Speed Variance May Be the Real Problem
jmd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
N. J. Garber and R. Gadiraju. "Factors Affecting Speed Variance and Its
Influence on Accidents." Transportation Research Record, 1213 (1989), p. 64.
"A major influence on speed variance is the difference between the design
speed and the posted speed limit. It was determined that speed variance will
approach minimum values if the posted speed limit is between 5 and 10 mph
lower than the design speed. Outside this range, speed variance increases...
It was also found that drivers tend to drive at increasing speeds as the
roadway geometric characteristics improve, regardless of the posted speed
limit, and that accidents do not necessarily increase with an increase in
average speed but do increase with an increase in speed variance."
C.M. Elmberg. Effects of Speed Zoning in Urban Areas. M.S. Thesis. Purdue
University, Layfayette, Indiana, May 1960.
"... a low posted speed limit on a highway with good geometric conditions
may result in a wide range of speeds on the highway, which in turn will lead
to an increase in accident rates."
N. J. Garber and R. Gadiraju. "Factors Affecting Speed Variance and Its
Influence on Accidents." Transportation Research Record, 1213 (1989), p. 69.
"... average speed depends on the design speed and that speed variance
depends upon average speed.... This model suggests that minimum speed
variance will occur when the difference between the design speed and the
posted speed limit is 10 mph."
Charles A. Lave. "Speeding, Coordination, and the 55 MPH Limit." The
American Economic Review, 75.5 (1985 December), pp. 1159, 1161:
"I find that there is no statistically discernible relationship between
the fatality rate and average speed, though there is a strong relationship
to speed variance.... Variance kills, not speed."
"Simple physics indicates that the consequence of a collision is a
function of crash speed; and simple logic indicates that the probability of
collision is a function of the dispersion of speeds on a given highway -
more passing means more chances to collide."
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-11.htm
More fodder for the speed kills/ photo radar debate.
John Dowell
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"jmd" <jdowe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:g5aRb.2$fg...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I definately agree with this. Low posted speeds definately result in wide
variety of speeds on the highway, which certainly contributes to more
accidents. This does not invalidate photo radar though. In my opinon they
should increase the speed limits on the 400 series highways AND impliment
photo radar.
Paul R
"Jeff Johnston" <[NO SPAM]je...@domynoes.net> wrote in message
news:aaSdnU4hIbw...@golden.net...
>
> "jmd" <jdowe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:g5aRb.2$fg...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Is Speed Variance the Real Problem?
> >
> > function of crash speed; and simple logic indicates that the probability
> of
> > collision is a function of the dispersion of speeds on a given highway -
> > more passing means more chances to collide."
> >
> > http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-11.htm
> >
> > More fodder for the speed kills/ photo radar debate.
> >
> > John Dowell
> >
> >
>
> I definately agree with this. Low posted speeds definately result in wide
> variety of speeds on the highway, which certainly contributes to more
> accidents. This does not invalidate photo radar though. In my opinon they
> should increase the speed limits on the 400 series highways AND impliment
> photo radar.
>
I agree too. The speed limit should be 110 km/hr and the photo radar should
be set to ticket anyone going 130 km/hr or over (any less than that and you
could be unfairly ticketing people for local accelerations etc.). The ticket
should be of a significant dollar amount (a couple of hundred bucks), but
should not cause points to be added to the driver's record.
One thing that surprised me for the short while we had photo radar was the
consistency of speed on the highways. It was almost a pleasure driving when
there weren't yahoos passing on the right at 140 km/hr and idiot slowpokes
driving 80 km/hr in the passing lanes.
cheers,
paul
Flappy
talk once of increasing it to 130 km/h, but then there was a zero tolerance
for speeding beyond that. Also, those speed limits were set way back in the,
what was it, 60s? Back then, it was okay because if a car went much beyond
that, it was on the brink of falling apart. Nowadays, cars are built much
better and safer and can easily handle higher speeds without compromising
safety. They need to be upped. It is definitely the variance that is causing
accidents, not the speed limit.
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"Paul R" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:bv3oqe$nnhir$1...@ID-164016.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well I disagree with you on the points part, I think if you get caught
speeding then you should get nailed for points as well, depending on how
fast you are going.
>
> One thing that surprised me for the short while we had photo radar was the
> consistency of speed on the highways. It was almost a pleasure driving
when
> there weren't yahoos passing on the right at 140 km/hr and idiot slowpokes
> driving 80 km/hr in the passing lanes.
>
> cheers,
> paul
>
>
Yes, I think photo radar did a good job of keeping the speed consistant, and
that is why I am a big supporter of the idea.
Barney
news:SsdRb.3710$qU3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> was talk once of increasing it to 130 km/h, but then there was a zero
> tolerance for speeding beyond that. Also, those speed limits were set
> way back in the, what was it, 60s? Back then, it was okay because if a
> car went much beyond that, it was on the brink of falling apart.
