Earlier this month, Alexandria's City Council adopted the proposed Vision Zero Action Plan, "a guidance document that will help the City achieve its goal of eliminating all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028." In so doing, Alexandria joins DC in putting together a plan to achieve an important, yet admittedly ambitious, goal.
As the first Vision Zero community in Northern Virginia, Alexandria recognizes that traffic injuries and fatalities are preventable through proper engineering, enforcement, evaluation and education.
The adopted plan highlights priority action items that will be a major focus during the first two years of Vision Zero implementation. These items include the creation of a public crash and safety data dashboard that will allow community members to track progress, an accelerated timeline for Safe Routes to School engineering recommendations, and significantly increased traffic safety enforcement on city roadways with higher speeds.
The plan itself has a lot of good stuff, including graduated fines (which was something we had trouble getting through in DC), senior driving education programs and a push for lower speeds and higher fines for distracted driving. On the downside it looks like they've labelled every existing bike and ped project as a Vision Zero project instead of identifying additional projects to fund.
People hoping that we'll see rapid city-wide changes that result in significant cuts in injurious or fatal crashes we'll probably be disappointed in the seemingly modest pace of changes
Year One Priority Engineering Improvements: The plan outlines the following engineering improvements, in addition to the action items, that the City will undertake in the first year of implementation
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at ten high crash intersections
Install No Right on Red turn restrictions at ten intersections
Install pedestrian count-down signals at five intersections
Install two major pedestrian intersection improvements
Install 20 low-cost safety improvements, including new road markings, signs and minor signal modifications
Develop concept design for funding application for at least one high crash location
Install intersection improvements at ten high crash locations
Upgrade three uncontrolled crossing locations with safety improvements
Implement Safe Routes to School improvements at six schools
Reduce the speed limit from 35mph to 25mph on one high crash corridor
Upgrade curb ramps to improve accessibility at fifteen locations
But I think this is a reasonable set of goals for the first year, I'd expect the pace to pick up over time and for retrofits to be replaced by standard practice.
Alexandria has also approved a separate Alexandria Police Department Traffic Safety Plan, which includes the strategy to "Advocate for Idaho Stop Legislation." That would be a welcome change compared to MPD being the only organization who really advocated against it in DC. One can only hope that will mean fewer sting operations wherein they ticket cyclists at empty intersections.
While some have become frustrated with Vision Zero, labeling it "lip service" or calling on cities to "move beyond zero", WABA is still deeply committed to it. They're hiring (have already hired?) a new VZ Coordinator and is hosting a Vision Zero Summit in March. Encouragingly Muriel Bowser will be the keynote speaker. Anytime the issue of road safety comes before the Mayor I think that's a good thing (because I get that she's got a lot more on her plate than just that). Interestingly, DC doesn't have to wait for some far off state legislature to pass tougher distracted driving laws or the Idaho Stop, they can do that right now. But they haven't.
I get, and share, the frustration that Vision Zero seems to moving slowly, but I do think it is moving and I do think there have been gains. I just worry that they're being overwhelmed, and made undetectable, by America's growing smart phone addiction. Until we're willing to take that on, Zero will be hard to reach. There's only so much that painted crosswalks and better lighting can fix.
It may sound heartless to discuss life-saving measures as a calculation. But the fact is that we all make these sorts of calculations every day, about ourselves and others. We just don’t like to admit that we’re doing it.
Consider the speed at which many of you drove to work this morning. I’m sure you’re all splendid, careful drivers. Nonetheless, when a vehicle is being piloted at 50 or 60 miles an hour, the margin of error for avoiding an accident is pretty small. To drive a car even at 5 miles per hour is to accept a small risk of killing oneself and others. To drive at 50 miles per hour is to accept a much higher risk of doing so. It’s a calculation: risk versus reward.
In the U.S., tens of thousands of people were killed in auto accidents last year. We could probably eliminate most of those deaths if we simply made sure that no one ever piloted their personal vehicle above some prudent speed -- say, 25 mph -- which would reduce both the likelihood of crashes occurring, and the damage any crashes would do.
Are you willing to make that trade-off? To avert 40,000 deaths a year, all you have to do is move closer to work, take public transportation (where available), or spend a lot more time in the car.
