 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005More proof that incresed speed does not equal incresed death
Some rational people are still able to study the issue. http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al. Bernard > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bernard HAHA. I see why you gave no quote from the article. Here's what it says "Author Robert O. Yowell said that after nationalization in 1974, there was a decrease in highway deaths that was greater than the prior trend. But the long-term decreases continued even when speed limits stayed the same." So he admits that that the lower SL of 1974 caused an immediate drop in fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no further drop. Exactly as expected. > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no > further drop. Exactly as expected. By your own statement, the trend continued *after* the nationalization in 1974, and speed limits have been steadily increasing. I see you're new to this "higher thought" process. Give it some time and practice, and you may be able to progress past the second grade on your third or fourth try. > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no > further drop. Exactly as expected. He "admits" no such thing. Correlation != causation. >> Some rational people are still able to study the issue. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no >further drop. Exactly as expected. Are you reading what you quoted? It says that the long-term decreases continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued to drop even when speed limits remained the same. > Are you reading what you quoted? It says that the long-term decreases > continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued > to drop even when speed limits remained the same. Go to this website and you'll see what he means. We had the huge drop in 74 when the speed limit was lowered and then the death totals stayed constant the two following years while the SL also stayed constant. That says the big drop was entirely due to the lowered SL. http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm >> Are you reading what you quoted? It says that the long-term decreases >> continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm Sorry, but I don't believe any idiot that's stupid enough to read prisonplanet.com, infowars.com, or David Icke.  SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Candlebox - Change - Candlebox K:\Audio\Candlebox\Candlebox\02-Change.mp3 This is track 2 of 23 in the current playlist. >>> Are you reading what you quoted? It says that the long-term decreases >>> continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Sorry, but I don't believe any idiot that's stupid enough to read >prisonplanet.com, infowars.com, or David Icke. Brilliant argument. >>>> Are you reading what you quoted? It says that the long-term decreases >>>> continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Brilliant argument. Just trying to keep pace with your brilliance, retard. </sarcasm> SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Nickelback - Believe It Or Not - The Long Road K:\Audio\Nickelback\The Long Road\04 - Believe It Or Not.mp3 This is track 14 of 285 in the current playlist. > >> Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > continued, not that there was no further drop. I.e., they continued > to drop even when speed limits remained the same. But this does not imply that lowering the speed limit did not reduce the fatality rate. There are multiple factors at work. It could be that if the speed limits had been lowered even further, then the fatality rate would have decreased even more. The decrease in fatality rates is mostly driven by equipment improvements. Until you factor these out, it is difficult to know the actual effect of changes in speed limits alone. Plus, speed limits are not generally obeyed, so speed limits are not even a good indicator of actual speeds. I could just as well claim that the fatality rate is declining becasue gas prices are increasing. In fact I am willing to predict that if gas prices are raised to $25 a gallon, the fatality rate will drop like a rock. Regards, Ed White > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no > further drop. Exactly as expected. Except that he never said it "caused" the immediate drop, and the rates have continued to decrease even though speeds have been increasing. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >"Author Robert O. Yowell said that after nationalization in 1974, there >was a decrease in highway deaths that was greater than the prior trend. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fatalities but then as speed limits stayed the same, there was no >further drop. Exactly as expected. You forgot to quote the part where the death rate is dropping even as average highway speeds keep going up. ------------- Alex >>"Author Robert O. Yowell said that after nationalization in 1974, there >>was a decrease in highway deaths that was greater than the prior trend. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You forgot to quote the part where the death rate is dropping even as > average highway speeds keep going up. The rates aren't dropping, but have flatlined, which means the amount of deaths are rising. Check your facts before spouting off next time. http://www.nhtsa.com/people/Crash/crashstatistics/ > The rates aren't dropping, but have flatlined, which means the > amount of deaths are rising. Check your facts before spouting > off next time. > > http://www.nhtsa.com/people/Crash/crashstatistics/ Agency: Highway death rate hits new low By Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer | April 21, 2005 WASHINGTON --The highway fatality rate sank to a record low last year, the government estimated Thursday, but the administration and auto safety advocates bemoaned an increase in the total number of traffic deaths and urged a national focus on seat belt use. The fatality rate dropped even as the total number of traffic deaths crept up because more drivers were on the road. The fatality rate slid from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. It was the lowest since records were first kept in 1966, when the rate was 5.50 deaths. The data released Thursday are considered projections. NHTSA plans to release final 2004 fatality figures in August. NHTSA collects crash statistics from all 50 states. ------ On the Net: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov > WASHINGTON --The highway fatality rate sank to a record low last year, > the government estimated Thursday, but the administration and auto > safety advocates bemoaned an increase in the total number of traffic > deaths and urged a national focus on seat belt use. Uh-huh. Meanwhile, 15 nations are safer than the US in terms of deaths per thousand vehicles, and nine nations are safer than the US in terms of deaths for same travel distance - data from the various countries is here: http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/m/data/USrank.xls > The fatality rate slid from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles > traveled