Slashdot Mirror

When the city reduces the yellow light timing to below legal levels after installing them, then we can only assume it is a "money grab."

motorists.org

I'd be all for automated camera enforcement.

Unfortunately, the people who run the cameras are corrupt as all hell. The problem is that once you privatize or commercialize automobile, yhey realize that after analysis that they can alter the settings just a little bit, and.....

Profit!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

http://www.thegazette.com/subj...

http://www.moremonmouthmusings...

One of the biggest tricks aside form massaging speed numbers is shortening the Yellow light times to the point where if you see yellow, you better stomp the brakes. We had a lot of discussions here about this, and my reaction is that if we get redlight camers in my city, teh instant I see a yellow light, I am locking the sprags. If it's a choice of getting a redlight ticket, or getting rear ended, I'll take the latter. Lo and behold: https://www.motorists.org/issu...

Nah, they just make the yellow shorter to cause more people to run red lights. See: https://www.motorists.org/blog...

Citation missing.

I can help with that:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/s...

And here are links to the actual studies (11 of which are peer-reviewed).

https://www.motorists.org/issu...

So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?

Because then they cannot generate more revenue. These redlight camera outfits are not there to uphold the law. The are there to make a profit. When you are there to make a profit, at least in America, you have to make more profit this quarter than last quarter.

Apparently the results of the yellow light shortening has been after it is implemented, drivers hopon the sprags as soon as they see one, treating it as a red light. This has resulted in more rear ending accidents, as the number one sport in the US is tailgaiting so closely that you owe the person in front of you at least a dinner and a movie. http://time.com/3643077/red-li...

https://www.motorists.org/blog...

Red light cameras and for profit prisons are turning out to be birds of a feather. Institutionalized evil.

You could have, you know, asked for citations?

Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. - Citation that variations in speed kill more than speed itself, that highway speeds tend to have more to do with design of the highway and not posted limit, and that as you move the speed limit signs away from the design speed, variance in driving speed and accident rates go up.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox Montana highways at safest without speed limits

Is Every Speed Limit Too Low? - again notes that changing the speed limits doesn't actually change the median speed people drive on the road.

Or (at one time) "reasonable and prudent".

Perhaps my favorite factoid about the state I grew up in is that prior to 1974 there was no set speed limit. When the Federal 55MPH limit was set, Montana's law defined speeding not as a moving violation, but as an "environmental waste of resources", and the fine was a flat $5 which didn't go on your record. The joke was to "keep a stack of fives on the dash" while driving through Montana.

In 1995 they re-instated the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit until it was struck down in 1998. During all of this there was no evidence that the lack of speed limits impacted fatalities.

I guess the philosophical difference is whether you want roads safer or you want rules followed more carefully. They are not the same thing. I certainly agree that draconian law enforcement will keep citizens in line. I guess the difference between us is I think punishment should be the last resort in changing public behavior. For instance, I would rather put more money towards funding inner city after school programs than simply hiring more police officers to reduce crime.

For the same reasons, finding ways to reduce vehicular injuries and property damage without relying on punishment should be the top priority. I admit this is an opinion of mine based on the type of society I wish to live in. I want a police force that is there to protect and not only to punish. And ignoring traffic engineering solutions to reduce traffic fatalities in favor of harsher enforcement of poorly designed laws is not a good idea, again in my opinion that is.

Less traffic laws make our roads safer. I find one paragraph quite insightful in this article:

Now to the silenced engineers and researchers. Federal law (Title 23) says fact–based sound engineering practices are to take precedence over conjecture. The problem, no one is willing to enforce it – including the FHWA.

Perhaps I am being hypocritical but here is a law I wish we did have better enforcement for. Instead of treating traffic safety as something we need to create more and harsher laws to engineer, how about we use more effective social engineering such as setting more reasonable speed limits or even (gasp) removing them from many roads all together.

Instead of telling me to google it, could you point to a specific study?

4 links, 2 of which Google. The Google links have top results agreeing with me, the TxDOT and USDOT. Your opinion is that everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right, and if I don't adequately support my stance with citations you approve of, you'll dismiss the massive amount of evidence I presented and continue to believe everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right?

