This is just lovely...

[Byteme]

I favor placing more unmarked cars among the other vehicles on the road to catch people doing things like texting, weaving in and out of lanes without signaling, clogging passing lanes without passing, etc., as opposed to sitting police cars off the road waiting for speeders.  I think that would do more to make the roads safer.  But it won't happen because it wouldn't raise as much money.

Theya re doing just that in Houston.

[Byteme]

Well, FWIW, if it goes into the "government coffers" it probably does result in a tax decrease or at least a buffer to a potential tax increase. My town recent installed two red light cams which each generate $160K per month. The mayor said that this made up for a loss in state aid and prevented a property tax increase this year.

Either that or "Hot Damn look at this boys, more money to spend on things the public doesn't really want or need."

I guess as long as you see things like the following it just reinforces the public's perception that a frequent reason for traffic tickets are to raise revenue with safety being of secondary concern.  Your own post pretty much sums up the reason for the cameras; revenue generation.

In a November 2008 Detroit News article ("Traffic Fines Help Fill City Coffers" - 11/17/2008) on dramatic increases in traffic citations issued in Detroit and its suburbs, Utica, MI Police Chief Michael Reaves was quoted, "When I first started in this job thirty years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement. But if you?re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues. That's just the reality nowadays."

An April 2010 article in the Springfield (IL) State Journal Register ("Area Sheriffs Concerned About State Police Cutbacks" - 4/4/2010) focused mainly on safety and response implications of an Illinois State Police reduction in force and closing of five ISP district headquarters, but a significant portion of the story were various sheriffs and county officials bemoaning the potential loss to the counties in fine revenue. Perhaps an understandable concern, but the very public assertions only reinforce the perception that "tickets are really about the money."

Quoted in a recent Cincinnati.com article ("Police Divided Over Merits of Ticket Quotas" - 5/13/2010), Woodlawn, OH Police Chief Walter Obermeyer was about as frank as one can be while promoting ticket standards (quotas?) via a department memo, stating if each officer wrote at least ten tickets a month $194,000 could be generated for the city annually. He continued, "If we would send our criminal cases into Mayor's Court instead of downtown, it would generate even more revenue." He warned, "Officers who do not meet the standards will not receive their step increases or pay raises when the village approves them." When the story was reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Obermeyer redacted the mention of discipline from the memo.

And it was reported in January of this year, in the Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard that Auburn, NY Police Chief Gary Giannotta announced in a police staff meeting a new citation standard for his department's patrol officers: Each officer must write one traffic citation per shift worked or face discipline - and his stated purpose was allegedly to increase fine revenue for the city by $2500 per month ("Auburn Police Chief Wants Officers to Write at Least One Ticket a Day to Raise Money for City" - 1/13/2010). His directive appears to be in violation of state labor laws.

Then we can talk about red light cameras.  It's been shown in study after study that increasing the length of time for the amber light and adding a second where every signal is red will dramatically reduce intersection accidents, for just the cost of reprogramming the lights.  Compare that to a red light camera system which is typically installed by a contractor who covers the cost and skims their cut from the top giving the municipality a share for essentially just writing a contract.  It's been shown that in many cases the length of the amber light was actually decreased (by the contractor to entrap more red light runners perhaps?) thus making the intersection more dangerous.

I've no doubt the typical officer doesn't think about municiple revenue enhancement when pulling over a speeder but all too often the emphisis of enforcement is for just that reason.

[GoCougs]

By using James Young's example, 1,000,000 tickets in Texas WRT to its state budget is 0.007% presuming $125 per ticket - adding in the budgets of all municipalities and this number decreases several orders of magnitude. Plus, there is a certain overhead with issuing a citation - from processing, to collections, to court costs, to lost revenue, to equipment purchase/maintenace. Speeding citations are popular because it is the easiest infraction to see and to prove.

The justification of red light and speeding cameras is a bit more problematic but as to simply reprogramming lights, that is a major undertaking, and any data not from a municipalities traffic engineering I wouldn't trust. There are significant law and procedure governing now lights are programmed. Also, the justification that it offsets raising taxes elsewhere makes my head spin.

