Max Speed and Max Range: 152 / 326.1 (40.7 on amber)
01-05-2005 | 01:15 PM
#51
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by Paul_in_DC
Sigh... Spoken just like a teenager. "It's cool to go fast, some people can't handle it, duuuuuuuuuuh..." Ignorant - just ignorant.
I'm very well-read/educated/trained when it comes to driving...since you don't know me, why the attitude/attempted 'put-down'? Instead of jumping to conclusions, why not spend 10 mintues searching google? You'll find lots of good info regarding speed vs fatalities.
Last edited by dmp; 01-05-2005 at 01:18 PM.
01-05-2005 | 01:17 PM
#52
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dmp
3 kinds of lies....
Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.
(shrug).
Those stats are biased; they paint a picture from a very skewed angle.
Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.
(shrug).
Those stats are biased; they paint a picture from a very skewed angle.
greater than 55 mph
less than or equal to 55 mph
I'm sure there are those who will read this report and draw the conclusion that driving slower than 55 on the freeway is the safest way to travel, regardless of the flow of traffic.
01-05-2005 | 01:17 PM
#53
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by valpac
How do you bias fatalities?
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
If the ntsa were correct, Germany fatalities should be through the roof. They aren't through the roof.
Speed doesn't kill - poor driving kills (regardless of speed).
01-05-2005 | 01:20 PM
#54
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by Zatem
I'm sure there are those who will read this report and draw the conclusion that driving slower than 55 on the freeway is the safest way to travel, regardless of the flow of traffic.
EXACTLY. Goverments are looking to raise revenue; it's not unlikely some would use that very wrong inference to shout 'Bring back 55mph speed limits!!'
People sometimes don't apply the 'common sense' test to 'statistics' they read.
01-05-2005 | 01:28 PM
#55
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by valpac
Stupidity can't be reasoned with or persuaded. It appears as if you have all the answers.
- It is totally unnecessary to drive at extreme speed (although I could stretch my imagination for an exception).
- I would feel horrible if I ever made a mistake that caused injury or death to someone.
- There is far less risk of fatality when driving slow.
- etc.
I weigh all those factors into my decision. Yes, I have my answers. I expect that you have yours as well. A distinction seems to be regarding openness to changing one's position.
01-05-2005 | 01:30 PM
#56
Originally Posted by Zatem
On the last page of that report, notice how interstate stats are split:
greater than 55 mph
less than or equal to 55 mph
I'm sure there are those who will read this report and draw the conclusion that driving slower than 55 on the freeway is the safest way to travel, regardless of the flow of traffic.
greater than 55 mph
less than or equal to 55 mph
I'm sure there are those who will read this report and draw the conclusion that driving slower than 55 on the freeway is the safest way to travel, regardless of the flow of traffic.
Did you take physics in high school?
01-05-2005 | 01:32 PM
#57
Originally Posted by dmp
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
01-05-2005 | 01:39 PM
#58
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by valpac
Hearsay.
Last edited by dmp; 01-05-2005 at 01:52 PM.
01-05-2005 | 01:41 PM
#59
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by valpac
The conclusion I draw is more people died in traffic accidents when they exceeded 55 mph.
Did you take physics in high school?
Did you take physics in high school?
(shrug).
I'd bet accidents, fatalities, etc, occur not based on 'speed', but in 'difference in speed' between cars. Id Est, - a single car driving 20mph over the limit in a herd of 5mph-over-the-limit cars = greater liklihood of accident/fatality, rather than a herd of of 20mph over-the-limit cars.
01-05-2005 | 01:51 PM
#60
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by valpac
The conclusion I draw is more people died in traffic accidents when they exceeded 55 mph.
Did you take physics in high school?
Did you take physics in high school?
Now if you want to conclude from that report that people who drive slower than 55 are safer than people who drive faster than 55, I will certainly question that. I've made the point earlier in this thread how in certain situations, I would rather drive fast and alert instead of near the speed limit nodding off to sleep.
01-05-2005 | 01:51 PM
#61
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Zatem
I'm sure there are those who will read this report and draw the conclusion that driving slower than 55 on the freeway is the safest way to travel, regardless of the flow of traffic.
01-05-2005 | 01:55 PM
#62
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Very Good Reading:
http://www.sense.bc.ca/news/news-02.htm
Statistics the world over are routinely "cooked" by governments anxious to promote particular views or to protect favoured special interests. The British magazine, The Economist, prints an annual survey ranking the believability of stats from various countries and generally the more democratic the government, the more believable are their statistics. North Korea and China seldom fare well.
