raise highway and interstate speedlimits 10 MPH

[Raza]

No, but it just gets tiresome to see the same argument over and over again.

The problem is that one side is right and the other side is wrong, but thinks it's right. 

That's how arguments work.

[dazzleman]

The problem is that one side is right and the other side is wrong, but thinks it's right. 

That's how arguments work.

No, they're both partly right and partly wrong.  But each thinks that he's totally right.

People can disagree, but it gets tiresome to read retreads of the same arguments ad nauseum.  I could poke holes in certain segments of both arguments, but it's just not worth getting into that morass.

[J86]

No, they're both partly right and partly wrong.  But each thinks that he's totally right.

People can disagree, but it gets tiresome to read retreads of the same arguments ad nauseum.  I could poke holes in certain segments of both arguments, but it's just not worth getting into that morass.

You just answered the question "Why J86 mostly spends time away from political issues on the internet"

[dazzleman]

You just answered the question "Why J86 mostly spends time away from political issues on the internet"

At least the political discussions involve varying issues.  The speeder arguments are always on the same couple of issues, ad nauseum. 

[J86]

At least the political discussions involve varying issues.  The speeder arguments are always on the same couple of issues, ad nauseum. 

Yeah, but the same people usually break down on very predictable sides...

Wanna debate about it?

[dazzleman]

Yeah, but the same people usually break down on very predictable sides...

Wanna debate about it?

I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed....

[TheIntrepid]

I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed....

yeah, it's almost lights-out at the old folks home.

[J86]

I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed....

pussy

[dazzleman]

pussy

If you've got such a set, why don't you start the argument, punk? 

[sparkplug]

In order to increase speeds the roads must be designed to handle those increased speeds safely. Second there is the issue of driver training. If everybody had to spend 8000 hours of training before they drive well then maybe we could raise the speed limit to mach one but since some people get little training the speeds need to be low enough to accommodate them.

Edit: Some vehicles can't handle the increase in speed.

[L. ed foote]

Edit: Some vehicles can't handle the increase in speed.

Then they stay to the right

[L. ed foote]

I can't stand those nervous nellie Sallie Safedriver types.  They're more dangerous than judicious speeders, yet they think they're great drivers. 

According to the insurance companies, and in some eyes of the law, I'd say they're right.

I'm my eyes, they're sanctimonious assholes

[bing_oh]

pussy

If that's why he's going to bed, then I'd say it's a legitimate reason.

[Soup DeVille]

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...

It's not the states alone deciding these things, and you know that probably better than I do. There is a great deal of federal influence involved in that.

Anyways, the speed limits should be set according to the formulas currently suggested by the MUTCD: the most predominantly being: the 85th percentile rule.

And no, Bing Oh I am not proposing removing "officer discretion" aka "we give the tickets to whomever we think deserves the tickets whether or not evryone else is also breaking the law." Officer discretion would still apply for "too fast for conditions" as it always has.

What puzzles me and what has always puzzled me about this debate is how the law enforcement argument by and large is always the same: that those arguing for increased limits are just speed freak scofflaws that want to be legitimized. You even brought up a comparison to murder! The fact of the matter is that speed limit adjustments have been made regularly in the past, that prevailing conditions continue to improve in terms of both infrastructure and vehicle capability (lamentably, not in driver skill), and that an occasional re-evaluation of arbitrarily enforced rules is simply the logical thing to do.

Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.

[Byteme]

Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.

I'll play devil's advocate.   

Just because we set the speed limits unrealistically high in the past, given the capabilities of vehicles then, doesn't mean we should do so now.

[Soup DeVille]

I'll play devil's advocate.  

Just because we set the speed limits unrealistically high in the past, given the capabilities of vehicles then, doesn't mean we should do so now.

Just because we've also set limits unrealistically low in the past (NMSL anybody?),doesn't mean we should do so now either.

Nor should we assume that what is being done now is the right way to do it.

[bing_oh]

It's not the states alone deciding these things, and you know that probably better than I do. There is a great deal of federal influence involved in that.

Anyways, the speed limits should be set according to the formulas currently suggested by the MUTCD: the most predominantly being: the 85th percentile rule.

