A New Look at the Law of the Road

Anyone who manages to slog through one of my monthly Twitter round-ups knows I have an active interest in transportation, city streets, and how to make them better for people, not in cars. But I don't usually manage to write much about it otherwise (okay, occasionally... like here and here)... (oh, and here and here). I think it's because I feel as though I don't know that much about it from a planning or street design perspective; I just want to make the streets better for people and to create places where cars are not necessary so we can stop burning fossil fuels and taking up so much space with empty metal boxes.

Here's an example of a person who knows a lot, so I'll unroll this Twitter thread to get more of these ideas represented here at Daughter Number Three. The thread is by Eric Jaffe, editorial director of Sidewalk Labs, formerly with CityLab. He's sharing bits from a law review article by Greg Shill, associate professor at Iowa Law School, titled "Should Law Subsidize Driving?" The whole article can be seen here.

Calls for car companies to automatically limit top speeds have been defeated since the 1920s, yet by definition, going that top speed would break speeding laws. Meanwhile, low-speed vehicle makers (e.g. e-scooters) are often required by law to restrict speed. (p5)

In some places, adding bus lanes, carpool lanes, or light rail is "expressly prohibited by law" or at least subject to legal assault. (p5) That was long true in California under CEQA, which considered transit or crosswalks as environmentally damaging (!) because of car delay.

Speed cameras have proven effective safety measures, yet seven states [including Minnesota, I would add] outlaw them (!) and 28 states have not passed enabling legislation to use them — only 15 states have passed legislation making them legal to use. (p10)

Even among those 15 states, camera usage is often limited by law. Until 2019, New York state restricted use to New York City school zones, and even THEN only near 140 out of 2,300 zones, making it illegal to use a life-saving device in 94% of New York City (and 100% of upstate) school areas. (p11)

The Federal Highway Administration traffic manual (MUTCD) does not require markings to define a crosswalk; the presence of an intersection creates one. Yet police will routinely note when a pedestrian was "not in a marked crosswalk," a misunderstanding that insulates drivers from liability. (p19)

In the early days of cars, there were plenty of restrictions in place: Vermont once required drivers to "hire a person to walk one-eighth of a mile ahead of the car, bearing a red flag." (p21) (And we thought today's gig economy was tough.)

Prior to the car era, the verb "park" meant planting a tree or creating a patch of parkland, and city "parking" agencies were charged with such tasks. By the 1920s "parking authorities" were cutting down trees to accommodate places for cars to stop. (p23)

Federal law makes funding for state energy conservation plans conditional on adopting rules that allow right turns on red. Yet there's little evidence right turns on red reduce emissions, and lots of evidence connecting them with higher crash, injury, and death rates. (p37)

Great line: "The decision to write blank checks for free roads while starving transit of resources has distorted the transportation market for generations." (p37)

Until the 1910s, "street parking was broadly outlawed: if you owned a car in a city, you were responsible for storing it, just as you would be any other piece of movable property." Bring back the 1910s! (OK not all of it.) (p47)

Parking minimums significantly raise the cost of development in cities — regardless of whether a tenant wants or needs a space — adding 12.5–38% (!) to housing unit costs. One study put a parking spot at $200/month more in rent, and $43k more in condo asking price. (p51)

Washington DC's zoning authority notes the need to protect semi-detached dwellings "from invasion by denser types of residential development" that might support transit or reduce car reliance. Terrible policy in general, and particularly scary language given recent events. (p54)

I never realized (or forgot) that CAFE fuel economy rules — generally a good thing — have a loophole that "light trucks" don't need to be as fuel-efficient as cars. "Light trucks" have come to mean SUVs, which means SUVs are easier to produce. No coincidence that the share of "light trucks" has soared from 20% in 1976 to 69% of market today. The upshot, of course, is that SUVs are much worse for pedestrian safety: you're 3.4x more likely to be killed if hit by an SUV vs. a car. (p58)

Non-exhaust emissions (e.g. rubber particles from tire wear, or particles from disc brakes) account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 traffic emissions. Yet "no regulation currently exists in the U.S. to combat the problem of non-exhaust pollutants." (p60)

This is a fave: Per one study, 93% of drivers believe themselves better than the average driver. (Actually seems low.) (p66)

"Tax subsidies for commuting prioritize driving. Those who walk, bike, or carpool to work, and in some cases those who take transit, pay other people to drive to work." (p70)

U.S. criminal law makes it very hard to find drivers liable in pedestrian / bike fatalities. Contra the Netherlands, where drivers are automatically assumed to be 50% liable if the victim is over 14, with the remaining 50% determined by fault. (p71)

"Ironically, delaying 50 bus passengers by temporarily parking in the bus lane is punishable by ticket, but boarding that same bus with an expired pass can trigger jail time." (p74)

Lots of good stuff in there. I'll have to go check out the full article!