To many traffic-safety critics, North American governments can be counted on to cook speeding stats on a par with communist countries dealing with rates of inflation or production figures. In North America, the point is to make speeding on paper a bigger factor in accidents than it perhaps is in reality.
In B.C., the anti-photo-radar group SENSE (Safety by Education, Not Speed Enforcement) disputed ICBC's and the Ministry of Transportation's contention that 40% of serious accidents were "caused" by speeding. When challenged, ICBC and the government backed down and subsequently claimed that speeding "contributes" to 40% of these accidents. (At the same time, the ministry lists speed as a contributing factor in 11.6% of all varieties of collisions-- from fender-benders to fatalities -- during 1994.)
For more than a year, SENSE has tried to secure the raw accident statistics from the ministry and ICBC that would confirm the government's claims that "speed is killing us." So far, it has not succeeded.
Further, it wants to know why speed as a factor is pulled from a list of accident causes and highlighted in the ICBC-ministry Speed is Killing Us campaign. Other factors not highlighted are failure to yield, unsafe passing and the presence of drugs and alcohol.
Coincidentally, the cover story of September's Car and Driver magazine asks the same questions of the U.S. government. It points out that if one driver passes out after a drinking binge and slams into an oncoming car that was going five miles an hour over the limit, it's counted as a speed-related crash.
After digging into federal stats, Car and Driver found that only 3.3% of all fatal crashes had "to fast" as the only related factor. "This agrees with common sense," journalist Patrick Bedard writes. "Driving fast, by itself, is no reason to crash. The overwhelming majority of speed-related crashes, 89% of them, are also related to something else. If [the government] had a different agenda, these could just as easily be attributed to another factor."
Car and Driver asks, "If speed kills, why isn't it killing on Germany's autobahn?" About 30% of the autobahn system has no speed limits and cars on these sections routinely travel at over 120 mph. And yet, fatalities on U.S. interstates and German autobahns are dead even.
U.S. safety advocates are quick to pooh-pooh the notion that speed may not be so decisive a factor. "Germany and Germans are different," says Mr. Bedard, mimicking the government's safety bureaucrats. "They have tough licensing requirements; they obediently buckle up; their slower traffic invariably moves out of the way of faster cars."
An therein lies something closer to the truth, he says. "Sounds like Germans have already found the key to safe, high-speed transportation, while our [government] is cooking up body counts to prove it can't be done."
Statistics the world over are routinely "cooked" by governments anxious to promote particular views or to protect favoured special interests. The British magazine, The Economist, prints an annual survey ranking the believability of stats from various countries and generally the more democratic the government, the more believable are their statistics. North Korea and China seldom fare well.
To many traffic-safety critics, North American governments can be counted on to cook speeding stats on a par with communist countries dealing with rates of inflation or production figures. In North America, the point is to make speeding on paper a bigger factor in accidents than it perhaps is in reality.
In B.C., the anti-photo-radar group SENSE (Safety by Education, Not Speed Enforcement) disputed ICBC's and the Ministry of Transportation's contention that 40% of serious accidents were "caused" by speeding. When challenged, ICBC and the government backed down and subsequently claimed that speeding "contributes" to 40% of these accidents. (At the same time, the ministry lists speed as a contributing factor in 11.6% of all varieties of collisions-- from fender-benders to fatalities -- during 1994.)
For more than a year, SENSE has tried to secure the raw accident statistics from the ministry and ICBC that would confirm the government's claims that "speed is killing us." So far, it has not succeeded.
Further, it wants to know why speed as a factor is pulled from a list of accident causes and highlighted in the ICBC-ministry Speed is Killing Us campaign. Other factors not highlighted are failure to yield, unsafe passing and the presence of drugs and alcohol.
Coincidentally, the cover story of September's Car and Driver magazine asks the same questions of the U.S. government. It points out that if one driver passes out after a drinking binge and slams into an oncoming car that was going five miles an hour over the limit, it's counted as a speed-related crash.
After digging into federal stats, Car and Driver found that only 3.3% of all fatal crashes had "to fast" as the only related factor. "This agrees with common sense," journalist Patrick Bedard writes. "Driving fast, by itself, is no reason to crash. The overwhelming majority of speed-related crashes, 89% of them, are also related to something else. If [the government] had a different agenda, these could just as easily be attributed to another factor."