And no, Bing Oh I am not proposing removing "officer discretion" aka "we give the tickets to whomever we think deserves the tickets whether or not evryone else is also breaking the law." Officer discretion would still apply for "too fast for conditions" as it always has.

What puzzles me and what has always puzzled me about this debate is how the law enforcement argument by and large is always the same: that those arguing for increased limits are just speed freak scofflaws that want to be legitimized. You even brought up a comparison to murder! The fact of the matter is that speed limit adjustments have been made regularly in the past, that prevailing conditions continue to improve in terms of both infrastructure and vehicle capability (lamentably, not in driver skill), and that an occasional re-evaluation of arbitrarily enforced rules is simply the logical thing to do.

Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.

The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.

The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.

If you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.

And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!

The issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.

[dazzleman]

The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.

The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.

If you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.

And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!

The issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.

OTOH, cars today are much safer at higher speeds.  I could never have driven my cars from the 70s at 80 mph on the highway, the way I do with my current car.

[Rupert]

Of course, in the '70's you weren't rich. My old '72 Volvo 145 was fine at 80 mph, if the clutch wasn't slipping.

[dazzleman]

Of course, in the '70's you weren't rich. My old '72 Volvo 145 was fine at 80 mph, if the clutch wasn't slipping.

You're right; back then I drove a POS.

But the average car back then didn't have the handling, traction, and safety features included even in cheaper cars today.

I actually drive faster now than I did then.

[bing_oh]

OTOH, cars today are much safer at higher speeds.  I could never have driven my cars from the 70s at 80 mph on the highway, the way I do with my current car.

No doubt. But, like I said, the operator is always going to be able to trump the inherent safety features of any modern motor vehicle (up until the point where we sit down in a car and tell the computer where we want to go, and have no further influence on the vehicle's operation). And, again, I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.

Let me ask you a question, Dave (and I ask you because you have alot of driving experience just through age)...if I put a "modern" driver beside a driver who learned in the 60's or 70's and asked them to parallel park, who do you think (on average) would do better? I'm betting that the driver who learned in the 60's/70's would do better. I think that, for whatever reason, the drivers back then have learned their lessons better. I think that modern drivers have become overly-dependant on modern "standard features" in cars and either lost many of their basic driving skills or never acquired them in the first place. And, I think that modern vehicles, with all of their features (not to mention the "features" that the drivers bring along with them), are distraction-rich environments.

In the end, I'll probably lose an argument when it comes to engineering issues. I'm smart enough and understand the basics, but I'm no engineer. However, I know people. That's my job and, not to toot my own horn, but I'm pretty good at understanding people. At this point, the person behind the wheel is still a major factor (in my opinion, THE biggest factor), in the safe operation of a motor vehicle. To be quite blunt, I don't trust most people to make the right decisions when it's make-or-break time. Most people vapor lock when the chips are down.

[dazzleman]

No doubt. But, like I said, the operator is always going to be able to trump the inherent safety features of any modern motor vehicle (up until the point where we sit down in a car and tell the computer where we want to go, and have no further influence on the vehicle's operation). And, again, I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.

Let me ask you a question, Dave (and I ask you because you have alot of driving experience just through age)...if I put a "modern" driver beside a driver who learned in the 60's or 70's and asked them to parallel park, who do you think (on average) would do better? I'm betting that the driver who learned in the 60's/70's would do better. I think that, for whatever reason, the drivers back then have learned their lessons better. I think that modern drivers have become overly-dependant on modern "standard features" in cars and either lost many of their basic driving skills or never acquired them in the first place. And, I think that modern vehicles, with all of their features (not to mention the "features" that the drivers bring along with them), are distraction-rich environments.

I can't disagree with you about the distractions to drivers today.  And I do think that driving skills are like muscles -- don't use them and they atrophy.  A car that does too much for you makes you stupid.

Still, having driven back in the 70s and today, I really can't say the drivers back then were better.  Of course, I have no scientific data, but the driver training was pretty similar to today, and the driving test certainly wasn't any harder.  My road test was a total joke, and even then, I couldn't believe the state was licensing people based on that test.

As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it.  I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss.  But they have always been.  In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.

[CALL_911]

As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it.  I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss.  But they have always been.  In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.

Parallel park? HAHAH SUCKERS.


