raise highway and interstate speedlimits 10 MPH

[TheIntrepid]

Oh my god, we should lower speed limits in case there's a nuclear attack!  Have you ever tried to control a car at 65mph during a nuclear explosion?

[dazzleman]

By and large they already do; that's why speeding is such a routine.

I'm not saying we should eliminate speed limits altogether, but that they should more directly reflect the speeds that people (as an average) are already driving.

Making the speed limit reflect reality and then ticketing only the clearly dangerous "speeders" makes sense to me.

I agree.  I'd go further and say that with higher speed limits should come more severe penalties for violating them.  With our low speed limits, we have blurred the line between safe speeding and truly dangerous driving, and because so many people are subject to penalty for their driving, the penalties are generally a joke and don't deter people from continuing to speed.

I think those who argue for the elimination of speed limits are very unrealistic.  First off, we can't take 50% of the drivers considered 'below average' off the road, or anything close to that.  It's simply impossible.  And the law has an obligation to protect, to the best of its ability, the public from dangerous actions.  It's very idealistic to suggest that anybody who can get a license should be able to judge a safe speed.

[Rupert]

Everyone in WA drives like old people or can't drive at all.  Had a family friend enter a freeway at 35 mph and then proceed to go all the way to the left most lane at the same speed.  And yes that's in WA. 

Clearly, you've spent lots of time here.

[bing_oh]

Absolutely 100% no doubt about it. If a driver can't decide what a reasonable speed is for any given situation, they shouldn't be driving, period. Before you jump on me again for being a speed crazy lunatic that just wants to do 100mph down every road, let me inform you that I quite often have traffic tailgating my ass, especially through residential areas. I constantly adjust my speed for whatever the conditions are, while the people riding my butt only want to maintain the status quo, 5-10mph over the speedlimit no matter what.

I suspect that I'm going to get ridiculed by a few particular people around here for being a typical heavy-handed ultra-authoritarian cop for this comment, but I'm gonna say it anyways.

If you actually trust most people to make the right choice without outside influence, you're giving alot of people way too much credit. Most crashes and traffic violatins I see (and there are alot of em) are people NOT thinking before they do something. If people can't prove that they can drive safely under the current laws, why should we broaden the law to give those same people MORE discretion on the roadways?

[hounddog]

I agree.  I'd go further and say that with higher speed limits should come more severe penalties for violating them. 

With the exception of residential, school zones, and construction zones I completely agree.

[Soup DeVille]

If people can't prove that they can drive safely under the current laws, why should we broaden the law to give those same people MORE discretion on the roadways?

How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.

[James Young]

Random thoughts:

To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history.  Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.

It is hopelessly na?ve to think that the speed laws actually prevent crashes.  The law is useful for ROW issues but speed limits provide no value.
Raza got it right:

Oh my god, we should lower speed limits in case there's a nuclear attack!  Have you ever tried to control a car at 65mph during a nuclear explosion?

This was heavy sarcasm but it?s also dead on.  The apologists for low limits will use any excuse to keep the status quo, caring not a whit about raising the productivity of our automotive transportation system.  Do we let the remote possibilities of unknown events degrade the policy for an entire population?  Do we enforce the death penalty for not using a condom just because somebody, somewhere, sometime will get the clap? 

Impeders create tailgating and congestion and elevate risk across the board.  Tailgaters do not create impeders nor do they cause congestion, although they do elevate risk.  The legal solution is obviously to remove the impeders because this also eliminates tailgating and congestion and lowers risk.  Removing the tailgaters still leaves the congestion and risk.

To those of you who invoke the ?average driver? as proof that all other drivers do not deserve to make their own decisions.  The very essence of freedom is the recognition that we will make mistakes.  Now, some of you will say, yes, but those mistakes kill people.  And I say, yes, they do but they do so very rarely.  Further, it confuses the skills necessary to drive well (much less adequately) with the normal distribution of skills (assuming a normal distribution) and where the cutoff is between acceptable and unacceptable skills.  Since, the DMVs of the nation have already weeded out those that we know cannot demonstrate adequate skills, it leaves us to determine where the cutoff lies on the normal distribution of skills.  I suspect it is very low, perhaps the lowest decile.



