Slashdot Mirror

which is cost inefficient

So is driving the speed limit. Time has great value, and the arbitrary declarations of legislators do nothing to erase this signature characteristic.

A less cynical explanation

It's not cynicism. We know why the police issue the vast majority of speeding tickets: To provide income, and to provide an excuse for search and seizure, leading to even more income and property gains. They're generally not saving, protecting, or serving anyone but themselves; And further, in states where unlimited speeds were tried, such as Montana, accident rates went down. In any undertaking, people do better when they aren't bored, are paying the most attention, and are fully engaged in said undertaking.

It becomes a bit more complicated than just "speed kills" or don't be a distracted driver. The safest period on Montana's Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws. Once they set speed limits, the accident rate more than doubled. The problem with politicians passing speed laws is that they themselves don't follow the law. The US title 23 federal law states that sound engineering standards and practices be followed. When you lower a speed limit and the accident rate increases you aren't following sound engineering standards. Traffic engineering professionals have known this for more than 50 years, but the politicians don't really care about making us safer. It's about the appearance (safety theater) and the revenue. The German Autobahn has lower fatality rates than comparable US highways, so it's not speed that is the problem.

Read more here.

One of the most interesting things I learned from reading this article was what is suspected as the cause of the increase in accidents. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour. But what changed more was the lane courtesy and seat belt use. Without speed limits people would wear the seat belts for safety. Once the government tells people that driving at this speed is safe, they don't feel the need to take their own precautions. The lane courtesy makes sense to me also. With no speed limits, you move over or you get squished. With speed limits in place, people stay in the left lane (passing lane) even though there are people behind them who want to go faster. "Hey Asshole! I'm going the speed limit and I'll make damn sure you do also," I think that is the type of attitude that comes into play. People don't magically drive faster than they feel the road is safe for just because the speed limit is raised. They also don't drive slower just because some politician lowers it.

In Montana, when during a short and unusual period of rationality we had somewhat unlimited daytime driving speeds, nighttime driving was still constrained to relatively low speeds because there is no safe driving regime that includes over-driving one's headlights. And while during the day it was kind of difficult to get a ticket when driving reasonably, at night, they could nearly hang you at the side of the road if you stepped out of line. IMHO, that was driving heaven. Accidents declined below Montana's previous levels, and other than gas milage, the side effects were pretty much uniformly positive.

Personally, we (my family) bought a relatively high-powered sports car capable of long-term high speed runs, and intentionally focused on traveling during the day, as one got to the destination faster, the driving was a lot more fun, concentration was better as more things happen faster, and said concentration, easier or not, didn't have to be maintained for as long a period.

As an aside: Daytime driving is safer here because the animals generally keep their heads down or they get shot off by our not very lovable rednecks. Often heard here: "Wanna go bust some 'dawgs?" This is a euphemism for going out and "popping" prairie dogs, and anything else that might show its eyes or ears, with a high powered rifle. This is about as popular as drinking. and often the behaviors are combined. Anyway, it leads directly to a very cautious daytime wild animal population.

Alas, the feds applied significant pressure by threatening to withdraw highway funds, our state legislators invented nonsensical justifications to accommodate the idiot feds without exactly looking like they were accommodating them, we lost our driving paradise, accident rates went right back up, and there you have it.

No, let's not, seeing as it's one of the few places we actually have tested these ideas, and we have the results.

FYI: Montana was coerced by the federal government to switch from reasonable and prudent to fixed limits by the threat of losing federal highway funds.

Interesting read about accident rates related to the reasonable and prudent years.

Summary for the tl;dr crowd:

After 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limits on these classifications of highways outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest number of fatal accidents on the affected roadways.

Forgot to post another concept that boggles my mind. During the time when there "weren't speed limits" in Montana, the total fatal accidents were _lower_. To restate this differently, when the speed limits were enacted, the number for fatal accidents actually doubled!

Read more about it here: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

Ah, here's a citation for the claim that higher speed limits (or no limits) can be safer!

Nope. Speeding does not cause accidents. This has been proven. Raising speed limits does not cause an increase in the number of accidents.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_19990425/ai_n11718981
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/peters2.html

As for alcohol, according to this 39% are alcohol are involved. "There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 - 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year."

