We’ve called both city police and city engineering departments about the consistently and dangerously fast flow of traffic past our home. The police tend to say it’s an engineering problem. Engineering says they’re working on a plan.
This isn’t a great consolation when we’re afraid to walk on the sidewalk or ride out bikes out of our driveway.
Engineering changes are being made all over town (ours and other cities everywhere) to slow down the flow of traffic.
Publicly voiced sentiment seems to be predominantly that these changes are nonsense, designed to convince people to give up their cars. An evil plot by the forces of evil who are out to destroy all that we hold near and dear.
But I understand why these speed limits make sense, and I don’t understand why I am apparently alone.
I’ve walked on sidewalks mere inches from speeding cars. I’ve ridden a bicycle on a 24-inch painted “bike lane” mere inches from speeding cars.
I’ve also ridden a bicycle on a street with a 30 kmph speed limit and “traffic calming” measures like speed bumps, roundabouts, and traffic diversion via blocked intersections. It’s enlightening. Now I understand why traffic engineers do these things that infuriate the other more vocal group of grumpy old persons.
I’ve been thinking about how the actions of individual drivers seem to be treated as an unsolvable problem. It’s as if there is no recognition of individual responsibility. I sense that even individual drivers — good people, some of whom are my family members — themselves feel that they don’t have the option to control the speed of their own vehicles.
I am the odd exception for actually watching my speedometer when I drive, and slowing down when I see I’ve crept more than a few kmph over the limit. I’m reminded of my oddity by honking and angry gestures every time I drive.
How did this happen?
I asked GPT: “Why do civic governments treat chronic speeding on city streets as an engineering problem instead of a law enforcement problem?” (click for more)
Civic governments often treat chronic speeding on city streets as an engineering problem rather than purely a law enforcement problem for several practical and evidence-based reasons:
- Engineering Solutions Change Behavior Automatically
- Physical road design can influence driver behavior more consistently than enforcement can.
- Narrow lanes, speed bumps, curb extensions, chicanes, and raised crosswalks all naturally slow drivers down, even if no police are present.
- These are known as “traffic calming measures.”
- This makes engineering solutions self-enforcing—they work 24/7, without needing constant staffing or monitoring.
2. Enforcement is Resource-Intensive and Intermittent
- Law enforcement requires significant ongoing human and financial resources.
- Police can’t be everywhere at once, so enforcement is often sporadic, which limits its deterrent effect.
- Automated enforcement (e.g., speed cameras) is more effective, but still limited in deployment and often controversial.
3. Human Error and Design Forgiveness
- Many city planners adopt the idea that “roads should be designed to be safe even when people make mistakes.”
- If speeding is common on a road, it’s often a sign the road design “invites” faster driving—wide lanes, long sightlines, few intersections.
- In these cases, enforcement can feel unfair or ineffective because the road cues contradict the posted speed.
4. Data-Driven Safety Models
- Modern traffic safety planning uses the “Safe System” approach (widely adopted in cities following Vision Zeropolicies), which holds that:
- Humans make errors.
- The consequences of those errors should not be fatal.
- This framework favors design changes that reduce speed and minimize conflict points, rather than relying on punishment after violations occur.
5. Public Perception and Equity
- Over-reliance on enforcement—especially police stops—can raise equity and civil rights concerns, including racial profiling.
- Engineering changes offer a neutral, equitable way to influence all drivers, regardless of background.
6. Effectiveness in Long-Term Change
- Research consistently shows that street design has a more lasting impact on driving behavior than enforcement campaigns.
- For example, reducing a lane width or adding speed humps has a durable effect, while ticket blitzes usually lead to short-term compliance only.
Summary:
Governments treat chronic speeding as an engineering problem because the road itself often enables or encourages the behavior. Designing roads that make speeding uncomfortable or difficult tends to be more consistent, fair, and cost-effective over time than trying to catch and punish every speeder individually.
If you’d like, I can give examples of specific road redesigns that have reduced speeding in real cities.
Being skeptical of the people-pleasing nature of AI, I follow up by asking “Is your answer tuned to my questions, or does this represent a widespread modern trend?“(click for more)
Excellent question — the answer I gave reflects a widespread modern trend in traffic safety and city planning, not just a response tailored to your wording.
Here’s the breakdown:
⸻
✅ Widespread Trend
• Urban planners, traffic engineers, and safety advocates globally are increasingly embracing the idea that road design, not just policing, shapes driver behavior.
• This shift is grounded in research and is embedded in frameworks like:
• Vision Zero (adopted by many North American and European cities)
• Safe Systems Approach (promoted by the World Health Organization, OECD, and U.S. DOT)
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (widely used in North American municipalities)⸻
📉 Shift Away from Enforcement-First Thinking
• Historically, governments did treat speeding as a law enforcement issue.
• But over time, evidence has shown that enforcement alone doesn’t reliably reduce chronic speeding unless combined with street design changes.⸻
🏙 Examples in Practice
• New York City narrowed wide streets, added pedestrian islands, and lowered speed limits as part of Vision Zero — traffic deaths dropped significantly.
