Comments on: Speed Limits: Slower Does Not Mean Safer

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:17 +0000

So your position is that we should all improve our driving so that Mario Andretti can drive as fast as his ability allows and we would be compatible. There is a reason he was susch a great racer, his ability was not easily matched. There needs to be a range of ability that extends from wanna be race car drivers, like yourself george and my grandmother because that is who uses the roadway. Since it would be impossible to teach my grandmother how to compete with Mario Andretti or even you george, maybe the Mario andrettis of the world need to realize they are not the only roadway users.

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:04:47 +0000

So when is the NMA going to stop censoring us and let the blog continue?

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:43:42 +0000

5 cars of the 85 that ar at or below the 85th percentile is 1/2 of 1% of that group. While the number of incidences loos the same the 5 vehilse above the 85th makes up 33% of that group. would you say you are safer having the risk of being 1 of 5 vehicles that makes up 1/2% of the group you are traveling in or 1 of 5 that makes up 30% of the group you are traveling in? the chance that you'll be 1 of those 5 below the 85th is 1.17%, while your chance of being 1 of those 5 above the 85th is 6.66%.

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:34:29 +0000

Also the area under the 85th percentile contains 85% of the traffic stream while the portion of the curve above the 85th contains only 15%. That the risk of crash below the 85th looks as if it has an equal cahnce of crash as those above the 85th, that isn't absolutely true. To illustrate what I mean let's say the traffic stream is 100 cars 85% or 85 cars are at or under the 85th percentile and 15% or 15 cars are traveling faster than the 85th. Say the risk is 5 cars will crash at a point that looks the same because of the number of incidences…….

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:26:06 +0000

If using the 85th percentile speed acknowledges that 15% of the drivers are traveling ABOVE a "REASONABLE and PROPER" speed why is it that members of the NMA and the NMA itself want the speed limits posted at the 85th and then not enforced until the 95th percentile speed?

By: PMckrackin

PMckrackin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:22:47 +0000

I'd put my money on the liars being present in both Texas and Michigan

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:48:52 +0000

Since you mentioned the laws of physics George. why is it that the NMA does not consider that Kinetic Energy that must be dissipated in a crash increases by the square of the speed of the vehicle. Why do thay also use the simple crash curve to mislead the readers into thinking that speeds above the 85th actually are getting safer? If the NMA wants scientificly set speed limits why then do they ignore some of the most important science that deals with the kinematics of a crash? There is a curve that shows the relationship between speed and risk of casualty crash but you will never see it on anything sponsored by the NMA because as speeds go up on this graph so too does the risk of being involved in a casualty crash. The NMA cherry picks very specific scientific studies and classifies all the rest as biased so that they can discount the findings that don’t support their desires for triple digit speed limits.

By: Richard Mamches

Richard Mamches — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:24:30 +0000

I just returned from a road trip I took last week on my vacation to visit my sister and nephew in northern Virginia. I briefly visited New Jersey and traveled on I-195, officially named as the James J. Howard Interstate Highway–in memory of the late, unlamented “Father of 55!” What struck me as ultimately ironic is that this highway is posted at 65 mph, along with most other New Jersey Interstates and toll roads. Congressman Howard, as we all know, fought for the “double nickel” and against higher speed limits tooth and nail in the later years of his life until his death in 1988. The so-called “Father of 55″ and chief advocate and spokesman for velociphobia must be turning in his grave over a highway in his memory now posted at 65 mph, which he so vehemently opposed.

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:11:28 +0000

Randy I am sure you know why there are tents up at that scene. However I am sure the rest of the “lets drive as fast as we can club” has no clue that the tent is for a command center because there are more than 5 dead. looking at the scene I’d say possibly 10.

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:08:09 +0000

Randy,
No one cares because they have all been brainwashed by the NMA into thinking that faster is safer. You are correct Randy the key is having traffic traveling at like speeds. These knucklehaeds only hear what they want to hear they don’t care thet compliance with current speed limits would be just effective in reducing crashes because they want to drive faster not slower. The only reason that the 85th percentile speed has a safety benefit is because it is at the top of the 10mph pace(the 10mph area in the speed distribution that holds the largest percentage of the speed distribution.) meaning if speed limits are set at the 85th percentile or the top of the pace there would be a temporary safety benefit. However because these idiots don’t understand that faster is not safer they will then begin to exceed even that top of pace/85th percentile speed and degrade safety for all the lawfully proceeding vehicles. Compliance with todays speed limits would have a greater safety benefit effect on the speed distribution because not only will we get the benefit of having like speeds and the reduced crash rate associated with that but crash speeds would be lower and less Kinetic energy carried into the crash that would need to be dissipated by heat, friction and deformed matter. It really is too bad that these seemingly intelligent people are being mislead so by the NMA. I think it is laziness, they are too lazy to check the so called facts held within the articles that the NMA presents to them.