I think you're redefining "everyone" as "people who drive cars" here, and cyclists as "non-everyone".

I believe the growth of automated police enforcement affects everyone, but it's true that drivers would feel this impact the most.

Edit: Since we're talking about NYC someone who replied to me has more specific data. Roughly 2.5% of commuters use bikes in the city. Obviously it's going to be much less in suburbs and rural areas that aren't as densely packed.

Some rough napkin calculations:

Number of cyclists [1]: 786,000

Number of vehicles [2]: 263,000,000

Does 99.8% of people not count as everyone in a discussion like this?

If you could make a change that improved the daily lives of 99% of people wouldn't that be the easiest policy decision in your life?

[1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-86....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...

Why are you using nationwide numbers to address a NYC-local problem.

In New York, only 25% of people drive to work, and in Manhattan it's 5%. Why do they get free rein to block the single lane allotted for 95% of people, in addition to the two-four lanes that they are allotted?

Why are you using total number of people when we're talking road users? Yeah, a lot of people walk or take the subway but they're not exactly concerned about what the edge lane is used for.

I'm not particularly biased towards cars or anything, you could remove the bike lane to make room for bigger sidewalks and have a positive effect since way more people are walking than either driving or biking in Manhattan.

People use the bike lane as a stopping lane because nobody is in it. If there was actual bike traffic this problem wouldn't exist.

Where do you live? People use bike lanes in NYC all the time.

And the total number of people is absolutely the right denominator here, as publicly owned land should be allocated for the greatest possible good of all. You're assuming your conclusion by claiming that vast swaths of public land should be dedicated to drivers alone, and not to the rest of the majority of people who do not drive.

You know what every single person who takes the subway also does? Walks. On average, many blocks, on both ends of their trip. You know what these people will benefit from? More sidewalk space in congested areas. More traffic calming measures, slower vehicles, and safer crossings.

Which was ultimately my suggestion. You could get rid of all cars for all it matters to my argument.

My claim is that bike lanes are an inefficient use of space because they are underutilized and would be better served either for vehicles or pedestrians since they make up all but a tiny percentage of commuters.

If you're going to do all of that traffic calming you probably should just have the bikes use the roads since it'll be safer for them and the speed differential be lower.

NYC DOT keeps stats on bike lanes, and per area of road used they serve more people than vehicle lanes do.

And I do agree with getting rid of many of the cars, and especially all that free public parking. You could easily have wider sidewalks and and bike lanes everywhere if you eliminated a side of parking on every road. As it is now over half the total road surface is allocated to parking, most of it free, which is just absurd.

I'd expect the bike lane blocking problem is not really because of people who "drive to work"; it's because of deliveries, repairs, maintenance and such. (At least where I ride, that's >95 % of bike path disturbances).

Where I ride it's usually taxi or other TLC vehicles just parked there, doing nothing. Usually on break or waiting for a pickup.

Yes, but even taxis aren't "driving to work", they are at work.

They can be "at work" somewhere other than illegally parked in the bike lane waiting around or on break.

Of course they can, and should, but this does not make it relevant to bring in the argument "only 25% of people drive to work".

I still don't understand how this is relevant. You are not allowed to park in bike lanes, full stop. It doesn't matter why you are going somewhere; it's still illegal regardless of whether you're going to work, or going shopping, or whatever.

Given that most people in Manhattan do not drive, it makes sense to prioritize non-drivers over drivers.

For NYC in particular there are better stats (2014):

"About 86,000 adult New Yorkers, 2.5% of all commuting residents, usually bike to work or school" [1]

[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecity...

Sweet! I'll edit my comment.

Don't forget that cars are much less than 50% here, and bus commuters are among the people that stand to benefit.

You're comparing the number of people who cycle to work with the number of cars in the US. That's an odd comparison.

In spring 2017, the number of people who have been cycling within the last 12 months amounted to 66.21 million. [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/227415/number-of-cyclist...). Given that some people own two vehicles, I think you'll find similar numbers for people who own cars and bicycles.

And part of the reason people don't cycle to work is that there aren't safe cycle routes to their work. If you build your infrastructure for cars it forces peoples hand. The Netherlands has extensive cycle friendly roads and adoption is much higher.

More people cycling improves life for everyone, even the drivers.

Cool, so if we make it suck less to ride the bus or bicycle, we'll have more of both, and more commuters will fit in less space. Win/win.

Yeah I am also concerned about more cameras. Why are you against more cameras? What are your concerns?

Automation of police enforcement allows a precision and completeness in ticketing that was never envisioned while writing the laws or fines. It would only start with blocking bike paths or bus stops. Once the technology is there, there is incredible incentive by the city to expand the scope to generate more revenue, as we've seen with red light camera installations.