So, I guess I need to revise my statement 61% of all accidents are caused by distracted drivers.

You're wrong. And have you ever heard of the Autobahn? Germans aren't necessarily better drivers.

developing nation highways
20 mph difference increases accident risk 3X

Hmmm... Not the same thing, but a link showing that Montana was safer without speedlimits on highways.

1. People decide that speeding is bad.
2. Limits are put in place.
3. These limits need to be regulated and so the police are tasked to do this. Most cops (at least all of the ones I know (Which are in Australia)), absolutely HATE doing this, it's a chore and isn't considered "real" police work.
4. Because the police don't want to do it, they need to be forced to do it with quota's and similar incentives.
5. The limits are arbitrarily defined and do not account for traffic, vehicle, person, etc. So they are usually setup to appeal to the lowest common denominator (Which there is no such thing, it basically means as low as they can so a civil case isn't brought against them).
6. Since the limits are unreasonable, people get used to going over the limit when they feel safe. So cops need to patrol the safe area's more than the unsafe areas as they are able to meet their quota's easier, and get on with their "real" job.

There are speed limits, now. When the 55MPH federal limit was repealed, the limits on interstates went to "Reasonable & prudent". A guy driving a brand new sports car was ticketed for doing around 80, and he fought the ticket on the grounds that the speed was reasonable & prudent for the conditions. The state supreme court ruled that the R & P limit was unconstitutional due to its vagueness, so until the state lawmakers could set new limits, there were none on the interstates.

Interestingly enough, during the time of no speed limits, there was not a single fatal accident on any of the roads that had no limit. Seat belt usage was far higher than the national average. Once speed limits were set again, the fatal accident rate rose 111% from when the limit was R & P.

Now, the interstate limit is typically 75, and most 2 lane roads are 65-70. Speed limits tend to be loosely enforced, due to the low amount of officers patrolling.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Montana
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
http://www.motorists.com/pressreleases/montana.htm l

Which brings us to the Montana Paradox.

And why is it OK to talk to a passenger, smoke, eat, drink, read billboards, scratch your ass, etc, etc, but not to talk on a cellphone whilst driving . . . because it would be politically inexpedient to ban the former but you can get some tasty sweeteners from lobbyist for the latter.

Sure, but speed limits are set with regard to what is dangerous and what isn't dangerous. That's why we have 25mph in urban areas and 55+ on highways.

Dangerous is relative. 25mph in a 55mph zone can be dangerous if there's a lot of traffic or snow. 80mph in a 65mph is not dangerous if there's nobody on the road which was designed for speeds in excess of 90.

Why doesn't the same argument apply to other crimes? A burglar knows that there's only a small chance that they will get caught.

Because there is a greater chance the burglar will be caught and the punishment is meant to fit the crime. Felonies are typically investigated more fully than traffic violations and the punishment for a single burglary is not based on the assumption that he has committed other burglaries.

It might stop them speeding for a while once they get the letter. Points on their license work even better.

If you get caught speeding by a cop, he gives you a ticket, holds you up, and you most likely slow down. He stops you from speeding. Getting a ticket in the mail doesn't slow you down. It doesn't stop the dangerous activity, only punishes it.

I find this really hard to believe.

That doesn't make it false. It's already being done with Red Light Cameras. They're being placed where they will generate the most money, not where they will decrease accidents.

Tell that to someone who has had a relative killed in a car crash where the other driver was speeding/acting recklessly or inattentively.

This is an Appeal to Emotion, and you accuse me of using bogus arguments. Yes, it happens, and it's a tragedy. But it does not prove that speeding is always dangerous or that the person wouldn't have been killed if the other driver wasn't speeding. As for acting recklessly or inattentively, both can be done without speeding.

How many times does burglary lead to someone dying? Not very often. Speeding is much more likely to lead to injury and death.

How often does burglary lead to loss of property? Every single time, by definition. And the loss of property is the primary reason it is punished, not the risk of injury or death. Speeding does not always lead to injury or death.

Why is it that motorists believe that laws regarding cars (speeding, parking restrictions, environmental considerations) are merely designed to inconvenience them and not to serve some greater social good?

