raise highway and interstate speedlimits 10 MPH

[bing_oh]

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?

I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.

And, since you can't deny the physics involved in high-speed collisions, I guess you'd have to admit the speed DOES kill. Interesting that you've come to the point that you acknowledge the physics of crashes and their effects on the chances of said crashes being fatal, but you still insist on raising speed limits.

There's absolutely NO proof that the current speed limits exaserbate the "carnage" (your word, not mine) on the highways. There's also no proof that increasing speed limits will lower the rates of fatal crashes, so your question as to whether or not I want safer roads is moot.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have interest in what speed anyone goes.

[Byteme]

Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have interest in what speed anyone goes.

They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.

And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a reason limit for lower speed limits.  Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.

[Tave]

I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.

Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.

If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.

[bing_oh]

Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.

If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.

With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.

However, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.

[Tave]

With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.

The point was indirect, and I made it to address dsred's earlier statement. Sometimes, people who work around something perceive it to be more of a problem than it realistically is, by virtue of nothing else than time spent. When the "something" tests a person like accident scenes do, it's not hard to imagine the effect of time intensifying. I'm not saying that effect is an "emotional" response, and I'm also not saying you are a person who is affected: we know don't know you well enough to make such judgements.

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.

It is different, and believe me when I tell you, I'm not sure I have the inner fortitude it would take to work around something like that, although I hope I would. I admire you more than you probably think right now and appreciate that difficult service.

But sadly, accidents will continue to happen, and people are going to die in them, at least until motor vehicle operation and/or collision protection becomes 100% safe. Cars are dangerous projectiles, and accidents happen. As callous as it sounds, the fact that you have to witness the horrible consequences isn't a trump.

However, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.

Nah, I don't want to defend them. I've seen enough stupid driving to last me a lifetime.

[dsred]

I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.

And, since you can't deny the physics involved in high-speed collisions, I guess you'd have to admit the speed DOES kill. Interesting that you've come to the point that you acknowledge the physics of crashes and their effects on the chances of said crashes being fatal, but you still insist on raising speed limits.

There's absolutely NO proof that the current speed limits exaserbate the "carnage" (your word, not mine) on the highways. There's also no proof that increasing speed limits will lower the rates of fatal crashes, so your question as to whether or not I want safer roads is moot.

Uh, yeah, there is proof that raising limits will actually REDUCE the incidence of crashes. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

I'm not going to even attempt to address the rest of the uh, "logic" contained in the above ridiculous post. Sorry, I misread you for someone who is smarter than they actually are....

[dsred]

They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.

And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a reason limit for lower speed limits.  Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.

OK, by this flawed logic we should all walk everywhere then. Few would die. Well except for the heart attacks since most of us are severely out of shape.

Luckily for us though, you're....BZZTTTTT... WRONG. Less crashes = less chance of injury. Science tells us where the "point of dimishing returns" is. Speed limits, at least as currently set, have nothing to do with where that point is...

[dsred]

Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.

If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.

Excellent analogy. Bang on.

[dsred]

With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.

However, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.

Again, with this philophy, let's all walk then. No one would die. Tave has it right.

[GoCougs]

Uh, oh. Just heard on my NPR affiliate this morning that Washington state legistlature is considering a 55 mph initiative from some environmental group (under the auspicies of global warming of course).

Like I said before, championing the cause for higher limits is a complete lost cause. Withing the next 7 years IMO 70 mph limits will be gone; sooner should the DNC win the White House come November.

[Raza]

Time to search for a home in the Isle of Man.  I could learn to love kippers. 

I mean, I don't think I could.  They've got to have a sushi place there.

[hounddog]

You should ask for your money back.

Once again, your fall back position is to attack rather than defend.  Another brilliant retort, desred err James err whoever you chose to call yourself today.

[James Young]

Once again, your fall back position is to attack rather than defend.  Another brilliant retort, desred err James err whoever you chose to call yourself today.

I post only under my name, my real name.  If you want to believe that I am somebody else, nothing I could say would change your mind, nor would I care to make the effort.

You were the one attacking the capabilities of statistics as a tool, constantly crying that anybody can make them say anything they want.  That is wrong.  Then you claim to have some education in rather advanced statistics, but obviously that education didn?t extend to the legitimate use of statistics as a tool.  That you didn?t learn anything from the courses is obvious from your responses.  Hence, my remark, short, sweet and directly to the heart of the matter.

[bing_oh]

The point was indirect, and I made it to address dsred's earlier statement. Sometimes, people who work around something perceive it to be more of a problem than it realistically is, by virtue of nothing else than time spent. When the "something" tests a person like accident scenes do, it's not hard to imagine the effect of time intensifying. I'm not saying that effect is an "emotional" response, and I'm also not saying you are a person who is affected: we know don't know you well enough to make such judgements.

One of the main reasons that I get into LE is the desire to protect. It's not something easily explained and, even if I could, many people wouldn't understand the explanation. Or, more specifically, they might understand the explanation but not the "why" behind it. I see the unnecessary death of another person...especially an innocent third party which, it always seems, is the one dying in auto crashes...as a pretty big problem. Is it the biggest problem our nation deals with on any given day? Probably not. But it's still a problem. And, as often as I make the apparently calloused and unfeeling remarks about scraping up the road pizza, it's not a problem I'm willing to minimize.

