Government regulation saving lives

[a_unique_person]

There has been a lot of press about the agressive speed camera/radar gun campaign against drivers. The amount taken from fines has gone up, and many people just viewed the exercise a a cynical money making exercise.

The results are in.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027048173.html

People are now paying less than they were in fines, because they are slowing down. Most importantly of all, the road toll has taken a dramatic dive.



But the lower revenue from speed and other fines suggests that the crackdown on speeding motorists is working - and making the roads safer. Victoria's 2003 road toll yesterday stood at 296 - 55 fewer than at the same time last year, according to the Transport Accident Commission.

The TAC also confirmed last night that the 12-month rolling road toll - 342 deaths as at yesterday - was the lowest on record.



I am getting used to just sticking to the speed limit, and it really doesn't make much difference in travel time. It is less stressful, and you do feel safer. You also have a better chance of getting to your destination in one piece.

The government likes the revenue, for sure, but at the same time, it will be making massive savings due to the reduction in the accident rate, as will those who pay to have their cars insured.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am getting used to just sticking to the speed limit, and it really doesn't make much difference in travel time. It is less stressful, and you do feel safer. You also have a better chance of getting to your destination in one piece.

The government likes the revenue, for sure, but at the same time, it will be making massive savings due to the reduction in the accident rate, as will those who pay to have their cars insured.

Not enough data to make these conclusions. First, you have to look at death rates per some distance standard. In the U.S., the rate is per 100,000,000 miles driven. Second, there could be many contributing factors (seatbelt use, safer cars, etc). In the U.S., rates have been declining for many years, even though speed limits have increased.

u.s. mv statistics (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


Not enough data to make these conclusions. First, you have to look at death rates per some distance standard. In the U.S., the rate is per 100,000,000 miles driven.

Normally, I would say yes. But a drop of 55 to 296 is a massive change.



Second, there could be many contributing factors (seatbelt use, safer cars, etc). In the U.S., rates have been declining for many years, even though speed limits have increased.

u.s. mv statistics (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)

Seatbelts have been compulsory for many years. Australia has a fatality rate of 10/100,000, compared to the US of about 15. The rate of decrease in Australia is still quite steep, the US it has about levelled off.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9AFD4E13D7DA281FCA2569DE0028B40C?Open&Highlight=0,crash

[Always Free]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There has been a lot of press about the agressive speed camera/radar gun campaign against drivers. The amount taken from fines has gone up, and many people just viewed the exercise a a cynical money making exercise.

The results are in.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027048173.html

People are now paying less than they were in fines, because they are slowing down. Most importantly of all, the road toll has taken a dramatic dive.



I am getting used to just sticking to the speed limit, and it really doesn't make much difference in travel time. It is less stressful, and you do feel safer. You also have a better chance of getting to your destination in one piece.

The government likes the revenue, for sure, but at the same time, it will be making massive savings due to the reduction in the accident rate, as will those who pay to have their cars insured.

Did you see the report on 'Today Tonight' today?? It seems you don't have to be speeding to get got by the speed cameras. The report was very interesting.

Don't get too comfy cruising along the streets of your city, especially Melbourne, as due to the incorrect setting up of these cameras by the operator, the cameras are going off when there are no cars going by. One man who lives where a camera was set up at the front of his house, was booked for speeding as he was driving out his driveway.

I think only several years of having the cameras everywhere, will give a real view of whether they are slowing the road toll. It is a revenue raising exercise, full stop. With the secondary effect of safer roads for users.

If a person wishes to obtain a taxi licence or become a driving instructor etc but his record shows speeding offences because he was booked for doing a couple of 'Ks' over the limit, he may not get the job. Not fair! It's good to see they (cameras) have been turned off.:(

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Always Free


Did you see the report on 'Today Tonight' today?? It seems you don't have to be speeding to get got by the speed cameras. The report was very interesting.


As I said, the Government likes the revenue, but the justification for them is also holding, road deaths are down remarkably. This will also mean an even larger reduction in injuries and damage to cars. The roads are just safer when everyone is driving more carefully.

TT is the type of show that likes to beat up anything. I have worked on programming similar road sensors to the ones used as 'fixed' speed cameras, that is, the ones that use pizo electric sensors under the road. They are only 1.5 meters apart, when the place I worked at felt that 3 meters, or more, when you are measuring cars on a high speed road, is much more accurate and less prone to error. You will note that the company that installed the systems, pol tech, has gone into receivership. The problem was that the CEO was getting paid over 200,000 dollars a year when they really needed to be investing in getting their technology sorted out better.

The basic fact is, the technology is very reliable, (although when you are measuring thousands of cars a day for law enforcement purposes rather than just counting them, you have to get it right much more often), and not that complex. It must, however, be made much more tolerant of errors, such as the Datsun 120Y being clocked at over 160kmh. That is, in cases of doubt, the driver must be given the benefit of the doubt. My guess is that the company that hands out the fines is being too greedy, as they also get a cut.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I like the roads being safer.

[Always Free]

AUP,

I don't know if you saw TT but if you didn't, see if you can read about it on the web site. I can't see how the public can have any confidence in these cameras if the operators can't set them up properly. And if the cameras shouldn't be operated near road speed signs, train tracks, metal garage doors etc etc the technology surely is not good enough to have so many of these revenue raisers sprouting up everywhere.

It amounts to theft, in my opinion.

We are all for safer roads, but lets wait until Xmas time and the end of the year to see what the toll will be. 50 less deaths so far is a lot but it doesn't convince me that the cameras are responsible for this reduction.

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder how many cameras ShaneK will activate as he speeds to this thread?