[mzziaz]

?There is no correlation between speeding and traffic safety.? -- JY

rohan responds: {Wow- that's the [dumbest] thing I have read in a very very very very very very very very very very long time.}
 
Then you should be able to present the case that ?speeding? is correlated to the key measures of traffic safety that I addressed in the note.  You are the maker of the positive assertion; therefore, you have the burden of proof that the assertion is true.  Caution:  the insurance industry and others in the safety cabal have spent billions to prove exactly this case and have been unable to do so for over 70 years.

Oh, really?

Since you claim to have such theoretical knowledge about the topic at hand, I find it strange that you are unaware of the doctoral thesis of G?ran Nilsson, who not only have shown that there is a correlation between speed and traffic safety, but that the correlation can be expressed by a mathematic formula!

Or how about these points from a report by The Institute of Transport Economics in Norway:

1. There is a very strong statistical relationship between speed and road
safety. It is difficult to think of any other risk factor that has a more
powerful impact on accidents or injuries than speed.
2. The statistical relationship between speed and road safety is very
consistent. When speed goes down, the number of accidents or injured
road users also goes down in 95% of the cases. When speed goes up, the
number of accidents or injured road users goes up in 71% of the cases.
While it may to some extent be possible to offset the impacts of higher
speed by introducing other road safety measures, a reduction in speed will
almost always improve road safety.
3. The causal direction between speed and road safety is clear. Most of the
evidence reviewed in this report comes from before-and-after studies, in
which there can be no doubt about the fact that the cause comes before the
effect in time.
4. The relationship between speed and road safety holds up when potentially
confounding factors are controlled for. There is no evidence of a weaker
relationship between speed and road safety in well-controlled studies than
in less well-controlled studies.
5. There is a clear dose-response relationship between changes in speed and
changes in road safety. The larger the change in speed, the larger the
impact on accidents or accident victims.


Rohan is totally right.

[mzziaz]

English source: http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

[GoCougs]

Oh, really?

Since you claim to have such theoretical knowledge about the topic at hand, I find it strange that you are unaware of the doctoral thesis of G?ran Nilsson, who not only have shown that there is a correlation between speed and traffic safety, but that the correlation can be expressed by a mathematic formula!

[snip snip]

Rohan is totally right.

The "speeding" advocates lose the argument that speed does not increase the frequency and severity of crashes. The faster cars go the longer they take to stop, the harder they are to control, and the more damage is done when they crash. Dig deep enough and the overriding concern of traffic engineers is not necessarily preventing crashes but lessening their severity as simply put, crashes will always happen.

The "speeding" advocates win the argument that there can be myriad causes for each individual crash beyond speed, that available data are incomplete/skewed, that in many instances higher speed is only a detriment to the person speeding, and that most people are willing to risk higher frequency and severity of crashes (because the vast majority of people speed and any law that makes the majority law breakers is at a minimum exceedingly troublesome law).

?Speeding? advocates ultimately don?t want speed limits. This is not viable for infinite reasons but most notably people don?t want to share the road with excessive speeders nor do they want to give even more money and power to the state just to enable higher speed limits (graduated and/or stricter licensing, more in depth traffic studies, improved roads, etc.). At the end of the day people by and large are satisfied in general with current traffic enforcement sans cameras. If people weren?t satisfied they?d vote to change it (as we are with camera enforcement ? it?s being voted down all over the country).

[MX793]

Well, FWIW, if it goes into the "government coffers" it probably does result in a tax decrease or at least a buffer to a potential tax increase. My town recent installed two red light cams which each generate $160K per month. The mayor said that this made up for a loss in state aid and prevented a property tax increase this year.

In New Jersey, moving violations go to the state general fund. Nonmovers (and things like cam tickets) go to the local town. Ironically, in many of the towns that openly state that they use tickets for revenue generation, you will almost NEVER get a speeding ticket, as that money goes to the state. You'll almost always receive a "break" and get a seatbelt or "obstruction of view" ticket or something like that. Most larger and mid-size police departments wouldn't go for this, but half the time in the local beach towns at the Jersey Shore, the mayor's brother is the police chief or something like that. We're talking departments with 5-10 officers.

