My theory: There's so little enforcement of the traffic laws here, they might as well not exist. You're almost certain NOT to get caught, so people will do whatever they want and will practically always get away with it. I don't really want to argue for more cops, but when I've driven in areas with more traffic enforcement and visible police presence, people tend to drive much more sedately.

I drive and ride bicycle, and I would LOVE if the cops came riding with me some time. I see some of them doing the 100 mile ride for charity in our county, so I know they have people on the force who ride fairly seriously. Join one of our regular group rides wearing cycling clothes (not police gear), get another cop stationed ahead in a car or motorcycle...and start pulling over some people who buzz us or roll coal. Word would get out very quickly.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For me personally, I think more cops isn't the ideal solution. Instead, I think traffic calming measures should be introduced to make drivers feel less safe if they choose to speed.

Better enforcement is 100% necessary, and I think speed cams can be a good way to prevent dangerous driving through the threat of enforcement. That said, I also think in terms of cost efficiency that direct preventative measures such as speed cushions, bollards, trees, medians, sidewalk extensions, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. will be more cost-effective to some point than and should be used in conjunction with speed cams.

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can see those kinds of things working in or near cities, but out where I am - fairly rural - there's just too many miles of road to install a bunch of speed humps or similar things. It would take a monumental amount of money. They don't even have shoulders on most of the roads. I admit even I speed when I'm driving them, although I'll slow down for bends in the road so as not to clobber a deer, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. that might be lurking out of sight.

(I got into a fun argument here on Lemmy a few months back with someone who insisted horse and buggies should have lights, and I was like, "What happens when you come around the bend too fast and there's a tree laying in the road?" He just couldn't accept the problem is the driver, not the horse and buggy. Basically, that's what's wrong with drivers in the US: We, as a group, have a bizarre expectation that things will always go to plan.)

I'm also nervous about these solutions for another reason - I've seen towns install those kinds of calming measures in a way that hurts cyclists. In one example, they extended the curbs out to the lane, which does slow down traffic - but it forces cyclists who could previously ride on the shoulder into the lane, thereby further enraging drivers. I had one asshole pass me in that very narrow section some years ago, so now I make sure to ride in the middle of it, so they'd actually have to hit me. They won't do that because they don't want to damage their precious car, so I'm safe.

And I say this as someone that lives in an area that's actually pretty good for cycling, that is, most drivers are actually pretty good about passing safely and all that.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.

I'd be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you're likely to only injure yourself.

Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn't for another.

Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you're just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can't use the area but bikes can.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.

Fatalities are typically more common in rural areas (proportional to population). Likely because of higher speed roads and higher drink driving rates in rural areas. And maybe due to truck drivers and people driving long distances driving sleep deprived.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you're less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it's more likely to be fatal?

Overall, like I said, I don't really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don't really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.