> Nowadays, cars are built much better and safer and can easily handle
> higher speeds without compromising safety. They need to be upped. It
> is definitely the variance that is causing accidents, not the speed
> limit.
>
>
isn't the speed that kill, it's the sudden stops in the back of Semi's. I
guess they just have to ban cars incapable from doing 130 from being
licensed.
Haximus
"Variance kills, not speed."
Lets look at this key assertion logically. Hi speed variance may lead to
more crashes, but SPEED is still the #1 factor in fatalities. If you crash
at 120kph you are four times more likely to not survive than at 90kph. Put
it this way, if you took two similar highways, one with a posted limit of
90kph and one with a limit of 120kph, and speed variance was totally
eliminated as a causational factor, there would be four times more
fatalities on the 120kph highway.
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:zUfRb.284527$JQ1.197923@pd7tw1no...
Ok, your assuming that you can really get everyone to travel 90kph on a
highway, this is not true, the fact is people tend to travel at the highest
speed they feel they can travel at safely regardless of the posted limits.
If you had a 90kph highway you would have a people travelling anywhere from
80kph to 130kph, that would be an extreemly unsafe highway. Quite frankly I
would rather have the highways have no posted limits at all than highways
with 90kph limit.
notritenotteri
to be dissipated in a crash but there are all sorts of other factors
such as vehicle design, driver skill road conditions such as pavement
roughness, camber, humidity etc etc. Look at the studies done on
various new cars as to repairs for low speed impacts. The damage is
all over the map.
Once a loose object in vehicle has enough energy to decapitate someone
its irrelevant if its moving faster that the "cut-off" value at the
time of impact. All it means is the guy dies a couple of milliseconds
sooner which is unlikely to make any difference to him. He's still
headless and dead.
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:zUfRb.284527$JQ1.197923@pd7tw1no...
Haximus
I don't disagree that reducing speed variance would decrease the numbers of
crashes, but if the speed limit was raised to minimize variance then
fatalities would increase even if there are fewer crashes. It's just a
basic statistic that you are more likely to die or suffer serious injury in
a crash the faster you go. Upping a highway's speed limit to the "design
speed" does not mean all vehicles and all people are capable of driving at
that speed, and then you have a component that always feels it's safe
(personally and legally) to drive 10km/h over the posted limit regardless.
IMHO, increasing a highway's speed to the design limit may reduce speed
variance, but the crashes that do occur are more likely to be fatal ones.
Haximus
crashes. If you do, then that leaves speed as the major factor in
fatalities.
"notritenotteri" <rong...@alber.ta> wrote in message
news:8FvRb.113$Ps4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Alan Baker
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> wrote:
That would rather depend on whether the reduction in accident rates as a
larger or smaller factor than the increase in accident intensity.
> speed" does not mean all vehicles and all people are capable of driving at
> that speed, and then you have a component that always feels it's safe
> (personally and legally) to drive 10km/h over the posted limit regardless.
Actually, it has been shown that that idea is pretty much a myth.
> IMHO, increasing a highway's speed to the design limit may reduce speed
> variance, but the crashes that do occur are more likely to be fatal ones.
So we're back to looking at how much it will reduce accidents.
--
Alan 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."
Hartmann Schaffer
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> writes:
> ...
> I don't disagree that reducing speed variance would decrease the numbers of
> crashes, but if the speed limit was raised to minimize variance then
> fatalities would increase even if there are fewer crashes.
that would depend on how large the decrease would be.
> It's just a
> basic statistic that you are more likely to die or suffer serious injury in
> a crash the faster you go.
a higher speed limit doesn't mean that all crashes happen at a higher
speed. usually people notice that something is about to happen and
take some measures to avoid the accident of at least reduce the
damage. a typical measure is applying the brakes
> Upping a highway's speed limit to the "design
> speed" does not mean all vehicles and all people are capable of driving at
> that speed,
maybe they should choose routes where the speede limit is something
they can handle
> and then you have a component that always feels it's safe
> (personally and legally) to drive 10km/h over the posted limit regardless.
if you drive a highway, you will notice that speed limit violations
are most frequent where it actually *is* safe
> IMHO, increasing a highway's speed to the design limit may reduce speed
> variance, but the crashes that do occur are more likely to be fatal ones.
maybe, but the accident rate reduction might compensate for that
hs
--
Not everything that counts can be counted,
not everything that can be counted counts.
A. Einstein
Flappy
I kind of disagree on this point because in a lot of cases, it is not
necessarily the primary driver of the car that is always driving. What if
your wife/husband/kid is driving your car and they get caught with the photo
radar, the points would go against your license even though you weren't
driving. At least if it was only monetary, you could make your fast driving
teenager pay for it. You can transfer money, but you can't transfer points.
A lot of these photo radar systems rely on the plates of the car and not the
driver, which could be terribly unfortunate for you. If you make it
expensive enough, you won't need to add points to it.
EricŽ
> maybe they should choose routes where the speede limit is something
> they can handle
This would involve walking or crawling, I think.
______________________________________________________________
eschild@lycos..com (Eric)
The blind men shout let the creatures out
We'll show the unbelievers
The napalm screams of human flames
Of a prime time Belsen feast...YEAH!
As the reasons for the carnage cut their meat and lick the gravy,
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
- Iron Maiden
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"Flappy" <flap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:giFRb.4795$qU3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I think that I was unclear in my comment, you should get nailed for points
if you are pulled over, not if photo radar catches you. Sorry about the
confusion.
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
> The point was to hypothetically take out speed variance as a cause of
> crashes. If you do, then that leaves speed as the major factor in
> fatalities.
True, but you cannot take speed variance out of the formula, the idea is to
reduce speed variance, and the only way to do that is either to become a lot
stricter and on speeders and enforce it much more efficiantly, or raise the
limit. Probably the best method is to do a little of both.
Flappy
In that case, I would agree with you. Points would definitely deter quite a
few people from going 'excessively fast'.
Barney
news:dpERb.151$Ps4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca:
> In article <sPzRb.296520$JQ1.214990@pd7tw1no>,
> "Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> writes:
>
> a higher speed limit doesn't mean that all crashes happen at a higher
> speed. usually people notice that something is about to happen and
> take some measures to avoid the accident of at least reduce the
> damage. a typical measure is applying the brakes
>
>> Upping a highway's speed limit to the "design
>> speed" does not mean all vehicles and all people are capable of
>> driving at that speed,
>
it's been along time since I obtained my DL. Is it no longer require to
learn the differences involving reaction time and distance traveled at
various speeds to the point of a complete stop. If not to bad. At one
time that was an important inclusion of the written exam. It would be
wise to seek that info. No point telling us you react quicker then most
and never ever get distracted it still don't jive because even the best
brakes rely on the four patchs of rubber on the pavement. No one can say
they can predict what other drivers are thinking and know exactly what
they are going to do next. If you haven't done a preinspection are you
that sure your car won't have a tire blow out. If you did a
preinspection you can have a blow out anyway.
It amazes me when someone drives passed me at night with only one
headlight left. Where are they going when the last light fails!
Living in Vancouver many seem to want to be the first at the next red
light.
kenb
"Jeff Johnston" wrote in message:
> > "Haximus" wrote in message
> > The point was to hypothetically take out speed variance as a cause of
> > crashes. If you do, then that leaves speed as the major factor in
> > fatalities.
> True, but you cannot take speed variance out of the formula, the idea is
to
> reduce speed variance, and the only way to do that is either to become a
lot
> stricter and on speeders and enforce it much more efficiantly, or raise
the
> limit. Probably the best method is to do a little of both.
I would suggest imposing a minimum speed limit to our highways as well,
in order to spread out the responsibility for speed variance among *all*
drivers. While it is obvious that many accidents are caused by
recklessness and excessive speed, every one of us has also witnessed more
than a few close calls caused by drivers who make very poor lane choices for
the speeds they feel comfortable with.
I once heard it put this way:
The fast, aggressive driver crowding you from behind in the fast lane is
making an effort to impose his will upon you. He may be in a hurry for an
appointment, or he may be some teenage NASCAR wannabe who likes tailgating
and flashing his high-beams at people who insist on driving at less than 140
kph in the fast lane. Most people hate drivers like this.
Contrasting but equally controlling behaviour is exibited by the guy who
insists on driving 75 kph in the middle lane when everybody else is going
110 kph. He is fully aware that cars have been passing him on both sides
for the last two hours, but he is driving a safe *legal* speed and he feels
that he has every right to drive in the lane of his choosing with without
regard for the collective behaviour of everyone else on the road that day.
Although they represent opposite extremes, both of the examples above
share a common lack of repect for other drivers and the basic concepts of
orderly and safe traffic flow. The Nutbar causes accidents by driving like
a fool, and "Mr Safety" gets in everyone else's way enough times that
somebody finally gets killed attempting to get around him because he refuses
to move off to the right lane. Both of them have their own notions of how
we all should drive, and they both impose their will upon us when we
encounter them on our highways.
Both kill, so both should get tickets.
Cheers!
--
Sent to you by Ken at kenwho?@sympatico.ca
Replace "who?" with "b2" to respond by e-mail
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"kenb" <kenwho?@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MxpSb.61773$Kg6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Only one problem with posting minimum speeds as well, in bad winter weather
you can't enforce it.
As a matter of fact you can get charged with driving too slow, it is called
impeding traffic, and I believe the police should be as strict with that
charge as they are with speeding, of course you can't have photo radar for
that one.
