Whoops... :(

[James Young]

GoCougs writes:

Correlations are rarely standalone arguments. Further, I am not familiar with the report, but am skeptical of it (or at least your citation) based upon your last statement.

Statistics 101 plainly states that a correlation is not a proxy for causality.

Correlations are but a tool to help us see relationships between phenomena.? Without relationships there can be no causality.? The absence of significant correlations in this case clearly shows that there is no relationship between changes in speed limits and changes in crash rates, a case long made by the anti-speed forces.?
?
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm for the Parker Report synopsis.

The US' road safety ranking among industrialized (Western) nations has consistently slipped the last few decades primarily because of its laxed DUI laws.

What is your source for this?? And is that your conclusion or the original author?s?

Note that NHTSA uses ?alcohol-related? rather than ?drunk driving,? and that any party with any amount of alcohol is considered ?alcohol-related? crash.? Thus, a pedestrian who consumed a single glass on wine hit by an 85-year old legally blind man who ran a stop sign is considered ?alcohol-related."
?

Though that sounds interesting, it is not much more than a novelty.

Well, that ?novelty? has had some pretty good early successes in New Mexico.

One DUI should result in many months' suspension of driving and mandatory jail time. A second DUI should be at least a year hiatus and a month in the slammer. A third DUI should be a lifetime ban on the endeavor and many months in jail.

It looks like all you want to do is punish people for drinking.? I want to stop dangerous driving.?

Oh, and people choose to become drunks.

Then you need to present your case.? An expanding body of research is pointing towards a specific genetic anomaly as a predictor of alcoholism.

What I am saying is that high school physics is about all anyone needs to know IMO.

Then you need to reconsider your opinion.? Physics is a fine, useful discipline but it hardly completes the repertoire of knowledge or skills required to determine the best policy to operate a traffic system.

[GoCougs]

I'm gassed on the subject for now.

The battle against speed limit enforcement is long lost IMO. It is becoming stricter and more expensive by the day.

If people truly want safer roads, lobby for for much stricter penalties for DUI. Perhaps a nice byproduct will be lower emphasis on speed enforcement.

Onboard GPS nanny systems are just around the proverbial corner. Want a battle? That'll be a lot more fun I think.

[TheIntrepid]

Here's a question; if there's so much of a problem on speeding, why don't they limit road cars to 85mph or something?

I'd be totally against the idea, but why has this never been considered?

[Champ]

People don't like their control taken away from them.

That still wouldn't solve the problem of speeding in areas not on the highway.

[Catman]

I'm gassed on the subject for now.

The battle against speed limit enforcement is long lost IMO. It is becoming stricter and more expensive by the day.

If people truly want safer roads, lobby for for much stricter penalties for DUI. Perhaps a nice byproduct will be lower emphasis on speed enforcement.

Onboard GPS nanny systems are just around the proverbial corner. Want a battle? That'll be a lot more fun I think.

You and I will be long dead and james will still be posting...... :P

[Soup DeVille]

I was reading through some notes from my last class on traffic crash reconstruction we were quizzed on stopping distance vs. reaction time vs. sight distance vs. centripical force... etc.? ?I came across this in my handwriting in the border of the class text:
"Some drivers have a reaction time of less than one second while others take as long as 3.5 seconds.? Reaction time depends on several factors to include; fatigue, weather, experience, time of day, properties of hazard ie size and shape and color.? UofM traffic safety studies have shown the average driver can react in 2.5 seconds or less.? Therefore the brake reaction time normally used should be 2.5 seconds."? So I guess you need to adjust your math, according to MSU and Dr. Lee.?

Regardless of how long the reaction time is, distance travelled before the reaction takes place would still be directly proportional with speed, not quadrupling every extra ten MPH.

Use any number you wish, but any driver taking 2.5 seconds to react; much less 3.5, has no business driving any vehicle.