in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. It was the lowest since records > were first kept in 1966, when the rate was 5.50 deaths. Uh-huh. Taking a look at that data, we see that the 2004 death rate (which translates to 9.1 per billion kilometres) was bested in 2002 by Canada, Australia, The Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and the UK. The UK and Australian results are particularly interesting, since those countries have the greatest commonality with North America in terms of roadway geometries and conditions and (with respect to Australia) distances. I suppose NHTSA does need to put a positive spin on it, though. They can't exactly say "We're pounding our chests about what a great 'n' groovy job we're doing, and we're making a lot of noise about how our cars are the safest and best in the whole wide world, even though it's, um, not true". > > WASHINGTON --The highway fatality rate sank to a record low last year, > > the government estimated Thursday, but the administration and auto [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/m/data/USrank.xls Interesting reference. Thanks. > > The fatality rate slid from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles > > traveled in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. It was the lowest since records [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of roadway geometries and conditions and (with respect to Australia) > distances. Although Australia is a realtively large country, it is not really like the US in terms of population density. It is even more urbanized than the US (in terms of percentage of population living in urban areas). Although the total land area of Australia is about the same as the lower 48 US states, most of it is practically empty (even more so than the American west). Most people live along the coast in relatively densley populated areas. I am not sure how this affects traffic patterns. I suppose it might be like the east or west coast of the US in terms of traffic. Austrialia also has a much higher percentage of people riding public transist than the US and somewhat lower average traffic speeds. http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/95.pdf lists average traffic speeds for different areas. As expected the US has the highest average traffic speed. They used a bar chart to show the comparison. It is not finely divided, so the listing below is just an estimate: Asia - 15.5 mph Australia - 27.5 mph Canada - 25 mph Europe - 19.5 mph US - 31.5 mph This data is fairly old (report was from 2000, data is probably several years older) but I suspect the relative numbers are still valid. If anything, I'd guess average US traffic speeds have increased faster than the rest of the world. Still the US, Canada, and Austrlia are close enough for a valid comparison. http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa_indiv-state s_per-capita_2003.htm has a chart comparing individual US State's motor vehicle deaths per capita to various countries. The data is a little older (2002/2003) but interesting. The Northeastern US States compare favorably with the best countries in the world. Southern and Western US States have much higher per capitia motor vehicle death rates. The US has one of the highest per capitia motor vehicle death rates in the world. However, we also have the highest number of miles driven per person per year. > I suppose NHTSA does need to put a positive spin on it, though. They can't > exactly say "We're pounding our chests about what a great 'n' groovy job > we're doing, and we're making a lot of noise about how our cars are the > safest and best in the whole wide world, even though it's, um, not true". We also have the highest average speeds. The fact that in many areas marginally competent drivers have no alternatives to motor vehicles is also a factor. Ed >The rates aren't dropping, but have flatlined, which means the >amount of deaths are rising. Check your facts before spouting >off next time. > >http://www.nhtsa.com/people/Crash/crashstatistics/ Maybe next time you post you should check the cite you use. Only an idiot would make a claim, and then post a cite that shows he is wrong. All I got from the article is that the death rate is declining. The actual reasons for the decline were not adequately explained. And in fact, I think the first line was meant to indicate something not actually supported by the study. If you stick around to the last line, the article did state - "technical progress in car manufacturing, increased seatbelt use, higher drinking ages, and better road maintenance had greater effects on the fatality rate" <than speeds?>. No where in the article do I see any evidence that increasing speed limits is a cause of the declining death rate. Although the first line suggests that increasing speed limits is not a factor in highway fatalities, this is not actually the case. The first line could have just as easily been reworded to say "Despite increased speed limits the death rate is declining, a new study says." If the line had been written this way, would you have been so quick to post this link as "proof" that increasing speed does not lead to an increase in fatalities, all other factors being held constant? Of course it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a instead of a six line "news" report of the study. However, from what was actully printed, I see no evidence either way as to the effect of speed limits on the highway fatality rate. Ed > Of course it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a instead > of a six line "news" report of the study. However, from what was > actully printed, I see no evidence either way as to the effect of speed > limits on the highway fatality rate. > > Ed http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x Ivan > > Of course it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a instead > > of a six line "news" report of the study. However, from what was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not prepared to purchase the full study. I would like to see how they factored out declines in the fatality rate due to improvements in equipments versus changes in speed limits. I also tend to discount comparisons based on the difference in posted speed limits between states. What actually matters for a valid comparison is the actual speed of traffic, not the speed limits. Possibly this is addressed in the full study. Because of the lack of enforcement (or should I say because people ignore them), posted speed limits are not a good indicator of actual average speeds. Regards, Ed White > Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not prepared to > purchase the full study. I would like to see how they factored out declines [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > should I say because people ignore them), posted speed limits are not a good > indicator of actual average speeds. Hence the conclusion: "Higher Speed Limits Don't Mean More Deaths." Ivan > > Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not prepared to > > purchase the full study. I would like to see how they factored out declines [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hence