How To Give Out 178,000 Traffic Tickets And Accomplish Nothing
July 29th, 2008 Posted in Speed Cameras, Traffic Tickets
Just ask Montgomery County, Maryland, they seem to have it figured out.
The Washington Examiner had a story today that mentioned that Montgomery County speed cameras, in action for nine months now, were averaging 20,000 tickets per month and that, in total, the county had handed out 178,000 speeding tickets from the cameras.
The story goes on to mention that Montgomery County has collected more than five million dollars from drivers so far and expect to collect ten million more in the next year.
And what is the result of this massive ticketing effort?
According to an insurance industry study, the average speed – at the camera sites — has dropped from 42 MPH to 38 MPH.
Think of all the lives that 4 MPH drop has saved!
Especially when you consider that some of these cameras are placed on roads with speed limits of 35 MPH and that undoubtedly, once most drivers pass the cameras, they resume traveling at the speed that is comfortable to them.
But when it comes to ticket cameras, it’s all about safety though, and not about the money. It’s never about the money.
Other Related Articles
- School Is Never Out For Speed Cameras
- Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets
- A Speeding Ticket By Mail? It Could Happen To You This Holiday Weekend
- City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money
- Majority Of Speed Camera Photos In Arizona Are Unusable
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I need to stop reading your blog and magazine i get to angry at the government. Its bad for my health.
It isn’t the government, it is the criminals who occupy positions in our government.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2488.asp
It is almost if they don’t want the 7th amendment to exist.
It seems to me if the average speed was 42 mph to start with and with at least a certain percentage following the limit before the cameras, there had to be some doing well over 50 mph. To me if they had some people going over 50 mph in a 35 mph zone that there was a saftey concern or severe accidents. That is why they probably put up the cameras.
This site says it is all about money but what about the people that are driving 50% over the limit in town causing major accidents?
Below is the research report that was done before and after the implementaion of the cameras. I also include part of the abstract of the report. It did show there was a significant number of people driving over 10 mph above the limit in low speed zones before the cameras.
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/speed_cameras_montco.pdf
Abstract
Speeding is a major factor in motor vehicle crashes, and almost one-quarter of speeding-related fatalities occur on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. In 2007, Montgomery County implemented the state of Maryland’s first automated speed enforcement program, with camera use limited to residential streets with speeds limits of 35 mph or less and school zones. Vehicle speeds were measured approximately 6 months before and 6 months after speed cameras were deployed, and signs were installed warning of the speed enforcement program. Relative to comparison sites in Virginia, the proportion of drivers traveling more than 10 mph above posted speed limits declined by about 70 percent at Montgomery County locations with both warning signs and speed camera enforcement, 39 percent at locations with warning signs but no speed cameras, and 16 percent on residential streets with neither warning signs nor speed cameras. Public opinion surveys found 74 percent of Montgomery County drivers thought speeding on residential streets was a problem.
Randy writes: {It seems to me if the average speed was 42 mph to start with and with at least a certain percentage following the limit before the cameras, there had to be some doing well over 50 mph. To me if they had some people going over 50 mph in a 35 mph zone that there was a saftey concern or severe accidents. That is why they probably put up the cameras.}
The very nature of your questions and observations demonstrates that you have no understanding of what you write about. It indicates to me that you’re nothing more than a shill for some part of the safety cabal. Speeds on highways are not quantified by “average” unless one is using the median. Engineers use the ranked speeds and percentiles, deciles, and quintiles. 50 mph or even 60 mph in a 35 mph zone may or may not indicate speed too fast for conditions. Consider, for example, a limit of 55 mph on a highway with a design speed exceeding 120 mph because that’s what we had throughout the west during the days of NMSL.
{This site says it is all about money but what about the people that are driving 50% over the limit in town causing major accidents?}
Who says they’re causing crashes? The $5 million already collected explains far more of the phenomenon than reacting to the rare fender-bender crash. As further example of camera enforcement for profit, dig into the practice of shortening yellow-light times and eliminating the all-red phase. It increases the number of crashes but it also increases fine revenue. Increasing yellow-times and implementing all-red phases decreases crashed but makes no money. Guess which practice most jurisdictions follow.
{Below is the research report . . .}
IIHS doesn’t do research, at least not honest peer-reviewed research. They have been caught faking data and drawing unsupported conclusions. It has gotten so that, when they announce undertaking a “study” almost anybody familiar with their prior work can predict what their conclusions will be before they ever do any work. They’re a joke, a sorry bunch of lying greedy (^*)%&$.
Indicative of their dishonesty is this from the abstract: “Public opinion surveys found 74 percent of Montgomery County drivers thought speeding on residential streets was a problem.”