[Supercharts]

I am totally for strict enforcement of speed limits. And manditory use of seat belts.
There may come a day when the State Police actually stop big tractor trailers for speeding. And stop those wreckers from speeding while towing disabled autos.
If this is a source of revenue then it will finance more State Police, Highway Patrol cars etc.
Here in Massachusetts we seem to attract more speeders than anywhere else in this country. With the "Big Dig" still going on I see more Police sitting idle by the side of construction sites than I see patroling the highways.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Always Free
AUP,

I don't know if you saw TT but if you didn't, see if you can read about it on the web site. I can't see how the public can have any confidence in these cameras if the operators can't set them up properly. And if the cameras shouldn't be operated near road speed signs, train tracks, metal garage doors etc etc the technology surely is not good enough to have so many of these revenue raisers sprouting up everywhere.

It amounts to theft, in my opinion.

We are all for safer roads, but lets wait until Xmas time and the end of the year to see what the toll will be. 50 less deaths so far is a lot but it doesn't convince me that the cameras are responsible for this reduction.

I don't doubt that the government likes the revenue. However, the 50 deaths less is 50 less than at the same time last year. I can't see the road toll suddenly shooting up by 50 in weeks left in the year.

As for the things to watch out for, like I say. The company that set the cameras up and the company that issue the fines should be erring on the side of caution. As I noted, Poltech is out of business now. The government should not be always going for the cheapest bid. The technology is well understood. It just needs to be applied properly and within it's limits.

[Always Free]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't doubt that the government likes the revenue. However, the 50 deaths less is 50 less than at the same time last year. I can't see the road toll suddenly shooting up by 50 in weeks left in the year.

As for the things to watch out for, like I say. The company that set the cameras up and the company that issue the fines should be erring on the side of caution. As I noted, Poltech is out of business now. The government should not be always going for the cheapest bid. The technology is well understood. It just needs to be applied properly and within it's limits.

All the more reason to say the cameras are there for revenue raising purposes. Let's get the cameras on every corner, buy them cheap and rake the money in.

Do you think these cameras will be replaced with better technology or will Poltechs successors be required to do better with the existing ones, such as maintain them properly etc. I suppose I could look up how much revenue the cameras have raised so far but I would be disgusted at the figure, I'm sure. With all that money there is no excuse for buying cheaply any more.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Always Free


All the more reason to say the cameras are there for revenue raising purposes. Let's get the cameras on every corner, buy them cheap and rake the money in.

Do you think these cameras will be replaced with better technology or will Poltechs successors be required to do better with the existing ones, such as maintain them properly etc. I suppose I could look up how much revenue the cameras have raised so far but I would be disgusted at the figure, I'm sure. With all that money there is no excuse for buying cheaply any more.

They are there for two purposes. Revenue is certainly one, the saving in lives is also real. The simplest way to stop them as a revenue raising device is to stick to the speed limit. It saves you money, and maybe your life.

The actual number of false readings would be quite small, in percentage terms. The system should, however, always operate to give the driver the benefit of the doubt. The problem in these cases would be the private company that processes the bills. We have a private company issueing parking fines in our area, and sometimes, due to summer crowds, I get a parking fine. The council is always happy for residents of the street to be let off, it is the company that processes the fines that is the difficult part of getting off the fine.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


Not enough data to make these conclusions. First, you have to look at death rates per some distance standard. In the U.S., the rate is per 100,000,000 miles driven. Second, there could be many contributing factors (seatbelt use, safer cars, etc). In the U.S., rates have been declining for many years, even though speed limits have increased.

u.s. mv statistics (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)

per 100 000 000 miles driven? That's enough to drive around the world more than 4000 times! How much driving do you guys do, anyway?

No wonder your road toll is so high.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


per 100 000 000 miles driven? That's enough to drive around the world more than 4000 times! How much driving do you guys do, anyway?

No wonder your road toll is so high.

Would you believe 2.830 trillion miles per year? Yes, we do a bit of driving here in the states!

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Normally, I would say yes. But a drop of 55 to 296 is a massive change.



Seatbelts have been compulsory for many years. Australia has a fatality rate of 10/100,000, compared to the US of about 15. The rate of decrease in Australia is still quite steep, the US it has about levelled off.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9AFD4E13D7DA281FCA2569DE0028B40C?Open&Highlight=0,crash

Odd that your government (or at least that site) doesn't publish statistics on a per distance driven basis. More relevant than per 100,000 people.

[shanek]

Um, everything BTox said. If you don't consider miles driven in your figures, all you've basically got is a bunch of meaningless numbers.

I've pointed out before how fatality rates plummeted in Montana when they completely did away with speed limits, only to come back up when speed limits were reinstated. And I know all of the statistics they were touting in NC a few years ago showing the rate of accidents increasing with the speed limits were bogus for the same reason; they were comparing the areas with the raised speed limits, which were long stretches of rural interstates, with the lower speed limits, which were shorter stretches near the cities. Of course the shorter stretches are going to have fewer overall accidents! Doy!

Besides, I'll bet you can get people to slow down by lining the sides of the roads with tanks and threatening to shoot anyone speeding. That doesn't mean it's justified.