As I indicated, a waste of my time. There exists nothing that can change your closed mind. So why should I waste my time trying? That'd make me the fool, to match your troll. Why didn't you click on my second link? https://www.motorists.org/issu... should be what you were looking for, and is only one click off the main page. You can't be bothered to make two clicks to find what you claim to be so desperately looking for, even when pointed to it. And we should bend over backwards to not only give you what you are looking for, but in a manner you wish to receive it. I can think of no explanation other than you are a troll.

And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.

All of those are banned from the interstate. They are limited to slower and smaller roads, ones appropriate to that type of vehicle.

Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.

I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study. That you object to reality will not change it.

Common sense is rarely right when applied to a subject you don't have actual knowledge of. That you think it's a bad idea is proof that you are both ignorant of the topic, and arrogant about your ignorance at the same time. A lethal combination.

I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Where to start? Go to http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS and run 1000 or so search queries on every topic you want. Most of the "studies" are re-statements or analysis of FARS data, as it's one of the most complete databases of its kind in the world (yes, much of the rest of the world builds local law based on US-only data, as it's the best source for the data). Then go to https://www.motorists.org/ and see what they have on how to set a proper speed limit. The NMA will have lots of cites, no need to repeat them all here for someone that's demanding "citation needed" as a dismissive, rather than an honest query. If it was and honest question, why did't you google https://www.google.com/search?... or https://www.google.com/search?... ?

The answer is, you don't actually want an answer, you just want to argue. When the two most obvious search strings I think of give first links to TXDoT and USDOT manuals recomending setting the limit at 85% for optimal safety, why would you question it? Where did you get your traffic engineering degree? TTI, as an engineering extension to Texas A&M is a good place to start.

There, cites, and hundreds of hours of work to educate yourself. Thousands of hours of work if your mind is as closed as it appears.

Not sure where you are from but for here in the US, here are a ton of sources on this topic which back up AC's post: https://www.motorists.org/issu...

Most places in the US are limited to 55MPH? Um... Nope. Almost all States in the United States have maximum speed limits on Interstates (presumably we are talking about highways and not rural two-lanes) of 65MPH or greater. Have for many years. And the limits are gradually increasing to 70MPH in a increasing number of states, with some going even higher. Some states even allow greater than 55MPH on rural two lane roads! Your information is several decades out of date. Check: http://www.motorists.org/speed...

Here you go.

Actual studies show that accidents go up

Do they? I have only seen one study (Chicago) and they reduced the yellow duration. Can you cite a study where accidents went up and they definitely did NOT decrease the yellow?

Pfft - that was easy.

Google for 'speed 85th percentile'

A good explanation of setting speed limits at the 85th percentile. This is by a pro-motorist group, so you could claim bias. The other results on that google search are from government pages, both state and federal, and should be trusted.

For those too lazy to follow the links, countless studies have shown that the safest place to set a speed limit is the 85th percentile of vehicles on a given road. Going too slow has an increased chance of accident, and exceeding the 90th percentile also shows an increased chance of accident.

what country do you live on that any normal person can actually affect speed limits? Most in the US are set by various engineers based on road width, location, number of connections, etc. There is no one to petition, it's all set by various Department of Transportation people. There is no "vote", it's mostly a math formula. Go read this...

In 1966, Congress passed a law that required all traffic control devices on public roadways in the nation be based on sound engineering principles, practices and have a common "basis in fact" determination, appearance and application.
These mandates are found in Title 23 , United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655.601 through 655.603 (Update: Title 23 C.F.R. Part 655 Subpart F- Traffic Control Devices on Frderal Aid and Other Streets).

So sure...try to petition your local Congress critter to sponsor a bill to get all that changed. Good luck with that.

what country do you live on that any normal person can actually affect speed limits? Most in the US are set by various engineers based on road width, location, number of connections, etc. There is no one to petition, it's all set by various Department of Transportation people. There is no "vote", it's mostly a math formula. Go read this...

In 1966, Congress passed a law that required all traffic control devices on public roadways in the nation be based on sound engineering principles, practices and have a common "basis in fact" determination, appearance and application.
These mandates are found in Title 23 , United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655.601 through 655.603 (Update: Title 23 C.F.R. Part 655 Subpart F- Traffic Control Devices on Frderal Aid and Other Streets).