Do you not realize that public opinion surveys are not valid to measure what is the province of traffic engineers? Typical of this is the “survey” done in Ventura(?) that indicated that 80+% of the residents thought that the “average” speed in the neighborhood was far in excess of the posted limit. Actual measurements showed they were well below the limit. So much for public opinion surveys.
James you do not have a clue what you write about. You turn onto a road and have someone come flying into you at whatever speed they feel like. 45 mph or 50 mph or 60 mph. There are almost no 35 mph zones designed to handle those speeds safely.
James one more thing. Send your links that are factual that conclude that speed does not kill, it is better to drive 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, as long as 80% of drivers that drive at a certain speed means that it is very safe to do so.
James where are your facts that show what affects putting in speed cameras do?
Randy writes: {James you do not have a clue what you write about.}
In a word, bullshit. I have devoted 50 years to this, beginning when I was 12. I know how to do the secondary research, what sources are credible and what are not, how to spot bias, how to synthesize information from multiple sources, and how to adhere to the rigors of legitimate academic study, i.e., the scientific method or how we learn things. However, what gives me an edge on those people that you cite is that I don’t have a financial stake in the outcome of a study, hold no equity in any company that does; I have an abiding respect for truth and freedom and deep disdain for those who wish to interfere with truth and freedom just to make a buck on the backs of unfortunate drivers.
{You turn onto a road and have someone come flying into you at whatever speed they feel like. 45 mph or 50 mph or 60 mph. There are almost no 35 mph zones designed to handle those speeds safely.}
Bullshit. First, nobody is talking about inappropriate speeds on 35 mph roadways except you and your ideas are so screwy as to be worthless. When I enter a highway upon which I have not established ROW, my responsibility is to assure that I have adequate space to put myself into the flow without endangering or interrupting any other driver. It is my responsibility to do this irrespective of the actual speeds of the other vehicles. In simpler terms, if somebody comes flying into me, it is my fault. Anybody who drives must be able to judge closing speeds closely enough to decide when to enter without incident. That this happens millions of times every day without incident tells us that your situation is bogus.
A speed limit of 35 on any roadway does not necessarily tell us anything because speed limits are set by politicians for political and economic reasons without regard for engineering data. The design speed may be double or triple that political 35 mph limit.
{James one more thing. Send your links that are factual that conclude that speed does not kill, it is better to drive 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, as long as 80% of drivers that drive at a certain speed means that it is very safe to do so.}
You are the one making the assertion that faster speeds result in more frequent crashes, more injuries and more fatalities, therefore, the burden of proof is yours. I can point you to reams of evidence but until you decide to be honest with us and with yourself, it won’t do any good.
NHTSA’s “Traffic Safety Facts” – published once a year, providing an annual recap is a good starting point but only if read with an eye on the data. I also suggest that you contact NMA about the Parker Report as provided by imbiblio, to wit: “The entire report is 84 pages long. You can try calling the National Technical Information Service (general info 703-487-4770, sales 703-487-4650) and asking for this report. Even with the report number they won’t be able to find it. It’s being buried since it says things that certain organizations (both governmental and private) don’t want to be made public. However, NMA is selling this report for $15 plus $4 shipping and handling. They can be contacted at 608/849-6000; nma@motorists.com ; or 6678 Pertzborn Road, Dane, Wisconsin 53529.” Remember, NMA had to sue to get this publicly-funded report released because the conclusions were contradictory to what the safety Nazis wanted to hear.
From the abstract of the Parker Report: “The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short – and long-term effects of speed limit changes.
The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist’ speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.”
{James where are your facts that show what affects putting in speed cameras do?}
Too early to tell because there are so few instances of them and no known academically rigorous studies, but we do know that changes in enforcement lead to no predictable changes in crash-, injury- or fatality-rates. In mathematical terms, traffic safety IS NOT a dependent function of speed limits.
james since you do not believe that speed kills and going faster makes no difference then try this. Jump off a stool that is 3 feet above the ground and see what happens. Then jump off a 1 story building and see what happens. Then jump off a 20 story building and see what happens.
James if you say that safety IS NOT a dependent function of speed then try this. Have everyone drive 20 mph and see how many traffic deaths you have. Then have everyone drive 100 mph and see how many deaths you have.
I would just guess that when eveyone drives 100 mph they will have a lot more deaths.
It has been said that speed limits make no difference in fatalities. That may be true in the past when many were going 50 mph and more in a 35 mph zone. When speed limits are enforced like they were above then speed limits actually mean something then. That is when you have to calculate what differences in speed limits actually do.
James from what you say all roads no matter what the speed limits look like an interstate road where there is a visibility of 5 miles. That is not the case in most zones that are 30mph to 35 mph. Many times there are turns, hills, merging traffic, people changing lanes to make a turn pedestrians and many other things. There are many places in such roads where it is barely safe to enter a road when the cars are going the speed limit.
