baltimorespokes

from Streetsblog New York City by Noah Kazis
…

At a public hearing held by the Fire Department this morning, every person who testified spoke against charging a fee for FDNY response to traffic crashes, calling it inappropriate to make drivers pay for what they said ought to be a basic government function.

The charges are part of the Bloomberg administration’s attempt to close a budget deficit. The Fire Department proposes to recover the cost of responding to a traffic crash by charging the motorists involved between $365 and $490, depending on the severity of the crash. They estimate the fees would raise $1 million a year.

The charges can also be seen as an attempt to make motorists bear some of the enormous cost of traffic crashes. According to the city Department of Transportation, traffic crashes cost $4.29 billion a year.

No one at this morning’s hearing saw it that way. Opposition focused on whether it was right to switch from using general taxation to fund fire services to a user fee model:

• The charge would “radically alter the relationship between the city’s taxpayers and the services they receive,” said City Council Member Dan Garodnick in a statement read by an aide. Continuing down this path, he argued, would create “two forms of government – one for those who can pay and one for those who cannot.”
• “Imposing crash taxes on individuals unfortunate enough to have accidents adds insult to injury,” said AAA New York’s John Corlett. “Public safety services are a core government function and therefore should be properly budgeted for.”
• The flat charges would place “a disproportionate financial burden on poor and minority citizens,” said William McDonald of the NAACP’s Jamaica Branch, speaking for the branch’s president.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn also wrote in to the Fire Department in opposition to the fee. “The Fire Department doesn’t charge for its response to structural fires, and the Police Department doesn’t charge for patrolling a block. Charging for responding to the scene of an accident is a slippery slope,” she wrote. She also worried that drivers might choose not to call 911 if faced with an additional fee, leaving people on the road who shouldn’t be, like injured or drunk drivers.

…

---

[B’ Spokes: It is normal when paying a traffic fine to have court costs added on so why not structure emergency services charge the same way?

“Imposing crash taxes on individuals unfortunate enough to have *accidents* adds insult to injury. ” This is such a misleading framework, bad drivers are not unfortunate, they are a menace to society. A at fault driver did not have an “accident.” They CAUSED a crash, they did public harm.

Seriously, we want to prevent a disproportionate financial burden on poor drivers? Poor drivers and good drivers should all pay equally into the system.???

We look at the huge number of traffic injuries and fatalities as a “normal” part of life, we look at driving as boring and requiring so little attention that we talk on cell phones and we text. And then respond that we don’t want to be penalized for distracted driving or diving 15 miles an hour above the speed limit or any of the other things people generally do.

Police Department doesn’t charge for patrolling a block, heck they hardly ever patrol the block because they are out there responding to the huge number of traffic accidents. We are getting less public service for the general good under the current system. Crashes are taking away from what we would rather have people do. Besides if you want to have a big public event for the public’s enjoyment and need extra police services you need to pay for them while people creating public harm get the services for free.

We really need to stop looking at traffic crashes as unfortunate accidents, and loss of life or limb is not just an unfortunate consequence of being able to drive really fast with no thought about other interests but your own..
Continue reading “AAA Oppose FDNY Crash Fees at Public Hearing”

by Tom Vanderbilt
…
Even if the lanes were narrowed, as John LaPlante recently argued in the journal of the Institute for Transportation Engineers, “there is no significant crash difference between 10-, 11-, and 12-foot lanes on urban arterials where the speed limit is 45 mph (or less).” (a finding, he notes, that was unfortunately left out of AASHTO’s recent Highway Safety Manual). [Also note there is no difference in capacity for 10-12 lanes as well.]
…
But in non-highway environments, there’s all kind of evidence that reducing the number of lanes (a.k.a. the ‘road diet’) can have positive safety benefits. As the Federal Highway Administration has noted:
Road­ diets­ can­ offer­ benefits ­to­ both ­drivers ­and­ pedestrians… road diets may reduce vehicles speeds and vehicle interactions, which could potentially reduce the number and severity of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. Road diets can also help pedestrians by creating fewer lanes of traffic to cross and by reducing vehicle speeds. A 2001 study found a reduction in pedestrian crashing risk when crossing two-and three-lane roads compared to roads with four or more lanes.
But what if one of those lanes your crossing is a bike lane? Surely that must make things less safe, no? More interactions in less space. In a forthcoming paper to be published in the Journal of Environmental Practice Norman Garrick and Wesley Marshall examined 24 California cities (12 with relatively low traffic fatality rates, 12 with relatively high rates). They found that the cities that had a higher bicycle usage had a better safety rate, not just for cyclists but all road users. They write:
"Our results consistently show that, in terms of street network design, high intersection density appears to be related to much lower crash severities. Our street design data also contains strong indications of these trends; for example, the high biking cities tend to have more bike lanes, fewer traffic lanes, and more on-street parking. At the same time, large numbers of bicycle users might also help shift the overall dynamics of the street environment – perhaps by lowering vehicle speeds but also by increasing driver awareness – toward a safer and more sustainable transportation system for all road users."
And as Eric Dumbaugh, of the University of Texas A&M, notes, “most recent research reports that wider lanes on urban streets have little or no safety benefit, at least to the extent that safety is measured in terms of empirical observations of crash incidence” (e.g., Potts, I.B., Harwood, D.F., & Richard, K.R. (2007). Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials. Transportation Research Board 2007 Annual Meeting; Milton, J., & Mannering, F. (1998). The relationship among highway geometries, traffic-related elements and motor-vehicle accident frequencies. Transportation 25, 395–413; and so on).
…
Continue reading “On Bike Lanes, Road Widths, and Traffic Safety”

Continue reading “Iz Tryna Go Green, Butt (!) Ai Cant Reech teh Pedalz…”

On Jan. 10 police in New Castle caught a bank robber by following the tracks left in the snow by his bicycle.
Continue reading “The List: Arrested Development”