Given how poorly the city currently enforces the scooter laws, which also require registration and a license for nearly all scooters that one commonly sees, what exactly will this law do?

by ah on Oct 24, 2012 9:21 am • link • report

Re: Scooters.

Goggles? I thought the point was to basically say that scooters should be treated like motorcycles rather than bicycles. Do you have to wear goggles to ride a motorcycle in DC?

Again, I don't see why they just don't go with threshold of engine size. Otherwise you spend all your time essentializing about the spiritual qualities of a machine that makes up very little of the overall traffic volume in DC.

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

Scooters are a great option for getting around. The restrictons seem reasonable.

Sidewalk parking is a pain -- there are a lot of places where it isn't appropriate. Others have plenty of room. I'd do a block by block analysis.

by charlie on Oct 24, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

Neither scooters nor motorized bikes are motorcycles and there needs to be new rules especially on parking for them. This is a fantastic urban transit mode much more used in other parts of the world successfully that should be encouraged here. One day maybe CaBi could expand to scooters.

I use car2go a lot as it's concept is more like CaBi or taxis than other car shares. That car was never meant for an automatic, and the one they use is terrible, but the concept is perfect. For long trips I Metro to DCA and rent cars super cheap by the day. Since the last 100 cars came out car2go is much more available. $.38/min does add up fast but it is capped at $13.99 (+tax) per hour.

I asked them to put DCA on their home area but they said no.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 24, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

I'll provide some comparisons on the speed camera revenue.

1. according to today's Washington Post speed camera article, the number of traffic fatalities of all types were reduced to 16 so far this year from 28 over the same period last year. This means 12 lives were saved over 298 days; pro-rated this comes to 14.7 lives saved over the year.

2. The same article says that camera enforcement raised $84.9 million for FY 2012.

3. Assuming that all lives saved can be attributed to camera enforcement, the cost of a life saved is $84.9 million/14.7 = $5.8 million. It is dubious that all lives save can be attribute to camera enforcement, so the actual cost will be higher.

4. This is far higher than typical jury awards in wrongful death suits (typically $2-3 million/person). It is also much greater than average lifetime earning potential of the lives lost, also around $2 million. It is also greater than the value of prevented fatalities used to calibrate safety costs for the nuclear power industry ($5.4 million). The latter figure is particularly high, and is often cite as an impediment to further development of nuclear power.

Based on this, it appears that the fines are too high.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

@goldfish, your analysis assumes that the only benefit is in lives saved. There are other arguable (but hard-to-measure) benefits, including reductions in a) accidents, b) non-lethal injuries from accidents and their associated medical costs, c) delays from accidents, d) burdens on emergency services to respond to accidents and transport victims, direct traffic, etc.

by 20002ist on Oct 24, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

Given the success of Car2Go here, I hope they move to put the electric ones in quickly.

Also think it is a great project, although I have doubt on long term viability. It is, after all, a trick to allow larger Mercedes to be sold under CAFE rules.

by charlie on Oct 24, 2012 10:42 am • link • report

@20002ist: My argument is only about the FINES. If they were lowered but enforcement was otherwise unchanged, the benefits you list will be unchanged.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 10:42 am • link • report

I believe that the second round of cars that Car2Go added (the ones without sunroofs) have better transmissions.

At least, they seemed a bit better to me.

I'd also love to see them at DCA. Metro's great for most airport runs, but it'd be wonderful to have a non-cab option for flights that run outside of Metro's normal hours (Longer Metro hours or Night Buses would be nice too...but those things seem unlikely to happen any time soon)

by andrew on Oct 24, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

the correct link for safety costs for the nuclear power industry is here.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

Goldfish

you can't just count the net fines as a cost - they are a transfer. Arguably you've saved those lives for only the cost of the cameras. OTOH the fines may be causing drivers to go at less than (safety aside) optimal speed, it may be disincentivizing them from visiting DC, etc. THOSE are costs that belong in the CBA. OTOH then you'd need to offset those with the impacts of other revenune sources, like the impact on retail of higher sales taxes (assuming we hold DC expenditures constant). But you can't just weigh the cost in the fines to drivers, against the benefit of lives saved, and ignore that the revenue to DC coffers exists. That does not PROVE that the fines are about revenue - its just the proper way to do CBA. You always ignore transfers.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 11:00 am • link • report

$.38/min does add up fast but it is capped at $13.99 (+tax) per hour.

Expensive at rush hour, but most of the time, a 10 or 15 minute ride will get you a lot further than a cab will, at a fraction of the cost. And for an errand across town that can be completed in an hour, that $13.99 rate is a great deal compared to the flag drop, plus tip, plus mileage and stoppage charges on taxis. It's not ever going to be price competitive with CaBi, but if you need to carry something more than a gallon of milk, it's actually a real bargain.

by Nose Straw on Oct 24, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

The ban on sidewalk parking for scooters is dumb and I wonder if it will really be enforced. Currently I believe you're not allowed to park a "motorcycle" (scooter look-alikes that are registered) on the sidewalk but I've never gotten a ticket. I think you should get a ticket if you park it like a jerk on the sidewalk (blocking the sidewalk or in a nuisance place) but if you keep it out of the way what is the harm?