There is a sensible way to enact a speed limit policy (http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/ModelLaw.html); but it's not a way that generates much in the way of revenues for the government, so good luck actually getting it implemented.

http://www.motorists.org/stealthis/coincidence.html
http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/speed_limit_research.html
http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/speed_limit_articles.html

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by shanek
Besides, I'll bet you can get people to slow down by lining the sides of the roads with tanks and threatening to shoot anyone speeding. That doesn't mean it's justified.

http://www.usavanityplates.com/images/roadside/speed-trap.jpg

[DavidJames]

"All the more reason to say the cameras are there for revenue raising purposes. Let's get the cameras on every corner, buy them cheap and rake the money in. "

I agree, if people want to drive like idiots I'm all for them paying for the privilege.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose


http://www.usavanityplates.com/images/roadside/speed-trap.jpg

:big:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Um, everything BTox said. If you don't consider miles driven in your figures, all you've basically got is a bunch of meaningless numbers.

I've pointed out before how fatality rates plummeted in Montana when they completely did away with speed limits, only to come back up when speed limits were reinstated. And I know all of the statistics they were touting in NC a few years ago showing the rate of accidents increasing with the speed limits were bogus for the same reason; they were comparing the areas with the raised speed limits, which were long stretches of rural interstates, with the lower speed limits, which were shorter stretches near the cities. Of course the shorter stretches are going to have fewer overall accidents! Doy!

Besides, I'll bet you can get people to slow down by lining the sides of the roads with tanks and threatening to shoot anyone speeding. That doesn't mean it's justified.

There is a sensible way to enact a speed limit policy (http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/ModelLaw.html); but it's not a way that generates much in the way of revenues for the government, so good luck actually getting it implemented.

http://www.motorists.org/stealthis/coincidence.html
http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/speed_limit_research.html
http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/speed_limit_articles.html

No, no need to shoot anyone. A simple fine is very efficient and mostly painless.

The problem with no enforcement, or the previous policy of tolerating speed of 10km/h over the speed limit is that at peak hour, you have to go with the flow, or you will rammed up the rear end and abused. If everyone has to drive at the slower speed, they do, and there is no compulsion to speed.

It is much easier and safer if we all just stick to the limits posted. My wife and family are far more in danger from speeding motorists than the home invader.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/index.cfm



From 1970 until 2002 the fatality rate dropped from 30.4 to 8.8 deaths per 100,000 population. This reduction has been achieved in spite of a huge increase in motor vehicle use. From 1970 to 2002, the fatality rate per 10,000 registered vehicles has dropped from 8.0 to 1.4. In terms of 100 million vehicle-kilometres travelled the fatality rate has dropped from 4.4 in 1970 to 1.0 in 2000.



1 death per 100,000,000 vehicle kilometres.

At a conversion rate of 1.6 km/mile, That is 0.625 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles. This is a drop from about 2.4 in 1974, when we were just getting used to wearing seat belts.

Compare this to the US, Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 1.51 The drop from 1994 is only 0.2. Not a measurement over the same period of time, but still a rough indication that Australia has achieved a greater reduction, and a reduction that is still in progress, not one that has levelled off, as the US rate has.

Another interesting stat (http://tssu.atsb.gov.au/Query_DB.cfm), is that most of the fatatalities happen at the lower speeds, like 60km/h. This is where the major focus is on with the speed fines.

[BobK]

AUP,

Looking at your figures is very impressive. Unfortunately, your math was not done properly.

Using your figures...

Australia = 1 death per 100,000,000km
U.S = 1.51 deaths per 100,000,000mi

Seems to me that you simply multiply Australian deaths by the english to metric conversion factor of 1.61.

That gives a figure of 1.61 deaths for Australia.

Looks like it's still larger than the U.S.

edit...
Rounded the conversion factor to nearest two decimals for better comparison with two decimal U.S. deaths

[a_unique_person]

You are correct. I really should have written it down rather than trying to do it in my head.

However, the statement that deaths/mile driven is a better indicator than deaths/head population needs to be queried. If you follow the link to the database I found for Australian statistics, there is a very interesting fact. The rate of deaths for each speed is not linear. That is there are almost no deaths below 60km/h speed limit, then the rate drops, then it picks up again at high speed limits.

Since those going at 60km/h are not going far, they are probably just driving in their local area, it appears that the claim that deaths per mile is a good better indicator is wrong.

Number of fatalities *



Year
2003
25 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 UNLIMITED UNKNOWN
1 8 127 313 78 172 30 420 118 26 56


Data Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau
* Between 01JAN2003 and 31DEC2003.
The state(s) specified is/are All.
The crash type(s) specified is/are All.
The speed is set to All limits.
The age is set to ALL ages. The Gender is All sexes.
The Road User(s) is/are All.
The hour of day is from All times.
The day of week is from All days.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, no need to shoot anyone.

It's not a question of need; it's a question of what is justified. And the ends can never justify the means.

It is much easier and safer if we all just stick to the limits posted.

And it's also much easier if those posted speed limits reflect the 85th percentile.

My wife and family are far more in danger from speeding motorists than the home invader.

If this is the case, then why, all across America, have the fatality rates and accidents-per-mile rates gone down after the speed limits were raised? And why did the fatality rate on Montana's rural interstates nd highways go down while there was no speed limit at all?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/index.cfm

Why are you comparing fatality rates from 1970 to 2002 and pretending that it's the speed limits that are to credit for that? Don't you think that innovations like automobile safety measures added over a 30-year time period at the very least might have something to do with it?

Not a measurement over the same period of time,

So not a measurement that takes into account the same factors like the one I mentioned above,

but still a rough indication that Australia has achieved a greater reduction,

No, it's a rough indication that you are using junk data. Garbage in, garbage out.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek



And it's also much easier if those posted speed limits reflect the 85th percentile.



If this is the case, then why, all across America, have the fatality rates and accidents-per-mile rates gone down after the speed limits were raised? And why did the fatality rate on Montana's rural interstates nd highways go down while there was no speed limit at all?

As I pointed out before, you have to go the speed everyone else is, or you will be harrassed. Even 60km/h is fatal.

Why don't you find out why the rate went down. One anecdote does not prove your case. All it does is show that speed limits are not the only factor in fatalities. I have never claimed they are. I have only claimed that they are a large factor, and linked lowering speed with reducing road toll.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Why are you comparing fatality rates from 1970 to 2002 and pretending that it's the speed limits that are to credit for that? Don't you think that innovations like automobile safety measures added over a 30-year time period at the very least might have something to do with it?



I was first and foremost pointing out the huge reduction over one year, when speed limits were more rigidly enforced.

The extra years were to cater for the measurement you referred to, deaths/distance travelled.



So not a measurement that takes into account the same factors like the one I mentioned above,



No, it's a rough indication that you are using junk data. Garbage in, garbage out.

However, if you think about deaths/distance travelled has it's own problems.

[corplinx]

My god, if the government just outlawed travel by motor vehicle, think of how many lives would be saved!

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why don't you find out why the rate went down.

I did. They're in the links I posted. People simply drive more safely without speed limits.

One anecdote does not prove your case.

More of your dishonesty. Much of the linked material were actual studies, not anecdotes.

[Suddenly]

What "government regulation" is being referenced in this thread? The speed limits are pretty much simply criminal statutes where I come from, and if we are counting criminal statutes as "regulation" then why not discuss the murder statutes? They save lives as well.

This seems to be more about automated enforcement than regulation. The idea that if everyone drove slower the fatality rate would drop is one thing, but quite another is getting that to happen in the real word. We discussed this a little while back in the thread about the guy that flashed his lights to warn others about a speed trap.

Two obvious problems with aggressive enforcement is that it causes some speeding drivers to pay more attention to possible enforcement than the road, thus multiplying the danger. Second, it encourages speed differential, which is an obvious source of danger. Drivers that worry go under the limit, those that don't go well over it, and thus we have accidents. These effects are exaggerated when speedlimits are set lower than natural speed of traffic.

Now, if you use speed bump-type measures that (gulp) shanek mentions, that make all drivers slow down, as well as the 85 percentile concept that (gulp) shanek mentioned, both of these problems go away to the most extent, but less money is created by ticketing.

All speed traps tend to do (at least in the US) is create the sense that the cops are the bad guys. When the task is farmed out to private companies for the purpose of more efficient "enforcement" it just makes things worse as now there are two entities profiting from a particular method of law enforcement. Enough of that stuff and people start becoming libertarians, and nobody wants that...

Plus I have huge, huge problems with the state putting a private party in a position where it profits by accusing people of criminal behaviour. It is my understanding that in several US jurisdictions these kinds of tickets were nullified by a reviewing court. None of this keeps the state from buying their own cameras, of course, but I just wanted to throw that in there.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

There is a sensible way to enact a speed limit policy (http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/ModelLaw.html); but it's not a way that generates much in the way of revenues for the government, so good luck actually getting it implemented.

I am shocked that you would advocate this system - it requires so much more gov't intervention and spending. Systematic studies of all of these roads? Updated every 5 years? And then they want to make sure that every ticket is contested by putting in the "I was driving safe anyway" defence. Court costs would skyrocket.

Further, I think the idea of basing the speed limit on how fast people actually drive has some flaws. For example, school zones. You are required to drive slower not because the road conditions demand it, but because kids may dart out unexpectantly. Also, for residential main roads, speed limits help those who live on them actually get out of their driveways.

I think this proposal doesn't get implemented because it is needlessly complex and expensive - things that you usually complain about, especially with regards to gov't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What "government regulation" is being referenced in this thread? The speed limits are pretty much simply criminal statutes where I come from, and if we are counting criminal statutes as "regulation" then why not discuss the murder statutes? They save lives as well.

That is an excellent point; it's also true that you can go whatever speed you want on private roads; speed limits only apply to government roads. (Of course, in most cases the government has given themselves a monopoly on roads...)

So no, they're not regulations. But they could be implemented a lot better than they are now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I am shocked that you would advocate this system - it requires so much more gov't intervention and spending.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't require them to really do all that much more than they're doing right now.

Further, I think the idea of basing the speed limit on how fast people actually drive has some flaws. For example, school zones. You are required to drive slower not because the road conditions demand it, but because kids may dart out unexpectantly.

Um, what part of the phrase "for the prevailing conditions" escapes you? Or did you even bother to read the link?

Also, for residential main roads, speed limits help those who live on them actually get out of their driveways.

Something that, as I mentioned, speed ramps would do much more cheaply and effectively.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


That is an excellent point; it's also true that you can go whatever speed you want on private roads; speed limits only apply to government roads. (Of course, in most cases the government has given themselves a monopoly on roads...)

So no, they're not regulations. But they could be implemented a lot better than they are now.

That's quite true. I agree with speed limits in residential areas and such, because that's a reasonable public safety issue. But I see so many areas where they make no sense whatsoever. Not a mile from where I sit there is a five mile stretch of road that is flat, straight, and with nothing but sagebrush on either side for a hundred yards. The city has set the speed limit through it is 35. I could come up with other examples if I had time.

Besides, I have noticed that on many roads, obeying the speed limit is the exception, not the rule. In cases like that, it would seem logical to closely examine the law.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Since those going at 60km/h are not going far, they are probably just driving in their local area, it appears that the claim that deaths per mile is a good better indicator is wrong.



Not following your logic here. Don't know about Australia, but around here, no one drives at a constant speed. For example, I drive 19 km each way to work every day. My speed is probably 40 kph for 4 km, 55 kph for 8 km and 75 kph for the remaining 7 km. When I drive the 160 km to visit my dad, I still drive a significant portion below 60 kph.

