http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=1282548A783DDB90&p_docnum=1&s_dlid=DL0109051517510102427&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_ecprodtype=INSTANT&s_trackval=&s_siteloc=&s_referrer=&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F31%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F31%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=cgpfree&s_accountid=AC0106122119130516735&s_upgradeable=no
..................
Fraser-Clinton Township Chronicle (MI)
Anatomy of a speed limit
MSP expert says slower isn't always safer
HEIDI ROMAN C & G Staff Writer
Published: May 13, 2009
MACOMB COUNTY - A lot of drivers would sheepishly admit to regularly going about 5 mph - ok, maybe 10 mph - over the posted speed limit when traffic is clear. Those drivers' traffic fines bring in a lot of revenue for local law enforcement agencies, but one Michigan State Police expert says a lack of respect for the law isn't necessarily the reason they're speeding. "The reason we all do that is because the majority of our speed limits are too low," said Lt. Gary Megge of the Michigan State Police Traffic Safety Division.
Megge has conducted many speed and traffic studies to help determine proper speed limits on Michigan roadways, and says the majority of people - even those who think they have a heavy foot - are reasonable and safe drivers.
Megge held a May 7 presentation for Macomb County police officers, elected officials and those involved in traffic safety in the area. The presentation was aimed at educating people about how speed limits are set, and to debunk some myths about speed limits and safety, specifically the belief that slower is always safer.
Whenever traffic safety agencies try to raise a speed limit, the change comes with a considerable amount of outcry from the public and local leaders.
"Everyone wants a 25 (mph speed limit) in front of their house, but nowhere else because they've got to get to work," Megge said.
Megge said most people believe that when a speed limit is raised, drivers will automatically add 5-10 mph on top of the new speed limit and drive at hazardous speeds where the new limit is posted.
Megge says raising a speed limit almost never raises the speed at which most motorists will drive.
Except for a few rare knuckleheads who likely don't care what speed is posted anyway, he said most people drive at a safe speed that they're comfortable with, regardless of what's posted on the sign.
People tend to slow down when the conditions call for it, even without signage telling them to do so.
He offered several real-life examples of speed studies conducted to prove it. On one urban freeway, similar to I-94 through Detroit, the speed limit was changed from 55 mph to 70 mph.
The study found that most people actually drove 63-65 mph when the speed limit was 55 mph, and only 2.4 percent of drivers actually obeyed the 55 mph limit. Still, it wasn't a high-crash road.
Megge sees a problem with that scenario, since some slow drivers were doing 45 mph, while one erratic driver was clocked in at 85 mph. Both are dangerous, he said. Having a wide variation in speeds is a problem.
"Think about a freeway," he said. "Is someone going 40 mph on I-696 a safe driver?" The study showed that when the speed limit was raised to 70 mph, the majority of people observed the speed limit and continued to drive safely.
"We still have fast cars and slow cars, but we have most drivers in that pace, the 10 mph range that we want people to drive in," he said. The average speed stayed the same before and after the change.
The same findings have been repeated in numerous other studies, Megge said.
Megge said raising a speed limit to an appropriate level can have several advantages. Law enforcement agencies are able to focus on the drivers who are actually hazardous, rather than ticketing drivers who were driving at a safe and reasonable speed in a zone where the speed limit was probably set too low.
An appropriate speed limit can also create less tension and frustration on the roads.
The majority of accidents are caused by driver error, not by speed, Megge said. Seatbelts, alcohol use and dangerous intersections are the big problems that Megge said should be focused on.
According to the Michigan State Police, traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in Michigan have decreased by 90 percent since 1940, mostly due to enhanced vehicle safety, better enforcement and improved medical care. Some of today's speed limits are decades old and don't necessarily reflect the safer driving environment.
Adam Merchant, traffic engineer for the Road Commission of Macomb County, said local speed limits are regularly reviewed, especially when the surrounding environment changes or after infrastructure improvements.
Two Macomb County commissioners in the audience at the presentation questioned Megge's reasoning that higher speed limits can be a good thing. Both pointed to Mound Road, where the speed limit was raised from Warren to Shelby Township despite public objection. Commissioner James Carabelli from northern Shelby Township pointed out that between 23 Mile and 26 Mile roads on Mound, there are five schools, three churches, no sidewalks and no deceleration lanes. He thinks the increased speed limit was a mistake.
Megge said the change was the right thing to do. He says traffic studies conducted since the change have shown that drivers have not increased their speed in that area.
Megge said he does not encourage people to drive faster, but rather, believes that many speed limits need a second look.
You can reach Staff Writer Heidi Roman at hroman@candgnews. com or at (586) 218-5006.
Caption:Photo by Deb Jacques Macomb County police officers and elected officials attended a Michigan State Police and Road Commission of Macomb County presentation on effective speed limits. Information was presented about what speed limits do, and more importantly, what they don't do.
Copyright, 2009, Fraser-Clinton Township Chronicle (MI), All Rights Reserved.
..................