[the nameless one]

Consider why that is.? There is no rational measure of why particular motorists are stopped.? What gets ignored on Monday will be cited on Tuesday; 15-over gets ignored at 10 AM and 7 over gets cited at 10:30 AM.? Driving in the presence of an officer is an exercise in avoiding trigger events rather than performing in a safe and reasonable manner.? Driving out of the presence of an officer is a calculus of self-preservation.

So you think that there should be some form of universal, across the board response to a given violation? Say, 10 over automatically results in a ticket? Officers are human beings, not robots. You will never get a universal, 100 % all-the-time response to a given violkation.

And in Reply #114:

Those costs are insignificant, requiring little more than some data entry time.? Something like 95% of citations are simply paid without any court involvement.? Again, the statistics are educated guesses because the data are obscured.?

What you continue to ignore is that those costs ? officer time and benefits, data entry, storage, even bailiffs, clerks, court reporters and judges ? are paid from taxes before any cites are issued.? The fines are gravy.

The costs...particularly for tickets that go to trial..are hardly "insignificant". Tickets still get entered by the departments, tracked by the courts, etc....even the sizeable number which are fix-it type tickets which get tossed when the defect is corrected. No revenue is received at all from those, yet they still incur expenses to the agency and the court.

[the nameless one]

Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities?

You and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit". Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower to be on the streets and roads addressing the traffic related complaints of the community members. If it wasn't for that grant money, those patrols would have to be funded as a seperate budget line item in the departments budget and paid for out of everyones already-too-high property taxes. Or  worse yet not exist at all, in which case the traffic complaints of the community would not be as readily addressed due to a lack of manpower and the traffic problems would continue unabated. Other than that "benefit", its hardly a "benefit". Its not like the agency is able to add millions of dollars to its budget by collecting fine money, which you seem to think of as a universal "benefit" of traffic enforcement.

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

So you think that there should be some form of universal, across the board response to a given violation? Say, 10 over automatically results in a ticket? Officers are human beings, not robots. You will never get a universal, 100 % all-the-time response to a given violkation.

No, the better solution is to target dangerous behavior and only dangerous behavior.  Ignore the people driving 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, the people that are now targeted because they are easy pickings.  Do away with helmet and seatbelt laws, mandatory vehicle inspection, electronic toys such as radar and laser, and concentrate instead on maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the system, especially as measured by average speed of flow.

Let the cops now on traffic patrol move to crimes against people and property.  And let those who excuse their hypocritical behavior suffer the consequences of that behavior.  Or better yet, let those cops run a real public driving school that teaches real driving with a skid pad, track, computerized training similar to pilot training, and let the insurance companies pay for it.  It?s time for those two groups to put up or shut up.

Since a citation seems to be your answer to everything from burned-out license plate lights to crabgrass, I?m led to believe that you must have been a priest in the Tower of London in a previous life.

The costs...particularly for tickets that go to trial..are hardly "insignificant".

Get serious.  Ninety-five percent of the tickets are just paid and never see a courtroom.  The cost of administering these tickets is minimal, essentially nothing more than some data entry time, usually just indexing a ticket that is already scanned.  Regardless of the cost, if traffic enforcement is that important to the jurisdiction, then it?s important enough to pay out of tax revenues.  Just don?t BS us or worse, yourself.

[dazzleman]

I have to side with James Young on the revenue issue.

While it's true that tickets that are challenged don't produce revenue, it's also true that most tickets aren't challenged.  Traffic fines overall are a revenue source in most jurisdictions, and it's foolish to deny that.

[Soup DeVille]

You and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit". Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower to be on the streets and roads addressing the traffic related complaints of the community members. If it wasn't for that grant money, those patrols would have to be funded as a seperate budget line item in the departments budget and paid for out of everyones already-too-high property taxes. Or? worse yet not exist at all, in which case the traffic complaints of the community would not be as readily addressed due to a lack of manpower and the traffic problems would continue unabated. Other than that "benefit", its hardly a "benefit". Its not like the agency is able to add millions of dollars to its budget by collecting fine money, which you seem to think of as a universal "benefit" of traffic enforcement.

So wait a second, if traffic enforcement (in its current state) is of such utmost importance to the community members, why shouldn't they be willing to pay for it?

"Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower"

In other words: it pays the paycheck of a sizable number of officers. Furthermore, taking those costs out of the hands of the taxpayers and making it dependant on the ability to collect fines creates a self-serving and self-justifying aspect to law enforcement.

[James Young]

You and I will be long dead and james will still be posting...... :P

Thanks Catman.  I hope you?re right.  This year will be my 50th year of doing this, the result of a superb 8th grade English teacher who challenged us to write a research paper presenting a statistical argument in conjunction with our math class, which was teaching some basic statistics.  I happened to come across a Reader?s Digest synopsis of a Harvard College (now University) School of Public Health study that the real reasons for fatal automobile crashes were frequently not what the police said on the official report.  A contrarian was born.

About two weeks ago, I ran into that teacher and we talked about that assignment and my paper.  Teachers can have a profound effect on students, often in unanticipated ways.   

[James Young]

Soup DeVille writes:

?Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities??

the nameless one responds:

You and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit".

The usual definition of benefit revolves around the term ?advantage,? that is one gains something that they did not enjoy previously, particularly through a payment or gift.  In terms of monetary receipts, benefits refers to income or in an agency?s case, revenue.  Your agency received funding, which it previously did not enjoy, in exchange for some particular traffic enforcement.  What you received is clearly a benefit.

Don?t try to read too much into it.

[GoCougs]

The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):

1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate

I do not know what "excessive speed" is.

[the nameless one]

No, the better solution is to target dangerous behavior and only dangerous behavior.? Ignore the people driving 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, the people that are now targeted because they are easy pickings.? Do away with helmet and seatbelt laws, mandatory vehicle inspection, electronic toys such as radar and laser, and concentrate instead on maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the system, especially as measured by average speed of flow.

How many people get cited already for 77 in a 70? Not many. So it already IS essentially ignored.

Seatbelts are good. Why do away with laws requiring them? You think the rest of us don't pay in some fashion when an unbelted person is hurt or killed in a wreck because they weren't restrained? Or are you one of those "if I was belted in in my wreck I would have died " guys.
Vehicle inspections= keeps the vehicle up to a minimum level of maintenance on critical components which some drivers if theyw ere not forced to do so would not do. That endangers the rest of us.

You'll never see things like RADAR or LASER done away with because even if your beloved Interstates had no speed limits tomorrow, there would still be enforcement in communities in residential neighborhoods, etc. Of course you'd LOVE to have officers forced to rely on things like visual estimates or pacing because it would give you more room to argue error in the event you DID get ticketed, right James?

Let the cops now on traffic patrol move to crimes against people and property.? And let those who excuse their hypocritical behavior suffer the consequences of that behavior.? Or better yet, let those cops run a real public driving school that teaches real driving with a skid pad, track, computerized training similar to pilot training, and let the insurance companies pay for it.? It?s time for those two groups to put up or shut up.

There are private schools where you can pay for that training if you really want it. The police shouldn't be doing that sort of  training, any more than they should be providing firearms training to concealed carry permit applicants. In this era of litigation, the agency would be assuming too much liability.

Officers already work on crimes against people and property. The reality is that in most areas, speed enforcement is a time filler activity. Areas with dedicated traffic enforcement guys who do nothing BUT traffic enforcement, have made that investment because of the amount of traffic issues they deal with.

Since a citation seems to be your answer to everything from burned-out license plate lights to crabgrass, I?m led to believe that you must have been a priest in the Tower of London in a previous life.

I don't recall ever discussing crabgrass with you James; I'll advise you to use Roundup in that case. As for burnt out license plate bulbs, if someone has that sort of equipment violation, a simple fix it ticket prompts them to fix the problem with zero financial penalty to them. It ensures that the defect will be corrected.

Get serious.? Ninety-five percent of the tickets are just paid and never see a courtroom.? The cost of administering these tickets is minimal, essentially nothing more than some data entry time, usually just indexing a ticket that is already scanned.? Regardless of the cost, if traffic enforcement is that important to the jurisdiction, then it?s important enough to pay out of tax revenues.? Just don?t BS us or worse, yourself.

Costs are going down thanks to the newer generation of E tickets and scanned tickets, but you multiply the number of tickets and even at "minimal" cost per ticket, it still adds up. I'm not BSing you at all.

Who said the jurisdiction DOESN'T pay already out of tax revenue for traffic enforcement? I assume that you are referring to the grant issue. The reality is that grants allow a dedicated response in time and manpower to traffic issues that might have not been possible without the grant. In this day and age of the public shooting down budgets, getting grant money to extend the funding and services available through regular taxation is important.

[the nameless one]

In other words: it pays the paycheck of a sizable number of officers. Furthermore, taking those costs out of the hands of the taxpayers and making it dependant on the ability to collect fines creates a self-serving and self-justifying aspect to law enforcement.

Lets clarify something here:
The grants I am thinking of allow agencies to put officers on the road in an OT status to deal specifically with traffic complaints. The reality is that agencies receive far more traffic related complaints for specific time frames than they are able to deal with by using available  regularly scheduled personnel, most of whom have to deal with calls for service before they can focus on traffic enforcement. The majority of such public traffic complaints center around specific timeframes: 6 AM to 9 AM, 3 PM to 6 PM, 11 PM to 2 AM for example: basically high volume times people with drivers going back and forth to work, or closing time for the bars. Too many complaints from too many people in that narrow a time frame to allow the available officers to be everywhere they need to be for those few hours. Holding a couple of guys over from their normal shifts for a short time and funding them through a grant to address those problems in those limited times is addressing a specific problem that otherwise the agency might not have been able to do with available funding.

If some areas use the grant money to fund an officer full time, it has to be because there are enough traffic related issues in that area that the agency can justify assigning someone on a full time status to traffic enforcement. The stats provided above:

"1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate "

shows exactly why agencies take trafic enforcement seriously and why its not just about fine revenue.

[James Young]

The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):

1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate

I do not know what "excessive speed" is.

Do you have a source for these stas, something more specific than just WSP ad?

"Excessive speed" can cover several different concepts.  In NHTSA parlance, it means any speed exceeding the posted limit, too fast for condtions, too slow for conditions, and "unsafe lane changes."  I can't make up stuff this good.

Since I'm not on my own laptop (undergoing some repair right now), I'll address just #2 above.  DUI is interpreted by the public as "drunk driving."  As I said in a previous example (real, BTW), a pedestrian after having consumed a single glass of wine was struck by an 80-something year old legally blind man.  Since alcohol was "involved" it goes down under that DUI, although the alcohol in no way contributed to the crash.  Yes, it dishonest but that's the way NHTSA has worked for years.

[James Young]

How many people get cited already for 77 in a 70? Not many. So it already IS essentially ignored.

You must live in a parallel universe.  The thousands of speed traps across the nation (and their city brethren who have openly opted to use traffic enforcement for profit) routinely cite for five-over.

Seatbelts are good. Why do away with laws requiring them? You think the rest of us don't pay in some fashion when an unbelted person is hurt or killed in a wreck because they weren't restrained?

I would not drive without my seatbelt.  However, the government's role is not that of a nanny.  Let's compromise:  leave the belt laws on the books but any fines arising therefrom go to a scholarship fund and never to the jurisdiction or any agency thereof.

Vehicle inspections= keeps the vehicle up to a minimum level of maintenance on critical components which some drivers if theyw ere not forced to do so would not do. That endangers the rest of us.

States with mandatory inspection have injury and fatality rates no different from those states without them.  In short, they impose a burden without a benefit.

You'll never see things like RADAR or LASER done away with because even if your beloved Interstates had no speed limits tomorrow, there would still be enforcement in communities in residential neighborhoods, etc. Of course you'd LOVE to have officers forced to rely on things like visual estimates or pacing because it would give you more room to argue error in the event you DID get ticketed, right James?

It would force the LEOs to focus on the real job instead of relying on their toys.  What I want them to do is concentrate on dangerous driving, not the routine stuff where they cite for a 75th percentile speed.  That's immoral.

I've only had one cite in the last 12 years and that was because I was the only car out of about 20 that had foreign plates.  Mission, KS, a notorious speedtrap.

There are private schools where you can pay for that training if you really want it. The police shouldn't be doing that sort of? training, any more than they should be providing firearms training to concealed carry permit applicants. In this era of litigation, the agency would be assuming too much liability.

I have already utilized those private schools (Bondurant) but I'm trying to offer up something that the cops could do with a real benefit.

Officers already work on crimes against people and property. The reality is that in most areas, speed enforcement is a time filler activity. Areas with dedicated traffic enforcement guys who do nothing BUT traffic enforcement, have made that investment because of the amount of traffic issues they deal with.

I never implied that they didn't work crimes against people and property.  However, there is huge contingent of cops who do nothing but speed enforcement.  There are about three dozen very bad speed traps who enforce nothing but speed because there are no signals in their jurisdiction and the county sheriff handles criminal matters.

Costs are going down thanks to the newer generation of E tickets and scanned tickets, but you multiply the number of tickets and even at "minimal" cost per ticket, it still adds up. I'm not BSing you at all.

The point that you refuse to get is that the revenue adds up a lot faster than the administration costs.

The reality is that grants allow a dedicated response in time and manpower to traffic issues that might have not been possible without the grant.

If traffic issues are really that bad (a very long stretch of the imagination for Ithaca), then the taxpayers should be happy to provide the necessary funds to handle that traffic.  But even the, a grant is an inflow of revenue, by any definition a benefit.

[GoCougs]

Do you have a source for these stas, something more specific than just WSP ad?

"Excessive speed" can cover several different concepts.? In NHTSA parlance, it means any speed exceeding the posted limit, too fast for condtions, too slow for conditions, and "unsafe lane changes."? I can't make up stuff this good.

Since I'm not on my own laptop (undergoing some repair right now), I'll address just #2 above.? DUI is interpreted by the public as "drunk driving."? As I said in a previous example (real, BTW), a pedestrian after having consumed a single glass of wine was struck by an 80-something year old legally blind man.? Since alcohol was "involved" it goes down under that DUI, although the alcohol in no way contributed to the crash.? Yes, it dishonest but that's the way NHTSA has worked for years.

WSP's report: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/bc9c8bdb-a735-4948-850a-47b72696e4d9/0/shsp.pdf.

(Also note that the above stats were for 2001 - 2005.)

As to your counter to point #2: The 47% number does indeed include drinking nonmotorists killed by nondrinking drivers, but bumps the number up by only 3-4% or so, and IMO, nullifying in spirit your critique of the stat. Stripping all the rest of it way, impared drivers with at least a BAC > 0.08 or toxilogical test confirming drug use were responsible for 44% of fatalities.

I did find the definition of "excessive speed": Speeding was defined as Driving Too Fast for Conditions or in Driving in Excess of Posted Maximum for at least one driver involved in the collision."

I see your issue with this definition; though it's not quite as open-ended as the one you mentioned. I did not see in the report the method of determination of speed. If the Powers that Be (through accident investigation, mere opinon or whatever) are assigning blame for fatalities solely on the fact that a driver was doing 55 in a 50, I agree that that is a problem. However, I am extremely skeptical that the speeding stat is abused in this manner; if but for nothing else that such a succinct determination of such a small speed variance is impossible.

[Soup DeVille]

Lets clarify something here:


...shows exactly why agencies take trafic enforcement seriously and why its not just about fine revenue.

So you agree that there is an aspect to traffic enforcement which is about fine revenue then?

[Raza]

The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):


6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)

That is the most useless statistic I've ever seen!

[ro51092]

Statistics show that 96% of statistics are bullshit.

Okay, my statistics show that.

[Champ]

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.

That doesn't make any sense.

[James Young]

 GoCougs writes:

WSP's report: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/bc9c8bdb-a735-4948-850a-47b72696e4d9/0/shsp.pdf.

As to your counter to point #2: The 47% number does indeed include drinking nonmotorists killed by nondrinking drivers, but bumps the number up by only 3-4% or so, and IMO, nullifying in spirit your critique of the stat. Stripping all the rest of it way, impared drivers with at least a BAC > 0.08 or toxilogical test confirming drug use were responsible for 44% of fatalities.

Very cool site.? Thanks.? Washington State has been moderately progressive but very open in what, how and why they do things, at least in relation to traffic management and safety.? I see that they have proposed using photo-speed enforcement to mitigate ?speed-involved? crashes but the efficacy of this system is unproven at best, counterproductive at worst.? However, it does ? I know this will shock you! ? raise a lot of revenue for the state.? ?Who?d a thunk it?

However, I?m wary of their ?impaired? driver statistics because of what they omit:? sleep-deprived drivers, the fastest growing category of problematic drivers.? They essentially limit ?impairment? to alcohol and drugs but sleep deprivation is growing much too fast.? Of course, the LEOs don?t enforce for that because you cannot easily and remotely measure how sleepy a driver is.?

I see your issue with this definition; though it's not quite as open-ended as the one you mentioned. I did not see in the report the method of determination of speed. If the Powers that Be (through accident investigation, mere opinon or whatever) are assigning blame for fatalities solely on the fact that a driver was doing 55 in a 50, I agree that that is a problem. However, I am extremely skeptical that the speeding stat is abused in this manner; if but for nothing else that such a succinct determination of such a small speed variance is impossible.

The way NHTSA reporting works is this.? All fatal crashes are required to be reported by law.? Most injury and some non-injury crashes are routinely reported in data sent to NHTSA by local police departments.  They do not do their own investigations for their recurring reporting but only special projects.

The cause of the crash as reported to NHTSA comes from the judgment of the local cop, not necessarily any scientific criteria.? Local cops use ?excessive speed? for almost everything, unless another compelling reason jumps out at them.? Why do they do this?? Personal political safety because nobody will likely question them, whereas if they put ?ROW violation? or ?fell asleep,? then they expose themselves to political risk.?

[GoCougs]

GoCougs writes:

Very cool site.? Thanks.? Washington State has been moderately progressive but very open in what, how and why they do things, at least in relation to traffic management and safety.? I see that they have proposed using photo-speed enforcement to mitigate ?speed-involved? crashes but the efficacy of this system is unproven at best, counterproductive at worst.? However, it does ? I know this will shock you! ? raise a lot of revenue for the state.? ?Who?d a thunk it?

However, I?m wary of their ?impaired? driver statistics because of what they omit:? sleep-deprived drivers, the fastest growing category of problematic drivers.? They essentially limit ?impairment? to alcohol and drugs but sleep deprivation is growing much too fast.? Of course, the LEOs don?t enforce for that because you cannot easily and remotely measure how sleepy a driver is.?

The way NHTSA reporting works is this.? All fatal crashes are required to be reported by law.? Most injury and some non-injury crashes are routinely reported in data sent to NHTSA by local police departments.? They do not do their own investigations for their recurring reporting but only special projects.

The cause of the crash as reported to NHTSA comes from the judgment of the local cop, not necessarily any scientific criteria.? Local cops use ?excessive speed? for almost everything, unless another compelling reason jumps out at them.? Why do they do this?? Personal political safety because nobody will likely question them, whereas if they put ?ROW violation? or ?fell asleep,? then they expose themselves to political risk.?

Hey, look at that. Some common ground.

I did see the blurb about the recommendation of the "proven" method of speed cameras. Open season on 5 mph over drivers will never solve a thing. I think in at least this we are in agreement. Luckily, here I've never seen a camera; red-light, speed or otherwise.

IIRC in that report, sleepy drivers are lumped in with distracted drivers, and I think the only way you'll know for sure is if someone cops to it.

[Tave]

I agree with James on photo radar. They did it in Scottsdale and that's exactly what it was. The first day they had annhilated ticket records, and it went on to become quite the cashcow. Only problem was it didn't make the interstate safer and nobody paid the citations.

[the nameless one]

That is the most useless statistic I've ever seen!

Sounds like they are breaking it down by type of accident.

[the nameless one]

You must live in a parallel universe.? The thousands of speed traps across the nation (and their city brethren who have openly opted to use traffic enforcement for profit) routinely cite for five-over.

Nope, I live in the real universe. The only agency around here that was that strict on ticketsing was only so strict because they covered what was essentially a bedroom community whose residents WANTED that level of enforcement. Every other agency in the area wont even look at you for anything less than 10 over, and thats only in school zones.

I would not drive without my seatbelt.? However, the government's role is not that of a nanny.? Let's compromise:? leave the belt laws on the books but any fines arising therefrom go to a scholarship fund and never to the jurisdiction or any agency thereof.

You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do.

You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.

States with mandatory inspection have injury and fatality rates no different from those states without them.? In short, they impose a burden without a benefit.

States without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.

It would force the LEOs to focus on the real job instead of relying on their toys.? What I want them to do is concentrate on dangerous driving, not the routine stuff where they cite for a 75th percentile speed.? That's immoral.

You have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.

I have already utilized those private schools (Bondurant) but I'm trying to offer up something that the cops could do with a real benefit.

Liability

I never implied that they didn't work crimes against people and property.? However, there is huge contingent of cops who do nothing but speed enforcement.? There are about three dozen very bad speed traps who enforce nothing but speed because there are no signals in their jurisdiction and the county sheriff handles criminal matters.

MOST officers do speed enforcement as  afiller activity between calls. Those designated as full time traffic guys are in that position because the agency feels that the problem is serious enough to warrant a full time position.

The point that you refuse to get is that the revenue adds up a lot faster than the administration costs.

YOu don't seem to acknowledge that the revenue in many cases is exceeded by the cost of administering the ticket.

If traffic issues are really that bad (a very long stretch of the imagination for Ithaca), then the taxpayers should be happy to provide the necessary funds to handle that traffic.? But even the, a grant is an inflow of revenue, by any definition a benefit.

Traffic is ALWAYS an issue here, as it is everywhere, including your own hometown.

A grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet. We certainly have differing definitions of benefit.

[TBR]

"You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do."

He isn't even arguing that, what he is arguing is that the government doesn't need to be micromanaging our lives to the point of ticketing anyone who doesn't buckle his or her set belt. If a person wants to make such a stupid decision, let them. We'll be better off as a society anyway.

There is little to no risk of an accident occurring due to a lack of seat belt usage, no more than there is due to a defective seat belt (ie: one that rachets too tightly and the driver gets distracted trying to fix it).

[GoCougs]

"You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do."

He isn't even arguing that, what he is arguing is that the government doesn't need to be micromanaging our lives to the point of ticketing anyone who doesn't buckle his or her set belt. If a person wants to make such a stupid decision, let them. We'll be better off as a society anyway.

There is little to no risk of an accident occurring due to a lack of seat belt usage, no more than there is due to a defective seat belt (ie: one that rachets too tightly and the driver gets distracted trying to fix it).

The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.

The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.

I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.