My town, for example, refuses to paint the curbs yellow to signal that it's illegal to park because they want to give out parking tickets. A state law says you must be 25 feet from an intersection and 50 feet from a stop sign or traffic light. But while EVERY town marks the area where parking is prohibited, mine does not. The mayor has openly stated the reason for this is to generate parking ticket revenue. Unfortunately, because nobody knows about that law, people DO park illegally and you can never see when entering an intersection.

I don't know about you, but I have a profound problem with fines/penalties being relied upon as steady income.  These are not necessarily steady forms of income and relying on them as such is financially unsound.  That doesn't even touch into the fact that once the income starts drying up (people start changing driving habits to avoid penalties), they have to resort to other tactics to keep the penalty-sourced income at steady levels.  Tactics such as shortening yellow light durations at lights with cameras, which has proven to be a safety hazard and increase accidents (the exact opposite of the desired effect of a traffic law).

Traffic enforcement should be about safety, not revenue.  But then I guess I'm a bit of an idealistic dreamer...

[ChrisV]

The "speeding" advocates lose the argument that speed does not increase the frequency and severity of crashes. The faster cars go the longer they take to stop, the harder they are to control, and the more damage is done when they crash. Dig deep enough and the overriding concern of traffic engineers is not necessarily preventing crashes but lessening their severity as simply put, crashes will always happen.

Cougs, the argument that going faster CAN increase stopping distances, doesn't mean that going faster means you WILL get into more accidents. You have ZERO proof that going faster means more accidents or more fatalities. You simply don't. You THINK that since IF you crash from a faster speed it will be a worse crash, that IF you go faster you WILL get into a crash AND it will be worse. What happens IN a crash doesn't make a crash more likely. That's the fatal flaw in your entire premise.

For years, motorists? advocates have used engineering-based facts against artificially low speed limits. They have claimed that by raising speed limits to reasonable levels, accident and fatality rates will actually be reduced. This seemingly wild assertion has been documented by the traffic engineering profession for 50 plus years. This fact?based position has again been proven to be true by the repeal of the National Speed Limit. The nation has recorded the lowest highway fatality rate since such records have been kept.

What about the extreme of No Speed Limits on 4 lane Interstate and rural federal?aid primary two lane highways? These same fact?based engineers point to the German Autobahn, where, with no speed limits, authorities are consistently reporting lower fatality rates than comparable US highways.

For the last 5 months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional, reported fatal accidents declined to a record low. Fixed speed limits were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents have begun to rise again.

This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted ? comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?

The lower?than?US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural byproduct of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.

The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, "people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits."

The study on the effects of no daytime speed limits in Montana is clear. Traffic safety, if anything, actually improved without posted limits or massive enforcement efforts. Highway safety wasn't compromised nor can the lowest fatality rates recorded in modern times be ignored.

Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits:

Fatal accident rates on these highways reached an all time low in modern times.

On 2 lane highways with no posted limits the frequency of multiple vehicle accidents dropped 5 percent.

Seat belt usage rose to 88% percent, with only a secondary enforcement law.

Posted limits and their enforcement, had either no or a negative effect on traffic safety.

As predicted by the engineering models, traffic speeds did not significantly change and remained consistent with other western states with like conditions.

The people of Montana and its visitors continued to drive at speeds they were comfortable with, which were often speeds lower than their counter parts on high density urban freeways* with low posted limits.

The theory behind posting speed limits on this classification of road is to reduce conflicts in traffic flow, thereby reducing accidents. The paradox is that the desired effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them.
*Interesting side bar: During this 6 year period, Montana's rural interstates daytime speeds (no speed limit) were consistently lower (on average 5-10 mph and more) than the speeds being reported on many sections of Southern California's 65 mph posted urban interstates.

Interestingly enough, with or without speed limits, Montana's primary traffic fatality issue is with alcohol. Third worst in the nation, in fact.

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/datastats/crashdata/montana_crash_data.pdf

Remove alchohol from the equation, and even with no speed limits, Montana's highways were amongst the safest in the nation in terms of crashes per miles driven and percentage of population (so even though people form other states were coming over and using it as an American Autobahn, they weren't adding to the crash statistics and fatalities as might have been expected). Interestingly, look at the fatality list in that .pdf. the period of time that the "no daytime speed limit" was in effect had the lowest fatality rate EVEN WITH ALCHOHOL INVOLVED.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

At the end of 2001, a year after Montana implemented its new NHTSA backed and sponsored enforcement program, fatalities increased significantly. Now another year of data is in (2002), Montana just recorded a 20 year high in fatal accidents.