Empirical "studies" of "what is" is not engineering, however. Simply drive snowy roads in the Seattle area for how dangerous such a tack can be.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 12:16:03 PM
Empirical "studies" of "what is" is not engineering, however. Simply drive snowy roads in the Seattle area for how dangerous such a tack can be.
Queen Anne hill = big local news LOLs every time it snows.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 12:16:03 PM
Empirical "studies" of "what is" is not engineering, however. Simply drive snowy roads in the Seattle area for how dangerous such a tack can be.
I don't understand your point. The posted limit is always too fast for inclimate roads. It's the limit for good conditions.
Quote from: Tave on May 15, 2009, 12:26:14 PM
I don't understand your point. The posted limit is always too fast for inclimate roads. It's the limit for good conditions.
Really. That's like saying that setting the speed limit at 70 on the interstate is a bad idea because you don't want to go 70 in the middle of winter on sheet ice.
My point, folks, was to challenge the empirical justification exposed in this editorial - that speed limits should reflect "studies" of how fast people actually drive. There are lots of scenarios (weather) in which people plainly drive too fast when left to their own devices.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 12:43:54 PM
My point, folks, was to challenge the empirical justification exposed in this editorial - that speed limits should reflect "studies" of how fast people actually drive. There are lots of scenarios (weather) in which people plainly drive too fast when left to their own devices.
You're right, We need more government regulation, 'cause we can't have people think for themselves. That'll solve everything.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 12:43:54 PM
My point, folks, was to challenge the empirical justification exposed in this editorial - that speed limits should reflect "studies" of how fast people actually drive. There are lots of scenarios (weather) in which people plainly drive too fast when left to their own devices.
And...
Quote from: ChrisV on May 15, 2009, 12:50:44 PM
You're right, We need more government regulation, 'cause we can't have people think for themselves. That'll solve everything.
How is raising or otherwise re-evaluating a speed limit any less regulative than leaving it unchanged?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 02:16:14 PM
How is raising or otherwise re-evaluating a speed limit any less regulative than leaving it unchanged?
I was talking more to the point of you implying that people need to be regulated at all 'cause they can't make good decisions on their own, and how that single statement is so against your normal position vis a vis government.
Quote from: Tave on May 15, 2009, 12:51:47 PM
And...
Using what
is to define what
should be is really not the way to go about it (i.e., is not engineering).
Quote from: ChrisV on May 15, 2009, 02:18:40 PM
I was talking more to the point of you implying that people need to be regulated at all 'cause they can't make good decisions on their own, and how that single statement is so against your normal position vis a vis government.
I don't think it's so against - there will always be the need for the rule of law; speed limits and rules of the road being part of that.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 02:33:17 PM
I don't think it's so against - there will always be the need for the rule of law; speed limits and rules of the road being part of that.
But when you have a rule of law that majority of the public is breaking, it's no longer a valid law and should be revisted.
Having a speed limit higher does not mean people are going to drive that speed. Have you read the thread? Majority of the people drive the speed they are comfortable with and will continue to do so regardless of the speed limit. And raising the speed limit does not for a fact increase people's speeds. There are always dumb people that will do dumb things just like in the financial world.
You are for personal responsibility and decision making in the financial sector but yet is against that when it comes to individuals? This is completely hypocritical of you.
Quote from: NomisR on May 15, 2009, 03:29:51 PM
But when you have a rule of law that majority of the public is breaking, it's no longer a valid law and should be revisted.
Having a speed limit higher does not mean people are going to drive that speed. Have you read the thread? Majority of the people drive the speed they are comfortable with and will continue to do so regardless of the speed limit. And raising the speed limit does not for a fact increase people's speeds. There are always dumb people that will do dumb things just like in the financial world.
You are for personal responsibility and decision making in the financial sector but yet is against that when it comes to individuals? This is completely hypocritical of you.
What school of jurisprudence thought invalidates a law so?
I don't buy for a second that the majority/most people drive what they will regardless of the designated speed limit.
Much/most of what the government does in the financial sector is not predicated on the rule of law; and before you use pejorative labels please understand the concepts at hand (such as the difference between regulation (in the financial sector) and the rule of law (in traffic safety).
Since I tend to get pulled over for speeding even when I am going exactly with the flow of traffic, lately, I have been making it a point to drive exactly the speed limit, or less, simply because I cannot afford to take a chance on the bullshit random enforcement. I have a warning on my file for the next month at least, so the chances of getting a ticket if I get pulled over again is probably about 110%. It pisses me off, and it pisses other drivers off. I am tailgated constantly. Assholes. I can't blame them for being impatient, since they are probably financially well-off enough to be able to drive at a reasonable and prudent speed. I truly do not know what to do about this, other than to get high on speed, then start driving as fast as I can and get to Frisco before three o'clock tomorrow.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 03:51:44 PM
What school of jurisprudence thought invalidates a law so?
I don't buy for a second that the majority/most people drive what they will regardless of the designated speed limit.
Much/most of what the government does in the financial sector is not predicated on the rule of law; and before you use pejorative labels please understand the concepts at hand (such as the difference between regulation (in the financial sector) and the rule of law (in traffic safety).