the conclusion: "Higher Speed Limits Don't Mean More Deaths." Which is not the same as saying uniformly and strickly enforced speed limits wouldn't lower the fatality rate. The fact that speed limits are routinely ignored has little to do with how the fatality rate would be affected if speed limits were obeyed. I can believe that the study might conclude that setting lower speed limts will have no effect on safety if they are also assuming lax or no enforcement. I don't want lower speed limits. I'd prefer higher limits along with uniform and agressive enforcement. And it is OK with me if the same police who are agressively enforcing the speed limits, also uniformly and agressively enforce KRETP laws (as written and where they exist). I do not however believe in the 85th percentile rule. It is just a silly (if convenient) concept. Ed > I don't want lower speed limits. I'd prefer higher limits along with uniform > and agressive enforcement. And it is OK with me if the same police who are > agressively enforcing the speed limits, also uniformly and agressively > enforce KRETP laws (as written and where they exist). I do not however > believe in the 85th percentile rule. It is just a silly (if convenient) > concept. I hope by agressive enforcement, you mean severe penalties because that is what we need. Anyone caught doing 80+ mph should lose their DL for at least a year. I'm sick of this criminal coddling. As for KRETP, i hope you mean enforcement only when the driver is doing under the SL. As long as they are doing the SL, they should be commended for thwarting the deadly speeders. As for the 85% rule, yes it is silly. A law where the PLAN is for 15% of the public to violate it! Plus it assumes there is some way to determine how fast people would drive if there were no speed limit! Really dumb. >> I don't want lower speed limits. I'd prefer higher limits along with uniform >> and agressive enforcement. And it is OK with me if the same police who are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >is what we need. Anyone caught doing 80+ mph should lose their DL for >at least a year. I'm sick of this criminal coddling. I think if you were to take a poll, you would find that the majority of people who read the groups you troll into would vote that they are sick of your spamming. From this, if you were intelligent, you should be able to infer that no one really gives a sh.t what you are and are not sick of. >As for KRETP, i hope you mean enforcement only when the driver is doing >under the SL. As long as they are doing the SL, they should be >commended for thwarting the deadly speeders. Fortunately, when you're talking about all those traffic accident related deaths that occur on a daily basis, the majority of those who are dying are the incompetent fools who don't know how to drive. Even better is that you're talking about people such as yourself, so all of those deaths do mean something. It's just a matter of time before Darwinism rears it's head on you, and you can count on no love being lost there. >As for the 85% rule, yes it is silly. A law where the PLAN is for >15% of the public to violate it! Plus it assumes there is some way to >determine how fast people would drive if there were no speed limit! "assumes there is some way to determine how fast people would drive if there were no speed limit!" Now that's a stupid statement. Remove the speed limits from a stretch of road, and measure the resulting traffic. Surely even you aren't *that* stupid. >Really dumb. Yes you are, but your posts speak for themselves. "assumes there is some way to determine how fast people would drive if there were no speed limit!" Now that's a stupid statement. Remove the speed limits from a stretch of road, and measure the resulting traffic. Surely even you aren't *that* stupid. When do you measure the speed of free flowing traffic? At night? The middle of the day? During a rain storm? During peak traffic? In the winter? And how long do you wait after you remove the speed limit before you make you "official" determination? A day? A week? A month? Do you pre-announce what you are doing? I don't know about you, but it seems to me a lot of people tend to keep driving at the same speed for a while even after road contidions change. I regulary drive a stretch of road with a 70 mph speed limit. It evenutally convreges with another multilane highway that only has a 55 mph speed limit. However, a lot of cars keep right on driving at 70 for at least an extra 5 or 6 miles. So I assume the average speed on the road leading up to the road where the free flowing speed is being determined might have an impact on the study. I personally dislike the concept of the 85th percentile rule. It seems to me this has little to do with dertermining a "safe" speed and a lot to do with making enforement of overly harh speed limit laws more palitable to the majority of citizens. It is much eaiser to enforce draconian laws against a small minority, particualrly when that minority is composed of arrogant "it's all about me" jerks who harrass "average" (i.e., the majority of) motorists. I am certain that many "average" motorist inwardly smile anytime they see an expensive German or Japanes car pulled over by the law. Ed > When do you measure the speed of free flowing traffic? At night? The > middle of the day? During a rain storm? During peak traffic? In the > winter? And how long do you wait after you remove the speed limit before > you make you "official" determination? A day? A week? A month? Do you > pre-announce what you are doing? All these questions, and more, are answered in the MUTCD. Apparently that's another relevant document you've chosen not to read, leaving you -- once again -- pitting your ignorant opinions and guesses against well-documented fact. > I personally dislike the concept of the 85th percentile rule. Don't feel too bad about that; many people dislike that which they do not understand. If anything, you should feel bad that you don't understand it because you steadfastly *refuse* to put forth the effort to do so. I did read the MUTCD and even quoted part of it in another post. It answered none of these questions. If you want to show me where these questions are answered in the MUTCD, please do so. I believe I do understand the 85th percentile rule, which is why I feel it is so silly. Here is what I believe - The 85th percentile rule is arbitrary (why the 85th percentile and not the 90th percentile, or the 75th percentile) - There are no studies that I can find that "prove" that setting a speed limts at the 85th percentile speed results in the lowest accident and/or fatality rate (I am sure you have one that is not easily accessed) - The cheif rationale for using the 85th percentile rule to set speed limits seems to be - "People ignore speed limtis, so we might as well set them high enough so that only 15% of the people are vioating the law." - The 85th percentile speed is based solely on people's opinions of their capabilities. I know many people who have an unjustifiably high opinion of their driving ability. I know others who are competent to drive at well over the average speed of traffic. Why