raise highway and interstate speedlimits 10 MPH

[bing_oh]

Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.

You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.

Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a word for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.

Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.

No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.

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.

You had better hope that officers aren't applying much discretion to serious violations. The more serious the violation, the more stringently the law should be applied. There are some laws where there shouldn't be much "gray area."

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.

Why do you consider speed limits "senseless and irrelevant?" I though we agreed that the physics connected to higher-speed crashes increases the likelihood of serious injury or death for those involved. Speed limits are an attempt to mitigate (to some degree) those physics WHEN crashes occur. Eliminate all crashes and speed limits become senseless and irrelevant...but we're not at that point, are we?

And, I find the current enforcement of traffic laws less than acceptable. I don't find the level of enforcement of red light or stop sign violations to be any better than speed limit violations. But, we're stuck with limited resources to enforce these laws. Again, you don't eliminate a law because you can't catch every offender. We do what we can to enforce the laws fairly with the limited resources available. Why did you not propose that traffic enforcement budgets be vastly increased and all observed traffic violations result in enforcement action with no application of officer discretion? Would that not, essentially, serve the same purpose?

[Soup DeVille]

Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.

You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.

Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a work for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.

Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.

No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.

Oh Jesus Christ! you and I both no that is not what I'm saying at all, but that's a very nice looking strawman you've built there.

Of course you would still have fixed signs, not some kind of horribly complex real-time updating software. You would simply re-evaluate those speed from time to time (as I've said repeatedly) according to the 85th percentile.

You then enforce that speed limit. You don't enforce 12 MPH over that limit, you enforce 2 MPH over that limit: and you still have discretion to nab the seriously dangerous speeders according to your own discretion under current laws. Honestly, nothing I'm saying is that complex or hard to understand.

Oh, and for the record, Montana's "reasoanble and prudent" speed limits worked quite well when put under the scrutiny of statistics, and when they re-introduced prima fascia speed limits, their accident rate actually went up!

Seriously, Bing: if you want to have a discussion, at least try to understand what I'm saying.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.

You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.

Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a work for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.

Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.

No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.

It's great to have an LEO on ehre admit that speedlimits are mostly arbitrary. That's a step in the right direction, at least. 
I have to disagree, however, that politicians have any more education or knowledge than the general public. Nobody needs an engineering degree to determine what a safe speed is in any given condition. Everyone who has a driver's license should have some level of that ability, and it is improved with experience and training. While the general public definately lacks training, they do have a lot of experience. Most people drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate for the conditions, mostly ignoring the numbers on speedlimit signs unless they see a cop. If a driver needs a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Simply requiring additional driver training and removing speedlimits entirely might actually make the roads safer. Drivers would be better trained, and they would be free to go whatever speed they determine is prudent. I think the biggest changes would be a huge drop in traffic tickets, and some sad insurance companies.

[Soup DeVille]

responding to your added edits:

You had better hope that officers aren't applying much discretion to serious violations. The more serious the violation, the more stringently the law should be applied. There are some laws where there shouldn't be much "gray area."



Why do you consider speed limits "senseless and irrelevant?" I though we agreed that the physics connected to higher-speed crashes increases the likelihood of serious injury or death for those involved. Speed limits are an attempt to mitigate (to some degree) those physics WHEN crashes occur. Eliminate all crashes and speed limits become senseless and irrelevant...but we're not at that point, are we?

And, I find the current enforcement of traffic laws less than acceptable. I don't find the level of enforcement of red light or stop sign violations to be any better than speed limit violations. But, we're stuck with limited resources to enforce these laws. Again, you don't eliminate a law because you can't catch every offender. We do what we can to enforce the laws fairly with the limited resources available. Why did you not propose that traffic enforcement budgets be vastly increased and all observed traffic violations result in enforcement action with no application of officer discretion? Would that not, essentially, serve the same purpose?

There is no quantitative measurement of "wanton disregard" it is the officer's judgement that such is happening, and yes, it requires his discretion to decide when it is happening. That should be clearly evident.

Speed limits are irrelevant precisely because they are so routinely ignored. They are as irrelevant as New England sodomy laws because everybody disobeys them.

Laws should only be concerned with behavior that is danger or unacceptable to the vast majority of the population. Because nearly everybody speeds, current speed laws do not pass that test, and are therefore senseless.

[bing_oh]

You're right, you didn't say that. I just gave you the PERFECT (totally technologically unrealistic) 85th percentile system. Your system serves the same purpose, except that it includes a time lapse for "re-evaluation." In theory, there's no difference between your system and mine. It's still based on the beloved 85th percentile system. There's no strawman in evidence...I just simplified the whole thing for the purpose of our discussion.