I'm all for allowing that particular incentive to run rampant. Running red lights is unsafe and kills innocent people. Are you suggesting running red lights shouldn't be enforced 100% of the time??

Everyone has the option to obey the law!

Also not envisioned while writing the laws was a wish for some people to break the law and get away with it. They weren't hoping for partial enforcement, laws are written to communicate the standards under the hope that all people will abide. Enforcement was never intended to be less than perfect, it has always been to do as much as is practical. New technology is making it more practical, but isn't changing anyone's intent. There is no sacred amount of precision or completeness in ticketing that ought to be preserved in the face of improved ability to enforce laws.

I'm also hopeful that self-driving cars, and more bike support, and other changes to transportation, make this issue (and it's enforcement) disappear.

Numerous studies have shown increased accidents with the use of red light cameras (others have shown decrease in collisions but also increase in severity). In Florida for instance, fatalities and collisions went up. [1]

Speed limits are also based in large part on the 85th percentile speed of actual traffic, which presumes 15% of drivers are breaking the law.

So no...I don't believe absolute traffic enforcement was ever envisioned, and I don't recall ever hearing of a politician running on that platform.

Lest you believe I'm a law breaker looking for leniency, in over 20 years of driving I've never received a moving violation.

[1] http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-nsf-red-light-ca...

Okay, I read that article, and it said traffic went up over 8.32% overall, and then showed some increases in accidents near 8%. It looks like they reported absolute numbers without controlling for the increase in traffic. If traffic was up 8.32%, and angle crashes were up 6.72%, doesn't that imply that angle crashes were actually reduced by around 1.6% per capita?

What about this one:

"Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study stated that fatal crashes from red light runners increased by 30 percent per capita after cities turned off their red-light camera programs."

> Speed limits are also based in large part on the 85th percentile speed of actual traffic, which presumes 15% of drivers are breaking the law.

It's a misleading assumption to suggest that the way speed limits are determined actually implies a design intent to retain a 15% minority of law breakers. The stated and explicit intent of posting the speed limit is to set the maximum, and for nobody to exceed the maximum.

Also: "The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic is exceeding) and in the US is frequently set 4 to 8 mph (6 to 13 km/h) below that speed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limi...)

> So no...I don't believe absolute traffic enforcement was ever envisioned

It doesn't matter what was envisioned. We don't need to preserve what was envisioned.

> in over 20 years of driving I've never received a moving violation.

That's great! I would be more impressed if you hadn't done any speeding or run any red lights in 20 years. (I can't claim that, though I also haven't had any tickets in 20 years.)

A better solution would be to do regular speed studies and actually update the speed limits posted. Also, prevent municipalities from passing laws on their own speed limits and creating speed trap situations.

I see a lot of speed limits that are woefully out of date and/or very different from the 85th percentile speed on any one motorway.

> It doesn't matter what was envisioned. We don't need to preserve what was envisioned.

Then we should just ditch the whole speed limit concept. You should be punished for variance from 85th percentile speed on a motorway in either direction. Too slow or too fast are both dangerous

> Are you suggesting running red lights shouldn't be enforced 100% of the time??

The majority of red light tickets are for people not coming to a complete stop before turning right on red. Quite often, the non-turn lanes aren't even instrumented because it's not profitable.

There's also the issue that red light camera vendors encourage shortening the yellow light, which increases revenue and harms safety.

Do you have any sources on these claims you can share?

Adding in the problems of private vendors commercializing law enforcement wasn't on my mind, but is a very good point. I would hope that, despite any pressure to shorten the yellow light, laws and safety advocates would prevent that from getting out of hand.

What is currently most out of hand between unsafe driving and unreasonable enforcement revenue, is clearly unsafe driving. So even if enforcement isn't perfect, I still think a correction towards enforcement is a good thing on the whole. I hate driving because of how crazy unsafe large numbers of people will be for really marginal benefits. The wish more more enforcement crosses my mind almost every day.

And, again, we can easily defeat any evil government revenue enforcement schemes by simply following the laws we should have been following all along.

Chicago is a good example, they reduced yellow lights below federal minimums to maximize revenue, and the contract was rife with corruption.

"A Tribune-sponsored study of the red-light program in 2014 found that nearly 40 percent of the intersections equipped with the cameras are likely making the streets more dangerous. The study found that the cameras caused a 22 percent increase in rear-end crashes, yet provided no safety benefit at intersections that never had a problem with right-angle crashes in the first place."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-rahm-em...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-redflex-ceo-sent...

I don't really want to spin here on red light cameras only; there are many more ways to enforce traffic laws than that, and if we could use people for 100% enforcement I'd be in favor of that.

