Have you ever thought a speed limit was too fast?

[GoCougs]

Uh, you guys really don't want subjective law (i.e., "reasonable and prudent") to be the law of the land. Further, anarchy is not freedom.

Further, you will simply have to expend all your energy in keeping the status quo - from GWist-inspired 55 mph national speed limit, to the continued proliferation of red light and speeding cameras, to the often-mentioned in-vehicle GPS transponders for mileage and location taxation purposes, there is many a specter looming owing to the prevailing political winds.

[dazzleman]

Uh, you guys really don't want subjective law (i.e., "reasonable and prudent") to be the law of the land. Further, anarchy is not freedom.

Further, you will simply have to expend all your energy in keeping the status quo - from GWist-inspired 55 mph national speed limit, to the continued proliferation of red light and speeding cameras, to the often-mentioned in-vehicle GPS transponders for mileage and location taxation purposes, there is many a specter looming owing to the prevailing political winds.

You're right that anarchy isn't freedom.  You're also right about the danger of the prevailing political winds.

I support things like speed limits and safety inspections because I think the law is meant to guide wise men and restrain fools, and there are a lot of fools out there, and their actions can have a bad effect on others.  That's what we have to protect against.

But of course now we've reached the point where laws are being manipulated for other ends, like revenue, and this I don't support.

[Tave]

Montana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.

I refer you to State of Montana v Stanko.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MT&vol=97&invol=486

Federal funding might have had something to do with it, but the specific event that caused it's demise was the Stanko case. Remember, the legislature refused to follow the governor's and highway patrol's request to instate a numerical limit. They had to be forced by the court.

[ChrisV]

I support things like speed limits and safety inspections because I think the law is meant to guide wise men and restrain fools, and there are a lot of fools out there, and their actions can have a bad effect on others.  That's what we have to protect against.

It can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

[dazzleman]

It can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

That is a good point.

[bing_oh]

Montana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.

Actually, Chris, I'm not sure that's true. To my knowledge, there's no longer any connection between interstate highway speed limits and federal highway money. That changed when the Feds dropped their insistance on the double-nickle speed limit some years ago. Now, speed limits vary from state to state on interstate highways, but all those states still get federal highway money.

[bing_oh]

It can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

I think you're underestimating the number of people in the US who are simply fucking idiots and who are breeding more idiots into our society. They aren't made into idiots by legislation...most of these people could care less what the law is and disregard it anyway. These "lowest common denominatior" people are mostly made by upbringing. Their parents are irresponsible idiots and they teach their children to be irresponsible idiots. I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...and see their so-called parenting skills. You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.

Is it unfortunate that we have to make common sense laws for these kinds of people? Yes, it is. But, it's also necessary for the protection of society as a whole. If all people could apply comon sense, thought before acting, and considered not only how the consequences of their actions effected them but effected others, then we wouldn't need laws at all. Of course, we woud be a very different species than we are right now, too.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:  They aren?t made into idiots by legislation. . . .}
   
But they are made into criminals by legislation and thereby become the interest of the state, requiring resources from the judicial system and the social welfare system.
{I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...}
   
True of virtually any large department.  My criticism of law enforcement is that they so often confuse all citizens with these regular customers. 
{You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.}

Nor can you change them by making laws more restrictive.  I don?t believe that law enforcement has a legitimate role in social reformation of the disenfranchised, unemployed, uneducated, addicted, or impaired beyond protecting society and them from each other.  What benefit accrues to society by further burdening the addict with the label of criminal?  Are not these people and society better served by providing social services and education rather than adjudication and incarceration, freeing up enforcement for other legitimate needs?

[ChrisV]

Actually, Chris, I'm not sure that's true. To my knowledge, there's no longer any connection between interstate highway speed limits and federal highway money. That changed when the Feds dropped their insistance on the double-nickle speed limit some years ago. Now, speed limits vary from state to state on interstate highways, but all those states still get federal highway money.

While Montana was never at risk of losing highway money, it's listed as one of the primary reasons legislators re-instated the speed limits (and lack of speed related revenue). In fact, legilators were misled by the Governor and the head of the Highway patrol, who both testified that they woudl lose the money AND that Montan was having a crisis on it's roadways.

Nevermind that Montana's highway fatalities were at an all-time low at that point, and had been decreasing every year the "reasonable and prudent" law had been in effect.