Americans have made that choice: Nope, not worth it. We are manifestly not willing to exchange personal convenience for lower auto fatalities. Nor, as far as I am aware, is anyone anywhere else. Government sets much higher speed limits -- speeds that are still quite deadly! -- and most drivers opt for even deadlier speeds. Every speeding driver knows, at some level, that what they’re doing is dangerous; they simply care more about what the boss will say when they’re late than they do about the increased risk of killing other people. (Pro tip: If you started late, just accept that you’re going to get there late.)
A few problems here. One, we're terrible about making these kinds of risk/reward calculations. Another issue is that when we speed, we get the full reward, but we only take on some of the risk - since the people around us are being placed at risk too. This is a classic tragedy of the commons issue, and it's why government needs to get involved.
One of the more striking lines to me is the bolded (by me) line. I was once on Chris Core's show discussing biking on Beach Drive. He was arguing, among other things, that cyclists should ride on the trail for their own safety, and that by forcing drivers to pass, cyclists were putting drivers at risk. When it was suggested that drivers could just wait behind the cyclists and go 20mph or whatever, he said "people aren't going to do that" proving that this wasn't really about safety. As long as we believe that convenience is more important than safety - and I agree that is how Americans see driving - we'll never get to Vision Zero.
Now, I won’t defend the folks who go 90 in a 50 mph zone. But in less extreme cases, the broader calculation is probably correct. Auto accidents cost lives. But automobile transport has also saved a lot of lives, by enabling the economic growth that has made us richer and healthier. Slowing traffic down to a crawl would make a lot of that economic activity impossible, or at least, unprofitable.
Very few people would like to lower a very small personal risk of death by agreeing to live in the economic equivalent of 1900.
McArdle is seemingly arguing that Vision Zero isn't worth the cost - and arguing it because average Americans (who haven't done any of the calculations she calls for elsewhere in the article) are deciding it is so. That's a pretty bold assertion, in part because of all the flaws in those calculations and in part because they aren't considering congestion, pollution and bystander damage and other tragedy of the commons issues.
If we were to actually slow cars down to a safe enough speed to lower car deaths to a few thousand or a few hundred a year - and take away licenses from the worst drivers etc...we'd hardly be living in 1900. Especially if we took all the money we saved and invested it in better transit and transportation. It is a classic false choice. [Even if we made the car illegal tomorrow, we would not be transported back to the days before there was a polio vaccine or smart phones]
Her general idea, that the benefits of regulations should be balanced against their costs is pretty reasonable - and it's pretty much how we do it.
When the cost is as personal, as glaring and obvious, as restricting every car to a snail’s pace,* we can see that not all safety trade-offs are worth it.
No, we don't see that - because never shows us. The irony here is that she's defending the then Housing Minister's decision because we need to "establish that it was actually a bad calculation." Which is fair. But she hasn't established that 40,000 deaths per year for x amount of greater activity is a good trade-off either. She hasn't even established that it's a trade-off. One could make an argument that it would actually lead to greater economic growth - after all when people like Francis Stanley, Eugene Shoemaker and John Nash die, that can't be good for industry or the economy - let alone the other 40,000 Americans who suddenly leave the workforce.
The City of Alexandria is seeking public input on existing challenges to safely moving around city streets, in order to develop an action plan to achieve “Vision Zero.” The goal of the plan is to eliminate all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028.
The public may provide input through June 5via an online survey and interactive map, which can be accessed on the Vision Zero webpage. Vision Zero representatives will also have a presence at a variety of upcoming public events. This combination of feedback will allow the City to effectively address specific traffic safety challenges and inform strategies of the action plan.
The Directors of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the District Department of Transportationare extending the public comment period for the Vision Zero Second Proposed Rulemaking to April 10, 2017.
Below are the main differences I could identify between the two rounds (there's a lot of language changes and clarification as well):
1. The start date of the side guard requirement for large commercial vehicles has been backed up by nearly a year. The new regulations now cite a US DOT standard for such side guards, and change the punishment. In the original regs, an improperly equipped truck would be issued an inspection rejection sticker and fined $100. Now it's just a $100 fine.
2. It changes the speed limit in school zones and near playgrounds, recreational facilities, pools, athletic fields, or senior centers, when not signed, from 15mph at all times to 15mph from 7am to 11pm.
3.. Sets up a separate punishment for excessive speeding (over 30mph) for someone caught by a speed camera. They will be subject to a fine, but not imprisonment. [The fine that it assigns in this case is one for people going 25mph over the speed limit]
4.The new regs require drivers approaching a crash or mechanical breakdown to slow down as appropriate and use caution, the previous version required that they slow down to a speed at least 10mph below the speed limit and use caution.
