Four people died in Almaden Valley on July 24th, 2007—two teenage boys just beginning their lives as young adults and a married couple walking together for a stroll.
One teenage boy was driving his car with a friend as a passenger. He lost control of his car on Graystone Lane as he was traveling faster than the posted speed limit. He hit and killed a married couple walking on the side of the road before slamming into a tree, only to have his car explode into a fire. Everyone was dead at the scene. This was so tragic that I was despondent when I read the story.
The real tragedy here is the innocent victims that were on a walk who were killed by these kids. The Batras often took walks together like so many couples after work.
Think about it: you are happily married, proud of your kids, chatting about your first upcoming grandchild, holding hands and then BAM! The impact of the speeding car separates the two of you where you die on your neighborhood street. This same incident could occur in any neighborhood of San Jose.
I have done some early morning walks in different neighborhoods in my district watching traffic patterns. I noticed what many of you already know: the speeders often live on the same street they speed on. There is this notion of freedom with a car and that you should be able to drive however fast you desire. There are consequences from this notion, but often times we learn the lesson too late.
What could have changed this? Certainly a cop on every corner would stop this behavior, but we know that this is not possible. However, we do know that a traffic officer covers his or her salary with fines they give out, making hiring traffic officers revenue neutral for the city.
Cities often have to solve the problems that federal or state governments choose to ignore. We will never have enough police to patrol all streets, but if we have higher fines that deter deviant behavior, then that is what would actually change drivers’ behavior.
Let’s work with our local state legislators on writing a bill that allows cities the ability to raise the amount of the fine on neighborhood streets to deter this deadly behavior.
I have had five neighborhood meetings and speeding is a top issue of concern, and the residents are fed up and so am I. It’s time to send a wakeup call to speeders.
What would you propose to really solve speeding on neighborhood streets? How would you pay for it?
Traffic Calming… an interesting choice of words. It almost implies driving over the speed limit is not against the law; like it’s “not preferred” or “impolite”. Traffic Calming has gotten a lot press over the last few year; but now in 2007, the 10th or 11th largest city in the country has allocated zero funds to further efforts to clam traffic.
Maybe it’s a good thing we don’t adopted such catch phrase labels for other ‘not preferred’ behavior: like Fraud Calming, Child Porn Calming, Identity Theft Calming or Aggravated Assault Calming. Bad people do those things, so describing their behavior as impolite or “not preferred” might send the wrong message. But Traffic Calming… that’s Ok. Good people drive over the Speed Limit because Speed Limit signs become invisible; we drive at speeds that feel safe. It’s worked for years.
Good people have accidents; they don’t break the law. Good people live in our neighborhoods, have kids, go to work, talk on the cell and have lots of important things on their mind; so maybe Traffic Calming is more appropriate in this case. Certainly you wouldn’t want to criminalize the behavior of good people. Besides, if speed limits were really important, we’d have photo radar ticketing, stiff fines or more revenue-neutral enforcement. Ohhh… wait… that’s not revenue-nutral; our friends and family members would have to pay for it; the good people. That’s not right.
Maybe zero funding is appropriate. Traffic Calming only gets in the way of good people with a lot on their mind and little time to get important things done. And as for our children, the new drivers… they’re good kids; they’re just young.
EDUCATE the public on the dangers of speeding. ENFORCE speeding laws with police, radar and ticketing. Finally, EXECUTE repeat offenders, a driver caught speeding four times should be executed in the electric chair. We need to bring our criminal justice system more in line with China, Iran, North Korea and Vietnam.
Four years ago while riding her bike, my kid was hit by a speeding car. I was in the back yard, and heard the squeal of brakes. A horrific experience.
So I have strong opinions on “traffic calming.” But raising fines is not the answer. Neither are lumps, bumps, or other obstructions as they often create more problems.
When it comes to this issue, some of the best of intentions can back-fire. Here are some examples:
1. A stop sign was installed at our corner, but as cars no longer had to slow down to check for cross traffic, result was more speeding.