Would you like to point out where I said that? I never said speeding shouldn't be against the law.

How many deaths have there been from terrorism in the last ten years? How many due to cars?

Are you seriously trying to imply that a terrorist attack is less dangerous than someone exceeding the speed limit? There are so many flaws in this argument it's hard to pick a place to start.

1) not every car related death was due to speeding.
2) billions of people drive every day. A lot will exceed the speed limit at some time. Very few comparatively will kill someone.
3) The primary purpose of a terrorist attack is to kill people.
4) The number of terrorist attacks is miniscule compared to the number of times people have exceeded the speed limit.

Start here:

www.hwysafety.com

Right you are - the speed limit is 75 for cars on interstates in non-urban areas during daylight.

And it looks like it may have been federal funding that did it, although I'm not bothering to look into it in depth. One site claims that it was actually safer during the no limit time than it was after limits were imposed. Dunno.

Are there any lawsuits involving fixed/wrong machines? Anyone ever fought a rigged red light ticket?

Actually, a lot of people fight the policy in general, not just the rigging (or malfunctioning) of the cameras. Here's a couple of clips I found, since I remembered hearing about this a while back, while I was living in San Diego:

hwysafety.com
June 1, 2001 - San Diego, CA red light camera program in turmoil due to evidence of tampering with camera equipment and discovery of yellow light timing problems: "San Diego city attorneys decided yesterday to throw out traffic tickets generated by red-light cameras at three intersections where police discovered problems with underground sensors." .... "San Diego Councilman Jim Madaffer wants the city to turn off the cameras until an independent study shows not only that the systems are flaw-free, but that they are improving safety." ["City attorneys drop camera-based traffic tickets - Action applies to 3 sites, but whole program stalls", Jenifer Hanrahan and Mark Arner, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]

San Diego resident describes fear of San Diego intersections: ""I feel safer walking across this street knowing the cameras are there," said Nguyen, who crosses nine lanes of Mira Mesa Boulevard traffic at Black Mountain Road -- the site of one of the city's 19 red-light cameras -- en route to work. "But it scares me to drive through the same intersection -- I don't know whether to speed up or slam on the brakes," she said." ["Public's reaction runs both ways over freeze", Joe Hughes, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]

[Total number of red light camera citations issued when red light camera enforcement program suspended = 83,931]

June 3, 2001 - San Diego red light camera program suspended: "This city's effort to catch red-light runners with computerized cameras at busy intersections was meant to reduce traffic accidents. What it has done, however, is provoke a civic backlash like few other issues in this politically placid city: a tangle of litigation, political foment, radio talk show meltdown, and now an embarrassing admission by the city that the controversial system has bugs. As a result, 5,000 tickets issued to drivers who supposedly ran red lights were canceled last week, while the police chief promised to find an outside consultant to do an audit of the mess and reestablish the system's credibility. Further, a moratorium was placed on photo-tickets at any of the 19 intersections equipped with cameras until the consultant's work is finished." ..... "The consensus of the traffic-engineering fraternity, however, is that the cameras decrease accidents and are quite fair. Camera proponents point to a study showing a sharp drop in accidents in Oxnard. "The Armey report is wrong on completely everything," said Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "To say that traffic-safety professionals are incompetent and conspiring to shorten yellow lights is lunacy." ["The State; Capturing Red-Light Runners Creates Red-Faced Officials; Traffic: Flaws are found in camera system used to nab violators. Firm's profit from tickets is questioned.", TONY PERRY, The Los Angeles Times, 6/3/2001]

San Diego, CA: "The most significant change in the number of violations occurred at the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Grand (1541) where the yellow change interval was extended from 3.1 seconds to 4.7 seconds. This change resulted in an 88-percent decrease in the number of violations. At the five other intersections, the number of violations dropped significantly in response to longer yellow times." ["City of San Diego Enforcement System Review Final Report", PB Farradyne Inc., January 14, 2002, Chapter 6 (Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements", page 78] (see entries 1/14/2002 for greater detail)