By the way, you adroitly avoided the gist of my entire argument. That, your system or the the one currently in place, all speed limits are arbitrary. The alternative ("reasonable and prudent") is is unenforcable rubbish. Put the Montana laws on the LA highways and see what you get.

[bing_oh]

It's great to have an LEO on ehre admit that speedlimits are mostly arbitrary. That's a step in the right direction, at least. 

Any law is, arguably, "arbitrary." That's all point of view, isn't it? Not much of a step, I'm afraid.

Most people drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate for the conditions, mostly ignoring the numbers on speedlimit signs unless they see a cop. If a driver needs a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Simply requiring additional driver training and removing speedlimits entirely might actually make the roads safer. Drivers would be better trained, and they would be free to go whatever speed they determine is prudent.

I've already said that I don't trust the general public to make that decision most of the time. Too many of them make the wrong decision when crunch time comes around. And, even with the highest levels of training in controlled situations, crashes happen. Ever watch NASCAR? Perfect pavement, closed course, well-trained drivers....crashes. Oops. How about in the real world? I've received advanced training in pursuit driving, as have most other police officers. Ever hear of a police car crashing? I have. People make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Your example is a perfect-world scenario.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Any law is, arguably, "arbitrary." That's all point of view, isn't it? Not much of a step, I'm afraid.

Screw you, then 

[Soup DeVille]

You're right, you didn't say that. I just gave you the PERFECT (totally technologically unrealistic) 85th percentile system. Your system serves the same purpose, except that it includes a time lapse for "re-evaluation." In theory, there's no difference between your system and mine. It's still based on the beloved 85th percentile system. There's no strawman in evidence...I just simplified the whole thing for the purpose of our discussion.

By the way, you adroitly avoided the gist of my entire argument. That, your system or the the one currently in place, all speed limits are arbitrary. The alternative ("reasonable and prudent") is is unenforcable rubbish. Put the Montana laws on the LA highways and see what you get.

The only thing about the 85th percentile idea that's arbitrary is the number 85. it could be 90, 95, or 86.756 for all I care.

What's important is the concept behind it: that the vast majority of drivers are law abiding people who do not wish to put them selves or others in serious danger, and are capable of deciding for themselves at what speeds they can accomplish those things.

This is not mob rule as you would claim it to be: its rule by majority: in this case an extreme majority, and I can think of a couple other things in this country that are decided by a vote of the majority.

I can also hear the aristrocratic argument that once claimed giving people the right to vote was nothing more than "mob rule."

And I would love for the state of California to have the cajones to try something as open-minded as Montana did.

[bing_oh]

The only thing about the 85th percentile idea that's arbitrary is the number 85. it could be 90, 95, or 86.756 for all I care.

What's important is the concept behind it: that the vast majority of drivers are law abiding people who do not wish to put them selves or others in serious danger, and are capable of deciding for themselves at what speeds they can accomplish those things.

This is not mob rule as you would claim it to be: its rule by majority: in this case an extreme majority, and I can think of a couple other things in this country that are decided by a vote of the majority.

I can also hear the aristrocratic argument that once claimed giving people the right to vote was nothing more than "mob rule."

I'll repeat myself...people make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Speed limits are in place to mitigate the effects when (not "if") mistakes happen. I'm not claming that the driving public is full of scofflaws, I'm saying it's full of PEOPLE! You're going to have to deal with the fact that we're imperfect eventually.

[Soup DeVille]

I'll repeat myself...people make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Speed limits are in place to mitigate the effects when (not "if") mistakes happen. I'm not claming that the driving public is full of scofflaws, I'm saying it's full of PEOPLE! You're going to have to deal with the fact that we're imperfect eventually.

Exactly the reason I'm not advocating the 100th percentile rule.

[dazzleman]

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?

Actually, I don't.  I'm just trying to bring out facts, such as they are.  I'm not really making an argument either way here.

[Catman]

I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do.     But, I do admire Bing_oh's futile attempt to respond to people who want a Utopian world where all their views are adopted into law so they can carry on at their own personal standard.

[TheIntrepid]

I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do.   

[bing_oh]

I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do.     But, I do admire Bing_oh's futile attempt to respond to people who want a Utopian world where all their views are adopted into law so they can carry on at their own personal standard.

Ya know, Catman, I really don't care about speed limits all that much myself. I personally can't stand traffic enforcement and know that my opinions don't really mean jack...this is all just academic. Of course, I'm also extremely stubborn and can't back down from a debate.