2. Our street is frequently closed down for block parties so children can safely play in the street. Unfortunately many of the young children on block no longer respect the danger of playing in the street. Parents seem to forget also – and too many times I’ve seen tiny tots playing in front yards, on sidewalks, and yes out in the street – unattended.
3. The plastic men “children at play” signs warning cars to slow down are no subsitute for watching your own children. Placed in the street they are dangerous and illegal.
What do I think actually works? The radar devices that flash how fast a car is driving and generate a ticket if speeding. It provides an instant response to the action (displaying the speed) and a reminder (the ticket) not to do it again.
I’d like to know what is the heads of parents who provide their kids with a hot rod? Do they really think the kid isn’t going to show off by speeding. I’ve heard that the kid was going 100 mph. How is that supposed to turn out well?
EXECUTION might be a little harsh.
Stiffer fines do change behavior. Like driving at speeds that feel safe causes or allows drivers to disregard speed limits, stiffer fines will change that perception of “safe”. It’s all about risk-reward. This from a 2003 web-japan.org article speaks to the effectiveness of stiffer penalties for taking risks.
STIFFER PENALTIES TAKE EFFECT Traffic fatalities actually were on an upward trend during the first half of 2002, defying expectations that a December 2001 law setting the penalty for reckless driving resulting in death at a maximum of 15 years in prison would produce immediate results. In January 2002 there were 643 traffic fatalities, up 3.9% over the same month in 2001, and April also saw a 2.9% increase. The law’s introduction appeared to have made no obvious difference. THINGS CHANGED, however, with the implementation of the Revised Road Traffic Law in June. There were 42 fewer fatalities in June 2002 than the year before and 93 fewer in July. In the end, the toll in 2002 was down by 421 compared to 2001. Under the revised law, a motorist can be fined as much as ¥500,000 ($4,166 at ¥120 to the dollar) for driving while drunk – five times more than before – and the maximum fine for the lesser charge of driving under the influence of alcohol has increased sixfold to ¥300,000 ($2,500). Many analysts believe that the heavier penalties had the desired effect of curbing drunk driving and reduced the frequency of serious accidents. Moreover, the standard for applying the charge of driving under the influence has been lowered from 0.25 milligrams per liter of air in a breathalyzer test to 0.15 mg per liter, meaning that it could apply to a driver who has drunk only one glass of beer. This seems to be putting positive pressure on drivers as well.
#5
To your last point, I totally agree with you. However, it was a police officer that took that to court and said you can’t do that. Now it’s back in the hands of the state legislature.
I agree with #5 and #7: photo radar ticket machines and heavy fines. I live on a busy street where the speed limit is 25 mph but people routinely ignore the speed limit. Behavior needs to be modified.
Speeding and other serious violations are rampant. In fact, this is the norm, not the exception. I see something that makes me shudder every time I drive or walk a few blocks. Obviously a financial penalty is not enough. If the penalty for excessive speeding (more than 10 mph above the posted speed limit) included losing your license for a period (as in a DUI), it would have more of an effect. On the first offense, you should lose your license for 6 months for each 10 mph over the limit. On the second offence, 1 year per 10 mph over the limit. On the third offence, you lose your license for 5 years minimum and after that you lose it for for life. This would be in addition to the regular financial penalties. Plus a period of public service as with a DUI. Something similar should be applied for dangerous driving, red light running, etc. If people knew they could lose their license and would be unable to drive for what might add up to a few years, they might think twice.