• Oslo redesigned intersections and added speed-reducing features citywide — they had zero pedestrian or cyclist deaths in 2019.
• Vancouver and Toronto have similarly adopted traffic calming and lower speed limits, acknowledging design over policing.⸻
🔁 Your Question Was Timely and Framed Thoughtfully
While your question (“Why do civic governments…”) prompted a direct and applied explanation, the core ideas are not unique to your framing — they reflect a major paradigm shift in how cities around the world think about street safety and chronic speeding.
Would you like a short summary of how this trend developed historically?
I said OK … (click for more)
Here’s a brief history of how the shift from enforcement-first to design-first approaches to chronic speeding developed:
⸻
🔙 Early 20th Century: Speed as a Driver Problem
• In the early days of the automobile, speeding was seen as a behavioral or moral failing.
• Enforcement was strict, often involving police manually timing vehicles between checkpoints.
• Streets were often shared by pedestrians, streetcars, and horses — so speeding was naturally limited by congestion and mixed uses.⸻
🏗️ Mid-20th Century: Roads Built for Speed
• Post-WWII, cities in North America, Europe, and beyond embraced automobile-oriented design.
• Streets were widened, intersections simplified, and suburbs spread — all to support faster car travel.
• This encouraged higher driving speeds even in urban areas, often unintentionally.
• Speeding remained a criminal/enforcement issue, but the built environment increasingly invited it.⸻
📊 Late 20th Century: Rising Awareness of Road Design’s Role
• As traffic fatalities increased, researchers began questioning whether enforcement alone was enough.
• Studies found that people drove faster on wider, straighter roads, regardless of speed limits.
• Engineering began incorporating concepts like “forgiving roads,” but these were still car-centric.⸻
⚠️ 1990s–2000s: Start of the Design Reform
• European cities led a new movement: “traffic calming” and “livable streets.”
• Techniques like speed humps, narrow lanes, pedestrian refuges, and woonerfs (shared streets) emerged.
• Research supported these changes: slower speeds led to dramatically fewer injuries and deaths.⸻
🌍 2010s–Present: Vision Zero and Safe Systems
• The Vision Zero movement, which began in Sweden in 1997, spread globally in the 2010s.
• It promoted the idea that no traffic fatality is acceptable, and that humans will make mistakes — so roads should be designed to minimize the consequences.
• Law enforcement remained part of the strategy, but design took center stage.⸻
🧠 Key Takeaway:
Over time, the emphasis shifted from blaming individual drivers and punishing them, to recognizing that street design shapes collective behavior. The goal became systemic prevention rather than reactive punishment.
I think this makes sense, and I kind of get it.
I just wish that
- People would assume responsibility for their own vehicle speed and the safety of all those (including themselves) endangered by their driving.
- Police had enough resources to do enough enforcement that the public would recognize that this is something everyone cares enough about to do something about.
As it is, we’re essentially leaving it up to our technical overlords to decide what’s good for us — the mindless masses.
I thought about this some more during a jog (on a safe trail adjacent to a “traffic-calmed” street) and remembered a common complaint about these “anti-car” changes: that narrowing and slowing down busy roads is foolish because it increases congestion.
I asked GPT a follow up question: “**What tools and techniques are available to traffic engineers to balance traffic calming with congestion?**” (click for more)
Traffic engineers must balance two often competing goals:
- Traffic calming: Making streets safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and residents.
- Congestion management: Keeping traffic flowing efficiently to reduce delays, emissions, and frustration.
Here are the main tools and techniques used to balance both:
⚙️
Engineering Tools
1.
Geometric Design
- Roundabouts: Reduce speed while keeping traffic moving.
- Chicanes and Curb Extensions (Bulb-outs): Narrow the roadway visually and physically, slowing cars.
- Road Diets (Lane reductions): Convert 4-lane roads to 2 travel lanes + center turn lane + bike lanes. Calms traffic while often maintaining throughput.
- Speed humps/tables/raised crosswalks: Slows traffic but can increase congestion if overused.
- Diverters and One-Way Treatments: Redirect traffic to discourage shortcutting, but require careful planning to avoid gridlock.
2.
Signal Timing and Control
- Adaptive Signal Control: Adjusts signals in real time based on traffic conditions.
- Progressive signal timing (“green wave”): Keeps traffic moving at a safe, constant speed.
- Pedestrian recall and lead intervals: Improve pedestrian safety without severely impeding vehicle flow.
3.
Access Management
- Driveway spacing, medians, and turn restrictions: Reduce conflict points and keep traffic flowing smoothly.
📊
Modeling and Analysis Tools
4.
Traffic Simulation Software
Used to predict how changes affect both safety and congestion:
- VISSIM, Synchro, AIMSUN: Microsimulation tools that model individual vehicle behavior.
- HCS, SIDRA: For intersection and corridor capacity analysis.
- Helps evaluate if calming measures will cause bottlenecks or if slower speeds improve overall flow.
5.
Speed and Volume Studies
- Collect real-world data to identify problems and measure the impact of interventions.
🛠️
Policy and Planning Techniques
6.