should they be limited to the speed that 85% of the people are comfortable with. Why should others be encouraged to drive faster (or be harassed for driving at less than the speed limt) becasue the speed limit is set to high? - The 85th percentile speed is not the normal speed of traffic or the average speed of traffic. It is just the speed that 85 percent of the drvier are not exceeding. The average speed of traffic might be much lower. So setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile may not have any effect as far as evening out the traffic flow and preventing clumps of car where faster cars are trapped behind slower cars. - It appears to me that the 85th percentile rule is just a politically correct way to set speed limits so that you can identify an easy to persecute minority. Ed > - The 85th percentile speed is not the normal speed of traffic or the > average speed of traffic. It is just the speed that 85 percent of the > drvier are not exceeding. The average speed of traffic might be much > lower. The difference between the 50th and 85th percentile speeds is usually around 5 to 7 mph. The 10 mph pace speed consists of 70 to 90 percent of traffic. As others have noticed, you have the bad habit of posting ridiculous assumptions about a topic that you claim to have researched. You claim that you've "read" the MUTCD, but I seriously doubt you've read Ch.1. Sigh, I don't think my assumptions are ridiculous at all. You are free to feel otherwise. Instead of claiming I did not read the MUTCD, why not qoutre the portion of it that answers my questions and/or refute my assumptions. It is freely available on line, so you can't claim you are violating any principals if you quoote parts of it (of course quoting portions of copywrited material is completely legal as long as you attribute it to the orignal source - but you pprobably know that). Regards, Ed White > Sigh, I don't think my assumptions are ridiculous at all. You are free > to feel otherwise. Instead of claiming I did not read the MUTCD, why > not qoutre the portion of it that answers my questions and/or refute my > assumptions. Because you're supposed to do your own homework. In any case, none of the dns servers I use are unable to resolve http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close. I did my homework and even posted the relevant portions. It appears that the primary sever is down, You can always look at the cached copy on Goggle (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:tNUCVEOQdbIJ:mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/+MUTCD&hl=en ) or go to an alternate site such as http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/mutcd.htm . Is that good enough for you? Ed > Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and > questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close. I > did my homework and even posted the relevant portions. There are relevant portions in Ch. 1 as well. You only posted a section from chapter 2. The only reference in Chapter 1 was a brief definition. If you think I am missing something, Why not post the relevant sections. I showed you where there was an online copy. Do I need to post the entire chapter as well? Chapter 1 of the 2003 Edition (see http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/mutcd2003/pdfVersion/pdfs/Ch1.pdf ) has the following section that references the 85th percentile speed: ------------------------ "Speed-speed is defined based on the following classifications: Advisory Speed-a recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway and based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and conditions. Average Speed-the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of vehicles observed. Design Speed-a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. 85th-Percentile Speed-The speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. Operating Speed-a speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall traffic operates. Operating speed might be defined with speed values such as the average, pace, or 85th-percentile speeds. Pace Speed-the highest speed within a specific range of speeds that represents more vehicles than in any other like range of speed. The range of speeds typically used is 10 km/h or 10 mph. Posted Speed-the speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed Limit signs. Statutory Speed-a speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristics and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs." ---------------------- That is ALL of the references to the 85 percentile speed in Chapter 1. It doesn't anwer any of the questions I posed. Please if I am missing something enlighten me. Ed > Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and > questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close. You must not have read very carefully or completely. Perhaps you didn't look at the MUTCD itself, but rather lazed out and looked at some sort of excerpt somebody posted. > is that good enough for you? Most of the time, poorly-done homework that is not complete does not get a good grade. So, no. Not only did I read it, I did a text search to make sure I got all the references to 85th percentile speed. Instead of telling me I did my homework poorly (which is not true), why not enligthen me. You are back to acting like a fifth grader again - you know - the na-na-na-na, I know something you don't know game you seem to like to play. If I am missing something elighten me. If you know somthing I don't know, just claiming you know it without sharing the information is just wrong. No one learns anything, and I am left with the suspicion you are making stuff up. References to the 85th percentile speed from the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD (see http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/mutcd2003/pdfVersion/ ): Chapter 1 - Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This Manual "..... 79. Speed-speed is defined based on the following classifications: (a) Advisory Speed-a recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway and based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and conditions. (b) Average Speed-the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of vehicles observed. (c) Design Speed-a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. (d) 85th-Percentile Speed-The speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. (e) Operating Speed-a speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall traffic operates. Operating speed might be defined with speed values such as the average, pace, or 85th-percentile speeds. (f) Pace Speed-the highest speed within a specific range of speeds that represents more vehicles than in any other like range of speed. The range of speeds typically used is 10 km/h or 10 mph. (g) Posted Speed-the speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed Limit signs. (h) Statutory Speed-a speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs. ....." Chapter 2 - Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location "Standard: ".....Signs requiring different decisions by the road user shall be spaced sufficiently far apart for the required decisions to be made reasonably safely. One of the factors considered when determining the appropriate spacing shall be the posted or 85th-percentile speed......" Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications ".....Guidance: The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 65 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values......" Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications ".....Option: YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th-percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner...." Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) "Standard: After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph. Guidance: At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding land use since the last review. No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly. When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Option: Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following: A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace speed; C. Roadside development and environment; D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period. Two types of Speed Limit signs may be used: one to designate passenger car speeds, including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply; and the other to show any special speed limits for trucks and other vehicles. A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times. A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. Guidance: If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX km/h (MPH) or such similar legend should be shown. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors. Support: Advisory Speed signs are discussed in Sections 2C.36 and 2C.46 and Temporary Traffic Control Zone Speed signs are discussed in Part 6." Table 2C-4. Guidelines for Advance Placement of Warning Signs You'll have to go to the document to see the reference.It is a table showing distances for posting speed change signs. Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs (W13-2, W13-3, W13-5) ".....and Advisory Speed sign combination, or when there is a need to remind road users of the recommended speed, or where the recommended speed changes because of a change in curvature (see Section 2C.06). Based on engineering judgment, the Curve Speed sign may be installed on the inside or outside of the curve to enhance its visibility. The advisory speed may be the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, the speed corresponding to a 16-degree ball bank indicator reading, or the speed otherwise determined by an engineering study because of unusual circumstances. Support: A 10-degree ball-bank indicator reading, formerly used in determining advisory speeds, is based on research from the 1930s. In modern vehicles, the 85th-percentile speed on curves approximates a 16-degree reading. This is the speed at which most drivers' judgment recognizes incipient instability along a ramp or curve....." Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) ".....Because changes in conditions, such as roadway geometrics, surface characteristics, or sight distance, might affect the advisory speed, each location should be periodically evaluated and the Advisory Speed plaque changed if necessary. Option: The advisory speed may be the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, the speed corresponding to a 16-degree ball bank indicator reading, or the speed otherwise determined by an engineering study because of unusual circumstances. Support: A 10-degree ball-bank indicator reading, formerly used in determining advisory speeds, is based on research from the 1930s. In modern vehicles, the 85th-percentile speed on curves approximates a 16-degree reading.This is the speed at which most drivers' judgment recognizes incipient instability along a ramp or curve....." Section 2E.21 Changeable Message Signs ".....To the extent practical, the design and application of changeable message signs should conform to the general principles of this Manual. Within the context of Section 2A.07, these practices should be followed for mainline freeway and expressway applications: A. Changeable message signs should be capital letters and have a desirable letter size of 450 mm (18 in) or a minimum letter size of 265 mm (10.6 in). Signs should be limited to not more than 3 lines with not more than 20 characters per line. B. No more than two displays should be used within any message cycle. C. Each display should convey a single thought. D. The entire message cycle should be readable at least twice by drivers traveling at the posted speed, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed, or the operating speed....." Chapter 3 - Section 3B.01 Yellow Centerline Pavement Markings and Warrants ".....For three-lane roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or greater, the lane transition taper length should be computed by the formula L = 0.62 WS for speeds in km/h (L = WS for speeds in mph). For roadways where the posted or statutory speed limit is less than 70 km/h (45 mph), the formula L = WS2/155 for speeds in km/h (L = WS2/60 for speeds in mph) should be used to compute taper length. Under both formulas, L equals the taper length in meters (feet), W equals the width of the center lane or offset distance in meters (feet), and S equals the 85th-percentile speed or the posted or statutory speed limit, whichever is higher. Standard: The minimum lane transition taper length shall be 30 m (100 ft) in urban areas and 60 m (200 ft) in rural areas. On roadways with centerline markings, no-passing zone markings shall be used at horizontal or vertical curves where the passing sight distance is less than the minimum necessary for reasonably safe passing at the 85th-percentile speed or the posted or statutory speed limit as shown in Table 3B-1. The passing sight distance on a vertical curve is the distance at which an object 1.07 m (3.5 ft) above the pavement surface can be seen from a point 1.07 m (3.5 ft) above the pavement (see Figure 3B-5). Similarly, the passing sight distance on a horizontal curve is the distance measured along the centerline (or right-hand lane line of a three-lane roadway) between two points 1.07 m (3.5 ft) above the pavement on a line tangent to the embankment or other obstruction that cuts off the view on the inside of the curve (see Figure 3B-5)....." Table 3B-1. Minimum Passing Sight Distances Another table you'll have to pull up for yourself. Figure 3B-5. Method of Locating and Determining the Limits of No-Passing Zones at Curves A figure you'll ahve to go see. Section 3B.09 Lane Reduction Transition Markings ".....For roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or greater, the transition taper length for a lane reduction should be computed by the formula L = 0.62 WS for speeds in km/h (L = WS for speeds in mph). For roadways where the posted or statutory speed limit is less than 70 km/h (45 mph), the formula L = WS2/155 for speeds in km/h (L = WS2/60 for speeds in mph) should be used to compute taper length. Under both formulas, L equals the taper length in meters (feet), W equals the width of the offset distance in meters (feet), and S equals the 85th-percentile speed or the posted or statutory speed limit, whichever is higher......" Figure 3B-12. Examples of Lane Reduction Markings Another figure. Chapter 4 - Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals ".....E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location..... ".....C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control....." Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume ".....If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns......" ".....Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns....." Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Additional references similar to the above for Section 4C.02 Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience Additional references similar to the above for Section 4C.02 Section 4D.14 Coordination of Traffic Control Signals ".....Option: Different sizes of signal lenses may be used in the same signal face or signal head, except for the prohibitions listed in the Standards in this Section. Guidance: Three-hundred millimeter (12 in) signal lenses should be used for all signal indications for the following: A. Approaches with 85th-percentile approach speeds exceeding 60 km/h (40 mph); B. Approaches where a traffic control signal might be unexpected; C. All approaches without curbs and gutters where only post-mounted signal heads are used; and D. Locations where there is a significant percentage of elderly drivers....." Table 4D-1. Minimum Sight Distance A table you'll have to go to the document to see. Section 4F.01 Applications of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals ".....The sight distance determination should be based on the location of the visibility obstruction for the critical approach lane for each street or drive and the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed on the major street, whichever is higher....." Chapter 5 - Section 5A.03 Design ".....The typical sizes for signs installed on low-volume roads shall be as shown in Table 5A-1. The Minimum sign sizes shall only be used on low-volume roads where the 85th-percentile speed or posted speed limit is less than 60 km/h (35 mph)....." Chapter 6 - Table 6C-2. Stopping Sight Distance as a Function of Speed Another chart. Table 6C-4. Formulas for Determining Taper Lengths Another chart. Table 6E-1. Stopping Sight Distance as a Function of Speed Another chart Section 6F.55 Portable Changeable Message Signs ".....The message panel should have adjustable display rates (minimum of 3 seconds per phase), so that the entire message can be read at least twice at the posted speed, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed prior to work starting, or the anticipated operating speed....." Section 6G.13 Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection ".....For work at an intersection, advance warning signs, devices, and markings should be used on all cross streets, as appropriate. The typical applications depict urban intersections on arterial streets. Where the posted speed limit, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed prior to the work starting, or the anticipated speed exceeds 60 km/h (40 mph), additional warning signs should be used in the advance warning area....." Section 6G.16 Crossovers ".....B. Crossovers should be designed for speeds no lower than 16 km/h (10 mph) below the posted speed, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed prior to the work starting, or the anticipated operating speed of the roadway, unless unusual site conditions require that a lower design speed be used....." Table 6H-4. Formulas for Determining Taper Lengths Another table. Chapter 7 - No references to 85th percentile speed. Chapter 8 - No references to 85th percentile speed. Chapter 9 - No references to 85th percentile speed. Chapter 10 - No references to 85th percentile speed. Appendix A1 - No references to 85th percentile speed. ----------------------- In conclusion, none of my questions were answered. Regards, Ed White > >As for the 85% rule, yes it is silly. A law where the PLAN is for > >15% of the public to violate it! Plus it assumes there is some way to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speed limits from a stretch of road, and measure the resulting > traffic. Surely even you aren't *that* stupid. Most americans don't want to drive on a road where there is no speed limit for a week or two just so some speed loons like you can determine the average speed. And besides the results would just apply to that stretch of road. You gonna do this nationally?? HAHA. The 85 percentile rule is nonsense and you are a moron for not seeing that. >> >As for the 85% rule, yes it is silly. A law where the PLAN is for >> >15% of the public to violate it! Plus it assumes there is some way to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Most americans don't want to drive on a road where there is no speed >limit for a week or two just so some speed loons like you can determine I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone with a nym such as "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" has a reasonable idea of what most americans want. Speed loon? Displaying your ignorance as always. You keep claiming you want to see the number of deaths occurring daily to reduce, and yet when the opportunity presents itself you have no interest in it. I guess that's similar to the hypocrisy you share on the issue of being tough on DUIs and thinking Teddy Kennedy is guiltless. >the average speed. And besides the results would just apply to that >stretch of road. You gonna do this nationally?? HAHA. The 85 >percentile rule is nonsense and you are a moron for not seeing that. I can understand how you would feel it's nonsense, since it's beyond your ability to comprehend. > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x > Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not prepared > to purchase the full study. Why not? It's only $26. As soon as I was pointed to it and read the abstract, I bought it. > I would like to see how they factored out declines in the fatality rate > due to improvements in equipments versus changes in speed limits. ...then by all means, buy the article and you can see just that. > I also tend to discount comparisons based on > the difference in posted speed limits between states. This isn't that...which you would know if you would read it. > > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why not? It's only $26. As soon as I was pointed to it and read the > abstract, I bought it. Good for you. I don't feel it is worth $26 to me personally. > > I would like to see how they factored out declines in the fatality rate > > due to improvements in equipments versus changes in speed limits. > > ...then by all means, buy the article and you can see just that. $26 is more than I am willing to spend today for that piece of information. > > I also tend to discount comparisons based on > > the difference in posted speed limits between states. > > This isn't that...which you would know if you would read it. Are they comparing fatality rates to actual measured average speeds? Do