prettylittlearrow

prettylittlearrow t1_j06vvyl wrote

I guess--what I'm getting at is relying on human enforcement of other humans (especially considering the deeply flawed nature of policing and public distrust ) is not always the best choice for getting better outcomes.

Especially with police, who have been given tons of responsibilities that they probably aren't capable of carrying out. Leave crime investigation and smaller-scale conflicts to them, and find other ways of deterring other bad behaviors.

3

prettylittlearrow t1_j06tolz wrote

That's why I said "mostly". Yes, you can't use concrete and pavement to stop people from running stop signs or red lights or double parking. But slowing people with physical barriers can do a lot, and you definitely can do it on most streets. You can also block car traffic from streets entirely, which solves quite a lot of problems as well.

And by "can" I mean it's physically possible. Politically, maybe not, but I'd say that expecting PPD to consistently enforce traffic laws is also not politically easy either.

7

prettylittlearrow t1_j06s4z8 wrote

If there's concrete blocking people from bypassing traffic in a bike lane or only one lane in each direction, you're forced to move with traffic. What we consider congestion--restriction of the speed of traffic flow--can actually make roads safer because cars have no option but to slow down.

Changing the physical design of roads is really the only way to (mostly) force people to drive carefully.

6

prettylittlearrow t1_ixr4kem wrote

Anyone living in a dense urban center where space is limited (particularly an issue in old cities like Philly) should have to pay out the ass to park their unused private property on land that could be used for other things. Free parking in the 'burbs is mostly fine, there's lots of space still

1