Car and Driver asks, "If speed kills, why isn't it killing on Germany's autobahn?" About 30% of the autobahn system has no speed limits and cars on these sections routinely travel at over 120 mph. And yet, fatalities on U.S. interstates and German autobahns are dead even.
U.S. safety advocates are quick to pooh-pooh the notion that speed may not be so decisive a factor. "Germany and Germans are different," says Mr. Bedard, mimicking the government's safety bureaucrats. "They have tough licensing requirements; they obediently buckle up; their slower traffic invariably moves out of the way of faster cars."
An therein lies something closer to the truth, he says. "Sounds like Germans have already found the key to safe, high-speed transportation, while our [government] is cooking up body counts to prove it can't be done."
01-05-2005 | 01:56 PM
#63
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by dmp
One doesnt - one biases how they SHOW fatalities.
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
If the ntsa were correct, Germany fatalities should be through the roof. They aren't through the roof.
Speed doesn't kill - poor driving kills (regardless of speed).
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
If the ntsa were correct, Germany fatalities should be through the roof. They aren't through the roof.
Speed doesn't kill - poor driving kills (regardless of speed).
I read once that where in Germany speed contributes to accidents, in the USA it's falling asleep at the wheel. The fact that people travel longer distances in the USA (500 miles for a Thanksgiving family meeting..) plays a role.
I've lived 31 years in Germany until I came to CA, and I can say that German drivers are a LOT more agressive. I rather go 4 hours circling stop'n'go through LA than one hour through Frankfurt (freeways during rush hour)
I don't remember whether that report spoke about accidents in general or fatalities.
-Peter
01-05-2005 | 01:57 PM
#64
I like rusty spoons
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, Alberta
I'm sure everyone's aware of Montana's speed limit situation:
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
And here's some more tidbits:
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-05.htm
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-09.htm
this is interesting, too:
http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/e.../act/opinion03
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
And here's some more tidbits:
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-05.htm
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-09.htm
this is interesting, too:
http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/e.../act/opinion03
Last edited by khtm; 01-05-2005 at 02:02 PM.
01-05-2005 | 02:36 PM
#65
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by ptiemann
I read once that where in Germany speed contributes to accidents, in the USA it's falling asleep at the wheel. The fact that people travel longer distances in the USA (500 miles for a Thanksgiving family meeting..) plays a role.
I've lived 31 years in Germany until I came to CA, and I can say that German drivers are a LOT more agressive. I rather go 4 hours circling stop'n'go through LA than one hour through Frankfurt (freeways during rush hour)
I don't remember whether that report spoke about accidents in general or fatalities.
-Peter
I've lived 31 years in Germany until I came to CA, and I can say that German drivers are a LOT more agressive. I rather go 4 hours circling stop'n'go through LA than one hour through Frankfurt (freeways during rush hour)
I don't remember whether that report spoke about accidents in general or fatalities.
-Peter
I was only in germany for 3 years, but I feel the opposite; I'd rather drive thru Frankfurt at rush hour, than on most any Fwy around seattle. American drivers scare me...
01-05-2005 | 02:53 PM
#66
X-Sapper
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
From: where angle's fear to tread
Originally Posted by dmp
One doesnt - one biases how they SHOW fatalities.
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
If the ntsa were correct, Germany fatalities should be through the roof. They aren't through the roof.
Speed doesn't kill - poor driving kills (regardless of speed).
Per Miles driven, Germany has one of the lowest fatality rates of any industrialized nation. Their speeds, on average, are MUCH higher than what Cars in the us travel at.
If the ntsa were correct, Germany fatalities should be through the roof. They aren't through the roof.
Speed doesn't kill - poor driving kills (regardless of speed).
01-05-2005 | 03:06 PM
#67
I like rusty spoons
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, Alberta
From the last link I posted above:
---------------------------------------------------
Seven Major Myths of Speed and Speed Enforcement
Myth #1 - Speed Is a Major Cause of Accidents and Fatalities.
NHTSA says 30% of fatal accidents are "speed related," meaning at least one vehicle was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit or traveling too fast for conditions. But such assumptions are meaningless when most traffic is 5-10 mph over limits set unnecessarily low.
A decade ago, authorities in Florida commissioned research to determine where best to concentrate enforcement resources to maximize their safety benefit. Statewide, this 1993 study found "Speed Too Fast" placed a distant fifth on the list of accident causes at just 2.2 percent. A 1994 follow-up study in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties found 1.5 percent of accidents and seven percent of fatalities "caused by speed." Of nearly 23,000 accidents investigated in Palm Beach Country, approximately 13,000 were attributed to "careless driving," 7,000 to "failure to yield," 2,000 to "improper lane changes," and only 650 to "speed."