Complete Streets Design
- Holistic planning for all modes of transportation. Design guidelines prioritize safety and accessibility alongside throughput.
7.
Context-Sensitive Solutions
- Engineering that matches the surrounding land use (e.g., lower speeds in residential or school zones, higher throughput in commercial corridors).
8.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
- Incentives for reducing car trips (e.g., bike share, transit subsidies, telework policies).
- Reduces congestion pressure, making calming measures more feasible.
9.
Multimodal Investments
- Adding bike lanes, bus lanes, sidewalks to give people alternatives to driving.
- Encourages mode shift, which eases vehicle congestion over time.
🔄
Iterative Implementation
10.
Pilot Programs / Tactical Urbanism
- Temporary installations (paint, cones, planters) to test traffic calming before making permanent changes.
- Enables adjustments based on observed congestion impacts.
🚔 Complementary Measures
11.
Targeted Enforcement & Speed Feedback
- Radar speed signs, speed cameras, or periodic police presence.
- Reduces speed without changing road geometry, maintaining flow during peak hours.
⚖️
Balancing Strategy Summary
If congestion is high… If speeding/safety is poor… Use signal optimization, lane continuity, access control Use road narrowing, raised crossings, chicanes Explore mode shift (bike, transit) to reduce pressure Target high-speed corridors with focused calming Favor roundabouts or road diets with turn lanes Use tactical calming in residential streets
Would you like an example of how these are applied in a real-world setting (e.g., urban arterial vs. neighborhood collector)?
(yes)
Let’s walk through two real-world examples where traffic engineers balance traffic calming with congestion management—each with a different context and goals.
🏙️
Urban Arterial Example: “Main Street Corridor”
Problem
- High-speed traffic through a busy commercial district
- Frequent pedestrian crossings, but unsafe
- Congested intersections during peak hours
Engineering Goals
- Slow down vehicles for pedestrian safety
- Maintain acceptable vehicle flow to support business access
Tools Used
Tool / Technique Purpose Road Diet Reduced 4 lanes to 2 lanes + center turn lane + bike lanes. Slowed traffic, but maintained throughput by reducing turning conflict delays. Signal Timing Optimization Improved green time allocation to avoid backups from new road design. Raised Crosswalks at Mid-block Slowed traffic and improved pedestrian safety. Installed only where pedestrian volume is highest to minimize congestion. Bus-Only Curb Lane (Peak Hours) Encouraged transit use, relieving congestion pressure. Smart Parking Sensors + Wayfinding Signs Reduced circling for parking, which was a hidden contributor to congestion. Result
- Speeds reduced by 20–30%
- Peak-hour travel time stayed nearly the same due to reduced conflicts
- Pedestrian volumes increased, businesses reported more foot traffic
🏘️
Neighborhood Collector Street Example: “Maple Avenue”
Problem
- Used as a shortcut between arterials (cut-through traffic)
- Residents complained of speeding
- Congestion not a primary concern, but access must be preserved
Engineering Goals
- Eliminate high-speed cut-through traffic
- Maintain access for residents and emergency vehicles
Tools Used
Tool / Technique Purpose Speed Humps (Spaced Appropriately) Calmed speed, especially in long straight stretches. Chicanes + Narrowed Lane Markings Reduced visual width to discourage speeding. Partial Diverters at Intersections Prevented non-local traffic from using the street as a shortcut, while still allowing local access. Local Traffic Only Signage (Enforced Occasionally) Supported engineering changes with messaging and enforcement. Before/After Speed + Volume Study Monitored impact and fine-tuned the spacing of calming features. Result
- 40% drop in through traffic volume
- 10–15 km/h reduction in average speeds
- Resident satisfaction high; minimal congestion increase on parallel arterials
🔄
Why These Worked
In both cases, engineers:
- Prioritized the type of users and function of the street (commercial vs. residential)
- Used data-driven design and iterative evaluation
- Avoided overuse of one solution (e.g., didn’t put speed bumps on arterials, or roundabouts on neighborhood streets)
- Balanced long-term mode shift goals (bike lanes, transit) with immediate flow improvements
Would you like to explore a third scenario (like a school zone or downtown grid), or dive into how these principles apply in British Columbia specifically?
Those sound like reasonable measures: unbridled independence behind the wheel is compromised to address public safety, and adjustments are made to keep traffic flowing steadily, but more slowly. To quote the example offered by GPT above:
Speeds reduced by 20–30%
Peak-hour travel time stayed nearly the same due to reduced conflicts
I suspect that the anti-change people see the bumper-to-bumper traffic moving along slowly, and perceive the slower speed and denser traffic as incontrovertible evidence that congestion has been made worse by the change.
But I believe it is possible for heavy traffic moving slowly and steadily to produce total travel time not a lot different than before, due to the counter-measure designed to keep the traffic moving.
I have experienced slow, rush-hour traffic moving steadily and getting me where I need to go in a reasonable time. It helps that I’m not in a hurry and I don’t mind driving slowly. But I believe that even people in a hurry can eventually learn that life goes on and they still get home about the same time, but the process is different.
I think it’s worth it to make the streets safer.