So sure...try to petition your local Congress critter to sponsor a bill to get all that changed. Good luck with that.

The red light camera issue is easily Googled, many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red in order to catch more people running the red.

http://www.motorists.org/red-l...

please remind me where the muni people are dumb enough to deliver the keys to one of their system to a private enterprise on the assumption that "they will act in the best interest of the community", and forget about it. I have to delete my tax records.

The red light camera issue is easily Googled, many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red in order to catch more people running the red.

http://www.motorists.org/red-l...

We have them to generate income for the government, specifically local and state government, to the tune of $6.2 billion last year.

While some towns and small municipalities are notorious speed traps, who abuse the law to generate revenue - applying this to all speed enforcement is an outright over generalization.

The fact of the matter is that speed limit enforcement costs our governments more than it takes in. Your assertion only accounts for revenues, and does not take into account the cost of enforcement; such as police, equipment, court costs, collections, and incarceration (states like Virginia criminalize speeding and actually mandate jail time for exceeding the speed limit by greater than 20 MPH).

I posted this reply in another forum in response to a similar claim where I did some quick back-of-a-napkin math in my own county where traffic laws are very aggressively enforced. I'm not trying to pass my post off as especially scientific and of course my statements aren't universal. However, what I wrote does include sources, and I did the same math in another county deeper in the thread. But it does shed significant doubt on the broad generalization that speed enforcement is motivated (either partially or entirely) by governmental revenue enhancement. Here are a few excerpts if you don't feel like reading the whole thread:

Let's take this out of the theoretical and use my own county as a case-study, just to put things in to perspective. (Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, just a geek who can type things into Google.) Here is my county's revenue's report from 2011. See page 2. Fines and forfeitures came in at $16M in 2011 compared to $2B in real estate taxes. That $16M is a drop in the bucket for state revenues (0.8%). Not a lot of money made, but how does this stack up against what we spend on it?

I'm glad that you asked - here are some more recent examples: In 2014, my county government estimated fines and forfeitures at $14.8M or 0.4% of annual revenues. However, when you look at where the money goes - judicial administration is 0.9% ($33.2M) of the budget and public safety is 12.3% ($442.8M) of the budget...a combined 13.2% of our annual fiscal budget. If you do the math, it simply doesn't add up to a money-making racket for the state. The facts seem to point to a different conclusion - and I don't claim to have the answer as to why and how (although I could probably google for this).

Anyway, hopefully this will shed a bit of doubt on the blanket assumption about speed enforcement for revenue enhancement. That's not to say that speed limits are always correct, or that speed enforcement is usually done with the best of intentions (e.g. to prove that the police are actually doing something - or perhaps for entirely political reasons)...but it should shed reasonable doubt.

http://www.motorists.org/press...

That's because of people speeding. The faster you drive, the less time you have to react to the light changing or the driver in front of you stopping. In fact, the time you are given to react can even be negative if you drive too fast.

Failure to maintain proper following distance causes rear end collisions.

Without people speeding as they approach traffic lights, there will be far fewer rear end collisions and far fewer red light infractions.

I'm the Easter bunny.

http://www.motorists.org/red-l...

Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.

Of course it's a little difficult to get such evidence because you'd be hard-pressed to find any area willing to try it. Why would that be? ( I know, because it's a money-maker, right? :) )

Didn't even bother to google "states with no speed limit," did you?

http://www.motorists.org/press...

From the article:

[A 2001 study by the National Motorists Association] shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.

Now, if you're not going to bother to do the tiniest bit of research before responding, why should I listen to anything else you might have to say?

Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.

Now, now.. no need to get all ad hominem about it.

That's not an ad hominem, as it is not an "irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument;" your entire last post, however, would fit the qualification, as your suspicions about how people might behave in lieu of speed limits have no relevance in reality.

No, it was a reference to my belief that you are transferring the specter of your own bad habits on others, as a justification for your position, typical of human nature. Don't like it? Don't present ridiculous assumptions as facts.

By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."

