This weekend our traffic enforcement

[Eye of the Tiger]

So because I don't post a link to some website you don't believe me? Fine. Your choice. You are wrong though.

Otta, eh? I didn't think you had a name. 

[dazzleman]

Guys, you could go back and forth forever on this to no real effect.

Here's where I stand, probably about square in the middle of this controversy:

1.  I love to speed, but I have my limits.
2.  I recognize that speeding can be dangerous, and that enforcement is necessary.
3.  If I am the subject of enforcement, I don't consider myself a victim and I don't resent the penalty.  When you choose to break the law, you agree in advance to accept the consequences.  If they're too much, don't do it.  As Harry Truman once said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
4.  In a civilized society, you can't have everybody making their own rules.  Some regulation is necessary.
5.  I do believe that in many cases, speed limits are set too low, in order to cater to the lowest common denominator.
6.  I think that speed limits set too low actually undermine safety by breeding disrespect for the law, making speeding seem safe, and blurring the line between safe and dangerous speeding.
7.  There is no way to have a speed limit that fits every driver, every car, and every circumstance.  It has to be set somewhere, and whevever it is, somebody won't be happy.
8.  I'd rather have a higher speed limit, with stricter penalties for violating it, than a low speed limit for which enforcement action is taken randomly, with meaningless penalties.
9.  I think that there is a tendency among some people to blame speed for accidents when other things are the root cause.
10.  However, there is no denying that higher speeds reduce our margin for error on the roads, and that if you make a mistake at a higher speed, the resulting accident will be worse.
11.  Just because the police aren't perfect 100% of the time doesn't mean that they're not overall a good presence to have.  I'm a strong supporter of law enforcement.
12.  With all the things going on in the world, and all the things I've dealt with in my life, getting a ticket is about near the bottom of things that I have much concern about.

[the nameless one]

I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area  and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.

[dazzleman]

I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area? and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.

....that's for sure... People get so used to instant information, but not everything on the net is reliable, and some stuff just isn't there at all.

[Soup DeVille]

I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area? and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.

Hmm, I thought you were a professional, and would have more information than that.

Traffic enforcement does entail a portion of what you do for a living doesn't it?

[the nameless one]

Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything.

[Soup DeVille]

Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything.

Funny how you assume I'm a pro-speeder.

Anyways, this is all you ever argue about. Its not like you're new to this debate. Its not like you couldn't see the question coming, or that it hadn't been brought up before.

[the nameless one]

Funny how you assume I'm a pro-speeder.

Anyways, this is all you ever argue about. Its not like you're new to this debate. Its not like you couldn't see the question coming, or that it hadn't been brought up before.

Yes, I assume that you are a pro-speeder. No, I'm not new to the debate. Nothing in James' stats is going to sway  my mind to change my opinion which is based on what I see EVERY day I am working.

[Soup DeVille]

Yes, I assume that you are a pro-speeder. No, I'm not new to the debate. Nothing in James' stats is going to sway? my mind to change my opinion which is based on what I see EVERY day I am working.

I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.

You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?

And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

[dazzleman]

I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.

You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?

And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

The effect on local municipality coffers actually depends upon the state.

In my state (Connecticut), the municipalities don't get the proceeds from traffic fines.  They all go to the state.  Other states do it differently, but it isn't all uniform.

[the nameless one]

I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.

You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?

And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.

No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.

[Soup DeVille]

The effect on local municipality coffers actually depends upon the state.

In my state (Connecticut), the municipalities don't get the proceeds from traffic fines.? They all go to the state.? Other states do it differently, but it isn't all uniform.

I know a lot about how the fines are divided up. What I'm asking for is for nameless to actually try and make a case instead of simply ranting.

No money ever flows from the state to the cities?

[dazzleman]

What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.

No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.

In your estimation, what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding, as opposed to being caused possibly by other factors, and made worse by speeding?

What is your general philosophy as to where speed limits should be set?  On a highway in good condition with reasonable traffic conditions, what do you consider a safe speed to be?

[Champ]

What is the #1 cause?

Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.


Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident.  Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over.  They just weren't paying attention.

Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding.  I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.

Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it.  Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).

[Soup DeVille]

What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.

No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.

I've never seen anybody make that suggestion in earnest: I have seen them ask what would happen if the emphasis was taken off speeding and placed on other aspects of traffic enforcement. This distinction seems lost on you entirely.

Speed enforcement is not effective because speed limits are arbitrarily set and enforced. It is downright dangerous to travel at or below the speed limit during high traffic hours in any large metroplitan area in the country.

[dazzleman]

What is the #1 cause?

Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.


Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident.? Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over.? They just weren't paying attention.

Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding.? I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.

Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it.? Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).

I think inattention is a major cause of accidents, but there are times when speed is a cause.

Driving too fast for conditions can cause an accident, or make one much more likely.  There are roads near me where, because of hills and curves, the sight lines aren't very good, and it makes sense to slow down in these areas.  Driving faster than the stopping distance within the area you can actually see can be dangerous.

There is also the issue of how far to push the envelope, risk-wise.  Inattention and mistakes are more costly at higher speeds.