In the last 30 years we have institutionalized a billion dollar enforcement industry... a press that transitioned from investigative into a business... the ever ominous politicians looking to get reelected or establishing a legacy... and the ignored traffic safety engineering community who has relentlessly documented cause and effect safety strategies, requires peer review and verification before a standard is adopted as the most effective solution, a group which knows the best policy is one that always encompasses observed human nature.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personifies the traffic enforcement industry, because this industry is its primary constituent. In its role, it first created ?Speed Kills?, next was ?Road Rage? and then the ?Aggressive Driving? slogans and supporting propaganda campaigns to scare the public into growing the enforcement industry (revenues, equipment, staffing). Its press releases as a matter of practice grossly misrepresent data (invent a crisis, then the need to intervene) ? engineering findings never support its conclusions.

And we have police departmnents and city/county/state elected officials openly stating that they need teh revenue from fines and tickets to cover their budgets. Imagine what woudl happen to the citizens if everyone DID obey every minute traffic law? These elected officials and departments would run out of moneuy and new, even tighter laws would be made that people would break and become ATMs again. Why? Because they will never let themselves lose their jobs! If people obeyed traffic laws as stands, do you really think that these huge departments and agencies and businesses woudl simply fold up and go away? Not a chance.

The justification of red light and speeding cameras is a bit more problematic but as to simply reprogramming lights, that is a major undertaking, and any data not from a municipalities traffic engineering I wouldn't trust. There are significant law and procedure governing how lights are programmed.

It's not that major, obviously, as it seems to be easy to SHORTEN them with no cost or oversight. It takes a lot of money to fund a study to determine optimum timing and duration citywide, checking patterns, etc. That's where the big bucks comes in, not in the actual programming. No study is needed to simply add one second to every yellow light (that study has already been done in numerous locations and the info is free for the asking). And the reprogramming is rather trivial, as far as city budgets are concerned, especially for signals on simple timers (aprox 95% of the signals in the US).

[Byteme]

Interestingly enough, with or without speed limits, Montana's primary traffic fatality issue is with alcohol. Third worst in the nation, in fact.

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/datastats/crashdata/montana_crash_data.pdf

Remove alchohol from the equation, and even with no speed limits, Montana's highways were amongst the safest in the nation in terms of crashes per miles driven and percentage of population (so even though people form other states were coming over and using it as an American Autobahn, they weren't adding to the crash statistics and fatalities as might have been expected). Interestingly, look at the fatality list in that .pdf. the period of time that the "no daytime speed limit" was in effect had the lowest fatality rate EVEN WITH ALCHOHOL INVOLVED.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.


SNIP

One factor in Montana's favor was the lack of congestion on the roads.  Going 90 on an interstate in Montana is far safer than going 90 on I-10 between Houston and San Antonio just because the traffic density in Texas is many times what it is in Montana.

I know you are aware that one of the major problems with someone speeding isn't their raw speed as much as it's the speed differential between them and everybody else on the road.  remove most of the other mororists from the road and the accident rate drops dramatically.

[GoCougs]

Cougs, the argument that going faster CAN increase stopping distances, doesn't mean that going faster means you WILL get into more accidents. You have ZERO proof that going faster means more accidents or more fatalities. You simply don't. You THINK that since IF you crash from a faster speed it will be a worse crash, that IF you go faster you WILL get into a crash AND it will be worse. What happens IN a crash doesn't make a crash more likely. That's the fatal flaw in your entire premise.

It's an indefeatible premise - all else being equal the faster cars go the greater the frequency and severity of accidents. The only study that is needed are basic physics (kinetic energy) and basic physiology (reaction time).

The point of practical discussion is, What is the relationship in the increase in speed and the increase in frequency/severity of accidents? This is a much harder study. My strong hunch is even a moderate increase in speed is in most cases a minor factor.

Interestingly enough, with or without speed limits, Montana's primary traffic fatality issue is with alcohol. Third worst in the nation, in fact.