This whole site is filled with false assumptions and untruths. Take the statement:
“According to an insurance industry study, the average speed – at the camera sites — has dropped from 42 MPH to 38 MPH.
Think of all the lives that 4 MPH drop has saved!”
They say the speed was only dropped by 4 mph but that is not true. The average was dropped. If there was 50% that did not have to change their average speed at all then the other 50% would have to have an average of 8 mph drop. Since we do not have all of the numbers we do not know how much the faster drivers slowed down but we do know it was significantly less then the 4 mph that is stated.
Randy writes: {James if you say that safety IS NOT a dependent function of speed then try this. Have everyone drive 20 mph and see how many traffic deaths you have. Then have everyone drive 100 mph and see how many deaths you have.}
Aside from the hubris and sheer stupidity of the suggestion, that is still not proof. If the key safety measures (any of the three) could be predicted by changes in speed limits that would be proof. What actually happens is that those measures change independently of changes in speed limits. Or almost independently since we do know that as speed limits approach the 85th or 95th percentile range of actual travel speeds, fatalities decline.
{It has been said that speed limits make no difference in fatalities. That may be true in the past when many were going 50 mph and more in a 35 mph zone. When speed limits are enforced like they were above then speed limits actually mean something then. That is when you have to calculate what differences in speed limits actually do.}
If you possess information that traffic engineers are unaware of, you need to make them aware of it today. It is nothing less than your human responsibility. Speed limits have never meant anything. They have always been a political animal, not a scientific concept usable to guide human behavior.
{James from what you say all roads no matter what the speed limits look like an interstate road where there is a visibility of 5 miles. That is not the case in most zones that are 30mph to 35 mph. Many times there are turns, hills, merging traffic, people changing lanes to make a turn pedestrians and many other things. There are many places in such roads where it is barely safe to enter a road when the cars are going the speed limit.}
And the fact is that traffic engineers incorporate all of those things – roadway design, adjacent activity, sightlines, etc – as well as the measured 85th percentile that quantifies actual driver behavior into their recommendation of a limit. Politicians then lower that recommendation by 10-25 mph because it is politically safer for the politicians and damn the public. Virtually any 35 mph zone in America is not only capable of handling much faster traffic but is actually doing so at any given time.
{They say the speed was only dropped by 4 mph but that is not true. The average was dropped. If there was 50% that did not have to change their average speed at all then the other 50% would have to have an average of 8 mph drop. Since we do not have all of the numbers we do not know how much the faster drivers slowed down but we do know it was significantly less then the 4 mph that is stated.}
That is so naïve as to be dangerous. Remember when I pointed out that “average” is not the mean but the median? Remember two points about this “study”
1 Since it’s IIHS, they’re probably lying
2 Since ALL of the speeds noted are so low and so close to the posted limit, no matter the findings, it’s not important to critical analysis anyway.
You have never answered my questions:
Are you connected in any way with an organization that benefits from lowered speed limits, not limited to insurance industry?
What is your ultimate goal; what do you hope to achieve by preaching your message to a bunch of folks who are far too sophisticated to buy what you’re selling?
I am not with any organization. I am for the truth and you can not find it here. You call any and all studies a lie if they do not show what you are looking for.
Speed does kill and also take a lot more fuel. Both of these you do not believe because you do not believe any statments or studies that have shown both. You are not even willing to try reducing your speed yourself to see what it does for your mileage. That would prove you wrong and you do not want that.
You are against average speed calculations. That is only one thing found in the study. It also showed the percentage of people that were speeding more than 10 mph over the limit before and after the video enforcement. It is so simple a 10 year old should be able to figure out those calculations but you need to have a 1000 page report from some college to say the same thing or you do not believe the report.
You are a brilliant writer and much better than I but what you write has no facts and common sense in it. You take a study that has done and only use a fraction of it if you think that it will support your cause. The rest of the report you try to hide.
You may be right that certain sections of a 35 mph zone you can drive more than that. The only problem is do you have 10 different speed zones on a stretch of road a couple of miles long? I forgot you are against all speed zones.
You do not care about anyone but yourself. That has been proven here. If you want to go and help construct safer roadways then go for it but your drive at your own speed mentality is very dangerous. Some may be able to do that but thousands of others do not always pick the right speed. I can tell that every year by seeing dozens of people in the ditch when road condtions are not 100%.
Your comments that it is safer to drive faster now because people are driving better than ever before shows that your writing lacks any thinking and common sense. You are incapable of thinking cause and affects and have such a limited vision that the only thing you came up with for better fatality rates was better drivers.