5. Lowers the fines
a. for going 25mph over the speed limit from $1000 to $400 on a controlled-access roadway and $500 on a non-controlled access roadway
b. for colliding with a cyclist from $500 to $150
c. for failing to yield to a transit bus from $500 to $100
d. for failing to proceed with caution around a stationary emergency vehicle, or approaching an incident or through an incident from $500 to $100
e. for failing to execute a proper right-turn-on-red from $200 to $100
f. for parking in a bike lane for commercial vehicles and others from $300 and $200 respectively to $150 for all.
g. for parking on a median strip, island or safety zone from $500 to $200
h. for driving on or over a sidewalk from $200 to $150
i. for dooring from $100 to $50 (and dooring is now defined as "either side" not just the traffic side)
6. Removes the fine for failure to clear a vehicle from a lane
7. Increase the fine
a. for failing to yield to a pedestrian from $75 to $150
b. carrying objects that prevents a bicyclist from keeping a hand on the handlebar from $25 to $50
c. a bicyclist who hitches on a vehicle from $25 to $50
d. a bicyclist who fails to yield from $25 to $50
e. a pedestrian who walks suddenly, without the right-of-way and into the path of a vehicle causing a collision from $10 to $100 (note: this used to be defined differently)
f. a pedestrian who fails to yield to an emergency vehicle from $10 to $100
7. Create a new fine of $150 for a bicyclist who collides with a pedestrian who's crossing a roadway (meaning a cyclist who collides with a pedestrian pays the same fine as a driver who does) and another for $100 if it happens on the sidewalk. There is also now a $50 fine for riding with earphones in both ears.
Two bills designed to make biking safer made it out of the Senate last week and need support to get them out of the heavily Republican House of Delegates.
SB 1338 would prohibit driving in a bicycle lane to pass or attempt to pass another vehicle. The Virginia Senate passed SB 1338 on a 23-17 vote, with only four Republicans voting in favor. Unfortunately, Subcommittee #1 failed to report SB 1338 to the full House Transportation Committee on a 3-4 vote. Thus, unless someone (such as Del. Anderson) who voted against reporting SB 1338 changes his mind and asks that SB 1338 be reconsidered in the full Transportation Committee, SB 1338 is now dead.
SB 1339 would establish a traffic infraction when a careless or distracted motorist is the proximate cause of serious physical injury to a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other “vulnerable road user”, as defined in this bill. The Virginia Senate passed SB 1339 on a 21-19 vote, with only two Republicans voting in favor.
Subcommittee #1 recommended that SB 1339 be referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee, so SB 1339 is still alive. The Courts of Justice Committee meets on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons, so SB 1339 may go before that committee in a few days.
The House Courts of Justice Committee members from Northern Virginia are listed below. Please call or email one or more of these delegates as soon as possible to ask them to support SB 1339.
A short and simple request to support SB 1339 should suffice. Please include your home address and contact information, so they know you are a constituent or live near their district. Here’s a sample message: ====
Subject: Support SB 1339 Dear Delegate xxxxxxxxx, Please vote for SB 1339, which was just referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee. SB 1339 would hold a careless or distracted motorist accountable when his or her negligence causes serious injury to a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other “vulnerable road user”. As a [name of county] resident,I would greatly appreciate your support for this simple and straightforward traffic-law improvement, to help make me and my family safer when we travel by foot or bicycle. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Several of the penalties relate to drivers interacting with pedestrians and bicyclists. The fine for hitting a cyclist would double to $150; failing to yield to a pedestrian while turning right on red would double to $100; and the fine for parking in a bike lane would increase to $150 from $65. The fine for swinging open a parked car door into the path of a cyclist or pedestrian would double to $50.
It also adds new fines and rules for cyclists
The proposal also addresses complaints from motorists that cyclists and pedestrians also should face consequences for traffic infractions. Among the new penalties for bicyclists: a $150 fine for cyclists who collide with a pedestrian crossing the roadway with the right-of-way, and a $100 fine for colliding with a pedestrian while riding a bicycle on a sidewalk. Riding with headphones or earbuds on both ears would cost $50.
Cyclists caught carrying objects, including handheld communication devices, which prevent them from keeping one hand on the handle bars will face a $50 fine, up from $25. Those caught speeding would face a $50 fine, up from $25.
DDOT will decide whether to approve the current proposal after a public comment period that ends March 6. If more changes are needed, the draft could be revised again. Once the plan is approved, officials say they will announce when the new fines will go into effect.