Uh.. if you see the way most traffic laws are made, it has nothing to do with actual safety or engineering but based on complaints, vote grabbing and tax collection. It has been stated time and time again that politicians would set the speed limit lower than recommended limit recommended by the traffic engineers simply because some old fart complains or the city needs money.
This is the same as regulation in the financial industry. You're saying the traffic speed limit has our best interest in mind yet the financial regulations are all liberal power grab.. you know what.. it's the same shit, just from different animals.
GoCougs writes: {Empirical "studies" of "what is" is not engineering, however. Simply drive snowy roads in the Seattle area for how dangerous such a tack can be.}
Sure it is because that is a significant part of what traffic engineers do and when we actually listen to them and implement their advice, it works for everybody except the treasury of the jurisdiction(s) that patrol the place. Inclement weather is irrelevant to posted limits. There is very strong evidence that traffic near the 85th percentile is the least likely to be involved in crashes. Emerging evidence seems to indicate that, for rural Interstate-grade roadways, this minimization of the crash-incidence curve occurs nearer the 95th percentile.
{I don't think it's so against - there will always be the need for the rule of law; speed limits and rules of the road being part of that.}
You get partial credit. The original traffic laws are based on the concept of the universal rule of right-of-way and were a legal solution to an organizational problem, determining who goes where and when. Speed limits were never a part of that body of law. Speed limits provide no information to drivers or, even worse, provide misinformation. We do not need speed limits as evidenced by several instances where we had no limits (except R&P); not only did traffic move much more smoothly but fatality rates were lower and remain lower on unlimited sections of German, Italian and Belgian autoroutes.
NomisR has already cogently pointed out that speed limits as posted are political creatures, not engineered design.
{ What school of jurisprudence thought invalidates a law so? I don't buy for a second that the majority/most people drive what they will regardless of the designated speed limit. }
Accept it or not, that is your call; however, it is contrary to reams of empirical data.
Quote from: NomisR on May 15, 2009, 04:30:18 PM
Uh.. if you see the way most traffic laws are made, it has nothing to do with actual safety or engineering but based on complaints, vote grabbing and tax collection. It has been stated time and time again that politicians would set the speed limit lower than recommended limit recommended by the traffic engineers simply because some old fart complains or the city needs money.
This is the same as regulation in the financial industry. You're saying the traffic speed limit has our best interest in mind yet the financial regulations are all liberal power grab.. you know what.. it's the same shit, just from different animals.
Sorry, but I see a bit of wacky conspiracy theory. You speed limit raiser proponents simply want legal sanction to drive really fast. We get it. I get it. I like driving fast - what red-blooded American doesn't?
I think you'd have better chance simply taking the nakedly objective route; cars are safer, cars are more capable, roads are designed and built better, medical care is vastly improved, and medical response infrastructure has been expanded. Trying to mask your goal; as "safety," as revenue generator conspiracy or anything other than your goal of driving faster; defeats your cause.
The practicalities of the situation is that you'll have to spend all your efforts just to maintain the status quo; the current political climate is to expand the depth and breadth of government unimaginable just a year ago. If you think greenism will end with carbon credits and ratcheting CAFE standards, you're being extremely optimistic IMO.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2009, 03:51:44 PM
What school of jurisprudence thought invalidates a law so?
Outdated and irrelevant laws are routinely ignored.
"Megge says raising a speed limit almost never raises the speed at which most motorists will drive."
Simply untrue. UofM has proven that on several occasions which is why Mihingan went back and fotrh from 55 to 60 to 70 to 65 to 70 again. People adjust their driving if its ofver time or when its changed. The igher the limit the faster poeople go its human nature.
And say what you want the results of a acrash are exaggerated by higher spedes. The higher the speed the less time to react and teh greater the crash.
You can read storied like this all over the place.
Posted: Friday, May 8, 2009
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Officer-Down-News/Video--Florida-Officers-Final-Moments/2$46614 (hit the top left small videa just above video screen to see the video from the dash cam)
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. --
Dashcam videos revealed the last moments of a Hollywood police officer's life before he died in a November car crash.
Officer Alex Del Rio died while pursuing a speeding car. His cruiser crashed into a taxicab that veered into his path. The driver of the cab was not charged in connection with the crash, and a video recently released by Hollywood police might explain why.
Del Rio was 31 years old, a dedicated police officer who was almost as passionate about traffic enforcement as he was his family.
On Nov. 22, Del Rio was patrolling Sheridan Street, the camera on his dashboard rolling as he made several stops. The video shows Del Rio chatting with a fellow officer moments after completing a traffic stop. The time stamp on the video said 8:39:30 p.m., two and a half minutes before the crash that ended Del Rio's life.
At 8:40, just moments after his chat, Del Rio spotted a black SUV that investigators estimated was traveling at 80 mph.
Del Rio waited for the traffic to clear, then turned left and began to accelerate. According to the report, he was traveling 100 mph down Sheridan Street in pursuit of the speeder without his lights and sirens, a move that investigators call protocol designed to avoid pursuits.
