The Lifesaving Tech Drivers Hate 

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!

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Soviet microdistrict vs USA Suburbia

>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.

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

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.)

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'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).

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

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.

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.

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.)

Interesting. I haven't heard of those before. That seems like a more fair (and safer) way to do it.

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.)

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.

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.

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

Sure but what if your auto insurance is now void because you did this?

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.

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

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)

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.

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. 🙄

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 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

I am very against making people feel more uncomfortable expressly to make them feel more uncomfortable. That is not progress.

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

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.

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 😉

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.

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.

We have a death count sign on Highway 2 here in Washington State.

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.

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

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

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.

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")

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.

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.

@@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

Good point. Never considered that.

Just stop whining and pay attention to the signs. If you can't do that, you can't drive a car.

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

Rally stages for everyone's commute plz 😅

The two rails are so trains can monorail and pass eachother. Did you not know that?

I live in a “marginalized” area and would love to see all the people who drive through my neighborhood shaking my windows get tickets! 🍿

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.