With all the technological advancements in safety and engineering and multiple stability systems on almost every decent car, why don't they raise the speedlimits on highways and interstates just 10 MPH?
I can't imagine it would be much more dangerous than the current speeds and I know that all the bits and pieces of a modern car can handle that speed
make it a left lane only speed, whatever, but make it so I can get there faster legally
what does everyone think?
10mph isn't enough.
Quote from: Sean on January 20, 2008, 12:54:08 PM
. . .why don't they raise the speedlimits on highways and interstates just 10 MPH?
The answer is political inertia. The state legislators who set the limits are so afraid of raising them to the recommended levels and then having something happen for which they would be blamed, that they do nothing. This is exacerbated by those with a political and/or financial stake in low limits and who actively lobby for lower limits under the auspices of public safety.
QuoteI can't imagine it would be much more dangerous than the current speeds and I know that all the bits and pieces of a modern car can handle that speeds everyone think?
It wouldn?t be more dangerous to raise limits to the speeds that motorists are already driving but it would eliminate most ?speeding.?
Quote from: Raza on January 20, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
10mph isn't enough.
this is true, but it's a start
I think this blame game people play is BS, just plain fresh smelly steaming BULLSHIT
One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so. I really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.
I was going 70-100 mph last night. I would feel scared as hell if I weren't doing that in the left lane and other drivers were doing it as well. Some highways are just too narrow to have 75 mph speed limits, and I don't trust the reaction times of most drivers. It would be suicide.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 20, 2008, 02:58:31 PM
I was going 70-100 mph last night. I would feel scared as hell if I weren't doing that in the left lane and other drivers were doing it as well. Some highways are just too narrow to have 75 mph speed limits, and I don't trust the reaction times of most drivers. It would be suicide.
If people don't have good enough reaction times to travel 75mph on any interstate, they need their licenses removed - or given a special license that only allows them to drive on surface streets at under 50mph. We need a more graduated licensing system with much more extensive training...
like in driver's ed, they tell you "steer into the skid", then toss you out on public roads expecting you to be able to do it, even though you have never practiced it. It's complete bullshit.
Quote from: NACar on January 20, 2008, 03:06:57 PM
If people don't have good enough reaction times to travel 75mph on any interstate, they need their licenses removed - or given a special license that only allows them to drive on surface streets at under 50mph.
I think we need stricter license testing -- nationally -- and re-revaluations every 5 years. If they did that, I would be all for faster speeds. Right now, though, no. Just no.
I don't think that graduated licensing would work. Again, the justification for the cost of setting up such a system isn't there; many/most US interstates simply aren't built for big speed differentials; slower drivers must be as mindful, or moreso, as fast driver in terms of lane discipline, merging, etc.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 03:15:50 PM
I don't think that graduated licensing would work. Again, the justification for the cost of setting up such a system isn't there; many/most US interstates simply aren't built for big speed differentials; slower drivers must be as mindful, or moreso, as fast driver in terms of lane discipline, merging, etc.
Driving on slower streets does require the same reflexes as drving on highways, but the consequences of screwing up are not as bad. The justification for the cost of improving the system will NEVER be there with the fucked up system we have now, but it would definately work if given a chance.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 02:55:22 PM
One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so.
The ?justification? is that the costs of raising speed limits to scientifically-determined levels is negative; that is, we actually gain by recognizing legally what drivers are already doing. The cost to the state would, of course, be the opportunity cost of lost speeding revenue but that would be a net gain to drivers.
QuoteI really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.
Balance of what? That doesn?t make any sense at all. And I don?t want you out on the highway either. However, those ?average American drivers? already have an exemplary record. Further, big rigs won?t be running 90 mph except perhaps through parts of the deserted West where some of them already run 90 mph. Keep your straw man to yourself.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 02:55:22 PM
One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so. I really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.
Then I'd stay away from highways altogether. People are doing that already.
It's much easier to drive a car fast than to be able to react to an emergency situation while driving that fast.
Also, it's much easier to leave speed limits relatively unenforced without going through political fighting.
Quote from: ifcar on January 20, 2008, 03:59:41 PM
It's much easier to drive a car fast than to be able to react to an emergency situation while driving that fast.
Also, it's much easier to leave speed limits relatively unenforced without going through political fighting.
There wouldn't be as many "emergency situations" if it wasn't such a clusterfuck of undisciplined and unorganized traffic.
Enforcement of laws should be consistent, rather than selective like it is now. I have little respect for a law that is only enforced selectively, because that just means it isn't important.
I think you guys should be putting efforts into maintaining the status quo - ever increasing statism IMO points to lower speed limits, if anything (the most recent statist sword being global warming, added to the already existing statist stilletos that are ever-increasing penalties and electronic enforcement).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 04:20:23 PM
I think you guys should be putting efforts into maintaining the status quo - ever increasing statism IMO points to lower speed limits, if anything (the most recent statist sword being global warming, added to the already existing statist stilletos that are ever-increasing penalties and electronic enforcement).
If that happens, I'm moving to Mexico.
You guys should love this column, written by a typical liberal newspaper columnist. Of course, he makes no mention in his column of left lane blockers.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.connpost.com/kendixon/ci_8012530
Each stopped driver makes road that much safer
KEN DIXON Kdixon@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 01/18/2008 09:45:47 PM EST
My idea of a happy morning commute consists of one or two things. It's immediately a good day if I pass a truck stopped on the highway shoulder by a State Police trooper in the midst of writing a nice, fat ticket.
All those tractor-trailer rollovers during Interstate 95 rush-hour commutes are never, ever, caused by trucks operating at the 55-miles-per hour speed limit.
A superb morning, upon which the sun shines through cloud cover, is the occasional day when some idiot passes me on the parkway at about 80 miles per hour and I see him ? it's almost always a man ? stopped around the next curve by an unmarked state police cruiser.
I can never figure out why someone would be in a hurry to go to work. Another theory of mine is that the amount of time aggressive drivers save while terrorizing those of us who merely exceed the speed limit by 5 miles per hour is lost in their eventual, inevitable emergency room visit and hospitalization after a collision.
They're collisions, not accidents.
It's not an accident when an idiot weaving in and out of traffic sideswipes someone on Route 8 or an aggressive driver cuts off another vehicle on the Merritt Parkway and causes it to flip.
An accident is when a tree keels over in a high breeze onto the roadway and a car crashes into it.
The very best kind of morning commute occurred last week, when not one but three speeding idiots were pulled over, in a row, by unmarked state police cars on the parkway. I saluted the law-enforcement scene. Then, a half hour later, I called State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance to see if the action was a vestige of the speeding and aggressive driving crackdown that the state Department of Transportation funded last month and into the New Year.
Vance wasn't sure whether the DOT money was still there last week, or if it had been used up, but the undercover units remain active.
Just during the New Year's holiday weekend there were nearly 300 accidents, 39 with injuries, 61 DUI arrests, 808 speeding arrests, 136 seat belt violations and 855 hazardous-moving arrests, state police reported.
"The program through and over the holidays was extremely successful from the arrest standpoint," Vance said over the phone last week. "We have an aggressive-driving unit within the traffic squad and what we've done focuses on that type of behavior."
These troopers blend into traffic and observe violations and dangerous drivers in their natural habitat, as opposed to setting up speed traps. Vance said the daily summonses are significant.
"Utilizing this approach, we think has a positive impact in addressing the aggressive-driver issue," Vance said.
Another new twist in the realm of nonviolent highway retribution is also available.
If you're tired of being bullied, intimidated and pushed around on state highways, take heart, because you or your vehicular companion can use cell-phone technology to call down the state police on drivers who may be threatening you.
Wherever you are, you can just call 911 and the connection rolls to the nearest state police barracks.
If you can identify the aggressive vehicle, include its marker number, location and direction. Chances are the barracks can dispatch vehicles to witness and intercept the offender.
"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate," Vance said, adding that while each investigation is different and according to a trooper's individual observations, charges can rise from speeding to reckless driving, requiring a court appearance to answer a Class A misdemeanor.
Reckless driving can mean higher insurance premiums, fines, multiple court appearance and even prison for the self-involved rolling road hazards. That's the kind of negative reinforcement these dangerous drivers deserve.
Even if you're alone while calling on a hand-held phone, you won't violate the face of the law because police can view it as an emergency that's allowed under the law against drivers using hand-helds. "Ideally, get the license-plate number if you can see and a description of the car," Vance said. "Call us and tell us about hazardous moving violations and we can put a trooper in position on an exit or entrance ramp or overpass."
With a cell phone, it's never been easier to protect yourself from aggressive drivers. And if more safe drivers take action, maybe we can take back the roads.
Ken Dixon's Capitol View appears Sundays in the Connecticut Post. You may reach him in the Capitol at (860) 549-4670 or via e-mail at kdixon@ctpost.com. Read his Connecticut Blog-o-rama at forum.connpost.com/politics/.
I'm 16 and I can attest to the fact that the test for a license is WAY TOO EASY
it's extremely vague and you learn how to go, stop, and turn
how useful!
I think wider 4 lane interstates could be 85-90, I usually do that anyways in a 14 passenger E350 without trouble
if the road conditions dont permit that speed, I do as much as I think I can without spilling my brains all over the shoulder
reading this states that I am not to be held responsible for the aimless babble of the post above :lol:
Quote from: Sean on January 20, 2008, 08:53:40 PM
I'm 16 and I can attest to the fact that the test for a license is WAY TOO EASY
it's extremely vague and you learn how to go, stop, and turn
how useful!
I think wider 4 lane interstates could be 85-90, I usually do that anyways in a 14 passenger E350 without trouble
if the road conditions dont permit that speed, I do as much as I think I can without spilling my brains all over the shoulder
reading this states that I am not to be held responsible for the aimless babble of the post above :lol:
Welcome Sean.
I agree the driving test is too easy.
Ken Dixon. Pandering a$$wipe.
Quote from: James Young on January 20, 2008, 09:00:45 PM
Ken Dixon. Pandering a$$wipe.
I can't stand the guy, and for reasons that go far beyond that column.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 20, 2008, 08:57:36 PM
Welcome Sean.
I agree the driving test is too easy.
Thanks
I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.
Undercover aggressive driving patrols target really bad driving; tailgating, DUI, intimidation, etc., or otherwise those behaviors hard to spot from a stand still. Undercover patrols is the best way to enforce traffic laws IMO.
If they simply wanted to collect revenue, they'd set up stationary speed traps, with far better finanical payback.
Depends on where, really. I can see rural interstates with 75mph limits, but in most major cities, I doubt it. Texas has already raised the day limit to 80mph on I-10(?).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 09:19:28 PM
I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.
Yes, but then you take pleasure in watching people go bankrupt, too.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 20, 2008, 09:41:19 PM
Depends on where, really. I can see rural interstates with 75mph limits, but in most major cities, I doubt it. Texas has already raised the day limit to 80mph on I-10(?).
Remove limits on rural Interstates and set it at the 95th percentile in urban areas. We already have the evidence that this works.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2008, 09:19:28 PM
I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.
Undercover aggressive driving patrols target really bad driving; tailgating, DUI, intimidation, etc., or otherwise those behaviors hard to spot from a stand still. Undercover patrols is the best way to enforce traffic laws IMO.
If they simply wanted to collect revenue, they'd set up stationary speed traps, with far better finanical payback.
It depends on what you define as dangerous.
On an interstate in reasonable traffic and road conditions, I don't consider 80 mph to be dangerous. If 'intimidation' consists of trying to move over drivers who are clogging the left lane at a low speed when there are other places for them to drive, then those being 'intimidated' deserve it.
That columnist is a mamby-pamby liberal who thinks that law enforcement is too tough on real criminals, and that we lock up too many 'non-violent' criminals (translation: the guy who breaks into your house or steals your car doesn't deserve prison).
So it's interesting to see that he suddenly supports law enforcement when it comes to issues like speeding.
There are times when I see a crazy driver that I hope gets caught doing what he did. But I guarantee that my threshold is different than his.
I'm not sure "aggressive driving" is just speeding. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, that they're going after reckless drivers that can't be caught by speed traps.
And trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 06:56:48 AM
I'm not sure "aggressive driving" is just speeding. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, that they're going after reckless drivers that can't be caught by speed traps.
And trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.
Generally, I like the tactic of blending in among the drivers to observe their behavior, rather than just setting up speedtraps. I don't think that speeding in and of itself is the most dangerous driving practice out there.
The article mentioned flashing brights at people to get them to move over. I see nothing wrong with that, and if you're in the passing lane and you get brights flashed at you by the car behind you, move the f*$k over. Flashing brights is a way to signal desire to pass without tailgating, and shouldn't be considered aggressive driving in and of itself.
"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate."
They offense is tailgating, not flashing your lights.
Quote from: Sean on January 20, 2008, 12:54:08 PM
With all the technological advancements in safety and engineering and multiple stability systems on almost every decent car, why don't they raise the speedlimits on highways and interstates just 10 MPH?
I can't imagine it would be much more dangerous than the current speeds and I know that all the bits and pieces of a modern car can handle that speed
make it a left lane only speed, whatever, but make it so I can get there faster legally
what does everyone think?
Because the average driver in this country is doing good just to avoid killing themselves at the current speed limits. Make them more proficient then talk about raising the limits.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 20, 2008, 09:41:19 PM
Depends on where, really. I can see rural interstates with 75mph limits, but in most major cities, I doubt it. Texas has already raised the day limit to 80mph on I-10(?).
True, but that's where you see more jackrabbits and dust devils than cars.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 07:11:31 AM
"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate."
They offense is tailgating, not flashing your lights.
But if they moved over when the lights flashed, the tailgating would never take place.
Many of the people who complain about 'intimidation' are just self-righteous pricks who want to enforce their driving principles on whomever happens to be on the road with them at the same time.
We have signs on our roads that say "Keep right except to pass." Why not ticket for failing to follow that admonition?
Tailgating is not justifiable because it is not safe. Again, it doesn't matter whether you decide they deserve it.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 07:28:07 AM
Tailgating is not justifiable because it is not safe. Again, it doesn't matter whether you decide they deserve it.
So only the tailgater is wrong? The person blocking the left lane, in defiance of the laws that say "keep right except to pass" is not wrong?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 07:43:02 AM
So only the tailgater is wrong? The person blocking the left lane, in defiance of the laws that say "keep right except to pass" is not wrong?
So are you in the "two wrongs make a right" camp?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 07:43:02 AM
So only the tailgater is wrong? The person blocking the left lane, in defiance of the laws that say "keep right except to pass" is not wrong?
I guess the theory is one can't control someone else's stupitity. One can control one's own.
In other words, just because someone else is driving like a dick doesn't mean you should too.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 07:54:06 AM
So are you in the "two wrongs make a right" camp?
No, I just don't think that if there are two wrongs, only one of them should be called wrong. And that's exactly what you're doing. You say one wrong should be targeted for punishment, while the other should be tolerated.
Quote from: Byteme on January 21, 2008, 07:55:44 AM
I guess the theory is one can't control someone else's stupitity. One can control one's own.
In other words, just because someone else is driving like a dick doesn't mean you should too.
I don't tailgate on the road. But I have a problem with people who criticize taligaters, and even those who flash their lights without tailgating, without looking at how the tailgating could be avoided if the left lane blocker only moved over into the lane he/she should be in.
I don't. It's your own responsibility to drive safely and courteously, and it's even more important to do so when your fellow drivers are not.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 08:15:23 AM
I don't. It's your own responsibility to drive safely and courteously, and it's even more important to do so when your fellow drivers are not.
Well, I can't disagree that every driver should behave responsibly.
But in that article, I seem to be seeing that certain types of irresponsible driving should be condoned, even rewarded and protected, while others should be punished. That I can't agree with.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 08:03:32 AM
I don't tailgate on the road. But I have a problem with people who criticize taligaters, and even those who flash their lights without tailgating, without looking at how the tailgating could be avoided if the left lane blocker only moved over into the lane he/she should be in.
Go ahead and have your problem. :rolleyes: It doesn't alter the fact that tailgating is stupid, for whatever reason.
Quote from: Byteme on January 21, 2008, 08:25:51 AM
Go ahead and have your problem. :rolleyes: It doesn't alter the fact that tailgating is stupid, for whatever reason.
...and so is blocking the left lane, for whatever reason...
It's possible to "block" the left lane while passing in the eyes of someone who'd rather be doing even more over the speed limit.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 08:29:25 AM
It's possible to "block" the left lane while passing in the eyes of someone who'd rather be doing even more over the speed limit.
That's true. I'm talking about the people who are in the left lane without passing.
I am one of the faster drivers on the road, so I tend to be in the left lane quite a bit. But if I'm not passing anybody, I move over so I'm not blocking the left lane.
There are some people out there who try to drive too fast, and are overly aggressive. But in my experience, they are far outnumbered by those following poor driving technique by blocking the left lane when they don't belong there. In moderately heavy traffic, this can cause dangerous chain reactions among those trying to get around them. Blocking the left lane disrupts the safe flow of traffic on the road.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 08:26:33 AM
...and so is blocking the left lane, for whatever reason...
Sure is, but I as a driver can't control that. I can control my own tailgating.
Edit:
If I'm in the lesft lane passing cars and someone comes flying up behind me and tailgates impatently that person just might sit there one hell of a long time. If, on the other hand, that person comes up behind and sits a reasonable distance off my rear bumper waiting for me to move over when I get a chance his chance will come a lot quicker.
I don't advocate this but I've heard of people who carry a collection of ball bearings, nuts, pebbles, whatever that they flip out of their open sunroof when someone is riding their rear bumper. I mention that only to point out that there is a risk of damage to one's car from tailgating even if there is no accident.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 08:32:42 AM
That's true. I'm talking about the people who are in the left lane without passing.
I am one of the faster drivers on the road, so I tend to be in the left lane quite a bit. But if I'm not passing anybody, I move over so I'm not blocking the left lane.
There are some people out there who try to drive too fast, and are overly aggressive. But in my experience, they are far outnumbered by those following poor driving technique by blocking the left lane when they don't belong there. In moderately heavy traffic, this can cause dangerous chain reactions among those trying to get around them. Blocking the left lane disrupts the safe flow of traffic on the road.
Interesting. You advocate higher speeds despite you assertion that a significant number of drivers follow poor driving technique.
Quote from: Byteme on January 21, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Interesting. You advocate higher speeds despite you assertion that a significant number of drivers follow poor driving technique.
No, I just think slower drivers should keep right. I don't think they should go faster.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 09:36:12 AM
No, I just think slower drivers should keep right. I don't think they should go faster.
So, the speed limits shouldn't be raised then?
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 07:28:07 AM
Tailgating is not justifiable because it is not safe. Again, it doesn't matter whether you decide they deserve it.
What's your opinion on defending your house and belongings? Do you have the right to shoot the burglar who is robbing your stuff?
Sure shooting someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
Which sounds like:
Sure tailgating someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
Quote from: Champ on January 21, 2008, 10:24:26 AM
What's your opinion on defending your house and belongings? Do you have the right to shoot the burglar who is robbing your stuff?
Sure shooting someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
Which sounds like:
Sure tailgating someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
You don't see a difference between being robbed which has quantifiable negative consequences and being held up for a few moments behind someone in the left lane who's only "crime" might be not exceeding the speed limit to the extent you would like to? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Champ on January 21, 2008, 10:24:26 AM
What's your opinion on defending your house and belongings? Do you have the right to shoot the burglar who is robbing your stuff?
Sure shooting someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
Which sounds like:
Sure tailgating someone is terrible, but you wouldn't be doing it if they weren't doing it in the first place.
:rolleyes:
By tailgating you're risking your own safety.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 20, 2008, 08:39:51 PM
"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate," Vance said, adding that while each investigation is different and according to a trooper's individual observations, charges can rise from speeding to reckless driving, requiring a court appearance to answer a Class A misdemeanor.
The problem is that a simple flash of the lights at a left-lane hog is often automatically interpreted as "intimidation". Yeah, maybe after about twenty-times, but the first time is just to get their attention because they're obstructing traffic. And this is a law-enforcment officer talking. Screw this, I'm ready to overthrow the government. Who's with me?
Quote from: NACar on January 21, 2008, 10:54:09 AM
, I'm ready to overthrow the government. Who's with me?
I doubt anyone who thinks "Surf's Up" is one of the greatest movies ever will find many followers. :rolleyes:
If someone breaks into my home I think I have every right to shoot him
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 06:53:10 AM
It depends on what you define as dangerous.
On an interstate in reasonable traffic and road conditions, I don't consider 80 mph to be dangerous. If 'intimidation' consists of trying to move over drivers who are clogging the left lane at a low speed when there are other places for them to drive, then those being 'intimidated' deserve it.
That columnist is a mamby-pamby liberal who thinks that law enforcement is too tough on real criminals, and that we lock up too many 'non-violent' criminals (translation: the guy who breaks into your house or steals your car doesn't deserve prison).
So it's interesting to see that he suddenly supports law enforcement when it comes to issues like speeding.
There are times when I see a crazy driver that I hope gets caught doing what he did. But I guarantee that my threshold is different than his.
Most anything anyone can do to compelling left-lane campers to get out of the left lane is a ticketable offense IMO - including high-beam flashing. It should be also noted that left-lane camping is a ticketable offense as well in some/most states. However, most anything anyone can do to compell a left-lane camper to get right is more dangerous than the left-lane camping itself, including one of the most dangerous willful acts in driving, tailgating.
Quote from: James Young on January 20, 2008, 10:26:37 PM
Yes, but then you take pleasure in watching people go bankrupt, too.
Yes, I do - but then again who doesn't? Clean slates and/or reorganziations afforded by a bankrupcty are an important facet of a modern economy. And it's certainly nicer than debtors' prisons of yore.
Now how this has any bearing on the subject at hand I'm at a loss (other than of course it's a sign that once again I've got your goat, that is).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 21, 2008, 12:19:53 PM
Most anything anyone can do to compelling left-lane campers to get out of the left lane is a ticketable offense IMO - including high-beam flashing. It should be also noted that left-lane camping is a ticketable offense as well in some/most states. However, most anything anyone can do to compell a left-lane camper to get right is more dangerous than the left-lane camping itself, including one of the most dangerous willful acts in driving, tailgating.
You think high beam flashing should be a ticketable offense? That's ridiculous. Next thing you'll say that honking should be illegal (and actually, it is in some places) and so should any communication between motorists. There are three ways people can communicate with each other while on the road; honking, flashing, and hand gestures. Barring some hand gestures, communication can generally lead to a better driving experience with fewer instances of road rage. I use the high beam flash and have been flashed many times on the highway, and it's always been received much better than gesticulating wildly and tailgating.
Quote from: Raza on January 21, 2008, 12:29:13 PM
You think high beam flashing should be a ticketable offense? That's ridiculous. Next thing you'll say that honking should be illegal (and actually, it is in some places) and so should any communication between motorists. There are three ways people can communicate with each other while on the road; honking, flashing, and hand gestures. Barring some hand gestures, communication can generally lead to a better driving experience with fewer instances of road rage. I use the high beam flash and have been flashed many times on the highway, and it's always been received much better than gesticulating wildly and tailgating.
Actually, a careful re-read of my post shows that I said it
is a ticketable offense, not whether it should or shouldn't be. And it is - at least in Washington. So is using the horn at "inappropriate" times. How often these laws are enforced I'm not exactly sure...
People act as if left-lane camping is this mammoth sin. It really isn't. The sin is common reactions to it, such as tailgating and spirited left-lane banditry (though I wouldn't include high-beam flashing, which I try not to do but have). I dislike left-lane camping as much as the next guy, but there's only so much one can do.
Quote from: Byteme on January 21, 2008, 11:29:50 AM
I doubt anyone who thinks "Surf's Up" is one of the greatest movies ever will find many followers. :rolleyes:
You are t3h wr0ng!
I use the bright flashers all the time warning people of speed traps, is that illegal?
I think of it as just simply helping people out
I have nothing against LEOs, I just like it when people warn me of a speed trap, so I warn others.....
Quote from: GoCougs on January 21, 2008, 12:36:58 PM
Actually, a careful re-read of my post shows that I said it is a ticketable offense, not whether it should or shouldn't be. And it is - at least in Washington. So is using the horn at "inappropriate" times. How often these laws are enforced I'm not exactly sure...
People act as if left-lane camping is this mammoth sin. It really isn't. The sin is common reactions to it, such as tailgating and spirited left-lane banditry (though I wouldn't include high-beam flashing, which I try not to do but have). I dislike left-lane camping as much as the next guy, but there's only so much one can do.
Oh, you're right. You had IMO in there, and that's what led me to believe you were stating an opinion.
Left lane camping is a sin. Differential in speed and people driving where they shouldn't causes problems. Driving 55mph in the left lane of a highway is the same as driving 20mph on a single lane 45mph limit road, in my eyes.
I think left lane hogging should be considered reckless endangerment of other drivers, but that's just me
Quote from: Sean on January 21, 2008, 04:09:16 PM
I think left lane hogging should be considered reckless endangerment of other drivers, but that's just me
I like the way you think.
Does anyone else thinking driving while talking on your cell should be a primary offense?
It's a secondary offense here if you're under 18 and driving and from watching my parents drive while talking, I think it should be an expensive ticket...
a 7000 pound van with 11 people in it plowing into another soccermom SUV doesnt sound like a fantastic accident to have to clean up....
I know teens are "inexperienced" or whatever, but you can't do two things at once safely, you can't drive and talk or text just like you can't write a good paper for school while watching TV and surfing the net(unless you're using wikipedia.....:lol: )
Personally, I believe the world is ruled or limited by the lowest common denominators which is what we're doing right now. When you set artificially low goals/limits and punish those who exceeds such, what are we accomplishing here? Shouldn't we be weeding out and getting rid of those that can't meet the minimum requirement instead of trying to bend the rules so they meet it? We're dumbing down the world and this will result in our demise..
This applies to speed limit and all the other facts of life.
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Personally, I believe the world should be be ruled or limited by the lowest common denominators which is what we're doing right now. When you set artificially low goals/limits and punish those who exceeds such, what are we accomplishing here? Shouldn't we be weeding out and getting rid of those that can't meet the minimum requirement instead of trying to bend the rules so they meet it? We're dumbing down the world and this will result in our demise..
This applies to speed limit and all the other facts of life.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :hesaid: :rockon:
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Personally, I believe the world should be be ruled or limited by the lowest common denominators which is what we're doing right now. When you set artificially low goals/limits and punish those who exceeds such, what are we accomplishing here? Shouldn't we be weeding out and getting rid of those that can't meet the minimum requirement instead of trying to bend the rules so they meet it? We're dumbing down the world and this will result in our demise..
This applies to speed limit and all the other facts of life.
There's a lot of truth in what you're saying. Just because some people can't handle more than 50 mph doesn't mean that everybody else should be held back.
If you can't handle the heat get away from the fire!
Quote from: Sean on January 21, 2008, 04:13:51 PM
Does anyone else thinking driving while talking on your cell should be a primary offense?
It's a secondary offense here if you're under 18 and driving and from watching my parents drive while talking, I think it should be an expensive ticket...
a 7000 pound van with 11 people in it plowing into another soccermom SUV doesnt sound like a fantastic accident to have to clean up....
I know teens are "inexperienced" or whatever, but you can't do two things at once safely, you can't drive and talk or text just like you can't write a good paper for school while watching TV and surfing the net(unless you're using wikipedia.....:lol: )
I remember seeing the status for the primary cause of accidents and I believe speeding is ranked at a distant 5th behind drunk driving, failure to yield, not paying attention, failure to signal.
Yet, speeding is consider the biggest of all crimes, imagine that..
I can't seem to finid the stats now though
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 04:59:45 PM
I remember seeing the status for the primary cause of accidents and I believe speeding is ranked at a distant 5th behind drunk driving, failure to yield, not paying attention, failure to signal.
Yet, speeding is consider the biggest of all crimes, imagine that..
I can't seem to finid the stats now though
I agree with you. People talk as if speeding is the worst thing people do on the road, but I think other things are far more dangerous than speeding up to a certain point. I think left lane camping is more dangerous than moderate speeding, yet some here seem to think that we should all just tolerate left lane campers even as we penalize speeders primarily.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 21, 2008, 05:01:54 PM
I agree with you. People talk as if speeding is the worst thing people do on the road, but I think other things are far more dangerous than speeding up to a certain point. I think left lane camping is more dangerous than moderate speeding, yet some here seem to think that we should all just tolerate left lane campers even as we penalize speeders primarily.
Really. Who said that?
I don't even think speeding exists. Left-lane camping, not signialing, failure to yield, crashing into a pole, running over pedestrians - those are a definate and tangible offense, but speeding? Well now, let me see... I don't have any idea what that means. I know what you think it means, but to me it's just a made up word - a politician's word, so young fellas like yourself can drive around in your police cars and wear a badge and have a job.... So you go on and write your tickets, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 05:06:46 PM
Really. Who said that?
I think he was referring mostly to me.
And he's right - you, I and everyone else pretty much has to tolerate left-lane campers. We, as private individuals, can't make someone stop doing it, and most any action we can do to compel someone to stop doing it or otherwise subvert it isn't safe.
In my experience, left-lane campers are of two varieties - old people, or women talking to other passengers or on the phone - both demographics aren't going to pay attention a whole lot to pretty much the only benign action left to those stuck behind left-lane campers - flashing headlights - which works less than 50% of the time it seems, as if they were paying attention or had their wits about them, they'd not be camping.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 21, 2008, 05:39:26 PM
I think he was referring mostly to me.
And he's right - you, I and everyone else pretty much has to tolerate left-lane campers. We, as private individuals, can't make someone stop doing it, and most any action we can do to compel someone to stop doing it or otherwise subvert it isn't safe.
In my experience, left-lane campers are of two varieties - old people, or women talking to other passengers or on the phone - both demographics aren't going to pay attention a whole lot to pretty much the only benign action left to those stuck behind left-lane campers - flashing headlights - which works less than 50% of the time it seems, as if they were paying attention or had their wits about them, they'd not be camping.
So wouldn't enforcing left lane camping actually make the road safer, by reducing congesting and increase flow of traffic. Therefore lane campers are making it more dangerous to the rest of us?
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
So wouldn't enforcing left lane camping actually make the road safer, by reducing congesting and increase flow of traffic. Therefore lane campers are making it more dangerous to the rest of us?
Only if the rest of us don't know how to drive. If you can't handle the hazard of someone driving slower than you are, you shouldn't be driving at a high rate of speed.
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
So wouldn't enforcing left lane camping actually make the road safer, by reducing congesting and increase flow of traffic. Therefore lane campers are making it more dangerous to the rest of us?
I think left lane camping should be treated like going 15+ over the limit is now, wreckless endangerment
generally the horn moves people over, a few hand gestures also get teh point across, but I look forward to a future where speed limits are nonexistant and slowing down traffic is considered a felony
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 06:00:51 PM
Only if the rest of us don't know how to drive. If you can't handle the hazard of someone driving slower than you are, you shouldn't be driving at a high rate of speed.
I'm sure you are aware of how one person blocking the left lane can cause traffic to back up for miles behind them. I'm willing to bet that poor lane etiquette it is the primary cause of traffic congestion in the vast majority of cases where the road is otherwise capable of flowing the traffic effectivly. A sudden slowing of traffic leads to a chain reaction of brake lights for a hundered cars back, and that is a hudred chances for a collision to happen that wouldn't otherwise exist if one person would have stayed the hell over in the right lane.