they make allowances for improvements in equipment and highways? Do they actually conclude that average vehicle speed has no impact on the fatality rate? Or that posted speed limits have no effect (assuming posted limits don't actually determine actual speeds)? Ed ===== > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x > > > Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not > > > prepared to purchase the full study. > > Why not? It's only $26. As soon as I was pointed to it and read the > > abstract, I bought it. > > Good for you. I don't feel it is worth $26 to me personally. ===== Then this: ===== > I would like to see how they factored out declines in the fatality rate > due to improvements in equipments versus changes in speed limits. Are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fatality rate? Or that posted speed limits have no effect (assuming > posted limits don't actually determine actual speeds)? ===== Ah-ah-aaah! I'm afraid the study's not mine to give to you for free. If you wanna know how the story ends, you'll hafta read the book. > Are they comparing fatality rates to actual measured average speeds? Do they > make allowances for improvements in equipment and highways? Do they actually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed Ed, This study was about one thing: did increases of posted speed limits increase fatalities? It wasn't about average speeds, 85th percentile, speed limits enforcement, price of gas or anything else. It was about correlation between higher speed limit signs and fatalities - that's all. You get it? Somehow your unwillingness to read the study is not stopping you from desperately trying to discredit it. If you want answers to the relationships of these other factors to the fatality rate, search the web or create your own study. Ivan I take it you actually read the study? If the report is as limited as you claim, it is truly worhtless. If you feel you can't share any facts from the report, then don't use it as proof. Is that too much to ask? Ed > I take it you actually read the study? If the report is as limited as > you claim, it is truly worhtless. Same ol' Ed, full o' laughs. Hasn't read the study, but that doesn't stop him uppercase-J Judging its worth. > If you feel you can't share any facts from the report, then don't use it > as proof. Is that too much to ask? Sorry, yes, it is. There's no real or rational basis for this little request of yours. The study's available for $26. Your choice not to read it is nobody's doing but your own. DS >>http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x > Thanks, that provided a little more information, but I am not prepared to > purchase the full study. If you live near a university, why not go to their library and try to access the same page from there. I was able to access the full study without having to purchase it. >>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00152.x > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > access the same page from there. I was able to access the full study > without having to purchase it. Wonderful idea. In fact, I just downloaded a PDF of the full text through the U of W's library. And no, I'm not sharing. Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) > Wonderful idea. In fact, I just downloaded a PDF of the full text > through the U of W's library. > > And no, I'm not sharing. Because it supports what i've been saying. High speeds = more vehicular murders. Around 7/1/2005 10:41 PM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: >>Wonderful idea. In fact, I just downloaded a PDF of the full text >>through the U of W's library. >> >>And no, I'm not sharing. > > Because it supports what i've been saying. Nope, because, unlike you, I'm not one to redistribute clearly copyrighted and restricted material online. And FYI, no, it doesn't even come close to supporting what you've been saying. Either read the report for yourself or just take my word for it (the latter costs you quite a bit less). A juicy quote from the last paragraph: "The estimated effects reveal that the assertion that speed kills, and more speed kills more is mostly unfounded." Signature~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information) > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html > > F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al. If you call that little news item - a rational study - you are not very rational yourself. Certainly safety measures in vehicle construction and shoulder harnesses have reduced the %age of deaths per accident. Miles travelled is only a guesstimate easily rigged and thus can not enter any equation. I knew Sterling Moss and Olivier Gendebien when they were kings of the road racing circuits. Off the track neither exceeded the posted speed limits. On the other hand, Peter Ryan would regularly race from Mont Trembant (home) to montreal in his porsche special daring the local cops to catch him. He crashed and burned in his Lotus Jr in his first year with the Lotus team. -- LP "We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills." Franklin Delano Roosevelt State of the Union Address - 1942 > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > guesstimate easily rigged and thus can not enter > any equation. Accidents??? Very few of them on the highways. It's a euphemism the media uses so people will not recongnize the fact that 99% of the CRASHES on the highways are due to bad driving and could easily be prevented. Too much money in car crashes to stop them now. The auto industry loves them as does the medical and legal industry. > > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Accidents??? Very few of them on the highways. It's a euphemism the sh.t, there's an accident on the highway every time you get behind the wheel of that beater of yours. > media uses so people will not recongnize the fact that 99% of the > CRASHES on the highways are due to bad driving and could easily be > prevented. Too much money in car crashes to stop them now. The auto > industry loves them as does the medical and legal industry. If you had a clue, you might amount to something. No wonder you can't afford anything other than a beater. > Some rational people are still able to study the issue. > > http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html > > F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al. That, coming from someone who can't even spell "increased" correctly, and twice in one sentence? You're no scholar and that article tells us little about speed limits' effect on actual speeds, especially hyper speeds. Truly rational people understand that physics matters and laws have been ignored all along. Why is it that people who brag about DISobeying the law are the first to cite it as a measure of actual driving speeds? Year after year, the NHTSA has documented that speeding causes 30% of serious crashes. It has little to do with prevailing speed limit laws. It just shows that stupid people will always take stupid risks in cars at high speeds. Notice a key quote in that brief article. "But the long-term decreases continued even when speed limits stayed the same." When limits