July 6, 2001 - "Tait [Arthur Tait, Attorney, San Diego] cites a report drafted by House staff members for Majority Leader Dick Armey. The report asserts that the cameras have compromised safety at intersections nationwide. It contends that at intersections with cameras, traffic engineers intentionally reduced yellow-light times, which makes rear-end collisions more likely. The yellow-light phase has been shortened, the report says, to increase the number of violators and generate more fines, which are split between municipalities and operating companies, such as Lockheed. That charge, Lockheed spokesman Mark Maddox says, is ''inaccurate and misinformed.'' Armey's allegations are ''insulting'' to the integrity of traffic engineers, says Thomas Brahms, executive director of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ''We as a profession care very much about reducing injuries and reducing accidents.'' Brahms and Maddox say there is no question that cameras reduce the number of red-light runners and enhance public safety. In Mesa, Ariz., police credit a combination of increased yellow-light times and cameras with reducing fatalities from 20 in 1995 to eight last year. San Diego officials say there has been about a 45% drop in red-light violations at the 19 intersections where the cameras are installed." ["Motorists race to court to challenge red-light cameras Photos called privacy threat", By Valerie Alvord, Special to USA TODAY, July 6, 2001]

I don't know what study you have been looking at but in the US most accidents occur under 15MPH! There is a nice paper here about the number of fatal traffic accidents in Montana and the the speed limits active at the time. Most traffic accidents also occur at intersections and parking lots. The situation defines the accident more than the speed. This makes a lot of sense when you really think about it. Rather than some bogus claims about speed vs accident rates. In fact what your claiming is accually opposite of the real truth because at these intersection accidents there was usually a pretty significant speed diffrence.

You should take a closer look at those studies your thinking about because I suspect that they only measured small diffrences in speeds around the median speed. For example they might have taken traffic at 50 mph and then checked 5 mph faster and 5mph slower. If your doing 30 in a 50 your pretty much an obstruction rather than part of the traffic flow. You can tell if you are an obstruction because cars comming up behind you will be comming up on you faster than they can merge into another lane. The result will be 1 or more cars following you waiting for a break in traffic so that they can pass.

Lets see, of the 4 accidents my mother has been in (3 rear ends while sitting at a light, and 1 related to a driver not paying attention and running a light) all were at an intersection, 3 involving my mothers vehicle while it was not moving, and one involving it while it was doing less than 5mph. In the case of the three rear ends the cars were under 15mph, in the case of the run light the other auto was doing about 20mph. In my case I have been involved in 4 accidents, two while my car was parked and someone hit it in a parking lot, 1 where where I backed into someone in a parking lot and one where I was tee boned at an intersection of two streets with stop signs.

Sure 'speed kills' but the truth is that its not really 'speed' but accidents and therefore rapid deceleration at speed. The accident rates are much higher in situations where the speeds are significantly lower. The equation is far more complicated than greater speed equals more death. Safe roads are a combination of proper design, skilled drivers and appropriate speeds. Harder driving tests which are more skill oriented than 'law' oriented would do more to save lives and lower accident rates than lowering the speed limits.

I can also recall two cases of 'near misses' which occurred on higher speed roads (50mph or so) one was due to a slow car on a limited sight road in the slow lane causing a driver to dangerously evade into my lane which caused me to have to evade into on coming traffic. The second was a recent wreck in a limited sight situation which was stopped in the slow lane causing me to have to evade quite dangerously. The moral of the story is that the slower drivers where causing massive danger for the people who were going the speed limit. It was all a choice of hitting the slower moving vehicle or possibly hitting a faster moving one. In both cases the gamble paid off, I avoided an accident. The results could have been much different. If everyone is traveling the same speed in the same direction than the danger is significantly less. HItting a guard rail at 50MPH is much safer than hitting an on coming truck doing 30MPH when you are doing 30MPH. Its the relative speeds (and crunchability of the target). 35 on an unsafe road is much more dangerous than 80 on a big wide divided highway.

That might be true if posted speed limits had any relationship to the maximum safe speed, but they don't. See here, for example. The purpose of speed limits is primarily to raise revenue and probably also to give the police an excuse to pull over anyone at any time (remember, always driving under the speed limit is "suspicious behavior").

nope - Montana's highway fatality rate DOUBLED after reimposing speed limits. hhttp://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm