Flashing High Beams for Speed Trap Warnings

[bing_oh]

James, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that increased speeds always mean increased numbers of crashes. I've worked in my job long enough to know that the reasons behind crashes are unique and that speed may or may not be a contributing factor. However, for you to imply that increased speeds don't also increase the chances of serious injury or death is ludicrous! No matter the advanced engineering we put into our roadways and vehicles, the laws of physics and the durability of the human body are pretty much static things. The damage done in an impact at 65mph vs. the same impact at 95mph is a matter of physics and physiology, and there's no doubt in my mind that the damage done at 95mph is going to be greater.

We can argue all day that changes in the speed limits may or may not have an effect on the number of crashes. But, when the crashes DO happen, higher speeds will effect the likelihood of serious injury or death.

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

James, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that increased speeds always mean increased numbers of crashes.

Yet, that is exactly the argument NHTSA, the insurance industry, et al have been making.? And it is a large part of the ?thinking? behind our irrational speed limit patchwork.

I've worked in my job long enough to know that the reasons behind crashes are unique and that speed may or may not be a contributing factor.

Excellent progress; I applaud you for that.? There are still a lot of people out there who don?t have the confidence to even raise the question.

However, for you to imply that increased speeds don't also increase the chances of serious injury or death is ludicrous! No matter the advanced engineering we put into our roadways and vehicles, the laws of physics and the durability of the human body are pretty much static things. The damage done in an impact at 65mph vs. the same impact at 95mph is a matter of physics and physiology, and there's no doubt in my mind that the damage done at 95mph is going to be greater.

That is a separate argument.? The physics are widely-known and not in dispute.? The reason we have implemented many of those technological improvements, e.g., collapsible barriers, seatbelts and airbags, is to mitigate the physics.? That is why ? along with improved traffic flow ? our newer highways don?t have intersections, which are high-risk locations.? Remember, our whole system is designed around the concept of keeping speeds up because higher speeds have a value for us, individually and collectively.? The economic cost of the NMSL ? not counting the elevated crashes due to traveling less than optimal speed ? has been estimated at over a trillion dollars.? What did that cost us, perhaps research leading to a cure for diabetes, or extra pollution that threatens millions??

We can argue all day that changes in the speed limits may or may not have an effect on the number of crashes. But, when the crashes DO happen, higher speeds will effect the likelihood of serious injury or death.

The statistical trends of higher speeds and lower injury rates (per 100 million VMT) tell us that that effect has been largely mitigated.?

Edited to add:  NB: I'll be out of touch for a few days as I'm moving back to So Cal.  I'll respond as necessary once I get set up out there.  As the Texas surfer says, "Hang loose, y'all."

[GoCougs]

I'm the same as Dazzleman. I recognize speed limits and general traffic enforcement as necessary, though I (like the vast majority of the driving public) don't always follow suit.

I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

[dazzleman]

I'm the same as Dazzleman. I recognize speed limits and general traffic enforcement as necessary, though I (like the vast majority of the driving public) don't always follow suit.

I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

What speed do you generally do on the highway, GoCougs?? Are you a 70 mph guy, and 80 mph guy, or higher?? I'm generally an 80 mph guy under the right conditions.? Are you ticket-prone, or are they a rare thing for you?

Have you ever heard the old saying, "Laws are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools"?  There are lots of fools out there who need restraining....

[James Young]

I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

First and foremost, all traffic laws must adhere to scientific principles, that is, any assertions made by the law must have a testable basis rather than mere conjecture.  If they can?t prove the worth of a law, they can?t have the law.

The two key words are dangerous and flow.  If you?re dangerous or you?re interfering with traffic flow, you should be the target of enforcement.

I would do away with ?speeding? enforcement altogether in favor of a refocus on egregiously dangerous behavior AND on keeping traffic flowing smoothly.  I don?t care if dazzleman runs 85 mph on a current 70 mph highway, nor does society.  If dazzleman is running 70 mph in a 70 mph zone and eating a meal (with a knife and fork!  I just saw it today!)  then we need to step in.  The real reasons we enforce "speeding" are it's common, it's easy to measure, and it's profitable, none of which is a legitimate reason for a law. 

If a driver is running 70 mph and the rest of traffic wants to run 80 mph, that driver must move over to the far right.  That?s a legitimate focus for enforcement. 