Wait.. what rights were we talking about? (Before I make a similar logical leap and decide you were suggesting that speeding is a right.)

I presume you're playing stupid here, but that may just be a result of my new-found desire to see the best in people (there's your ad hominem, BTW.).

Your unfounded post assumes that without speed limits/traps, the majority of people would drive like insane morons; you use this assumption as the basis for your argument that speed limits/traps are needed. Extrapolate that to other realms of human existence, and you'll begin to see what I mean.

Oh, and for the record, travelling freely very much is a right in this country.

Back to the matter at hand.. I think you can find plenty of studies that find that if something is not being enforced, that something quickly gets disregarded

See above link regarding Montana.

- and while I'm sure there are plenty of people who have the healthy judgment required to decide on when to speed, where to speed, and how much to speed - there's always those who lack that judgment, not to mention the people who don't partake but at least don't expect somebody to be speeding and may react surprised when they find that a safe maneuver is perhaps not so safe by the introduction of another member of traffic into the situation earlier than expected.

Aaaaaand we come back to "limiting rights because stupid people exist." Well hell, why not ban cars in general? That would drop the accident rate to zero.

If and only if there's no enforcement of speed limits in any way shape or form, it only takes one such accident for people to wonder why there is no such enforcement. Not that absurd. Now if I said everybody started treating the roads like a demolition derby and before you know it vehicular manslaughter is turned into a spectator sport.. well that'd be more like it :)

I told you about Montana, right?

You really should have done a little Googling before you posted all this nonsense.

We're about even. I call BS on your post as well. You have used bandwidth to bash me, and to question my own anecdotal evidence, with nothing more than opinion.

1. My vision is corrected to 20/20 with lenses
2. I am not easily distracted, and in fact, I have nearly 100,000 miles on motorcycles in addition to a couple million miles in tractors to demonstrate that my situational awareness is far superior to the average motorist's.
3. I can drive at night just fine - but I am getting more sensitive to lights being used improperly. The quest for ever brighter lights leads to the results sought by a "dazzler" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
4. I am aging. Fuck you very much.
5. Nowhere did I state that I drive fast in bad conditions - you have made an invalid assumption. Hydroplaning a truck on a dark rainy night only indicates that I misjudged how bad conditions were in a low spot between two inclined surfaces met.
6. I drive big trucks - you got one out of seven right.
7. I can and do drive a lot faster than 80 mph, thank you very much. The Yamaha 600 outside my door exceeds 150 mph quite easily. I've not found it's top speed, but it is well over 150.

http://www.motorists.org/press...

Citations that directly support my position are hard to find, and they seldom address the issue directly. But - that little paradoxical article should catch your attention.

Driving at high speed fatigues a driver in less time than driving at low speeds. But, the distance covered before fatigue begins to set in is considerably greater. Feel free to do your own research. More than 40 years of real life experience convinces me that I am right. You simply don't find speed freaks falling asleep at the wheel. You find them involved in completely different types of accidents - if you find them in accidents.

Studies have repeatedly shown that RLCs increase the number and severity of intersection accidents.

There is zero justification, even if you ignore the lack of constitutional merit that RLCs have.

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies

but the simple statistical fact is that people who habitually exceed the speed limit by a considerable margin do have more accidents.

Cite please.

This says that driving faster absolutely increases the odds of an accident. The faster you are going the less time you can react, this is intuitively true and no one disputes this. If we all drove 10mph, there would be fewer accidents, virtually nobody would be injured in them when they occur.

And that speed differences between drivers leads to more accidents. In other words, overtaking is dangerous, and lane changes are dangerous. Again, I don't think there is any disagreement here.

http://erso.swov.nl/knowledge/content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

This next link however is really interesting:

Although changes in vehicle speeds were small, driver violations of the speed limits increased when the posted speed limits were lowered. Conversely, violations decreased when limits were raised. This does not reflect a change in driver behavior, but a change in how compliance is measured, i.e., from the posted speed limit.

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering

Read that again, they raised and lowered the speed limits in places, and found that drivers for the most part did not change their speed by very much (although did record that it went up slightly when the limits went up and down slightly when speed limits went down). But primarily there were simply more people speeding when they lowered them, and fewer people speeding when they raised them.