#6 makes a great point. Why is an 18 year old boy driving a 300 horsepower car, especially without another responsible adult in the car? As a society, driving seems to have become a God given right. Driver’s licenses should become much harder to get. I had to go to the DMV office recently and saw people taking the written test while talking with each other and on their cell phones. According to an article in a community paper, the traffic/motorcycle enforcement teams at the SJPD have been cut by 50% over the past couple years while there was a hiring freeze. The less law enforcement is able to enforce existing vehicle code laws, the worse the problem will become. Beef up the fines, make it easier for a person to lose their license, take kids to a morgue to see the human carnage from a car accident, take them to a police garage where they keep the twisted wrecks from car accidents, take away the licenses of those who use their cell phones, shave, put on make-up etc while endangering everyone around them. Put more restrictions on elderly drivers, especially driving at night (I have an 84 year old uncle who drives at night and has no business doing so do to night vision). Make it a mandatory 30 day jail sentence for first time drunk drivers. I have a 14 year old son who will be driving in a few years, and it scares the crap out of me seeing the drivers out there on a daily basis.
Pierluigi, please look into the traffic enforcement unit at the police department, and if it is true they are not up to full staffing, please, please try to remedy this situation to maybe save another kid or anyone else from dying.
Pierluigi:
You’re right…we can’t have a cop on every corner and who would want one? But we can have more resources devoted to traffic enforcement. As other have suggested, the consequences for driving carelessly should be higher. Raise the fees for reckless driving, speeding, and running red lights. Every other day, I see an outrageous exhibition of speed or someone nearly causing a pile-up because they’re yapping on their phones.
Thought I read that the amount of money going to traffic enforcement is roughly the same as it was during the 70’s…but the population has nearly doubled!
Pete Campbell
Jack, excellent point. The norm is changing.
However 10mph over the speed limit presents different degrees of risk for different areas. 10mph over the speed limit on 280 N through the west hills or 680 north above Sunol is one thing.
10mph above the 30mph speed limit on that blind curve on Willow or that 25mph on Bird is another matter. I’m not sure how you would handle such unique choke points unless you posted a sign that said “double” or “triple fines apply here.” …kind of like they put up in road construction zones.
Just a thought.
#10 Jack Van Zandt.
Are you assuming facts not in evidence? Don’t you realize that there are many many thousands of drivers that are unlicensed? Not to mention uninsured. So how would your plan
deter their bad driving habits ? How could they lose their license for life if they don’t have one now ?
#4 Boy George—you rail against my alleged grumpiness, yet you want to EXECUTE traffic offenders. Jeez!
Jack #10—already a significant plurality of drivers on the East Side drive without drivers licenses or insurance. The percentages are far smaller in other areas of town. (I’ll pause to hear the cries of “racism”) Just check the insurance company statistics; they’ll back up my assertion. Most people stupid enough or uncaring enough to drive so recklessly will not be deterred by a suspended license.
Ignorant/uncaring people do not think like mainstream folks. Neither do criminals. So the logic of middle class law abiders simply is inapropriate to the situation.
Impounding the car(s) of repeat offenders and making the supplying of a car to an unlicensed driver a felony with no discretion in sentencing allowed to judges may do the trick.
But the poverty lobby would weigh in against such actions. And as we all know (or should know) the rights of criminals in this country are far superior to the rights of victims.
The Graystone incident is clearly 100% about proper parenting and reinforcing in the schools about obeying the rules of the road. Mix teenage drivers and fast cars and you have a recipe for disaster. Parents should understand this by now. Irresponsible teen driving habits are nothing new. It’s been 52 years since “Rebel Without a Cause,” people!
While the Graystone incident involved a misbehaved teen, the leadfoots defy pigeon-holing into a particular age bracket. There are leadfoot soccer moms speeding down my street in everthing from big black noisy diesel Excursions to little old cinnamon colored BMW convertibles, and redneck 20- and 30-something men in big tire beater trucks flooring it from the stop sign just a couple of doors down from me. We have photo radar but it is only a temporary help. Once it’s gone, the speeding begins anew.
If we can get people to start recycling, if we can get people to conserve water, then we ought to be able to get people to respect the speed limits on neighborhood streets through a focused campaign. Temporary enforcement provides only a temporary solution. There is a long-term solution. It’s called “behaving responsibly” and this needs to be worked from a morals angle.