It's parallel parking in that picture. And it's doing it by itself...

[Soup DeVille]

The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.

The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.

Oh, really. I hadn't noticed. Ye, Bing Oh, despite it being a major factor in the regulations suggested by the manual of Uniform Traffic control Devices, of which all 50 states are signatoriesof: it hasn't been universally implemented; nor is that what I claimed. You asked what I suggest to do, and I told you.

If you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.

Willful and wanton disregard for safety is exactly what drivers should be ticketed for: and yes: you should have to provide evidence of that as well.

And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!

You made the assumption that both murder and speeding are on an equal footing as to the legitimacy of the laws against them: that if you are to question one, you may as well question the other. That's balderdash and both of us know it. Also, the jury is still out on whether or not reducing speed limits reduces accident or fatality rates. What happened when Montana repealed their 'reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits and implemented a 75 MPH statewide limit? What happened when the NMSL was repealed? Neither real world observation supports your argument.

And as we've already established: the majority of drivers are regular violators.

The issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.

That's just plain old curmudgeonly crankiness in a bucket of nostalgia. Yes, older drivers tend to be safer. That doesn't mean that's changed with time. A 16 year old in 1967 was just as inexperienced and dangerous as a 16 year old in 2007; and the same thing can be said of a 40 year old in the different years.

[bing_oh]

I can't disagree with you about the distractions to drivers today.  And I do think that driving skills are like muscles -- don't use them and they atrophy.  A car that does too much for you makes you stupid.

Still, having driven back in the 70s and today, I really can't say the drivers back then were better.  Of course, I have no scientific data, but the driver training was pretty similar to today, and the driving test certainly wasn't any harder.  My road test was a total joke, and even then, I couldn't believe the state was licensing people based on that test.

As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it.  I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss.  But they have always been.  In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.

Think of how much a car does for you today compaired to what it did for you when you took your driver's test, Dave. People must be total idiots today if smarter cars = stupider drivers! Unfortunately, most of us see proof of this every day...

I was just using parallel parking as an example of a basic driving skill which seems to be sorely lacking in modern drivers. Maybe it was a bad example. Let's use something more realistic to average driving: your vehicle skids on wet or icy pavement. Same question...without the aid of antilock brakes or modern skid control devices, does the 60's/70's driver or the modern driver perform better? My answer remains the same.

I'm betting that the difference had very little to do with training or testing and more with real world experience. The drivers "back then" HAD to know how to control a vehicle without all of these modern safety features that we take for granted today. That made them better drivers simply through experience. Today's drivers have become overly-dependant on those features. Personally, I've seen Murphy's Law in action too much out in the big world to trust something run by a computer 100%, though.

[dazzleman]

Think of how much a car does for you today compaired to what it did for you when you took your driver's test, Dave. People must be total idiots today if smarter cars = stupider drivers! Unfortunately, most of us see proof of this every day...

I was just using parallel parking as an example of a basic driving skill which seems to be sorely lacking in modern drivers. Maybe it was a bad example. Let's use something more realistic to average driving: your vehicle skids on wet or icy pavement. Same question...without the aid of antilock breaks or modern skid control devices, does the 60's/70's driver or the modern driver perform better? My answer remains the same.

I'm betting that the difference had very little to do with training or testing and more with real world experience. The drivers "back then" HAD to know how to control a vehicle without all of these modern safety features that we take for granted today. That made them better drivers simply through experience. Today's drivers have become overly-dependant on those features. Personally, I've seen Murphy's Law in action too much out in the big world to trust something run by a computer 100%, though.

I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.

It seems that people like to push themselves to a certain level of risk.  When there's a technological improvement that makes a car safer, all other things being equal, than it was before, people will then increase their speed so that the level of risk is roughly the same as it was without that technological improvement.  Ditto for road improvements.

[Soup DeVille]

I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.

That study would be in direct conflict with every other study I've ever seen.

I'm kind of sympathetic to that idea: that people push themselves to their comfortable levels of safety: but the evidence doesn't really back it up.

[bing_oh]

Oh, really. I hadn't noticed. Ye, Bing Oh, despite it being a major factor in the regulations suggested by the manual of Uniform Traffic control Devices, of which all 50 states are signatoriesof: it hasn't been universally implemented; nor is that what I claimed. You asked what I suggest to do, and I told you.