Bing_oh writes:

And do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them?

Yes, absolutely yes.  You are aware that this is how engineers determine what speed limits should be, I?m sure.  We also have upwards of 50% of the people speeding at any given time and the reality is that nothing happens because of that.
`

[Eye of the Tiger]

How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.

Many traffic laws, speedlimits especially, are just not enforced seriously enough to be taken seriouisly. Everyone "speeds" practially all the time - and that stems from the fact that the laws are just flawed to begin with! Drivers must be able to rely on and trust each others' good judgement, just like they already do, but without being punished needlessly. A driver who performs an action for no reason other than because it is the law, actually has no business operating a motor vehicle!

[hounddog]

Random thoughts:

To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history.  Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.

It is hopelessly na?ve to think that the speed laws actually prevent crashes.  The law is useful for ROW issues but speed limits provide no value.
Raza got it right:



This was heavy sarcasm but it?s also dead on.  The apologists for low limits will use any excuse to keep the status quo, caring not a whit about raising the productivity of our automotive transportation system.  Do we let the remote possibilities of unknown events degrade the policy for an entire population?  Do we enforce the death penalty for not using a condom just because somebody, somewhere, sometime will get the clap? 

Impeders create tailgating and congestion and elevate risk across the board.  Tailgaters do not create impeders nor do they cause congestion, although they do elevate risk.  The legal solution is obviously to remove the impeders because this also eliminates tailgating and congestion and lowers risk.  Removing the tailgaters still leaves the congestion and risk.

To those of you who invoke the ?average driver? as proof that all other drivers do not deserve to make their own decisions.  The very essence of freedom is the recognition that we will make mistakes.  Now, some of you will say, yes, but those mistakes kill people.  And I say, yes, they do but they do so very rarely.  Further, it confuses the skills necessary to drive well (much less adequately) with the normal distribution of skills (assuming a normal distribution) and where the cutoff is between acceptable and unacceptable skills.  Since, the DMVs of the nation have already weeded out those that we know cannot demonstrate adequate skills, it leaves us to determine where the cutoff lies on the normal distribution of skills.  I suspect it is very low, perhaps the lowest decile.



Bing_oh writes:

Yes, absolutely yes.  You are aware that this is how engineers determine what speed limits should be, I?m sure.  We also have upwards of 50% of the people speeding at any given time and the reality is that nothing happens because of that.
`

There is no imperical evidence to support you claims the speed limits have not produced this phenomenon of lower accidents/fatalities.  None, other than mere conjecture of your own making.  I can use these same stats to make an argument that speed limits are directly responsible for safer driving.

Stats, as we have covered on this board many times, are completely subjective and open to interpretation.  Your agenda driven use of general stats here only serves to concrete their subjective value/vulnerablitly.

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

There is no imperical evidence to support you claims the [higher] speed limits have not produced this phenomenon of lower accidents/fatalities.

I don?t need to claim that higher limits have produced lower crash and fatality rates in order to disprove the allegations of the safety Nazis whose argument was/is that lower limits produce fewer crashes and fatalities.  The empirical evidence shows that higher limits and higher actual speeds do not produce higher crash and injury rates.  The difference is significant.

There is a school of thought that higher speed limits lead directly to improved crash and fatality rates because (1) they divert traffic onto higher speed roadways (Interstate-grade), which are inherently safer, (2) they allow more drivers to concentrate in the very narrow range around the point of minimization of the crash incidence curve, a range that is illegal under most of the prevailing limits, (3) higher speeds reduce the time exposure factor.  I always discounted this last factor but saw a couple of studies a couple of years ago that outlined that it is a very significant reduction in risk.  Consider a trip completed in 3.25 hours rather than the 4 at lower speeds.  That?s a nearly 20% reduction in that risk factor.