[snip snip]

Absolutely alcohol and other issues on the road are much larger contributors to accidents. Three primary factors - increase the penalties for DUI, increase minimum licensing age to 18, and increase the penalties for causing an accident - will go MUCH MUCH further in making roads safer.

And we have police departmnents and city/county/state elected officials openly stating that they need teh revenue from fines and tickets to cover their budgets. Imagine what woudl happen to the citizens if everyone DID obey every minute traffic law? These elected officials and departments would run out of moneuy and new, even tighter laws would be made that people would break and become ATMs again. Why? Because they will never let themselves lose their jobs! If people obeyed traffic laws as stands, do you really think that these huge departments and agencies and businesses woudl simply fold up and go away? Not a chance.

Some will sure, but I'll bet you find they are mostly via camera enforcement, as there isn't near the overhead associated with an LEO-issued citation (cruiser wear/tear and gas, court and administrative cost, etc.).

It's not that major, obviously, as it seems to be easy to SHORTEN them with no cost or oversight. It takes a lot of money to fund a study to determine optimum timing and duration citywide, checking patterns, etc. That's where the big bucks comes in, not in the actual programming. No study is needed to simply add one second to every yellow light (that study has already been done in numerous locations and the info is free for the asking). And the reprogramming is rather trivial, as far as city budgets are concerned, especially for signals on simple timers (aprox 95% of the signals in the US).

What I meant by "programming" was the entire process as you imply - primarily the study and validation after the fact. This is a significant time/$$ suck given how many traffic lights there can be in the average municipality.

[the Teuton]

Ohio: Legislature Considers Ban On ?Visual Guess? Speeding Tickets

A bipartisan effort to overturn a controversial Ohio Supreme Court ruling garnered the support of twelve of the state Senate?s thirty-three members in just four days. Senators Tim Grendell (R-Chesterland) and Capri S. Cafaro (D-Hubbard) jointly introduced legislation on Thursday that would forbid police from issuing speeding tickets based solely on the officer?s best speed guess.


The bill is designed to chastise the high court for its controversial June 3 ruling that held any police officer could be certified as an expert in visual speed estimation. Once certified, the word of such and officer would be taken as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any speeding violation alleged. As a result, police could hang up their expensive radar and laser units as no longer needed (view decision). Driver?s rights groups, including the National Motorists Association, blasted the ruling.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ohio-legislature-considers-ban-on-visual-guess-speeding-tickets/

This is good news, imo.

[Tave]

If that article is correct, the situation is more extreme than Bing made it out to be.

"Once certified, the word of such and[sic] officer would be taken as proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

To me, that says that a motorist is not allowed to cross-examine the officer as to whether he made a mistake, what the certification process entailed, any adverse conditions on that day that made the estimate harder, etc...

The only question of fact would be whether or not the officer was actually certified, which would be almost automatic for the state to prove. After that, the determination of guilt would be a matter of law--the officer said it, so the motorist did it and is guilty.

Wow, that is pretty wild (again, if the article is true).


*caveat: I don't know much about criminal procedure, but I assumed that the officer's word about his visual estimation and/or testimony about the radar reading could be taken by the factfinder as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume he (judge or jury) wouldn't have to believe the officer, which is what this blurb implies.

[MaxPower]

I think the article meant prima facie evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The thing about it, though, is that when someone testifies in court the fact finder always makes a credibility determination about the witness testifying.  So unlike a radar result, which isn't a person testifying but is also prima facie evidence of speed, a fact finder's decision on prima facie evidence supplied by a live witness could be prone to nullification due to credibility issues (rebutted but not for the intended reason of the law).

[bing_oh]

If that article is correct, the situation is more extreme than Bing made it out to be.

"Once certified, the word of such and[sic] officer would be taken as proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

To me, that says that a motorist is not allowed to cross-examine the officer as to whether he made a mistake, what the certification process entailed, any adverse conditions on that day that made the estimate harder, etc...

The only question of fact would be whether or not the officer was actually certified, which would be almost automatic for the state to prove. After that, the determination of guilt would be a matter of law--the officer said it, so the motorist did it and is guilty.

Wow, that is pretty wild (again, if the article is true).