Enforcement of law for profit is a crime against society, particularly evil because it is conducted under cover of authority and it gives reason not to trust those who enforce all laws.  If all fines, courts costs, administrative fees and the plethora or other surcharges were to be paid to a public corporation and to be used for scholarships only, enforcement would evaporate except that which is justifiable to be paid out of taxes. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

I have to say, I am glad I didn't get pulled over by that Mass state trooper who was tailgating me for a few minutes today while I was doing 75-80 in a 65. No, I didn't even slow down, because I was going with the flow. After there was a break in traffic, I pulled to the right so he could go intimidate some other people instead. All the n00bs ahead of me slowed down and moved over real quick for him, and that's when I had to hit the brakes because all of a sudden all these slow people were in front of me.

[the nameless one]

That?s not the argument and you know it (or should know it since I?ve told over and over).? The argument made by NHTSA, enforcement agencies and the rest of the anti-destination league is that lower speed limits will reduce the number of crashes.? And that is where the engineering data tell us it just ain?t so.

To a degree it will. The other day I witnessed a guy have to do a last minute manuever around a person that was stoped in the road turning left. i have no doubt that had the trail vehicle been going faster than s/he was, I would have witnessed a rear end impact. who knows how many of those almost happen every year but because theres no impact theres no documentation of the incident.

The original design specification for the Interstate system was 100 mph (in a 1950-era car).? That design speed has since gone up (but is not now specified) because of such things as rumble strips, collapsible barriers, impenetrable median barriers, reflective paints, side markings, grooved pavement for drainage, breakaway signage, changeable electronic messages, not to mention improvements on the cars themselves.? We did this for a reason and that reason is called higher speeds, because higher speeds mean higher productivity.? The design was improved just so we could have higher speeds.?

Fine and dandy on Interstates then, except for the issue then of seasonal differences on roadways; what do we do about the REST of the US road system. The Interstates are only a per centage of all US roadways. I don't see you limiting your arguments to interstates for the most part unless its convenient for you.

You have no idea how much slowing down average speeds costs us but we can help you estimate it.? Let?s say ? of our 200 million vehicles slow from 70 mph average to 55 mph average for 1 day and an average of 50 mph.? That slowdown takes more than 19 million hours or about $130 million a day at minimum wage.?

Howe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?

Do not assign motives to me for which you have no basis.? I?ve been working for decades to keep the ?carnage? down through the use of information and reason rather than force and faith.? On my recent trip out to Southern California, I never hit triple digits and my speeds were commonly 83-87 mph from Kerrville, TX to LA and back, all without incident.? I get no thrill out of ?speed? and my speed is the result of a rational internal calculus that weighs my risks and rewards, just like 100+ million other drivers.

My basis are your on-going posts. You are entirely self-centered in wanting all speed limits removed. That much is obvious.

[GoCougs]

What speed do you generally do on the highway, GoCougs?? Are you a 70 mph guy, and 80 mph guy, or higher?? I'm generally an 80 mph guy under the right conditions.? Are you ticket-prone, or are they a rare thing for you?

Have you ever heard the old saying, "Laws are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools"?? There are lots of fools out there who need restraining....

Around the city, the freeway limit is 60 mph, and like just about any major population center, the flow can move faster (up to 70 mph), so I'll follow suit. Outside the city, especially in the eastern part of the state, the limit is 70 mph. I'll usually do 5-7 mph over. My average time between infractions is about 4 years. I simply view it as taxation.

And yes, there are a lot of fools out on the roads. One kicking enforcement program is the Washington state patrol's unmarked car patrol. They use random average unmarked cars (Volvo, F-150, Subaru, etc.) that drive with the flow of traffic looking for aggregious offenders. That is brilliant because that is how the fools are best found IMO. However, I still see a lot of the side-of-the-road speed enforcement, so I don't know the exact mix of the two. One is far more effective in making the roads safer.

[dazzleman]

Around the city, the freeway limit is 60 mph, and like just about any major population center, the flow can move faster (up to 70 mph), so I'll follow suit. Outside the city, especially in the eastern part of the state, the limit is 70 mph. I'll usually do 5-7 mph over. My average time between infractions is about 4 years. I simply view it as taxation.

And yes, there are a lot of fools out on the roads. One kicking enforcement program is the Washington state patrol's unmarked car patrol. They use random average unmarked cars (Volvo, F-150, Subaru, etc.) that drive with the flow of traffic looking for aggregious offenders. That is brilliant because that is how the fools are best found IMO. However, I still see a lot of the side-of-the-road speed enforcement, so I don't know the exact mix of the two. One is far more effective in making the roads safer.