I want self-driving cars and other mass transport to eliminate the need for enforcement completely.

I have to be honest though, the stuff you're throwing at me is tingling my spidey sense just a little. These quotes are stated in a way that sounds convincing and bad, but fails under math scrutiny.

The quote you picked left out the 15% improvement in angle crashes they measured (* cited in the bigthink article below).

You can have 40% of intersections with a 1% increase in crashes, and also have 60% of intersections with a 1% decrease in crashes, and you have an overall slight reduction.

These resources seem level headed:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012902/

And these feel like fluff, and even propaganda:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/study-red-light-cameras-ineffec...

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/

The Tribune is a pretty factual paper, but studies have been mixed over the years. Confusing the data is the implementation of RLCs at sites that never had an issue with right-angle crashes, that’s a key reason the Chicago data showed an increase in collisions.

I don’t think we’ll agree on this issue, but I understand your arguments and they are reasonable.

> I don’t think we’ll agree on this issue, but I understand your arguments and they are reasonable.

Hey thanks for saying that. I can return the favor, you’ve been very reasonable too. I don’t disagree that red light camers specifically might have some tradeoffs, and maybe it’s true they’re a net negative right now, I don’t know.

As far as the safety goes, have we actually given it enough time? Would it change anything for you if we fast forward into the future, and imagine that all intersections have cameras and everyone expects them? Today’s trade off between T-bones and rear-ends when there are cameras is presumably caused by people not expecting a camera and then realizing fairly late that they might get a ticket. Is it reasonable to assume that if cameras were everywhere, the rear-enders would eventually settle at a lower rate?

If we fast forward, I do think we’ll see at least a marginal improvement in safety. The cameras would never go away though, and the laws would have to be rewritten in a way to maintain revenue through minor infractions. That cost would land hardest on the poor and working class.

I’m a careful driver, wealthy enough to pay the fines without a care, so it wouldn’t really affect me. Neither would congestion tolls, or the numerous other solutions involving regressive taxes or fines. Less traffic would be worth the cost...I find myself often wishing they’d just triple tolls and gas taxes so my commute would be shorter. Not proud of those thoughts.

TBH, I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but lately my perspective has shifted. I don’t wish to muddle the safety argument with inequality, but it is part of my aversion.

A possible solution... remove revenue. Hell, have the fines be earmarked as a direct cash back tax cut or something. Redistribute the money from the guilty to the innocent, and keep the motivations clean.

Rolling right turns on a completely empty intersection late at night done at 5mph is treated the same as running through a red light with traffic with a $550 ticket.

Because of financial incentives for municipalities, the laws tend to stick that way, even when law makers want to make distinctions in red light camera types. And it hurts the poor the most.

See more red light camera bullshit here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

> Rolling right turns on a completely empty intersection late at night done at 5mph is treated the same as running through a red light with traffic with a $550 ticket.

And it takes all of 2 seconds to circumvent... by not rolling through. Get a ticket only once, and you'd probably learn your lesson and never do it again. You always have the power to avoid that ticket.

> See more red light camera bullshit here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

No, thank you. I sense bias and propaganda in the URL name.

This feels the same as the people who claim there's a conspiracy and that bicycle helmets don't increase safety, or that requiring motorcycle helmets is abuse of government power.

As a citizen who wants peace and safety for myself and my family, I am in favor of more speed limit and red light enforcement, among the many other apparently controversial things that I'm happy to pay a little bit of tax for, and/or happy that the government can make some revenue on.

Does data matter to you? If increased cameras let to increased accidents would you still be in favor? Do you think that there are unintended consequences to ultra strict enforcement?

Yes data matters to me. If cameras or other types of enforcement truly made things less safe overall, I wouldn't want them. I don't think that's the case, but I'm certain there are unintended consequences to certain kinds of enforcement.

I can ask you the same. Do you care about data? Your question about data follows a link to highwayrobbery.net, which is using FUD and inflammatory language, and I would bet some misleading characterizations of "data" to rile people up over this issue.

If the "data" is being politicized and falsely presented, if people are actually mad about a perceived tax or government control, and not about safety, do you consider that data that matters?

Automated enforcement is a difference in kind, not a difference in quantity.

The entire structure of penalties was built on the assumption that people would usually get away with infractions. One can speed for years only occasionally having a ticket, but absolute enforcement would make the simplest regular trip have an extreme cost (or jam traffic like never seen before), and most peole would accumulate enough points to lose their license within 20 miles...

With absolute enforcement and penalties for every infraction, the entire set of penalties would need to be reworked. Maybe something like 1c/mph-minute over the limit. Or $1 for blocking a bike lane for 5 min.