The problems are clear. Traffic flow is far short of optimum: Vehicles travel randomly across lanes, impedance delays emergency vehicles and disrupts traffic flow, motorists fail to notify others of planned maneuvers, and they follow too closely—increasing the incidence of rear-end collisions and creating time-wasting compression waves. Speed limit and speed warning signs are posted at unreasonable or inconsistent values and, because they provide little useful information to motorists, they are largely ignored.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVABLE

Solving these problems need not be an overwhelming or even particularly difficult task. It can be accomplished in a two-step process.

1.     Assure that traffic control devices are substantially conforming to MUTCD requirements and recommendations.

2.     Assure that traffic laws are reasonable, fair, and enforceable.

ACTION BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Many problems could be quickly resolved if government agencies responsible for traffic control devices would bring their practices into conformance with requirements and recommendations in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

These agencies are required by federal law set forth in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F to specify traffic control devices in “substantial conformance” with the MTUCD. Yet a critical examination of posted signage clearly shows that speed limit signs and speed warning signs do not conform to MUTCD requirements and recommendations. Surely, government agencies are responsible to comply with applicable law just as they require citizens to comply with laws that they impose.

Wages for these professional experts are paid from public funds. The public rightly expects them to proactively use their expertise to identify and solve problems and see to it that our transportation system functions as efficiently and safely as possible.

Traffic engineers should examine the problems discussed in this website and upgrade their practices as necessary to comply with the MUTCD. If statutory law stands in the way, departments of transportation and public safety should initiate and support legislation that will help to alleviate the problems.

Law enforcement personnel could help by proposing and supporting legislation that would correct deficiencies in state traffic codes that prevent them from enforcing traffic laws fairly and effectively.

MAKING CHANGES THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

If government officials do not take appropriate action, perhaps pressure from the populace is needed. After all, citizens are ultimately responsible for those elected. An informed citizenry is the center of our democratic government and the public should be in control.

We, as members of the public, can help to solve these problems by participating in the wonderful governmental system bequeathed to us by the founding fathers. Any person can make their voice heard by working with elected representatives to propose changes to traffic codes. Government officials may be personally contacted and should respond to reasonable requests for information or well-conceived suggestions for improvements.

If you wish to help resolve the problems discussed in this web site, you can take the following approach.

UNDERSTANDING PROVISIONS OF YOUR
STATE TRAFFIC CODE

To begin with, you need to know if there are deficiencies in your state traffic code. Unless the code specifies reasonable, enforceable laws, there is no basis for traffic law enforcement agencies to take effective action. Study the sections in your state traffic code that deal with the courtesy-based regulations discussed on the home page. You should be able to find the traffic code for your state on your state government web site. Many state codes are available at:  http://www.drivetosurvive.org/vehiclecodes.htm

Research the code sections that deal with the following behaviors.

        ·         Impeding Traffic in the Left Lane
        ·         Improper Lane Usage   
        ·         Following Too Closely 
           ·        Improper Turn Signal Timing

As you review various code requirements, you will probably find that they are sensible but vague and often lack suitable criteria for determining violations. Unless a criterion is provided that can easily be determined by enforcement officers “on the fly” under normal driving conditions, a traffic law will not be enforceable. Code sections containing such defects should be amended by including workable criteria.

Several troublesome phrases used as enforcement criteria are:

1. “Normal speed of traffic”

“Normal speed of traffic” is a useful engineering parameter, but it does not work as an enforcement criterion. “Normal speed of traffic” is a statistical property and is determined by directly measuring the speed of a number of vehicles, which cannot be determined “on the fly” by either drivers or enforcement officers while traveling in traffic.

2. “Normal and reasonable” or “Reasonable and prudent”

“Normal and reasonable” and “Reasonable and prudent” are too subjective. Behavior that is considered “normal and reasonable” or “reasonable and prudent” by a motorist may not be so considered by an enforcement officer.

3. Citing specific distances

Unless there is some measuring tool such as markings on a road, exact distances are very difficult to ascertain. While this criterion may be appropriate in some instances, it should be critically examined wherever it appears  in traffic regulations and replaced when it proves to be inadequate.