It is different, and believe me when I tell you, I'm not sure I have the inner fortitude it would take to work around something like that, although I hope I would. I admire you more than you probably think right now and appreciate that difficult service.

But sadly, accidents will continue to happen, and people are going to die in them, at least until motor vehicle operation and/or collision protection becomes 100% safe. Cars are dangerous projectiles, and accidents happen. As callous as it sounds, the fact that you have to witness the horrible consequences isn't a trump.

I appreciate your remarks, Tave. And, I'm not unrealistic. I understand that crashes will happen and that deaths will result. I simply don't see a tangable benefit in increasing speed limits that sufficiently counteracts the increased risk of death that comes from collisions at higher speeds.

Nah, I don't want to defend them. I've seen enough stupid driving to last me a lifetime.

Join the club. I'm right there with you on that one.

[bing_oh]

Uh, yeah, there is proof that raising limits will actually REDUCE the incidence of crashes. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

I'm not going to even attempt to address the rest of the uh, "logic" contained in the above ridiculous post. Sorry, I misread you for someone who is smarter than they actually are....

Well, I'm glad you've made your style of "debate" so clear so soon in your tenure here at CarSpin. It makes it so much easier when I know who I should ignore. Have a pleasant day, Dsred.

[Minpin]

I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.

[NomisR]

I appreciate your remarks, Tave. And, I'm not unrealistic. I understand that crashes will happen and that deaths will result. I simply don't see a tangable benefit in increasing speed limits that sufficiently counteracts the increased risk of death that comes from collisions at higher speeds.

Join the club. I'm right there with you on that one.

Well, I think this is the fear of most politicians in regards to raising the speed limit.  When the 55mph speed limit was lifted, I'm sure there's a lot of safety advocates screaming that people are going to suddenly crash and die in large numbers because the speed limit went up.  Obviously, that didn't happen, the rate of accidents and death remained constant, the only thing that changed was the number of tickets issued. 

Same goes when the speed limits of areas went beyond 65 mph.  James has posted some of those stats before..

So basically, is there any benefit of lowering speed limit or having it stay the same if people are still going to be in accidents and dyinig at the same rate?   People that are going to drive recklessly will drive recklessly regardless of speed limits, it's just holding back those that do abide by the law, or have a large portion of those that drives safely but "speed" gets punished.  That still doesn't solve the problem of safety in any way.  In other words, speed limit is just dumbing down of everything take the responsibility of actions away from individuals and lumping all the problems in one area that isn't rightfully deserved. 

So, in order to drastically reduce deaths, you would have to limit all speeds of all cars to 5 mph and i'm sure even some assholes are going to die because of it and the rest of us will be stuck in an eternal traffic jam. 

[dazzleman]

I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.

[Eye of the Tiger]

They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.

And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a reason limit for lower speed limits.  Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.

Sorry, that didn't make any sense.
It seems that I forgot the word "no".

Let me add a bit more while I'm fixing things:

Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have no interest in what speed anyone goes. _{,Driving that is dangerous enough to  make a crash imminent should also be illegal, but that cannot be determined independantly by speed alone, rather by such a large number of variables that the specifics of such a policy could never be put verbatim into a written law. It is subjective, but so is the current enforcement of speedlimits. Things would be nearly the same as they are now, with just a few things removed: enforcement that is inconsistent relative to the law, and writing tickets for non-dangerous driving just to meet quotas..}

[rohan]

I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.

I don't see any cops bitching at each other?  I see them arguing with an occasional stupid person but they're not arguing with each other???


is that better, Greg?

[dazzleman]

I don't see any cops bitching at each other?  I see them arguing with an occasional stupid person but they're not arguing with each other???


is that better, Greg?

I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads.  It does get a little tiring.  Once it starts, I stop reading.

Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO.  But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.

[rohan]

I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads.  It does get a little tiring.  Once it starts, I stop reading.

Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO.  But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.

Gotcha.  That's why I've been coming here less and less.


Adn I was asking you Greg not being a smartass- was that a better reply and less insulting?

[Catman]

Gotcha.  That's why I've been coming here less and less.


Adn I was asking you Greg not being a smartass- was that a better reply and less insulting?

It passes.

[L. ed foote]

And trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.

Passing them on the right works for me

[dazzleman]

Passing them on the right works for me

Same here, if possible.

[Catman]

Passing them on the right works for me

Or through the grassy median.    I once flashed my blue lights behind a left lane camper after miles being stuck behind her doing 55 in a 65.  Instead of moving over the dumb Vermont hick stopped in the lane and slowly pulled into the median!  Of course I was 20 miles outside my jurisdiction but lucky for us, all the people that locked up behind us avoided a pile up.  I chewed her ass and told her to go back to Vermont.

[dazzleman]

Or through the grassy median.    I once flashed my blue lights behind a left lane camper after miles being stuck behind her doing 55 in a 65.  Instead of moving over the dumb Vermont hick stopped in the lane and slowly pulled into the median!  Of course I was 20 miles outside my jurisdiction but lucky for us, all the people that locked up behind us avoided a pile up.  I chewed her ass and told her to go back to Vermont.

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

[Raza]

I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads.  It does get a little tiring.  Once it starts, I stop reading.

Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO.  But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.

It's the Driving and the Law section.  Do you want all the posts to be about butterflies and puppy dogs?

[dazzleman]

It's the Driving and the Law section.  Do you want all the posts to be about butterflies and puppy dogs?

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