Quote from: NACar on January 21, 2008, 06:09:24 PM
I'm sure you are aware of how one person blocking the left lane can cause traffic to back up for miles behind them. I'm willing to bet that poor lane etiquette it is the primary cause of traffic congestion in the vast majority of cases where the road is otherwise capable of flowing the traffic effectivly. A sudden slowing of traffic leads to a chain reaction of brake lights for a hundered cars back, and that is a hudred chances for a collision to happen that wouldn't otherwise exist if one person would have stayed the hell over in the right lane.
:hesaid: :hesaid: :hesaid: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: NACar on January 21, 2008, 06:09:24 PM
I'm sure you are aware of how one person blocking the left lane can cause traffic to back up for miles behind them. I'm willing to bet that poor lane etiquette it is the primary cause of traffic congestion in the vast majority of cases where the road is otherwise capable of flowing the traffic effectivly. A sudden slowing of traffic leads to a chain reaction of brake lights for a hundered cars back, and that is a hudred chances for a collision to happen that wouldn't otherwise exist if one person would have stayed the hell over in the right lane.
That's one possibility. But it requires at least one driver to have been inattentive or tailgating or both.
Quote from: NACar on January 21, 2008, 06:09:24 PM
I'm sure you are aware of how one person blocking the left lane can cause traffic to back up for miles behind them. I'm willing to bet that poor lane etiquette it is the primary cause of traffic congestion in the vast majority of cases where the road is otherwise capable of flowing the traffic effectivly. A sudden slowing of traffic leads to a chain reaction of brake lights for a hundered cars back, and that is a hudred chances for a collision to happen that wouldn't otherwise exist if one person would have stayed the hell over in the right lane.
:hesaid:
I agree completely.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 06:00:51 PM
Only if the rest of us don't know how to drive. If you can't handle the hazard of someone driving slower than you are, you shouldn't be driving at a high rate of speed.
It's not the hazard of someone driving too close to me but the hazard of the entire freeway being backed up because someone was driving too slow. As a result, everyone else is driving bumper to bumper, someone would be driving in my blind spot and I try my best to avoid driving in someone else's blind spot but since there's no room. And if someone tries to drive into me.. there's no room to manuever.
Again, what caused this whole mess to begin with? The Lane camper!!
I've seen traffic backed up for miles because one asshole decide to lane camp with no cars in front of him. The only reason I was able to pass him was because I had a FastTrak. And this happens all over the place on a daily basis.
I think we've established that lane camping is bad. But even if it is illegal and well-enforced, you still have to be able to react to it rather than throw blame around. Once you've crashed it's bad no matter whose fault it is.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 07:03:58 PM
I think we've established that lane camping is bad. But even if it is illegal and well-enforced, you still have to be able to react to it rather than throw blame around. Once you've crashed it's bad no matter whose fault it is.
I don't think anyone's complaining about crashing into lane campers. If they are, they're dumb. But again, it's about lane campers making the road more dangerous from congesting and wasting our time.
If you say they're making the road dangerous, then I assume you're referring to some type of accident.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 21, 2008, 05:39:26 PM
I think he was referring mostly to me.
In my experience, left-lane campers are of two varieties - old people, or women talking to other passengers or on the phone -
I'm seeing more and more of a third kind, those who are apparently there just because they feel it's their right to make those behind them obey the speed limit.
I normally speed where it is safe to do so. In town, on a crowded freeway isn't the place to speed; same for surface streets. There are just too many clowns on their cell phones, reading books, eating, farting around with their GPS, radio or whatever; too many inattentive drivers, all moving along at more or less the same speed. Now add in some Bozo who feels it's his god given right to go faster than everybody else in the left lane (and he will get right on your bumper if you don't) and the chances of an accident that involves several cars and inconveniences everybody go up significantly.
Americans are just too dumb for the poor road infrastructure and high traffic volumes that we have.
Consider the options available to solve this problem:
1. Kill Americans to unclog the highways
2. Build more and better roads NOW (but that's virtually impossible)
3. Train Americans to not be dumb asses
If we don't pick one, we're still killing Americans, but they seem to reproduce faster than they die off.
#3 is by far the cheapest option and has the most immediate benefits:
-keeps new drivers off the roads until they can pass the new rigorous training
-creates thousands of new jobs for the advanced driving instructors that will be required
-allows current drivers in good standing to keep their licenses, but gives them a grace period - perhaps 5-years - in which they will be required to complete the new training program, or their licenses are revoked.
The drawbacks?
-longer lines at the DMV
-people will complain about their "freedom" to drive being restricted, but everyone already knows it's a privilage, not a right!
...
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 08:13:54 PM
I don't think anyone's complaining about crashing into lane campers. If they are, they're dumb. But again, it's about lane campers making the road more dangerous from congesting and wasting our time.
The argument originated because someone said it's all-right to tailgate a lane-camper. Ifcar and Cougs were pointed out that makes the situation worse.
Here you have a dangerous driver (camping) + another dangerous driver (tailgater)
Such a response cannot be the best decision.
Quote from: ifcar on January 22, 2008, 03:56:58 AM
If you say they're making the road dangerous, then I assume you're referring to some type of accident.
Making the roads dangerous doesn't mean there has to be an accident to occur but when you have a road where you cannot change lanes because all the lanes are driving the same speed, everyone is spaced out safely between one car and another but would be too dangerous for one car to move from one lane to the next because it's still too close for a lane change. Does that make sense?
Either way, regardless of tailgating, lane camping still makes the road dangerous for everyone else behind the lane camper, that's my only point. I'm not for or against tailgating but it's still given that lane camping is dangerous.
Quote from: Tave on January 22, 2008, 10:53:56 AM
The argument originated because someone said it's all-right to tailgate a lane-camper. Ifcar and Cougs were pointed out that makes the situation worse.
Here you have a dangerous driver (camping) + another dangerous driver (tailgater)
Such a response cannot be the best decision.
It's a cause an effect though, tailgaters do not cause lane camping but lane camping causes people to tailgate. So if it were not for lane campers, there would be less tailgaters. And I am only generalizing the situation here..
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2008, 01:32:25 PM
It's a cause an effect though, tailgaters do not cause lane camping but lane camping causes people to tailgate. So if it were not for lane campers, there would be less tailgaters. And I am only generalizing the situation here..
I drive 3, 4 and 5 lane freeways to work every day. There are Bozos tailgating in every lane, not just the far left one.
Well, on the note of tailgating, yes people tailgate in all lanes but the distance one person is comfortable with differs from the next. Also, it's perception depending on the height of your car vs their car too. It may seem like someone is tailgating you but they're really not, it's just because their car is higher.
I generally keep a good 3 sec distance behind a car but some actually thought I was tailgating them only because they're going god awefully slow.. I wasn't tailgating as I was doing the legally recommended distance, but because of their speed, the distance is closer..
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2008, 01:55:53 PM
Well, on the note of tailgating, yes people tailgate in all lanes but the distance one person is comfortable with differs from the next. Also, it's perception depending on the height of your car vs their car too. It may seem like someone is tailgating you but they're really not, it's just because their car is higher.
I generally keep a good 3 sec distance behind a car but some actually thought I was tailgating them only because they're going god awefully slow.. I wasn't tailgating as I was doing the legally recommended distance, but because of their speed, the distance is closer..
Thanks, after 42 years of driving I can tell if someone is tailgating or not.
Quote from: Byteme on January 22, 2008, 02:30:28 PM
Thanks, after 42 years of driving I can tell if someone is tailgating or not.
You're welcome... just want to make sure because there are plenty of people out there that still don't know how to driven even after so many years of driving. I mean, why would people slow down almost to a stop from the middle of a lane that's 2 car wide just to make a right turn when you should logically move over to the right to make the right turn.. and it's people that's been driving for 30+ years.
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 06:00:51 PM
Only if the rest of us don't know how to drive. If you can't handle the hazard of someone driving slower than you are, you shouldn't be driving at a high rate of speed.
This post right here is indicative of the "holier than thou" attitude of the left lane camper. If you can't get it through your thick skull how dangerous this practice is your license should be revoked immediately.
Quote from: Byteme on January 22, 2008, 08:48:48 AM
I'm seeing more and more of a third kind, those who are apparently there just because they feel it's their right to make those behind them obey the speed limit.
Bingo. We have a winner.
QuoteI normally speed where it is safe to do so. In town, on a crowded freeway isn't the place to speed; same for surface streets. There are just too many clowns on their cell phones, reading books, eating, farting around with their GPS, radio or whatever; too many inattentive drivers, all moving along at more or less the same speed.
Too many people (particularly women) treat their cars like their living room, dining room or office. I actually had one idiot say to me that she uses her "downtime" while driving to catch up on her messages and phone calls she was unable to make during the day. I saw a chick on the way to work this morning reading some papers spread out on her steering wheel at 70 MPH! I guess the wheel makes a good reading stand.
QuoteNow add in some Bozo who feels it's his god given right to go faster than everybody else in the left lane (and he will get right on your bumper if you don't) and the chances of an accident that involves several cars and inconveniences everybody go up significantly.
Agreed... to a point. If you are passing someone once you clear the pass you should move to the right lane in case someone else wishes to pass and they happen to be going faster than you. If someone is impatient while you are completing your pass they are an asshole. If you remain in the left lane after completing a pass and the lane to the right is clear YOU are the asshole...
[/quote]
My thought is that until tires are all rated for at least 100mph with aggressive in-tire pressure monitoring systems, it would be sheer folly to allow those speeds on the interstate. Running a snow tire at 20psi at 85-90 mph is asking for a blowout, and at those speeds it would likely be fatal.
Even if we do meet those criteria, there are people that have a hard enough time driving 75 out west, from either the crappy condition of their vehicle, underpowered drivetrains, or just ineptitude behind the wheel. The problem with the German Autobahn right now, based on an article I read in a recent issue of Automobile Magazine, is that when overtaking someone doing 70mph when you're doing 125 leaves very little room for error. And that those speeds even the most diligent mirror-checker will likely miss you if you're passing on a bend.
As it is, I think 75 is pretty much ideal. I can get up to 90 on some days anyway with the flow of traffic, and even if the cops are out I can do 80 without a ticket. The extra 10mph basically only gains me an extra few minutes over the course of 100miles of driving, and most people never drive that far on a given day, so that would be moot. The other thing it does it decrease my fuel economy. Wind resistance ramps up greatly at those speeds, as I understand, meaning that for an extra 10mph I'm getting raped at the fuel pump. Now, that might be my judgement call -- which it is -- but if I were a legislator and I had to consider the issue of energy dependence that we have in this country I would not pass a bill authorizing a speed limit of 85mph, for that reason alone not to mention the safety issues I mentioned before.
Quote from: R-inge on January 22, 2008, 07:25:17 PM
My thought is that until tires are all rated for at least 100mph with aggressive in-tire pressure monitoring systems, it would be sheer folly to allow those speeds on the interstate. Running a snow tire at 20psi at 85-90 mph is asking for a blowout, and at those speeds it would likely be fatal.
Even if we do meet those criteria, there are people that have a hard enough time driving 75 out west, from either the crappy condition of their vehicle, underpowered drivetrains, or just ineptitude behind the wheel. The problem with the German Autobahn right now, based on an article I read in a recent issue of Automobile Magazine, is that when overtaking someone doing 70mph when you're doing 125 leaves very little room for error. And that those speeds even the most diligent mirror-checker will likely miss you if you're passing on a bend.
As it is, I think 75 is pretty much ideal. I can get up to 90 on some days anyway with the flow of traffic, and even if the cops are out I can do 80 without a ticket. The extra 10mph basically only gains me an extra few minutes over the course of 100miles of driving, and most people never drive that far on a given day, so that would be moot. The other thing it does it decrease my fuel economy. Wind resistance ramps up greatly at those speeds, as I understand, meaning that for an extra 10mph I'm getting raped at the fuel pump. Now, that might be my judgement call -- which it is -- but if I were a legislator and I had to consider the issue of energy dependence that we have in this country I would not pass a bill authorizing a speed limit of 85mph, for that reason alone not to mention the safety issues I mentioned before.
You know that people already drive 85-90mph, right?
Quote from: Raza on January 22, 2008, 07:47:55 PM
You know that people already drive 85-90mph, right?
Not legally, and not always safely, as you can see. My point is that if you bump the speed limit to 85mph people will be doing 100. It's just going to happen. And since I disagree with the OP, and don't consider most vehicles to be safe enough to drive at those speeds, I don't like the idea.
Quote from: R-inge on January 22, 2008, 09:06:22 PM
Not legally, and not always safely, as you can see. My point is that if you bump the speed limit to 85mph people will be doing 100.
I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I think people drive whatever speed they feel is safe most of the time anyways.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 22, 2008, 09:12:47 PM
I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I think people drive whatever speed they feel is safe most of the time anyways.
I think I've heard something to that effect, that basically the natural speed for most people is roughly 85mph. I could be wrong, but I think the main issue I take with it is that we are suddenly "safe" enough technologically to do it safely. I don't see that. Each time I bring a car into the shop I check the tires, and each time this winter the tires have been 10-20% low on air, or more. People neglect their vehicles. Remember the Firestone tire fiasco? It was because tire pressures were set low at the dealers, and consequently there was little room for error before the tires overheated and shredded on the freeway. Most driver's I know would have no idea how to control a car that suddenly lost a tire at over 85mph.
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2008, 01:32:25 PM
It's a cause an effect though, tailgaters do not cause lane camping but lane camping causes people to tailgate. So if it were not for lane campers, there would be less tailgaters. And I am only generalizing the situation here..
That is not the point. A blown tire may cause one to go off the road. Should you crank your wheel to the right the second you hear one pop?
Tailgaiting is not involuntary. Just like the camper himself, the person who does it makes a decision. You can come across a lane-camper and not tailgate him.
The generalization is this: yes, camping is bad; yes, it leads to tailgating; but tailgating is also bad, and camping isn't an excuse for tailgating.
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/12/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x504,0.jpg)
Quote from: NomisR on January 21, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
So wouldn't enforcing left lane camping actually make the road safer, by reducing congesting and increase flow of traffic. Therefore lane campers are making it more dangerous to the rest of us?
Is all left lane camping a ticketable offense? In my state the closest I've seen are such signs as "slow traffic keep right" or "slow vehicles may use shoulder" or "vehicles with trailiers not allowed in left lane." So, if one is impeding traffic by going way below the speed limit, then yes, it's a safety problem - but that is really rare, and would be a problem in any lane.
I don't think that doing the speed limit, or close to it, in the left lane is (or should be) a ticketable offense really. A lot of the interstate I drive is two lane and 70 mph limit. I'll be danged if I'm diving in and out of the right lane, dodging 50 mph big rigs or Sunday drivers such to give quarter to some guy playing AJ Foyt at 90 or 100 mph. That's not how US traffic laws work, the average driver is not accustomed to such large speed disparaties, and the average two-lane highway/freeway isn't built for it.
Quote from: R-inge on January 22, 2008, 09:47:00 PM
I think I've heard something to that effect, that basically the natural speed for most people is roughly 85mph. I could be wrong, but I think the main issue I take with it is that we are suddenly "safe" enough technologically to do it safely. I don't see that. Each time I bring a car into the shop I check the tires, and each time this winter the tires have been 10-20% low on air, or more. People neglect their vehicles. Remember the Firestone tire fiasco? It was because tire pressures were set low at the dealers, and consequently there was little room for error before the tires overheated and shredded on the freeway. Most driver's I know would have no idea how to control a car that suddenly lost a tire at over 85mph.
When I drive 80-85 on the 70 mph speed limited parts of the WA freeways, I pass almost everyone. It's led me to question the data that says people already drive 85 mph.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 22, 2008, 09:12:47 PM
I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I think people drive whatever speed they feel is safe most of the time anyways.
And do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them? I don't know what you see out there, but some of the behavior on the roadways I see from other drivers brings into question whether or not some people should even
BE driving. These people make extremely poor decisions and pay little attention to what they're doing while driving under the current laws. The last thing I'd want to see is the idiots out there driving with their heads firmly implanted in their butts at whatever speed
THEY feel is safe.
That's not to mention what the definition of "safe" really is. For example, we have many young drivers on the roadway who don't understand the limits of their vehicles or their own limitations as drivers because they lack experience. And, it's a medically-proven fact that the pathways of the brain directly associated with decision-making...especially decision-making as it is connected to consequences...are not fully formed until past the teenage years. Do you trust a person with little or no real-world experience in operating a motor vehicle
AND at a developmental point in their biology that they have difficulty making cause and effect decisions decide what they think is an "safe" speed to drive without any limitations?
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 04:20:16 AM
That's not to mention what the definition of "safe" really is. For example, we have many young drivers on the roadway who don't understand the limits of their vehicles or their own limitations as drivers because they lack experience. And, it's a medically-proven fact that the pathways of the brain directly associated with decision-making...especially decision-making as it is connected to consequences...are not fully formed until past the teenage years. Do you trust a person with little or no real-world experience in operating a motor vehicle AND at a developmental point in their biology that they have difficulty making cause and effect decisions decide what they think is an "safe" speed to drive without any limitations?
And the average age of a member of this forum is???????????????????? :lol:
Nuff said, I think :devil:
That's nothing. I can name two or three of us who've had a wreck in the last month.
Quote from: Tave on January 23, 2008, 08:59:18 AM
That's nothing. I can name two or three of us who've had a wreck in the last month.
And at least one of them is in his 30s.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=12997.msg713773#msg713773 date=1201106863
And at least one of them is in his 30s.
God damn kids. :mrcool:
Quote from: Byteme on January 23, 2008, 12:21:39 PM
God damn kids. :mrcool:
:lol:
Personally, I'm more worried about housewives and octogenarians. They're the only ones who have almost run me off the road by accident. The only guy who almost ran me off the road on purpose looked about 50.
Quote from: Tave on January 22, 2008, 11:09:04 PM
That is not the point. A blown tire may cause one to go off the road. Should you crank your wheel to the right the second you hear one pop?
Tailgaiting is not involuntary. Just like the camper himself, the person who does it makes a decision. You can come across a lane-camper and not tailgate him.
The generalization is this: yes, camping is bad; yes, it leads to tailgating; but tailgating is also bad, and camping isn't an excuse for tailgating.
Yeah, but you think the lane camper can actually control their car when their tires pop at 65mph when he/she can't even look behind him/her and have the courtesy to move over? Also, if it does happen, wouldn't it be significantly more dangerous to EVERYONE becuase there's a whole mess of cars behind the camper vs a slightly less congested road?
My point is simply, enforce lane camping and you'll see a greater drop in accidents and fatalities than actually enforcing speed limit. Speed limit only effects the person that's drivinig increasing his chances of accident but lane camping increases chances of accident for everyone else by the fact that it reduces traffic flow and everyone is than in a more congested situation than they normally would be.
Oh my god, we should lower speed limits in case there's a nuclear attack! Have you ever tried to control a car at 65mph during a nuclear explosion?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2008, 11:50:37 PM
Is all left lane camping a ticketable offense? In my state the closest I've seen are such signs as "slow traffic keep right" or "slow vehicles may use shoulder" or "vehicles with trailiers not allowed in left lane." So, if one is impeding traffic by going way below the speed limit, then yes, it's a safety problem - but that is really rare, and would be a problem in any lane.
I don't think that doing the speed limit, or close to it, in the left lane is (or should be) a ticketable offense really. A lot of the interstate I drive is two lane and 70 mph limit. I'll be danged if I'm diving in and out of the right lane, dodging 50 mph big rigs or Sunday drivers such to give quarter to some guy playing AJ Foyt at 90 or 100 mph. That's not how US traffic laws work, the average driver is not accustomed to such large speed disparaties, and the average two-lane highway/freeway isn't built for it.
Well average drivers are.. well stupid.. and then you have half of those drivers that's even worse.. that's something to think about it.
So it means at least 50% of the drivers are below average. True enforcement for safety would be to get the below average drivers off of the road to make the rest of us safer. They're the lowest common denominator that we're catering to and everyone is happy about being lumped in with the dumbest ppl on the road?
Either way, depending on the state but some states do have laws that pertain to lane camping. CA is an example that's never enforced because it doesn't make money..
And everyone is so ingrained with the idea that speed kills that they don't consider anything else eventhough it's been shown that speed isn't the #1 or even top 4 of the primary reasons for it.
Of course i'm not advocating unlimited speeding but responsible speeding. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions.. but we shouldn't be limiting everyone if they're capable of something someone else is not.
Quote from: Psilos on January 23, 2008, 01:00:14 AM
When I drive 80-85 on the 70 mph speed limited parts of the WA freeways, I pass almost everyone. It's led me to question the data that says people already drive 85 mph.
Everyone in WA drives like old people or can't drive at all. Had a family friend enter a freeway at 35 mph and then proceed to go all the way to the left most lane at the same speed. And yes that's in WA.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 04:20:16 AM
And do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them? I don't know what you see out there, but some of the behavior on the roadways I see from other drivers brings into question whether or not some people should even BE driving. These people make extremely poor decisions and pay little attention to what they're doing while driving under the current laws. The last thing I'd want to see is the idiots out there driving with their heads firmly implanted in their butts at whatever speed THEY feel is safe.
That's not to mention what the definition of "safe" really is. For example, we have many young drivers on the roadway who don't understand the limits of their vehicles or their own limitations as drivers because they lack experience. And, it's a medically-proven fact that the pathways of the brain directly associated with decision-making...especially decision-making as it is connected to consequences...are not fully formed until past the teenage years. Do you trust a person with little or no real-world experience in operating a motor vehicle AND at a developmental point in their biology that they have difficulty making cause and effect decisions decide what they think is an "safe" speed to drive without any limitations?
My feeling is, everyone should be driving an open wheeled go karts instead of a metalic cacoon that they call a car.. that way, everyone is more "in tuned" to the road instead of being isolated from it which gives them a false sense of security causing them to act like themselves.. (being stupid)
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 04:20:16 AM
And do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them?
By and large they already do; that's why speeding is such a routine.
I'm not saying we should eliminate speed limits altogether, but that they should more directly reflect the speeds that people (as an average) are already driving.
Making the speed limit reflect reality and then ticketing only the clearly dangerous "speeders" makes sense to me.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 04:20:16 AM
And do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them?
Absolutely 100% no doubt about it. If a driver can't decide what a reasonable speed is for any given situation, they shouldn't be driving, period. Before you jump on me again for being a speed crazy lunatic that just wants to do 100mph down every road, let me inform you that I quite often have traffic tailgating my ass, especially through residential areas. I constantly adjust my speed for whatever the conditions are, while the people riding my butt only want to maintain the status quo, 5-10mph over the speedlimit no matter what.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2008, 11:50:37 PM
Is all left lane camping a ticketable offense? In my state the closest I've seen are such signs as "slow traffic keep right" or "slow vehicles may use shoulder" or "vehicles with trailiers not allowed in left lane." So, if one is impeding traffic by going way below the speed limit, then yes, it's a safety problem - but that is really rare, and would be a problem in any lane.
I don't think that doing the speed limit, or close to it, in the left lane is (or should be) a ticketable offense really. A lot of the interstate I drive is two lane and 70 mph limit. I'll be danged if I'm diving in and out of the right lane, dodging 50 mph big rigs or Sunday drivers such to give quarter to some guy playing AJ Foyt at 90 or 100 mph. That's not how US traffic laws work, the average driver is not accustomed to such large speed disparaties, and the average two-lane highway/freeway isn't built for it.
It is ticketable in CO, as well as OK.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 04:01:59 PM
By and large they already do; that's why speeding is such a routine.
I'm not saying we should eliminate speed limits altogether, but that they should more directly reflect the speeds that people (as an average) are already driving.
Making the speed limit reflect reality and then ticketing only the clearly dangerous "speeders" makes sense to me.
I tend to agree with that idea, actually.
Quote from: Raza on January 23, 2008, 12:44:06 PM
Oh my god, we should lower speed limits in case there's a nuclear attack! Have you ever tried to control a car at 65mph during a nuclear explosion?
:clap:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 04:01:59 PM
By and large they already do; that's why speeding is such a routine.
I'm not saying we should eliminate speed limits altogether, but that they should more directly reflect the speeds that people (as an average) are already driving.
Making the speed limit reflect reality and then ticketing only the clearly dangerous "speeders" makes sense to me.
I agree. I'd go further and say that with higher speed limits should come more severe penalties for violating them. With our low speed limits, we have blurred the line between safe speeding and truly dangerous driving, and because so many people are subject to penalty for their driving, the penalties are generally a joke and don't deter people from continuing to speed.
I think those who argue for the elimination of speed limits are very unrealistic. First off, we can't take 50% of the drivers considered 'below average' off the road, or anything close to that. It's simply impossible. And the law has an obligation to protect, to the best of its ability, the public from dangerous actions. It's very idealistic to suggest that anybody who can get a license should be able to judge a safe speed.
Quote from: NomisR on January 23, 2008, 01:08:55 PM
Everyone in WA drives like old people or can't drive at all. Had a family friend enter a freeway at 35 mph and then proceed to go all the way to the left most lane at the same speed. And yes that's in WA.
:rolleyes:
Clearly, you've spent lots of time here.
Quote from: NACar on January 23, 2008, 04:37:40 PM
Absolutely 100% no doubt about it. If a driver can't decide what a reasonable speed is for any given situation, they shouldn't be driving, period. Before you jump on me again for being a speed crazy lunatic that just wants to do 100mph down every road, let me inform you that I quite often have traffic tailgating my ass, especially through residential areas. I constantly adjust my speed for whatever the conditions are, while the people riding my butt only want to maintain the status quo, 5-10mph over the speedlimit no matter what.
I suspect that I'm going to get ridiculed by a few particular people around here for being a typical heavy-handed ultra-authoritarian cop for this comment, but I'm gonna say it anyways.
If you actually trust most people to make the right choice without outside influence, you're giving alot of people way too much credit. Most crashes and traffic violatins I see (and there are alot of em) are people NOT thinking before they do something. If people can't prove that they can drive safely under the current laws, why should we broaden the law to give those same people MORE discretion on the roadways?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 23, 2008, 06:58:59 PM
I agree. I'd go further and say that with higher speed limits should come more severe penalties for violating them.
With the exception of residential, school zones, and construction zones I completely agree.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 09:16:45 PM
If people can't prove that they can drive safely under the current laws, why should we broaden the law to give those same people MORE discretion on the roadways?
How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.
Random thoughts:
To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history. Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.
It is hopelessly na?ve to think that the speed laws actually prevent crashes. The law is useful for ROW issues but speed limits provide no value.
Raza got it right:
QuoteOh my god, we should lower speed limits in case there's a nuclear attack! Have you ever tried to control a car at 65mph during a nuclear explosion?
This was heavy sarcasm but it?s also dead on. The apologists for low limits will use any excuse to keep the status quo, caring not a whit about raising the productivity of our automotive transportation system. Do we let the remote possibilities of unknown events degrade the policy for an entire population? Do we enforce the death penalty for not using a condom just because somebody, somewhere, sometime will get the clap?
Impeders create tailgating and congestion and elevate risk across the board. Tailgaters do not create impeders nor do they cause congestion, although they do elevate risk. The legal solution is obviously to remove the impeders because this also eliminates tailgating and congestion and lowers risk. Removing the tailgaters still leaves the congestion and risk.
To those of you who invoke the ?average driver? as proof that all other drivers do not deserve to make their own decisions. The very essence of freedom is the recognition that we will make mistakes. Now, some of you will say, yes, but those mistakes kill people. And I say, yes, they do but they do so very rarely. Further, it confuses the skills necessary to drive well (much less adequately) with the normal distribution of skills (assuming a normal distribution) and where the cutoff is between acceptable and unacceptable skills. Since, the DMVs of the nation have already weeded out those that we know cannot demonstrate adequate skills, it leaves us to determine where the cutoff lies on the normal distribution of skills. I suspect it is very low, perhaps the lowest decile.
Bing_oh writes:
QuoteAnd do you really want to leave it up to the individual drivers to decide what is a "safe" speed for them?
Yes, absolutely yes. You are aware that this is how engineers determine what speed limits should be, I?m sure. We also have upwards of 50% of the people speeding at any given time and the reality is that nothing happens because of that.
`
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 10:18:16 PM
How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.
Many traffic laws, speedlimits especially, are just not enforced seriously enough to be taken seriouisly.
Everyone "speeds" practially
all the time - and that stems from the fact that the laws are just flawed to begin with! Drivers must be able to rely on and trust each others' good judgement, just like they already do, but without being punished needlessly. A driver who performs an action for no reason other than because it is the law, actually has no business operating a motor vehicle!
Quote from: James Young on January 23, 2008, 10:20:13 PM
Random thoughts:
To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history. Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.
It is hopelessly na?ve to think that the speed laws actually prevent crashes. The law is useful for ROW issues but speed limits provide no value.
Raza got it right:
This was heavy sarcasm but it?s also dead on. The apologists for low limits will use any excuse to keep the status quo, caring not a whit about raising the productivity of our automotive transportation system. Do we let the remote possibilities of unknown events degrade the policy for an entire population? Do we enforce the death penalty for not using a condom just because somebody, somewhere, sometime will get the clap?
Impeders create tailgating and congestion and elevate risk across the board. Tailgaters do not create impeders nor do they cause congestion, although they do elevate risk. The legal solution is obviously to remove the impeders because this also eliminates tailgating and congestion and lowers risk. Removing the tailgaters still leaves the congestion and risk.
To those of you who invoke the ?average driver? as proof that all other drivers do not deserve to make their own decisions. The very essence of freedom is the recognition that we will make mistakes. Now, some of you will say, yes, but those mistakes kill people. And I say, yes, they do but they do so very rarely. Further, it confuses the skills necessary to drive well (much less adequately) with the normal distribution of skills (assuming a normal distribution) and where the cutoff is between acceptable and unacceptable skills. Since, the DMVs of the nation have already weeded out those that we know cannot demonstrate adequate skills, it leaves us to determine where the cutoff lies on the normal distribution of skills. I suspect it is very low, perhaps the lowest decile.
Bing_oh writes:
Yes, absolutely yes. You are aware that this is how engineers determine what speed limits should be, I?m sure. We also have upwards of 50% of the people speeding at any given time and the reality is that nothing happens because of that.
`
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/blahblah1.gif)
There is no imperical evidence to support you claims the speed limits have not produced this phenomenon of lower accidents/fatalities. None, other than mere conjecture of your own making. I can use these same stats to make an argument that speed limits are directly responsible for safer driving.
Stats, as we have covered on this board many times, are completely subjective and open to interpretation. Your agenda driven use of general stats here only serves to concrete their subjective value/vulnerablitly.
:rolleyes:
hounddog writes:
QuoteThere is no imperical evidence to support you claims the [higher] speed limits have not produced this phenomenon of lower accidents/fatalities.
I don?t need to claim that higher limits have produced lower crash and fatality rates in order to disprove the allegations of the safety Nazis whose argument was/is that lower limits produce fewer crashes and fatalities. The empirical evidence shows that higher limits and higher actual speeds do not produce higher crash and injury rates. The difference is significant.
There is a school of thought that higher speed limits lead directly to improved crash and fatality rates because (1) they divert traffic onto higher speed roadways (Interstate-grade), which are inherently safer, (2) they allow more drivers to concentrate in the very narrow range around the point of minimization of the crash incidence curve, a range that is illegal under most of the prevailing limits, (3) higher speeds reduce the time exposure factor. I always discounted this last factor but saw a couple of studies a couple of years ago that outlined that it is a very significant reduction in risk. Consider a trip completed in 3.25 hours rather than the 4 at lower speeds. That?s a nearly 20% reduction in that risk factor.
QuoteI can use these same stats to make an argument that speed limits are directly responsible for safer driving.
No, you can?t because your comments indicate rather obviously that you neither understand nor appreciate the use of statistics as a tool.
QuoteStats, as we have covered on this board many times, are completely subjective and open to interpretation.
No, we haven?t. You?ve alleged that stats are ?completely subjective? but that just shows that you don?t know what you?re talking about. It seems that you would rather curse the darkness than light the candle of knowledge. (apologies to Adlai Stevenson).
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 10:18:16 PM
How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.
Thank you for proving my point. When the laws are followed, people don't tend to run into each other. In fact, I can't think of a single crash that I've taken in 9 years (and, I'll tell you, I've taken ALOT of crashes) where at least on one of the involved parties was not in violation of a traffic law. Traffic laws are in place to try to regulate driver behavior to make driving safe (despite what James Young says). If one of those laws are violated, there are potential penalties. That's to try to encourage drivers to follow the law. Do all drivers follow the law? Of course not. No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 23, 2008, 11:41:19 PM
Thank you for proving my point. When the laws are followed, people don't tend to run into each other. In fact, I can't think of a single crash that I've taken in 9 years (and, I'll tell you, I've taken ALOT of crashes) where at least on one of the involved parties was not in violation of a traffic law. Traffic laws are in place to try to regulate driver behavior to make driving safe (despite what James Young says). If one of those laws are violated, there are potential penalties. That's to try to encourage drivers to follow the law. Do all drivers follow the law? Of course not. No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it.
We're not talking about "some" people, we're talking about the majority of the people violating the law the majority of the time: to the point where the posted speed limits become irrelevant. Comparing it to murder is just plain ridiculous.
How many speeding tickets have you written for a guy who was going 73 in a 70 MPH zone? Not a whole hell of a lot I'm willing to bet.
What I'm saying is this: raise the speed limits to the point where they are relevant. That is, if someone is violating that limit, they not only are above what the vast majority of drivers feel is safe, but where it's reasonable to assume that that speed is creating a danger to other traffic.
Get rid of this "oh, 5-10 over is OK because every body does it" mentality and set a clear line that's relevant to modern traffic patterns.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 11:49:24 PM
We're not talking about "some" people, we're talking about the majority of the people violating the law the majority of the time: to the point where the posted speed limits become irrelevant. Comparing it to murder is just plain ridiculous.
How many speeding tickets have you written for a guy who was going 73 in a 70 MPH zone? Not a whole hell of a lot I'm willing to bet.
What I'm saying is this: raise the speed limits to the point where they are relevant. That is, if someone is violating that limit, they not only are above what the vast majority of drivers feel is safe, but where it's reasonable to assume that that speed is creating a danger to other traffic.
Get rid of this "oh, 5-10 over is OK because every body does it" mentality and set a clear line that's relevant to modern traffic patterns.
Ok, give me your proposed speed limit on the average highway. Remember, the speed limit itself has to be established as "safe" by the state, or you're defeating the purpose of speed limits in the first place. Now, add 5 mph to it. Do you think you could make a case in a court of law that the additional 5 mph make a dramatic difference in what is
perceived as "safe?" No matter what speed is set as the speed limit, it's going to nigh on impossible for you to add 5-10 mph and convince someone that that increase has dramatically changed the safety factor.
Also, you're proposing that you eliminate officer discretion in traffic enforcement. That's not something that's going to go over well with the general public. The degree of the violation and the circumstances surrounding it are factors that the public believes LE shoud take into account when enforcing the law.
Quote from: James Young on January 23, 2008, 10:20:13 PM
Random thoughts:
To those of you who worry about the number of people who can?t drive properly, make poor decisions, etc, the facts are that we are now enjoying the lowest crash-, injury-, and fatality rates in our history. Apparently, all those poor drivers are performing very well.
Or their cars are.
Perhaps factors such as much better collision protection in vehicles, airbags, crush zones, occupant protection; and they get better every year.
More and better trained EMS pesonnel, better euqipment, life flight. The list goes on.
Quote from: James Young on January 23, 2008, 11:05:53 PM
hounddog writes:
I don?t need to claim that higher limits have produced lower crash and fatality rates in order to disprove the allegations of the safety Nazis whose argument was/is that lower limits produce fewer crashes and fatalities. The empirical evidence shows that higher limits and higher actual speeds do not produce higher crash and injury rates. The difference is significant.
There is a school of thought that higher speed limits lead directly to improved crash and fatality rates because (1) they divert traffic onto higher speed roadways (Interstate-grade), which are inherently safer, (2) they allow more drivers to concentrate in the very narrow range around the point of minimization of the crash incidence curve, a range that is illegal under most of the prevailing limits, (3) higher speeds reduce the time exposure factor. I always discounted this last factor but saw a couple of studies a couple of years ago that outlined that it is a very significant reduction in risk. Consider a trip completed in 3.25 hours rather than the 4 at lower speeds. That?s a nearly 20% reduction in that risk factor.
No, you can?t because your comments indicate rather obviously that you neither understand nor appreciate the use of statistics as a tool.
No, we haven?t. You?ve alleged that stats are ?completely subjective? but that just shows that you don?t know what you?re talking about. It seems that you would rather curse the darkness than light the candle of knowledge. (apologies to Adlai Stevenson).
True, my minor in statistical analysis, which was a core curriculum to Process Engineering and Manufacturing Management at Michigan State University (which my degree is a dual engineering and MBA degree), gives me little understanding of the topic. I am undone.
Quote from: hounddog on January 24, 2008, 04:54:09 PM
True, my minor in statistical analysis, which was a core curriculum to Process Engineering and Manufacturing Management at Michigan State University (which my degree is a dual engineering and MBA degree), gives me little understanding of the topic. I am undone.
You should ask for your money back.
I don't know about throwing that kind of weight around, James - you've posted some "statistics" that simply don't pass basic scrutity IMO.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 23, 2008, 10:18:16 PM
How many crashes do you typically see where you truly beleive both parties were obeying 100% of the laws at the time of the accident?
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the vast majority of the time, somebody was already practicing their own discretion irregardless of the current traffic laws.
:heated:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 24, 2008, 10:01:42 PM
I don't know about throwing that kind of weight around, James - you've posted some "statistics" that simply don't pass basic scrutity IMO.
Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?
Quote from: dsred on January 25, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?
I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 25, 2008, 10:47:31 PM
I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.
You don't HAVE to scrape them up. There's always the wet/dry vacs.
Quote from: Minpin on January 25, 2008, 10:55:02 PM
You don't HAVE to scrape them up. There's always the wet/dry vacs.
They stick. High pressure hoses are the better choice, but the FD doesn't let us play with those and it looks "unsympathetic" to the public.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 25, 2008, 11:09:03 PM
They stick. High pressure hoses are the better choice, but the FD doesn't let us play with those and it looks "unsympathetic" to the public.
As opposed to a shovel? Hmm that seems to lack some logic. Have you ever talked to you superiors about this? It could be a "hot topic" for the presidential hopefuls!
Quote from: Minpin on January 25, 2008, 11:20:31 PM
As opposed to a shovel? Hmm that seems to lack some logic. Have you ever talked to you superiors about this? It could be a "hot topic" for the presidential hopefuls!
Well, we're at least shoveling them into bags for the morturary. The hoses tend to just blow bits and pieces into the median.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 26, 2008, 12:31:23 AM
Well, we're at least shoveling them into bags for the morturary. The hoses tend to just blow bits and pieces into the median.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
:rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: dsred on January 25, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
Why? Because the government's own statistics don't prove "speed kills"? Or because you said so?
Huh? Uh, neither.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 25, 2008, 10:47:31 PM
I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.
Only an idiot can deny the physics involved. The problem is that what you are doing is applying an emotional argument based on our experience with bad situations.
The facts though clearly state that the safest speeds to drive are at the 85th to 95th percentile, which is nowhere near where speed limits are currently set. In another words, the "carnage" you are witnessing is exaserbated by current speed limits.
Are you for safer roads or not?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2008, 04:45:36 PM
Huh? Uh, neither.
So it is "because you said so" then. Thanks for the insight.
Oh, brother - now everyone's an expert on "statistics."
Look no further than the layman's condundrum of Bayes' Theorem that typifies what houndog meant.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2008, 05:28:57 PM
Oh, brother - now everyone's an expert on "statistics."
Look no further than the layman's condundrum of Bayes' Theorem that typifies what houndog meant.
And as usual you miss the point. Instead of mouthing off about how the stats don't prove what James says, do a little work and refute them.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
Quote from: dsred on January 27, 2008, 05:03:00 PM
Only an idiot can deny the physics involved. The problem is that what you are doing is applying an emotional argument based on our experience with bad situations.
The facts though clearly state that the safest speeds to drive are at the 85th to 95th percentile, which is nowhere near where speed limits are currently set. In another words, the "carnage" you are witnessing is exaserbated by current speed limits.
Are you for safer roads or not?
I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.
And, since you can't deny the physics involved in high-speed collisions, I guess you'd have to admit the speed DOES kill. Interesting that you've come to the point that you acknowledge the physics of crashes and their effects on the chances of said crashes being fatal, but you still insist on raising speed limits.
There's absolutely NO proof that the current speed limits exaserbate the "carnage" (your word, not mine) on the highways. There's also no proof that increasing speed limits will lower the rates of fatal crashes, so your question as to whether or not I want safer roads is moot.
Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have interest in what speed anyone goes.
Quote from: NACar on January 27, 2008, 09:28:35 PM
Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have interest in what speed anyone goes.
They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.
And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a
reason limit for lower speed limits. Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 27, 2008, 09:15:45 PM
I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.
Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.
If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.
Quote from: Tave on January 28, 2008, 08:40:24 AM
Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.
If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.
With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.
However, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 28, 2008, 12:21:06 PM
With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.
The point was indirect, and I made it to address dsred's earlier statement. Sometimes, people who work around something perceive it to be more of a problem than it realistically is, by virtue of nothing else than time spent. When the "something" tests a person like accident scenes do, it's not hard to imagine the effect of time intensifying. I'm not saying that effect is an "emotional" response, and I'm also not saying you are a person who is affected: we know don't know you well enough to make such judgements.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 25, 2008, 10:47:31 PM
I invite you to the scene of any of the high-speed collisions that I work and encourage you to then tell me that speed doesn't kill. Speed doesn't ALWAYS kill, but it sure increases the likelihood of serious injury or death when a collision happens. It's very different to look at statistics on your computer screen about speed-related deaths and being at the sharp end of the spear, scraping up the unfortunates who smear on America's highways.
It
is different, and believe me when I tell you, I'm not sure I have the inner fortitude it would take to work around something like that, although I hope I would. I admire you more than you probably think right now and appreciate that difficult service.
But sadly, accidents will continue to happen, and people are going to die in them, at least until motor vehicle operation and/or collision protection becomes 100% safe. Cars are dangerous projectiles, and accidents happen. As callous as it sounds, the fact that you have to witness the horrible consequences isn't a trump.
QuoteHowever, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.
Nah, I don't want to defend them. I've seen enough stupid driving to last me a lifetime.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 27, 2008, 09:15:45 PM
I'm not applying emotions to the argument. Did you notice the quips I was exchanging about scraping people up off the the road? Does that sound like someone who takes this particular discussion emotionally? I'm not going to deny that I have a different perspective on this particular subject because I'm one of the people who has to deal with the consequences of high-speed collisions on a very regular basis. That's not emotion, that's applying personal knowledge and experience.
And, since you can't deny the physics involved in high-speed collisions, I guess you'd have to admit the speed DOES kill. Interesting that you've come to the point that you acknowledge the physics of crashes and their effects on the chances of said crashes being fatal, but you still insist on raising speed limits.
There's absolutely NO proof that the current speed limits exaserbate the "carnage" (your word, not mine) on the highways. There's also no proof that increasing speed limits will lower the rates of fatal crashes, so your question as to whether or not I want safer roads is moot.
Uh, yeah, there is proof that raising limits will actually REDUCE the incidence of crashes. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that.
I'm not going to even attempt to address the rest of the uh, "logic" contained in the above ridiculous post. Sorry, I misread you for someone who is smarter than they actually are....
Quote from: Byteme on January 28, 2008, 06:43:04 AM
They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.
And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a reason limit for lower speed limits. Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.
OK, by this flawed logic we should all walk everywhere then. Few would die. Well except for the heart attacks since most of us are severely out of shape.
Luckily for us though, you're....BZZTTTTT... WRONG. Less crashes = less chance of injury. Science tells us where the "point of dimishing returns" is. Speed limits, at least as currently set, have nothing to do with where that point is...
Quote from: Tave on January 28, 2008, 08:40:24 AM
Of course, you're never called to the billions of non-accidents that happen every minute.
If a doctor didn't know better, he'd think everyone in the world was sick.
Excellent analogy. Bang on.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 28, 2008, 12:21:06 PM
With all due respect, Tave, what's your point? I drive the same as anybody else. I know that many people drive without running into each other. I don't have my head buried so far in the sand that I think that all of the drivers on the road are out there playing bumper cars 24/7.
However, I also log ALOT of driving hours on my job...many of which are specifically dedicated to observing the actions of my fellow drivers. I see alot of people doing alot of stupid things, many of which would result in crashes if not for good luck, good timing, or the intevention of the Great Pumpkin on their behalf. You can defend the competetance the majority of my fellow drivers if you like, it's just that my personal experience puts that competence in question.
Again, with this philophy, let's all walk then. No one would die. Tave has it right.
Uh, oh. Just heard on my NPR affiliate this morning that Washington state legistlature is considering a 55 mph initiative from some environmental group (under the auspicies of global warming of course).
Like I said before, championing the cause for higher limits is a complete lost cause. Withing the next 7 years IMO 70 mph limits will be gone; sooner should the DNC win the White House come November.
Time to search for a home in the Isle of Man. I could learn to love kippers.
I mean, I don't think I could. They've got to have a sushi place there.
Quote from: James Young on January 24, 2008, 07:56:56 PM
You should ask for your money back.
Once again, your fall back position is to attack rather than defend. Another brilliant retort, desred err James err whoever you chose to call yourself today.
Quote from: hounddog on January 28, 2008, 06:27:50 PM
Once again, your fall back position is to attack rather than defend. Another brilliant retort, desred err James err whoever you chose to call yourself today.
I post only under my name, my real name. If you want to believe that I am somebody else, nothing I could say would change your mind, nor would I care to make the effort.
You were the one attacking the capabilities of statistics as a tool, constantly crying that anybody can make them say anything they want. That is wrong. Then you claim to have some education in rather advanced statistics, but obviously that education didn?t extend to the legitimate use of statistics as a tool. That you didn?t learn anything from the courses is obvious from your responses. Hence, my remark, short, sweet and directly to the heart of the matter.
Quote from: Tave on January 28, 2008, 01:22:13 PM
The point was indirect, and I made it to address dsred's earlier statement. Sometimes, people who work around something perceive it to be more of a problem than it realistically is, by virtue of nothing else than time spent. When the "something" tests a person like accident scenes do, it's not hard to imagine the effect of time intensifying. I'm not saying that effect is an "emotional" response, and I'm also not saying you are a person who is affected: we know don't know you well enough to make such judgements.