How do you manage to get nailed for an infraction even every four years if you only go around 10 mph over the speed limit, typically?? That sounds pretty frequent for such a low level of speeding.  Do you log a lot of miles a year on the road?

The only thing that saves me from more frequent tickets is the fact that I only drive about 8,000 miles per year.

[GoCougs]

How do you manage to get nailed for an infraction even every four years if you only go around 10 mph over the speed limit, typically?? That sounds pretty frequent for such a low level of speeding.? Do you log a lot of miles a year on the road?

The only thing that saves me from more frequent tickets is the fact that I only drive about 8,000 miles per year.

I do drive a lot; 25,000/year the last 7 years or so.

The last ticket was for 10 mph over, but prior to that it was a right turn on a red arrow.

[GoCougs]

First and foremost, all traffic laws must adhere to scientific principles, that is, any assertions made by the law must have a testable basis rather than mere conjecture.? If they can?t prove the worth of a law, they can?t have the law.

The two key words are dangerous and flow.? If you?re dangerous or you?re interfering with traffic flow, you should be the target of enforcement.

I would do away with ?speeding? enforcement altogether in favor of a refocus on egregiously dangerous behavior AND on keeping traffic flowing smoothly.? I don?t care if dazzleman runs 85 mph on a current 70 mph highway, nor does society.? If dazzleman is running 70 mph in a 70 mph zone and eating a meal (with a knife and fork!? I just saw it today!)? then we need to step in.? The real reasons we enforce "speeding" are it's common, it's easy to measure, and it's profitable, none of which is a legitimate reason for a law.?

If a driver is running 70 mph and the rest of traffic wants to run 80 mph, that driver must move over to the far right.? That?s a legitimate focus for enforcement.?

Enforcement of law for profit is a crime against society, particularly evil because it is conducted under cover of authority and it gives reason not to trust those who enforce all laws.? If all fines, courts costs, administrative fees and the plethora or other surcharges were to be paid to a public corporation and to be used for scholarships only, enforcement would evaporate except that which is justifiable to be paid out of taxes.?

What you are proposing is forced subjective enforcement. This presents myriad issues; effective LE training likely being the most pronounced. Enter the fairly rigid, known (by both sides) and measurable system that is current traffic enforcement. That is is such a thing is its importance.

The closest that you'll get IMO is the "road rage" patrols performed by the Washington State Patrol. In this program they use completely random, unmarked vehicles (Volvo, F-150, Accord, etc.) that spend an entire shift driving with traffic incognito looking for aggregious driving behaviors. I do not know how much the WSP spends on this program. I would not be opposed to seeing the majority of their efforts spent doing such things.

[SaltyDog]

I refuse to buy that sticker however, it reeks of tribute.

It reeks of good investment to me.  If they had something similar here I'd be all over it.  If you can't beat them then you have to somehow survive.

[bing_oh]

That is a separate argument.? The physics are widely-known and not in dispute.? The reason we have implemented many of those technological improvements, e.g., collapsible barriers, seatbelts and airbags, is to mitigate the physics.? That is why ? along with improved traffic flow ? our newer highways don?t have intersections, which are high-risk locations.? Remember, our whole system is designed around the concept of keeping speeds up because higher speeds have a value for us, individually and collectively.? The economic cost of the NMSL ? not counting the elevated crashes due to traveling less than optimal speed ? has been estimated at over a trillion dollars.? What did that cost us, perhaps research leading to a cure for diabetes, or extra pollution that threatens millions?

It seems you love the science and statistics of speed enforcement, but you miss one major factor...THE HUMAN FACTOR. No matter what amazing technological and engineering advancements we implement on the roadways (except, perhaps, totally removing the human driver from the vehicle), there WILL be crashes. People make poor choices. People act on impulse. People just plain screw up. Remember that the vast majority of crashes can be directly attributed to human error, as opposed to some mechanical or engineering defect. Speed limits are in place to try to mitigate some of the risk when someone screws up.

You may consider it a separate argument, but I see them at undeniably linked.

[ChrisV]

And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

[bing_oh]

And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

I implied no such thing. You took my statements and applied your own personal bias about LEO's and what you believe they think to interpeting it.

I basically stated that people are prone to error and poor judgement. Note that I said "people," not civilians or non-LEO's or whatever...human beings. Do you disagree with that?