[Soup DeVille]

What is the #1 cause?

Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.


Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident.? Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over.? They just weren't paying attention.

Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding.? I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.

Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it.? Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).

There are still laws against sodomy in many states in the union.

[Champ]

Speed enforcement is not effective because speed limits are arbitrarily set and enforced. It is downright dangerous to travel at or below the speed limit during high traffic hours in any large metroplitan area in the country.

Or more fun is when a LEO is actually on the highway driving, it's a rolling blockade.  For as far ahead of them as you can see it's just open highway, with 30 cars bumper to bumper right behind him.  Like that's safe....

[dazzleman]

Or more fun is when a LEO is actually on the highway driving, it's a rolling blockade.? For as far ahead of them as you can see it's just open highway, with 30 cars bumper to bumper right behind him.? Like that's safe....

That's very unsafe, whether caused by law enforcement, or left lane campers.

Lack of lane discipline is a major hazard on the roads, in my opinion.  It forces drivers who would otherwise stay in one lane to constantly switch lanes to get around drivers who are in the passing lane but not passing.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Like anyone who drives everyday, I have plenty of personal experiences that are just as valid (and probably less biased) than any LEO's. I run into many more problems that are worse than speeding EVERY day I am out on the roads. The number of people on the road that piss me off due to them going too fast is practically ZERO.  EVERY time I have had a near-collsion, it had nothing to do with anyone speeding. The vast majority occur at parking-lot speeds.

I will admit that there is ONE time that I lost control of a vehicle (on public roads) because I was going to fast for conditions. It was harmless, though, and I knew it would be on that particular road.

BTW, Otta, my licence is suspended already, so you can't use that to modify my behavior.   

I'M A RACE CAR DRIVER!

[James Young]

?Speeding? is not that hazardous, certainly overstated by ?official? statistics everywhere but, in fact, unsupported by your own data.   JY

If speeding is not hazardous, why is it a factor in so many accidents. And don't point to your books of stats. Go toa  few accidents and tell me speed wasn't a factor. Oh yeah, right...youw ere an EMT or some such thing in a former life. We will never agree, James.

No, we will never agree but that doesn?t mean that you are entitled to your own set of facts.  You are just lying to yourself.

The hazards of ?speeding,? are greatly overblown, as even your own stats show.  When speed too fast for conditions, speed too slow for conditions, any speed in excess of a posted limit and any unsafe lane change are called ?speed-related? by NHTSA, then ?speeding? become hazardous. 

What else are we supposed to look at but the measures and descriptions of what happened?  You try to scare us with the discredited Signal 32-style rhetoric but that old dog doesn?t hunt any more.  I?ve been to more than a few crashes and I used to work in the ER at a large trauma hospital when I was in college so I?ve seen my share of the results of crashes.  That?s why I work so hard to prevent them using scientific methods rather than the groundless emotional appeal that you employ.

Not only that, but stopping speeding ? that is, slowing down all traffic ? has a very high cost.  The consequences of speed enforcement are a loss of productivity that runs into the trillions and an increase in the distrust of and belligerence toward law enforcement in general.  JY 

So what.....the alternative for many people is never getting there at all because they are dead vs slowing down. Put a dollar value on those peoples lives, James.

We have put a dollar value of those peoples? lives through actuarial calculations and the cost of slowing down traffic as envisioned by most enforcement agencies and other anti-destination leaguers overwhelms the cost of those lost lives by a magnitude of about 25.

Also, the alternative to slowing down is not death as you intimate.  That?s just dishonest

Drivers should be able to decide on their own what speed to drive without the constant harassment and faux-concern for our well-being that are the fa?ade of a money-grubbing campaign to shore up failed institutions.  JY

Plenty of drivers shouldn't be on the road in the first place, many exercise poor judgement, and they negatively impact their communities. As longa s this is the reality, you will have speed enforcement.

While it is true that plenty of drivers ought not be on the roads, speed enforcement hardly begins to address that issue but merely burdens all drivers.  How many times have posters here suggested that enforcement target problematic drivers and leave those traveling faster than the arbitrary signs alone?

Let?s face fasts.  Speed enforcement has become institutionalized and generates hundreds of billions in revenue so it won?t go away just because it does damage.  We have long forgotten why we used to enforce speed laws and the excuses for doing so seem to change daily. 

Want to run full tilt without "harassment"? Go rent some tiem on a closed track and get it out of your system.

You just don?t get it.  I have no desire for breakneck speeds and get no thrill out of simply driving fast.  To me, the speed that I choose is a tool to get me from one place to another at the least expenditure of time consistent with my personal calculus of safety.  I don?t need you to tell me what that speed is or to bother me if it happens to be in excess of your stupid limits, albeit well within the range of common speeds on common highways. 

[James Young]

Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything. 

That's because personal experience by itself is inadequate to explain the phenomenon of which we speak.  Even worse, you don't seem to be able to synthesize your personal experiences with other established knowledge to create an understanding that goes beyond what your buddies are telling you. 

