind of new ideas to best help traffic is cool
@@daltonidaho I've seen some drivers that are in fact practically flawless. One of my friends drives professionally and his concentration and ability to smoothly drive defensively is actually a thing of beauty.
@@daltonidaho No such thing as an accident, You are not aying attenton
Speeding is just a fact of life in most of the country, and the government cannot do much about that, which is special considering the government tries to intervene in every aspect of our lives, and unfortunately often succeeds.
US traffic engineers did something very basic that succeeded spectacularly (for all it's effects were fairly limited), actually: They noticed that basically everyone went 10mph over the listed speed limit basically all the time, and started listing all the speed limits as 10mph slower than they 'should' be so that drivers would actually go the speed they were supposed to. It worked.
Good road design is always better than spending money on speed cameras. I feel like the reason drivers hate these cameras so much is that the road encourages drivers to break the law, thus giving more money to try city. It’s all part of the problematic “policing for profit” scheme, regardless of whether it is done by cameras or cops. It’s also hard to link correlation or causation in traffic stops, since people will probably not be out at night in a neighborhood ridden with crime, and understandably so.
Or we could just have trains everywhere. Or redesign roads so no driver feels safe speeding.
Rally stages for everyone's commute plz 😅
The two rails are so trains can monorail and pass eachother. Did you not know that?
I'm one of the Few Car Guy/ Urbanist I have to say while I get your ideas on here. I dont want daddy government snooping on where my car is at all times. limiters like this ni a car is just gonna create a massive black market quickly of people modifying their cars to go past those limits. trust me I know the type of people I hang with in shops modifying their cars and stuff and they will immediantly find a way around these limiters. also This will just boost car sales of older cars before the year these systems are implemented so me for example. I will just continue to drive my 5 speed manual Honda Accord until it cant drive no more if the future of cars is just computer limiters and what not.
Again Like you, your channel and your videos but This is one imma have to say No to.
if you wanna calm traffic do it in the design of the roads not giving the government more power to do what they want without personal property.
I’m a bit of a car guy too but now only because I can afford the maintenance and upkeep required to keep a car for decades. But the tech is already in new cars that this can be done, we just want to use them to stop the violence out there. If insurers got on board, it could be a game changer. Disabled the tech, no coverage.
@@50gramsof yeah dude justs lick the boot
Yeah there is absolutely no way in hell I would ever be buying a new car if these are the requirements. As it stands I was also against the enhanced rollover regulations that made cars more difficult to see out of (thicker A-pillars) and made them larger and heavier, making them more of a hazard to pedestrians.
i can understand speed cameras in high-traffic pedestrian areas. but speed limiters shouldn’t be a thing. road calming is probably the best way to handle it
@@UserName-ts3sp technically most cars have electronic governors somewhere around 100mph. And i wouldn't worry about GPS adaptive governors for a while yet, android auto tries to show the speed limit to be helpful but its often missing or simply wrong, and my adaptive cruise is only using instantaneous position and not relative velocity so when a masshole cuts me off it thinks it needs to brake despite to 20mph difference between us. (You can't win on the mass pike, you are simultaneously too slow and too fast no matter the speed or lane, and nobody recognizes safe follow distance and instead obeying cat logic of "if i fits, i sits")
Almost all cars have speed limiters
Speed cameras require drivers to be constantly aware of the posted speed limit, so it requires active vigilance by drivers. Better road design can passively influence drivers to drive slower. Speed cameras would be difficult to implement widely in America because so many roads are designed for higher speeds with lower posted speeds. This disconnect is what drivers don't like. When you are on a road that is built for 50 mph traffic, but the posted speed limit is 35 mph, people exceed the speed limit because it feels safe to do so. Speed cameras might be a part of the solution, but the greater emphasis always needs to be on proper road design.
Good points, infrastructure is the key..Building chicanes & narrowing lanes is not expensive, & traffic calming pays for itself over a relatively short period of time, especially in urban areas. There needs to be ore differentiation between roads and highways built for the expedient movement of motorised traffic, and streets which should be for people.
I think this would only be fair if speed limits were reassessed in turn. Obviously not on busy streets, but here in new York state there are wide, limited access highways in the middle of nowhere where every driver is going 65+ yet the speed limit is kept at 55 mph statewide.
In MA we have highways that are posted for 55 but NOBODY goes less than 60. Those postings teach a disregard for the law, and that's a bad thing. In a nearby town, the speed limit drops to 30 at the foot of a long, steep hill. A police chief told me that in winter, he would never stop someone getting a running start to avoid getting stuck halfway up.
Lol stop speeding
My man here speaks from his privileged neighborhood experience (@5:10), meanwhile here is Washington DC speed cameras were put disproportionately in black communities.
Okay, now answer this: Which parts of DC have the most car accidents and have the most dangerous streets?
@@xXBlueSheepXx The parts of DC with poorly designed roads that were built when cars were kings to let people speed in and out of the city.
Using a bit of game theory, we can incentivize safe driving, instead of punishing poor driving (or do both, if you feel so inclined). Tax drivers a tad more on their annual registration, and give them a portion of that tax back if they don't speed/drive unsafely.
At least in games, it's better to reward players who play the game the way you want, rather than punish players who don't.
Except that would mean those who can afford to pay the "tax" will now feel entitled to do so having payed ahead of time.. I have a much better idea - speed more than once and you can't play the "game" at all for a year or so.
"biking is dangerous over 20 mile/hour"
meanwhile cars:
Driving on a highway in my city during rush hours, speeding is the norm. Speed limit is 60mph and most cars in the left (passing lane) are doing about 80mph. From my experience, this traffic flow is pretty smooth till one+ cars messes it up. One car in the left lane will go 60-65mph and refuses to get over. This will cause the left lane speeders to move into the right lanes to navigate around the slow driver. This I feel, create an increase risk to drives because one drive want to drive the speed limit in the passing lane.
The problem I have with red light cameras is they shorten the yellow time.
Good point. Never considered that.
Great video, it would be great to hear your opinion on driverless cars and their impact on urban design
generally speaking there is a wide consensus between urban planners on youtube of them being a wrong and partial solution to the car first city design inherent issues doing little to address most of the social issues.
i totally agree with speed cameras mounted in public places but i personally don't like big brother tech in things i own because recent scandals have shown such things are ripe for abuse.