#15
already a significant plurality of drivers on the East Side drive without drivers licenses or insurance…….Just check the insurance company statistics; they’ll back up my assertion.
What is a “significant plurality”?
You made the claim, yet provided no data. Nor did you provide a link to any insurance company statistics. While what you said might be true, without supporting data your statement is not reliable.
Since you made the statement, if it is true you must have the data to back it up. Please provide it.
Councilman,
You’re on the right track…. so to speak. I know it must not be easy to focus on the bigger issues and still look after your distric. Do your best and good luck.
Reward good drivers.
Any licensed driver who receives no moving violations during the previous year would be sent an autographed picture of the governor and coupon for one free happy meal at McDonalds.
Letting a kid have a 350Z is insane. Having driven one before, I know that it takes skill and experience to safely control it. A teenager who believes he is invincible behind the wheel of one of these speed machines results in exactly the kind of tragedy that happened in Almaden last week.
Where is the common sense of parents? Giving a kid a car like this is not much different than giving him a loaded gun and telling him to go have fun.
Too bad parenting doesn’t require a license and having to pass a test. It might have prevented this tragic accident.
I find your statements lacking in basic logic. If the fines for speeding were raised, do you acually believe that teenagers would think, “gee I better not speed because the fine is more now” ? Also there would still be a need for more police to be on the street to give the speeding citations to the offenders. No, raising the fines is not the answer. Why do you think that pedestrians are not allowed on the freeways? Some people must be told that there are dangerous places to be and others know it and avoid those dangerous areas. Just as health and education, safety is a personal responsibility. DONT PUT YOURSELF IN UNSAFE SITUATIONS.
Pierluigi,
What about city policies that may prevent neighborhoods from receiving the help the need in stopping speeders. I called the city about a long, fast dangerous residential street. In order for the city to install the trailer that flashes the speed, I was supposed to walk to every house, getting at least 50% of the signatures of the residents agreeing to the trailer. As you state many of the speeders live on/near the streets where they speed. Why should we need permission from these speeders to enforce the traffic laws?
What can you expect when the message to our youth is, fast is great, especially downtown.
200 mile an hour down Balbach St. COOL! Send the politicians and the canaries packing.
Gilroy’s Garlic Festival is where it’s at. Let’s get back to life’s realities.
D.O.A.
I totally agree with you, and I read that same story and had the same feelings you did. Just so sad.
I think that the problem is the age of drivers. I know how fast I drove at 16 and you just don’t think of anything bad ever happening to you. You don’t have the fear that you have when you are older.
I think that the only solution is not allow kids to drive alone until they are 20. It would be heavily opposed, but I think the problem is the age of the driver.
#23
That is disappointing that a former police officer did not just accept that he was speeding and pay the fine. I found some information regarding this case on the internet, and in fairness to our own police department which issued the citation, it was a retired City of Santa Clara Lieutenant with apparently too much time on his hands and a short memory for horrible traffic accidents who fought the ticket and won. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1623.asp
#19:
I’m really, really hoping you were being sarcastic when you suggested “coupon for one free happy meal at McDonalds” as a reward. Otherwise, I’m liking “EXECUTE repeat offenders” in #4 as a much better option – which I hope was sarcastic too.
I truly hope for humanity’s sake that both #4 and #19 were sarcastic posts.
It’s great to see a political person who takes the time to ask what the public think. Greystone Lane, where the accident occurred, is not part of the incorporated City. It’s too bad that the COUNTY BOARD OF STUPIDVISORS do not have the level of community interest that the good Council Member has.
Perhaps in this case less is more. Legislation simply layers on more and more regulation that is not enforced by our increasingly extremely expensive public safety personnel. No, more public safety overtime for ‘enforcement’ is not the answer. How about some low level speed bumps … with, of course, careful legal and highway-safety design in mind. They are a tried and highly effective method of slowing down vehicles … along with effective signage that together inform and provide physical sensation feedback.
