Speed Bumps to Proliferate in Encinitas
Let's start with the theory, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration:
"At a minimum, the coordination of land use and transportation requires
that those concerned with the well-being of a community (or region,
state or nation) assess and evaluate how land use decisions effect the
transportation system and can increase viable options for people to
access opportunities, goods, services, and other resources to improve
the quality of their lives. In turn, the transportation sector should be
aware of the effects the existing and future transportation systems may
have on land use development demand, choices, and patterns."
This official introduction refers to competing interests: the motorists who wants to have a short comfortable drive and those who cross or play on streets who want the cars to disappear. This explains the attraction of gated communities, where their streets are never used as a conduit for outsiders to drive through. The ideal is to combine both, have the convenience of jumping in your car and expeditiously reaching your destination, yet keeping others out, so the street in front of your house will be quiet and safe.
Since attendance at local city halls are not a sampling of the entire community, those who regularly attend are a small self selected group who have disproportionate influence on what transpires. This dynamic was on display in the recent passage of a regulation to expedite turning a public street into one that is like a gated community, with anyone who drives through punished by jarring speed bumps on the road, that are euphemistically called, "cushions."
This is easier to pull off when drivers are vilified, which given that the rare drunk or irresponsible driver can cause great suffering, is pretty easy to do. Here's an example of the process in two headlines on identical articles in the L.A. Times. The first is "
L.A. Drivers are killing pedestrians--they need to be stopped." which was the headline on the internet, This is so much more effective than "
Slow down L.A. drivers!"
which was the headline for subscribers, which is sort of wimpy and doesn't promise to clearly demarcate good
from evil. .
Motorized vehicle, bike, pedestrian, children at play-- are orders of vulnerability of those who use public roads. Given the fragility of the human condition, there is no way to absolutely prevent those who are in control of a vehicle from being either drunk, stoned, enraged or diverted - which too often leads to tragedy. As this is written we are looking backward, to what is rather than what will be. Just as the technology revolutions of the 19th century transformed our world, we are on the cusp of a cyber-internet revolution that will transform life in ways unimaginable.
While cities are busy installing crude impediments to impede focused comfortable driving by the vast majority of responsible drivers, the effort to replace fallible humans with controls for vehicles that never get tired or diverted is gathering steam. It is perfectly reasonable that this system could even someday know in a millisecond that a child is behind those bushes who is about to chase his ball into the street, and while stopping the car, also report this to his mom so he will learn to be more careful.
I'm personally annoyed that my expectation of use of exiting routes and travel time is being changed without any notice, as not a single individual who represented such drivers was in attendance when this decision to diminish their driving experience voted on.
I would suggest that with a bit of public outreach, there could be a wider attendance with broader perspectives, if last months decision were to be revisited .
Both are actual headlines for the exact same article in the L.A.Times,
but the one depicting drivers as murderers was on the open internet
competing for the revenue of increased readership,while the other was
for subscribers of the newspaper, many of whom would resent being
vilified for their driving habits. In the broad scheme of things,
advertising revenue is less important than influencing the yawning
political divide of our country, now moving perilously close to
disastrous consequences.
One aspect of this growing national schism is in policing, including
traffic law enforced by uniformed officers, whether under the auspices
of a mayor or elected sheriff. Enforcement is backed by lethal weapons
that can be used if an individual driver resists the orders of such
authorities, justified by such laws being determined by the democratic
process. The effect of penalties for traffic infractions vary widely;
for those in the lowest socio-economic strata, possibly resulting in
life changing consequences, a fine that means eviction or inability to
maintain employment. While for those of wealth, the consequences of the
very same infraction are trivial.
The article in my introduction defined a method of decreasing traffic
fatalities that is in sharp contrast to a regulation just passed
unanimously by the Encinitas city council. That regulation will allow
the proliferation of speed bumps, that within wide statistical
parameters of existing traffic and speed, will be determined exclusively
by the residents in homes abutting the streets. During the recent
half hour discussion at the council four speakers from a single street
presented their case, without any discussion of the adverse consequences
of such a crude method of random degradation of a roadbed. It's as if
the billions spent on creating paved roads that allow the driver to
concentrate on a safe comfortable drive are to be reversed by the
jarring bumps, given the ironic name, "cushions."
Venues from city hall to the Senate Chambers constitute the web of
democracy that our nation is predicated upon. The nature of national
politics is that power is decided by the mass media, either a rare
charismatic personage such as he who was elected to the presidency, or
those with vast wealth who can dominate the media. Such content has
little similarity to the Federalist papers that argued the merits of our
constitution that still guide this ship of state, which were actually
read carefully and debated by the citizenry of that era.
What a gift it is that we still have the venues of local government,
where we know personally those who legislate, which makes it more of a
travesty when this institution falters. The failure is not in the
nature of a decision, but when the formulation is based on soundbite
rather than substance. Traffic rules are now the most frequent nexus
between law and citizen, where the process that requires deference to
law enforcement agents should be designed with the greatest care, not by
accepting the stereotype of the malicious automobile driver.
Traffic stops have become a major front in the cultural-political schism
that is now consuming our country. Our President in his campaign
encouraged police use of force, with the vague spector of enlisting such
sworn officers as extensions of his personal militia. To perpetuate
irrational rules as defined as such by rigorous research, means that
what becomes law is arbitrary, and inconsistent with the actual driving
practice of experienced careful drivers.
Accepting such laws that are only rarely enforced is giving arbitrary
authority to those who are sworn to serve and protect. This provides
such officers with the legal right to detain any one of those of the
vast majority of careful drivers based on their own discretion, a
temptation for abuse that should never be allowed. The recent
regulation passed for proliferation of speed bumps, has no evidence of
increased safety, as the drivers attention is diverted to avoiding or
mitigating the shock to the vehicle and passengers.
If ever this was the moment to have an open and extensive discussion it
was for this issue. The simplification of group vilification has no
place in local government, especially where the goal of minimizing harm
to pedestrians is something that is universally held.