You have to look at deaths per miles because raw deaths being decreased can be simply due to less driving.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


Not following your logic here. Don't know about Australia, but around here, no one drives at a constant speed. For example, I drive 19 km each way to work every day. My speed is probably 40 kph for 4 km, 55 kph for 8 km and 75 kph for the remaining 7 km. When I drive the 160 km to visit my dad, I still drive a significant portion below 60 kph.

You have to look at deaths per miles because raw deaths being decreased can be simply due to less driving.

That should read 60 km/h speed zone. What it is indicating is that many deaths happen in the local, residential streets.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That should read 60 km/h speed zone. What it is indicating is that many deaths happen in the local, residential streets.

Again, it would be interesting to see how many total miles are driven in each one of those speed zones. I hazard a guess that a significant percentage is in that 60 km/h zone.

Are those really residential streets? Here the majority of residential streets are 40 kph limit.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

No, it doesn't. It doesn't require them to really do all that much more than they're doing right now.
Of course it does. It requires them to do a survey of the speed for each road classification every five years. Currently, speed limits are set at definite numbers, and generally those numbers do not change every five years, or even every ten years. This system requires a massive study every five years for speed limits. How is that an efficient use of money?

Next, you don't even address the court costs. By providing a "Yes, I was over the limit but I was still driving safely" defence, you invite every single speeding ticket to be challenged in court, and each case more difficult to determine on the merits.

Um, what part of the phrase "for the prevailing conditions" escapes you? Or did you even bother to read the link?
Have YOU read the link? It says nothing about schools or anything else - only road conditions. It relies on the good will of drivers. They want to let people go as fast as they want and then set the limit based on that. It makes little sense for some roads, especially otherwise main roads with schools on them. Without a school zone posted limit, the cars would not slow down for the school zone.

Something that, as I mentioned, speed ramps would do much more cheaply and effectively.
I disagree. For example, I live on what is designated a "minor arterial road". It is a residential street, but is a straight north-south street that is quite long, so it tends to be used as, well, a minor arterial road. The posted limit is 50 km/h, and the amount of traffic is generally steady. It doesn't make sense to put speed bumps or ramps on this road - it would slow down traffic too much. But, without the limit of 50, cars would routinely go 60-70 km/h, which would make it much more difficult to get out of the driveway and much more dangerous for the neighbourhood kids. A couple of km down the street is a school zone, with a limit of 40 km/h. If there were no posted limits, most people would drive the entire stretch at 60-70 km/h, which would lead to a limit under this system of about 65 or so. This limit is unsafe for the school and for the residents on the street.

There are simply other concerns regarding the setting of speed limits than how fast people want to go. And they are cheaper, as well.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by shanek
[B]Um, everything BTox said. If you don't consider miles driven in your figures, all you've basically got is a bunch of meaningless numbers.

I've pointed out before how fatality rates plummeted in Montana when they completely did away with speed limitsIt's taken me several days to come up with some stats, but I thought you should try actually looking at Montana's accident statistics before you say something like that. Your linked article clearly states that speed limits were unhooked from federal control in 1996. Oddly enough, in 1997 Montana's accident rates spiked, going from ~200 to 265 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/stsi/State_Info.cfm?Year=2001&State=MT). It's a small sample, and may not be totally significant, but it's one hell of a spike nonetheless, and it sustains from 1997 to present. Other states with much larger samples went down, or stayed the same, not varying significantly enough to determine if the change made any difference or not. Of course, anyone who's actually done some interstate driving can see that speed limits are generally lower as you go East (even if the drivers aren't actually slower).

In any case I thought a little factual information would shed some light on this debate. I will persist in maintaining my bizzare belief that driving slower is actually safer.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Of course it does. It requires them to do a survey of the speed for each road classification every five years.

I don't know about where you are, but in NC they're doing that anyway. In fact, they publish statistics on average speeds on an annual basis.

Currently, speed limits are set at definite numbers, and generally those numbers do not change every five years, or even every ten years.

Speed limits on many interstates and even rural highways and two-lane roads have changed about three times in the last five years here in NC. (And they're always lowered...)

This system requires a massive study every five years for speed limits.

Again, at least in NC they're doing that anyway. And I imagine NC is not alone in this.

Next, you don't even address the court costs. By providing a "Yes, I was over the limit but I was still driving safely" defence, you invite every single speeding ticket to be challenged in court, and each case more difficult to determine on the merits.

That wasn't the experience Montana had with it. It wouldn't be the money-making engine it is for the state, but it wouldn't be a drag on the system, either.

Have YOU read the link? It says nothing about schools or anything else - only road conditions.

That is just completely dishonest. It specifically says that roadside features (which include things like schools) should be considered.

It relies on the good will of drivers.

No; it's based on a realistic assessment of driving behavior.

I disagree. For example, I live on what is designated a "minor arterial road". It is a residential street, but is a straight north-south street that is quite long, so it tends to be used as, well, a minor arterial road. The posted limit is 50 km/h, and the amount of traffic is generally steady. It doesn't make sense to put speed bumps or ramps on this road - it would slow down traffic too much. But, without the limit of 50, cars would routinely go 60-70 km/h, which would make it much more difficult to get out of the driveway and much more dangerous for the neighbourhood kids.

First off, you should support your assertion that the traffic would go faster without speed limits.

Second, such conditions are among those that the proposal says should be considered.

Third, 50km/h is about 30mph. There are 30mph speed humps; I can tell you exactly where some of them are.