On Tuesday, January 24th the Alexandria City Council unanimously adopted the “Vision Zero” international traffic safety concept with the goal of eliminating all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. Alexandria has had 7 pedestrian deaths over the last four years. They haven't had a cyclist death since 2002.
[The] action by City Council to adopt the Vision Zero philosophy follows over a year of research and planning by City staff. The next step is for staff to develop an action plan for consideration by Council this fall. The action plan, which will be developed and implemented through community participation, will use a data-driven approach to identify the tasks and funding needed to achieve Vision Zero in Alexandria.
According to Jim Durham, Chair, Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, "Staff plans extensive community outreach in developing the action plan, including three community meetings in April, 2017 and on-line comments."
As reported on Thursday, the Montgomery County Police Department held a press conference on bicycle and pedestrian safety. Unfortunately the whole thing was tone deaf, ignored the real issues with last week's fatal crash and safety in general and (as reported in Bethesda Magazine) devolved into victim blaming.
If you watch the video, Didone says that the reason for the event is that there has been a surge in serious bike/ped crashes in the last 16 days and the purpose is to discuss "what are some things we can do to prevent this so that this trend doesn't continue." He then says that when there is a serious crash of this type, the public tends to focus on driver speed and street design, but that - unbelievably - "today's discussion isn't going to talk about either of those things."
OK, so we're going to discuss bicycle and pedestrian traffic safety, but we aren't going to discuss two of the biggest issues in serious and deadly crashes. Got it.
Instead he wants to talk about how pedestrians and cyclists don't always have the right-of-way, like "when a pedestrian is not crossing in a crosswalk." Which would be far less ridiculous if he weren't standing in front of a freaking crosswalk. The same crosswalk in which a cyclists recently died, precipitating this media event.
His next example, when crossing at a signalized intersection and the signal says don't walk, is interesting and true, but also completely irrelevant.
But his main concern is this piece of Maryland law
A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield
Because "that's what happens very frequently." This is stated without evidence, and, in fact, in contrast to other evidence presented later. He then goes on to point out that pedestrians think they always have the right of way and
they may think that the crosswalk becomes a force field...or that drivers can stop on a dime.
Jeepers H. Christmas! No one thinks that. No one is confused about this part of the law or about the lack of force fields. Everyone understands that they can't just jump out in front of a car without giving it time to stop. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny that they think that THIS is the piece of education that the public needs.
I'm sad to say that he goes on.
"Physics has also told us that every time a two-ton vehicle comes into contact with a bicyclist or pedestrian, that the bicyclist or pedestrian loses every time,” Didone said. “It’s the longest losing streak that I know of. They lose every time.”*
Here again, he seems to be implying that bicyclists and pedestrians are just too dumb to know that cars will hurt them. I hear this kind of comment all the time, with that same implication - that this is news to me, but once made aware, I'll be more careful.
I'm here to say that we do know. We are all too aware. There isn't a week that goes by that someone doesn't pass too close to me and give me a little scare. And I'm scared because I know that if I get hit, it's not going to go well for me. Because of physics (which I did once teach). So really, this is not the problem.
So Didone called a press conference to tell vulnerable users things they already know. Which should be embarrassing since his colleague then noted that, yeah, this isn't really the problem at all. In fact it's probably the opposite.
Since 2011 there have been 10 collisions including Monday’s fatal incident at the crossing. Drivers were found to be at fault by park police in the other nine, according to Pelicano.
And the article makes the point that the investigation into the most recent crash has not been completed so we don't know what the cause is. But yeah, we should definitely waste some time addressing a couple of things (lack of common sense by vulnerable users, and lack of understanding of basic physics) that are NOT the cause of crashes at this intersection. The actual causes, well we're not going to discuss those.
The tree across the street from my old house was hit 3 times over 10 years. I would expect Didone to tell it how it could avoid getting hit. "Maybe wear a reflective vest? Have you ever studied physics? Also, I notice you're not wearing a helmet." This kind of victim blaming isn't new. Women have been putting up with this crap for years. But it's frustrating.
And I wish that we could just blame this on the police, but Jeff Dunckel, the pedestrian safety coordinator for Montgomery County shows up and also spends his time admonishing pedestrians.
Dunckel said cyclists and pedestrians should ride and walk “defensively” and urged cyclists to use “extra caution.” He encouraged them to wear light-colored clothing and reflective material.