Randy writes: { You call any and all studies a lie if they do not show what you are looking for.}
No, flawed methodology and peer review usually expose untruths. Too many of the safety cabal – IIHS in particular – have been caught in serious flaws or outrageous lies in blind pursuit of lower limits. Need I mention that they stand to make Billions from lower limits?
{Speed does kill and also take a lot more fuel. Both of these you do not believe because you do not believe any statments or studies that have shown both. You are not even willing to try reducing your speed yourself to see what it does for your mileage. That would prove you wrong and you do not want that.}
You just keep repeating the same tired on mantra but repetition makes it no truer now than it was 50 years ago. My mileage does increase slightly at lower speeds but the difference is so insignificant that the drawbacks far outweigh that small gain. The major drawbacks are (1) increased fatigue due to longer hours on the road, (2) increased exposure due to longer hours on the road, (3) driving well below the optimal speed plays havoc with my risk homeostasis, (4) driving below the 85th percentile speed (or 95th on Interstate-grade roadways) is statically far more dangerous.
{You are against average speed calculations. That is only one thing found in the study. It also showed the percentage of people that were speeding more than 10 mph over the limit before and after the video enforcement. It is so simple a 10 year old should be able to figure out those calculations but you need to have a 1000 page report from some college to say the same thing or you do not believe the report.}
The issue is not the difficulty of the concept but the treatment as though it were important. It is not particularly important because it tells us nothing about any correlation to changes in key safety measurements.
{You are a brilliant writer and much better than I but what you write has no facts and common sense in it. You take a study that has done and only use a fraction of it if you think that it will support your cause. The rest of the report you try to hide.}
I thank you for your kind words. The reports, studies, and data that I use are usually too voluminous to use the whole report. However, for the most part, they are available in whole for inspection and review by the public. I do have a copy of the famous MacDonald Report from 1957 [Harvard College (now University) School of Public Health] that is no longer available except at a couple of select universities.
{You do not care about anyone but yourself. That has been proven here. If you want to go and help construct safer roadways then go for it but your drive at your own speed mentality is very dangerous. Some may be able to do that but thousands of others do not always pick the right speed.}
I have helped other help tens of millions of drivers by working to remove silly, counterproductive and dangerous laws. NMA – of which I am a proud member since they were CRTL (Citizens for Rational Traffic Laws) – has done vast benefit that is greatly under appreciated by the public.
{Your comments that it is safer to drive faster now because people are driving better than ever before shows that your writing lacks any thinking and common sense. You are incapable of thinking cause and affects and have such a limited vision that the only thing you came up with for better fatality rates was better drivers.}
I have no idea where you got that. Driving is safer now because we have much better cars and much more accommodating roadways. We have radial-ply tires, disc brakes, halogen or xenon lighting, shatterproof glass, seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, softer dashes, non-protruding switches, crush zones, built-in roll bars, rack and pinion steering, independent suspension, etc. We also have collapsible barriers protecting fixed objects, breakaway signs, reflective paint, Bott’s dots, rumble strips, divided lanes, separated levels, etc. All of these were placed into use so that we could go ever faster with the same degree of risk. I don’t know that drivers are any better (I suspect that they are) but I do know that we are enjoying the best safety record in the history of the nation.
It is mantra of the safety Nazis that higher speeds cause elevated number of crashes, injuries and fatalities. It just ain’t so.
James I would recommend getting some statistics from Spain now that they are getting serious to lower their speeds to help their economy to decrease their use of foreign oil and cut down on their trade deficit. They say there is a 7% to 25% increase in fuel usage for every 5 mph. See if you can find their safety statistics and fuel usage difference in a few months to see what difference they will find.
You guys can argue about jumping off tall buildings and what not.
But the bottom line is speed does not kill!
INIBILITY to handle your speed causes accidents and of course the faster you are going the more serious the accident, but it is not the speed that kills!
If speed kills, how come pilots are not dead, if speed kills how come astronuts are not dead! If speed kills, how come race car drivers are not dead!! “Speed Kills” is a great attention getter for all excuses to limit the inability of the public.
If you think the government and the public safety department are looking out for your best interest, I have a gold mine I will sell you “cheap”!!!!
MONEY IS THE BOTTOM LINE IN ALL GOVERNMENT ENDEAVERS!
If money is not the bottom line then how come they don’t offer community service in exchange for the ticket fine???????????
Can you imagine the court saying your fine is $150.00 or a weekend of picking up litter along the highway… Figure it out!
Gene you say that you are against what government does. Who elected them? You have control. You have all the control in the world with local government. You must not be giving them facts to make any changes needed. Government is for the public safety and services. If an area is concerned with many accidents in an area they often contact the police or local government officials and the area is patrolled and tickets are given out if needed. You say that tickets are only given out for money but it is not true.