One of the main reasons that I get into LE is the desire to protect. It's not something easily explained and, even if I could, many people wouldn't understand the explanation. Or, more specifically, they might understand the explanation but not the "why" behind it. I see the unnecessary death of another person...especially an innocent third party which, it always seems, is the one dying in auto crashes...as a pretty big problem. Is it the biggest problem our nation deals with on any given day? Probably not. But it's still a problem. And, as often as I make the apparently calloused and unfeeling remarks about scraping up the road pizza, it's not a problem I'm willing to minimize.
QuoteIt is different, and believe me when I tell you, I'm not sure I have the inner fortitude it would take to work around something like that, although I hope I would. I admire you more than you probably think right now and appreciate that difficult service.
But sadly, accidents will continue to happen, and people are going to die in them, at least until motor vehicle operation and/or collision protection becomes 100% safe. Cars are dangerous projectiles, and accidents happen. As callous as it sounds, the fact that you have to witness the horrible consequences isn't a trump.
I appreciate your remarks, Tave. And, I'm not unrealistic. I understand that crashes will happen and that deaths will result. I simply don't see a tangable benefit in increasing speed limits that sufficiently counteracts the increased risk of death that comes from collisions at higher speeds.
QuoteNah, I don't want to defend them. I've seen enough stupid driving to last me a lifetime.
Join the club. I'm right there with you on that one.
Quote from: dsred on January 28, 2008, 05:21:30 PM
Uh, yeah, there is proof that raising limits will actually REDUCE the incidence of crashes. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that.
I'm not going to even attempt to address the rest of the uh, "logic" contained in the above ridiculous post. Sorry, I misread you for someone who is smarter than they actually are....
Well, I'm glad you've made your style of "debate" so clear so soon in your tenure here at CarSpin. It makes it so much easier when I know who I should ignore. Have a pleasant day, Dsred.
I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 28, 2008, 10:41:44 PM
I appreciate your remarks, Tave. And, I'm not unrealistic. I understand that crashes will happen and that deaths will result. I simply don't see a tangable benefit in increasing speed limits that sufficiently counteracts the increased risk of death that comes from collisions at higher speeds.
Join the club. I'm right there with you on that one.
Well, I think this is the fear of most politicians in regards to raising the speed limit. When the 55mph speed limit was lifted, I'm sure there's a lot of safety advocates screaming that people are going to suddenly crash and die in large numbers because the speed limit went up. Obviously, that didn't happen, the rate of accidents and death remained constant, the only thing that changed was the number of tickets issued.
Same goes when the speed limits of areas went beyond 65 mph. James has posted some of those stats before..
So basically, is there any benefit of lowering speed limit or having it stay the same if people are still going to be in accidents and dyinig at the same rate? People that are going to drive recklessly will drive recklessly regardless of speed limits, it's just holding back those that do abide by the law, or have a large portion of those that drives safely but "speed" gets punished. That still doesn't solve the problem of safety in any way. In other words, speed limit is just dumbing down of everything take the responsibility of actions away from individuals and lumping all the problems in one area that isn't rightfully deserved.
So, in order to drastically reduce deaths, you would have to limit all speeds of all cars to 5 mph and i'm sure even some assholes are going to die because of it and the rest of us will be stuck in an eternal traffic jam.
Quote from: Minpin on January 28, 2008, 10:46:20 PM
I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.
:clap:
Quote from: Byteme on January 28, 2008, 06:43:04 AM
They do have an interest, that's why there are speed limits.
And you are right, you die from the crash and that's a reason limit for lower speed limits. Lower limits, the better chance of survival in an accident.
Sorry, that didn't make any sense. :lol:
It seems that I forgot the word "no".
Let me add a bit more while I'm fixing things:
Quote from: NACar on January 27, 2008, 09:28:35 PM
Speed doesn't kill anything, just crashing. Crashing should be made illegal, and the law should have no interest in what speed anyone goes. ,Driving that is dangerous enough to make a crash imminent should also be illegal, but that cannot be determined independantly by speed alone, rather by such a large number of variables that the specifics of such a policy could never be put verbatim into a written law. It is subjective, but so is the current enforcement of speedlimits. Things would be nearly the same as they are now, with just a few things removed: enforcement that is inconsistent relative to the law, and writing tickets for non-dangerous driving just to meet quotas..
Quote from: Minpin on January 28, 2008, 10:46:20 PM
I really tire of every thread in this section turning into a bitchfest between the cops. Let it go.
I don't see any cops bitching at each other? I see them arguing with an occasional stupid person but they're not arguing with each other???
is that better, Greg?
Quote from: rohan on January 29, 2008, 06:22:25 PM
I don't see any cops bitching at each other? I see them arguing with an occasional stupid person but they're not arguing with each other???
is that better, Greg?
I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads. It does get a little tiring. Once it starts, I stop reading.
Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO. But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 06:25:19 PM
I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads. It does get a little tiring. Once it starts, I stop reading.
Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO. But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.
Gotcha. That's why I've been coming here less and less.
Adn I was asking you Greg not being a smartass- was that a better reply and less insulting?
Quote from: rohan on January 29, 2008, 06:27:20 PM
Gotcha. That's why I've been coming here less and less.
Adn I was asking you Greg not being a smartass- was that a better reply and less insulting?
It passes. :mask:
Quote from: ifcar on January 21, 2008, 06:56:48 AMAnd trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.
Passing them on the right works for me :huh:
Quote from: L. ed foote on January 29, 2008, 06:45:20 PM
Passing them on the right works for me :huh:
Same here, if possible.
Quote from: L. ed foote on January 29, 2008, 06:45:20 PM
Passing them on the right works for me :huh:
Or through the grassy median. :cheers: I once flashed my blue lights behind a left lane camper after miles being stuck behind her doing 55 in a 65. Instead of moving over the dumb Vermont hick stopped in the lane and slowly pulled into the median! Of course I was 20 miles outside my jurisdiction but lucky for us, all the people that locked up behind us avoided a pile up. I chewed her ass and told her to go back to Vermont. :lockedup:
Quote from: Catman on January 29, 2008, 06:54:02 PM
Or through the grassy median. :cheers: I once flashed my blue lights behind a left lane camper after miles being stuck behind her doing 55 in a 65. Instead of moving over the dumb Vermont hick stopped in the lane and slowly pulled into the median! Of course I was 20 miles outside my jurisdiction but lucky for us, all the people that locked up behind us avoided a pile up. I chewed her ass and told her to go back to Vermont. :lockedup:
I can't stand those nervous nellie Sallie Safedriver types. They're more dangerous than judicious speeders, yet they think they're great drivers. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 06:25:19 PM
I think minpin meant certain posters and some of the officers ending up bitching at each other incessantly on these speed-related threads. It does get a little tiring. Once it starts, I stop reading.
Both are partly right and partly wrong, IMO. But the discussions quickly turn into a quagmire from which there's no resolution or graceful exit.
It's the Driving and the Law section. Do you want all the posts to be about butterflies and puppy dogs?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=12997.msg720424#msg720424 date=1201658983
It's the Driving and the Law section. Do you want all the posts to be about butterflies and puppy dogs?
No, but it just gets tiresome to see the same argument over and over again.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 07:12:30 PM
No, but it just gets tiresome to see the same argument over and over again.
The problem is that one side is right and the other side is wrong, but thinks it's right.
That's how arguments work.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=12997.msg720439#msg720439 date=1201659596
The problem is that one side is right and the other side is wrong, but thinks it's right.
That's how arguments work.
No, they're both partly right and partly wrong. But each thinks that he's totally right.
People can disagree, but it gets tiresome to read retreads of the same arguments ad nauseum. I could poke holes in certain segments of both arguments, but it's just not worth getting into that morass.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 07:21:36 PM
No, they're both partly right and partly wrong. But each thinks that he's totally right.
People can disagree, but it gets tiresome to read retreads of the same arguments ad nauseum. I could poke holes in certain segments of both arguments, but it's just not worth getting into that morass.
You just answered the question "Why J86 mostly spends time away from political issues on the internet" :lol:
Quote from: J86 on January 29, 2008, 07:53:54 PM
You just answered the question "Why J86 mostly spends time away from political issues on the internet" :lol:
At least the political discussions involve varying issues. The speeder arguments are always on the same couple of issues, ad nauseum.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 08:00:05 PM
At least the political discussions involve varying issues. The speeder arguments are always on the same couple of issues, ad nauseum.
Yeah, but the same people usually break down on very predictable sides...
Wanna debate about it? :lol:
Quote from: J86 on January 29, 2008, 08:20:21 PM
Yeah, but the same people usually break down on very predictable sides...
Wanna debate about it? :lol:
I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 08:25:13 PM
I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed.... :lol:
yeah, it's almost lights-out at the old folks home.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 08:25:13 PM
I'd write a 10-paragraph treatise about it, but I'm getting ready for bed.... :lol:
pussy :lol:
Quote from: J86 on January 29, 2008, 08:27:38 PM
pussy :lol:
If you've got such a set, why don't you start the argument, punk? :lol:
In order to increase speeds the roads must be designed to handle those increased speeds safely. Second there is the issue of driver training. If everybody had to spend 8000 hours of training before they drive well then maybe we could raise the speed limit to mach one but since some people get little training the speeds need to be low enough to accommodate them.
Edit: Some vehicles can't handle the increase in speed.
Quote from: sparkplug on January 29, 2008, 08:51:44 PM
Edit: Some vehicles can't handle the increase in speed.
Then they stay to the right
Quote from: dazzleman on January 29, 2008, 07:05:30 PM
I can't stand those nervous nellie Sallie Safedriver types. They're more dangerous than judicious speeders, yet they think they're great drivers. :rolleyes:
According to the insurance companies, and in some eyes of the law, I'd say they're right.
I'm my eyes, they're sanctimonious assholes :lol:
Quote from: J86 on January 29, 2008, 08:27:38 PM
pussy :lol:
If that's why he's going to bed, then I'd say it's a legitimate reason. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 24, 2008, 12:25:37 AM
Ok, give me your proposed speed limit on the average highway. Remember, the speed limit itself has to be established as "safe" by the state...
It's not the states alone deciding these things, and you know that probably better than I do. There is a great deal of federal influence involved in that.
Anyways, the speed limits should be set according to the formulas currently suggested by the MUTCD: the most predominantly being: the 85th percentile rule.
And no, Bing Oh I am not proposing removing "officer discretion"
aka "we give the tickets to whomever we think deserves the tickets whether or not evryone else is also breaking the law." Officer discretion would still apply for "too fast for conditions" as it always has.
What puzzles me and what has always puzzled me about this debate is how the law enforcement argument by and large is always the same: that those arguing for increased limits are just speed freak scofflaws that want to be legitimized. You even brought up a comparison to murder! The fact of the matter is that speed limit adjustments have been made regularly in the past, that prevailing conditions continue to improve in terms of both infrastructure and vehicle capability (lamentably, not in driver skill), and that an occasional re-evaluation of arbitrarily enforced rules is simply the logical thing to do.
Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 30, 2008, 10:37:18 AM
Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.
I'll play devil's advocate. :devil:
Just because we set the speed limits unrealistically high in the past, given the capabilities of vehicles then, doesn't mean we should do so now.
Quote from: Byteme on January 30, 2008, 11:14:49 AM
I'll play devil's advocate. :devil:
Just because we set the speed limits unrealistically high in the past, given the capabilities of vehicles then, doesn't mean we should do so now.
Just because we've also set limits unrealistically low in the past (NMSL anybody?),doesn't mean we should do so now either.
Nor should we assume that what is being done now is the right way to do it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 30, 2008, 10:37:18 AM
It's not the states alone deciding these things, and you know that probably better than I do. There is a great deal of federal influence involved in that.
Anyways, the speed limits should be set according to the formulas currently suggested by the MUTCD: the most predominantly being: the 85th percentile rule.
And no, Bing Oh I am not proposing removing "officer discretion" aka "we give the tickets to whomever we think deserves the tickets whether or not evryone else is also breaking the law." Officer discretion would still apply for "too fast for conditions" as it always has.
What puzzles me and what has always puzzled me about this debate is how the law enforcement argument by and large is always the same: that those arguing for increased limits are just speed freak scofflaws that want to be legitimized. You even brought up a comparison to murder! The fact of the matter is that speed limit adjustments have been made regularly in the past, that prevailing conditions continue to improve in terms of both infrastructure and vehicle capability (lamentably, not in driver skill), and that an occasional re-evaluation of arbitrarily enforced rules is simply the logical thing to do.
Think of it this way: in 1965, the interstate highway speed limits commonly were as high as 75 MPH. Think for a second what it would mean to drive those speeds regularly in a 1965 Ford Country Squire or a middle-of-the-road Plymouth, much less in any number of older vehicles still in use at that point.
The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.
The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.
If you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.
And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even
said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!
The issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 08:28:47 PM
The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.
The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.
If you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.
And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!
The issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.
OTOH, cars today are much safer at higher speeds. I could never have driven my cars from the 70s at 80 mph on the highway, the way I do with my current car.
Of course, in the '70's you weren't rich. My old '72 Volvo 145 was fine at 80 mph, if the clutch wasn't slipping. :lol:
Quote from: Psilos on January 30, 2008, 08:42:21 PM
Of course, in the '70's you weren't rich. My old '72 Volvo 145 was fine at 80 mph, if the clutch wasn't slipping. :lol:
You're right; back then I drove a POS.
But the average car back then didn't have the handling, traction, and safety features included even in cheaper cars today.
I actually drive faster now than I did then.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 30, 2008, 08:31:59 PM
OTOH, cars today are much safer at higher speeds. I could never have driven my cars from the 70s at 80 mph on the highway, the way I do with my current car.
No doubt. But, like I said, the operator is always going to be able to trump the inherent safety features of any modern motor vehicle (up until the point where we sit down in a car and tell the computer where we want to go, and have no further influence on the vehicle's operation). And, again, I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.
Let me ask you a question, Dave (and I ask you because you have alot of driving experience just through age)...if I put a "modern" driver beside a driver who learned in the 60's or 70's and asked them to parallel park, who do you think (on average) would do better? I'm betting that the driver who learned in the 60's/70's would do better. I think that, for whatever reason, the drivers back then have learned their lessons better. I think that modern drivers have become overly-dependant on modern "standard features" in cars and either lost many of their basic driving skills or never acquired them in the first place. And, I think that modern vehicles, with all of their features (not to mention the "features" that the drivers bring along with them), are distraction-rich environments.
In the end, I'll probably lose an argument when it comes to engineering issues. I'm smart enough and understand the basics, but I'm no engineer. However, I know people. That's my job and, not to toot my own horn, but I'm pretty good at understanding people. At this point, the person behind the wheel is still a major factor (in my opinion, THE biggest factor), in the safe operation of a motor vehicle. To be quite blunt, I don't trust most people to make the right decisions when it's make-or-break time. Most people vapor lock when the chips are down.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 08:51:03 PM
No doubt. But, like I said, the operator is always going to be able to trump the inherent safety features of any modern motor vehicle (up until the point where we sit down in a car and tell the computer where we want to go, and have no further influence on the vehicle's operation). And, again, I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.
Let me ask you a question, Dave (and I ask you because you have alot of driving experience just through age)...if I put a "modern" driver beside a driver who learned in the 60's or 70's and asked them to parallel park, who do you think (on average) would do better? I'm betting that the driver who learned in the 60's/70's would do better. I think that, for whatever reason, the drivers back then have learned their lessons better. I think that modern drivers have become overly-dependant on modern "standard features" in cars and either lost many of their basic driving skills or never acquired them in the first place. And, I think that modern vehicles, with all of their features (not to mention the "features" that the drivers bring along with them), are distraction-rich environments.
I can't disagree with you about the distractions to drivers today. And I do think that driving skills are like muscles -- don't use them and they atrophy. A car that does too much for you makes you stupid.