I think you're underestimating the number of people in the US who are simply fucking idiots and who are breeding more idiots into our society. They aren't made into idiots by legislation...most of these people could care less what the law is and disregard it anyway. These "lowest common denominatior" people are mostly made by upbringing. Their parents are irresponsible idiots and they teach their children to be irresponsible idiots. I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...and see their so-called parenting skills. You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.

Is it unfortunate that we have to make common sense laws for these kinds of people? Yes, it is. But, it's also necessary for the protection of society as a whole. If all people could apply comon sense, thought before acting, and considered not only how the consequences of their actions effected them but effected others, then we wouldn't need laws at all. Of course, we woud be a very different species than we are right now, too.

I disagree. People are not allowed to be responsible for themselves, in fact, are discouraged by law, regulation, and the like. And are being encouraged to be that way by governmental agencies run by people who feel we have to protect ourselves FROM ourselves at any cost.  if you never have to rise above yourself, by laws that limit youre need to get more skilled at something, or by regulations that benefit you when you take the lowest common denominator path (welfare, for example) then you get a society that quickly aims itself at the bottom floor. "I don't have to do better. I'm getting a handout." "I don't have to try harder. I'm already a 'winner'." I don't need to take responsibility. It's someone else's fault. I'm just a victim! I'm gonna sue somebody."

Legislators, lawmakers, and the increasingly less responsible people that voted for them are, in fact, responsible for the dumbing down of society. And they get exactly what they are aiming for: lowest common denominator people dependent on them, protected by lowest common denominator laws that force them to not think for themselves.

Notice I'm not blaming LEOS. You guys get the short stick in this scenario, as you have to enforce increasingly bad, and increasingly unpopular laws. It actually makes it harder for you to do your jobs because now EVERYBODY is a potential outlaw, not just a few "repeat customers."

[bing_oh]

I disagree. People are not allowed to be responsible for themselves, in fact, are discouraged by law, regulation, and the like. And are being encouraged to be that way by governmental agencies run by people who feel we have to protect ourselves FROM ourselves at any cost.  if you never have to rise above yourself, by laws that limit youre need to get more skilled at something, or by regulations that benefit you when you take the lowest common denominator path (welfare, for example) then you get a society that quickly aims itself at the bottom floor. "I don't have to do better. I'm getting a handout." "I don't have to try harder. I'm already a 'winner'." I don't need to take responsibility. It's someone else's fault. I'm just a victim! I'm gonna sue somebody."

Legislators, lawmakers, and the increasingly less responsible people that voted for them are, in fact, responsible for the dumbing down of society. And they get exactly what they are aiming for: lowest common denominator people dependent on them, protected by lowest common denominator laws that force them to not think for themselves.

Notice I'm not blaming LEOS. You guys get the short stick in this scenario, as you have to enforce increasingly bad, and increasingly unpopular laws. It actually makes it harder for you to do your jobs because now EVERYBODY is a potential outlaw, not just a few "repeat customers."

Are you, personally, any less responsible because of the laws curently in place? Do you look for the quick welfare handout from the government? Do you limit how hard you try because somebody told you you're already a "winner?" Are you an automatic victim? Somehow, I think the answer to all of those questions is "no." So...why? You live under the same laws and whthin the same society (to some extent) that my "regular customers" do. Shouldn't you (and I, and every other responsible, law-abiding contributor to society) be acting the same way because we are being conditioned by the law? No, at some point in our lives, we were taught differently and so we act differently. I'm guessing it wasn't the government in any form that did that teaching. The foundations of those teachings were probably laid around the time we were learning to walk and talk.

I agree wholeheartedly that many aspects of our system encourage abuse and victimization and a lack of individual responsibility. It pisses me off to no end when I see people manipulating the system to their personal benefit, living better than I am without a job, ignoring the laws that I follow and enforce. I would love to see reforms in our system that eliminate all those loopholes AND give the good people more freedom. But, opening up the laws before making socital changes is putting the cart before the horse. You need to teach responsibility before you can give freedom. If you just give freedom to the people who are already manipulating the system...the "regular customers" we see in LE...then they will not learn responsibility but just take advantage of the changes for personal gain.

You have to accept that there is a segment of the population that doesn't think like you and I do. They don't understand personal responsibility and they don't WANT to. They have no desire to better themselves and definitely don't want to better society.

[bing_oh]

I imagine I'm going to regret this, as I always do when I respond to you, James...

But they are made into criminals by legislation and thereby become the interest of the state, requiring resources from the judicial system and the social welfare system.

Their actions make them criminals. Don't blame the system because someone does something stupid that society doesn't want them to do. You don't eliminate the criminal act by legislative decriminalization...you just eliminate the "crime" statistically.

True of virtually any large department.  My criticism of law enforcement is that they so often confuse all citizens with these regular customers.

Too bad I work for a small department, huh? You can criticize LE all you want for confusing the citizenry as a whole with the "regular customers." While I may look at all people with a certain degree of suspicion simply for the purposes of safety, I don't confuse one group with the other.

Nor can you change them by making laws more restrictive.  I don?t believe that law enforcement has a legitimate role in social reformation of the disenfranchised, unemployed, uneducated, addicted, or impaired beyond protecting society and them from each other.  What benefit accrues to society by further burdening the addict with the label of criminal?  Are not these people and society better served by providing social services and education rather than adjudication and incarceration, freeing up enforcement for other legitimate needs?

You don't change the "regular customers." "Reform" is the buzzword of the liberals...you'll be hard-pressed to find many liberal LEO's. No, the best way to deal with these people is to separate them from society and minimize the damage they can do to the good people. You can have your love affair with the ideas of providing social services and education to these people, thus changing them into productive members of society. It's all rainbows and sunshine hippie bullshit. People do not change unless they want to change and no amount of government assistance will force them to do so.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:  {Actually, [a lot] of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes.}
     
If that is the case, such activity is a miserable failure.  There is no correlation between the level of enforcement ? measured in number of ?contacts,? citations, checkpoints, or officer saturation ? and key measures of traffic safety and no correlation has ever been established.  In harsher terms, those ?proactive? stops are wasted in terms of public safety improvements.  The best predictors of institutional behavior are history, inertia, protection of the institution and growth of the institution. 

Repeating the same behavior and hoping for a different outcome is a classic definition of insanity and it certainly applies in this case. 

Why do you keep defending an obviously failed system?

[bing_oh]

bing_oh writes:  {Actually, [a lot] of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes.}
     
If that is the case, such activity is a miserable failure.  There is no correlation between the level of enforcement ? measured in number of ?contacts,? citations, checkpoints, or officer saturation ? and key measures of traffic safety and no correlation has ever been established.  In harsher terms, those ?proactive? stops are wasted in terms of public safety improvements.  The best predictors of institutional behavior are history, inertia, protection of the institution and growth of the institution.  

Repeating the same behavior and hoping for a different outcome is a classic definition of insanity and it certainly applies in this case.  

Why do you keep defending an obviously failed system?

What, did you swallow a psychology textbook this morning, Jimmy?

"Predictors of institutional behavior?" Ugh. Stop trying to sound like a university professor and respond so the rest of us troglodytes can figure out what the hell you're talking about, please.

[Eye of the Tiger]

What, did you swallow a psychology textbook this morning, Jimmy?

"Predictors of institutional behavior?" Ugh. Stop trying to sound like a university professor and respond so the rest of us troglodytes can figure out what the hell you're talking about, please.

Troll harder.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:  {What, did [you] swallow a psychology textbook this morning . . .?}

Naturally, you dealt with the wrong thing.  The important issue -- from a public policy perspective -- is the absence of a correlation between enforcement and key measures of traffic safety. 

I?ll ask the same question in starker form:  Why do you and your brethren continue to do the same thing when the results are negative?

Sidebar:  I am an economist and policy analyst, not a psychologist.  I am not keen on psychology and, much like you, view it with some suspicion.  I do find that the quote of repeating an action in the hopes of obtaining a different result had to come from Albert Einstein, a physicist, and not from the psychology community.

[James Young]

Tave writes:  {Remember, the legislature refused to follow the governor's and highway patrol's request to instate a numerical limit.}
So, the court set out to help the highway patrol and the number of fatal crashes doubled as a result of their action to fulfill MHP?s desire.    

I am familiar with the region south of Ft. Peck and, IIRC, the area where defendant Stanko was stopped is low rolling treeless hills with unhindered visibility in all directions.  Stanko?s alleged speed was 85 mph, which hardly even presses the envelop.  Speeds well in excess of that are common on Montana.  Just this time last year, I was cruising at right around 100 mph through the Madison River valley.  Stanko is notorious in Montana and Wyoming as the founding reverend of COTC (Church of the Creator), for his association with the Freemen, his racial vitriol in Fremont County, Wyoming, and his hatred of the federal government.  Speculating what happened:  Stanko saw Trooper Breidenbach and baited him into a stop.  Breidenback unfortunately rose to the bait like a trout to a mayfly.  

As NACar said so simply and so accurately:  {It would work fine if it wasn't enforced}

Had either Stanko or Breidenbach not taken their precipitous actions, we would not have the problem we have now and several hundred people would not have died.

Further speculation:  this was a setup to generate a test case.  Evidence:  absolute absence or denial of any behavior other than a routine speed of 85 mph.  No recklessness, no alcohol, no skidding, no traffic, no bad weather, new tires, "sports car" (Camaro) with stiff suspension; in short, isolation of speed as the singular issue.

[bing_oh]

bing_oh writes:  {What, did [you] swallow a psychology textbook this morning . . .?}

Naturally, you dealt with the wrong thing.  The important issue -- from a public policy perspective -- is the absence of a correlation between enforcement and key measures of traffic safety. 

I’ll ask the same question in starker form:  Why do you and your brethren continue to do the same thing when the results are negative?

Sidebar:  I am an economist and policy analyst, not a psychologist.  I am not keen on psychology and, much like you, view it with some suspicion.  I do find that the quote of repeating an action in the hopes of obtaining a different result had to come from Albert Einstein, a physicist, and not from the psychology community.

Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a biproduct of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.

As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE. You assume that traffic enforcement is generally random, for example. It's not. Most departments, large and small, engage in at least some directed patrol and enforcement related to statistical mapping of problem areas and problem violations. It's just part of the job in modern LE where everything is automatically mapped by computer.

You also assume that "random patrol" or "random enforcement" is ineffective. The results of the Kansas City Experiment seem to support that. The problem with that is, that was an experiment conducted in 1972...pretty much the dark ages of LE. There's a major difference in how LE is done in 2009 compaired to how it was done in 1972...including the statistical mapping I mentioned earlier. Alot of things in LE aren't "random" anymore. Much patrol and enforcement is directed. Realistically, you cannot say that we are continuing to do the same thing with negative results because there's no real baseline to compair it to. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a "control group" where we stopped patrol in a specific area and documented any fluctuations in violations for more than 30 years. So, really, neither of us can say what real effect patrol and enforcement has on something like crashes. You say it has no effect, while I could say that it's holding things in check and there would be a huge spike if it wasn't done. Who's right?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a biproduct of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.

As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE. You assume that traffic enforcement is generally random, for example. It's not. Most departments, large and small, engage in at least some directed patrol and enforcement related to statistical mapping of problem areas and problem violations. It's just part of the job in modern LE where everything is automatically mapped by computer.

You also assume that "random patrol" or "random enforcement" is ineffective. The results of the Kansas City Experiment seem to support that. The problem with that is, that was an experiment conducted in 1972...pretty much the dark ages of LE. There's a major difference in how LE is done in 2009 compaired to how it was done in 1972...including the statistical mapping I mentioned earlier. Alot of things in LE aren't "random" anymore. Much patrol and enforcement is directed. Realistically, you cannot say that we are continuing to do the same thing with negative results because there's no real baseline to compair it to. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a "control group" where we stopped patrol in a specific area and documented any fluctuations in violations for more than 30 years. So, really, neither of us can say what real effect patrol and enforcement has on something like crashes. You say it has no effect, while I could say that it's holding things in check and there would be a huge spike if it wasn't done. Who's right?

Jimmy is right. 

[Tave]

I am familiar with the region south of Ft. Peck and, IIRC, the area where defendant Stanko was stopped is low rolling treeless hills with unhindered visibility in all directions.  Stanko?s alleged speed was 85 mph, which hardly even presses the envelop.  Speeds well in excess of that are common on Montana.  Just this time last year, I was cruising at right around 100 mph through the Madison River valley.

Ah, but apparently less familiar with the specific road. He wasn't travelling on I-94. He was on Highway 200 and at trial, "The officer testified that the road at that location was narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave. He also testified that the portion of the road over which he clocked Stanko included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway ahead."

I'm very familiar with the narrow two-lane roads of eastern Montana, and can tell you that 85 mph would be excessive on many of them and deserving of a routine speeding ticket.

Further speculation:  this was a setup to generate a test case.  Evidence:  absolute absence or denial of any behavior other than a routine speed of 85 mph.  No recklessness, no alcohol, no skidding, no traffic, no bad weather, new tires, "sports car" (Camaro) with stiff suspension; in short, isolation of speed as the singular issue.

Oh no doubt. He hunted the officer down as seen from the testimony:

"Kenneth Breidenbach is a member of the Montana Highway Patrol who, at the time of trial and the time of the incident which formed the basis for Stanko's arrest, was stationed in Jordan, Montana. On March 10, 1996, he was on duty patrolling Montana State Highway 24 and proceeding south from Fort Peck toward Flowing Wells in ?extremely light? traffic at about 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning, when he observed another vehicle approaching him from behind.

"At Flowing Wells, where Highway 24 intersects with Montana State Highway 200, he stopped or slowed, made a right-hand turn, and proceeded west on Highway 200. About one-half mile from that intersection, in the first passing zone, the vehicle which had been approaching him from behind passed him."

[James Young]

bing_oh writes: {Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a [byproduct] of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.}

Noted.  I call it the arrogance of inside knowledge and it works both ways.  Can you honestly tell us that you don?t condescend your ?regular customers? because you are aware of many things that they are not?  My usual audience is a combination of the academic community (other PhDs) and two business communities.  My two jobs are CFO of a winery and consultant to a movie production company, both very sophisticated groups.

More importantly, I write for precision, of which ?predictors of institutional behavior? is an example and a very important concept.  There are certain characteristics and conditions that predict behavior in an institutional setting such as law enforcement.  Efficacy is not one of those predictors.

We can agree on the irritation of writing style.  You don?t like my phraseology; I don?t like your retreat into jargon. 

{As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE.}

I am not going by what I think I know about your job at all.  I am going by measurements of inputs and results.  What I know about how you do your job is irrelevant.  I am only looking to see if it works at a macro level.

Over the past 90 years we have had increases and decreases in the level of enforcement and have a steady decline in the fatality rate with but two glitches in the trend.  In 1942 and in 1974 speed limits were lowered significantly.  In 1942 we have no evidence to believe that the level or intensity of enforcement increased and every reason to believe that it diminished due to the war effort.  In 1974 the level of enforcement exploded, not only among extant agencies seeing scofflaw speeders as an insult to their authority but among many small communities who jumped on the enforcement-for-profit bandwagon.  In just Oklahoma, somewhere between 50 and 100 communities established their own police departments between 1974 and 1980.

However, in both cases, the fatality rate increased.  Connecticut tried a famous blitz of traffic enforcement many years ago; their fatalities declined (we don?t know the fatality rate) so they intensified their efforts to truly draconian levels the following year and the fatalities more than doubled.  Arizona has had similar experience with blitzes lasting months.  Many states and municipalities have blitzes at certain times but we can find no consistent data to support a conclusion that any of these efforts have been successful.

Even more telling is the Sherlock Holmes observation of the dog that didn?t bark.   Were there data or even a hint of evidence that enforcement effort could affect key measures (or even absolute values), the enforcement community would be shouting it from the rooftops, on every radio and television channel, and to every newspaper in America.  The silence tells us more than any statistics than I can show.

[James Young]

Tave writes:  {Ah, but apparently less familiar with the specific road. He wasn't travelling on I-94. He was on Highway 200 and at trial, "The officer testified that the road at that location was narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave. He also testified that the portion of the road over which he clocked Stanko included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway ahead."}

I never said I-94.  I as referring to the area between Glendive, Lewiston and Great Falls; however, it?s been years since I was up there.  (Last year I was in West Yellowstone and Bozeman).  I suspect many vehicles on I-90 and I-94 are in triple digits.

[bing_oh]

Noted.  I call it the arrogance of inside knowledge and it works both ways.  Can you honestly tell us that you don’t condescend your “regular customers” because you are aware of many things that they are not?  My usual audience is a combination of the academic community (other PhDs) and two business communities.  My two jobs are CFO of a winery and consultant to a movie production company, both very sophisticated groups.

More importantly, I write for precision, of which “predictors of institutional behavior” is an example and a very important concept.  There are certain characteristics and conditions that predict behavior in an institutional setting such as law enforcement.  Efficacy is not one of those predictors.

We can agree on the irritation of writing style.  You don’t like my phraseology; I don’t like your retreat into jargon.

Actually, I only condescend my regular customers when I do so intentionally...and, yes, there are times when condescention is a useful interview tool. A good police officer knows how to speak to a miriad of different people and groups and adjust how they speak so that the communication is clear.

I am not going by what I think I know about your job at all.  I am going by measurements of inputs and results.  What I know about how you do your job is irrelevant.  I am only looking to see if it works at a macro level.

Over the past 90 years we have had increases and decreases in the level of enforcement and have a steady decline in the fatality rate with but two glitches in the trend.  In 1942 and in 1974 speed limits were lowered significantly.  In 1942 we have no evidence to believe that the level or intensity of enforcement increased and every reason to believe that it diminished due to the war effort.  In 1974 the level of enforcement exploded, not only among extant agencies seeing scofflaw speeders as an insult to their authority but among many small communities who jumped on the enforcement-for-profit bandwagon.  In just Oklahoma, somewhere between 50 and 100 communities established their own police departments between 1974 and 1980.

However, in both cases, the fatality rate increased.  Connecticut tried a famous blitz of traffic enforcement many years ago; their fatalities declined (we don’t know the fatality rate) so they intensified their efforts to truly draconian levels the following year and the fatalities more than doubled.  Arizona has had similar experience with blitzes lasting months.  Many states and municipalities have blitzes at certain times but we can find no consistent data to support a conclusion that any of these efforts have been successful.

Even more telling is the Sherlock Holmes observation of the dog that didn’t bark.   Were there data or even a hint of evidence that enforcement effort could affect key measures (or even absolute values), the enforcement community would be shouting it from the rooftops, on every radio and television channel, and to every newspaper in America.  The silence tells us more than any statistics than I can show.

Your job as an economist tells me alot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation. Unfortunately, few things in the real world fit into such neat, clean equations...especially not people. I can tell you that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues...our backgrounds, outlooks, and understanding of the world and those who occupy it are too contradictory. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory equation and you'll never be able to fit your equations into the very unpredictable, unpleasant, dirty real world that I work in. So, it seems that further discussion of the issue would be moot.

I bid you a pleasant evening, sir.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Actually, I only condescend my regular customers when I do so intentionally...and, yes, there are times when condescention is a useful interview tool. A good police officer knows how to speak to a miriad of different people and groups and adjust how they speak so that the communication is clear.

Your job as an economist tells me alot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation. Unfortunately, few things in the real world fit into such neat, clean equations...especially not people. I can tell you that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues...our backgrounds, outlooks, and understanding of the world and those who occupy it are too contradictory. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory equation and you'll never be able to fit your equations into the very unpredictable, unpleasant, dirty real world that I work in. So, it seems that further discussion of the issue would be moot.

I bid you a pleasant evening, sir.

It is too late for you, I suppose, as you have already chosen the path of the dark side. It is sad that your every word on the subject is so easy to predict, and see through.

[bing_oh]

It is too late for you, I suppose, as you have already chosen the path of the dark side. It is sad that your every word on the subject is so easy to predict, and see through.

Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

[Minpin]

Anyone else ever get the feeling that Bing Oh and James Young are the same person? I just feel like they are talking back and forth, but from the same brain. Trippy, I know. 

[J86]

Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

pot, kettle...

[Tave]

I never said I-94.  I as referring to the area between Glendive, Lewiston and Great Falls; however, it?s been years since I was up there.  (Last year I was in West Yellowstone and Bozeman).  I suspect many vehicles on I-90 and I-94 are in triple digits.

He was on a narrow two-lane with no shoulder, road damage, and frequent, unmarked intersections--a far cry from limited-access, divided, multi-lane interstate highways.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

You think you're a good police officer, but getting rid of cops like you will be part of cleaning up the system when the time comes.

[bing_oh]

pot, kettle...

Please feel free to quote any inapproprate comments I've made on here, J86. In fact, please forward them to the mods so that they can discipline me approprately. Of all the things I may do around here, I try my damndest to keep the debate civil and adult.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes: {Your job as an economist tells me a lot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation.}

Economics is not always about equations, especially public policy economics.  My problem with your approach is that it confuses and, worse, substitutes the techniques of the process for the goals that the public demands.  Remember, techniques by definition are secondary to results.