*caveat: I don't know much about criminal procedure, but I assumed that the officer's word about his visual estimation and/or testimony about the radar reading could be taken by the factfinder as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume he (judge or jury) wouldn't have to believe the officer, which is what this blurb implies.

?The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer?s visual estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite,? Justice O?Connor wrote. ?Rational triers of fact could find a police officer?s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle?s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by OPOTA or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant?s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle?s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding. The officer?s credibility remains an issue for the trier of fact.?

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/summaries/2010/0602/091069.asp

Bolded areas added for emphesis.

It doesn't say that a court must find a person guilty based upon an officer's visual speed estimation...the court has still left the final say in the hands of the lower courts based upon the credabaility of the officer and the extent of his or her training and experience. The ruling also seems to leave arguments from the defense in regards to training, experience, and credability very much open.

I'd say that the writer of the original article either doesn't understand the legal implications of how he or she worded things or is intentionally trying to make the issue more controversial.

[James Young]

mzziaz writes:  {Since you claim to have such theoretical knowledge about the topic at hand, I find it strange that you are unaware of the doctoral thesis of G?ran Nilsson, who not only have shown that there is a correlation between speed and traffic safety, but that the correlation can be expressed by a mathematic formula!}
     
Why would it be strange that I am unaware of an obscure thesis by a single person from an obscure university in a foreign country?  Since we have nearly 90 years of data that contradict his hypothesis, I?ll wait for the peer reviews.
   
{Or how about these points from a report by The Institute of Transport Economics in Norway:}
   
First, the Institute has morphed from a once-legitimate agency into the European equivalent of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  They know where their money comes from.  Again, since this ?finding? flies directly against nearly 90 years of data, I?ll wait for the peer reviews.

[hounddog]

mzziaz writes:  {Since you claim to have such theoretical knowledge about the topic at hand, I find it strange that you are unaware of the doctoral thesis of G?ran Nilsson, who not only have shown that there is a correlation between speed and traffic safety, but that the correlation can be expressed by a mathematic formula!}
     
Why would it be strange that I am unaware of an obscure thesis by a single person from an obscure university in a foreign country?  Since we have nearly 90 years of data that contradict his hypothesis, I?ll wait for the peer reviews.
   
{Or how about these points from a report by The Institute of Transport Economics in Norway:}
 
First, the Institute has morphed from a once-legitimate agency into the European equivalent of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  They know where their money comes from.  Again, since this ?finding? flies directly against nearly 90 years of data, I?ll wait for the peer reviews.

Because the simplist level of physics knowledge completely, utterly and absolutely debunks your systematically dogmatic defense of raw data without any 'real' scientific basis.

Provide something other than fat raw statistics with any type of baseline, and then perhaps you may actually  appear to have some knowledge/credibility regarding data.

Put another way; Physics aint your friend.

[James Young]

Put another way; Physics aint your friend.

Physics ain't the question.

[hounddog]

Because; speed and physics have no shared relationship, right?   

Fortunately for us, your crediblity remains exactly where it was.

[James Young]

My credibility arises from agreement with nearly 90 years of data.  My concern about your opinion is rather like water off a duck's ass.

The argument made by the anti-destination league was:   ?crash, injury and fatality frequency rise disproportionately as driving speed increases.?  Nearly 90 years of data show us that pattern does not obtain and that speeds change ? sometime up and sometimes down ? but crash-, injury-, and fatality rates just continue to decline. 

This is why I maintain that there is no functional relationship between changes in speed limits and changes in key measures of traffic safety.

Therefore, the law that assumes that we can affect the number of crashes by adjusting speed limits is wrong.  Even, worse, it is a lie because it is the deliberate use of a known false assertion with intent to deceive and it degrades those who write, repeat it and support it.  Further, this expands to a distrust of government in general because a government that lies about provably false assumptions will likely lie about even more important things.

Why do they support this incorrect assertion?  No doubt some sincerely believe it but some people also believe professional wrestling is a legitimate sport.  We must base our laws on something more substantial and more rational than faith.  Many support it because they have a vested interest in the outcome that currently obtains.  Hundreds of billions of dollars change hands every year because of this false assertion and those receiving that cash protect it vigorously.  For example, the insurance industry has tried for decades to prove the assertion true, going so far as to cherry-pick their data and even just making it up.  In short, they are willing to lie to protect their investment.  Others buy into it because their livelihood depends on continuing the practices that arise out of it.