That is all wonderful advice. Here I've been just using regular old caution, when what I needed was "extra caution" (what some people call "Unagi"). If only those 9 victims had shown extra caution and worn whiter shirts those drivers wouldn't have made a mistake and crashed into them.
Greg Billing is interviewed and is the voice of not batshit crazy.
He said drivers, pedestrians and cyclists must all make quick decisions at crossings and on roadways. “I firmly believe those decisions shouldn’t be deadly. That means the system, primarily the design of our streets, trail crossings and bike lanes have to be designed to prevent mistakes from being fatal.”
“If we’re going to be a vision zero community we have to start acting with urgency,” Billing said. “There has to be urgency because people are literally dying on our streets.”
Sigh, but Greg, we aren't discussing street design. We're discussing bad pedestrian behavior that is so frequently at fault (Frequently being 0% of the time at this crosswalk) and the physics of force fields. It's like he's not even listening. He's not alone. Capt. Rick Pelicano, a spokesman for the county’s park police department also discussed one of the issues that must not be mentioned.
Pelicano said the parks department, which has jurisdiction over Little Falls Parkway and the crossing, plans to meet with county officials soon to discuss possible changes to the crossing that could make it safer. That could include moving the crossing to the intersection of Little Falls Parkway and Arlington Road, where there’s a traffic signal, or adding stop signs on the roadway at the crossing to force vehicles to stop, according to Pelicano.
Moving the crossing is not really a solution either. It just gives them the ability to force trail users to stop (since now the crosswalk sign will be in play and users will no longer always have the right-of-way - as Didone so usefully pointed out). It has the added benefit of inconveniencing everyone using the trail too.
There are other possible solutions. Putting the crosswalk on a speed table, narrowing the road to one lane, creating a trail bridge, closing Little Falls Parkway, investing in that force field thing they were talking about, or something else would all make this trail crossing safer and protect pedestrians from their irrepressible urge to fling themselves into traffic in the hopes that they will win in a collision with a car (the streak has to break some day right? Just look at the Cubs).
And keeping money safe is his primary job. Trail users are somewhere farther down his list. He cited the Henson Trail crossing of Viers Mill Road where 2 cyclists have died in the last year as an example of how engineering solutions are just not as useful as reminding cyclists that cars are really big.
We put millions of dollars of safety on, and cyclists didn't even push the button.
I don't know if Osorio, the cyclist who died there in the summer, pushed the button to activate warning flashers or not, and I'm not sure how the police would either. But it's ridiculous to say that people aren't pushing the button. Obviously some are.
This "better engineering isn't the solution" line isn't new. After the Osorio crash someone from SHA argued the same thing.
The problem, said David Buck, an SHA spokesman, is that engineering solutions alone cannot prevent all fatalities. Enforcement and education are also needed — catching speeding drivers and encouraging cyclists and pedestrians to activate the flashers.
Unfortunately, Buck said, citing a crash report and Montgomery County police officials, the two cyclists in the deadly collisions did not push the button to activate the flashers.
Again, not sure about Osorio, but I'm positive that the victim in the earlier crash, Frank Towers, didn't push the button. I'm sure because it hadn't been installed yet. I'm surprised Didone didn't call for the solution that Buck did at Viers Mill - cyclists should dismount and walk their bike across.
Didone continued on about the Henson Trail crossing of Viers Mill Road.
Didone said in both Veirs Mill Road collisions the bicyclists were determined to be at fault after police investigations.
Which....isn't true. In the first crash, the driver was cited for "Passing a vehicle stopped for pedestrian at crosswalk". He was acquitted on the technicality that a cyclist is not a pedestrian and that there is no law protecting cyclists in that situation.
“Why was that?” Didone asked. “Because the witnesses observed that the bicyclists did what bicyclists do far too frequently. They do not want to slow their momentum or come to a stop before entering the roadway.”
No they don't, but if there's a car coming, they usually do. But again, Didone is inaccurate. Towers - at least - was crossing the road with a stopped car in the closest lane and then he was hit in the next lane. So, whether he stopped or not is sort of irrelevant (and I'm not sure if it is even known).
At some point Didone did note that drivers have some responsibility to protect vulnerable users.
Didone said all drivers must stop on multilane roads when a vehicle in another lane stops to allow a pedestrian to cross. This issue was brought into focus earlier this month when video showed a van striking a woman walking in a River Road crosswalk on Oct. 4.
But he added that
the video showed the pedestrian who was struck appeared to be on her cellphone. He urged pedestrians to pay attention while crossing roadways.
