This is the traffic-safety version of an argument I keep running into in housing permitting: putting a technical, safety- or capacity-driven decision up for public comment sounds like democracy, but it actually hands the outcome to whoever shows up angriest, not whoever's affected most. In housing, community input processes were built with good intentions and have ended up doing something close to what you're describing here — normalizing an outcome (units not built, in our case; traffic deaths, in yours) that nobody would defend if you asked them directly. Curious whether you've found cases where safety improvements did survive a public vote, and what made those different.
I'm 10 years into a local gov career and have never experienced the public being asked if they want a safety project. That seems unusual. Typically, an MPO or PW dept does a study that identifies the problem areas and then public input is more about education. (Which in itself is frustrating to the public, because then they feel like decisions are being made before they have a chance to provide input, which...they kind of are).
You're fortunate! Most of my career was consulting, so I saw this problem in many different communities. Road diets and roundabouts are probably the most frequently killed.
Your argument is flawed: We DO vote to reauthorize the FAA, FDA, USDA, and hundreds of other government agencies across the entire country, to regulate safety.
This isn’t, “traffic violence should be as off limits as those other things” — heck, car safety is ALREADY one among those hundreds of agencies.
No, the real problem is that we have too much public input on local planning decisions. That is, your top-level thesis is indeed correct, but you added an unnecessary layer of justification.
A related issue is that red light camera fines have become a convenience fee, not a deterrent. Living downtown, I hear the same excuse: because they pay local taxes, drivers think they should be able to use residential streets as they want and 30 km/h is too slow for their commute. They'll pay the fines to speed down my neighbourhood streets where I walk my dog and local kids walk to school.
This is the traffic-safety version of an argument I keep running into in housing permitting: putting a technical, safety- or capacity-driven decision up for public comment sounds like democracy, but it actually hands the outcome to whoever shows up angriest, not whoever's affected most. In housing, community input processes were built with good intentions and have ended up doing something close to what you're describing here — normalizing an outcome (units not built, in our case; traffic deaths, in yours) that nobody would defend if you asked them directly. Curious whether you've found cases where safety improvements did survive a public vote, and what made those different.
I'm 10 years into a local gov career and have never experienced the public being asked if they want a safety project. That seems unusual. Typically, an MPO or PW dept does a study that identifies the problem areas and then public input is more about education. (Which in itself is frustrating to the public, because then they feel like decisions are being made before they have a chance to provide input, which...they kind of are).
You're fortunate! Most of my career was consulting, so I saw this problem in many different communities. Road diets and roundabouts are probably the most frequently killed.
Your argument is flawed: We DO vote to reauthorize the FAA, FDA, USDA, and hundreds of other government agencies across the entire country, to regulate safety.
This isn’t, “traffic violence should be as off limits as those other things” — heck, car safety is ALREADY one among those hundreds of agencies.
No, the real problem is that we have too much public input on local planning decisions. That is, your top-level thesis is indeed correct, but you added an unnecessary layer of justification.
A related issue is that red light camera fines have become a convenience fee, not a deterrent. Living downtown, I hear the same excuse: because they pay local taxes, drivers think they should be able to use residential streets as they want and 30 km/h is too slow for their commute. They'll pay the fines to speed down my neighbourhood streets where I walk my dog and local kids walk to school.
For safety: Infrastructure first, enforcement second.