This was not welcome news to Florida enforcers, who (like everyone else) continue to focus resources on "speeding" because radar makes it easy and because (as Clyde Barrow once said about banks), that's where the money is. Those other far more significant causes are more difficult to witness, ticket, and prove in court. This is why such studies are seldom undertaken and even more rarely released, which leads us to Myth #2.
Myth #2 - Speed Enforcement Increases Safety.
In 1995, the Feds gave Connecticut nearly $750,000 to intensify speed enforcement on 55-mph highways. Over that Memorial Day weekend, scores of extra troopers, airplanes, and unmarked cars armed with radar and laser were dispatched with the stated objective of reducing accidents and fatalities. Compared to the previous Labor Day weekend, speeding tickets were up an impressive 33 percent, seatbelt tickets were up a dramatic 51 percent and DWI (driving while intoxicated) tickets increased 22 percent. Yet accidents on those targeted highways increased a breathtaking 66 percent, proving (again) that there is no correlation between enforcement effort (numbers of tickets) and actual highway safety.
Research shows that if authorities truly want to reduce average speeds, the most effective way is through highly visible police presence. People naturally drive more safely and pay more attention to their speed when the enforcement is easily seen. Conversely, "stealth" enforcement (unmarked and hidden cars, airplanes, instant-on radar) is highly effective at generating tickets and revenue but not at decreasing speeds or accidents.
Myth # 3 - Slower Is Always Safer.
Despite the oft-repeated mantra that "Speed Kills," Federal and state studies consistently have shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. Compared to keeping with the prevailing "pace," those driving 10 mph slower are statistically six times as likely--and those 20 mph slower are ten times as likely--to be involved in an accident. They get hit from behind or caught up in collisions caused by faster-moving vehicles suddenly braking and swerving to get around.
Since freeway "pace" is often well above posted limits, drivers are faced with the uncomfortable choice of legal speed or the higher, yet safer, prevailing speed. Actually, the drivers statistically least likely to be involved in accidents-perhaps because they are more alert--are those traveling 5-10 mph above the prevailing speed. Guess who gets the tickets.
Myth #4 - Use of Radar Detectors Increases Speeds and Accidents.
Every time someone sets out to prove this popular presumption - and there have been many, many studies by enforcement authorities and others with a vested interest in banning detectors--they end up disproving it. One respected 1988 Yankelovich Clancy Shulman study showed that detector users actually had 23 percent fewer accidents per mile than nonusers.
What do detector users do when their dashboard defenders sound off? They quickly check and (if necessary) adjust their speed and increase their awareness. Scanning for police, they may instead see a dangerous condition or impending accident in time to avoid it. This is why police and (unmanned) "drone" radar senders are often used at accident, construction, and reduced visibility (dust, fog, snow) sites -- because traffic speeds and accidents decrease when detector users slow and pay closer attention, influencing others to do the same.
Myth #5 - The Federal 55-mph Limit Saved Thousands of Lives.
Because it was established during the 1973 fuel crisis, people naturally drove less and slower to preserve precious fuel, which caused a brief downward blip in fatalities. Once fuel availability returned to normal, so did driving miles and speeds. And the highway death rate quickly snapped back to its (already downward) trend line.
Myth #6 - Speed Enforcement is Driven by Safety Concern.
Though vigorously pursued in the name of safety to assure public and media support, it's been mostly about money for almost three decades. A recent feature in my local paper stated this clearly: "Citations rise to 6-year high," trumpeted the subhead. "The tickets are expected to pump a much-needed $1.5 million into the city's general fund." While public safety was the stated reason, no data was offered to show that our streets and highways are any safer as a result.
Myth #7 - Lower Speed Limits Reduce Average Speeds and Accidents.
Multiple studies have shown that drivers adjust their speeds primarily to road, weather and traffic conditions. Setting limits at the "85th percentile" speed, where 85 percent are at or below (and only about 5 percent are significantly above), always results in maximum compliance and fewest accidents. Posting limits well below this 85th percentile speed (common practice) naturally increases the number of speeders -- and therefore potential ticket revenue -- but does not slow traffic any more than posting speeds well above it makes everyone drive too fast.
Check the NMA's excellent web site (www.motorists.org) for information on this and other motorist issues. They'll show you how and why our speed enforcement system is increasingly corrupt and out of control. They'll tell you to go to court and fight every ticket -- even ones you think you deserve, because you may not deserve the next one -- and they'll show you how to do that effectively.