[etypeJohn]

To a degree it will. The other day I witnessed a guy have to do a last minute manuever around a person that was stoped in the road turning left. i have no doubt that had the trail vehicle been going faster than s/he was, I would have witnessed a rear end impact. who knows how many of those almost happen every year but because theres no impact theres no documentation of the incident.? Of course this ignores the possibility that the driver of the trailing vehicle might have been playing with his car radio, yakking on the phone, reading or anything else that might have distracted him.? Sounds to me lik e the guy was distracted or following too close.? Aren't those ticketable offenses in your jurisdiction?? ?And if a lot of that is going on in that area perhaps a left turn lane is needed.

My personal theory is that the police spend so much time of speeders is that speeding is the easiest to prove, it's black and white.? You clock someone going 50 in a 35 zone you have quantifiable evidence.? Following too closely, C&R, C&I, distracted driving and the like are more difficult to prove which means more are probably willing to fight the ticket, which increases enforcement costs and lowers revenue.?

Speeding on the other hand is a slam dunk.? And the cops don't even need to invest in equipment.? Don't insurance companies still offer radar and laser guns to police departments? talk about self interest.? Insurance companies giving cops the means to write more tickets which will in turn increase the insurance rates of drivers.? Sweet.



Howe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?? Depends on who you ask.  But I like that.  When every other argument falls apart, go for the tear jerker statement.

[bing_oh]

Speeding on the other hand is a slam dunk.  And the cops don't even need to invest in equipment.  Don't insurance companies still offer radar and laser guns to police departments? talk about self interest.  Insurance companies giving cops the means to write more tickets which will in turn increase the insurance rates of drivers.  Sweet.

Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

[rohan]

And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

In general it's true- sorry if it makes you mad at me- but in general it is true. 

[Soup DeVille]

Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

Honestly, if you have a good, working and certified X-band unit, you'll catch a lot of us unawares, as most people have long since ignored X-band signals.

BTW, insurance companies have occasionally "donated" some equipment to different departments, but it happens in such limitted quantities that I doubt you have much of a chance. Give AAA a call though, they've done it in the past, and it might be worth a shot.

[rohan]

Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

My car has a Decatur that says "commission date 1994" and then the certification number assigned by Dr. Lee.  He doesn't even do certifications for like the last 8 years.

[etypeJohn]

Honestly, if you have a good, working and certified X-band unit, you'll catch a lot of us unawares, as most people have long since ignored X-band signals.

BTW, insurance companies have occasionally "donated" some equipment to different departments, but it happens in such limitted quantities that I doubt you have much of a chance. Give AAA a call though, they've done it in the past, and it might be worth a shot.

My understanding is Geico has given a significant number of guns to police departments.? This was reported both in CandD and R&T a while back.

[ChrisV]

My understanding is Geico has given a significant number of guns to police departments.  This was reported both in CandD and R&T a while back.

http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/home/economics-behind-free-laser-guns/

Geico invested heavily into Laser Tech, the leading traffic LIDAR manufacturer, and they give away radar and laser units to any police agency that wants to write more tickets.

My car has a Decatur that says "commission date 1994" and then the certification number assigned by Dr. Lee.  He doesn't even do certifications for like the last 8 years.

Is that a Decatur Genesis? the kind that gives off notoriously false readings?

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=62159

[ChrisV]

In general it's true- sorry if it makes you mad at me- but in general it is true. 

Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue. 

[bing_oh]

http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/home/economics-behind-free-laser-guns/

Geico invested heavily into Laser Tech, the leading traffic LIDAR manufacturer, and they give away radar and laser units to any police agency that wants to write more tickets.

Your choice of link is interesting. Somehow, I don't think that a website specifically dedicated to "motorists rights" and beating tickets is an unbiased one when it comes to the subject of speeding. And, their article says that insurance companies donate radar/laser units to LE, but doesn't back up the claim, using a fictional insurance company for their article.

So, I decided to Google, looking for anything that supported your claim that insurance companies (specifically Geico) have a practice of donating radar or laser units to law enforcement agencies at no cost. I found several blogs and personal websites where the posters claim that they "know for a fact" that Geico has this practice but, once again, no documented proof. Of course, I can also find several websites where the posters "know for a fact" that the government has implanted radio tracking devices into their teeth or that they're being abducted by little green men from Regulus, but they don't have documented proof, either. The internet is a wonderful place where you can find support for pretty much any belief.