A couple of km down the street is a school zone, with a limit of 40 km/h. If there were no posted limits, most people would drive the entire stretch at 60-70 km/h, which would lead to a limit under this system of about 65 or so.

Again: 1) support your assertion, 2) the proposal would take this into effect, and 3) 40 km/h is about 25mph, and again I can take you to speed humps that regulate this speed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Oddly enough, in 1997 Montana's accident rates spiked, going from ~200 to 265 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/stsi/State_Info.cfm?Year=2001&State=MT). It's a small sample, and may not be totally significant, but it's one hell of a spike nonetheless, and it sustains from 1997 to present. Other states with much larger samples went down, or stayed the same, not varying significantly enough to determine if the change made any difference or not.

The problem is, those statistics are total fatalities, not per vehicle mile traveled. The statistics linked to from motorists.org look at accidents and fatalities per mile.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

I don't know about where you are, but in NC they're doing that anyway. In fact, they publish statistics on average speeds on an annual basis.
Then your gov't is currently wasting a lot of money. The only surveys I have seen relate to determining the amount of traffic, not the average speeds. Why are they bothering to do this?

Speed limits on many interstates and even rural highways and two-lane roads have changed about three times in the last five years here in NC. (And they're always lowered...)
Our major highways have been at 100 km/h for as long as I can remember. Minor two lane highways are typically 80-90 km/h, main city streets may be 60, minor city streets 50, and school zones 40. The speed limits around here are quite constant.

Again, at least in NC they're doing that anyway. And I imagine NC is not alone in this. They may not be alone, but are they typical? And wouldn't it be better to get rid of a useless expenditure?

That wasn't the experience Montana had with it. It wouldn't be the money-making engine it is for the state, but it wouldn't be a drag on the system, either.
Has Montana adopted this sort of system? It seems to me that their model law gives everyone a reason to protest each ticket they get.

That is just completely dishonest. It specifically says that roadside features (which include things like schools) should be considered.
No, it is not dishonest. Here is the link again to their model law:http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/ModelLaw.html
Here is the section on speed zoning procedure. Speed Zoning Procedure
On a five-year interval, minimum, each classification of roadway shall be surveyed to determine the 85th percentile speed representative of that classification of roadway. The survey shall be conducted during clear weather, on straight sections of dry roadway, absent construction, maintenance or visible enforcement activity.

Speed measurement should be done in an unobtrusive, undetectable manner so as to obtain a sample of normal traffic speeds. If a daytime/nighttime speed limit differential is warranted, speed surveys should be conducted during both time periods.

If separate speed limits are believed warranted for different vehicle classifications, these vehicles should be the subject of a separate speed survey to determine their 85th percentile speed and subsequent speed limit.
Where in there does it mention roadside features?

No; it's based on a realistic assessment of driving behavior.
From the site: The proposed speed zoning statute will overcome the failings and limitations evidenced by current state laws and practices. It provides a scientific basis to establish a uniform and flexible system of speed zoning that will result in safe, reasonable and relevant speed limits. It allows for local roadway and traffic conditions and accommodates changing trends in vehicle speeds. It is further based on the knowledge that the vast majority of motorists are reasonable and responsible people who will comply with properly established speed limits.
emphasis added

First off, you should support your assertion that the traffic would go faster without speed limits.
It just so happens that there is a bridge just to the north of my house that my street has to go under. It is a popular spot for speed traps. They regularly pull people over, and typically if you are less than 10k over the limit you do not get pulled over. That puts these drivers at 60-70 km/h, or higher.

Second, such conditions are among those that the proposal says should be considered.
It seems to me that the procedure as set forth above just wants to ensure that the road is straight and the weather is good. How many road classifications do they envision? They only mention a few in the model law.

Third, 50km/h is about 30mph. There are 30mph speed humps; I can tell you exactly where some of them are.
Are these humps that are on 30 mph roads, or humps that are meant to be driven over at 30 mph? We have some similar measures around here on some residential streets. They are designed to discourage drivers from using them as commuting alternates as the natural instinct is to slow down to go over the humps. This would not work on my street as a minor arterial road. If everyon had to slow down every X number of meters it would defeat the usage of the road. Don't get me wrong - I would love it if we had traffic calming measures on my street. But the usage of the road does not allow it.

Again: 1) support your assertion,
Again, speed traps and personal experience with cars not slowing down through this stretch.
2) the proposal would take this into effect, where? and 3) 40 km/h is about 25mph, and again I can take you to speed humps that regulate this speed. And are they in conjunction with limits or are they just out there?

If all you are suggesting with these humps is that they be used as traffic calming instead of frequent speed traps, I have no problem with that. I just disagree that the speed setting methods proposed by the model law are beneficial or cheaper. I am not out to keep the speeding ticket money rolling into gov'ts coffers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Then your gov't is currently wasting a lot of money.

:rolleyes: Always some excuse with you, isn't it?

The only surveys I have seen relate to determining the amount of traffic, not the average speeds. Why are they bothering to do this?

You don't see any value at all in knowing the traffic patterns on various highways? We've talked about one right here—setting an effective speed limit policy. Of course, in the case of NC it seems to be more for setting the speed limits so they can catch as many people as possible (regardless of whether or not they're a danger) and filling the state's coffers that way, so it's also obvious that they're not "wasting a lot of money."

Either way, neither I nor the state of NC is responsible for your personal short-sightedness. Having learned of this policy for all of about two seconds, you automatically reached the conclusion that it is a waste of money. That's not only ridiculous, it's the kind of thing people like you accuse me of doing. Oh, the irony!

Has Montana adopted this sort of system?

No, but they did remove all posted speed limits from their interstates and rural highways and impose a "safe and prudent" rule. It worked quite well until their Supreme Court shut it down. It's all in the links.

It seems to me that their model law gives everyone a reason to protest each ticket they get.

Oh, yes, and we can't have that, now, can we? While we're at it, why don't we rewrite the laws on murder and rape and burglary to eliminate people protesting evrey violation they get?

Giving people a reason to protest whenever the government seeks to take their rights is a good thing. If anything, it's far too difficult right now to fight a speeding ticket, even one given fraudulently.

No, it is not dishonest.

I have already quoted it to you twice. The conditions of a particular roadway are considered.

Where in there does it mention roadside features?[/b]

It doesn't in the particular paragraph you quoted. So what? Do they have to mention it every other sentence?

It is further based on the knowledge that the vast majority of motorists are reasonable and responsible people who will comply with properly established speed limits.

Read the red portion. It does NOT depend on ALL drivers being reasonable and responsible. And most drivers ARE reasonable and responsible. Denying reality will get you nowhere.

It just so happens that there is a bridge just to the north of my house that my street has to go under. It is a popular spot for speed traps. They regularly pull people over, and typically if you are less than 10k over the limit you do not get pulled over. That puts these drivers at 60-70 km/h, or higher.

This does nothing to support your assertion. If anything, it seems to refute it as there are many people who clearly aren't slowing down because of the speed limits or even consistent enforcement.

It seems to me that the procedure as set forth above just wants to ensure that the road is straight and the weather is good. How many road classifications do they envision? They only mention a few in the model law.

Just because they didn't try to mention or even envision them all doesn't mean that it doesn't allow for them.

Are these humps that are on 30 mph roads, or humps that are meant to be driven over at 30 mph?

Both, and they're quite effective. If you put them close enough together, people will just drive at the constand speed and not bother speeding up and slowing down.

The same is true if you have traffic lights that are synchronized with the speed limit. It encourages people to go the speed limit because if they go faster they get stuck at a red light for a few seconds.

This would not work on my street as a minor arterial road. If everyon had to slow down every X number of meters it would defeat the usage of the road.

Wait&mdash'don't you WANT peoplke to slow down? Are you even THINKING about what you're saying???

Again, speed traps and personal experience with cars not slowing down through this stretch.

Which, again, if anything only prove that the current policy doesn't work.

where?

Asked and answered.

And are they in conjunction with limits

Yes.

I am not out to keep the speeding ticket money rolling into gov'ts coffers.

But you are defending the system that does precisely that.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Of course, in the case of NC it seems to be more for setting the speed limits so they can catch as many people as possible (regardless of whether or not they're a danger) and filling the state's coffers that way, so it's also obvious that they're not "wasting a lot of money."
This might be interesting if you had any evidence of this. Why do you assert that the only reason that speed limits are lowered is to get more in fines?

Either way, neither I nor the state of NC is responsible for your personal short-sightedness. Having learned of this policy for all of about two seconds, you automatically reached the conclusion that it is a waste of money. That's not only ridiculous, it's the kind of thing people like you accuse me of doing. Oh, the irony!
Face it shanek - if the government had said that it is going to do a comprehensive study of all of the roads every 5 years to reset the speed limits, you would have been all over it as a waste, and showing gov't bureaucracy trying to justify itself, an on and on - after all, the roads stay the same, don't they? Most roads don't change every 5 years, why should the limits?

Oh, yes, and we can't have that, now, can we? While we're at it, why don't we rewrite the laws on murder and rape and burglary to eliminate people protesting evrey violation they get?
What I am saying is that drivers will protest every speeding ticket, even if they know that they are in the wrong. IF they have nothing to lose, why not try to fight it?

Giving people a reason to protest whenever the government seeks to take their rights is a good thing. If anything, it's far too difficult right now to fight a speeding ticket, even one given fraudulently.
ANy evidence of these fraudulent tickets? And how is a speeding ticket taking away your rights? Do you have a right to drive as fast as you like? Or, do you have to follow the rules of the road, just like everyone else?

I have already quoted it to you twice. The conditions of a particular roadway are considered.
No, you haven't quoted it - you have asserted it. Show me where this is in the model law. That is all I am asking.

It doesn't in the particular paragraph you quoted. So what? Do they have to mention it every other sentence?
Once would be nice. Show me.

Read the red portion. It does NOT depend on ALL drivers being reasonable and responsible. And most drivers ARE reasonable and responsible. Denying reality will get you nowhere.
I am not denying reality. I said that they are relying on the good will of drivers - and they are.

This does nothing to support your assertion. If anything, it seems to refute it as there are many people who clearly aren't slowing down because of the speed limits or even consistent enforcement.
It supports my position that without speed limits people would be driving faster on the road - as some are already driving faster. If you use the method you propse to set the limit, it would set it at a higher limit than it is at now. That is my position - and people speeding now supports it.

Both, and they're quite effective. If you put them close enough together, people will just drive at the constand speed and not bother speeding up and slowing down.
I personally have not seen speed bumps that people take at a constant 50 km/h. I have seen ones that people slow down for each one - which leads to disruptive traffic patterns. On a local street that is what you want - to make it a pain for people to cut through neighbourhoods. I am still not convinced that it would work on a constant speed street - but if they work I'd love to have them on my street.

Wait&mdash'don't you WANT peoplke to slow down? Are you even THINKING about what you're saying???
Did you even read the next sentence" It was:Don't get me wrong - I would love it if we had traffic calming measures on my street. But the usage of the road does not allow it.
Again, I have not seen speed bumps that would allow for a constant flow of traffic rather than a pattern of slowing down and speeding up, which is disruptive. One other problem with these measures on my street is that these speed bumps may not be good for emergency vehicles who need to get somewhere in a hurry.

You seem to think that I am against any traffic measures other than speed traps. I am not. I just happen to think that setting speed limits solely on the basis of how fast people want to go isn't the best idea. Also, the way that limits are set is a separate issue from the enforcement of those limits. One can set the limits according to this model law and still have some traffic cop hiding behind a billboard on the interstate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

This might be interesting if you had any evidence of this. Why do you assert that the only reason that speed limits are lowered is to get more in fines?

Because the areas where speed limits were decreased were not areas that had a lot of problems with traffic accidents, but speed limit enforcement dramatically increased afterwards.

Face it shanek - if the government had said that it is going to do a comprehensive study of all of the roads every 5 years to reset the speed limits, you would have been all over it as a waste, and showing gov't bureaucracy trying to justify itself, an on and on

Why would I? I disagree with the government monopoly on the roads itself, but since they do have them, it seems reasonable that the government collect statistics as to what's going on on them.

after all, the roads stay the same, don't they?

The traffic patterns don't.

Most roads don't change every 5 years, why should the limits?

Because traffic density increases, because driver behavior increases along with it, and the situation becomes completely different.

What I am saying is that drivers will protest every speeding ticket, even if they know that they are in the wrong. IF they have nothing to lose, why not try to fight it?

Again, why would this be a bad thing?

Let's play the substitution game again:

"What I am saying is that people accused of murder will protest every arrest, even if they know that they are in the wrong. IF they have nothing to lose, why not try to fight it?"

Why not try to fight it? A little thing called "freedom."

ANy evidence of these fraudulent tickets?

Oh, come on! There have been many, many speeding tickets successfully fought in court; one only has to wonder how many more would have been overturned if the person ticketed had only fought it.

And how is a speeding ticket taking away your rights?

By forcing you to part with your time and money when you weren't doing anything to harm anyone else.

Do you have a right to drive as fast as you like? Or, do you have to follow the rules of the road, just like everyone else?

Wrong question; the question is, what happens when the rules of the road are unfair and unrealistic?

No, you haven't quoted it

Yes, I have. TWICE.

I am not denying reality. I said that they are relying on the good will of drivers - and they are.

Answer straight: Are you saying that most drivers aren't safe and reasonable drivers?

It supports my position that without speed limits people would be driving faster on the road

How?

If you use the method you propse to set the limit, it would set it at a higher limit than it is at now.

And that has what to say with how reasonable that speed might be?

Besides, are you saying that over 15% of the people who drive that road are speeding on it now?

That is my position - and people speeding now supports it.

No, it doesn't. Because you don't have any information on what the other cars would be doing.

I personally have not seen speed bumps that people take at a constant 50 km/h.

Not my problem. And they're not "speed bumps," they're "speed ramps" or "speed humps." And as I said, 50 km/h is about 30mph, and there are many in Charlotte you can drive over at just that speed.

http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbox/speedhumps.html

For a 12-foot hump:
Average of 22% decrease in the 85th percentile travel speeds, or from an average of 35.0 to 27.4 miles per hour; (from a sample of 179 sites).
Average of 11% decrease in accidents, or from an average of 2.7 to 2.4 accidents per year (from a sample of 49 sites).

http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/023Summer/17speedhump.html

Make no mistake, speed humps work. They are by far the most effective device the city has to slow traffic and reduce crashes on neighborhood streets.

Motorists' favorite complaint is that speed humps increase traffic noise. However, all of the research on the subject shows the opposite.

The New York City Department of Transportation's Speed Hump Noise Impact Survey measured overall noise and maximum level noise on 21 streets with speed humps and 19 adjacent control streets. The DOT found that the loudest noises decreased substantially after humps were installed, while background, or "ambient" traffic noise, remained unchanged.

A much larger British government study of speed humps and noise found that humps reduce both the maximum and average traffic noise. However, the study also found that installing humps on streets carrying 20% or more truck traffic creates more noise. The British study also found that, while speed humps do help reduce traffic noise, they should be installed in pairs and no more than 100 yards apart. The DOT's recent practice of installing single speed humps at long distances between humps encourages drivers to accelerate, creating noise.

You seem to think that I am against any traffic measures other than speed traps. I am not. I just happen to think that setting speed limits solely on the basis of how fast people want to go isn't the best idea.

And as I have pointed out to you several times, I am not advocating that. But the use of speed limits only has its limitations, and that is what the 85th percentile rule acknowledges. Any lower than that and you're just not going to slow people down any more without resorting to other measures like speed humps.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by shanek


The problem is, those statistics are total fatalities, not per vehicle mile traveled. The statistics linked to from motorists.org look at accidents and fatalities per mile. You know, I've really tried to convince myself that black is white here, but I'm just not doing it. Where is vehicle miles traveled gathered as a statistic? How am I supposed to believe that the relatively stable population of Montana suddenly started driving 50% more in 1997? And why is it this page (http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm) goes on and on about how the death toll skyrocketed upon application of speed limits when all they've really done is fudge them back and forth, comparing daytime vs. nighttime deaths? Honestly, you expect me to take this kind of analysis seriously? I implied before that the statistic wasn't really as relevant as you thought it was, but maybe you didn't understand so I'll spell it out for you: The sample is very small. Too small to have any statistical significance. Out of a population of not quite a million, a sample of less than three hundred of anything can fluctuate wildly and not reflect anything except random chance. Other articles I've read on this subject suggest that Montana never really had (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/dotst-mo.html) a speed limit, or at least never enforced it with any seriousness, which also blows your analysis to bits.