A few seconds before 8:42, as Del Rio approached 70th Avenue, a blue and white cab turned left in front of him. The video shows the cab and Del Rio swerving to avoid it. The camera went dead before recording the last two seconds of Del Rio's life.
Del Rio's cruiser bounced off one royal palm tree, spun and hit another. The impact crushed the rear of the car and broke the fuel pump off the gas tank. The car burst into flames.
Despite efforts by passersby and fellow officers, Del Rio was unable to escape.
Since 1993, more than two dozen officers in the U.S. have been killed in Ford Crown Victoria explosions, and dozens more have been severely burned. The design of the fuel tank behind the rear axle, in the crash zone, has been the subject of numerous lawsuits.
Del Rio's mother, Miriam Fernandez, has hired an attorney. For her, the only consolation in the final report on her son's death is that he spent the last few minutes of his life doing what he loved.
Fernandez has established a foundation in her son's name. For more information, visit alexdelriofoundation.org.
Copyright 2009 by Post-Newsweek Stations. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Speed killed this guy on sveral levels.
Speed limits are political. There's no denying it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, since any laws passed are political so there's no particular reason speed limits should be different.
Politics involves the interpretation of other data, in this case scientific data. The real question is whether the right criteria and sound judgment are being used to make the interpretation. In a lot of cases, the answer is probably no, but it's debatable.
So much of it is dependent on the type of road, the proximity of homes or businesses to the road, whether it is relatively straight or relatively curvy, etc. I-25 has a speed limit of 75 for most of its length through Colorado, but I-70 has a speed limit ranging between 55 and 65 for most of its length.
As far as people driving at a safe, comfortable speed; just because someone is comfortable with a speed doesn't mean that their other driving habits are safe. For example, if a driver is a habitual tailgater, uses their cell phone (either texting or speaking) while driving, has distractions in the car such as a DVD player, kids in the back seat, or is impaired from either medications or other drugs, that driver should not be travelling at a high velocity. Their ability to respond to situations in traffic or on the road is impaired, increasing greatly the chances of an accident. Most modern vehicles feel stable and safe at speeds of 80-90mph, but that doesn't mean we should increase the speed limit to allow people to drive that speed legally.
"Megge says raising a speed limit almost never raises the speed at which most motorists will drive." ? Heidi Roman, Fraser-Clinton Township Chronicle
hounddog writes: {Simply untrue. UofM has proven that on several occasions which is why Mihingan went back and fotrh from 55 to 60 to 70 to 65 to 70 again.} [sic]
Wrong. The assertion is quite true, as shown by Martin Parker Associates (USDOT, original publication in 1993), your very own MSU and by the very progressive Michigan State Police, that when speed limits change up or down actual travel speeds do not change significantly, usually less than +/- 3 mph.
{People adjust their driving if its ofver time or when its changed. The igher the limit the faster poeople go its human nature.} [sic]
That would be great news to the experts in risk homeostasis. However, to be fair, you are comingling two different arguments. First, you say that travel speeds change suddenly and dramatically as a direct result of changes in posted limits, something that we know is untrue. Second, you correctly allege adjustment of travel speeds over time, a phenomenon that engineers call ?creep,? i.e., that speeds will creep up as a result of improved technology in vehicles and roads. This is a normal and desirable thing and needs to be recognized by laws that have been obsolete for 50 years.
{And say what you want the results of a acrash are exaggerated by higher spedes. The higher the speed the less time to react and teh greater the crash.} [sic]
While the physics are well known, it does not follow that crashes will occur at those higher speeds, especially since those higher speeds are usually on roads well-suited for them, including separation from opposite-direction travel and roadside fixed objects are removed, set well off the roadway, or crash-barriered. The empirical record is clear: those roadways are 2-4 times safer than rural or suburban 2-lane roads.
To call the Michigan State Police "progressive" is to call the Detroit Lions "talented." You might wish to know the subject before making such abserd statements.
First, my condolences.
Compared to the fascists and Neanderthals that populate police agencies in so many other places, the officers at MSP are Renaissance Men.
Quote from: James Young on May 16, 2009, 01:10:09 PM
First, my condolences.
Compared to the fascists and Neanderthals that populate police agencies in so many other places, the officers at MSP are Renaissance Men.
Let's start with your insult; it is the weak and insecure man who lashes out with such passive aggressive diarrhea. If you have something to say, be man enough to say it. Otherwise, keep your barbs to yourself.
Secondly, you obviously and clearly have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what you are talking about, other than to further insult the police officers on this board and elsewhere. Lest you have any actual contact with our state police you might wish to keep your other sophomoric and unitelligent comments to yourself. The Michigan State Police are far behind most law enforcement agencies in many aspects from training to equipment to their general treatment of the public at large.
I do however fully expect more of the same tit-for-tat diatribe from you. I lurk here from time to time so I know who and what you are. Your villanizing and anti-police rantings based on loose data which has not been properly, let alone fully, qualified and catagorized are simplistic at best and ignorant at worst.
Quote from: James Young on May 16, 2009, 01:10:09 PM
First, my condolences.
LOL
Nothing directed at you, Hounddog, but you have to admit, the insult in itself was good for a laugh or two.