Accident rates were not affected.

Thus there are plenty of indications that driving too fast for the conditions (just excessively fast, or significantly faster (or slower) than the cars around you) is dangerous and leads to more accidents.

However it strongly refutes the idea that exceeding the posted speed limit is itself a significant predictor of accidents. As you can lower the speed limit 10mph, and suddenly a lot of people are speeding, and the accident rate doesn't move.

Street lighting has been found to reduce pedestrian crashes by approximately 50%.

Yes, in studies that compare pedestrians in unlit crossings to lit crossings, not by comparing pedestrians hit anywhere in an unlit city to pedestrians hit anywhere in a lit city. Your cite also says:
"The major criticisms of street lighting are that it can actually cause accidents if misused, and cause light pollution."

The issue is that most implementations are borderline "misuse" and thus can cause, rather than help crashes. Making sure a small test area is lit better than a wider rollout would get, and studying an unrealistic scenario often does get the expected results. Doesn't make it true.

Overall, the treated streets experienced a 39 percent decrease in crashes per year after speed bumps are installed. The 39 percent decrease on speed bump streets is a statistically significant difference (t = 2.8) from 1.39 to 0.85 crashes/year, meaning crashes most likely do decrease on speed bump streets due to bump installation.

http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/ Try reading something not written by people with a vested interest in increasing regulations.

There actually are people actively campaigning for the speed limit culture in the U.S. to be changed. There's not a lot of support for it, but if you want to be part of the solution check out the National Motorists Association and join the cause!

It's from the this and this universe. Didn't read TFA, but it's a problem that has been noted before in numerous places.

So this and this, to name a couple, are 100% false? You're confusing what should be with what is.

Red light cameras cause more rear end crashes at differences in speed going the same way, but help reduce sideways collisions at full speed of one of the moving vehicles.

Studies differ.

Roughly speaking, from my reading of the material, 'on average', red light cameras reduce side impact collisions maybe 25%, but rear end accidents go up about 20%, and they're more common to begin with. Overall, the reduction in accidents is like 1%, and reduction in death, injury, and injury severity is negligible. Reducing injury/death from the 'more dangerous' t-bone collisions is the whole reason to justify the cameras despite more rear-end collisions, right?

My figuring is that the worst accidents come from people who are drunk driving, high, or racing(fleeing cops). These aren't the types to worry/know about red light cameras, so the worst accidents still happen.

As for documenting accidents - it's nowhere near as expensive to simply stick a set of cameras on an intersection, and works as well for hit&runs and accident recording.

The conclusion I've seen pretty much everywhere is that it'd be cheaper for everyone if they set the yellows properly, adjusted the speed limit, and/or made improvements to problematic intersections.

No expectation of privacy?

Piloting is very different to driving cars. For one, airports are owned by corporations and regulated by government. You need an airport to operate your plane due to the laws of physics. Airports and air traffic controllers need to know where you are flying your plane so they can manage air traffic. They have a right to know where and when you are flying your plane.

What about cars? Should we have some 'car traffic controller' authority that we have to ring up or SMS or whatever to let them know when and where we are going, each time we use our cars?

This 'no expectation of privacy' nonsense is a great oversimplification of the issue. Of course I should have the expectation of not having my movements and whereabouts continuously tracked by government authorities or corporations. If I want to pop over to my friends or my mistresses place, it should be nobodies business but mine. Just because I use a public place to get there - again, those laws of physics - doesn't mean I should unilaterally surrender any and all basic right to privacy and autonomy.

Another difference is that piloting a plane is inherently more difficult than driving, and the results of even a minor error or malfunction usually lead to death. Pilot licensing is much stricter because it needs to be from a risk perspective.

Your other points are also easily debunked. Numerous studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase accidents at the intersections they are posted.

Basically none of your solutions are feasible. Your overly punitive tone suggests you don't drive a car and are probably a cyclist. I'm willing to be called an idiot on that last one, but I am a betting man and I'd make that bet 'til the cows came home.

I'm sorry but this is distorting the statistics and neglecting problems with the vehicle fleet that cause fatalities at ALL intersections, whether or not there are stop lights present.