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 11:10 am • link • report

What is with this new fuss about scooters? They are a great transportation mode & help reduce traffic congestion. If they don't want us to park them on the sidewalks like bicycles, where would they like us to park them?? There aren't many motorcycle parking areas & I'm sure they don't want us to occupy a whole parking space with one scooter. They aren't welcome in underground parking garages. What is the POINT in changing the rules there? And Googles?? Are we in 1910?

by Nicolle on Oct 24, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

@AWitC: These are indeed costs, as they increase the cost of driving -- just like increasing the DC gasoline tax. If you can do a better analysis, be my guest.

I think this was the first attempt to determine if the fines are worth it.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

if you were analyzing the CBA of a gas tax, the cost to drivers would be 100% offset by benefit to the treasury. You would analyze that by looking at A. the admin cost for the tax and B. the distortion to the marketplace due to the tax. Those would usually be positive numbers (costs) and so to see if the gas tax was worthwhile, we would have to look at the CBA of alternatives - other taxes, or the CBA of foregone expenditures.

If distortion is actually reduced by the tax (say because you are taxing an externality) and the value of that exceeds the admin cost of the tax, theres really no reason not to have it.

In the case of a fine for behavior you want to not merely price/discourage, but eliminate, there's really no CBA argument against having it extraordinarly high. The arguments against are about justice ("its not FAIR to fine someone $1000 for exceeding the speed limit by 10MPH") its not really a CBA issue.

Im not sure that CBA is really the best way to determine just fines. Certainly its not quite the same as doing CBA on an investment. And in either case, IF you are counting the costs to drivers of the fine as a cost, you need to count the revenue to the govt as benefit - usually these are a wash - thats what we mean by a "transfer" and why they are not counted.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report

I don't understand the Car2gone complaint. As soon as you locate a car on your phone, you can reserve it. I always do that, even when the car is only a few blocks away.

by TM on Oct 24, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

@AWitC: I agree that this is transfer in the strictest economic sense, but identifying it as such merely emphasizes that fines paid are not an investment. It does not undermine the argument.

My calculation is measure of the effectiveness of the camera enforcement, not a cost-benefit analysis. It compares unfavorably to other measures of safety program effectiveness, based on the value of human life. None of these measures are investments.

Put another way, if the nuclear power industry will not spend more than $5.4 million to save a life, then why should drivers in DC be expected to? Note that this is also a transfer.

My quick-and-dirty analysis can provide a lot of insight for very little effort. A fancier analysis is unlikely to be much better -- but you are welcome to try.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report

"My calculation is measure of the effectiveness of the camera enforcement, not a cost-benefit analysis. It compares unfavorably to other measures of safety program effectiveness, based on the value of human life. None of these measures are investments."

I assume the 5.4 million dollars the nuclear industry spends represent actual resources consumed - steel, labor hours, etc. A net loss to society. The fines are NOT a net loss to society quite apart from any safety benefits - they do NOT represent resources used - they represent less available to drivers - and MORE available to DC taxpayers, who will have lower property or sales or income tax bills as a result. They are NOT the cost to society of the safety program. They are the cost to drivers. Note well, if those drivers are ALSO payers of taxes in the district, then it does not even necessarily represent the net cost to drivers as a class (the subset of drivers who commit infractions may well face a much higher net cost than drivers overall).

In sum, your analysis has the merit of being quick and low cost - however it provides no insight. None. Zero.

My analysis is as follows - higher fines have no higher admin cost than lower fines. Higher fines have no distortion costs. The cost of the fines to drivers is a wash with with the revenue to the district. Higher fines may decrease fatalities more than lower fines. Ergo, there is NO analytic argument against the higher fines. HOWEVER, the size of the fines may POLITICALLY endanger the entire program as they conflict with the public perception of a fair fine. In which case it may make sense to lower them - but that is entirely a political judgement, which I leave to the DC politicians - I am neither a politician nor a district resident. I do however have strong opinions about misleading analysis.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

San Diego, Stuttgart and Amsterdam all have just electric car2go's. I saw one at a hotel in San Francisco a couple months ago so SF may be going to an electric system too (those hills would be a challenge).

But since we don't really have any plug-in infrastructure yet in DC I don't see how that's in our near future. Plus I'd imagine you'd sometimes have to drop off at a plug-in site which would diminish the appeal.

Rates in Europe for gas cars is about the same per minute as in the US even though gas is much more there. Of course insurance, maintenance and parking is much more here.

I was told that Amsterdam is expanding to 1000 electric vehicles currently.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 24, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

While I agree with AWITC that the cost to society of camera fines is not the fine itself but rather the administrative costs of running the camera program and any negative effects of the program (lost tourism dollars, etc.).