Still, having driven back in the 70s and today, I really can't say the drivers back then were better. Of course, I have no scientific data, but the driver training was pretty similar to today, and the driving test certainly wasn't any harder. My road test was a total joke, and even then, I couldn't believe the state was licensing people based on that test.
As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it. I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss. But they have always been. In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 30, 2008, 08:57:10 PM
As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it. I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss. But they have always been. In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.
Parallel park? HAHAH SUCKERS.
(http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/autoblog/hirezpics/Drift.jpg)
It's parallel parking in that picture. And it's doing it by itself...
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 08:28:47 PM
The Feds have much less influence than they used to. Look at the wide variances in speed limits from state to state as an example of that. In the past it was true, but not so much today.
The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the Hold Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.
Oh, really. I hadn't noticed. Ye, Bing Oh, despite it being a major factor in the regulations suggested by the manual of Uniform Traffic control Devices, of which all 50 states are signatoriesof: it hasn't been universally implemented; nor is that what I claimed. You asked what I suggest to do, and I told you.
QuoteIf you still want officer discretion AND you want an across the board increase in speed limits, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. "Too fast for conditions" has been widely replaced with per se speed limits in the law. In Ohio, there's no section of law for "too fast for conditions," outside fo Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (reckless operation), which is a major violation and requires alot of evidence on the officer's part.
Willful and wanton disregard for safety is exactly what drivers should be ticketed for: and yes: you should have to provide evidence of that as well.
QuoteAnd, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying. Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways? Comeon. I think we both know better. As for my supposed reference to murder, I never said speeding was the same as murder. Re-read that post. I was making an example and used murder as a substitute crime. I even said that it was a very unequal comparison as to degree of offense!
You made the assumption that both murder and speeding are on an equal footing as to the legitimacy of the laws against them: that if you are to question one, you may as well question the other. That's balderdash and both of us know it. Also, the jury is still out on whether or not reducing speed limits reduces accident or fatality rates. What happened when Montana repealed their 'reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits and implemented a 75 MPH statewide limit? What happened when the NMSL was repealed? Neither real world observation supports your argument.
And as we've already established: the majority of drivers are regular violators.
QuoteThe issues of vehicle and roadway engineering safety have to be tempered with the skill of modern drivers. Personally, I think modern drivers are much LESS skilled than they were back when speed limits were much higher. There are also alot more vehicles on the roadway and ALOT more distractions for today's driver. Quite frankly, I think that modern safety and comfort features in vehicles have made drivers more lax and less attentive to when it comes to understand the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle. Until cars drive themselves, the operator's skill will always trump both vehicle and roadway safety features.
That's just plain old curmudgeonly crankiness in a bucket of nostalgia. Yes, older drivers tend to be safer. That doesn't mean that's changed with time. A 16 year old in 1967 was just as inexperienced and dangerous as a 16 year old in 2007; and the same thing can be said of a 40 year old in the different years.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 30, 2008, 08:57:10 PM
I can't disagree with you about the distractions to drivers today. And I do think that driving skills are like muscles -- don't use them and they atrophy. A car that does too much for you makes you stupid.
Still, having driven back in the 70s and today, I really can't say the drivers back then were better. Of course, I have no scientific data, but the driver training was pretty similar to today, and the driving test certainly wasn't any harder. My road test was a total joke, and even then, I couldn't believe the state was licensing people based on that test.
As for parallel parking, I think people parallel park poorly today because there are so few circumstances when they're called upon to do it. I still have to parallel park occasionally, and my skills with it are hit or miss. But they have always been. In any case, I don't think there's much relationship between being able to parallel park, and being able to driver safely at high speed.
Think of how much a car does for you today compaired to what it did for you when you took your driver's test, Dave. People must be total idiots today if smarter cars = stupider drivers! Unfortunately, most of us see proof of this every day...
I was just using parallel parking as an example of a basic driving skill which seems to be sorely lacking in modern drivers. Maybe it was a bad example. Let's use something more realistic to average driving: your vehicle skids on wet or icy pavement. Same question...without the aid of antilock brakes or modern skid control devices, does the 60's/70's driver or the modern driver perform better? My answer remains the same.
I'm betting that the difference had very little to do with training or testing and more with real world experience. The drivers "back then" HAD to know how to control a vehicle without all of these modern safety features that we take for granted today. That made them better drivers simply through experience. Today's drivers have become overly-dependant on those features. Personally, I've seen Murphy's Law in action too much out in the big world to trust something run by a computer 100%, though.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 09:16:47 PM
Think of how much a car does for you today compaired to what it did for you when you took your driver's test, Dave. People must be total idiots today if smarter cars = stupider drivers! Unfortunately, most of us see proof of this every day...
I was just using parallel parking as an example of a basic driving skill which seems to be sorely lacking in modern drivers. Maybe it was a bad example. Let's use something more realistic to average driving: your vehicle skids on wet or icy pavement. Same question...without the aid of antilock breaks or modern skid control devices, does the 60's/70's driver or the modern driver perform better? My answer remains the same.
I'm betting that the difference had very little to do with training or testing and more with real world experience. The drivers "back then" HAD to know how to control a vehicle without all of these modern safety features that we take for granted today. That made them better drivers simply through experience. Today's drivers have become overly-dependant on those features. Personally, I've seen Murphy's Law in action too much out in the big world to trust something run by a computer 100%, though.
I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.
It seems that people like to push themselves to a certain level of risk. When there's a technological improvement that makes a car safer, all other things being equal, than it was before, people will then increase their speed so that the level of risk is roughly the same as it was without that technological improvement. Ditto for road improvements.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 30, 2008, 09:20:09 PM
I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.
That study would be in direct conflict with every other study I've ever seen.
I'm kind of sympathetic to that idea: that people push themselves to their comfortable levels of safety: but the evidence doesn't really back it up.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 30, 2008, 09:07:15 PM
Oh, really. I hadn't noticed. Ye, Bing Oh, despite it being a major factor in the regulations suggested by the manual of Uniform Traffic control Devices, of which all 50 states are signatoriesof: it hasn't been universally implemented; nor is that what I claimed. You asked what I suggest to do, and I told you.
Actually, you assumed the average fall-back position of people who advocate speed limit increases. I asked for an absolute safe speed where, if that speed was exceeded by 5mph, the average person would consider THAT speed inherently unsafe. I didn't ask for another mention of the 85th percentile rule, I just wanted a speed. A number. In mph, preferably, because I hate doing kph to mph calculations.
QuoteWillful and wanton disregard for safety is exactly what drivers should be ticketed for: and yes: you should have to provide evidence of that as well.
Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety is a minimum 4 point (of 12) violation in Ohio, usually carries with it a mandatory driver's license suspension, and and is a PHYSICALLY-ARRESTABLE OFFENSE. It's an EXTREMELY serious driving violation...pretty much equivalant to OVI. This isn't a simple traffic ticket offense.
QuoteYou made the assumption that both murder and speeding are on an equal footing as to the legitimacy of the laws against them: that if you are to question one, you may as well question the other. That's balderdash and both of us know it. Also, the jury is still out on whether or not reducing speed limits reduces accident or fatality rates. What happened when Montana repealed their 'reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits and implemented a 75 MPH statewide limit? What happened when the NMSL was repealed? Neither real world observation supports your argument.
Alright, let's nip this in the bud. THIS...
QuoteDo all drivers follow the law? Of course not. No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it.
...is exactly the quote where I made supposed murder-to-speeding comparison. As you can see, I didn't compare murder to speeding. I pointed out a logical fallacy, namely that a law does not become inherently illegitimate because people violate it. That would apply to EVERY LAW. So, if we're going to get into an argument about what I said, let's actually argue what I said.
QuoteThat's just plain old curmudgeonly crankiness in a bucket of nostalgia. Yes, older drivers tend to be safer. That doesn't mean that's changed with time. A 16 year old in 1967 was just as inexperienced and dangerous as a 16 year old in 2007; and the same thing can be said of a 40 year old in the different years.
It might be, IF I learned how to drive in the 70's. Unfortunately, I'm 32 years old and learned how to drive around the time that features like ABS were becoming standard. I don't have nostalgia for the 70's because I don't REMEMBER the 70's (outside of, maybe, the occasional cartoon, Captain Kangaroo, or my favorite stuffed bunny)!
Quote from: dazzleman on January 30, 2008, 09:20:09 PM
I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.
It seems that people like to push themselves to a certain level of risk. When there's a technological improvement that makes a car safer, all other things being equal, than it was before, people will then increase their speed so that the level of risk is roughly the same as it was without that technological improvement. Ditto for road improvements.
I guess, in the end, you just trust the skills and decision-making abilities of your fellow drivers more than I do. That's not really something we can logically argue about, is it?
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 09:35:25 PM
Actually, you assumed the average fall-back position of people who advocate speed limit increases. I asked for an absolute safe speed where, if that speed was exceeded by 5mph, the average person would consider THAT speed inherently unsafe. I didn't ask for another mention of the 85th percentile rule, I just wanted a speed. A number. In mph, preferably, because I hate doing kph to mph calculations.
You want an arbitrary number that doesn't exist. Why not?
Because in some places speed limits are already too high. In some places they are too low. In many places they quite simply don't make sense because they have been abitrarily chosen, or were chosen based on old data and out of date information. You want me to say "85 MPH" so that you can then point out situations and places where that would be totally unreasonable. What I'm saying, and have been saying is that we need to take a look at and re-evaluate the speed limits from time to time and adjust them according to prevailing traffic conditions.
And yes, it is only the serious violations that you should be concerned with applying your discretion to. If you say somebody is driving with wanton disregard, then damn well he'd better be.
Otherwise, relatively minor tickets for minor infractions: but at a predictable level.
"No law is followed 100% of the time by 100% of the population. However, the argument that a law should be eliminated simply because people violate it is absurd. To make an extreme example, people still murder one another, but that does not mean that the law should be eliminated just because some people choose to violate it."Not that people violate, but that nearly everybody violates. Every senseless or irrelevant law diminishes the validity of necessary and sensible laws.
Your comparison is still as ridiculous as it ever was: A speed limit is abitrary and carries little moral impetus, is routinely violated by the majority of drivers and is only punished- very rarely in comparison with how often the alleged crime is comitted- by whim, chance and "discretion." That you find this acceptable is a puzzlement to anybody who gives it a moment's thought.
If you are 32, then you are making your statments about how driver skills have changed over time with even less data than your own experience, but basing it on conjecture and supposition alone.
Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.
You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.
Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a word for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.
Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.
No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.
QuoteAnd yes, it is only the serious violations that you should be concerned with applying your discretion to. If you say somebody is driving with wanton disregard, then damn well he'd better be.
Otherwise, relatively minor tickets for minor infractions: but at a predictable level.
You had better hope that officers aren't applying much discretion to serious violations. The more serious the violation, the more stringently the law should be applied. There are some laws where there shouldn't be much "gray area."
QuoteNot that people violate, but that nearly everybody violates. Every senseless or irrelevant law diminishes the validity of necessary and sensible laws.
Your comparison is still as ridiculous as it ever was: A speed limit is abitrary and carries little moral impetus, is routinely violated by the majority of drivers and is only punished- very rarely in comparison with how often the alleged crime is comitted- by whim, chance and "discretion." That you find this acceptable is a puzzlement to anybody who gives it a moment's thought.
Why do you consider speed limits "senseless and irrelevant?" I though we agreed that the physics connected to higher-speed crashes increases the likelihood of serious injury or death for those involved. Speed limits are an attempt to mitigate (to some degree) those physics WHEN crashes occur. Eliminate all crashes and speed limits become senseless and irrelevant...but we're not at that point, are we?
And, I find the current enforcement of traffic laws less than acceptable. I don't find the level of enforcement of red light or stop sign violations to be any better than speed limit violations. But, we're stuck with limited resources to enforce these laws. Again, you don't eliminate a law because you can't catch every offender. We do what we can to enforce the laws fairly with the limited resources available. Why did you not propose that traffic enforcement budgets be vastly increased and all observed traffic violations result in enforcement action with no application of officer discretion? Would that not, essentially, serve the same purpose?
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 11:33:02 PM
Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.
You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.
Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a work for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.
Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.
No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.
Oh Jesus Christ! you and I both no that is not what I'm saying at all, but that's a very nice looking strawman you've built there.
Of course you would still have fixed signs, not some kind of horribly complex real-time updating software. You would simply re-evaluate those speed from
time to time (as I've said
repeatedly) according to the 85th percentile.
You then enforce that speed limit. You don't enforce 12 MPH over that limit, you enforce 2 MPH over that limit: and you still have discretion to nab the seriously dangerous speeders according to your own discretion under current laws. Honestly, nothing I'm saying is that complex or hard to understand.
Oh, and for the record, Montana's "reasoanble and prudent" speed limits worked quite well when put under the scrutiny of statistics, and when they re-introduced prima fascia speed limits, their accident rate actually went up!
Seriously, Bing: if you want to have a discussion, at least try to understand what I'm saying.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 11:33:02 PM
Let?s look at your argument from a logical, real-world standpoint. Realistically, we HAVE to look at it as such because, no matter what side you may be taking on the statistical argument, this does apply to the real world. So, if you can?t realistically apply it to real drivers on real roadways, it?s all just academic.
You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.
Let?s say that we apply the 85th percentile real-time to all highways. The highway speed limit signs are connected to computers and real-time speed measurement devices. These state of the art new signs display the proper 85th percentile speed as it is calculated in real time and they change from minute to minute depending on the situation. Essentially, pure democracy at work?the motoring public decides the speed limit by their behavior. We have a work for ?pure democracy??it?s called anarchy. The mob rules. This isn?t logical, it?s insanity. It has nothing to do with the proper flow of traffic on the highways as established by the civil engineers who designed the highways. It defeats the purpose of highway safety design.
Ok, so let?s say we totally eliminate speed limits and replace them with the equivalent of Ohio?s Willful and Wanton Disregard law. A law is created that says ?all motorists shall travel at speeds that are safe and prudent for the conditions.? Ok, who decides what?s ?safe and prudent?? I?m betting that my definition is different from many motorists?. I?m also betting that my definition is different from other police officers? (so, we?re looking at the ULTIMATE form of ?officer discretion??basically, the officer decides what is a violation based upon personal opinion, which isn?t exactly a fair form of law enforcement). And, then we have the judge?s (or, potentially, MULTIPLE judges, since we have a system of appeals in our courts) opinion on what is safe and prudent. Once again, we have an unenforceable (or UNFARILY enforceable) law.
No matter who sets the speed limits or how they are determined, they are being ?arbitrarily set.? The only question is, WHO is making that arbitrary decision. Right now, it?s the politicians whom the public has selected to represent them in government. We could have the general public set the arbitrary speed limits, but they mostly lack the education or knowledge to make that decision (again, we?re talking about engineering questions, which the general public doesn?t understand). We could have law enforcement set the arbitrary speed limit through the enforcement directly connected to the individual officers? opinion, but that?s not a basis for a fair system of laws.
It's great to have an LEO on ehre admit that speedlimits are mostly arbitrary. That's a step in the right direction, at least. :ohyeah:
I have to disagree, however, that politicians have any more education or knowledge than the general public. Nobody needs an engineering degree to determine what a safe speed is in any given condition. Everyone who has a driver's license should have some level of that ability, and it is improved with experience and training. While the general public definately lacks training, they do have a lot of experience. Most people drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate for the conditions, mostly ignoring the numbers on speedlimit signs unless they see a cop. If a driver needs a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Simply requiring additional driver training and removing speedlimits entirely might actually make the roads safer. Drivers would be better trained, and they would be free to go whatever speed they determine is prudent. I think the biggest changes would be a huge drop in traffic tickets, and some sad insurance companies.
responding to your added edits:
QuoteYou had better hope that officers aren't applying much discretion to serious violations. The more serious the violation, the more stringently the law should be applied. There are some laws where there shouldn't be much "gray area."
Why do you consider speed limits "senseless and irrelevant?" I though we agreed that the physics connected to higher-speed crashes increases the likelihood of serious injury or death for those involved. Speed limits are an attempt to mitigate (to some degree) those physics WHEN crashes occur. Eliminate all crashes and speed limits become senseless and irrelevant...but we're not at that point, are we?
And, I find the current enforcement of traffic laws less than acceptable. I don't find the level of enforcement of red light or stop sign violations to be any better than speed limit violations. But, we're stuck with limited resources to enforce these laws. Again, you don't eliminate a law because you can't catch every offender. We do what we can to enforce the laws fairly with the limited resources available. Why did you not propose that traffic enforcement budgets be vastly increased and all observed traffic violations result in enforcement action with no application of officer discretion? Would that not, essentially, serve the same purpose?
There is no quantitative measurement of "wanton disregard" it is the officer's judgement that such is happening, and yes, it requires his discretion to decide when it is happening. That should be clearly evident.
Speed limits are irrelevant precisely because they are so routinely ignored. They are as irrelevant as New England sodomy laws because everybody disobeys them.
Laws should only be concerned with behavior that is danger or unacceptable to the vast majority of the population. Because nearly everybody speeds, current speed laws do not pass that test, and are therefore senseless.
You're right, you didn't say that. I just gave you the PERFECT (totally technologically unrealistic) 85th percentile system. Your system serves the same purpose, except that it includes a time lapse for "re-evaluation." In theory, there's no difference between your system and mine. It's still based on the beloved 85th percentile system. There's no strawman in evidence...I just simplified the whole thing for the purpose of our discussion.
By the way, you adroitly avoided the gist of my entire argument. That, your system or the the one currently in place, all speed limits are arbitrary. The alternative ("reasonable and prudent") is is unenforcable rubbish. Put the Montana laws on the LA highways and see what you get.
Quote from: NACar on January 30, 2008, 11:51:06 PM
It's great to have an LEO on ehre admit that speedlimits are mostly arbitrary. That's a step in the right direction, at least. :ohyeah:
Any law is, arguably, "arbitrary." That's all point of view, isn't it? Not much of a step, I'm afraid.
QuoteMost people drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate for the conditions, mostly ignoring the numbers on speedlimit signs unless they see a cop. If a driver needs a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Simply requiring additional driver training and removing speedlimits entirely might actually make the roads safer. Drivers would be better trained, and they would be free to go whatever speed they determine is prudent.
I've already said that I don't trust the general public to make that decision most of the time. Too many of them make the wrong decision when crunch time comes around. And, even with the highest levels of training in controlled situations, crashes happen. Ever watch NASCAR? Perfect pavement, closed course, well-trained drivers....crashes. Oops. How about in the real world? I've received advanced training in pursuit driving, as have most other police officers. Ever hear of a police car crashing? I have. People make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Your example is a perfect-world scenario.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 11:59:42 PM
Any law is, arguably, "arbitrary." That's all point of view, isn't it? Not much of a step, I'm afraid.
Screw you, then :evildude:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 11:54:04 PM
You're right, you didn't say that. I just gave you the PERFECT (totally technologically unrealistic) 85th percentile system. Your system serves the same purpose, except that it includes a time lapse for "re-evaluation." In theory, there's no difference between your system and mine. It's still based on the beloved 85th percentile system. There's no strawman in evidence...I just simplified the whole thing for the purpose of our discussion.
By the way, you adroitly avoided the gist of my entire argument. That, your system or the the one currently in place, all speed limits are arbitrary. The alternative ("reasonable and prudent") is is unenforcable rubbish. Put the Montana laws on the LA highways and see what you get.
The only thing about the 85th percentile idea that's arbitrary is the number 85. it could be 90, 95, or 86.756 for all I care.
What's important is the concept behind it: that the
vast majority of drivers are law abiding people who do not wish to put them selves or others in serious danger, and are capable of deciding for themselves at what speeds they can accomplish those things.
This is not mob rule as you would claim it to be: its rule by majority: in this case an extreme majority, and I can think of a couple other things in this country that are decided by a vote of the majority.
I can also hear the aristrocratic argument that once claimed giving people the right to vote was nothing more than "mob rule."
And I would love for the state of California to have the cajones to try something as open-minded as Montana did.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 31, 2008, 12:02:10 AM
The only thing about the 85th percentile idea that's arbitrary is the number 85. it could be 90, 95, or 86.756 for all I care.
What's important is the concept behind it: that the vast majority of drivers are law abiding people who do not wish to put them selves or others in serious danger, and are capable of deciding for themselves at what speeds they can accomplish those things.
This is not mob rule as you would claim it to be: its rule by majority: in this case an extreme majority, and I can think of a couple other things in this country that are decided by a vote of the majority.
I can also hear the aristrocratic argument that once claimed giving people the right to vote was nothing more than "mob rule."
I'll repeat myself...people make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Speed limits are in place to mitigate the effects when (not "if") mistakes happen. I'm not claming that the driving public is full of scofflaws, I'm saying it's full of PEOPLE! You're going to have to deal with the fact that we're imperfect eventually.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 31, 2008, 12:10:29 AM
I'll repeat myself...people make mistakes and the real world is unpredictable. Speed limits are in place to mitigate the effects when (not "if") mistakes happen. I'm not claming that the driving public is full of scofflaws, I'm saying it's full of PEOPLE! You're going to have to deal with the fact that we're imperfect eventually.
Exactly the reason I'm not advocating the 100th percentile rule.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 30, 2008, 09:48:43 PM
I guess, in the end, you just trust the skills and decision-making abilities of your fellow drivers more than I do. That's not really something we can logically argue about, is it?
Actually, I don't. I'm just trying to bring out facts, such as they are. I'm not really making an argument either way here.
I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do. :popcorn: But, I do admire Bing_oh's futile attempt to respond to people who want a Utopian world where all their views are adopted into law so they can carry on at their own personal standard.
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2008, 05:27:43 PM
I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do. :popcorn:
:orly:
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2008, 05:27:43 PM
I thought I cared about this topic then I looked in and realized just how little I actually do. :popcorn: But, I do admire Bing_oh's futile attempt to respond to people who want a Utopian world where all their views are adopted into law so they can carry on at their own personal standard.
Ya know, Catman, I really don't care about speed limits all that much myself. I personally can't stand traffic enforcement and know that my opinions don't really mean jack...this is all just academic. Of course, I'm also extremely stubborn and can't back down from a debate.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 31, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
Ya know, Catman, I really don't care about speed limits all that much myself. I personally can't stand traffic enforcement and know that my opinions don't really mean jack...this is all just academic. Of course, I'm also extremely stubborn and can't back down from a debate.
Most cops don't like traffic enforcement. If I did I would have went to the MA State Police. I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered. :ohyeah:
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2008, 06:33:51 PM
Most cops don't like traffic enforcement. If I did I would have went to the MA State Police. I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered. :ohyeah:
That's one of the reasons I never wanted to be a trooper. 25 years of chasing taillights and doing crash reports. Ugh! Fortunately, I can still retire at 25 years and 48 years old being a city cop.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 31, 2008, 06:47:45 PM
That's one of the reasons I never wanted to be a trooper. 25 years of chasing taillights and doing crash reports. Ugh! Fortunately, I can still retire at 25 years and 48 years old being a city cop.
I'll have to wait till 54 unless they change the system. :cry:
I couldn't imagine being that old. Hopefully I'll liquefy my organs in a spectacular crash that you can all talk about long before that.
Quote from: Raza on January 31, 2008, 10:18:45 PM
I couldn't imagine being that old. Hopefully I'll liquefy my organs in a spectacular crash that you can all talk about long before that.
I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 31, 2008, 10:26:52 PM
I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?
James Dean complex.
bing_oh writes:
The 85th percentile rule, which seems to be the [Holy] Grail of the speed limit increase advocates, isn't a universally-accepted idea. This would be a different argument if it was.
Actually, it is universally-accepted by traffic engineers and MUTCD as the sine qua non in establishing speed limits. All 50 states are signatories to MUTCD, hence subject to its regulations, including the 85th percentile. There is a sub-school of engineers who are now advocating using the 95th percentile on rural and Interstate-grade roadways because that is the point where the crash incidence curve minimizes. They?re not just making this stuff up to irritate cops.
And, if you don't think that many of the advocates for increases in speed limits aren't regular violators who just want to legitimize your behavior, you're either kidding yourself or lying.
What needs to be legitimized is the law because it is hopelessly out of date. According to the University of Maryland, some 92% of drivers are speeding at some time during their drive. That clearly means the law is wrong.
Do you really think that people want the speed limits increased after extensive research into motor vehicle safety issues and the resulting analyses that support that an increased spped limits makes for safer roadways?
Do I think that people want higher limits that result in safer roadways? Yes. I?m not sure your sentence came out the way you intended.
I seriously doubt the competence of the average driver today.
Yet, those drivers are producing fewer crashes, injuries and fatalities per mile driven than ever.
dazzleman writes:
I saw an interesting study once that said that since the advent of cars, the fatality rate has remained roughly the same, despite all the advances in roads, automobile technology, etc.
It seems that people like to push themselves to a certain level of risk. When there's a technological improvement that makes a car safer, all other things being equal, than it was before, people will then increase their speed so that the level of risk is roughly the same as it was without that technological improvement. Ditto for road improvements.
Partly true. The concept that people in general ? not just drivers ? push themselves to a certain level of risk (through their own internal calculus) is known as risk homeostasis. It is not true that the fatality rate is constant since it has been falling for 80 years.
bing_oh writes:
I asked for an absolute safe speed where, if that speed was exceeded by 5mph, the average person would consider THAT speed inherently unsafe. I didn't ask for another mention of the 85th percentile rule, I just wanted a speed. A number.
AND
You say that the current speed limits are set arbitrarily without consideration of modern technology or up-to-date engineering surveys. I say that application of your 85th percentile rule or anything in between is no less arbitrary. That?s why I can never get a definitive speed limit from an 85th percentile advocate?it doesn?t stand up to scrutiny in the real world.
The formulation of your request indicates that you do not understand the 85th percentile. It is not a specific speed. It varies from time to time and from place to place. Consider CA 120 coming down from Tuolumne Meadows (Yosemite) toward Nevada. The 85th might be 35 mph. OTOH, I-15 between Riverside and San Diego has an 85th that is probably 90 mph. Likewise, I-70 across eastern Colorado has an 85th of about 87 mph until it snows and then the 85th goes right out the window. For you to ask for a specific number means you don?t understand the concept. The genius of the 85th is that drivers automatically adjust for conditions. Given good weather, moderate traffic and the absence of enforcement (a key element), the 85th will consistently center very closely around the same speed for similar stretches of road for long periods of time.
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2008, 06:33:51 PM
Most cops don't like traffic enforcement. If I did I would have went to the MA State Police. I didn't realize their retirement was 25 years or I would have reconsidered. :ohyeah:
Greg, do the state police in Massachusetts have a major crimes unit to assist local departments with the sort major crimes that the local departments don't have much experience with?
Quote from: dazzleman on February 01, 2008, 04:55:33 AM
Greg, do the state police in Massachusetts have a major crimes unit to assist local departments with the sort major crimes that the local departments don't have much experience with?
MA State Police
Quote from: James Young on January 31, 2008, 10:35:08 PM
Yet, those drivers are producing fewer crashes, injuries and fatalities per mile driven than ever.
I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries. I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven. Where did you get that statistic.
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf
Quote from: Byteme on February 01, 2008, 11:06:21 AM
I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries. I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven. Where did you get that statistic.
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf
You've just unlocked the gates of hell. :mask:
:lol:
Quote from: Catman on February 01, 2008, 12:17:51 PM
You've just unlocked the gates of hell. :mask:
Well, what can I tell you - facts is facts.
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 31, 2008, 10:26:52 PM
I don't get it, do you enjoy being miserable so people can feel bad for you?
I don't get it, do you enjoy being an idiot so people can make fun of you?
What's so miserable about not wanting to get old?
Quote from: Byteme on February 01, 2008, 11:06:21 AM
I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries. I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven. Where did you get that statistic.
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf
It's funny how that graph starts trending down in 1997, yet the IIHS says nothing about it in their paper there.
Quote from: Byteme on February 01, 2008, 11:06:21 AM
I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries. I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven. Where did you get that statistic.
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3401.pdf
Wasn't my statement. You just attributed a James Young statement to me. For such an insult, I'm now enroute to your house with a rifle equipped with a high-powered scope and night vision equipment.
Quote from: bing_oh on February 01, 2008, 10:42:41 PM
Wasn't my statement. You just attributed a James Young statement to me. For such an insult, I'm now enroute to your house with a rifle equipped with a high-powered scope and night vision equipment.
Whoops, you are right. :frown:
Fixed it, reverse your course
Byteme writes:
I've seen studies that support your claim regarding fatalities and injuries. I've seen nothing that says drivers are haveing fewer crashes per mile driven. Where did you get that statistic.
From multiple places, primarily NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), one of the more virulent anti-motorist agencies in the nation.
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
No doubt that those played a key role, especially the technology of roadways and vehicles. Because our driving environment is safer, we can improve our productivity with higher speeds. The only impediment is the law.
You might want to look at this before you start claiming a reduction in highway deaths.
IIHS is not a legitimate source for traffic safety because they have a vested interest in maintaining low limits. Low limits means more speeding cites; more speeding cites means more surcharges; more surcharges means more revenue for the insurance industry, sponsor of IIHS; more surcharges means more profit and more political influence over your life.
First, note that this study allegedly addresses highway fatalities rather than crashes so it?s different from your second sentence. Since we don?t have the tabulated data from IIHS, we can only speculate what they have done this time. It appears to be cherry-picking particular stretches of roadway where crashes/fatalities occurred, combined with ignoring certain changes such as increased mileage on higher speed roadways, combined with a very short period of comparison (one year to the prior year) combined with some outright manufacturing of data. IIHS has been guilty of this type of manipulation in the past.
According to NHTSA, the fatality rate (the topic of the IIHS ?study?) for 1975 was 3.35 per 100 million VMT. In 2005 it had dropped to 1.45, a decline of 57%
The facts are that in 2005, there were 13,113 ?speeding-related traffic fatalities? (total nationwide) of which 1,384 were on Interstate-grade highways with limits greater than 55 mph.
For crash statistics, go to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2005.PDF for a table that includes ALL crashes on ALL roads from 1988 to 2005. Note the long term trends.
From the table:
1988 4,611,000 property damage only crashes
2005 4,304,000 property damage only crashes
Well, what can I tell you - facts is facts.
When you?re dealing with IIHS, that?s not always true.
Quote from: Byteme on February 01, 2008, 11:06:21 AM
The reduction in fatalities per mile driven can be explained by better EMS service, better medicine and more crashworthy vehicles.
... plus much more severe financial and criminal penalties for bad driving (IMO one of the largest, if not the largest, factors).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 03, 2008, 03:14:32 PM
... plus much more severe financial and criminal penalties for bad driving (IMO one of the largest, if not the largest, factors).
I am completely unaware of any large scale change in fines or penalties for speeding. There have been many changes in recent years involving drunk drivers, but that's an entirely different issue.
In my town, I saw fines go from '$2/mph over up to 20 mph over' to 'minumum $60 plus $2/mph over 10mph over.'
So that was large increase, but I think it was a case of the law being static for so long and not being adjusted to inflation. I don't think the 60-100 bucks in 2000 was much different from $20 in 1970-80.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 03, 2008, 06:23:19 PM
I am completely unaware of any large scale change in fines or penalties for speeding. There have been many changes in recent years involving drunk drivers, but that's an entirely different issue.
What I intended to mean by "bad driving" were serious offenses beyond just simple speeding; DUI, street racing, reckless driving, etc., for which penalties have increased dramatically.