“Pedestrians need to do their part,” Didone said.
Let's not forget that in some of these cases, pedestrians - while not breaking the law - were not perfect either.
*Actually there was a case in the late 1990's in Mt. Pleasant when a driver lost control of their car, hit a cyclist, and then crashed into a tree. The cyclist was fine, and the driver died. So, the losing streak isn't necessarily worse than that of the Washington Generals
The NHTSA released early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2015 today and the news is not good. This looks only at fatalities involving a car, so it doesn't count single bike crashes or crashes with pedestrians, trains or other cyclists. Other fatalities are not included as well. Still,
Analysis to generate gross estimates of changes reveals significant increases in motorcyclist and nonoccupant (pedestrian and pedalcyclist) deaths for the Nation in 2015 as compared to 2014.
Estimates based on the data coded thus far into FARS for 2015 reveals that most of the Nation saw significant increases in motorcyclist (9% increase), pedestrian (10% increase) and pedalcyclist fatalities (13% increase). Fatalities to drivers and passengers also increased (6% and 7%, respectively)
They don't give a number, but since there were 726 pedalcyclist fatalities in 2014, 13% more would be 820, making last year the most deadly for cyclists since 1995. While fatalities have been increasing somewhat steadily for the last few years, so has the number of people biking and at a faster rate. Meaning that fatalities as a percentage of bike commuters has been dropping since 2005. But unless there is an unprecedented rise in bike commuters this year, it looks like the trend is going up this year.
I went to an update on the status of Vision Zero hosted by DDOT and it seems like things are moving along. They have lots of plans as far as education and advertising. Legislation moved forward this month. They've made changes to most of the intersections visited last year and visited 5 more this year. Not much that I didn't already know. But what was new to me was that they were planning a 2nd round of rulemaking (really just amending the rulemaking proposed earlier in the year, I think).
The new rulemaking will likely include a special fine for a cyclist who hits a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Which I'm fine with. I'm pro cyclists not crashing into pedestrians on the sidewalk, as it turns out.
It will also change the fines for excessive speeders. In January Director Dormsjo said
The 25 MPH speeding fine is proposed to increase from $300 to $1,000 in the proposed rules. Again, these rules may be amended before implementation. We are currently considering what an appropriate increase would be, taking into consideration public input as well as similar speeding penalties in other states. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Testimony of Leif Dormsjo Regarding The District Department of Transportation’s Proposed Vision Zero Regulations Page 12 2012, nine other states have a maximum speeding penalty of at least $1,000. Georgia and Oregon have a maximum speeding fine of $2,000 while Illinois and Virginia’s fine can reach $2,500. Virginia, Illinois, Georgia, and Oregon all have a higher fine than the District. Nationally, according to NHTSA data, the median maximum speeding fine is $500. Only 13 other states have maximum fines equal to or lower than the District. Given the prevalence of speed in our fatalities, we think an aggressive stance on the highest speed offenses is warranted. We look forward to the public commentary today and during the remainder of the comment period to provide feedback on our proposal and identify other potential solutions.
I want to be clear that the proposed increase is not about the potential revenues. When drafting these proposals, we analyzed the key contributing factors to traffic fatalities and other states in the region and nationally. We did not consider the fiscal impact of these violations in budgetary terms, but we did conduct a rough analysis for this hearing. Using moving violation data from 2010 to 2014, we estimate that if the fine for speeding in excess of 25 MPH above the speed limit were increased from $300 to $1,000, the District would have generated approximately $2.5 million in additional annual revenue. At the same time, in December of 2015, the Centers for Disease Control released state-by-state estimates of the cost of traffic fatalities, and projected that in the District, it is $35 million annually.
Anyway, there likely won't be any $1000 fines now. Instead the plan appears to be this:
Going 26-29 miles per hour over the speed limit on local roads (any road with sidewalks or that bikes are allowed on) - $500
Going 26-29 miles per hour over the speed limit on highways (the other roads) - $400
Going 30+mph over the speed limit - $500 fine and criminal charges
It's hard to imagine the person who says "If it's only $400 it's worth it to speed, but $1000 and I'll just slow down". The problem is that since most speeding tickets are camera enforced there are no points awarded so those reckless drivers can keep on driving. It would be nice if people could have the fine lowered if they 1) admitted they were driving 2) we're assesed points 3) took a defensive driving course. That would help make them better drivers or get them off the road.
Recent Comments