[dazzleman]

BTW, Otta, my licence is suspended already, so you can't use that to modify my behavior.? ?

Is your license really suspended Nick?  For what?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Is your license really suspended Nick?  For what?

My South Carolina license has been suspended for several months (and for the second time) because I cancelled the insurance on a car that I sold.
It doesn't bother me a bit, though, because I have a perfectly valid Maine license. 

[James Young]

What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.

No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.

Effective traffic law enforcement would yield definable and measureable results in the three key safety measures and a change in intensity or focus would result in a predictable change in one or more of those figures.  Such is not the case with enforcement right now.  They keep doing the same old thing because it generates over a hundred billion dollars a year and it's what they do.  They don't think seriously about changing their behavior because they do not work to improve safety but to write citations.  Again, it's what they do.

You have no idea if those crashes are caused by speed or by something else.  C'mon, you're just being dishonest.

[dazzleman]

My South Carolina license has been suspended for several months (and for the second time) because I cancelled the insurance on a car that I sold.
It doesn't bother me a bit, though, because I have a perfectly valid Maine license.?

Hah, and I thought you were having some fun out there.    That's a lame reason for a license suspension.

I've never had my license suspended, but I've been threatened with it twice, once for a valid reason and once because of a mistake by Connecticut's Centralized Infractions Bureau.

The first time, I was accumulating points on my license, and I just got a warning letter telling me that if I continued to accumulate points, they'd have to suspend my license.

The second time, I had gotten a speeding ticket, and I mailed in the ticket with a plea, as instructed on the ticket itself.  I didn't hear back from the state until I got a letter telling me that I had not responded to my ticket, and that if I failed to do so, my license would be suspended.

I'm glad to hear you at least have a license in one state. 

[TBR]

Most speed limits are under what is safe for the ideal circumstances, seeing as how the 70 mph maximum was set in the '50s when both passive and active safety systems were pretty much non-existent. To argue otherwise is really just ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the real world. For modern speed limits, I think that 85-90 would be a reasonable limit during the day for much of my commute, with a lower limit for night time driving and adverse conditions (ie: rain).

If speed limits are so effective, why did highway fatalities per million miles INCREASE when the year the national speed limit became mandate? And decrease the year it was lifted?

If PDs were really serious about traffic safety, they would definitely focus on more important things than speeding, things that cause accidents (speeding by itself rarely does, except in low traction/low visibility conditions). Improper lane changes, tailgating, distractions, and racing. I'd even wager that left lane camping as an indirect motivation (frustration that results in impatience which results in the things mentioned earlier) causes more accidents than speeding does.

I am not sure who decides what laws police enforce most strongly, whether it is the state government, local government, the police department, or the individual officer.

[the nameless one]

In your estimation, what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding, as opposed to being caused possibly by other factors, and made worse by speeding?

Splitting hairs a bit there, don't you think? You aren't going to get a lot of accidents that are strictly speed related ( no other factors )  as in they went so fast they went airborne and impacted a tree twenty feet off the ground ( real accident ) , but you will have speed be a factor in a LOT of accidents where if the speed had been more moderate, they wouldn't have gotten into the accident.  I particularly like to point that out to people in the winter when they are standing by their wrecked car  and I hear something along the lines of " I just slid
A;off the road/
B: into the path of that car/
C: whatever excuse they have as to why they wrecked.

I point out that everyone in the steady stream of traffic going by doesn't have the same problem. Now why is that i ask the driver ? Answer: probably because they aren't speeding around like they are on dry pavement.

What is your general philosophy as to where speed limits should be set?? On a highway in good condition with reasonable traffic conditions, what do you consider a safe speed to be?

Interstate of standard Interstate design, dry pavement, clear lines of sight, non-urban environment etc? I would say probably 80-85 MPH would still be safe enough. I wouldn't change state, county  or local roads at all from what they are posted though.

[rohan]

You're a troll because the only thing you do is argue about how perfect our traffic laws and enforcement is.

Agreeing with the law doesn't make you atroll- it makes you a preson who likes the laws.  Stop calling names please.

[rohan]

Facts? Like James' "facts"?? take the "fact" that was presented above about distracted driving being the #1 cause of accidents...righhtttt..You guys just don't like hearing that speeding, something you guys love to do, can be hazardous. You hate any enforcement that inhibits your ability to speed to your hearts content.

AFAIK I've never contradicted myself. Feel free to cite an example.

Gotta agree with you here- I love speeding- even as a police officer-? but I know that my speed can easily cause me to crash because of outdriving my ca4rs limits.? People like James refuse to acknowledge that because it undermines their arguments that we should be allowed to drive any speed we want.? ?Fact is when officers write in that speeding was a contributing factore on traffic crash resports it's because we have several ways to determine the vehicles speeds vs. known stopping distances of specific cars.? It's easy to determine and even James "50+ years " of traffic whatever he said- you know- the one he's been involved with since he was 12.? ? knows it's true.? Examples are crush factors- skid lengths vs. friction vs. weather conditions vs. road material and conditions etc.? ? He likes to taught science but doesn't want to actually use it.