Then maybe all the surrounding kids from SJ wouldn’t abuse fine old greystone lane, the tranquil and historical cot-growing & Pieffer brownstone-quarry, as a race-track.
Thanks for caring …
#3 David – Your point about calling it “Traffic Calming” is off-based. It’s not equal to what you refer to as “Fraud Calming,” “Child Porn Calming,” “Identity Theft Calming,” or “Aggravated Assault Calming.” Traffic isn’t a crime, Speeding is. “Speeding Calming” may be in the same league, but not “Traffic Calming.”
And thank a Police Officer for why we don’t have the streetside photo-radar NASCOP program. Since he felt he was above the law and knew a loophole, the whole program was thrown out. If we can’t expect our law enforcement to obey the law, how can they enforce it on the public?
Mark T. 16
I could not agree more. You said it well. It needs to be worked from a morals angle. It’s moral to be responsible. It’s moral to be a responsible parent. So raise the penalties and enforce the $#%t out of it, and help these folks that disregard the posted limit become more moral. Give me a radar gun. I’m here to help. And if I slip over the limit and get tagged… I deserve it. It’s the moral way.
# 20
Letting kids have neat hot fast cars is great if you can afford it and that’s your way of showing your children how much you love them.
Would not supporting the use of photo radar speed control and ticketing along with stiffer fines for XXmph over the posted limit and revoking licenses for XXmph over the posted limit also show how much you love your family; as well as your neighbors and everyone in your community?
Think of as Homeland Security. Why wait until it’s too late to fix the sytem. Make life in San Jose safer now. Just a thought.
What do you think?
Same topic/incident in the Mercury News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6505656?nclick_check=1
JMO #15
Where is your data as requested in post #17?
Or did you just make it up?
Insurance Journal
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2003/08/18/coverstory/31590.htm
California’s big city problems
California has around 26 million registered drivers and the IRC estimates that 22 percent of them are uninsured. Moraga said the IINC, using figures from the Department of Motor Vehicles as well as the IRC, estimates that in Los Angeles and in the San Francisco Bay area, the numbers of uninsured motorists can be as high as 50 percent. Meanwhile, another insurer group, the Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC) believes overall around 25 percent of the state’s drivers are uninsured and that in certain pockets of Los Angeles the uninsured driver population can reach as high as 75 percent.
Metro
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.15.96/drivers-9633.html
In two San Jose ZIP codes surrounding downtown, where median incomes plunge below $12,000 a year, the uninsured even outnumber the insured.
The least-insured neighborhood in San Jose is the 95110 zip, where 55 percent of car owners lack coverage.
Just to the east, in the 95112 ZIP, about 50 percent drive without insurance as well.
Please #s 6,11,16,28. I know you are as concerned about speeding in San Jose as all of are but…
I live in Willow Glen on Willow Street in front of Willow Street park and close to the Blind curve and I watch residents from my own neighborhood speeding with little regard for safety. Most of these drivers are between 25 and 50 years of age, don`t just single out young drivers.
Willow Street Park is a very popular park for families with young children. We have two little league diamonds, two small children playgrounds, tennis courts where young children are learning to play tennis. Later we have senior citizens playing tennis, seniors playing lawn ball. we have soccer players at practice, basket ball courts. We have all of this and we have adults driving 40mph down Willow street in front of the park and into the blind curve.
On a given day we will have more children in the park than we have at Willow Glen elementry school where the posted speed limit is 25mph, yet 40mph in front of the park is..OK.
We have lost our photo radar vans, drivers know this and speed.
Parma park in Almaden Valley has a 4 foot high fence all around it to protect children 24-7. The Rose Garden has a 8 foot high fence all around it to protect residents. Willow street is wide open. Yet adults think it`s ok to speed on Willow.
Don`t just pin the blame on young people when their parents speed and drive with cell phones.