However, Goldfish's analysis bring up a different point. Are the fines too high for the crime? Punishments should fit the crime and that's why wrongful death lawsuits don't result in damages in the tens of million. Even if the traffic fatalities were caused entirely by the fault of drivers, a court would find $5.8M per death as unreasonably high wrongful death damages.

A quick google search indicates that as an example, Florida limits damages from a wrongful death to $1.5M.

by Falls Church on Oct 24, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report

@AWitC: In sum, your analysis has the merit of being quick and low cost - however it provides no insight. None. Zero.

Your dismissive attitude is quite unpleasant, but nevertheless reveals a haughty disregard for the best spirits of this blog. Good day to you sir.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

Except lower-speed driving offers many other benefits than just reduced fatalities, reduced auto accidents and congestion/delays from them, quality of life improvements, etc. Just dividing tickets by deaths averted and calling it a day isn't much of an analysis.

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

@goldfish

"attack the argument, not the person" I did. you may be a fine outstanding person, and you may well be brilliant in your chosen field, but your arguement on THIS issue is without worth, and there its not insulting to say so. or against the rules of the blog, AFAIK.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 2:22 pm • link • report

@falls church

The point of tort law is to make a person whole (except those instances where triple damages are allowed?) Im not sure that the same standard needs to apply to fines.

Certainly if it did, a vast range of fines would need to change, I suspect.

Could we start with fines for cyclists treating a stop sign as if it were a yield sign?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

AWITC: I'm afraid that sort of thing is not allowed. We want comments to focus on discussing the merits of the issue, not just putting down others' statements broadly. There is a difference between "your view is worthless because you are a " and just "your view is worthless because it's garbage," but neither adds to the discussion. We want comments to be "your view is incorrect, and let me explain why."

by David Alpert on Oct 24, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report

@MLD: Except lower-speed driving offers many other benefits than just reduced fatalities, reduced auto accidents and congestion/delays from them, quality of life improvements, etc.

My point is that the fines are too high, not that enforcement is overzealous. If the fines were half as much (i.e., $62.50 for 12 mph over the limit), drivers would surely slow down as much as they do now. So all those other benefits of slower speeds would still be there. Which means half as much resentment from US citizen-tourists that spend money here; they will have more left over and will come back sooner.

Just dividing tickets by deaths averted and calling it a day isn't much of an analysis.

So how else do you propose to measure the effectiveness of the program? Saving lives is the number reason for their use, and is universally cited by proponents; the other benefits are secondary, and are directly related to this. Indeed, the best measure of effectiveness is the cost per life saved.

by goldfish on Oct 24, 2012 10:22 pm • link • report

I'm surprised how little coverage the Alexandria mayor and council races have gotten here given the role development is playing in the race. Not all the candidates websites are very detailed on where they stand with respect to the Beauregard plan.

by ChrisB on Oct 25, 2012 6:36 am • link • report

ChrisB: Do you want to do some contributing? Know someone who does? We rely on volunteer contributors (everyone is a volunteer at GGW). I'd love to have more articles about what's going on in Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax. To do that, we need folks in Northern Virginia to write about what's going on in their communities, whether political races or debates over development or whatever is going on.

by David Alpert on Oct 25, 2012 7:51 am • link • report

@AWITC

Not all tort law is focused on making the person whole. Punitive damages are meant to disincentivize behavior. If a traffic fatality was in fact someone's fault, they could still be made whole through the tort system. The question is what sort of punitive fine is proportional to the crime of speeding. I think the fact that total damages in wrongful death (money to make the victim whole + punitive damages) are often under $2M is relevant.

by Falls Church on Oct 25, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

"We want comments to focus on discussing the merits of the issue, not just putting down others' statements broadly. There is a difference between "your view is worthless because you are a " and just "your view is worthless because it's garbage," but neither adds to the discussion. We want comments to be "your view is incorrect, and let me explain why." "

Okay. What if its not just that the view is incorrect, but the methodology is fundamentally unsound and makes elementary mistakes that are widely known in the field? (and are known to people with no particular stake in the transportation or planning issues discussed here)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

"Not all tort law is focused on making the person whole. Punitive damages are meant to disincentivize behavior. If a traffic fatality was in fact someone's fault, they could still be made whole through the tort system. The question is what sort of punitive fine is proportional to the crime of speeding."

which I agree is an issue of justice and ethics, not quantitative analysis.

" I think the fact that total damages in wrongful death (money to make the victim whole + punitive damages) are often under $2M is relevant."

Then would a fine of $2 million be acceptable? The case made above incorporates not only value of life, but quantity of lives lost - its a pseudo cost benefit or cost effectiveness analysis. Which is both different from tort law, and is not how we determine criminal punishment as a general rule. We punish behavior we find egregious. Even when less egregious acts have greater consequences, I think.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 11:32 am • link • report