I can use these same stats to make an argument that speed limits are directly responsible for safer driving.

No, you can?t because your comments indicate rather obviously that you neither understand nor appreciate the use of statistics as a tool.

Stats, as we have covered on this board many times, are completely subjective and open to interpretation.

No, we haven?t.  You?ve alleged that stats are ?completely subjective?  but that just shows that you don?t know what you?re talking about.  It seems that you would rather curse the darkness than light the candle of knowledge.  (apologies to Adlai Stevenson). 

[bing_oh]

How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.

Thank you for proving my point. When the laws are followed, people don't tend to run into each other. In fact, I can't think of a single crash that I've taken in 9 years (and, I'll tell you, I've taken ALOT of crashes) where at least on one of the involved parties was not in violation of a traffic law. Traffic laws are in place to try to regulate driver behavior to make driving safe (despite what James Young says). If one of those laws are violated, there are potential penalties. That's to try to encourage drivers to follow the law. Do all drivers follow the law? Of course not. No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it.

[Soup DeVille]

Thank you for proving my point. When the laws are followed, people don't tend to run into each other. In fact, I can't think of a single crash that I've taken in 9 years (and, I'll tell you, I've taken ALOT of crashes) where at least on one of the involved parties was not in violation of a traffic law. Traffic laws are in place to try to regulate driver behavior to make driving safe (despite what James Young says). If one of those laws are violated, there are potential penalties. That's to try to encourage drivers to follow the law. Do all drivers follow the law? Of course not. No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it.

We're not talking about "some" people, we're talking about the majority of the people violating the law the majority of the time: to the point where the posted speed limits become irrelevant. Comparing it to murder is just plain ridiculous.

How many speeding tickets have you written for a guy who was going 73 in a 70 MPH zone? Not a whole hell of a lot I'm willing to bet.

What I'm saying is this: raise the speed limits to the point where they are relevant. That is, if someone is violating that limit, they not only are above what the vast majority of drivers feel is safe, but where it's reasonable to assume that that speed is creating a danger to other traffic.

Get rid of this "oh, 5-10 over is OK because every body does it" mentality and set a clear line that's relevant to modern traffic patterns.

[bing_oh]

We're not talking about "some" people, we're talking about the majority of the people violating the law the majority of the time: to the point where the posted speed limits become irrelevant. Comparing it to murder is just plain ridiculous.

How many speeding tickets have you written for a guy who was going 73 in a 70 MPH zone? Not a whole hell of a lot I'm willing to bet.

What I'm saying is this: raise the speed limits to the point where they are relevant. That is, if someone is violating that limit, they not only are above what the vast majority of drivers feel is safe, but where it's reasonable to assume that that speed is creating a danger to other traffic.

Get rid of this "oh, 5-10 over is OK because every body does it" mentality and set a clear line that's relevant to modern traffic patterns.

Ok, give me your proposed speed limit on the average highway. Remember, the speed limit itself has to be established as "safe" by the state, or you're defeating the purpose of speed limits in the first place. Now, add 5 mph to it. Do you think you could make a case in a court of law that the additional 5 mph make a dramatic difference in what is perceived as "safe?" No matter what speed is set as the speed limit, it's going to nigh on impossible for you to add 5-10 mph and convince someone that that increase has dramatically changed the safety factor.

Also, you're proposing that you eliminate officer discretion in traffic enforcement. That's not something that's going to go over well with the general public. The degree of the violation and the circumstances surrounding it are factors that the public believes LE shoud take into account when enforcing the law.

[Byteme]

Random thoughts:

To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history.  Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.

Or their cars are. 

Perhaps factors such as much better collision protection in vehicles, airbags, crush zones, occupant protection; and they get better every year.

More and better trained EMS pesonnel, better euqipment, life flight.  The list goes on. 