As a society, we have spent trillions on infrastructure to mitigate the physics that are the ultimate sanctuary of those desperate to protect their economic position without regard to science or fact.  The reason for this investment is simple:  higher speeds mean greater productivity and greater productivity means improved economic well-being.  Yet, the Luddite forces would force us to abandon that investment because the ideals of the past are preferable to the reality of the future.

[hounddog]

90 years of data?   

LOL

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but crash statistic data has not been kept for 90 years.  It has not been kept for 60 years.
In fact, the NHI, from which you so often spew raw data out of context, only came into existance in the early 70s.  Since they are the gate keepers for this "data" it would be fair to say any data prior to their formation would be sketchy at best, indecipherable at worst.

You are such a blatherskite it reaches the heights of 'absolute' stupidity.

[bing_oh]

"Blatherskite!" Ha! Damn, I missed you around here, Tony!

[James Young]

{I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but crash statistic data has not been kept for 90 years.  It has not been kept for 60 years.}

From the Center for Disease Control (1999):  ?The reduction of the rate of death attributable to motor-vehicle crashes in the United States represents the successful public health response to a great technologic advance of the 20th century--the motorization of America. Six times as many people drive today as in 1925, and the number of motor vehicles in the country has increased 11-fold since then to approximately 215 million (1). The number of miles traveled in motor vehicles is 10 times higher than in the mid-1920s. Despite this steep increase in motor-vehicle travel, the annual death rate has declined from 18 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1925 to 1.7 per 100 million VMT in 1997--a 90% decrease.?

{In fact, the NHI, from which you so often spew raw data out of context, only came into existance in the early 70s.  Since they are the gate keepers for this "data" it would be fair to say any data prior to their formation would be sketchy at best, indecipherable at worst.}

What is the NHI?  The current keeper of data is primarily NHTSA, which was created under FHA.  Agencies dealing in transportation issues have been around since the formation of our nation. 

{You are such a blatherskite it reaches the heights of 'absolute' stupidity.}

That?s rather like being called ugly by a toad.  The fact is that you do not know what you?re talking about but even worse you believe you have inside information and are better qualified than the general public.  You?re not better qualified; you not qualified at all because what you ?know? is wrong.  I can support what I say; all you can do is bluster and bitterly condemn a reality that passed by you with nary a nod.  You've been reduced to namecalling on an Internet board.

[hounddog]

{I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but crash statistic data has not been kept for 90 years.  It has not been kept for 60 years.}

From the Center for Disease Control (1999):  ?The reduction of the rate of death attributable to motor-vehicle crashes in the United States represents the successful public health response to a great technologic advance of the 20th century--the motorization of America. Six times as many people drive today as in 1925, and the number of motor vehicles in the country has increased 11-fold since then to approximately 215 million (1). The number of miles traveled in motor vehicles is 10 times higher than in the mid-1920s. Despite this steep increase in motor-vehicle travel, the annual death rate has declined from 18 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1925 to 1.7 per 100 million VMT in 1997--a 90% decrease.?

Anyone who knows anything regarding anything about nothing knows this does not constitute data in any form therein.  This also in no way shape or form accounts for any type of enforcement, safety features or anything else in any fashion.  It is merely a regurgitation of miles driven.  An old and oft used argument which takes nothing into account other than there are more cars on the road.  "According the the Michigan DNR Chief Gustavson, there are approximately 3 million deer in Michigan in 1999, by comparison there were approximately 100,000 in 1900.  Today we have approximately 12 car deer accidents on any given day exluding the rutting season in this state.  This means there are 10,000 times more car vs deer accidnets per day than in 1990."  It is not data, it is simple statement.  Would you care for me to quote the definition of data?  Nah, I probably not need to do that.  

{In fact, the NHI, from which you so often spew raw data out of context, only came into existance in the early 70s.  Since they are the gate keepers for this "data" it would be fair to say any data prior to their formation would be sketchy at best, indecipherable at worst.}

What is the NHI?  The current keeper of data is primarily NHTSA, which was created under FHA.  Agencies dealing in transportation issues have been around since the formation of our nation.