Quote from: mrs hounddog on May 16, 2009, 01:21:09 PM
Let's start with your insult; it is the weak and insecure man who lashes out with such passive aggressive diarrhea. If you have something to say, be man enough to say it. Otherwise, keep your barbs to yourself.
Secondly, you obviously and clearly have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what you are talking about, other than to further insult the police officers on this board and elsewhere. Lest you have any actual contact with our state police you might wish to keep your other sophomoric and unitelligent comments to yourself. The Michigan State Police are far behind most law enforcement agencies in many aspects from training to equipment to their general treatment of the public at large.
I do however fully expect more of the same tit-for-tat diatribe from you. I lurk here from time to time so I know who and what you are. Your villanizing and anti-police rantings based on loose data which has not been properly, let alone fully, qualified and catagorized are simplistic at best and ignorant at worst.
reported
mrs hounddog writes: {Let's start with your insult; it is the weak and insecure man who lashes out with such passive aggressive diarrhea.}
I said what I had to say. However, since hounddog and mrs hounddog are one and the same, I suspect it was lost. ?[P]assive aggressive diarrhea? is little more than copspeak for ?I have nothing else of substance to offer, therefore the problem is with the writer and I?ll insult him/her.? While we enjoy many rights in America, the right to not be insulted is not among them. Get over it; I have.
{Secondly, you obviously and clearly have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what you are talking about, other than to further insult the police officers on this board and elsewhere. Lest you have any actual contact with our state police you might wish to keep your other sophomoric and unitelligent comments to yourself.}
You have no way of knowing what I know and what I do not know so for you to assign ignorance or lack of intelligence is presumptuous at best. I suspect that I have been examining these phenomena longer than you have been alive and I?m far more knowledgeable than you for many reasons, not the least of which is that I?m not beholden to the conventional but often demonstrably false beliefs held by institutions such as law enforcement. Mark Twain said it best: ?It ain?t what you don?t know that hurts you; it?s what you know for sure that just ain?t so.? Further, your posts under the nom de plume hounddog provide more than adequate evidence from which to make the assessment that your critical thinking skills are limited because you repeatedly fail to reject false assertions. Ignorance can only be corrected by knowledge but is exacerbated by aggression. Whether you or other police officers are insulted or not is hardly my concern (see above). I am far more concerned with determining the true institutional behavior seemingly so prevalent among those we recruit, equip, train and authorize at public expense to enforce our laws and then with the correction of that behavior through the application of science and reason that makes all of us better off for it.
{The Michigan State Police are far behind most law enforcement agencies in many aspects from training to equipment to their general treatment of the public at large.}
Oddly, I was speaking of none of those things but only the acceptance and application of science and reason to traffic flow and how well it is working. Of course, that benefits the public, albeit in a very invisible way.
You are entitled to your opinion and to express it here. However, consensus is against you. I find it ironic that I compliment a law enforcement agency for getting it right and you complain that I?m ?anti-police? anyway. Perhaps that is your nature. BTW, it?s time to run those kids off your lawn again.
{I lurk here from time to time so I know who and what you are. Your villanizing and anti-police rantings based on loose data which has not been properly, let alone fully, qualified and catagorized are simplistic at best and ignorant at worst.}
You still don?t have it right, even after all these years. There is a substantive difference between ?anti-police? and ?anti-police-behavior.? The way to keep me from proffering what you denominate as ?anti-police rantings? is to correct the behavior that instigates the criticism.
For example, from the original article by Heidi Roman: ?According to the report, he was traveling 100 mph down Sheridan Street in pursuit of the speeder without his lights and sirens, a move that investigators call protocol designed to avoid pursuits.? That is a stupid and dangerous policy, especially in light of such a benign triggering act as speeding. This is not criticizing Officer Del Rio because he was doing it by the book; the problem is that the policy is wrong; yet, when I criticize the policy, you claim that I?m ?anti-police.? When are you ever going to learn to step outside the shell, put on your responsible citizen?s hat and think for yourself?
I have to agree that Officer Del Rio did not die due merely to speed; he died because he didn't have his overheads lit up, and most likely the driver of the taxi misjudged the speed of or simply did not notice the Officer because of his speed plus lack of announcement of his presence to others. Emergency services in my area are very careful about their use of speed and lights/sirens, and I can't think of an accident caused by an officer in recent history.
Like James said, that's not to bash LEOs or specifically Officer Del Rio, may he RIP, but Hounddog's use of that example as an argument that speed kills isn't strongly supported.
What can be said to be true from this is however that a high differential in speed can kill, and is a frequent cause of accidents. It's part of what caused me to dump my motorcycle this week, and I'm sure it can be attributed to the near-miss I had on I-25 back in December when someone nearly rear-ended me when traffic came to nearly a complete stop.
That said, I still don't think that because traffic flows at a certain pace that it is sane or safe. Drivers are just too unskilled and distracted for the most part, and I think that's something even James Young can agree with.
No, I don?t agree with that. I strongly support advanced driver education and continuing skills improvement and believe that law enforcement has an opportunity to positively affect key measures of traffic safety by concentrating on the educational aspect of their function.