According to the FHWA red light running accounted for less than 10% of deaths at intersections in 2008. And this number is roughly 2% of the total traffic deaths in the US.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/

The primary way to make stop lights safer is to increase the yellow time and have a period where all the lights are red. But this ISN'T done with most red light camera installations because it reduces revenues to the point where the red light camera revenues don't pay for the operation of the cameras.

In NJ there have been several cases where red light cameras have been found to be operating at traffic signals with yellow light periods shorter than the basic requirements. There was recently a state-wide shutdown of red light cameras because of this problem.

http://brick.patch.com/articles/red-light-cams-shut-down-over-yellow-light-length-concerns

Then of course there is the history of municipalities intentionally shortening yellow light periods for profit:

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

So what effect does a red-light camera have ...

It increases government revenue by ticketing mostly people who make rolling-right turns on red, a practice that does not result in traffic fatalities for the most part.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Yes, the vast, vast majority of red light camera issued tickets are for turning right while not coming to a full stop. This is why they work for revenue. The amount of people who blaze straight through a red light is very small. You couldn't run a business with just those tickets. But the number of people who slowly turn right but never come to a complete stop is enormous. Since the law doesn't differentiate between someone blazing through an intersection at full speed and a person who turns right at 2 mph, the business model for these camera producers is sound.

In my experience the police don't bother to go out and preemptively fight even the easy crimes. They just sit at the station and wait for someone to come in a report a crime, then they spend 20 minutes trying to trick that person into admitting guilt (even if that person hasn't committed any crimes)

On 2 occasions I have gone with people to the police station to report thefts (a stolen car in one case) and after the police listened to the whole story, their first question was "so, you stole a car?" (in the other case it was a stolen helmet, and the first question was "so, you stole a helmet?")

Why bother putting in the effort to investigate existing crimes when you can just invent a reason to arrest the person standing in front of you. As far as the police are concerned, guilt or innocence doesn't matter as long as SOMEONE goes to jail. After that it becomes the court's problem, the police still meet their monthly arrest quota (and they do have a quota, however much they deny it: http://blog.motorists.org/if-you-didnt-believe-ticket-quotas-existed-before-you-will-now/)

Yes, Yes, think of the children won't somebody think of the children? So here's the thing. This cite http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq points out that 30% figure is misleading because it means that someone was assumed to be speeding.(Admittedly it's a study from over a decade ago) However it also points out that when Florida did a study on what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding they're getting rates of 2.2%.(Or almost 800 people) In other words even though people are speeding most of the time(and yes, traffic studies do confirm that the majority of people speed) very few accidents (and by extension deaths) are actually caused by speeding. Yes we hear and see so much effort put into "getting those dangerous speeders". (IE if it's about safety you'd put your resources into other things long before you'd crack down on speeders. You know like distracted drivers, people not yielding, tailgating, etc.) Hell there's often no consideration on the type of speeding is. So for example if you do 80mph in a 65 when the traffic flow is 75 oh no you're a dangerous speeder. Why am I annoyed by this? Could be because a series of 4 deaths on the local highway(annecdote I admit it) caused the staties to go nuts patrolling that section of highway, trying to get drunks and speeders? Let me think, of those 4 how many had anything to do with speed? Oh that's right, none. (For those that care look up route 24 in Masschusetts. The deaths were caused by a tire blow out, a wrongway drunk driver, and a suicide.) Now what happens? When I go down that highway (admittedly and above the posted speed limit which by the way was not set by a proper traffic study that they're supposed to do but don't.) instead of the 80+mph just passing me on the left now I get tailgated like crazy.(Yes, (sarcasm on) such an improvement (sarcasm off) My guess is the people are afraid to pass because they worry, correctly, that the staties will give them a ticket. Hell, now they pass me in the right lane to not attract the attention of them.) Hey should I mention that the staties speed and tailgate all the time even when they don't have their lights on? (BTW it's against the law for them too but who's going to pull them over?)

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

At 100mph, you will see a lot more wrecks.