Oh my goodness gracious, how horrible I wrote the wrong acronym, I am completely discredited.  There may have been an agency here or charged with dealing in transportation, but the NHTSA has only been here since the early 70s, as I stated.  Nice try though.


 
"In 1940, the United States implemented automobile design legislation, concerning sealed beam headlamps, which had recently been invented and were an important safety advance at that time. This regulation, virtually unchanged for the next 40 years, set a pattern of using auto safety design legislation to freeze innovation at a point in time.

In 1958, the UN established the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which began to promulgate what would eventually become UN's Economic Commission for Europe or ECE Regulations on vehicle design, construction, and safety performance. The United States declined to join the forum or adopt its (or any other) vehicle safety regulations at that time. However, vehicles meeting the ECE safety standards were legal to import into the United States.

In 1965 and 1966, public pressure grew in the US to increase the safety of cars, culminating with the publishing of Unsafe at Any Speed, by Ralph Nader, an activist lawyer, and the National Academy of Sciences' "Accidental Death and Disability?The Neglected Disease of Modern Society".

In 1966, Congress held a series of highly publicized hearings regarding highway safety, passed legislation to make installation of seat belts mandatory, and enacted Public Law 89-563, Public Law 89-564, and Public Law 89-670 which created the U.S. Department of Transportation on October 15, 1966). This legislation created several predecessor agencies which would eventually become the NHTSA, including the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National Highway Safety Bureau. Once the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards came into effect, vehicles meeting the ECE safety standards but not the U.S. standards were no longer legal to import into the United States.

The NHTSA was officially established in 1970 by the Highway Safety Act of 1970. In 1972, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act expanded NHTSA's scope to include consumer information programs."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_Traffic_Safety_Administration

{You are such a blatherskite it reaches the heights of 'absolute' stupidity.}

That?s rather like being called ugly by a toad.  The fact is that you do not know what you?re talking about but even worse you believe you have inside information and are better qualified than the general public.  You?re not better qualified; you not qualified at all because what you ?know? is wrong.  I can support what I say; all you can do is bluster and bitterly condemn a reality that passed by you with nary a nod.  You've been reduced to namecalling on an Internet board.

Namecalling?  You are in love with your own keyboard, for certain.   Funny thing is, you never actually back up what you say.  Remember the "thousands" of departments you claim were nothing more than "speedtraps?"  I have yet to see one shred of evidence supporting the use of the word "thousands" from you.   Empty, unbackable hot air.  Oh, speaking of which;

blath?er?skite   /ˈbl??ərˌskaɪt/  Show Spelled[blath-er-skahyt]  Show IPA
?noun
1. a person given to voluble, empty talk.

[James Young]

{Anyone who knows anything regarding anything about nothing knows this does not constitute data in any form therein. . . .  It is merely a regurgitation of miles driven.}

Implicit in the phrase ?annual death rate? is the existence of data captured, quantified, and tabulated into information.  Without knowing both the number of fatalities and the VMT, both of which are data, this knowledge would not exist. 

{ This also in no way shape or form accounts for any type of enforcement, safety features or anything else in any fashion. }

It wasn?t supposed to address anything other than your bogus claim that also dishonestly altered my assertion of ?nearly 90 years?:   ?I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but crash statistic data has not been kept for 90 years.  It has not been kept for 60 years.?  That information from CDC is 85 years old and it is something I had at hand. 

{Oh my goodness gracious, how horrible I wrote the wrong acronym, I am completely discredited.  There may have been an agency here or charged with dealing in transportation, but the NHTSA has only been here since the early 70s, as I stated.  Nice try though.}
   
Writing the wrong acronym is not what discredits you; rather, it is your limited understanding of the issues and your propensity to answer the wrong question or to offer extraneous or pointless diatribes such as your history of NHTSA.  I do not believe that anybody has claimed that NHTSA ever existed before 1970 not do I see any relevance to it.  NHTSA is hardly the unique source of traffic safety data.  Remember, the important thing about NHTSA is not how long it has existed but that it's your data and it still does not prove your case. 

You can have the last word for a while.  I?m going to be traveling or working on location for about 2-3 weeks.

[Submariner]

2-3 weeks without you?  Pity...

[dsred]

Once again James win every argument...convincingly.