This site is a place to complain about things that are often not true or exaggerated. I have to laugh at this site bringing up that one policeman only gives out tickets to make money for himself. If that is true have him arrested and move on. People do illegal things all the time. Are you going to put me in the same group as one of them if I am working in the same profession?
I would bet that if you did go to court and asked for community service there is a chance that you could get it. Have you tried? Probably not. People on here just like to complain.
Also people on here also blame large corporations for things that they have nothing to do with like setting the price of crude oil. It is all about blaming someone else even if they are not at fault.
Speed does kill. Astronauts do die because of speed. Pilots do die because of speed. Race car drivers do die because of speed. Drivers do die because of speed. The thing is that under all of these cases they try to limit the people that die along with injuries.
For astronauts they have thousands of safety procedures they go through along with inspections.
For pilots they have physicals and a very lot of training and they have traffic control people to keep them away from other planes. They also have required plane inspection and maintenance schedules.
For race car drivers they have rules they have to follow on the course and roll cages that can protect a driving hitting a wall at over 100 mph. There still are deaths and injuries. They have improved the cars so that safety is very important and in some cases have done things to limit the hp of the cars.
For regular drivers there is mandatory safety features in new cars that are not in older cars. In almost all states there are no vehicle inspections and if there is a roadblock all they may do is look at the tires and lights. There are speed limits set to make it safer to travel(no one here follows that). There are stop signs placed where needed along with no passing zones and reduced speed zones in more dangerous areas. This organization is against all of the safety options in use today. They want everything optional as far as they do not want safety equipment in cars because it adds weight. They do not want speed limits to make the roads safer. They do not want daytime running lights because they do not think it looks cool. If everything was to go into affect with what this organization stands for and wants the deaths would triple in a few years.
Randy;
don’t put words in my mouth. re-read the post and show me where I say I don’t like government?
you just like to disagree, either that or you are a government employee on the defense.
Speed does not kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many people have exceeded the speed of sound and are still alive.
It is not speed, try to understand the concept. It is exceeding your ability to handle speed!!! Otherwise you could say dynamite kills. Dynamite does not kill it is the improper use of dynamite or the INABILITY to use dynamite properly that kills… Tripping on the stairs and falling can kill you so should we say stairways kill!
Anyway, back to that Gold mine I have for sale.. It is real close to your location and just for you I will sell it really cheap!!!
Gene speed does kill. People make driving mistakes all the time. A person does not make mistakes every day but in there lifetime they make plenty of mistakes. If you think there will be no difference if someone crashes into you at 50 mph rather than 35 mph you are lacking facts and common sense.
Good grief Randy, you must be a government worker!! Must I spell it out! You said so yourself in the last post,,,
“People make mistakes!” INABILITY,,, STUPIDITY,,, MAKE MISTAKES!! Then they crash and as you so eloquently like to state, the faster they are going the worse the crash, duh!!! But it is not the speed that killed them, get it,, it is the stupid mistake they make driving at a speed faster then they are capable of handling. If they didn’t make a stupid mistake they wouldn’t get killed no matter how fast they drive. You can go 1000mph down a runway and if you don’t make a stupid mistake you will not die.. So unless you can show me where someone was going 1200mph and for no explainable reason they just died, speed does not kill!!
Randy writes: {Gene you say that you are against what government does. Who elected them? You have control. You have all the control in the world with local government. You must not be giving them facts to make any changes needed. Government is for the public safety and services. If an area is concerned with many accidents in an area they often contact the police or local government officials and the area is patrolled and tickets are given out if needed. You say that tickets are only given out for money but it is not true.}
I’ll defer to my mentor, the honorable Mark Twain of Hannibal, Missouri: “It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I believe that it is hopelessly naïve to believe that voters have a significant degree of control over elections or the legislative process. Cash has replaced the ballot as the official currency of democracy. We have special interest groups paying billions to purchase representatives (at all levels) and then expecting a return on that investment. I have personally been told by an aide that an Oklahoma representative would not see us (3 of us) because we had not contributed to his campaign. Nobody gets wealthy from government service but significant numbers of folks convert that service into contacts with special interests that do make them very wealthy.
Old Oklahoma highway 33 (now largely replaced by US 412) from Tulsa to Locust Grove used to have a sharp (90 degree) right turn followed shortly by a sharp left turn, a site where many crashes occurred. The highway department put up warning signs, lowered the limit, and OHP patrolled it mercilessly, all without effect on the crashes. The solution was to replace the two curves with a sweeping S curve. Result: crashes disappeared, OHP went away, and life improved. The point is that enforcement activity is only a political ploy to show that the government cares but provides no real solution. That real solution provided no money to the state – in fact, costing the state money in the short term – but the people were much better off.
As far as using traffic citations for money: what better explanation for myriad government actions than citation revenue? Greed virtually always provides the better answer and is a much better predictor of future actions.