If that's a law of physics then please cite it. I have 3 different undergraduate physics books sitting right here. So I can look it up. It is true that the kinetic energy released in a collision with a fixed object increases at the square of the velocity (1/2mv^2), but at some point it doesn't matter how much more energy is released. You will just be more dead.

I'll wait for that citation of yours. Meanwhile, here are some for you:

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/lave-65-mph

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/55-mph-study.pdf

At 100mph, you will see a lot more wrecks.

If that's a law of physics then please cite it. I have 3 different undergraduate physics books sitting right here. So I can look it up. It is true that the kinetic energy released in a collision with a fixed object increases at the square of the velocity (1/2mv^2), but at some point it doesn't matter how much more energy is released. You will just be more dead.

I'll wait for that citation of yours. Meanwhile, here are some for you:

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/lave-65-mph

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/55-mph-study.pdf

At 100mph, you will see a lot more wrecks.

If that's a law of physics then please cite it. I have 3 different undergraduate physics books sitting right here. So I can look it up. It is true that the kinetic energy released in a collision with a fixed object increases at the square of the velocity (1/2mv^2), but at some point it doesn't matter how much more energy is released. You will just be more dead.

I'll wait for that citation of yours. Meanwhile, here are some for you:

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/lave-65-mph

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/55-mph-study.pdf

At 100mph, you will see a lot more wrecks.

If that's a law of physics then please cite it. I have 3 different undergraduate physics books sitting right here. So I can look it up. It is true that the kinetic energy released in a collision with a fixed object increases at the square of the velocity (1/2mv^2), but at some point it doesn't matter how much more energy is released. You will just be more dead.

I'll wait for that citation of yours. Meanwhile, here are some for you:

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/lave-65-mph

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/55-mph-study.pdf

Actually, speed is rarely a factor in the cause of an accident. Most studies put it at below 15%. In fact Florida said it was 2.2%. http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq

So really the insurance companies are just managing how many accidents are going to cause damage that's over the deductible.

Montana ran with NO SPEED LIMITS, and overall, fatal accidents INCREASED when limits were put in again. Let's stop pseudoscience and politics from spreading death on our roads.

Wasn't the Montana law changed just a few years ago to establish a numerical speed limit? Prior to that the law was "reasonable and prudent speed during daylight hours" so motorists could drive at whatever speed felt comfortable.

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

Correlation is not causation. When they raised the speed limits, they also "added high-tech radar and laser instruments to limit excessive speeding in these 65 mph areas and throughout the state," and "instituted targeted programs to combat aggressive driving and promote compliance with safety restraint laws." (source)

I'm calling bullshit on your police stats, if you even care to provide them. The complete removal of speed limits has no effect on accident rates.

I have seen several studies showing a very distinct link between length of the yellow and safety. This study shows that increasing the length of the yellow decreases red light violations and this article references several studies that show that this effect does not diminsh with time. So, your gut is wrong on this one (although I understand why you would suspect that to be the case).

I have seen several studies showing a very distinct link between length of the yellow and safety. This study shows that increasing the length of the yellow decreases red light violations and this article references several studies that show that this effect does not diminsh with time. So, your gut is wrong on this one (although I understand why you would suspect that to be the case).

As I recall, cities were in fact called out for shortening yellow lights for profit, and risking lives in the process. A quick Google search found this: http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Cuz in the end, its not about catching people who run lights. Enforcing the law is not an end in and of itself, its supposed to be a means to an end. Who cares if we can "catch" more people? It may feel good and let someone justify their job with some metrics but, it doesn't solve the original problem of risks and dangers....not in anything even approaching a realistic way.

Unfortunately, while sane, thoughtful people would come to this conclusion, someone, somewhere would rather make a profit off of it. This isn't theoretical, it's already happened, as some cities would rather profit at the expense and injury of motorists. What this does to insurance and medical rates I hate to think.

• Chicago
• Tennessee, Texas, Missouri, California
• Anecdotes if not evidence

This sort of thing would be great for "dynamic yellow lights," as you implied. A sane, rational person would use this to make a yellow light last a little longer to prevent an accident. People like the above could widen the range a little and make it shorten the yellow light to catch a few extra bucks. It's not the technology; this algorithm is cool and great. It's the few abusers.