Actually, you assumed the average fall-back position of people who advocate speed limit increases. I asked for an absolute safe speed where, if that speed was exceeded by 5mph, the average person would consider THAT speed inherently unsafe. I didn't ask for another mention of the 85th percentile rule, I just wanted a speed. A number. In mph, preferably, because I hate doing kph to mph calculations.

Willful and wanton disregard for safety is exactly what drivers should be ticketed for: and yes: you should have to provide evidence of that as well.

Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety is a minimum 4 point (of 12) violation in Ohio, usually carries with it a mandatory driver's license suspension, and and is a PHYSICALLY-ARRESTABLE OFFENSE. It's an EXTREMELY serious driving violation...pretty much equivalant to OVI. This isn't a simple traffic ticket offense.

You made the assumption that both murder and speeding are on an equal footing as to the legitimacy of the laws against them: that if you are to question one, you may as well question the other. That's balderdash and both of us know it. Also, the jury is still out on whether or not reducing speed limits reduces accident or fatality rates. What happened when Montana repealed their 'reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits and implemented a 75 MPH statewide limit? What happened when the NMSL was repealed? Neither real world observation supports your argument.

Alright, let's nip this in the bud. THIS...

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.

...is exactly the quote where I made supposed murder-to-speeding comparison. As you can see, I didn't compare murder to speeding. I pointed out a logical fallacy, namely that a law does not become inherently illegitimate because people violate it. That would apply to EVERY LAW. So, if we're going to get into an argument about what I said, let's actually argue what I said.

That's just plain old curmudgeonly crankiness in a bucket of nostalgia. Yes, older drivers tend to be safer. That doesn't mean that's changed with time. A 16 year old in 1967 was just as inexperienced and dangerous as a 16 year old in 2007; and the same thing can be said of a 40 year old in the different years.

It might be, IF I learned how to drive in the 70's. Unfortunately, I'm 32 years old and learned how to drive around the time that features like ABS were becoming standard. I don't have nostalgia for the 70's because I don't REMEMBER the 70's (outside of, maybe, the occasional cartoon, Captain Kangaroo, or my favorite stuffed bunny)!

[bing_oh]

I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.

It seems that people like to push themselves to a certain level of risk.  When there's a technological improvement that makes a car safer, all other things being equal, than it was before, people will then increase their speed so that the level of risk is roughly the same as it was without that technological improvement.  Ditto for road improvements.

I guess, in the end, you just trust the skills and decision-making abilities of your fellow drivers more than I do. That's not really something we can logically argue about, is it?

[Soup DeVille]

Actually, you assumed the average fall-back position of people who advocate speed limit increases. I asked for an absolute safe speed where, if that speed was exceeded by 5mph, the average person would consider THAT speed inherently unsafe. I didn't ask for another mention of the 85th percentile rule, I just wanted a speed. A number. In mph, preferably, because I hate doing kph to mph calculations.

You want an arbitrary number that doesn't exist. Why not?

Because in some places speed limits are already too high. In some places they are too low. In many places they quite simply don't make sense because they have been abitrarily chosen, or were chosen based on old data and out of date information. You want me to say "85 MPH" so that you can then point out situations and places where that would be totally unreasonable. What I'm saying, and have been saying is that we need to take a look at and re-evaluate the speed limits from time to time and adjust them according to prevailing traffic conditions.

And yes, it is only the serious violations that you should be concerned with applying your discretion to. If you say somebody is driving with wanton disregard, then damn well he'd better be.

Otherwise, relatively minor tickets for minor infractions: but at a predictable level.

"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."

Not that people violate, but that nearly everybody violates. Every senseless or irrelevant law diminishes the validity of necessary and sensible laws.

Your comparison is still as ridiculous as it ever was: A speed limit is abitrary and carries little moral impetus, is routinely violated by the majority of drivers and is only punished- very rarely in comparison with how often the alleged crime is comitted- by whim, chance and "discretion." That you find this acceptable is a puzzlement to anybody who gives it a moment's thought.

If you are 32, then you are making your statments about how driver skills have changed over time with even less data than your own experience, but basing it on conjecture and supposition alone.