And if you want to take issue with them (or me) on any of this, do some research and get your facts straight first. Don't believe what the vested-interest authorities, insurance companies (who take enormous advantage through increased premiums for even minor offenses), and the ignorant popular media tell you. Most people have strong emotion and opinions on these issues, but they don't have the facts. If you find yourself disbelieving and disagreeing with solid, research-based facts, you are probably reacting with emotion and opinion alone. Or maybe your job depends on this lucrative speed enforcement business.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Seven Major Myths of Speed and Speed Enforcement
Myth #1 - Speed Is a Major Cause of Accidents and Fatalities.
NHTSA says 30% of fatal accidents are "speed related," meaning at least one vehicle was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit or traveling too fast for conditions. But such assumptions are meaningless when most traffic is 5-10 mph over limits set unnecessarily low.
A decade ago, authorities in Florida commissioned research to determine where best to concentrate enforcement resources to maximize their safety benefit. Statewide, this 1993 study found "Speed Too Fast" placed a distant fifth on the list of accident causes at just 2.2 percent. A 1994 follow-up study in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties found 1.5 percent of accidents and seven percent of fatalities "caused by speed." Of nearly 23,000 accidents investigated in Palm Beach Country, approximately 13,000 were attributed to "careless driving," 7,000 to "failure to yield," 2,000 to "improper lane changes," and only 650 to "speed."
This was not welcome news to Florida enforcers, who (like everyone else) continue to focus resources on "speeding" because radar makes it easy and because (as Clyde Barrow once said about banks), that's where the money is. Those other far more significant causes are more difficult to witness, ticket, and prove in court. This is why such studies are seldom undertaken and even more rarely released, which leads us to Myth #2.
Myth #2 - Speed Enforcement Increases Safety.
In 1995, the Feds gave Connecticut nearly $750,000 to intensify speed enforcement on 55-mph highways. Over that Memorial Day weekend, scores of extra troopers, airplanes, and unmarked cars armed with radar and laser were dispatched with the stated objective of reducing accidents and fatalities. Compared to the previous Labor Day weekend, speeding tickets were up an impressive 33 percent, seatbelt tickets were up a dramatic 51 percent and DWI (driving while intoxicated) tickets increased 22 percent. Yet accidents on those targeted highways increased a breathtaking 66 percent, proving (again) that there is no correlation between enforcement effort (numbers of tickets) and actual highway safety.
Research shows that if authorities truly want to reduce average speeds, the most effective way is through highly visible police presence. People naturally drive more safely and pay more attention to their speed when the enforcement is easily seen. Conversely, "stealth" enforcement (unmarked and hidden cars, airplanes, instant-on radar) is highly effective at generating tickets and revenue but not at decreasing speeds or accidents.
Myth # 3 - Slower Is Always Safer.
Despite the oft-repeated mantra that "Speed Kills," Federal and state studies consistently have shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. Compared to keeping with the prevailing "pace," those driving 10 mph slower are statistically six times as likely--and those 20 mph slower are ten times as likely--to be involved in an accident. They get hit from behind or caught up in collisions caused by faster-moving vehicles suddenly braking and swerving to get around.
Since freeway "pace" is often well above posted limits, drivers are faced with the uncomfortable choice of legal speed or the higher, yet safer, prevailing speed. Actually, the drivers statistically least likely to be involved in accidents-perhaps because they are more alert--are those traveling 5-10 mph above the prevailing speed. Guess who gets the tickets.
Myth #4 - Use of Radar Detectors Increases Speeds and Accidents.
Every time someone sets out to prove this popular presumption - and there have been many, many studies by enforcement authorities and others with a vested interest in banning detectors--they end up disproving it. One respected 1988 Yankelovich Clancy Shulman study showed that detector users actually had 23 percent fewer accidents per mile than nonusers.
What do detector users do when their dashboard defenders sound off? They quickly check and (if necessary) adjust their speed and increase their awareness. Scanning for police, they may instead see a dangerous condition or impending accident in time to avoid it. This is why police and (unmanned) "drone" radar senders are often used at accident, construction, and reduced visibility (dust, fog, snow) sites -- because traffic speeds and accidents decrease when detector users slow and pay closer attention, influencing others to do the same.
Myth #5 - The Federal 55-mph Limit Saved Thousands of Lives.