stayed the SAME, decreases still continued. It's mainly because cars have gotten safer, and possibly in part because traffic congestion is slowing speeds regardless of posted limits (people don't get hurt as badly in lower speed crashes). There was a story on that awhile back. So, speed LIMITS per se have little to do with the existence of EXTREME speeding, which has gone on since cars were invented. These are the people who are always tailgating, weaving and jockeying for position just to get ahead of everyone else. Their interactions with other traffic lead to all sorts of pointless crashes and deaths. Here's the latest news on these idiots: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=crash+%22was+speeding%22 All other factors being equal, a car moving at a high rate of speed (especially upwards of 80 or 90 mph where mechanical and tire-grip thresholds are reached) will have less ability to brake and steer when the unexpected happens. These drivers do a lot more tailgating, weaving and other impatient things that cause crashes. Again, here's the latest news on their preventable carnage: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=killed+%22was+speeding%22 Denial that the unexpected ever happens is the most common argument against the realities of physics, and it's ridiculous. Nothing can be 100% anticipated on the road and one of the most important things you can do is drive at moderate speeds to maintain more control when *bleep* happens. My emphasis all along has been speeding on a case by case basis, citing physics as the reason people lose control at higher speeds. Nobody involved in the investigation of crashes disputes the role of physics. If we could get r.a.d. posters to ride with paramedics for a month we'd see their whole tone change, I'm sure. Raising speed limits may reduce the dangers of speed-differentials by making relatively slower drivers speed up, but not by much. That article notes that improvements in car safety are the main factor. People will drive at more or less the same speeds regardless of laws. The real point is that hyper speed-freaks are doing what they've ALWAYS done and people will keep dying because of it. They don't care whether the limit is 55 or 75; they'll still drive as fast as they think they can get away with. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ On 3 Jul 2005 12:12:03 -0700, "Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> was understood to have stated the following: >> Some rational people are still able to study the issue. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >little about speed limits' effect on actual speeds, especially hyper >speeds. You've never proven that you're a scholar, either. >Truly rational people understand that physics matters and laws have >been ignored all along. Hey, you got one right! Truly rational people do understand that physics matters. I guess that explains why you have no grasp of the concept. >Why is it that people who brag about DISobeying the law are the first >to cite it as a measure of actual driving speeds? Year after year, the >NHTSA has documented that speeding causes 30% of serious crashes. It >has little to do with prevailing speed limit laws. It just shows that >stupid people will always take stupid risks in cars at high speeds. Stupid people take stupid risks in cars at any speed. Last time someone hit my vehicle was while I was stopped at a red light, and the gal who had been behind me for little while decided it turned green while it was still red. All of this occurred at less than 10mph in a 45mph zone. Should we lower the speed limit to 10mph? >Notice a key quote in that brief article. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=crash+%22was+speeding%22 Wow; Carl figured out how to cut-and-paste a URL for a favorite search of his. Is your next trick counting past 21 while keeping your shoes and your pants on? >All other factors being equal, a car moving at a high rate of speed >(especially upwards of 80 or 90 mph where mechanical and tire-grip >thresholds are reached) will have less ability to brake and steer when No sh.t? You *really* oughtta work for NASA. >the unexpected happens. These drivers do a lot more tailgating, weaving >and other impatient things that cause crashes. Again, here's the latest >news on their preventable carnage: Got proof on the tailgating and weaving? >http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=killed+%22was+speeding%22 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >can do is drive at moderate speeds to maintain more control when >*bleep* happens. Bullshit. Let me away from the cluster f.ck of retards all traveling the same speed, so that I have room to maneuver when the unexpected happens. Most likely, the unexpected is going to come from the cluster-f.ck of idiots traveling in a pack. Why would you want to promote traveling in a pack? Most of us have evolved from the point of herding like sheep; I guess your family tree isn't that advanced. >My emphasis all along has been speeding on a case by case basis, citing >physics as the reason people lose control at higher speeds. Nobody >involved in the investigation of crashes disputes the role of physics. Well, DUH. Physics plays a major roll in understanding how your automobile will respond to the instructions you give it. If you think that's an arguable point, you may wish to return to grade school. >If we could get r.a.d. posters to ride with paramedics for a month we'd >see their whole tone change, I'm sure. Keep posting your stupidity. What I would see if I rode with the paramedics is a group of people who had no reason driving in the first place. >Raising speed limits may reduce the dangers of speed-differentials by >making relatively slower drivers speed up, but not by much. That >article notes that improvements in car safety are the main factor. Teach people how to drive, retard, and you won't need those improvements in car safety to reduce the death toll on the roadways. Of course, everyone knows that because you and Judy are so stupid, you would fail such teaching, and that's why you both cry for nanny-government to come in to save the day. >People will drive at more or less the same speeds regardless of laws. No sh.t? Another news flash from Carl! Could you please inform us what direction the sun will rise from tomorrow? >The real point is that hyper speed-freaks are doing what they've ALWAYS >done and people will keep dying because of it. They don't care whether >the limit is 55 or 75; they'll still drive as fast as they think they >can get away with. I'll drive at a pace that keeps me comfortable and alert, and that I think is prudent for the conditions at hand. If you think adherence to some magical "speed limit" is going to keep you safe, go for it. Too bad I won't be riding around with the paramedics when they come to pick you up, but that's no big loss. SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Days of the New - Phobics of Tragedy - Days of the New 2 K:\Audio\Days Of The New\Days of the New 2\11 - Phobics of Tragedy.mp3 This is track 7 of 304 in the current playlist. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.