[Catman]

Ya know, Catman, I really don't care about speed limits all that much myself. I personally can't stand traffic enforcement and know that my opinions don't really mean jack...this is all just academic. Of course, I'm also extremely stubborn and can't back down from a debate.

Most cops don't like traffic enforcement.  If I did I would have went to the MA State Police.  I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered.

[bing_oh]

Most cops don't like traffic enforcement.  If I did I would have went to the MA State Police.  I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered.

That's one of the reasons I never wanted to be a trooper. 25 years of chasing taillights and doing crash reports. Ugh! Fortunately, I can still retire at 25 years and 48 years old being a city cop.

[Catman]

That's one of the reasons I never wanted to be a trooper. 25 years of chasing taillights and doing crash reports. Ugh! Fortunately, I can still retire at 25 years and 48 years old being a city cop.

I'll have to wait till 54 unless they change the system.

[Raza]

I couldn't imagine being that old.  Hopefully I'll liquefy my organs in a spectacular crash that you can all talk about long before that.

[CALL_911]

I couldn't imagine being that old.  Hopefully I'll liquefy my organs in a spectacular crash that you can all talk about long before that.

I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?

[Soup DeVille]

I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?

James Dean complex.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

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

Actually, it is universally-accepted by traffic engineers and MUTCD as the sine qua non in establishing  speed limits.  All 50 states are signatories to MUTCD, hence subject to its regulations, including the 85th percentile.  There is a sub-school of engineers who are now advocating using the 95th percentile on rural and Interstate-grade roadways because that is the point where the crash incidence curve minimizes.  They?re not just making this stuff up to irritate cops.

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.

What needs to be legitimized is the law because it is hopelessly out of date.  According to the University of Maryland, some 92% of drivers are speeding at some time during their drive.  That clearly means the law is wrong.

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?

Do I think that people want higher limits that result in safer roadways?  Yes.  I?m not sure your sentence came out the way you intended.

I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.

Yet, those drivers are producing fewer crashes, injuries and fatalities per mile driven than ever.

dazzleman writes:
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.

Partly true.  The concept that people in general ? not just drivers ? push themselves to a certain level of risk (through their own internal calculus) is known as risk homeostasis.  It is not true that the fatality rate is constant since it has been falling for 80 years.

bing_oh writes:

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.
AND
You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.

The formulation of your request indicates that you do not understand the 85th percentile.  It is not a specific speed.  It varies from time to time and from place to place.  Consider CA 120 coming down from Tuolumne Meadows (Yosemite) toward Nevada.  The 85th might be 35 mph.  OTOH, I-15 between Riverside and San Diego has an 85th that is probably 90 mph.  Likewise, I-70 across eastern Colorado has an 85th of about 87 mph until it snows and then the 85th goes right out the window.  For you to ask for a specific number means you don?t understand the concept.  The genius of the 85th is that drivers automatically adjust for conditions.  Given good weather, moderate traffic and the absence of enforcement (a key element), the 85th will consistently center very closely around the same speed for similar stretches of road for long periods of time.

[dazzleman]

Most cops don't like traffic enforcement.  If I did I would have went to the MA State Police.  I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered.

Greg, do the state police in Massachusetts have a major crimes unit to assist local departments with the sort major crimes that the local departments don't have much experience with?

[Catman]

Greg, do the state police in Massachusetts have a major crimes unit to assist local departments with the sort major crimes that the local departments don't have much experience with?

MA State Police

[Byteme]

Yet, those drivers are producing fewer crashes, injuries and fatalities per mile driven than ever.

I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries.  I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven.  Where did you get that statistic. 

The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles. 

You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths. 

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf

[Catman]

I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries.  I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven.  Where did you get that statistic. 

The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles. 

You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths. 

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf

You've just unlocked the gates of hell.

[L. ed foote]

[Byteme]

You've just unlocked the gates of hell.

Well, what can I tell you - facts is facts. 

[Raza]

I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?

I don't get it, do you enjoy being an idiot so people can make fun of you?

What's so miserable about not wanting to get old?

[Soup DeVille]

I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries.  I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven.  Where did you get that statistic. 

The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles. 

You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths. 

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf

It's funny how that graph starts trending down in 1997, yet the IIHS says nothing about it in their paper there.

[bing_oh]

I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries.  I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven.  Where did you get that statistic. 

The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles. 

You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths. 

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf

Wasn't my statement. You just attributed a James Young statement to me. For such an insult, I'm now enroute to your house with a rifle equipped with a high-powered scope and night vision equipment.