However, the empirical evidence gathered from all serious crashes and huge samples of traffic flow show that, even given the current population of drivers, key traffic safety measures have never been better.
Traffic engineers have made the assumption ? after years of investigation ? that two key measures of traffic flow dominate the phenomenon: the 85th percentile and the 10-mph pace. The 85th percentile is the speed of the 85th percent slowest traffic; the pace is the ten-mph band that contains the most vehicles, both measured under free-flowing standards with minimum headway, i.e., adequate separation between vehicles so that one does not affect another. Invariably, the 85th percentile will be within 1 mph of the top of the pace; IOW, if the pace is 64-73 mph, the 85th percentile is likely to be 73 mph and the posted limit should be 75 or 80 mph. By empirical evidence, the cars least likely to be involved in a crash are those within the pace and the next 5% increment. That is the very definition of safe ? absence of crashes.
Further, there is no reason to believe that lowering speed limits or draconian enforcement of extant speed limits will have any effect on the very real transgressions that you point out nor will it have any effect on the current number one cause of crashes: impairment. Politicians and police officials keep trying to solve a physical problem with the only weapon they have instead of collaborating with scientists and engineers to solve the problem. Of course, when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. This has gone far beyond the purview and capability of any single institution to solve and using 19th century philosophy to solve 21st century issues is dumb.
Quote from: James Young on May 16, 2009, 11:25:56 PM
No, I don?t agree with that. I strongly support advanced driver education and continuing skills improvement and believe that law enforcement has an opportunity to positively affect key measures of traffic safety by concentrating on the educational aspect of their function.
However, the empirical evidence gathered from all serious crashes and huge samples of traffic flow show that, even given the current population of drivers, key traffic safety measures have never been better.
Traffic engineers have made the assumption ? after years of investigation ? that two key measures of traffic flow dominate the phenomenon: the 85th percentile and the 10-mph pace. The 85th percentile is the speed of the 85th percent slowest traffic; the pace is the ten-mph band that contains the most vehicles, both measured under free-flowing standards with minimum headway, i.e., adequate separation between vehicles so that one does not affect another. Invariably, the 85th percentile will be within 1 mph of the top of the pace; IOW, if the pace is 64-73 mph, the 85th percentile is likely to be 73 mph and the posted limit should be 75 or 80 mph. By empirical evidence, the cars least likely to be involved in a crash are those within the pace and the next 5% increment. That is the very definition of safe ? absence of crashes.
Further, there is no reason to believe that lowering speed limits or draconian enforcement of extant speed limits will have any effect on the very real transgressions that you point out nor will it have any effect on the current number one cause of crashes: impairment. Politicians and police officials keep trying to solve a physical problem with the only weapon they have instead of collaborating with scientists and engineers to solve the problem. Of course, when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. This has gone far beyond the purview and capability of any single institution to solve and using 19th century philosophy to solve 21st century issues is dumb.
James, first of all I disagree again with the notion that just because people drive at a certain speed that it is automatically safe. That doesn't mean that I support a lower speed limit. For example, if they lowered the speed limit around here to 65 or 55 you can bet your live that probably at least half of all drivers here will still be driving at 80-85mph if they get the chance. Take a look at traffic in Phoenix, AZ sometime. People drive at an unbelievably fast pace there.
Maybe I don't understand the 85% theory, but we have a broad mix of drivers who will actually drive well under the posted speed limit on the interstate (typically the elderly), and those who routinely drive over the speed limit. During rush hour it's a constant surge/glide with traffic hitting 90+ to get around slower traffic and then having to slow as low as 55 to deal with some granny in the left lane, camping it out, next to a truck or something.
Basically my point is not to have draconian enforcement, but to say that because drivers are comfortable with a certain speed does not make it automatically safe.
A couple quick stats for you...
approx. 200 million registered drivers in the US.
Approx. 6 million accidents reported annually.
Approx. 3 million include injury.
Approx 40k are fatal.
What percentage of drivers are not in accidents annually?
What percentage of drivers are not injured annually?
If the average flow of traffic is higher than the speed limit, but the number of people getting into accidents is a small percentage, then it follows that the majority of people are driving safely, even at elevated speeds. This is why the 85th percentile rule works.
Maybe I expressed it unclearly. It is not the fact that a majority of the people drive a particular speed that makes it safer than others but that they tend to migrate to their natural speed, a speed at which they feel comfortable and at which they believe serves their personal and economic needs. All drivers do this calculus (related to risk homeostasis) internally, constantly and without reference to the posted limit. Since most drivers are similar, they tend to have similar natural speeds where they individually are safer in their own minds and where, collectively, they actually are at lower risk of crashing.
Imposing a speed limit well below the collective 85th percentile (of individual natural speeds) creates huge conflict because it tends to widen the 10-mph pace and subjects the safest drivers to unnecessary punishment, especially when the motivation to create conflict is revenue. Phoenix is already on record as using their photo-enforcement to balance their budget.
You are quite correct in your observation that Phoenix drivers have a higher threshold of risk tolerance than, say, Chicago, because the driving environment in Phoenix is more conducive to higher speeds than Chicago, especially sightlines, which appear to play a major role in driving speed decisions.
Also, your observation that some drivers travel well below the posted limit is valid as is your observation that they cause disruption in traffic flow. However, what we have discovered when limits are posted correctly, these drivers tend to speed up into the 10-mph pace, causing less disruption and fewer chances for conflict; we have also discovered the band between the 85th and 95th percentile (which may be only 3 mph wide) tend to remain static or slow down because they perceive the limit as legitimate, whereas previously they perceived it as bogus.
There is no 85th percentile concept in rush hour traffic; any attempted measurement would be meaningless.
We certainly agree that draconian enforcement is worthless or damaging.
I was observing traffic today during a drive to Denver and back, and I have to say that you have some valid points. Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense to keep drivers in generally the same speed bracket, to avoid the huge disparity in speed which can cause accidents.
Just thought I'd post another article about how speed limits are just government money making scams:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2085.asp
Quote
Australia: New Speed Limits Costs Money, Lives
Imposing a speed limit on the Northern Territories, Australia has increased the number of road deaths while destroying local tourism.
NT Speed LimitThe imposition of a speed limit on the formerly limit-free open highways in the Northern Territories, Australia is destroying local business without providing a corresponding safety benefit. In January, the top legal speed in the Territories was lowered to 130km/h (80 MPH) in an effort to generate revenue with a new traffic police force collecting newly doubled fines.
Before, automakers from around the world jumped at the ability to travel to the city of Alice Springs to test vehicles at their maximum speed in a warm climate. With the new speed limit, however, the testing business has moved to other countries. Imposition of the speed limit will likely cost the city up to A$9 million a year in lost hotel and tourism revenue.
The Country Liberal Party cited statistics that show the new limit has failed to improve road safety. The total number of highway deaths so far this year with the speed limit has already exceeded the number of deaths in 2006 when speeds were unlimited.
"There was no evidence that the open road speed limit was a significant factor in the Territory's high road toll," Shadow Minister for Transport Fay Miller said in a statement. "As so many people predicted at the time, imposing an open road speed limit has failed to cut the road toll. The open road speed limit was just another pointless attack by the Martin Labor Government on the Territory's lifestyle."
"Government have lied to us as the real problem is on dirt roads and not on the sealed open road," the Keep NT Limit Free website explained.
Source: Govt defends speed limits, despite road and economic toll (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 11/20/2007)
In other news, I was about three seconds away from death today. A white Saturn SL2 came flying over the crest of a hill on a residential street at about 90-100 mph, right before I was about to make a left turn. If I had been there three seconds sooner, I'd be dead.
One of the roads in my area recently had its speed limit raised from 45 to 55. As a 45, the average speed of cars was 60-65mph. Now it's closer to 50.
Most 35mph roads have average speeds of 50 in my area. Most 45s average 40. It's weird.
Quote from: Raza on May 30, 2009, 10:36:54 PM
One of the roads in my area recently had its speed limit raised from 45 to 55. As a 45, the average speed of cars was 60-65mph. Now it's closer to 50. Most 35mph roads have average speeds of 50 in my area. Most 45s average 40. It's weird.
No, it is a fairly common phenomenon. Those drivers who religiously follow the limit without regard to its rationality tend to speed up when the limit is increased. The weird part is that rational drivers who see the limit raised tend to treat it as more realistic and will slow down a little. Empirical evidence from the Michigan State Police and Colorado State Patrol reflect the same phenomenon.
Quote from: James Young on May 16, 2009, 11:25:56 PM
I strongly support advanced driver education and continuing skills improvement and believe that law enforcement has an opportunity to positively affect key measures of traffic safety by concentrating on the educational aspect of their function.
As I am certain to regret this, and have asked you in the past regarding this, and having never received an answer, I will ask once again;
Who is going to pay for LE "concentrating on the educational aspect of their function?" Where is this money supposed to come from?
Quote from: James Young on May 30, 2009, 11:11:45 PM
Empirical evidence from the Michigan State Police .... reflect the same phenomenon.
Regarding ONLY highway and freeway speeds. MSP does not conduct such research on secondary roads as those roads speeds are now controlled by local government (villages, cities, townships and counties) by statute. It would be pointless, meaningless and financially fruitless for them to conduct such study on roads where they do not control how, or why, speeds are set.
Quote from: hounddog on May 30, 2009, 11:19:33 PM
As I am certain to regret this, and have asked you in the past regarding this, and having never received an answer, I will ask once again;
Who is going to pay for LE "concentrating on the educational aspect of their function?" Where is this money supposed to come from?
One need never regret a question but only the questions never asked. Who pays for the law enforcement function now? The taxpayer. Shifting the emphasis from one aspect to a more beneficial aspect should require no more funds than are currently available and I would expect a better return for every marginal dollar spent.
We also have drivers paying much of their own freight and that would continue. I paid for my own Bondurant School as well as for both of my now-adult children and consider it money extremely well spent.