{This site is a place to complain about things that are often not true or exaggerated. I have to laugh at this site bringing up that one policeman only gives out tickets to make money for himself. If that is true have him arrested and move on.}
That just ain’t so. Again, your naiveté is dangerous. Have you ever tried to obtain equal treatment (much less justice) from a rogue cop? Cops have become so institutionalized that they’ll stop at virtually nothing to protect each other.
{For regular drivers there is mandatory safety features in new cars that are not in older cars. In almost all states there are no vehicle inspections and if there is a roadblock all they may do is look at the tires and lights. There are speed limits set to make it safer to travel (no one here follows that). There are stop signs placed where needed along with no passing zones and reduced speed zones in more dangerous areas. This organization is against all of the safety options in use today. They want everything optional as far as they do not want safety equipment in cars because it adds weight. They do not want speed limits to make the roads safer.}
That just ain’t so. Again, absurd allegations without a hint of support. In order, mandatory inspections have no effect on crash rates. States with mandatory inspections do not enjoy lower crash rates than those who do not.
Speed limits were political to begin with and have not changed although the political purpose has changed from trying to drive cars out of existence (shades of Luddites!) to making tens of billions from enforcement of no-productive rules. Speed limits do not make roads safer.
Stop signs are not always used as tools to organize traffic but too often as a means to impede traffic flow, called traffic calming.
{If everything was to go into affect with what this organization stands for and wants the deaths would triple in a few years.}
That just ain’t so. Instead, it is absurd and inflammatory. You have no reason and no basis for that. Shameless.
Mr. Young,
I believe your are quoting Randy’s posts.
Those are not my posts that you quote…
Gene: That is correct; I am responding to Randy’s assertions.
James to the best of my knowledge and most everyone would agree except everyone else here I am correct with the following statement.
{If everything was to go into affect with what this organization stands for and wants the deaths would triple in a few years.}
James says:
That just ain’t so. Instead, it is absurd and inflammatory. You have no reason and no basis for that. Shameless.
Take me to court. I would bet I would win. This organization is against all current saftey equipment and practices. You say that you are for better roads but that is not part of the platform that I have seen here.
Randy writes: {Take me to court. I would bet I would win. This organization is against all current saftey equipment and practices. You say that you are for better roads but that is not part of the platform that I have seen here.}
Courts are to determine what happened in the past and to apply those actions against a standard. They are not for determining the future or the validity of scientific debate.
Since you obviously see only what you want to see, I cannot help you understand what NMA has clearly outlined in their published position statements.
What I am for is better driving and better governance through the application of scientific principles to law and enforcement.
Take me to court?? what the he(( is that??
Why are there no standards for speed limits on like roads? Why is one road in one state posted at 55mph and an identical road in another state posted at 75mph???
Why are interstated highways posted differently in different states when the roads are not in any great degree different?
If it weren’t about the money, there would be a national standard for all roads..
A perfect example is when you cross from one state into another state on the same highway and the speed limit changes,, what is that $about$$$ Do $ need $o explain$$$
I keep telling you guys, your just waisting your breath (ink) on this guy Randy. I had a kid about as stubborn as this guy so I know one when I see one. My kid is grown now (has two degrees and working on a third) and has thankfully had to open his mind to reality. I guess Randy hasn’t gotten there yet.
I used to have a co-worker who would take the opposing view no matter how weak his argument was. It was like talking to a wall after a while. Eventually he developed a reputation and a nickname to go with it. Given enough time most people eventually figure you out.
We’ve had so-called cops get on here all hot about this site and it’s issues. After some dialog they quite down and we start finding some common ground no matter how far apart we were to start with…..not Randy. No common ground here.
Randy is much like the cops around here, they are so hung up on speed enforcement that they avoid stopping drivers for violations that really lead to collisions. Often the cops are as guilty of the same dangerous conduct that the average driver might be.
The last time I had a FAA mandated class on human factors and accidents a few months ago, we we learned that most accidents are caused by a multitude of mistakes or errors in judgment which lead to most accidents. A single factor almost never results in an accident. Believe me, when the NTSB gets involved, no stone gets unturned so their investigations and conclusions have high credibility. That would tend to rule out the singular factor such as speeding as the path to Hell as Randy seems to suggest. I doubt that just because my class happened to be aviation related wouldn’t mean that the same ideas and principals also apply to terrestrial travel.
Joe writes: {I keep telling you guys, you’re just wasting your breath (ink) on this guy Randy.}
I agree that responding to Randy is wasted on him because he has shown no real desire to examine facts that are uncomfortable for the safety institution or to develop sound policy to organize traffic flow unless it focuses on speed limits as a central point.
OTOH, we cannot just let his words go without a response because even idiocy cannot go unchallenged lest that lack of challenge be interpreted by others as acceptance. You are quite correct that responding to his simplistic, albeit well-intended, assertions is painful.
{The last time I had a FAA mandated class on human factors and accidents a few months ago, we learned that most accidents are caused by a multitude of mistakes or errors in judgment which lead to most accidents. A single factor almost never results in an accident. Believe me, when the NTSB gets involved, no stone gets unturned so their investigations and conclusions have high credibility. That would tend to rule out the singular factor such as speeding as the path to Hell as Randy seems to suggest. I doubt that just because my class happened to be aviation related wouldn’t mean that the same ideas and principals also apply to terrestrial travel.}
This is very true. The MacDonald Report that I have alluded to several times in prior posts was a very early study of human factors in crashes. It was conducted by the Harvard College (now University) School of Public Health in the mid-1950s and focused on fatal automobile crashes. They sent in teams of engineers (mechanical and civil), forensic medical staff, psychologists, and other professionals as needed, focusing on reconstructing exactly what happened during these fatal events. To oversimplify, they broke down the causes of these crashes into three kinds of errors: (1) mechanical failures, (2) human failures, and (3) environmental issues. Every crash always required a combination of errors, just as you learned from the FAA studies. My son, who is a pilot, has also studied NTSB investigations of aircraft crashes and they follow similar vigorous methodology.
Two things that jumped out at me when I read a popular summary of the MacDonald Report in 1958 was that the reasons offered by law enforcement for these crashes were so often completely wrong and that their methodology was so casual. Remember, I was 12 years old when I read this so I have since added self-serving; hence, my distrust of authority.
Joe: I will arrive in Tulsa the afternoon of Friday, October 25. Perhaps we can meet at Barnes & Noble/Starbucks for a quick cup. You have my email so just let me know.
Speed choice
The U.S. Department of transportation’s Federal Highway Administration have a webpage documenting a review of speed research.[12] The summary states:
That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles travelling slower than the average speed, and for those travelling above the average speed.
That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.
On a webpage titled “The biggest killer on our roads”, the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW), state that speeding (by which they mean travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions, in addition to speed above the specified speed limit[13]) is a factor in about 40 per cent of road deaths.[14] On the same webpage the RTA also state that “speeding increases the risk of a crash and the severity of the crash outcome”.[14] On another webpage, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific piece of research from 1997, and stating “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with small increases above an appropriately set speed limit.”[15]
The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics show for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” (known as “speeding” in the UK) was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that “travelling too fast for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).[16]
http://www.car-accidents.com/fatal-accidents-crash.html
Driver behaviour
A 1985 report based on British and American crash data, found that driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partially to about 93% of crashes.
Most British drivers who responded to an RAC survey, considered themselves to be “good” drivers. One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements were:
controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
alertness, reading and anticipating the behaviour of other drivers.
Although proficiency in these skills is taught and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of accidents because:
“the feeling of being confident in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving ability, and that ‘proven’ ability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident”.
Professor Smeed observed that drivers balance risks as they drive, leading road authorities to attempt to reduce the consequences of mishaps through road design. As traffic levels have increased, accompanied by more interventions by planners and road safety teams, accident levels have reduced.
Accompanying changes to road designs have been wide-scale adoptions of rules of the road alongside law enforcement policies that included drink-driving laws, setting of speed limits, and speed enforcement systems such as speed cameras. Some countries’ driving tests have been expanded to test a new driver’s behaviour during emergencies, and their hazard perception.
There are demographic differences in accident rates. For example, although young people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more young male drivers feature in accidents, with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviours and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. This gets reflected by actuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, sex, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions would be expected to be involved in more accidents, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, apparently, more cautiously.
In 1969 Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road:
It can safely be said that places which look dangerous do not have accidents, or very few. They happen at places which do not look dangerous. The reason for this is simple. The motorist is as intelligent as the ‘local people’. If a place looks dangerous, he can see that it is, so he takes care and there are no accidents. He does not want to have an accident, and he will take care at obviously dangerous places. Accidents happen when there is some trap in road conditions which is not obvious at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to deal with in the short time available. The driver has only a fraction of a second to size up a situation, and there may be some trap which he cannot see in this short time.’
This phenomena has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in accident rates have not occurred after legislative or technical changes. One study observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly-attributed fall in overall fatalities.
One note that I want to make about the above statement. Statistics can be misleading. The seat belt statistics were calculated in 1982. This was before the addition of air bags along with seat belts. The combination is what added to safety.
Illinois needs vastly improved [increased] highway speed limits, (but that would cut into Blago’s revenue generators, the ISP)
Randy, take a trip on I-55, south of I-80 to springfield and back.
The speed limit signs could/should be as follows:
Daytime-100 max, 50 min, 75 recommended.