[hounddog]

hounddog writes:

I don?t need to claim that higher limits have produced lower crash and fatality rates in order to disprove the allegations of the safety Nazis whose argument was/is that lower limits produce fewer crashes and fatalities.  The empirical evidence shows that higher limits and higher actual speeds do not produce higher crash and injury rates.  The difference is significant.

There is a school of thought that higher speed limits lead directly to improved crash and fatality rates because (1) they divert traffic onto higher speed roadways (Interstate-grade), which are inherently safer, (2) they allow more drivers to concentrate in the very narrow range around the point of minimization of the crash incidence curve, a range that is illegal under most of the prevailing limits, (3) higher speeds reduce the time exposure factor.  I always discounted this last factor but saw a couple of studies a couple of years ago that outlined that it is a very significant reduction in risk.  Consider a trip completed in 3.25 hours rather than the 4 at lower speeds.  That?s a nearly 20% reduction in that risk factor.

No, you can?t because your comments indicate rather obviously that you neither understand nor appreciate the use of statistics as a tool.

No, we haven?t.  You?ve alleged that stats are ?completely subjective?  but that just shows that you don?t know what you?re talking about.  It seems that you would rather curse the darkness than light the candle of knowledge.  (apologies to Adlai Stevenson). 

True, my minor in statistical analysis, which was a core curriculum to Process Engineering and Manufacturing Management at Michigan State University (which my degree is a dual engineering and MBA degree), gives me little understanding of the topic.  I am undone.

[James Young]

True, my minor in statistical analysis, which was a core curriculum to Process Engineering and Manufacturing Management at Michigan State University (which my degree is a dual engineering and MBA degree), gives me little understanding of the topic.  I am undone.

You should ask for your money back.

[GoCougs]

I don't know about throwing that kind of weight around, James - you've posted some "statistics" that simply don't pass basic scrutity IMO.

[Tave]

How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.

[dsred]

I don't know about throwing that kind of weight around, James - you've posted some "statistics" that simply don't pass basic scrutity IMO.

Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?

[bing_oh]

Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?

I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.

[Minpin]

I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.

You don't HAVE to scrape them up. There's always the wet/dry vacs.

[bing_oh]

You don't HAVE to scrape them up. There's always the wet/dry vacs.

They stick. High pressure hoses are the better choice, but the FD doesn't let us play with those and it looks "unsympathetic" to the public.

[Minpin]

They stick. High pressure hoses are the better choice, but the FD doesn't let us play with those and it looks "unsympathetic" to the public.

As opposed to a shovel? Hmm that seems to lack some logic. Have you ever talked to you superiors about this? It could be a "hot topic" for the presidential hopefuls!

[bing_oh]

As opposed to a shovel? Hmm that seems to lack some logic. Have you ever talked to you superiors about this? It could be a "hot topic" for the presidential hopefuls!

Well, we're at least shoveling them into bags for the morturary. The hoses tend to just blow bits and pieces into the median.

[280Z Turbo]

Well, we're at least shoveling them into bags for the morturary. The hoses tend to just blow bits and pieces into the median.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

[GoCougs]

Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?

Huh? Uh, neither.

[dsred]

I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.

Only an idiot can deny the physics involved. The problem is that what you are doing is applying an emotional argument based on our experience with bad situations.

The facts though clearly state that the safest speeds to drive are at the 85th to 95th percentile, which is nowhere near where speed limits are currently set. In another words, the "carnage" you are witnessing is exaserbated by current speed limits.

Are you for safer roads or not?

[dsred]

Huh? Uh, neither.

So it is "because you said so" then. Thanks for the insight.

[GoCougs]

Oh, brother - now everyone's an expert on "statistics."

Look no further than the layman's condundrum of Bayes' Theorem that typifies what houndog meant.

[dsred]

Oh, brother - now everyone's an expert on "statistics."

Look no further than the layman's condundrum of Bayes' Theorem that typifies what houndog meant.

And as usual you miss the point. Instead of mouthing off about how the stats don't prove what James says, do a little work and refute them.

I won't hold my breath waiting...