Joe Bidwell
We need to get on board and do speed limits like the rest of the world
and go with 120-130km/h. And yes, they it would be ethical to
implement photo radar.
Joe Bidwell
they have speed limits at 120km/h?
Joe Bidwell
> speed" does not mean all vehicles and all people are capable of driving at
> that speed, and then you have a component that always feels it's safe
> (personally and legally) to drive 10km/h over the posted limit regardless.
> IMHO, increasing a highway's speed to the design limit may reduce speed
> variance, but the crashes that do occur are more likely to be fatal ones.
If people can't handle 120km/h they shouldn't be driving. We all know
here in Ontario that a monkey could even get a license. How many of
you have seen white trash ugly middle aged women in 1991 Chrysler
MiniVans doing 90km/h in the left lane on the 401. Well testing every
5-10 years would eliminate that. A big problem in Ontario is that
many people who shouldn't be driving, and know they shouldn't need to
drive in our society. If they lived in Europe these people wouldn't
be driving.
Hartmann Schaffer
Barney <sha...@despammed.com> writes:
> ...
>> a higher speed limit doesn't mean that all crashes happen at a higher
>> speed. usually people notice that something is about to happen and
>> take some measures to avoid the accident of at least reduce the
>> damage. a typical measure is applying the brakes
> it's been along time since I obtained my DL. Is it no longer require to
> learn the differences involving reaction time and distance traveled at
> various speeds to the point of a complete stop. If not to bad. At one
> time that was an important inclusion of the written exam. It would be
> wise to seek that info. No point telling us you react quicker then most
> and never ever get distracted it still don't jive because even the best
> brakes rely on the four patchs of rubber on the pavement.
have you ever heard that it is advisable to keep more distance to the
guy in fromt of you when you go at higher speed?
hs
> ...
Haximus
news:733e9e5a.04013...@posting.google.com...
Not everyone lives in Ontario. Here in BC most roads are single lane and
highway speed is usually dictated by logging trucks and tourists in RVs
looking for stump bears. If you want to drive 120km/h it means aggressive
driving and frequent passing, and hard braking on the corners. In any case,
where there are four-lane highways there is absolutely no excuse for
accidents outside of mechanical failures or acts of god. With four lanes
people can drive as fast or slow as they want as long as they follow the
basic rule of staying right except to pass. There is nothing more
agravating when another driver attempts to dictate the speed of others, this
goes for the tailgaters and slowpokes alike.
Haximus
Swedish research shows there is a fourth power relationship to speed and
fatalities, for example reducing mean traffic speed by 3% effectively
reduces fatalities by 12%. Some studies numbers give an even more dramatic
relationship between fatalities and speed, showing a reduction in fatalies
of 7% with a decrease in mean traffic speed of just 1%. I'm not an
anti-speed nutter but fact are facts.
"Joe Bidwell" <aja_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:733e9e5a.04013...@posting.google.com...
Hartmann Schaffer
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> writes:
> ...
> Not everyone lives in Ontario. Here in BC most roads are single lane and
> highway speed is usually dictated by logging trucks and tourists in RVs
> looking for stump bears. If you want to drive 120km/h it means aggressive
> driving and frequent passing, and hard braking on the corners. In any case,
> where there are four-lane highways there is absolutely no excuse for
> accidents outside of mechanical failures or acts of god. With four lanes
> people can drive as fast or slow as they want as long as they follow the
> basic rule of staying right except to pass.
now you finally hit the crucial point (and iirc this was pointed out
in the article that started the thread): every road is designed with
a certain speed in mind, and it makes little sense to post a speed
limit there that is considerably lower. this only invites drivers to
exceed the posted speed limit (of course, from the point of view od
somebody who wants to increase government revenue while lowering taxes
this might be a good idea)
> ...
hs
Hartmann Schaffer
"Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> writes:
> Look at the stats, 1 out of 3 fatalities on the road involve speeding.
> Swedish research shows there is a fourth power relationship to speed and
> fatalities, for example reducing mean traffic speed by 3% effectively
> reduces fatalities by 12%. Some studies numbers give an even more dramatic
> relationship between fatalities and speed, showing a reduction in fatalies
> of 7% with a decrease in mean traffic speed of just 1%. I'm not an
> anti-speed nutter but fact are facts.
but what exactly do the stats look at and how reliable are they? just
a few points to consider:
1. no doubt that if an accident happens, the risk of a fatal outcome
goes up with the speed (probably quadratic). but what if
increasing the speed limit reduces the number of accidents?