Night-80 max, 60 min, 70 recommended.
I don’t doubt that 75day/70night is too far off the realistic flow rate.
Even the Autobahn has a recommended 130kph.
(and that doesn’t include the three lane segment from Lincoln to Springfield, because three lane is somewhat rare across the state)
George I have been down the exact road that you are talking about. I have been down to Springfield dozens of times. I used to drive at slightly over 70 mph but I now drive the speed limit. The traffic on 55 is far to much to run consistently at 100 mph on 2 lanes or even the three where there are three. I have no problem now going 65 mph down there. I have a good radio now and take it easy and relax and get behind or slightly in front of a truck or 2. I am saving a lot of fuel when I go down there and I am going down there less frequently. I do plan on going down there next Friday. If you think it is worth saving a half hour at 80 mph or 1 hour from Chicago to Springfield at 100 mph and risking your life and others by a slight amount and using a lot lot more fuel that is your position. I do not think either is worth it. There also is a lot of Truck traffic. They are incapable of such speeds and most companies are trying to stay under 65 mph now. It is just a bad idea.
Some stats on changing speed limits.
http://www.iowadot.org/mvd/ods/2005speedstudy.pdf
Randy writes:
{Some stats on changing speed limits.}
Do you really not see what the problem with that data is or are you just playing with us?
enlighten us James.
It’s cherry-picked data and it deals with absolute numbers rather than rates.
james I see no problem with absolute numbers and by the way there are percentage changes shown. It is 10 times better than most of the other reports that have been displayed here. Many others show only one state. The report is also more realistic because the mid-west roads for the most part are less congested than some roads in other states except for the large cities like Madison WI.
I forgot the report is written so that anyone can read and understand that. Something that you do not like because you can not interpret it for everyone.
Randy writes: {I see no problem with absolute numbers and by the way there are percentage changes shown. It is 10 times better than most of the other reports that have been displayed here. Many others show only one state. The report is also more realistic because the mid-west roads for the most part are less congested than some roads in other states except for the large cities like Madison WI.}
Bill got 100 hits last baseball season; Tom got 75 hits. Which one is the better hitter? Bill had 525 at-bats for an average – a rate – of .190, below the Mendoza line. Tom had 200 at-bats for an average of .375, enough for the league batting championship.
What the Iowa data fail to tell us is the rate at which these fatalities occurred, i.e., the number of vehicle miles traveled, a measure of activity.
Do you have any idea why these states were chosen? Because the data showed what the author wanted to show, i.e., they were cherry-picked to demonstrate a desired outcome. Do you want me to do the same thing and show an opposite outcome? Or do you want to use the data from all 50 states (+ DC) so we can get a better understanding of the phenomenon and develop a policy to address it?
{I forgot the report is written so that anyone can read and understand that. Something that you do not like because you can not interpret it for everyone.}
Such reports are available for use by the public. I would prefer not to have to interpret them.
No james again you are showing your ignorance. This is a report done in and for Iowa. The states picked are surrounding states to Iowa.
As you have said in the past reports that show miles driven are not accurate. You said that many times. why use it in calculations then? This report shows the truth. There was not one state that was picked but there was several and they all showed the same thing.
{No james again you are showing your ignorance. This is a report done in and for Iowa. The states picked are surrounding states to Iowa.}
We have no assurance the data agree with federally-reported data (and no, I’m not going to look it up).
{As you have said in the past reports that show miles driven are not accurate. You said that many times. why use it in calculations then? This report shows the truth. There was not one state that was picked but there was several and they all showed the same thing.}
That’s why they were picked. Where exactly have I alleged that miles driven (as in VMT) are not accurate and under what context? If you do not understand why measures of activity are required for valid comparisons of events related to activity, then I cannot help you.
James Young maybe I was wrong in saying it was you that said that miles driven calculations are incorrect. It is a supported statement by NMA that says such figures are not accurate. You can look that up. The states were picked because they were surrounding states to Iowa and Iowa was looking to see what speed increases would do to their states and why not look at surrounding states? Would you thinik it is smarter to look at states 1000 miles away? As I have said all along, you will not believe anything that does not support your agenda.
Randy, look who’s talking.
Let me try this again…
{you will not believe anything that does not support your agenda.)
Randy, look who’s talking.
Yes Joe or James I do not believe your agenda. Anyone that says it is safe to drive 50 to 60 mph in town in a 35 mph zone should be locked up. Anyone that says it is safer to have everyone drive 80 to 100 mph on 2 lane interstates with truck traffic will never convince me that it is safer to do so. Anyone that says it does not take much if any more fuel driving 80 to 100 mph is not going to convince me that it is true. The facts support me. Not the facts that are made up or exagerated or inferred like what is brought up here.