Now, is it possible that Geico, at some point in the past, donated speed measurement devices to police agencies? Yep. It's relatively common for large corporations to donate funds to police agencies in the area in which they're headquartered. The donations make very good PR for the company and are tax deductable. However, unless I see unbiased information that shows that this is a common practice (and it's sure one I've never heard of, I'll tell you that right now), I won't believe that it's any more than perhaps an isolated donation made by a corporation.

[rohan]

Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue.?

that's fine as long as the general public doesn't get upset that we see them as whiney little women who only think they can drive but have no real clue how to handle a car and no real or formal driver training beyond what they got in high school making most driving Americans more dangerous than swimming in a tank with a great white shark- and that the general public is mostly morons with no social graces or common sence.

[rohan]

Is that a Decatur Genesis? the kind that gives off notoriously false readings?

Sorry- not a Decatur.  It's a Kustom Signal- apologies.

[NomisR]

Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue.

I found this comment funny.  When I got into my accident, the fire dept and paramedic arrived before the police dept to the scene of the accident, even though the police department was within view right behinid the Krispy Kreme.  The Officers didn't arrive on scene until about 10 mins after tha paramedics and fire dept arrived.   And when the officers were arriving, I heard the firemen making remarks, sayng " oh, they're finally here, I bet their faces are covered in the glazes from the donuts".

Not a bash, just thought this was interesting..

[James Young]

Let?s begin with a point of agreement.  Do you believe that law should be based on fact rather than conjecture?  I assume that you do.

?The argument made by NHTSA, enforcement agencies and the rest of the anti-destination league is that lower speed limits will reduce the number of crashes.  And that is where the engineering data tell us it just ain?t so.?  -- JY

the nameless one writes:

To a degree it will.

Do you dispute the data or do you just not understand the premise?

We have more drivers in more cars on more roads and the crash rate just continues to decline year after year, the injury and fatality rates more so. 

Fine and dandy on Interstates then, except for the issue then of seasonal differences on roadways; what do we do about the REST of the US road system. The Interstates are only a per centage of all US roadways. I don't see you limiting your arguments to interstates for the most part unless its convenient for you.

Roads are roads.  The 85th and 95th percentile speeds automatically adjust for the road type.  I think the bigger issue is that you are just obsessively opposed to reasonable speeds.

Howe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?

Fair question.  Actuarial science can ascertain that and compare to the cost of the limits.  However, implicit in your question is the incorrect assumption that higher limits mean more deaths.  It just ain?t so.   

My basis are your on-going posts. You are entirely self-centered in wanting all speed limits removed. That much is obvious.

Not self-centered at all since everybody  benefits from rational laws.

[James Young]

What you are proposing is forced subjective enforcement. This presents myriad issues; effective LE training likely being the most pronounced. Enter the fairly rigid, known (by both sides) and measurable system that is current traffic enforcement. That is is such a thing is its importance.

We have too long substituted the precisely quantifiable for the effective.  The assumption that because we can differentiate between two vehicles traveling in different lanes to a fraction of an mph, that it is important that we do so.  It doesn't really make a rat's @ss.  We should be looking at three things and three things only:  crash-rate, injury-rate and fatality-rate, each per 100 million VMT.  Period.  Any traffic law must be judged on those criteria alone.

Subjective?  Perhaps, but that is why we recruit, train, equip and commission professionals, expecting judgment and discretion.  Why would we want to waste those resources by doing something that doesn?t work?

[James Young]

It seems you love the science and statistics of speed enforcement, but you miss one major factor...THE HUMAN FACTOR. No matter what amazing technological and engineering advancements we implement on the roadways (except, perhaps, totally removing the human driver from the vehicle), there WILL be crashes. People make poor choices. People act on impulse. People just plain screw up. Remember that the vast majority of crashes can be directly attributed to human error, as opposed to some mechanical or engineering defect. Speed limits are in place to try to mitigate some of the risk when someone screws up.

You may consider it a separate argument, but I see them at undeniably linked.

The science and the data already reflect the human factor.  That is why we have developed these mitigating technologies. 

There are two separate arguments at bar.  One is that the number of crashes is reduced if speed limits are reduced.  This is the NHTSA and IIHS argument.  There is no data to support it.  It is false.

The second is that lower speed limits translate to lower driving speeds that mitigate the physics of crashes.  Again, the physics are not in dispute.  However, the reason we have all those crumple zones and bumpers, airbags, padded interiors, and seatbelts is so that we can travel faster because faster has a very real value.