Because it was established during the 1973 fuel crisis, people naturally drove less and slower to preserve precious fuel, which caused a brief downward blip in fatalities. Once fuel availability returned to normal, so did driving miles and speeds. And the highway death rate quickly snapped back to its (already downward) trend line.
Myth #6 - Speed Enforcement is Driven by Safety Concern.
Though vigorously pursued in the name of safety to assure public and media support, it's been mostly about money for almost three decades. A recent feature in my local paper stated this clearly: "Citations rise to 6-year high," trumpeted the subhead. "The tickets are expected to pump a much-needed $1.5 million into the city's general fund." While public safety was the stated reason, no data was offered to show that our streets and highways are any safer as a result.
Myth #7 - Lower Speed Limits Reduce Average Speeds and Accidents.
Multiple studies have shown that drivers adjust their speeds primarily to road, weather and traffic conditions. Setting limits at the "85th percentile" speed, where 85 percent are at or below (and only about 5 percent are significantly above), always results in maximum compliance and fewest accidents. Posting limits well below this 85th percentile speed (common practice) naturally increases the number of speeders -- and therefore potential ticket revenue -- but does not slow traffic any more than posting speeds well above it makes everyone drive too fast.
Check the NMA's excellent web site (www.motorists.org) for information on this and other motorist issues. They'll show you how and why our speed enforcement system is increasingly corrupt and out of control. They'll tell you to go to court and fight every ticket -- even ones you think you deserve, because you may not deserve the next one -- and they'll show you how to do that effectively.
And if you want to take issue with them (or me) on any of this, do some research and get your facts straight first. Don't believe what the vested-interest authorities, insurance companies (who take enormous advantage through increased premiums for even minor offenses), and the ignorant popular media tell you. Most people have strong emotion and opinions on these issues, but they don't have the facts. If you find yourself disbelieving and disagreeing with solid, research-based facts, you are probably reacting with emotion and opinion alone. Or maybe your job depends on this lucrative speed enforcement business.
---------------------------------------------------
01-05-2005 | 03:13 PM
#68
RX8 and a Truk....
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,658
Likes: 7
From: OKC
Originally Posted by army_rx8
ahh but comparing germany and the us is apples to oranges...how hard is it to get a lisence in germany? in teh us to pretty much just walk in to teh dmv and walk out in ian hour with your lisence.....so of cousres in germany there are less fatalites b/c they are better prepared to drive.
The conversation was about speed...and cars...and deaths. I'm saying, and I posted an article which agrees with me, 'Speed isn't the cause of death; Poor driving is the cause of death'. Poor driving is speed irrelevant. :D
Germany was used to show how people could travel faster, and safer, with better education/training. I contend, if speeding wasn't about MONEY, but about SAFETY, as the Government hacks try to make us believe, the USA would spend MORE on better education/training of it's young drivers.
01-05-2005 | 05:17 PM
#69
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
From: Hell in the desert
People most often believe speed limits makes traffic safer. Gov't has been trying to tell people that for a long time as does the media. I've seen car chases on tv where the reporter was screaming the car that's getting away is going a blazingly fast 75mph!!! OMG!!!
01-05-2005 | 07:32 PM
#72
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
If you are a very skilled driver and know what you are doing driving at 150 MPH or higher has no risk at all. The cars today are much safer than they use to be. I have researched this data very well with my good buddy's like Adam Petty and Dale Earnhart Sr.. Believe me they know what they are talking about.
01-05-2005 | 10:21 PM
#73
I am McLovin.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: So. Cal
Originally Posted by scottmhr1
If you are a very skilled driver and know what you are doing driving at 150 MPH or higher has no risk at all. t.
01-06-2005 | 12:09 AM
#74
X-Sapper
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
From: where angle's fear to tread
Originally Posted by dmp
The conversation was about speed...and cars...and deaths. I'm saying, and I posted an article which agrees with me, 'Speed isn't the cause of death; Poor driving is the cause of death'. Poor driving is speed irrelevant. :D
Germany was used to show how people could travel faster, and safer, with better education/training. I contend, if speeding wasn't about MONEY, but about SAFETY, as the Government hacks try to make us believe, the USA would spend MORE on better education/training of it's young drivers.
Germany was used to show how people could travel faster, and safer, with better education/training. I contend, if speeding wasn't about MONEY, but about SAFETY, as the Government hacks try to make us believe, the USA would spend MORE on better education/training of it's young drivers.
haha sorry missed the point obviously since i pretty much just agreed with you in that post:p haha taht' s what i get for staying up to late.
cheers