Consider the following regulations, which, lacking suitable criteria are essentially unenforceable and the alternatives containing enforceable criteria.

Enforceable Version:

Upon being overtaken by another vehicle in the same lane, the operator of a vehicle shall yield to the overtaking vehicle by moving safely into a lane to the right; and may not impede the movement or free flow of traffic.

  When space is available for an operator of a vehicle to yield to an overtaking vehicle by traveling in the adjacent right-hand lane and the overtaking vehicle is following at a distance so that less than two seconds elapse before reaching the location of the operator's vehicle, the operator is in violation of this regulation.

This version provides a two-second criterion, which both an enforcement officer and motorist can evaluate accurately enough so that the impeding driver would not be likely to disagree and, if the matter were referred to court, a judge would better able to render a reasonable judgment.

DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY

Unenforceable Version:

A vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must be operated in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

“Normal speed of traffic” does not work as an enforcement criterion because it cannot be determined “on the fly” by either drivers or enforcement officers while traveling in traffic.

Enforceable Version:

A person operating a vehicle on a roadway shall operate the vehicle in a right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. Two or more vehicles passing a driver in a lane right of the driver’s vehicle is prima facie evidence of violation.

The number of vehicles passing on the right is easily discernible and would not be debatable. Motorists who note one vehicle passing on their right would be alerted to the fact that, if they allow a second to pass on their right they would be in violation. This would prompt a driver to quickly move to the right in order to avoid a violation.

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY

Unenforceable Version:

An operator of a motor vehicle must allow sufficient space to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy the space between the operator’s vehicle and the next vehicle ahead without danger.

This regulation is not enforceable because, “sufficient space to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy the space” is vague. “Any other vehicle” could be anything from a motorcycle to a tractor-trailer rig consisting of three trailers.

The criterion is also problematic because it requires the same following distance regardless of speed; at faster speeds a safe distance is greater than at slower speeds.

Enforceable Version:

The operator of a vehicle shall follow at a distance so that at least two seconds elapse before reaching the location of the vehicle directly in front of the operator's vehicle.

Both enforcement officers and drivers can easily estimate the time between two vehicles accurately enough to determine compliance to this regulation. This version also allows shorter distances in slow moving traffic than in faster traffic where more space is needed to respond to emergencies.

SIGNALING

Awkward Version:

Wherever the lawful speed is more than 35 miles per hour, signals shall be given continuously for a distance of at least 100 feet, and in all other cases at least 50 feet, before slowing down, stopping, turning, or partly turning.

More Easily Enforceable Version:

A signal of intention to turn right or left or to change lanes shall be given continuously for at least the last two seconds preceding the beginning of the movement.

    The two-second criterion avoids the dual requirement that depends upon posted speed limits. Both enforcement officers and drivers can judge a two-second time interval accurately enough to know within reason whether a violation is occurring or not.

    As a private citizen, you can bring these matters to the attention of legislators and work with them to achieve needed revisions. It may be convenient to work with legislators in your voting district, but a legislator from another district may be more willing to support bills to amend your state’s traffic code than legislators from your own district.

Of course, a legislator who already has an interest in traffic regulations is preferred. A first step to find such legislators could be to contact one who serves on transportation or traffic committees. These committees and their members may be listed on your state legislature website.

Individual legislators will generally respond to personal phone or email contacts. You may be able to find telephone numbers and/or email addresses on legislature web sites. If a legislator indicates that they are not able to pursue your proposals, ask for the name of another legislator who has an interest in traffic matters. It shouldn’t take long to locate a legislator who will work with you.

The following lists the steps involved in developing a bill to revise the traffic code.

1.     By personal contact, locate a legislator who will sponsor a bill to amend the traffic code.

2.     Write a proposed revision or revisions for the code and submit it to the legislator.

3.     Request the legislator to notify you of committee meetings where you can attend and present justification for the proposed amendment. At this point, you may know more about the problem  than the legislators and your input could be very important in committee meetings.

4.     Follow up as necessary to keep abreast of progress through any committee meetings where the bill will be considered. You may be able to track the bill through a web site sponsored by the legislature.

It is also important to have the support of law enforcement agencies. State highway police departments maintain public relations offices where you can request the name of an officer who would be in a position to work with you. Chances are that you will find an officer who is specifically assigned to legislative matters and will be willing to discuss traffic code issues. You can encourage this support by following up during the bill development process to assure that appropriate enforcement officials are invited to committee meetings.

When the bill is approved and becomes part of the state vehicle traffic code, the next challenge is to generate enforcement. Government is sometimes notoriously slow to change practices or devote additional resources to new activities. Enforcement agencies may object to enforcing courtesy-based laws claiming that they are understaffed and overburdened.

Undoubtedly some (probably most) of the present traffic law enforcement effort is spent on speed limits. As discussed earlier in this web site, results from speed limit enforcement are problematic as the vast majority of speed limit violators, including those who are cited for speeding, are safe drivers.

There also may be the issue of revenues generated from traffic tickets. This issue can be dealt with by noting that shifting from abusive speed limit enforcement to courtesy-based law enforcement would simply change the revenue source from speeding tickets to courtesy-based law tickets. Thus the final result could be revenue neutral.

Modifying Enforcement Procedures

Changing from speed limit enforcement to effective enforcement of courtesy-based laws would also require a change in enforcement practices. Speed limits are usually enforced by officers waiting by the side of the highway for a vehicle traveling fast enough to justify a pursuit.

This surveillance method would not work for courtesy-based laws because violations are difficult or impossible to observe from a stationary position. To enforce courtesy-based laws effectively, it would be necessary for enforcement officers to patrol the highways at speeds faster than the 85^th percentile speed. At this speed they can observe violations and are in a position to immediately pursue and stop the violator.

Present code requirements may interfere with this method. It has been noted in at least one state that the vehicle code did not allow officers to travel faster than speed limits without operating warning devices. In this instance, officers did not comply with the law because it would disrupt the flow of traffic and alert violators of the presence of an enforcement officer in time for them to adjust their behavior. The problem was solved by amending the law to allow officers to patrol faster than speed limits without using warning devices.

As mentioned earlier, enforcing courtesy-based laws could be more effective in creating safer highways than enforcing speed limits. When drivers learn that there is a significant risk of being cited for violating courtesy-based regulations, they will voluntarily obey them since there is no benefit to be gained from violating them.

PROVIDING REASONABLE SPEED LIMITS

Because the speed limit is so deeply embedded in traffic management philosophy, it may be difficult to amend speed limit statutes to allow higher posted values. The steps to follow in adjusting speed limit regulations are the same as for courtesy-based regulation changes but the commitment of the sponsoring legislator is even more important. The legislator must be able to counter by clear logic and true facts two presumptions are sure to be part of the discussion.

1.     Because the intensity of crashes increases twice as fast as speed increases, the state must limit traffic speed to a safe level by posting speed limits.

2.     Increasing speed limits will increase the speed of traffic.

Although it is a true law of physics that kinetic energy increases twice as fast as speed, this is not the issue. The issue is whether or not faster traffic speeds will follow an increase in speed limits.

Persons who argue that because of this law of physics, we need low speed limits commit the logical fallacy: Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises: Crashes are more severe at higher speeds. Therefore we need speed limits. Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument.

The fact that severity of crashes increases with faster speeds does not imply a need for speed limits. It indicates a need to control vehicle speed but does not suggest anything about the method to be used. It is important that legislators know that, while speed must be controlled within safe limits, the speed limit does not work for this purpose.

Before posting higher speed limits, some states have conducted speed studies to verify that speed limits can be increased in their state without increasing the speed of traffic. This seems to be unjustified as there are plenty of sound studies showing no relationship between speed limits and the speed of traffic.

 Nonetheless, it may be more politically effective to propose that an engineering study be conducted on a specific portion of a state highway system. When the results of a study show that raising speed limits does not increase the speed of traffic, legislators may be more willing to amend speed limit regulations.