2. in an accident investigation, police often give "speeding" as a
cause without investigating any further as soon as they find out
that at least one of the participants exceeded the posted speed
limit. (i also remember a case here in ontario where the opp went
public declaring that "speeding was not a factor" when from the
description it was plain obvious that bcause of poor visibility the
driver should have slowed down). as long as the posted speed limit
is taken as an indication for the limits of safe speed, these
ststistics are bound to be flawed
3. how long did they continue the studies on the effects of lowering
speed limits? we had similar studies here in north america after
the speed limits were reduced after the first oil crisis in the
1970s. for the first year or two after the reduced speed limit
took effect, accident rates actually went down, only to return to
previous levels soon after. so it probably was more the fact that
the speed limit was changed that was responsible. it might be
interesting to see what happens when the speed limit gets raised.
notritenotteri
NN kph the odds are good you will become raw material for wormshit" or
"death can occur at speeds in excess of NN kph"
"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:n5VSb.760$Ps4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Haximus
causes concern because they don't seem to care about becoming worm food.
"notritenotteri" <rong...@alber.ta> wrote in message
news:FDVSb.775$Ps4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Hartmann Schaffer
"notritenotteri" <rong...@alber.ta> writes:
> How about instead of speed limits signs such as" If you drive over
> NN kph the odds are good you will become raw material for wormshit" or
> "death can occur at speeds in excess of NN kph"
maybe after enough technical advances in measuring equipment that
collects data about road and weather conditions, maybe even about the
maintenance state of the approaching vehicle and then displays the
appropriate speed (probably some research into that needed as well).
otherwise an excellent idea.
EricŽ
> I would suggest imposing a minimum speed limit to our highways as well,
> in order to spread out the responsibility for speed variance among *all*
> drivers. While it is obvious that many accidents are caused by
> recklessness and excessive speed, every one of us has also witnessed more
> than a few close calls caused by drivers who make very poor lane choices for
> the speeds they feel comfortable with.
I think it's a good idea too - but currently only freeways appear to
have the limit (40km/h is the one I've seen most commonly).
It's the two-lane highways where the problem is most pronounced. I
understand that some US States have mandated that slower drivers
impeding other traffic must use pullouts or face the possibility of a
ticket & fine. Of course that means building pullouts, but would be a
lot cheaper than four-laning highways in the middle of nowhere.
>
> I once heard it put this way:
>
> The fast, aggressive driver crowding you from behind in the fast lane is
> making an effort to impose his will upon you. He may be in a hurry for an
> appointment, or he may be some teenage NASCAR wannabe who likes tailgating
> and flashing his high-beams at people who insist on driving at less than 140
> kph in the fast lane. Most people hate drivers like this.
> Contrasting but equally controlling behaviour is exibited by the guy who
> insists on driving 75 kph in the middle lane when everybody else is going
> 110 kph. He is fully aware that cars have been passing him on both sides
> for the last two hours, but he is driving a safe *legal* speed and he feels
> that he has every right to drive in the lane of his choosing with without
> regard for the collective behaviour of everyone else on the road that day.
>
> Although they represent opposite extremes, both of the examples above
> share a common lack of repect for other drivers and the basic concepts of
> orderly and safe traffic flow. The Nutbar causes accidents by driving like
> a fool, and "Mr Safety" gets in everyone else's way enough times that
> somebody finally gets killed attempting to get around him because he refuses
> to move off to the right lane. Both of them have their own notions of how
> we all should drive, and they both impose their will upon us when we
> encounter them on our highways.
>
> Both kill, so both should get tickets.
I agree - seen both many times.
_______________________________________________________
esc...@lycos.com (Eric)
I want to be young and wild
and then I want to be middle aged and rich
and then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I'm deaf
- Edmund Blackadder III
EricŽ
> but what exactly do the stats look at and how reliable are they? just
> a few points to consider:
>
> 1. no doubt that if an accident happens, the risk of a fatal outcome
> goes up with the speed (probably quadratic). but what if
> increasing the speed limit reduces the number of accidents?
>
> 2. in an accident investigation, police often give "speeding" as a
> cause without investigating any further as soon as they find out
> that at least one of the participants exceeded the posted speed
> limit. (i also remember a case here in ontario where the opp went
> public declaring that "speeding was not a factor" when from the
> description it was plain obvious that bcause of poor visibility the
> driver should have slowed down). as long as the posted speed limit
> is taken as an indication for the limits of safe speed, these
> ststistics are bound to be flawed
They use "excessive speed" as a "a factor" in accidents where people run
red lights, stop signs, or were completely addled drunk all the time.
If everyone parked their cars there would be no speeding.
> 3. how long did they continue the studies on the effects of lowering
> speed limits? we had similar studies here in north america after
> the speed limits were reduced after the first oil crisis in the
> 1970s. for the first year or two after the reduced speed limit
> took effect, accident rates actually went down, only to return to
> previous levels soon after. so it probably was more the fact that
> the speed limit was changed that was responsible. it might be
> interesting to see what happens when the speed limit gets raised.
After the Federal US 55 mp/h restriction was removed, the State of
Montana removed virtually all speed restrictions on their highways.
http://leg.state.mt.us/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf
Provides a study of the results.
I think people should be looking at increasing traffic volumes as more
of a problem than "speeding". Many of our urban thoroughfares and many
of our highways were not designed for the number of cars they now carry.
Haximus
news:n5VSb.760$Ps4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
A road's design speed may not take into account loaded logging trucks and
RVs incapable of maintaining that speed or even close to it. On a two-lane
highway you either follow slower traffic, or you wait until there is a
passing lane, or you pass in the oncoming lane. There is no way increasing
speed limits is going to reduce speed variance on two-lane highways without
getting the slower RVs and logging trucks off the highways first, and here
in BC that isn't going to happen anytime soon. As for four-lane highways,
they are built for the specific purpose of speed variance. If drivers have
crashes on four-lane highways (regardless of posted speed limits speed
variance) then they must be really bad/inattentive/stupid drivers. This is
just my perspective from driving BC roads and in 2002 alone I drove over
60,000 km on them.
EricŽ
> Not everyone lives in Ontario. Here in BC most roads are single lane and
> highway speed is usually dictated by logging trucks and tourists in RVs
> looking for stump bears. If you want to drive 120km/h it means aggressive
> driving and frequent passing, and hard braking on the corners. In any case,
> where there are four-lane highways there is absolutely no excuse for
> accidents outside of mechanical failures or acts of god. With four lanes
> people can drive as fast or slow as they want as long as they follow the
> basic rule of staying right except to pass. There is nothing more
> agravating when another driver attempts to dictate the speed of others, this
> goes for the tailgaters and slowpokes alike.
In an earlier post on this thread I suggested that slowpokes should be
forced by legislation to use pullouts. This is coming from a
perspective as a well-travelled driver in the BC interior. The
engineering costs involved with four-laning highways in that kind of
terrain would be prohibitive.
Sure would be a lot cheaper to build pullouts (and 'request' that slower
traffic use them).
Haximus
> In article <DrSSb.353438$ts4.68002@pd7tw3no>,
> "Haximus" <14356...@spam.org> writes:
> > Look at the stats, 1 out of 3 fatalities on the road involve speeding.
> > Swedish research shows there is a fourth power relationship to speed and
> > fatalities, for example reducing mean traffic speed by 3% effectively
> > reduces fatalities by 12%. Some studies numbers give an even more
dramatic
> > relationship between fatalities and speed, showing a reduction in
fatalies
> > of 7% with a decrease in mean traffic speed of just 1%. I'm not an
> > anti-speed nutter but fact are facts.
>
> but what exactly do the stats look at and how reliable are they? just
> a few points to consider:
>
> 1. no doubt that if an accident happens, the risk of a fatal outcome
> goes up with the speed (probably quadratic). but what if
> increasing the speed limit reduces the number of accidents?
Just for example, if the above is true that fatalities are reduced by 4% for
every 1% reduction in mean traffic speed, then the inverse is true. Say the
mean traffic speed was raised on a highway from 100 to 125km/h, this is an
increase of 25%. Going by the power of four this should translate into an
100% increase in fatalities (there are stats to support this). According to
Transport Canada, 50% of all fatal crashes involve only a single vehicle and
30% involve speed as a contributing factor. So, to maintain the same rate
of fatalities at 125km/h compared to 100km/h, then minimizing speed variance
would have to account for an absolutely fantastic reduction in crash rates.
> 2. in an accident investigation, police often give "speeding" as a
> cause without investigating any further as soon as they find out
> that at least one of the participants exceeded the posted speed
> limit. (i also remember a case here in ontario where the opp went
> public declaring that "speeding was not a factor" when from the
> description it was plain obvious that bcause of poor visibility the
> driver should have slowed down). as long as the posted speed limit
> is taken as an indication for the limits of safe speed, these
> ststistics are bound to be flawed
Speed is always considered a contributing factor, not a cause.
>
> 3. how long did they continue the studies on the effects of lowering
> speed limits? we had similar studies here in north america after
> the speed limits were reduced after the first oil crisis in the
> 1970s. for the first year or two after the reduced speed limit
> took effect, accident rates actually went down, only to return to
> previous levels soon after. so it probably was more the fact that
> the speed limit was changed that was responsible. it might be
> interesting to see what happens when the speed limit gets raised.
Manufacturers started making tissue box econo cars, making crash survival
less likely. Fatalities have been decreasing for many years though, not
because of changes in speed limits or fewer crashes, but due to the advent
of air bags, crumple zones, reinforced doors, etc. A crash is much more
survivable in today's cars than a 70's fuel crisis era econo box.
Haximus
news:MPG.1a85e4eec...@news.telus.net...
> Haximus wrote...
>
> > Not everyone lives in Ontario. Here in BC most roads are single lane
and
> > highway speed is usually dictated by logging trucks and tourists in RVs
> > looking for stump bears. If you want to drive 120km/h it means
aggressive
> > driving and frequent passing, and hard braking on the corners. In any
case,
> > where there are four-lane highways there is absolutely no excuse for
> > accidents outside of mechanical failures or acts of god. With four
lanes
> > people can drive as fast or slow as they want as long as they follow the
> > basic rule of staying right except to pass. There is nothing more
> > agravating when another driver attempts to dictate the speed of others,
this
> > goes for the tailgaters and slowpokes alike.
>
> In an earlier post on this thread I suggested that slowpokes should be
> forced by legislation to use pullouts. This is coming from a
> perspective as a well-travelled driver in the BC interior. The
> engineering costs involved with four-laning highways in that kind of
> terrain would be prohibitive.
>
> Sure would be a lot cheaper to build pullouts (and 'request' that slower
> traffic use them).
The only problem with that is the slow vehicles are usually loaded trucks on
hills, and no way they are going to actually use a pull-out to let traffic
pass when they would be stuck in low gear for the rest of the hill. As for
legislation slow driving is an offense according to the Motor Vehicle Act
but I've personally never seen it enforced.
notritenotteri
Hamilton (yes home of Sheila Copps but no not to visit her) and there
was a limited access 4 lane highway that ended in a very sharp left
turn onto a two lane road. The place in the off-ramp that turned onto
the 2 lane highway had speed detection equipment and flashed a very
large sign saying "Too Fast Too Fast" if a driver was approaching the
left turn to fast. The sign was taken down after it was demolished a
number of times by speeding motorists. The point of all this you ask
; there is a subset of the driving population which can be called the
"Asshole set" which is bent on fulfilling their genetic design to be
one of the Darwinian elements that dies hopefully before it can
reproduce. In other words its unlikely we can afford to protect the
last 15th percentile from its own stupidity.
"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:WgWSb.788$Ps4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
notritenotteri
have passing lanes interspersed along the road. In Northern Ontario
it is common courtesy to pull over onto the shoulder (which is paved
in most cases and let a following car pass)
One issue no one has twigged on is the size and weight of semi's they
weigh upwards of 60,000 kilos loaded and have very long acceleration
times as well as long braking times, poor maintenance and less than
well trained drivers. A lot of these problems are due to economics
you want low freight rates so cutting wages is one way to keep them
low, yah pays peanuts yah gets monkeys this is no reflection on the
drivers big loads mean less trucks.poor maintenance means less cost.
Again maybe we get what we pay for?news:FtXSb.355320$ts4.298020@pd7tw3no...
> "Eric®" <haff...@canuckistan.ca> wrote in message
Hartmann Schaffer
Eric® <haff...@canuckistan.ca> writes:
> ...
> After the Federal US 55 mp/h restriction was removed, the State of
> Montana removed virtually all speed restrictions on their highways.
>
> http://leg.state.mt.us/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf
> Provides a study of the results.
can you summarize? I got a "page not found"
> I think people should be looking at increasing traffic volumes as more
> of a problem than "speeding". Many of our urban thoroughfares and many
> of our highways were not designed for the number of cars they now carry.
that's my suspicion as well
EricŽ
> > After the Federal US 55 mp/h restriction was removed, the State of
> > Montana removed virtually all speed restrictions on their highways.
> > http://leg.state.mt.us/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf
> > Provides a study of the results.
>
> can you summarize? I got a "page not found"
Hmmm . . . I have no problem using the link. It's not a conclusive
report by any means, but it appears to indicate that fatalities
increased slightly on the Interstate (I-90) but overall accidents
decreased. The long term trend appears to be lower accident & fatality
rate per million driver miles.
I don't think the idea is that removing traffic restrictions is somehow
beneficial by decreasing these rates; it's that the restrictions may not
really be effective in the first place.
It's a fairly in-depth .pdf - can email it to you if you want (can't
remember your email addy).
rfpuvyqNGgryhf.arg
Arved Sandstrom
> We need to get on board and do speed limits like the rest of the world
> and go with 120-130km/h. And yes, they it would be ethical to
> implement photo radar.
My single concern with upping the speed limit is that it seems like the
first thing some folks forget is that they can't safely drive the posted
limit under some weather conditions.
AHS
Alan Baker
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
LOL
You do realize that people deal with weather conditions right *now*,
right?
People have to adjust their speed to allow for all kinds of conditions
and seem to manage somehow.
Why do you think this would change if they were allowed to do what they
already do anyway?
--
Alan 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."
Barney
Probably you understand partialy to what I'm saying. A step forward
would also be drivers required to check their vehicles before and after
use. Staying a safe distance fom the car infront of you dosen't give
you a cushon of protection 360 degrees arround you.
Barney
news:alangbaker-78885...@news.telus.net:
> In article <HBqTb.14013$Ja2....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Joe Bidwell" <aja_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:733e9e5a.04013...@posting.google.com...
>> > 110km/h is too low. It still doesn't address the speed
>> > differential. We need to get on board and do speed limits like the
>> > rest of the world and go with 120-130km/h. And yes, they it would
>> > be ethical to implement photo radar.
>>
>> My single concern with upping the speed limit is that it seems like
>> the first thing some folks forget is that they can't safely drive the
>> posted limit under some weather conditions.
>
> LOL
>
> You do realize that people deal with weather conditions right *now*,
> right?
>
> People have to adjust their speed to allow for all kinds of conditions
> and seem to manage somehow.
>
> Why do you think this would change if they were allowed to do what
> they already do anyway?
>
Oh do they. Everytime it snows ICBC is prepared for a flood of claims.
--
"Soon to be rebuffed by Alan Baker"
Barney
They have done that on the new portion of the Island highway. Pull out
lanes but few toilets and some people don't realize these are not rest
areas. All in all though they do help. Between Nanaimo and Campbell
river a driver can use cruise control even though there are a few
controled intersections on the way. You must be a trucker as well!
Alan Baker
Barney <sha...@despammed.com> wrote:
Yes, they do. The first time drivers encounter snow each season it takes
them a little while to remember, but they soon pick it up.
But moreover, if posted limits are the only thing that keep the roads
safe in dry conditions, why aren't you demanding a whole new law? One
that sets explicit limits for all conditions?
Barney
There is. The speed limit is set for ideal driving conditions. The
variables for less then road conditions dictate the maximum speed
allowed. Seeing we only get short periods of snow," a little time to
remember" is to late.
--
"So whats to be rebuffed!"
MI Wakefield
"Barney" <sha...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:Xns948652F2B12A...@130.133.1.4...
> % it was written in
> variables for less then road conditions dictate the maximum speed
> allowed. Seeing we only get short periods of snow," a little time to
> remember" is to late.
No, if the speed limit was set for ideal conditions, the limit on the 401
between Kingston and Oshawa would be about 125 kph ... it's 100 ... on a
dry, clear day, you'll rarely see anybody under 110.
John Carrick
<bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>No, if the speed limit was [were] set for ideal conditions, the limit on the 401
>between Kingston and Oshawa would be about 125 kph ... it's 100 ... on a
>dry, clear day, you'll rarely see anybody under 110.
Whatever happened to the conditional tense?
.
Steve Smith
keep his stick on the ice.
Red
--
to email use past tense
Alan Baker
John Carrick <j...@rogerspass.com> wrote:
Is this an example of "something substantive", Johnny?
I only ask to point up your hypocrisy.
Barney
> "Barney" <sha...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns948652F2B12A...@130.133.1.4...
> No, if the speed limit was set for ideal conditions, the limit on the 401
> between Kingston and Oshawa would be about 125 kph ... it's 100 ... on a
> dry, clear day, you'll rarely see anybody under 110.
>
>
That being it should be set at 115 and on a dry, clear day everyone will be
going 125. it's funny how that works.
Joe Bidwell
Not if you had photo radar. This is where the technology is key.
People generally reject photo radar when it is used in conjunction
with abnormally low speed limits. But with properly set speed limits,
the equipment is a godsend. Professional Engineers in Ontario (I am
one) generally accept that 125km/h is the 85th percentile speed on
rural 401. Funny how the highway was designed for that speed, huh?
Radar and Laser (even better) have at the most a +/- 4km/h variance.
Thus the natuaral tendency to drive +10km/h is eliminated.
Barney
news:733e9e5a.04020...@posting.google.com:
>> will be going 125. it's funny how that works.
>
> Not if you had photo radar. This is where the technology is key.
> People generally reject photo radar when it is used in conjunction
> with abnormally low speed limits. But with properly set speed limits,
> the equipment is a godsend. Professional Engineers in Ontario (I am
> one) generally accept that 125km/h is the 85th percentile speed on
> rural 401. Funny how the highway was designed for that speed, huh?
> Radar and Laser (even better) have at the most a +/- 4km/h variance.
> Thus the natuaral tendency to drive +10km/h is eliminated.
>
You could see the difference on B.C. highways when Radar Cameras were
scrapped. Especially at intersections that the traps were frequently
used.
--
"I must be here now"
MI Wakefield
"Barney" <sh...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:Xns948A81EA115B9...@198.80.55.250...
The problem in Ontario is that red-light cameras are few and far between,
and in photo-radar's original incarnation, it was only used on the
400-series highways.
Joe Bidwell
That was the past. We here are talking about the present and future.
Solution is easy: Just purchase more equipment or even better contract
it out so yoy don't develop an entrenched unionized bureaucracy.