If additional funds are required ? not just desired ? the current beneficiaries of law enforcement are going to have to put their money where their greedy mouths are. I speak, of course, of the insurance industry that has been ripping off the public for 60 years. If they want real traffic safety, they need to help pay for it, not just donate a lidar unit to the Dallas PD, from which they make many thousands.
Obviously, police are paid for by tax-payers whos own president believes need to be paying more of their wages to the government to frivilously waste. Lots more.
The lions share of traffic enforcement comes from regular general patrols in this country. General patrols being that which is there to answer calls for service and enforce laws while on regular patrol. How do you envision telling local governments they they are now taking money from the general patrols and using it for public training? Right now many municipalities are laying people off, some in the hundreds and many in the dozens. No one has the money to staff regular patrols right now, how would they populate and pay for a training staff to teach people what they should have already gotten from their early training, "going fast has certain inherent dangers. Crashes sometimes kill. Many of you will be in at least one crash. You have to do your best to obey the traffic laws."
Is your answer to take even more money out of the already struggling, and heavily tax burdened American public by once again raising taxes on a plan that will not work any better than what we are currently doing, which by the way is what the majority of people ask for; more patrols, not less?
Insurance companies will never ante up. They will spend billions fighting something whereby they are required to pay into the system, and you know it. In the end, once again, it will be average Joe Schmuckatelli that would be stuck footing the bill on such an unrealistic idea as "education will solve everything."
My last question is; If you are underfunding patrols to fund training what good does it do if there is no one to keep track of those who still refuse to follow the rules?
LE is not about education, it's about, well, enforcement.
The leftist mindset of "education" and its antecedent, rehabilitation, is a chief state consolidator; it also plainly does not work.
The touchy-feelie thought may make some feel good, but only consequences drive human action.
hounddog writes: {Obviously, police are paid for by tax-payers whos own president believes need to be paying more of their wages to the government to frivilously waste. }
Police services are paid for by states and municipalities; policy directives are formulated at the state or local level. The president and federal income taxes are irrelevant in this matter.
{The lions share of traffic enforcement comes from regular general patrols in this country. General patrols being that which is there to answer calls for service and enforce laws while on regular patrol.}
This may be true for your region; it is generally true in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay region as well. However, throughout much of the South, Texas and especially in Oklahoma, village cops ARE traffic patrol and do nothing other than traffic, leaving those duties to legitimate enforcement such as country sheriffs. Further, cities in the region dedicate entire divisions to nothing but traffic patrol. This is certainly true of Austin, Tulsa, Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex, Denver-metro and probably others as well.
{ How do you envision telling local governments they they are now taking money from the general patrols and using it for public training?}
Those are your words, not mine, nor do they reflect what I wrote with respect to the education function of law enforcement. Nobody has suggested that police forces add staff dedicated solely to ?education.? That is but a red herring.
{Is your answer to take even more money out of the already struggling, and heavily tax burdened American public by once again raising taxes on a plan that will not work any better than what we are currently doing, which by the way is what the majority of people ask for; more patrols, not less?}
No, that is not at all what I am suggesting for, once again, those are your words, not mine. Further your assumption that the majority of people are asking for more patrols is unsupported by evidence. When elections are held for increased enforcement, usually in the form of public authorization or condemnation of red light camera and photo-radar enforcement or tax assessments for enforcement expansion, the public has rejected increased enforcement in every single case. At best, the people are asking for effective patrols, not more patrols. We have had many in these fora who continue to mistake visibility and effort for effectiveness.
{Insurance companies will never ante up. They will spend billions fighting something whereby they are required to pay into the system, and you know it. In the end, once again, it will be average Joe Schmuckatelli that would be stuck footing the bill on such an unrealistic idea as "education will solve everything."}
Are you suggesting that we should ignore the insurance industry just because they are stubborn and greedy? They have been sucking hundreds of billions out of the system for years and their operating policies are predictable only if one uses revenue generation (surcharges) as an assumption instead of decreases in crash-, injury- and fatality rates. And, again, nobody is suggesting that ?education will solve everything.? Those are your words. Education can have an effect and all of us can benefit from additional knowledge, techniques of learning, but most importantly to critically question conventional wisdom. I am 63 years old and just finished my doctorate, so I am a firm believer in education and critical thinking. I short, I have put my money and my effort where my mouth is and I am willing to question my own views, something sadly missing from so many people whose views are fixed and necessitate a molding of facts to the view, not vice versa. One of the most difficult lessons that I learned was to let go of certain beliefs that had no basis in reality. I expect nothing of others that I do not do myself.
Quote from: NACar on May 21, 2009, 03:39:59 PM
In other news, I was about three seconds away from death today. A white Saturn SL2 came flying over the crest of a hill on a residential street at about 90-100 mph, right before I was about to make a left turn. If I had been there three seconds sooner, I'd be dead.
That was me. I figured I should test the top speed of my brother's car. :evildude:
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 03, 2009, 07:29:51 PM
That was me. I figured I should test the top speed of my brother's car. :evildude:
You missed!
Quote from: NomisR on June 04, 2009, 03:54:01 PM
You missed!
I know. It was faster than I thought. :rage: