Safe Driving
Steven Bjork
rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
would go faster than that.
The biggest problem on Embarcadero (for example) is that people
average 40% greater than the posted limit. This makes it extremely
hard to cross this street except at a stoplight controlled
intersection.
On the freeway, you cannot drive in the manner recommended by the
California Drivers Handbook. This specifies one carlength per
ten MPH between you and the car ahead. If you try to leave this
much room, someone *will* cut you off and take that space.
Basically it is impossible to drive safely on the freeways in
the Bay Area, using the guidelines in the CDH.
--Steven
Arnie Berger
> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
> would go faster than that.
>
Dave Barry, the columnist, once wrote an article where he tried to find out
what the real speed limit was in Florida. The real speed limit being defined
as the speed that you will get a ticket for if you exceed it. The Florida
Highway Patrol would not tell him the real speed limit.
Arnie
--
Arnie Berger
arnie@hplsdvt
Telnet 590-5642
Eric Praetzel
>In article <182...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
>rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>would go faster than that.
is the safest ie slower or faster driving is more dangerous than an absolute
fast speed) and that is determined by what feels safe in the car. They will
not do 100 mph in Honda Civics or the Big Three's land yahts. The speed
limits used to be set by the average speed of the cars that used the road.
The road speeds were set for cars of the 60's and now the cars are a lot
safer and people drive a bit faster. The police use the difference as a
revenue collection scheme. In quite a few of the states they can not get
50% of the cars to drive at or below the speed limit and the states may
loose their road funding because of this. The speed limits should be
re-evaluated. 55 does not save lives, never has and never will and it
is a completely false belief that people will drive as fast as their cars
can go if given the chance. That is as stupid as the belief that access
to guns results in crime. Check out Sweden (?) where every household has
a military rifle because everyone has gone thru the army and been trained
on its use. More people playing with numbers to get what they think is
right.
>On the freeway, you cannot drive in the manner recommended by the
>California Drivers Handbook. This specifies one carlength per
>ten MPH between you and the car ahead. If you try to leave this
>much room, someone *will* cut you off and take that space.
I hate that. But its the rules of the road as determined by its users
and not the system. I find that I can leave a 2 sec gap but most cars go
by the 1 second spacing. Anything more than 2 and the hole gets filled.
The question is who determines the rules? Is it the users and tax payers
or some @#^^#@$$ burecrat and his police force who want to make money by
selectivly enforcing useless rules?
Ok. I have seen enough of this. How about getting back to wreck.bikes?
How do you have fun with someone who just got STI?
Ans: You find a really steep hill where the lowest gear is just enough
and then ask him to shift up and down for you. When he finds that under
full torque + pulling on the bars, it does not sift as well as on a flat
stretch go for it.
- Eric
24411-sohl
>> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>> would go faster than that.
That is more popular myth than fact. I began driving in 1958 and had
plenty of opportunity to drive the Interstates in the northeast when speed
limits were 70mph. There simply was NOT a large number (certainly not the
nearly 100% that exceed 55 today) of drivers that exceeded 70mph.
More importantly, those that exceeded the limit usually were within
a few mph (5-9 over) of the limit. That's a far cry from 20+ over average
traffic flow on interstaes here in NJ. I just drove from Redbank to
Morristown on the Garden State Pkway and I-287. I pretty much stayed
in the middle or right lane and was generally doing around 70 (in a 55)
while just going with the flow of traffic.
>Dave Barry, the columnist, once wrote an article where he tried to find out
>what the real speed limit was in Florida. The real speed limit being defined
>as the speed that you will get a ticket for if you exceed it. The Florida
>Highway Patrol would not tell him the real speed limit.
At our local sports car club meeting a number of years ago we had
a NJ trooper give a talk and radar gun demo. As you can
guess, the question of how fast before a ticket is issued was
asked. This cop was pretty staright and said that he really
doesn't issue tickets (on highways) for less than 10 over the limit.
He said there was more than enough offenders at 10+ over to keep
him busy. He did say he couldn't say every cop was that way, but
he felt that was the case for most of the cops he knew.
From practical experience, I know many folks (including
myself) that have known they were
doing around 10 over when they passed a cop with their radar detector
on. They knew they had been "hit," but there was no pursuit.
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Don Parks
>> would go faster than that.
>>
>
>Dave Barry, the columnist, once wrote an article where he tried to find out
>what the real speed limit was in Florida. The real speed limit being defined
>as the speed that you will get a ticket for if you exceed it. The Florida
>Highway Patrol would not tell him the real speed limit.
>
the speed limits in Maryland from 55 to 65 on interstates. The law
makers said that the 55 mph speed limit was used to keep the speed of
cars under 70 mph. I often drive the interstate 68 which goes
through West Virginia and Maryland. The speed limit in WV is 65 and
a swear, that in general, people drive faster in MD (55 mph) then WV.
What all this means and what in the world it has to do with cycling
is beyond me :-)
Don
--
RON...@lexmark.com
>> would go faster than that.
>>
>
>Dave Barry, the columnist, once wrote an article where he tried to find out
>what the real speed limit was in Florida. The real speed limit being defined
>as the speed that you will get a ticket for if you exceed it. The Florida
>Highway Patrol would not tell him the real speed limit.
>
> Arnie
has indicated that they won't stop anyone up to 10 miles per hour over the
posted limit... that is, unless they're weaving or cutting through traffic.
However, the local cops have their own agenda that seems to vary by
municipality, proximity to the end of the month, phase of the moon, etc...
Randy O'Neal RON...@lexmark.com Printer Attach Software Development
Lexmark International, Inc.
-- Weinberg's Law -- Lexington, Ky.
'If builders built buildings like
programmers wrote programs, then __o
the first woodpecker that came "The views above are not those `\<,
along would destroy civilization.' of my employer... just mine." O/ O
Steven A Rubin
>
>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>would go faster than that.
>
This is not true. It has been proven time and time again that drivers
will choose a speed they feel comfortable and in control of their
vehicle given current road conditions. Why else would most motorists
drive at normal highway speeds when the road is dry, yet drive
10-20mph on those very same highways during a snowstorm?
There will always be those who drive significantly faster than the
posted limit no matter what that limit is, just as there will be some
people who will drive significantly slower. But because the speed
limits on most roads are currently being set artificially low, the
police are too busy pulling over motorists who were driving at a
reasonable and prudent speed, that they can't devote these same
resources to pursuing the very fast drivers as well as drunks and
other drivers who pose a genuine hazzard on the road.
Jim Frost
>I read not to long ago about the arguments for and against raising
>the speed limits in Maryland from 55 to 65 on interstates. The law
>makers said that the 55 mph speed limit was used to keep the speed of
>cars under 70 mph. I often drive the interstate 68 which goes
>through West Virginia and Maryland. The speed limit in WV is 65 and
>a swear, that in general, people drive faster in MD (55 mph) then WV.
I'd have to agree here. I regularly drive from MA (55mph limits
almost everywhere) to NH (65mph limits almost everywhere). Traffic
*slows down* just over the NH border, from circa 70-75 to just about
the speed limit. I never understood the phenomenon but it certainly
does occur.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Paul Robichaux
>I'd have to agree here. I regularly drive from MA (55mph limits
>almost everywhere) to NH (65mph limits almost everywhere). Traffic
>*slows down* just over the NH border, from circa 70-75 to just about
>the speed limit. I never understood the phenomenon but it certainly
>does occur.
In the South, it's very common to find state {troopers | hwy. patrol}
right across the border, radar guns aimed. In addition, many states
locate weigh stations for trucks (usually equipped with two or three
police cruisers) and state trooper substations near interstate border
crossings.
I always slow down, just in case...
--
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | NTI doesn't pay for my opinions, and NASA
robi...@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov | doesn't know I have any.
This message printed on recycled phosphors.
Shane Roach
>
> In the South, it's very common to find state {troopers | hwy. patrol}
> right across the border, radar guns aimed. In addition, many states
> locate weigh stations for trucks (usually equipped with two or three
> police cruisers) and state trooper substations near interstate border
> crossings.
>
> I always slow down, just in case...
>
upped the speed limit to 65mph on "rural Interstates", it wasn't uncommon to
see one of the ole boys in his Crown Vic with radar on at the changeover from
65 to 55, nabbing people who kept their extra momentum a tad too long.
Just out o' curiosity, what do the Highway Patrol/State Trooper/Etc. cars in
some of your states look like. I've always thought SC's marked Caprices, Crown
Vic's, and Mustangs looked pretty sharp in the silver with blue stripes(four
inches wide, a third of the way down the fender, from nose to tail) and gold
reflective state seal and "State Trooper" signs on the trunklid and front
fenders. I caught a glimpse of a Florida HP Mustang a few years ago, and the
two-tone brown literally looked like sh*t.
Shane Roach
csr...@eng.clemson.edu
Larry Smith
>I'd have to agree here. I regularly drive from MA (55mph limits
>almost everywhere) to NH (65mph limits almost everywhere). Traffic
>*slows down* just over the NH border, from circa 70-75 to just about
>the speed limit. I never understood the phenomenon but it certainly
>does occur.
Speaking as a long-time NH resident, I believe I can explain that. Quite
simply, 55 is way too low, so people ignore it and drive at whatever speed
they feel comfortable at, which is 65-75. In NH, 65 is just a _little_
too low, but still reasonable, and guilt makes up for the extra 10 mph, so
we all slow down and heed the half-way reasonable speed limit. Proof positive,
if it were needed, that higher speed limits will NOT be ignored to the same
extent - indeed, may not be ignored at all, except by the reckless driver
whose excess speed really IS a true danger signal "idiot at the wheel".
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there. Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain. If one of those men had been present when the
Diety was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Eric Hvozda
>I don't see it as much now, but here in South Carolina a few years after they
>upped the speed limit to 65mph on "rural Interstates", it wasn't uncommon to
>see one of the ole boys in his Crown Vic with radar on at the changeover from
>65 to 55, nabbing people who kept their extra momentum a tad too long.
Ah yes, this is a favorite past time of PA troopers at the state borders.
God how I wish PA would make I-80 65 MpH at least...
--
Ack! esh...@psuvm.psu.edu ESH101@PSUVM
hvo...@vivaldi.psu.edu hvo...@wilbur.psu.edu DoD #0217
Randall L. Smith
> But because the speed limits on most roads are currently being set
> artificially low, the police are too busy pulling over motorists who
> were driving at a reasonable and prudent speed, that they can't devote
> these same resources to pursuing the very fast drivers as well as
> drunks and other drivers who pose a genuine hazzard on the road.
The concept of a "very fast driver" is exactly what has been at issue in
this newsgroup since it's inception. It is rather uniformly agreed that
one mans fast is another mans slow. At which speed the police deem a
"very fast driver" is completely arbitrary and largely too complicated
for a humble human being (cop) to discriminate beyond their personal
condition. Meaning: what speed is prudent? 80th percentile?
If I feel safe at 80mph on an open Interstate in a newish automobile,
with newish appropriately rated tires, in alert condition, with good
reflexes, why should I be ticketed. Because grampaw can't see over the
steering wheel and his neck long ago quit turning right or left to see
oncoming traffic?
I don't know exactly what I'm saying, except that this whole issue of
speeding vs. plain bad driving is befuddling to me. It is as much a
judgement call as anything if done without illegitimate revenue
enhancement clouding the issue.
{ObDrv Story:}
The other day I lapsed in my attention watching for copoids as I drove
75 in a 55 on a light to moderate 3 lane barrier divided highway (SR
315 to the locals), good weather, good car, etc... I was pulling in
the right lane as often as reasonable even though I was clearly the
fastest car at the moment. I was getting ready to pull into the left
lane to pass a van when up from behind, all in a moment was Mr. Law.
Ack! He *had* to be doing *85* or more. We were clearly in his
jurisdiction. I know the territory. I jammed on the brakes to
prevent me from being forced into pulling into the left lane in front
of Mr. Law. A nanosecond before I hit the brakes, he was pulling in
behind me. My heart was in my mouth.
As I slipped from 75 to 55 in record space and trying like hell to
keep the front of the car from doing a nose dive, he pulled back in
his lane. I was caught in the grand flagrante with brake lights
screaming their penatent tome. As Mr. Law pulls back in his lane and
passes me, he looks over, slowly shakes his head and gives me this
sort of disappointed, dismayed, bemused look that said, "Shit son, if
you're gonna speed, do it right.". I stayed below 60 for the rest of
the trip. My heart couldn't take any more.
Cheers!
- randy
ra...@rls.uucp <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy rls!ra...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
You could say the girl has a problem getting a date. She's so ugly the
tide wouldn't take her out.
Karen Fegley
writes:
On the other hand, I noticed during my daily commute on the Mass.
Turnpike that shortly after the legal speed limit on selected
CENTRAL and WESTERN portions of the Pike were raised to 65 MPH,
the average speed on the EASTERN end (which is still posted at
55 MPH) went up, about 5-10 MPH in my estimation.
Karen
Bradford Kellogg
In article <1992Jun24....@telebit.com>, bj...@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
|> In article <182...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
|> rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
|>
|> >Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
|>
|> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
|> would go faster than that.
|>
below the speed limit...
George Neville-Neil
|> Ah, but if the speed limit were 150, most everyone would be traveling well
|> below the speed limit...
The speed limit should be infinite. Then you'd never be driving even
the smallest fraction of the posted speed. But then the CHP would cite
you for driving too slow :-)
Later,
George
--
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.
Tom Waits --- Step Right Up
David Pressley
>some of your states look like. I've always thought SC's marked Caprices, Crown
>Vic's, and Mustangs looked pretty sharp in the silver with blue stripes(four
>inches wide, a third of the way down the fender, from nose to tail) and gold
>reflective state seal and "State Trooper" signs on the trunklid and front
>fenders. I caught a glimpse of a Florida HP Mustang a few years ago, and the
>two-tone brown literally looked like sh*t.
>
I dont think "pretty sharp" is the phrase I would use to describe the
police cars I've seen in SC. I've been pulled over 12 times in that state
(only 3 tickets though). In fact I dont think I could even imagine a
positive adjective to describe what I think about them. Seems like most
of the SC police cars I see have all these blue and white lights flashing
and I just cant seem to appreciate the paint. I will say that the
Caprices, Criown Vic's, and Mustangs, all pretty much look alike when
they are behind you at night with all those lights flashing :-)
Wilson Heydt
>rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>
>>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
>
>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>would go faster than that.
Does this mean that if the speed limit is posted to be 'c', that we'll
soon have folks out there with FTL drives? If so--speed the day.
--Hal
--
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt | "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell | --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447 | "... kill all the lawyers."
Wilson Heydt
In article <BqD2L...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> prae...@marconi.waterloo.edu (Eric Praetzel) writes:
> People will go at whatever speed the general traffic proceeds at (which
>is the safest ie slower or faster driving is more dangerous than an absolute
>fast speed) and that is determined by what feels safe in the car. They will
>not do 100 mph in Honda Civics or the Big Three's land yahts. The speed
>limits used to be set by the average speed of the cars that used the road.
>The road speeds were set for cars of the 60's and now the cars are a lot
>safer and people drive a bit faster.
I believe that you are in error. The current speed limits derive from
Federal pressure following the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and were designed
to cut fuel consumption. (The pressure was: mandate 55 mph maximum
or lose your Federal Highway funding.) In the years before that, the
basic maximum speed limit in California was 65 mph, with some sections
of freeway posted 70 mph. I-5, for instance was designed and buit
with 70 mph limits in mind. Nevada *had* no speed limit. They simply
used 'reasonable and proper' on open roads. For many years, the
Kansas Turnpike had a maximum limit of 80 mph (and a minimum of 40
mph).
During the '60s, the CHP didn't really care how fast traffic moved so
long as the speed was consistent with the road conditions and
everybody was moving at about the same speed. You used to see CHP
cars in the middle of packs with everyone doing 80 to 85. They'd
ticket anyone who came through significant;y faster or significantly
slower--even if the 'slower' was over the posted limit. Bit of shock
that. I knew people that had gotten 'impeding traffic' tickets while
driving over the posted limit.
>The police use the difference as a
>revenue collection scheme. In quite a few of the states they can not get
>50% of the cars to drive at or below the speed limit and the states may
>loose their road funding because of this.
This is also do to Federal pressure. After the the heat was put on to
post to 55, quite a few states realized they were mandating speeds a
lot lower than the roads were designed for, and made enforcing 55 a
very low priority. Congress retaliated by trying to tie funding to
enforcement.
>The speed limits should be
>re-evaluated.
Definitely. We're saving more fuel through CAFE than we ever did
through the 55 limit.
>55 does not save lives, never has and never will and it
>is a completely false belief that people will drive as fast as their cars
>can go if given the chance.
Probably not so. Check the highway fatality stats for the first few
years after 55 went in (and a lot more poeple were obeying it).
There was a drop there.
Ian J Gardner
> >what the real speed limit was in Florida. The real speed limit being defined
> >as the speed that you will get a ticket for if you exceed it. The Florida
> >Highway Patrol would not tell him the real speed limit.
> At our local sports car club meeting a number of years ago we had
> a NJ trooper give a talk and radar gun demo. As you can
> guess, the question of how fast before a ticket is issued was
> asked. This cop was pretty staright and said that he really
> doesn't issue tickets (on highways) for less than 10 over the limit.
> He said there was more than enough offenders at 10+ over to keep
> him busy. He did say he couldn't say every cop was that way, but
> he felt that was the case for most of the cops he knew.
> From practical experience, I know many folks (including
> myself) that have known they were
> doing around 10 over when they passed a cop with their radar detector
> on. They knew they had been "hit," but there was no pursuit.
On the other hand, I've had the opportunity to see them get pulled over
for less than 10 mph... I think it depends on the region. Heck, some
of the officers even get brave: Inside the City of Pgh, there are no
radar guns used. Instead, there's a system called "VASCAR", whereby
there are two (or is it 3) stations set up. One is a "Start" station.
The other is a "Stop" station. If the *AVERAGE* speed between those two
stations is greater than a fixed allowance, you're caught. Period.
Can't argue it. Can't detect it. The brave part of this little story
is the situation where I was lucky to observe a motorcycle cop stand in
front of a Blazer that was driving semi-hazardously and too fast, and
flag it down. Of course, add in the fact that he was hiding behind a
construction vehicle/dump truck, and you can imagine the suprise on THAT
driver's face. ("Oh SH**!")
But, why ARE we discussing this on THIS newsgroup?
Ian Gardner
ig...@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University
Computer Science/Political Science
"This .sig paid for by a contribution from the 'Vote for Bush in '92'
campaign."
Alex D Rodriguez
>rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>
>>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
>
>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>would go faster than that.
This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
people who will go faster most will not. The ones that do go faster are
the ones who drive just as fast anyway, the speedlimit does not really
have much influence on them. People usually drive at what they condsider to
be a safe speed. This is the way speed limits use to be set. The current
speed limits are arbitrarily set, usually for monetary gain. As an example
if you have ever driven in a snow storm you will notice that even though
the speed limit is 55 most people are driving at slower speeds.
>
>
>--Steven
Alex Rodriguez
Columbia University
NYC
Bernd Felsche
>On the freeway, you cannot drive in the manner recommended by the
>California Drivers Handbook. This specifies one carlength per
>ten MPH between you and the car ahead. If you try to leave this
>much room, someone *will* cut you off and take that space.
Surprising that they don't use the much more
straight-forward 2 seconds on dry roads. I use this all the
time and my foot is on the brake when it's down to 1 second.
It's almost reflex now.
People find it very hard to judge distance, and their
judgement is impaired by lighting (e.g. you'll misjudge a
distance driving into the sun, thinking that objects are
further away -- oops; minor bender!).
Regarding your traffic problems in CA, all I can suggest is
short-range SSMs. ;-)
--
+-----+ Bernd Felsche _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd / \ ber...@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway, X_.--._/ Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100 v Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Chuck Fry
In article <1992Jun24....@telebit.com> bj...@telebit.com
(Steven Bjork) responds:
)No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
)would go faster than that.
In article <1992Jun26.1...@news.columbia.edu> ad...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) rebuts:
)This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
)people who will go faster most will not. The ones that do go faster are
)the ones who drive just as fast anyway, the speedlimit does not really
)have much influence on them. People usually drive at what they condsider to
)be a safe speed. This is the way speed limits use to be set. The current
)speed limits are arbitrarily set, usually for monetary gain. As an example
)if you have ever driven in a snow storm you will notice that even though
)the speed limit is 55 most people are driving at slower speeds.
Alex is right. There is a body of Federally-funded research that
demonstrates this fact. In particular, one experiment showed that
changing the posted speed limit had no demonstrable effect on speed
distribution!
It turns out that even the "speed freaks" at the far upper end of the
distribution are a whole lot less dangerous to other drivers than the
"slowpokes" who can't keep up with the flow for whatever reason. The
former tend to have single-car accidents, the latter tend to cause
pile-ups.
The 85th percentile rule is the way speed limits used to be set, and
continues to be the correct way. (I.e. the speed limit should be set
at a speed that 85% of the drivers don't exceed.) However, as is so
common in this society, some well-intentioned people think they know
what's best, and try to impose their will on the rest of us.
Since this is not a technical problem but a political one, only
political solutions are likely to work. If you're tired of speed
traps, YOU must make the effort to get the limit changed.
-- Chuck Fry Chu...@charon.arc.nasa.gov
Card-carrying member of the National Motorists Association
andrew.shaw
> The 85th percentile rule is the way speed limits used to be set, and
> continues to be the correct way. (I.e. the speed limit should be set
> at a speed that 85% of the drivers don't exceed.)
Why, I wonder, in those golden days, was there a speed limit at all?
I can see the reason for a "speed advisory" for those unfamiliar with
a specific road, but if the "limit" was set by the speed people actually
drove, why have a limit? After all, they were driving at that speed
to begin with.
Andrew Lawson
>Let's forget this silly notion that a sign on a stick with a magic
>number determines whether you're safe or not. That idea is an insult
>to skilled drivers and a dangerous rationalization for bad ones.
Of course it doesn't determine whether you're safe.
It determines whether you are a criminal.
--
Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
law...@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
Jeffrey Baer
>In article <1992Jun24....@telebit.com> bj...@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
>>In article <182...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
>>rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>>
>>>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
>>
>>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>>would go faster than that.
>
>This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
>people who will go faster most will not.
Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
go up.
>The ones that do go faster are
>the ones who drive just as fast anyway, the speedlimit does not really
>have much influence on them.
I think that for most drivers this is not true. Most drivers
(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
their normal operating speed. For example, most people see a 35
speed limit and drive at 45 based on that. So, a speed limit sign
is more of a suggestion, much like an "icy road" or "school" or
other informational sign. But, I think most people take at least
a passing note of the posted limit. People who drive at the same
(fast) speed no matter what the limit is are (fortunately) a
pretty small minority.
For that reason (people tend to drive somewhat faster than the posted
limit consistently), I think that if the speed limits were raised to
reflect the actual normal flow of traffic, that traffic flow would
also become faster.
>People usually drive at what they condsider to
>be a safe speed. This is the way speed limits use to be set. The current
>speed limits are arbitrarily set, usually for monetary gain.
I don't agree with this. I think that they are arbitrarily ENFORCED
for monetary gain, but in most cases there is at least a rationalization
for why a limit exists (whether it is valid is another point). I think
that only in places like Lizard Butt, Idaho, do you find a limit set
strictly for bucks (a 25 zone on straight road that appears out of the
middle of nowhere).
>As an example
>if you have ever driven in a snow storm you will notice that even though
>the speed limit is 55 most people are driving at slower speeds.
This is an absurd example. I think that driving behavior in blinding
snow tells nothing about normal driving behavior. Even the most foolish
speed demon crazies I know can't hit 55 in a snowstorm. It certainly
doesn't say much about somebody's driving in normal conditions, only
that even normally fast drivers don't have any desire to wind up in
a ditch or sliding into oncoming traffic.
>>--Steven
>
>Alex Rodriguez
>Columbia University
>NYC
jeff
--
"Nothing rings as true as silence."
Jeff Baer
National Semiconductor Corp.
ba...@nsc.nsc.com
The Chipmunk
by wh...@dancer.UUCP ():
: In article <1992Jun24.1...@col.hp.com> ar...@col.hp.com
: (Arnie Berger) writes:
:
: >> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
: >> would go faster than that.
:
: That is more popular myth than fact. I began driving in 1958 and had
: plenty of opportunity to drive the Interstates in the northeast when speed
: limits were 70mph. There simply was NOT a large number (certainly not the
: nearly 100% that exceed 55 today) of drivers that exceeded 70mph.
Add to this that there are such things as places where people actually
drive LESS than the posted speed.
There's a stretch of Grand Avenue in the city of Walnut where the speed
limit is set to 55. Prevailing traffic tends to be 45.
I am a resident, so I KNOW what the speed limit is ... I cruise the
freeways at all sorts of speeds higher than 55 ... nevertheless, I find
myself driving this stretch at 45, if I happen to forget.
There's just something about this street that says "drive 45, son!"
I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the curves, or the number of
lanes. But to drive at 55, I have to consciously remind myself that
I'm really allowed to go that fast.
Whatever it is, I think it demonstrates once and for all that people's
sense for what a speed ought to be has absolutely nothing to do with the
posted limit. People do not look for speed signs then automatically add
10mph. They drive what they feel is safe for the prevailing conditions.
And, as we've already discovered in previous arguments (in ca.driving),
I think you'll also find that most of the time, most of the people are
right.
--
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
If you're a real good kid, I'll give you a piggy-back ride on a
buzz-saw. -- W. C. Fields
lead...@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com
|> In article <1992Jun26....@kronos.arc.nasa.gov>, chu...@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry) writes:
|> > ...[referring to "Federally funded research" concludes:]
|> > It turns out that even the "speed freaks" at the far upper end of the
|> > distribution are a whole lot less dangerous to other drivers than the
|> > "slowpokes" who can't keep up with the flow for whatever reason. The
|> > former tend to have single-car accidents, the latter tend to cause
|> > pile-ups.
|> > -- Chuck Fry Chu...@charon.arc.nasa.gov
|> > Card-carrying member of the National Motorists Association
|>
|>
|>
|> Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA
|> g...@aloft.att.com
Sure! In fact I can even provide a real life example.
Last night on the way home I had the misfortune to being behind some
older man in a Trecel. He crawled down the freeway to an exit ramp
where he proceded to go about 15 MPH around a corner I normally
take at 40-45. Then he merges into 55+ traffic while still going
less than 25. I pulled left early and went around him before he broke
30.
Good thing too. He then merged left ... no more like cut left
into the middle and then left lanes. Oh he had his signal on,
but he wasn't even close to 55 let alone what traffic was doing.
He cut off several people in each lane as he crossed them.
He seemed to feel everyone else had to brake to let his econ-box in
because he had his signal on. People in the left lane had to brake real
hard to avoid hitting him. This man is an accident trying to happen.
That old man and his car had no place in the middle lane, let alone
the left. He never made it to even 55 when he got to the left lane.
People were slamming on their brakes and swearving all over to dodge
this idiot. As seems to be typical for these folks he seemed to
think everyone else drives as slowly as he does. He didn't even
look, he just turned on his signal and started changing lanes.
I don't know about you, but I don't let anyone into the lane if
they aren't even trying to get up to the speed of traffic. I
don't expect everyones car to accel like a rocket, but they have to
at least try. That means using the first pedal on the right when
merging into faster traffic. Crawlers can crawl behind me and waste
their time not mine.
Putting on your signal doesn't give you legal right to change lanes.
Mark A. Roces
posts on this network for the following time periods: the period prior
to last July, the period between last July and this July (with special
regard to this past May-June), and the period after this July.
Somehow I'd imagine that the total number of pro-Indurain posts before
and after the July 1991/July 1992 period wouldn't be anywhere near the
number of pro-Indurain posts within that period.
Not to undermine the siginficant achievements of Indurain, but I wonder
how many of you, who are so eager to rip off your shirts and show the
Banesto jersey that you wear with such fervor, will be bowing before a
different pair of shaved legs next July, should Miguel lose his Yellow
jersey this year.
-Mark A. Roces
mr...@andrew.cmu.edu
Mike Peercy
| chu...@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry) writes:
| > ...[referring to "Federally funded research" concludes:]
| > It turns out that even the "speed freaks" at the far upper end of the
| > distribution are a whole lot less dangerous to other drivers than the
| > "slowpokes" who can't keep up with the flow for whatever reason. The
| > former tend to have single-car accidents, the latter tend to cause
| > pile-ups.
| > ...
| > -- Chuck Fry Chu...@charon.arc.nasa.gov
| > Card-carrying member of the National Motorists Association
| Anyone care to theorize how "slowpokes" *cause* accidents?
The fast car is a single actor negotiating her way through a sea of average
speed cars. On the other hand, the slow car causes a sea of average speed
cars to negotiate its way around his one car.
In brief, the fast car requires only one driver to actively maneuver. The
slow car forces a multitude of drivers to actively maneuver. Clearly the
latter condition is much more dangerous, perhaps by orders of magnitude.
However, it's worse than this since the fast car _chooses_ to actively
maneuver--implying that she is both attentive to and comfortable with it.
The scores of average speed drivers who must actively maneuver around the
slow car do not choose it, and are likely more lackadaisical.
Mike Peercy
pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu
Randall L. Smith
> chu...@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry) writes:
>> ...[referring to "Federally funded research" concludes:]
>> distribution are a whole lot less dangerous to other drivers than the
>> "slowpokes" who can't keep up with the flow for whatever reason. The
>> former tend to have single-car accidents, the latter tend to cause
>> pile-ups.
>
Gee, I thought you'd never ask.:-) There are several many ways they
are dangerous and *cause* accidents. I only have time to talk about one.
The worst kind of "slowpokes" drive at decellerated speeds because of FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt). That basic profile sets the stage for
locking in step with another car going their same basic speed. It is a
speed that they and their cohort are comfortable with and have formed a
consensus, whether deliberate or coincidentally, regarding it's
suitability. They often caught up at a speed differential of a couple
miles per hour or perhaps a stoplight.
When they connect they are dangerous. One or both of the drivers are
incapable, unaware or billigerent to the needs of traffic piling up behind
them. FUD reinforces their willingness to let others suffer under their
rule. Some feel empowered and rightious. Speed limit signs are their
guideposts for good citizenship and they will enforce others compliance
just as they will rouse any other nonconformist at a football game to
stand for the national anthem or bow their head in prayer.
Now you say, "How is that dangerous enough to cause accidents?". Well,
that answer is easy and should be obvious. The piles of cars and trucks
behind the "slowpokes" are traveling in a narrow formation at a
relatively high speed for such closeness. Reaction times become critical
for the safety of the entire formation of vehicles. Add one variant to
this volitale mix of conditions and you will have a catastrophy.
A single variant like potholes, a driver that loses concentration because
of a spilled drink (remember kids, don't drink and drive, you might spill
your drink), a dropped muffler, pallates falling off a truck, a child or
pet out of control or sick, rain, fog, dust, wind, or all the other
realities of driving on the roads.
Slowpokes generally, and I emphasize generally, have a condition that
makes them unwilling or unable to conform with other drivers on the road.
Those conditions *can be* from old age, limited IQ, bad eyesight,
handicaps, stunted reflexes, cranial-rectal inversion, unhappy childhood,
and yet many, many others...
A law in Ohio that I have mixed feelings about requires trucks to drive at
55 mph, while autos can travel at 65 on the Interstates. It is clearly
marked on large speedlimit signs throughout the Interstate system in Ohio.
Trucks tend to become the guidepost that many drivers incapable of passing
and allow the following traffic to bypass the constriction in traffic
flow. At best the truck becomes a venturi of high speed flow past the
constriction and at worst the slowpokes cannot pass the truck quickly
enough to prevent clumping of normal traffic. See the above problems of
clumping. This is a condition where legal traffic within legal
speedlimits are endangered by "slowpokes".
I could go on with different scenarios of how "slowpokes" are a danger
and *cause* accidents, but the point should be obvious by now. Whether
it is through billigerence or incompetence the results are the same.
The overwhelming problem is that those bastards are not directly involved
in the accidents. They just set the stage for others to be victims of
their flawed perceptual and ability apparatus.
Happy trails.
Chris O'Neill
writes:
>In article <1992Jun26.1...@news.columbia.edu>
ad...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun24....@telebit.com> bj...@telebit.com (Steven
Bjork) writes:
>>>In article <182...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
>>>rte...@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>>>
>>>>Why doesn't the city just raise the speed limit on the expressways?
>>>
>>>No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>>>would go faster than that.
>>
>>This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
>>people who will go faster most will not.
>
>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>limit.
This is simply not true. I know of roads where the speed limit was increased
from 60 kilometres per hour (kph) to 75 kph and the average speed on these was
at least 70 kph before the increase and about 75 kph after the increase. i.e.
the average speed increase was less than one-third of the posted limit
increase.
> Compliance would increase very little,
Simply not true.
> and the average speed would go up.
Not anywhere near as much as you say.
>>The ones that do go faster are
>>the ones who drive just as fast anyway, the speedlimit does not really
>>have much influence on them.
>
>I think that for most drivers this is not true. Most drivers
>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>their normal operating speed.
As I have observed above, not true.
Chris O'Neill
Chris O'Neill
Not all of them were. Don't you know what 85th percentile means. It means 15%
were going faster.
Hugh Grierson
>>This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
>>people who will go faster most will not.
>
>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
>go up.
When the speed limit in NZ went up from 80 km/hr to 100 a few years ago
the average speed *did not* increase by the same. My observation
(unsupported by anything even remotely resembling statistics, 99% of
which are made up anyway) was an increase of around 5 km/hr, from
95-100 to 100-105. Speeding fines went up at the same time, and caused
a decrease in speeds in many instances.
One interesting survey (not at all related to the speed limit increase)
was of the average speeds around curves which post a recommended, not
mandatory, speed limit. It was found that the average speed was a
constant amount (around 15k I think) over the posted speed, independent
of what the posted speed actually was. I have observed local variations
in this however. In some parts of the country 75 really means 75, not 95.
--
-Hugh Grierso...@fivegl.co.nz----------Go fast or go home----------------
-Fujitsu SDC-Auckland-New Zealand-Ph:+64.9.6231150-Fax:+64.9.6235448-
That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger
andrew.shaw
Thanks for the response. Actually, not only do I know what
"percentile" means, I also know how to punctuate an interrogative
sentence. The point, though, is: what is the magic of the 85th
percentile? Was there an assumption of a Poisson distribution
and were they therefore thinking "n standard deviations is acceptable,
but n+1 is not"? And was the minimum speed therefore set to the
same amount below the mean?
Jim Frost
>In article <1992Jun26.1...@news.columbia.edu> ad...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) writes:
>>While it is true that there will be some
>>people who will go faster most will not.
>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
>go up.
[...]
>Most drivers
>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>their normal operating speed.
You are mistaken, and I can prove it both through observation and
statistics.
Watching driving patterns in areas where the speed limit went from 55
to 65 was enlightening. I saw one of two different behavior patterns:
1. No change in average speed.
2. Slower average speeds.
In either case you get *much* higher conformance. For example:
Most stretches of I93 in middle NH showed virtually no variance
before and during the 55mph limit period and showed no appreciable
variance when the speed limit hopped to 65mph (ie traffic didn't
suddenly start doing 80mph even though it had been doing 70mph before
the change).
I've noticed that on the stretch of I93 where the speed limit jumps
from 55mph (MA) to 65mph (NH) average traffic speed *drops* from about
70mph to about 60mph. Really! It slowly climbs back up again as you
get more rural but peaks at about 70mph. Assuming a limit+delta
pattern would give us average velocities of about 80mph, but that's
not what happens.
For another example, take the MA Pike (I90). Average speed in the
eastern reaches is 70-75mph, posted limit 55mph. In the western 65mph
regions it's basically the same -- not 80-85mph as you'd predict.
People drive what they're comfortable with; in my experience, the
comfort zone for your average driver is between 70 and 75mph. This
really clicks with observed behavior, while a fixed delta does not.
You do get speed maniacs under any conditions with any limit, but what
you *don't* see is your average driver doing 15-20mph above the limit
-- whatever that limit may be -- as we regularly see in 55mph areas.
This isn't my *opinion*, this is my *observation*.
Now I'm going to let you prove to yourself that what I'm saying is
true through statistics. Go find out what the nonconformance rate was
before the 55mph limits went in place and what it was before the 65mph
law went into affect(1). Under your theory there should be almost no
change.
I'm not going to quote you the bare statistics, I want you to look
them up because it'll hit harder then. If you see total
nonconformance +/- 10% with what we see now (which would put
conformance anywhere from 5% to 25%, easily wide enough to cover
statistical error) come back and tell me I'm wrong(2).
We've become so accustomed to absurdly low speed limits that our first
reaction is to extrapolate behavior with the low speed limit in order
to predict behavior with a sane speed limit -- the extrapolation just
plain doesn't hold true. You don't have to take my word for it, just
drive around in places where the speed limit changes although the
driving conditions don't, or back up in time to before the limits went
in place. In both cases you see much better conformance and not
limit+delta driving habits.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
(1) You will have a hard time with this statistic because I don't
think it was calculated in most areas until after the 55mph law went
through. You can get a rough approximation of variation of
conformance by looking at total tickets issued; if it jumps or drops
significantly there's a change in conformance (or one in ticketing --
although ticketing seldom causes jumps of more than 10 or 15%). Also
look at the average difference between posted limit and ticket issue
speeds; some areas never changed their ticketing habits so a large
jump here indicates that police tend to give out about the same amount
of larger tickets, indicating a higher average velocity with relation
to the posted limit.
(2) You won't, at least in most areas. Expect 70-90% conformance
(more than four times what we see today).
richard welty
>>This is not necessarily true. While it is true that there will be some
>>people who will go faster most will not.
>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
>go up.
believe what you want. there is a substantial body of evidence, in the
form of over 20 years of Federally funded studies, that support Alex on
this one. as one fine example, when the posted limit was raised from
55 to 65 on rural interstates, the average speeds on those roads went up
by 3mph, even though the speed limit went up by 10mph. compliance on
55 roads is about 10%; compliance on 65 roads is in the neighborhood
of 50%.
>I think that for most drivers this is not true. Most drivers
>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>their normal operating speed.
this is commonly believed, and demonstrably not true. the most recent
study bearing on this is from the FHWA; they studied a large number of
roads over a period of several years. on many of these roads, speed
limits were raised or lowered during the time period. when the average
speeds were compared with the posted speeds, it was found that the average
speeds did not change when the posted speeds changed, regardless of which
way the posted speeds went (up or down.) the study was called _speed
zoning in america_, as i recall (my copy of the preliminary results is
at home.)
believe what you want; when it comes to actual studies and statistics,
Alex is right.
cheers,
richard
--
richard welty 518-393-7228
we...@cabot.balltown.cma.com
``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
-- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
Mark J. Rinehart
> In article <24...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtc...@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>
> >Let's forget this silly notion that a sign on a stick with a magic
> >number determines whether you're safe or not. That idea is an insult
> >to skilled drivers and a dangerous rationalization for bad ones.
>
> Of course it doesn't determine whether you're safe.
> It determines whether you are a criminal.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This statement is too pathetic to comment on, save a feeling I get
that the commentator is either brainwashed or braindead!!
Mark
Jeffrey Baer
>Written in article <1992Jun24....@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
> by wh...@dancer.UUCP ():
>
>: In article <1992Jun24.1...@col.hp.com> ar...@col.hp.com
>: (Arnie Berger) writes:
>:
>: >> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>: >> would go faster than that.
>:
>: That is more popular myth than fact. I began driving in 1958 and had
>: plenty of opportunity to drive the Interstates in the northeast when speed
>: limits were 70mph. There simply was NOT a large number (certainly not the
>: nearly 100% that exceed 55 today) of drivers that exceeded 70mph.
But, I'd bet that there were more folks going 80 (a 10mph increase
over 70) than there are now (a 25mph increase). I don't think 100%
compliance is what's important, it's the average prevaling speed,
be it legal or not.
>
>Add to this that there are such things as places where people actually
>drive LESS than the posted speed.
>
>There's a stretch of Grand Avenue in the city of Walnut where the speed
>limit is set to 55. Prevailing traffic tends to be 45.
>
>I am a resident, so I KNOW what the speed limit is ... I cruise the
>freeways at all sorts of speeds higher than 55 ... nevertheless, I find
>myself driving this stretch at 45, if I happen to forget.
>
>There's just something about this street that says "drive 45, son!"
>I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the curves, or the number of
>lanes. But to drive at 55, I have to consciously remind myself that
>I'm really allowed to go that fast.
>
>Whatever it is, I think it demonstrates once and for all that people's
>sense for what a speed ought to be has absolutely nothing to do with the
>posted limit.
This is another example like the one about people not driving 55 in a
snowstorm. A lot of people are smart enough to know what the safe speed
is in a situation. Bully for them. However, the "safe" limit may
not be completely obvious to all drivers. On Grand Avenue, if there
is no other traffic for an unfamiliar driver to see, he or she may not
realize what the safe limit is and overshoot. In general, I'll bet there
are a lot more examples of people who drive over the speed limit unsafely
than under it safely.
In addition, there's another thread of this discussion that is talking
about the real menace being ultra-slow drivers (grandpa). I absolutely
agree; SPEED is not the significant variable, it is the DIFFERENCE in
speed between the slow guys and the fast guys on the road. I think 55
serves to shrink this delta, and I don't see how raising or eliminating
speed limits will do anything but increase the differential. Gramps is
not going to go faster than 45 whether the speed limit is 55 or 70.
Why make him even slower than the prevailing traffic? Is that safer?
>People do not look for speed signs then automatically add
>10mph. They drive what they feel is safe for the prevailing conditions.
People who don't want to get tickets take some notice of the speed limit.
>
>And, as we've already discovered in previous arguments (in ca.driving),
>I think you'll also find that most of the time, most of the people are
>right.
Most of the people rationalize their own behavior, whether it is right
or wrong.
>
>--
>The Chipmunk.
>Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
>If you're a real good kid, I'll give you a piggy-back ride on a
>buzz-saw. -- W. C. Fields
jeff
Michael J. Konopik
>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>their normal operating speed.
I suspect that most drivers actually figure out how fast they feel is safe
to drive on a road, take note of the posted speed limit, and then choose a
speed somewhere between the two (depending on traffic, road conditions, and
the presence/absence of cops).
Would raising the limit from 55 to 65 on a stretch of 280 really raise
the average motorist speed by 10mph? My guess is that it would raise it
by 5 or 6 at most. As you keep raising the speed, you gradually approach
a point where the posted speed is about as fast as most drivers will feel
comfortable driving.
-Mike
Kemasa
>In article <18...@fritz.filenet.com> asyl...@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>>Written in article <1992Jun24....@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
>> by wh...@dancer.UUCP ():
>>: In article <1992Jun24.1...@col.hp.com> ar...@col.hp.com
>>: (Arnie Berger) writes:
>>: >> No matter what the speed limit is, a large number of folks
>>: >> would go faster than that.
>In addition, there's another thread of this discussion that is talking
>about the real menace being ultra-slow drivers (grandpa). I absolutely
>agree; SPEED is not the significant variable, it is the DIFFERENCE in
>speed between the slow guys and the fast guys on the road. I think 55
>serves to shrink this delta, and I don't see how raising or eliminating
>speed limits will do anything but increase the differential. Gramps is
>not going to go faster than 45 whether the speed limit is 55 or 70.
>Why make him even slower than the prevailing traffic? Is that safer?
The problem is that too many people think 55 is too slow and go over
that while some do not and this is creating the speed difference.
Making the speed limit low only increases the differences since more
people will ignore the speed limit. A good example is on I5 which is
now at 65 for a long stretch. A majority of the people driving on
that road are going closer to the same speed, at least from what
I have seen when I drive it. Some people decide that 65 is fast
enough and don't want to risk a ticket and others will go 65 since
it is the speed limit.
You are always going to have people who are at the extremes and in the case
of the slow drivers they might just take another road, but the majority
will tend to group together and reduce the average difference in speeds.
>>People do not look for speed signs then automatically add
>>10mph. They drive what they feel is safe for the prevailing conditions.
>
>People who don't want to get tickets take some notice of the speed limit.
Yes and if they happen to not go that speed they might just decide
to go *faster* since they are risking a ticket anyhow. If you are going
to break the law, why not get away with all that you can? What is the
difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55? You can get
a ticket in either case and one gets you where you want to go faster
(although this is a lame excuse in many cases, but think about it).
>>And, as we've already discovered in previous arguments (in ca.driving),
>>I think you'll also find that most of the time, most of the people are
>>right.
>
>Most of the people rationalize their own behavior, whether it is right
>or wrong.
And people rationalize why things should and shouldn't change whether
it is right or wrong.
--
Kemasa.
The best defense is insanity.
Sierra Club Leader NRA Life Member Pro-freedom
e-mail address: kem...@ghost.hac.com
richard welty
> The point, though, is: what is the magic of the 85th
>percentile? Was there an assumption of a Poisson distribution
>and were they therefore thinking "n standard deviations is acceptable,
>but n+1 is not"? And was the minimum speed therefore set to the
>same amount below the mean?
no; it was really just a crude engineering rule of thumb. if you look
at the distribution of the speeds, and at the distribution of fatalities,
you will find that for any given class of roads, there are some clear
patterns; one of these is that the safest traffic on a rural interstate
is invariably that traveling between the 50th percentile and the 85th
percentile (this is a positive correlation; there is no established
causalty here.) the rates for involvement in fatal accidents go up
sharply from this point; traffic at lower speeds tends to be involved
in multi car incidents, and traffic at higher speeds tends to be involved
in single car incidents.
not really `knowing' the causality, and having learned that traffic
tended to ignore speed limit signs, the engineers who used to set speed
limits tended to pick speeds which made the `safest' drivers (e.g., those
statistically least likely to be involved in a fatal accident; again,
for reasons that are as yet not proven) legal; therefore speed limits
tended to be set using a 85th or a 90th percentile rule; the speed limit
was set to the 5mph increment which would at the least make the 85th
percentile drivers legal.
i'm not clear on what the rule of thumb for min speed limits is; the
accident stats for roadways generally suggest that anything below the
30th percentile has a strong correlation with a high accident rate,
but it would be unreasonable to set minimums at such a level for extremely
obvious reasons.
note that in urban environments, the curves are somewhat different; the
`safest' speed is a slightly lower one. the drivers at the greatest
risk, statistically speaking, are those below the 30th percentile, once
again.
Derek Tearne
>
>One interesting survey (not at all related to the speed limit increase)
>was of the average speeds around curves which post a recommended, not
>mandatory, speed limit. It was found that the average speed was a
>constant amount (around 15k I think) over the posted speed, independent
>of what the posted speed actually was. I have observed local variations
>in this however. In some parts of the country 75 really means 75, not 95.
There are a couple of these in the East Cape which say 25Kmph and 30Kmph and
_mean_ it. Much faster than that and you're cliff fodder. The most
amusing advisory signs in New Zealand are the ones on the Matamata straights.
These are a series of long straight bits of road with a few reasonable
bends and one or two 90 degree bends. The speed limit on this road is
100Kph but many use it to explore their top speeds and 160+ is not unusual.
The bends are posted at an advisory 95Kmph - This is kind of an admission
by the authorities that people will be exceeding the speed limit by a
considerable amount. I wonder what they were posted as when the national
speed limit was 80Kmph - anyone know?
Derek Tearne
--
Derek Tearne de...@fivegl.co.nz --Fujitsu SDC Auckland,New Zealand
VirusBlat Version 1:
.sig virus detected and removed from file: /home/users/derek/.signature
Andrew Lawson
>mad...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>| Anyone care to theorize how "slowpokes" *cause* accidents?
>In brief, the fast car requires only one driver to actively maneuver. The
>slow car forces a multitude of drivers to actively maneuver. Clearly the
>latter condition is much more dangerous, perhaps by orders of magnitude.
>
>However, it's worse than this since the fast car _chooses_ to actively
>maneuver--implying that she is both attentive to and comfortable with it.
>The scores of average speed drivers who must actively maneuver around the
>slow car do not choose it, and are likely more lackadaisical.
I get it. That slow driver forces the other cars to make reckless lane
changes and cut people off.
The way I drive (and was taught), if you are paying attention and
_aren't_ tailgating, you can react safely to most obstacles. I agree
that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
time to pass safely.
It reminds me of a case I heard while waiting in traffic court a few
years back. Someone had rear-ended another car, and the driver brought
a witness in on his behalf. She said (of the hit car), "She just
stopped for no reason."
The judge's reply was, "What if she had a reason? What if a child had
run in front of the car?" The person charged was simply driving too
closely to have reaction time. It is no defense to say that the other
car shouldn't have stopped. It's sort of like saying, "If you had
moved your face, my fist wouldn't have hit it."
Chris O'Neill
(andrew.shaw) writes:
>From article <1992Jun29....@trl.oz.au>, by c.on...@trl.oz.au (Chris
O'Neill):
>> In article <1992Jun26....@cbfsb.cb.att.com> as...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
>> (andrew.shaw) writes:
>>>From article <1992Jun26....@kronos.arc.nasa.gov>, by
>> chu...@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry):
>>>> The 85th percentile rule is the way speed limits used to be set, and
>>>> continues to be the correct way. (I.e. the speed limit should be set
>>>> at a speed that 85% of the drivers don't exceed.)
>>>
>>>Why, I wonder, in those golden days, was there a speed limit at all?
>>>I can see the reason for a "speed advisory" for those unfamiliar with
>>>a specific road, but if the "limit" was set by the speed people actually
>>>drove, why have a limit? After all, they were driving at that speed
>>>to begin with.
>>
>> Not all of them were. Don't you know what 85th percentile means.
>> It means 15% were going faster.
>>
>Thanks for the response. Actually, not only do I know what
>"percentile" means, I also know how to punctuate an interrogative
>sentence. The point, though, is: what is the magic of the 85th
>percentile? Was there an assumption of a Poisson distribution
>and were they therefore thinking "n standard deviations is acceptable,
>but n+1 is not"?
I don't know how the justification was made a long time ago but these days the
justification is that the accident rate only increases for the fastest 5% of
vehicles. This would lead to a speed limit at the 95th percentile but
conservativeness reduces this to the 85th percentile.
> And was the minimum speed therefore set to the
>same amount below the mean?
What do you mean by the minimum speed?
Kenneth Crudup
>known in this group most commonly as "sheep")
In article <1992Jun29.1...@acuson.com>
law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson) bleats:
>I must register a public complaint. As long as the driving peer pressure is
>derisive toward people who comply with speed limits, no one can expect any
>improvement.
"Improvment" in what? Compliance with the slow speed limits? I assume you're
from the SF Bay Area, and I'm sure there are lots of traffic tie-ups there,
and I bet another 10 mph couldn't hurt anyone.
You still don't get it, huh?
--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142 +1 617 621 7306
ke...@osf.osf.org OSF has nothing to do with this post.
Chmn, Blacks for Perot- "He can't screw us any worse than George or Willie will"
Pete Ikusz
>In article <1992Jun26....@nsc.nsc.com> ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
>
>>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>>known in this group most commonly as "sheep")
>derisive toward people who comply with speed limits, no one can expect any
>improvement.
>
>in that I perceive that you intend that in the negative.
>
>I also would offer the retorical question:
> Who is following more, the person obeying the speed limit or the
> person obeying the speed limit + 10 mph?
I think the point needed to be made is that people who drive faster than the
posted speed limit have no problems with people that drive the speed limit.
The problem lies in the latters' understanding of the statement, "SLOWER TRAFFIC
KEEP RIGHT".
In Germany if you are in the left lane and someone wants to pass, it is common
__courtesy__ to move aside. Here the majority of these drivers sit in their
own little world, and either don't see you, don't care, or just won't move.
Sounds like laziness, stubbornness, or both. You make the call.
-Pete
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Pete Ikusz Introl Corporation pe...@introl.com
Robert J. Wade
>In article <1992Jun26....@nsc.nsc.com> ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
>
>>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>>known in this group most commonly as "sheep")
>
>
>derisive toward people who comply with speed limits, no one can expect any
>improvement.
>
the right lane and if you are in the left and i am coming up behind you
flashing my lights please move over so i can pass. thank you.
> Who is following more, the person obeying the speed limit or the
> person obeying the speed limit + 10 mph?
>
uh, the person who is obeying the speed limit.
andrew.shaw
>
> I also would offer the retorical question:
> person obeying the speed limit + 10 mph?
>
andrew.shaw
> In article <1992Jun29....@cbfsb.cb.att.com> as...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
> (andrew.shaw) writes:
>
>> And was the minimum speed therefore set to the same amount below the mean?
>
> What do you mean by the minimum speed?
Sometimes here you see highway signs: Speed Limit 55 Minimum 40.
Michael G. Lohmeyer
It is generally true that whenever you rear end someone, no matter what
the other person did, you will be held responsible under the idea that
you should have had enough following distance and attention to react and
stop without hitting the person.
In that respect, if someone is going 55 on the freeway while everyone
else is going 65 to 70, if the slower person gets hit, it is purly the fault
of the person that rear ended the slower person.
Now, let's bring the reality of life into this. I think we all agree
that speed difference is more of a danger than outright speed itself.
This is why if everyone on the freeway is going faster than 65 except for
one person who is doing less than 55, the person driving slow should speed
up because they are causing a hazard. I know, the law says they are doing
nothing wrong, but think in terms of defensive driving. If I was the only
one on a freeway going 55 when everyone else was going 65 or more, I would
feel pretty uncomfortable because I would be worried about someone hitting me. It doesn't mean that I am in the wrong for driving slow, but it does mean
that I am being stupid because I am not driving defensively.
Of course, my example is idealistic in that one person is driving 10
MPH slower than everyone else when really it is more like everyone is
driving between 55-70. But, getting back to the original poster who talked
about the guy who entered the freeway at 25 MPH (I think) and never got
beyond 45 MPH in traffic that was going significantly faster. Anyway you
look at it, this guy was a hazard to himself and to traffic on the freeway.
He should have speed up (before entering the freeway), or he shouldn't
have been on the freeway in the first place.
Mike
-------------
Mike Lohmeyer mi...@berlioz.nsc.com
National Semiconductor Corporation Santa Clara CA
(408) 721-8075
Matthew T. Russotto
>>mad...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>
>>| Anyone care to theorize how "slowpokes" *cause* accidents?
>
>>In brief, the fast car requires only one driver to actively maneuver. The
>>slow car forces a multitude of drivers to actively maneuver. Clearly the
>>latter condition is much more dangerous, perhaps by orders of magnitude.
>>
>>However, it's worse than this since the fast car _chooses_ to actively
>>maneuver--implying that she is both attentive to and comfortable with it.
>>The scores of average speed drivers who must actively maneuver around the
>>slow car do not choose it, and are likely more lackadaisical.
>
>
>I get it. That slow driver forces the other cars to make reckless lane
>changes and cut people off.
>
>The way I drive (and was taught), if you are paying attention and
>_aren't_ tailgating, you can react safely to most obstacles. I agree
>that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
>I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
>acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
>time to pass safely.
If you've been in the real world, you know that some people are
inattentive ALL the time, and all people are inattentive some of the
time. The driver driving significantly slower than the speed of
traffic is like a magnet for inattentive drivers only. Thus the slow
driver does pose a threat, even if you don't want to assign blame.
>It reminds me of a case I heard while waiting in traffic court a few
>years back. Someone had rear-ended another car, and the driver brought
>a witness in on his behalf. She said (of the hit car), "She just
>stopped for no reason."
>
>The judge's reply was, "What if she had a reason? What if a child had
>run in front of the car?" The person charged was simply driving too
>closely to have reaction time. It is no defense to say that the other
>car shouldn't have stopped. It's sort of like saying, "If you had
>moved your face, my fist wouldn't have hit it."
So if a person DOES stop for no reason, do they have no blame? That
certainly makes no sense.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Mike Peercy
| pee...@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
| >mad...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
| >| Anyone care to theorize how "slowpokes" *cause* accidents?
| >In brief, the fast car requires only one driver to actively maneuver. The
| >slow car forces a multitude of drivers to actively maneuver. Clearly the
| >latter condition is much more dangerous, perhaps by orders of magnitude.
| >
| >However, it's worse than this since the fast car _chooses_ to actively
| >maneuver--implying that she is both attentive to and comfortable with it.
| >The scores of average speed drivers who must actively maneuver around the
| >slow car do not choose it, and are likely more lackadaisical.
| I get it. That slow driver forces the other cars to make reckless lane
| changes and cut people off.
| The way I drive (and was taught), if you are paying attention and
| _aren't_ tailgating, you can react safely to most obstacles. I agree
| that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
| I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
| acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
| time to pass safely.
I am not trying to pass a moral judgment on the speed of a driver.
I'm simply trying to point out that it is a more hazardous situation
to have one slow car on the road than to have one fast car on the road.
When a dozen cars going 68-72 come up behind a car going 60 in the
right lane (of two), they must all go to the left lane to pass. In
taking the time to pass safely, some of these cars will actually fall
in speed to 60 as they must wait for the left lane to clear.
Some posters have pointed out that it is the _differences_ in speeds
of cars which is the correlated factor in accidents. As some of the
passing cars must slow down in order to pass, the standard deviation
of the speeds of all the cars actually increases! Thus the situation
is more dangerous by the measure of speed difference.
On the other hand, when an 80 mph car passes the bunch at 68-72,
the only car which may need to change its speed is the 80, a change
which will, in fact, _lower_ the standard deviation of speeds.
If we're to take speed differential as _the_ deciding factor in
accidents (an unwise move, I agree), the fast car passing the
pack is an inherently stable situation because the speed
differential is nonincreasing. However, the pack passing the
slow car is an inherently unstable situation because the speed
differential is nondecreasing.
This is a naturally occurrence when the average drivers are forced
to react rather than when the exceptional driver must react.
Mike Peercy
pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
>Sure! In fact I can even provide a real life example.
>
>Last night on the way home I had the misfortune to being behind some
>older man in a Trecel. He crawled down the freeway to an exit ramp
>where he proceded to go about 15 MPH around a corner I normally
>take at 40-45. Then he merges into 55+ traffic while still going
>less than 25. I pulled left early and went around him before he broke
>30.
...
>He seemed to feel everyone else had to brake to let his econ-box in
>because he had his signal on. People in the left lane had to brake real
>hard to avoid hitting him. This man is an accident trying to happen.
...
>That old man and his car had no place in the middle lane, let alone
>the left. He never made it to even 55 when he got to the left lane.
Just to defend the car model I drive, the Tercel is perfectly capable
of acceleration into 55MPH traffic. Or 75MPH traffic for that matter.
You might have to take it out of 4th, something some people seem
unable to understand...
Andrew Lawson
>In article <1992Jun29.1...@acuson.com> law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson) writes:
>
>> Who is following more, the person obeying the speed limit or the
>> person obeying the speed limit + 10 mph?
>>
>uh, the person who is obeying the speed limit.
Why? The sign on the side of the road is what the speeder is following.
How many of those 65 drivers stay at 65 when the speed limit drops to
35?
They're just faster sheep.
Andrew Lawson
>I think the point needed to be made is that people who drive faster than the
>posted speed limit have no problems with people that drive the speed limit.
>The problem lies in the latters' understanding of the statement, "SLOWER TRAFFIC
>KEEP RIGHT".
Perhaps you can explain then why it is that I am constantly being
tailgated when driving in the right two lanes of a four lane highway.
These drivers with at least two passing lanes to the left still hang on
my bumber as if it were their duty to help me realize that I've
forgotten to drive at 65 mph.
You might also explain for me the recently posted sentiment that slower
drivers (i.e. non-speeders) are a traffic hazard.
Nieznany
Jeffrey Baer
>
>>Most drivers
>>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>>known in this group most commonly as "sheep")
>
>
>I must register a public complaint. As long as the driving peer pressure is
>derisive toward people who comply with speed limits, no one can expect any
>improvement.
>
>in that I perceive that you intend that in the negative.
Sorry. It was a satirical reference, not meant to be offensive. Others
in this group have used the term in a much more negative sense, and
I was trying to make a slight point (obviously too slight).
If you notice, I was defending the position of the importance of speed limits.
>
>I also would offer the retorical question:
> Who is following more, the person obeying the speed limit or the
> person obeying the speed limit + 10 mph?
>
>--
>Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
>law...@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
Jeff Donsbach x4365 5-2
> What is the difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55?
In Massachusetts, $50.00. ;-)
(sorry, couldn't pass that one up.)
-Jeff
--
==========================
Jeff Donsbach, Computervision, 14 Crosby Dr., Bedford, MA
UUCP: {decvax|linus|sun}!cvbnet!jdonsbac | Internet: jdon...@cvbnet.prime.com
David Chase
>>The way I drive (and was taught), if you are paying attention and
>>_aren't_ tailgating, you can react safely to most obstacles. I agree
>>that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
>>I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
>>acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
>>time to pass safely.
In article <1992Jul01....@eng.umd.edu> russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>If you've been in the real world, you know that some people are
>inattentive ALL the time, and all people are inattentive some of the
>time. The driver driving significantly slower than the speed of
>traffic is like a magnet for inattentive drivers only. Thus the slow
>driver does pose a threat, even if you don't want to assign blame.
As an occasional bicycle rider, I view this as a feature, not a bug.
Any "inattentive driver filter" that removes inattentive drivers from
the road (either by license suspension, injury, destruction of car, or
death) means that the road is safer for someone on a bicycle. Trains
are an especially good example of this -- anyone either stupid enough
or distracted enough to not notice a train, I don't want to share the
road with. It would be more humane to detect these people when
licenses are granted, of course.
>So if a person DOES stop for no reason, do they have no blame? That
>certainly makes no sense.
As I understand it, they have no blame. There are plenty of good
safety reasons to stop in a hurry, but I cannot think of any way that
tailgating would ever be safer than not tailgating. A tailgater puts
a tailgated car at risk (because that car *might* need to stop in a
hurry) -- not vice-versa. If you care about safety, you do not
tailgate, period. You probably also don't impede traffic in the LH
lane (if you care about safety), but tailgating someone who is driving
slowly in the LH lane does not make the situation safer, regardless of
who was first to break the law.
There does seem to be some misunderstanding about exactly what
constitutes "slow drivers". I frequently find people on my
tail in either one of the right-most lanes, and I find people on my
tail while driving the speed limit on the frontage road and in
residential neighborhoods. People around here seem to tailgate both
in the dark and in the rain, and in *very* expensive cars (the price
of the bumper alone would buy the car that I drive to work).
Tailgating in the LH lanes, I can understand, but I don't think that
is what is being complained about.
David Chase
Sun
Mark Slagle
> So if a person DOES stop for no reason, do they have no blame? That
> certainly makes no sense.
Well, everybody has SOME reason. Maybe the reason is that the
person driving the car just wants to scare you, maybe it's to get
you to pass instead of tailgate. We might not like it, but we
had better be ready anyway. People do all sorts of bizarre
things on the road. Whatever it is, you're going to have a hard
time proving to a judge that there was NO reason, or even that
there was no good one. And the judge is still going to think
that you were too close. That's just the way it goes.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA
Jeffrey Baer
This makes two assumptions. One is that people ignore a 55 speed limit
because it is unreasonable, but obey a speed limit like 65 because
it is reasonable. It is true that somebody who is comfortable driving
65 will suddenly find themselves conforming with the law. But, somebody
who is now comfortable driving 70 will continue to drive 70 (or perhaps 75).
I can't see what would cause them to drive slower.
The second assumption is that if the limit were raised from 55 to
65, all the people who drove 55 (or less) previously would increase
to 65 simply because the limit increased. However, some people are
not comfortable going over 55. Based on their own assessment of
their driving ability, they do not choose to drive fast. Some vehicles
can't go that fast. Your point is that it is the speed limit being too
low that creates the difference. Raise the speed limit to a more realistic
value, and everybody will drive at that speed. Unfortunately, people
cannot be forced to speed up, as long as they don't drive dangerously slow.
In many other states, they put up a minimum and maximum speed limit.
The minimum is typically 40. You may not like seeing grandma on
the freeway going 40, but it is legal. Grandma is not going to
go 65 just because prevailing traffic is going 65, or because the
limit is set to 65. So, the differential still exists.
Some people have come back and said that in the past when the limit
went up from 55 to 65, traffic did NOT speed up 10 mph but rather
something like 3 mph. I don't doubt that (God forbid I argue with
statistics!), but I don't think it's relevant without knowing
the standard deviation of the mean. I contend that the standard
deviation of the average speed is significantly higher after the
increase. This is because some people who drive slowly will continue to
drive slowly, either because they can't or won't drive faster.
This will tend to offset the speed increase of people who drive faster
than the new speed limit. The new average speed would be biased downward,
but the standard deviation would increase.
That is why I don't think an 80 mph speed limit is a good idea, even
if many people are driving 80 (like on I-5 for example).
>You are always going to have people who are at the extremes and in the case
>of the slow drivers they might just take another road, but the majority
>will tend to group together and reduce the average difference in speeds.
Huh? You want to tell me another road from Sunnyvale to Sacramento that
I can point my slow-driving friends to? Sorry, but "kick the slowpokes
off the freeways" is not a realistic solution. Slow people pay road taxes
too. And, I don't think you like the way slow people reduce the average
difference in speeds (by slowing down fast people).
(by the way, I typically drive 65-70 on the highway, so I'm not arguing
this point to preserve my right to be a sheep).
>
>>>People do not look for speed signs then automatically add
>>>10mph. They drive what they feel is safe for the prevailing conditions.
>>
>>People who don't want to get tickets take some notice of the speed limit.
>
>Yes and if they happen to not go that speed they might just decide
>to go *faster* since they are risking a ticket anyhow. If you are going
>to break the law, why not get away with all that you can? What is the
>difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55? You can get
>a ticket in either case and one gets you where you want to go faster
>(although this is a lame excuse in many cases, but think about it).
But, I might decide since I'm going to die anyway, I might as well eat
cyanide tonight. Same logic.
I think it is pretty well accepted that one can go 10 MPH over the speed
limit with minimal risk of a ticket in most cases, but the
odds increase as that differential increases. Your argument draws a
clear black and white distinction between conformance and non-conformance,
so there is no difference between 56 and 100. That's just not
realistic. A person going 100 is going to get more tickets than
somebody going 56.
>
>>>And, as we've already discovered in previous arguments (in ca.driving),
>>>I think you'll also find that most of the time, most of the people are
>>>right.
>>
>>Most of the people rationalize their own behavior, whether it is right
>>or wrong.
>
>And people rationalize why things should and shouldn't change whether
>it is right or wrong.
Things that are wrong should change. Haven't seen any proof that it's
seriously broken.
>
> Kemasa.
>
>The best defense is insanity.
>
>Sierra Club Leader NRA Life Member Pro-freedom
>
>e-mail address: kem...@ghost.hac.com
John Willmore
>From article <1992Jun30.0...@trl.oz.au>, by c.on...@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill):
>
>Sometimes here you see highway signs: Speed Limit 55 Minimum 40.
And it pleases me to no end to see CHP pulling over cars that are
driving below the minimum speed on the freeways here in the San
Francisco Bay area! :-)
-- jaws
--
John A Willmore | I ZERO | Navigator, Car ???, Starlite 1992
(KD6KBZ) +---------------+-------------------------------------
Software Engineer | Bay Area Timed and Gimmick Rallyes: (408) REWIND-5
Resumix, Inc | Support your local checkpoint crew!
Bob Pitas
tests? Did they actually open up a road and take down all the speed-limit
signs? Did they just see how fast people were going *in spite of* the speed
limit? I can't see the government doing the former, but the latter wouldn't be
a true representation of what people would do if they weren't risking a speeding
ticket...
Jeffrey Baer
>ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
>>>While it is true that there will be some
>>>people who will go faster most will not.
>
>>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>>limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
>>go up.
>[...]
>>Most drivers
>>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>>their normal operating speed.
>
>statistics.
Sorry, anecdotal evidence is not a proof. And statistics (which
you never quote, by the way) can say anything you want them to.
>
>Watching driving patterns in areas where the speed limit went from 55
>to 65 was enlightening. I saw one of two different behavior patterns:
>
>1. No change in average speed.
>2. Slower average speeds.
I didn't see this on the roads in California I drive that went
from 55 to 65. I saw a lot more people doing 70-75. The people
who were already doing 75 seemed to stay there, but there were
a lot more people keeping up with them. I've *NEVER* seen slower
average speeds.
>
>In either case you get *much* higher conformance. For example:
If the average speed is already 70, even if it stays at 70,
you don't have higher conformance. The prevailing traffic
is closer to conformance, but still speeding.
>
>Most stretches of I93 in middle NH showed virtually no variance
>before and during the 55mph limit period and showed no appreciable
>variance when the speed limit hopped to 65mph (ie traffic didn't
>suddenly start doing 80mph even though it had been doing 70mph before
>the change).
Everybody doesn't have to start doing 80 to make the average speed
go up. If more people start doing 70, the average speed will go
up, even if NOBODY does 80. And, if people were doing 70mph before
and after, where's the conformance?
>
>I've noticed that on the stretch of I93 where the speed limit jumps
>from 55mph (MA) to 65mph (NH) average traffic speed *drops* from about
>70mph to about 60mph. Really! It slowly climbs back up again as you
>get more rural but peaks at about 70mph. Assuming a limit+delta
>pattern would give us average velocities of about 80mph, but that's
>not what happens.
I dunno that much can be gleaned from a scenario where the speed
limit goes up and average speed goes down. Sounds like a case
where the limit doesn't reflect some strange characteristic
of the road that tends to inhibit speed. There's something
that you're not telling here....
>
>For another example, take the MA Pike (I90). Average speed in the
>eastern reaches is 70-75mph, posted limit 55mph. In the western 65mph
>regions it's basically the same -- not 80-85mph as you'd predict.
I agree that as you consider higher speeds, the size of the delta
will shrink. If traffic is already moving at 75, I don't think
most people will start going 85 (I don't think a lot of cars
can HIT 85 these days). But, it seems that more people will tend
drive 70 than before, which is where the increase in average
speed comes from, not from people suddenly deciding to drive 80.
>
>People drive what they're comfortable with; in my experience, the
>comfort zone for your average driver is between 70 and 75mph. This
>really clicks with observed behavior, while a fixed delta does not.
See above. I never presented a fixed delta as a hard-and-fast rule,
and I think it does not apply as speed goes to infinity.
>
>You do get speed maniacs under any conditions with any limit, but what
>you *don't* see is your average driver doing 15-20mph above the limit
>-- whatever that limit may be -- as we regularly see in 55mph areas.
>
>This isn't my *opinion*, this is my *observation*.
A little of both.
If you make the speed limit high enough, then conformance will go to
100%. If conformance is the goal, a high speed limit is the answer.
But, what have you solved?
If SAFETY is the goal, this is not the way to go. If a road is
designed to be driven safely at 70, then you might have a very
safe road with only 10% conformance. If a road becomes dangerous
at 60, you might have 90% conformance but a very dangerous
situation with that other 10%. I don't believe 100% conformance
is some holy grail to be attained. I think that raising the
speed limit to reach that end would be losing the forest
for the trees.
>
>I'm not going to quote you the bare statistics, I want you to look
>them up because it'll hit harder then.
Gee, where? I like how you quote statistics without any citation,
and claim that is "proof". At least I preface my opinions as "I
think..." or some such.
>If you see total
>nonconformance +/- 10% with what we see now (which would put
>conformance anywhere from 5% to 25%, easily wide enough to cover
>statistical error) come back and tell me I'm wrong(2).
>jim frost
>ji...@centerline.com
>
>(1) You will have a hard time with this statistic because I don't
>think it was calculated in most areas until after the 55mph law went
>through. You can get a rough approximation of variation of
>conformance by looking at total tickets issued; if it jumps or drops
>significantly there's a change in conformance (or one in ticketing --
>although ticketing seldom causes jumps of more than 10 or 15%). Also
>look at the average difference between posted limit and ticket issue
>speeds; some areas never changed their ticketing habits so a large
>jump here indicates that police tend to give out about the same amount
>of larger tickets, indicating a higher average velocity with relation
>to the posted limit.
>
>(2) You won't, at least in most areas. Expect 70-90% conformance
>(more than four times what we see today).
What speed limit are you talking about that will give 90% conformance?
80?
Plus, it's rude to "prove" things to me in the text, only to waffle
out of them in footnotes.
Chris O'Neill
writes:
>Perhaps you can explain then why it is that I am constantly being
>tailgated when driving in the right two lanes of a four lane highway.
>These drivers with at least two passing lanes to the left still hang on
>my bumber as if it were their duty to help me realize that I've
>forgotten to drive at 65 mph.
>
>You might also explain for me the recently posted sentiment that slower
>drivers (i.e. non-speeders) are a traffic hazard.
Well, the slower drivers who hang on your bumper are a hazzard to you ;-)
Chris O'Neill
Catherine Anne Foulston
>>mad...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>>| Anyone care to theorize how "slowpokes" *cause* accidents?
>>[explanation deleted]
>I get it. That slow driver forces the other cars to make reckless lane
>changes and cut people off.
....
>that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
>I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
>acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
>time to pass safely.
Kind of like when they pass cyclists?
Boy, those cyclists cause so many accidents, out there at 10 mph in 40
mph traffic.
Cathy
(Please don't bother flaming me because it's not the same -- I know
that. This is to think about, not to prove something.)
--
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cat...@rice.edu
I'm not a vegan but I usually play one at the dinner table.
Matthew Lundberg
[stuff deleted. Tells me that one isn't a sheep for obeying...]
>
>Your public complaint falls on deaf ears. You have a choice of peers
>after all. You are deliberately choosing to associate with a group of
>people of all sorts of driving skills and tendencies, who will naturally
>categorize people into certain pidgeon holes. Speed-limit drivers is
>one of them, and they are sometimes called "sheep." (Consider yourself
>lucky ... many of us have some MUCH better names!)
>
I don't obey the speed limit because it's the law, and I don't think
that they are set, or have ever been set, in a reasonable manner. It
is a purely political deal.
You will often get away with speeding. Some people speed every day
to great excess and are rarely caught. This gives some security.
Most people get off, or are not caught, but the municipalities rely
on the money from tickets, speeding or otherwise. So the police will
not give a ticket for 1 mph over the limit (although a judge may, if
you admit such a thing) so they must set some sort of tolerance.
But what are their tolerances? Have you ever asked a cop and gotten
a straight answer? They don't want to say. They want everyone to
break the law in some way, preferably a way that the police see as
relatively safe, like speeding 8 mph over the limit. This gives
them two things:
1: They can stop and search just about any car that they want.
If he's speeding, the cop has a justifiable reason to cite him.
If he's obeying the limit, and doesn't look like your grandpa,
he's trying real hard not to get pulled over. Wonder why that
could be....
2: They get an unexhaustable supply of capitol for new equipment
and salaries.
I said that I obey the limit. That's because I can't afford to
pay the man. Even if I get stopped, the most they will do is
search the car. Unpleasant as that sounds, it's not as bad as
surcharges for the next three years.
Matthew Lundberg m...@jezebel.wustl.edu
Washington University,
Dept of Mathematics "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think"
St. Louis, MO 63130 Dobbs, 1961
Brian Shelden
>>I've noticed that on the stretch of I93 where the speed limit jumps
>>from 55mph (MA) to 65mph (NH) average traffic speed *drops* from about
>>70mph to about 60mph. Really! It slowly climbs back up again as you
>>get more rural but peaks at about 70mph. Assuming a limit+delta
>>pattern would give us average velocities of about 80mph, but that's
>>not what happens.
>I dunno that much can be gleaned from a scenario where the speed
>limit goes up and average speed goes down. Sounds like a case
>where the limit doesn't reflect some strange characteristic
>of the road that tends to inhibit speed. There's something
>that you're not telling here....
The Speed limit in I93 drops in places where the road goes through
urban areas (I believe that Concord and Nashua are the ones in
question), as required by the federal law that allowed increasing
speed limits on rural Interstates.
The quality of road doesn't change at all, except possibly the
width.
-Brian Shelden, Ex-New Englander
she...@beriloz.nsc.com
Jim Frost
>But, somebody
>who is now comfortable driving 70 will continue to drive 70 (or perhaps 75).
Actually you do see people slow down if the limit is pretty close to
what they're comfortable driving -- I see this all the time in NH.
>In many other states, they put up a minimum and maximum speed limit.
>The minimum is typically 40. You may not like seeing grandma on
>the freeway going 40, but it is legal. Grandma is not going to
>go 65 just because prevailing traffic is going 65, or because the
>limit is set to 65. So, the differential still exists.
Someone maintaining the minimum is a really rare case. Just how often
do you see someone doing 40mph in a 55 zone? Further, there's no
particular reason why the minimum can't be raised; someone
uncomfortable with driving at or above that minimum, or who has a
vehicle which cannot safely maintain the that minimum, shouldn't use
the road. This is common sense. You will find that it's legal for
the police to stop grandma doing 40mph if she's obstructing traffic --
you don't see it very often but it is the law; she's endangering other
drivers.
>Things that are wrong should change. Haven't seen any proof that it's
>seriously broken.
When compliance with a law is less than 15% it should be obvious that
most people believe there's something wrong with the law. In a
government "by the people, for the people" this is all the reason we
should need.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Dave O'Shea
> It would be interesting if someone could compile data on pro-Indurain
> posts on this network for the following time periods: the period prior
> to last July, the period between last July and this July (with special
> regard to this past May-June), and the period after this July.
> Somehow I'd imagine that the total number of pro-Indurain posts before
> and after the July 1991/July 1992 period wouldn't be anywhere near the
> number of pro-Indurain posts within that period.
> Not to undermine the siginficant achievements of Indurain, but I wonder
> how many of you, who are so eager to rip off your shirts and show the
> Banesto jersey that you wear with such fervor, will be bowing before a
> different pair of shaved legs next July, should Miguel lose his Yellow
> jersey this year.
What the hell is an "Indurain"? I can't remember seeing any pro-, anti-,
or who-cares-about-indurain posts from anywhere!
--
"Beware of strong drink - it can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss"
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
Ana
In article <BqD2L...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> prae...@marconi.waterloo.edu (Eric Praetzel) writes:
> The speed limits should be
> re-evaluated. 55 does not save lives, never has and never will and it
> is a completely false belief that people will drive as fast as their cars
> can go if given the chance. That is as stupid as the belief that access
> to guns results in crime. Check out Sweden (?) where every household has
> a military rifle because everyone has gone thru the army and been trained
> on its use. More people playing with numbers to get what they think is
> right.
>
Indeed. And it wasn't Sweden, of course, but Switzerland. And it
wasn't quite so true that the rifles never get abused either.
As for speed limits, when the Swedish ones were reduced (max down from
110km/h to 90km/h), the number of accidents went down significantly.
Same holds for the legislation that cars have to have their headlights
on at all times. "Noone" expected either of these laws to have any
effect at the time, but they did.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for the
comparatively low American speed limits is not to reduce the number of
accidents, but to conserve fuel. As such, they might not be justified,
since many engines have their optimum performance at an rpm at which
they go faster.
A
--
Quand j'enonce une assertion, je m'apercois tout de suite que
l'assertion contraire est a peu pres aussi interessante, a un point que
cela devient presque superstitieux chez moi.
Jim Frost
> In article <jimf.70...@centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>
>>You are mistaken, and I can prove it both through observation and
>>statistics.
>
> Sorry, anecdotal evidence is not a proof. And statistics (which
> you never quote, by the way) can say anything you want them to.
Technically I said I *can* prove it throught statistics, not that I
was going to show you the actual statistics; like anything you're not
going to believe them unless you look them up yourself anyway. If
you're interested in traffic safety the following bibliography is a
good start. It includes a number of interesting documents including
studies of older drivers and deviant drivers with respect to traffic
safety.
I couldn't quickly find NHTSA documents -- I'm going to need to get to
a bigger library for that -- but there are quite a number of them on
the subject. You might note that the French have done quite a lot of
studies in this area (although I give only two here). So have
insurance companies but I culled most of those since they were
generally fixated towards rate and risk determination.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
-- cut here --
AUTHOR Klein, David, 1919-
TITLE Causation, culpability, and deterrence in highway crashes / by
David Klein, Julian A. Waller.
PUBLICATION Washington : Dept. of Transportation, Automobile Insurance and
Compensation Study : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S.
G.P.O., 1970.
DESCRIPTION v, 218 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
NOTES "July 1970."
"Prepared for the Department of Transportation, Automobile
Insurance and Compensation Study."
Includes bibliographies.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic accidents--United States. 2. Traffic safety--United
States.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Waller, Julian A., 1932- II. United States. Dept. of
TITLE Human behavior and traffic safety / edited by Leonard Evans
and Richard C. Schwing.
PUBLICATION New York : Plenum Press, 1985.
DESCRIPTION ix, 567 p. : ill., ports. ; 26 cm.
NOTES General Motors symposium series
Contains the papers and discussions from the Symposium on
Human Behavior and Traffic Safety held at the General Motors
Research Laboratories on Sept. 23-25, 1984.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic accidents--Congresses. 2. Traffic
safety--Congresses. 3. Automobile drivers--Congresses.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Evans, Leonard. II. Schwing, Richard C. III. Symposium on
Human Behavior and Traffic Safety (1984 : General Motors
TITLE Traffic safety of elderly road users : report / prepared by an
OECD scientific expert group in co-operation with WHO.
PUBLICATION Paris, France : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development ; [Washington, D.C. : OECD Publications and
Information Center, sales agent], 1985.
DESCRIPTION 183 p. : graphs ; 27 cm.
NOTES Road transport research
Published in french under the title: La securite des personnes
agees dans la circulation routiere.
Includes bibliographies.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic safety.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. II.
TITLE Road safety : research and practice / edited by Hugh C. Foot,
Antony J. Chapman, Frances M. Wade.
PUBLICATION Eastbourne, East Sussex ; New York : Praeger, 1981.
DESCRIPTION x, 232 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic safety.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Foot, Hugh C. II. Chapman, Antony J. III. Wade, Frances M.
TITLE Behavioral research in highway safety.
PUBLICATION v. 1, no. 1-v. 2, no. 1/2; 1970-71. New York, Behavioral
Publications.
DESCRIPTION v. 23 cm.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic safety--Periodicals.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Behavioral research in highway safety
TITLE Traffic safety, a national problem; a symposium. Sponsored by
the National Academy of Engineering, held in Washington,
D.C., April 28, 1966.
PUBLICATION Saugatuck, Conn., Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control,
1967.
DESCRIPTION v, 164 p. illus. 23 cm.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic safety--Congresses.
OTHER HEADINGS I. National Academy of Engineering. II. Eno Foundation for
Highway Traffic Control.
AUTHOR Arthur D. Little, Inc.
TITLE Cost-effectiveness in traffic safety.
PUBLICATION New York, F.A. Praeger [1968]
DESCRIPTION xi, 167 p. illus. 25 cm.
NOTES Praeger special studies in U.S. economic and social
development
Includes bibliographical references.
SUBJECTS 1. Traffic safety. 2. Cost effectiveness.
AUTHOR Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Road
Research Group on Driver Behaviour.
TITLE Driver behaviour; a report prepared by an OECD Research Group.
PUBLICATION [Paris] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 1970.
DESCRIPTION 95 p. 27 cm.
NOTES Road research
Abstracts in English, French and German.
Bibliography: p. 63-77.
SUBJECTS 1. Automobile drivers. 2. Traffic safety.
OTHER HEADINGS I. Road research
AUTHOR Macmillan, John.
TITLE Deviant drivers / [by] John Macmillan.
PUBLICATION Farnborough, Hants. : Saxon House ; Lexington, Mass. :
Lexington Books, 1975.
DESCRIPTION x, 262 p. : ill., form ; 24 cm.
SUBJECTS 1. Automobile drivers--Psychology.
Mark Curtis
|> In article <jimf.70...@centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
|> >People drive what they're comfortable with; in my experience, the
|> >comfort zone for your average driver is between 70 and 75mph. This
|> >really clicks with observed behavior, while a fixed delta does not.
Mine too.
|> If SAFETY is the goal, this is not the way to go. If a road is
|> designed to be driven safely at 70, then you might have a very
|> safe road with only 10% conformance. If a road becomes dangerous
|> at 60, you might have 90% conformance but a very dangerous
|> situation with that other 10%. I don't believe 100% conformance
|> is some holy grail to be attained. I think that raising the
|> speed limit to reach that end would be losing the forest
|> for the trees.
When something is designed to fit a task the engineers have to make
assumtions about the end users. They seem to lump everyone into the
"tercel/escort/land barge" mold. The yellow curve speed signs are a
prime example. Most are so conservative that a great number of people
always add 10 or 15 MPH even in areas they don't know. After a while
people just start ignoring the signs, or at least they don't take them
as gospel anymore.
Not everyone drives one of these cars and not everyone has the same
driving skill. Road conditions change every second out there. One
speed limit for all drivers, all cars, and all times of the day just
doesn't work. People drive at a speed that fits them, the road, their
car, and the time of day. Slowing everyone down to the lowest common
denominator isn't reasonable. People just start to ignore the signs.
I would like to see a system of licenses put in place like there is for
planes. Different licenses for different types of cars and different
driving skills. Get the junk and poorer drivers off the road. We should
test people on real driving skill not just driving around the block.
A timed road course test with panic stops, swerving to avoid sudden
objects, merging, passing, and controlled braking is needed.
There are too many people out there that never use more than about 30% of
their cars ability to corner or brake. If they feel even a little lateral
force while cornering they freak out and hit the brakes. They have no idea
what their car will do and no reason to learn. A serious driving test would
force them to learn. This would greatly add to the safety out there on
the road. People would try and steer their way out of problems instead of
just slamming on the brakes like they do now. The brakes are the only
thing they understand.
Older people shouldn't be allowed to drive big mushy cars without passing a
special test. These cars are some of the hardest to drive. They have
large hoods and trunks that make parking more difficult to judge. They
come equiped with hard long life (but poor traction) tires, over-boosted
steering and brakes, and mushy handling with no feel for the road. Driving
on ice feels the same as dry pavement. Now add poor vision and lack of
interest and what do you get. A moving pylon.
Chris Malcolm
>I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for the
>comparatively low American speed limits is not to reduce the number of
>accidents, but to conserve fuel. As such, they might not be justified,
>since many engines have their optimum performance at an rpm at which
>they go faster.
This is true, but it has very little to do with the optimum _speed_ of
the car driven by that engine in terms of mpg. Since air-drag
increases at more than the square of speed, it rapidly becomes the
dominant factor, and _very_ few cars are sufficiently aerodynamically
smooth to have their best mpg at > 45mph.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Kemasa
->In article <22...@hacgate.UUCP> kem...@ipld01.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
->>In article <1992Jun29.1...@nsc.nsc.com> ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
->>>In article <18...@fritz.filenet.com> asyl...@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
->...
->This makes two assumptions. One is that people ignore a 55 speed limit
->because it is unreasonable, but obey a speed limit like 65 because
->it is reasonable. It is true that somebody who is comfortable driving
->65 will suddenly find themselves conforming with the law. But, somebody
->who is now comfortable driving 70 will continue to drive 70 (or perhaps 75).
->I can't see what would cause them to drive slower.
So you admit that some drivers who are speeding now will be doing the
speed limit if it is increased to a more reasonable level. Also you
say that somebody going 70 will continue to go 70 or maybe 75, but
this means that instead of going 15 mph over the limit they might just
be going 5-10 mph over the limit, reducing the speed differences.
They might not drive slow, but the people who would drive faster except
for the magic sign, will now be travelling closer to everyone else.
->The second assumption is that if the limit were raised from 55 to
->65, all the people who drove 55 (or less) previously would increase
->to 65 simply because the limit increased. However, some people are
->not comfortable going over 55. Based on their own assessment of
->their driving ability, they do not choose to drive fast. Some vehicles
->can't go that fast. Your point is that it is the speed limit being too
->low that creates the difference. Raise the speed limit to a more realistic
->value, and everybody will drive at that speed. Unfortunately, people
->cannot be forced to speed up, as long as they don't drive dangerously slow.
->In many other states, they put up a minimum and maximum speed limit.
->The minimum is typically 40. You may not like seeing grandma on
->the freeway going 40, but it is legal. Grandma is not going to
->go 65 just because prevailing traffic is going 65, or because the
->limit is set to 65. So, the differential still exists.
I did not say that "everyone" would go that speed, but it would allow
the people who do feel comfortable to do that without risking a ticket.
This allows the police to focus on the cars that are unsafe rather
than just picking anyone they feel like.
The simple problem is that if a majority (large at that) is exceeding the
magic speed limit, then it is set incorrectly and for the wrong reasons.
->...
->That is why I don't think an 80 mph speed limit is a good idea, even
->if many people are driving 80 (like on I-5 for example).
The are limits to how high you want to raise the speed limit. Take a drive
down I5 and see how many people are going 55 when the speed limit is 65
(except for the trucks). I really don't think that you will see as
great of a difference in speed as before. All things considered I don't think
that increasing the speed limit beyond 65 would do much good, but increasing
it to 65 does.
->>You are always going to have people who are at the extremes and in the case
->>of the slow drivers they might just take another road, but the majority
->>will tend to group together and reduce the average difference in speeds.
->
->Huh? You want to tell me another road from Sunnyvale to Sacramento that
->I can point my slow-driving friends to? Sorry, but "kick the slowpokes
->off the freeways" is not a realistic solution. Slow people pay road taxes
->too. And, I don't think you like the way slow people reduce the average
->difference in speeds (by slowing down fast people).
They might just stay in the slow lane and allow the traffic to go past them,
as I hope they do, but with the speed limit at 65, maybe the cars passing
will be going faster, 65, so that you don't have as many cases where people
are going 40, 55 and 65. Trucks will always go slow up hills, so you will
have problems. One thing is that many people will not exceed the speed limit
because they don't want a ticket while others take the risk. It has
little to do with safety.
->(by the way, I typically drive 65-70 on the highway, so I'm not arguing
->this point to preserve my right to be a sheep).
->
->>>>People do not look for speed signs then automatically add
->>>>10mph. They drive what they feel is safe for the prevailing conditions.
->>>
->>>People who don't want to get tickets take some notice of the speed limit.
->>
->>Yes and if they happen to not go that speed they might just decide
->>to go *faster* since they are risking a ticket anyhow. If you are going
->>to break the law, why not get away with all that you can? What is the
->>difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55? You can get
->>a ticket in either case and one gets you where you want to go faster
->>(although this is a lame excuse in many cases, but think about it).
->
->But, I might decide since I'm going to die anyway, I might as well eat
->cyanide tonight. Same logic.
Cute, but not the same logic. If you can't figure out why, I certainly can't
explain it to you.
->I think it is pretty well accepted that one can go 10 MPH over the speed
->limit with minimal risk of a ticket in most cases, but the
->odds increase as that differential increases. Your argument draws a
->clear black and white distinction between conformance and non-conformance,
->so there is no difference between 56 and 100. That's just not
->realistic. A person going 100 is going to get more tickets than
->somebody going 56.
Please read what I said, don't try to imply what *you* want into it.
I mentioned going a speed which *will* get you a ticket, not just
crossing the magic line. Again I ask, what is the difference between
65 and 70 in a 55 zone? (Yes, I know more money in many places.)
The chances increase as you exceed what most people are going,
not just as an absolute. If you are the sole car it really does not
matter much if you are going 65 or 70 since the notice effect does
not change much. If you increase your speed to 100, then yes you will
get noticed more.
->...
->Things that are wrong should change. Haven't seen any proof that it's
->seriously broken.
Then why is it that most people seem to be exceeding the speed limit?
--
Daniel J Naze
>"Mark A. Roces" <mr...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> It would be interesting if someone could compile data on pro-Indurain
>> posts on this network for the following time periods: the period prior
>> to last July, the period between last July and this July (with special
>> regard to this past May-June), and the period after this July.
>> Somehow I'd imagine that the total number of pro-Indurain posts before
>> and after the July 1991/July 1992 period wouldn't be anywhere near the
>> number of pro-Indurain posts within that period.
>> Not to undermine the siginficant achievements of Indurain, but I wonder
>> how many of you, who are so eager to rip off your shirts and show the
>> Banesto jersey that you wear with such fervor, will be bowing before a
>> different pair of shaved legs next July, should Miguel lose his Yellow
>> jersey this year.
>
>What the hell is an "Indurain"? I can't remember seeing any pro-, anti-,
>or who-cares-about-indurain posts from anywhere!
>
commments about shaved legs and the yellow jersey. Why this was cross-
posted to rec.autos.driving is anybodies guess.
Jeff Donsbach
In article <1992Jul2.0...@nsc.nsc.com>,ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer)
>>to 65 was enlightening. I saw one of two different behavior patterns:
>>
>>1. No change in average speed.
>>2. Slower average speeds.
>
>I didn't see this on the roads in California I drive that went
>from 55 to 65. I saw a lot more people doing 70-75. The people
>who were already doing 75 seemed to stay there, but there were
>a lot more people keeping up with them. I've *NEVER* seen slower
>average speeds.
Gee, to me this indicates the 70-75 is a reasonable and proper speed for this
stretch of road that a lot of people feel comfortable driving at, because
1) The people who were doing 75 before the limit was raised aren't going faster
2) More people are going 70-75 now because they perceive less of a chance of
getting a ticket now ( 5-10 mph over the limit) than before (15-20 mph
over the limit). How many of those people used to drive at 65 and didn't
go faster because the risk of getting a ticket was greater?
So maybe a speed limit of 70mph would be around the the 85th percentile?
(thus giving an 85% conformance rate?)
>>
>>I've noticed that on the stretch of I93 where the speed limit jumps
>>from 55mph (MA) to 65mph (NH) average traffic speed *drops* from about
>>70mph to about 60mph. Really! It slowly climbs back up again as you
>>get more rural but peaks at about 70mph. Assuming a limit+delta
>>pattern would give us average velocities of about 80mph, but that's
>>not what happens.
>
>I dunno that much can be gleaned from a scenario where the speed
>limit goes up and average speed goes down. Sounds like a case
>where the limit doesn't reflect some strange characteristic
>of the road that tends to inhibit speed. There's something
>that you're not telling here....
I think there is one key piece of info missing here: I'm pretty sure I93 drops
from 3 or 4 lanes in Mass to 2 or 3 lanes in NH when going north (and widens
going south). (Am I right, Jim?)
Jeffrey Baer
Ah, but he said the limit *ROSE* in that particular place, from 55 TO 65.
Didn't sound right to me either, but far be it for me to accuse someone
of making things up when they are proving things to me.
Michael J. Konopik
> by law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson):
>
>: I must register a public complaint. As long as the driving peer pressure is
>: derisive toward people who comply with speed limits, no one can expect any
>: improvement.
>Your public complaint falls on deaf ears. You have a choice of peers
>after all.
Did he choose to have you on this group? Would he have??
> You are deliberately choosing to associate with a group of
>people of all sorts of driving skills and tendencies, who will naturally
>categorize people into certain pidgeon holes.
Naturally? Really? Maybe that is natural for YOU to do...
>If you fit into the pidgeon hole, accept it, defend it, redefine it,
>your choice. If you don't like the title given your pidgeon hole by
>your peers, get new peers. But don't complain just because the "shoe
>fits," to switch metaphors in mid-stream.
If you decide that you want to start calling blacks on this list "niggers"
and Jews "kikes", that doesn't mean that they have no right to complain
about it. Who appointed you to be the Lord King of Categorization, anyway?
You expect everybody to be tolerant of your personal behavior and attitudes,
yet also to accept your intolerance of theirs. In most circles, people with
attitudes like that are categorized as "assholes" and "jerks".
-Mike
Matthew T. Russotto
>In article <1992Jul01....@eng.umd.edu> russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>>If you've been in the real world, you know that some people are
>>inattentive ALL the time, and all people are inattentive some of the
>>time. The driver driving significantly slower than the speed of
>>traffic is like a magnet for inattentive drivers only. Thus the slow
>>driver does pose a threat, even if you don't want to assign blame.
>
>As an occasional bicycle rider, I view this as a feature, not a bug.
>Any "inattentive driver filter" that removes inattentive drivers from
>the road (either by license suspension, injury, destruction of car, or
>death) means that the road is safer for someone on a bicycle.
I'd agree with you if two conditions were met:
1) That this inattentive driver filter got only those who were often
or always inattentive, not those who were occasionally inattentive.
2) That this inattentive driver filter didn't set up chain reaction
colisions which ended up sucking in all drivers, attentive as well as
inattentive, and impeding traffic tremendously.
>>So if a person DOES stop for no reason, do they have no blame? That
>>certainly makes no sense.
>
>As I understand it, they have no blame. There are plenty of good
>safety reasons to stop in a hurry, but I cannot think of any way that
>tailgating would ever be safer than not tailgating.
Well, I can think of one, but it gets real farfetched. Someone
attempts to make a lane change without noticing that they are changing
lanes right into my car. To avoid a collision, I move forward,
cutting into my safety margin. Before I have a chance to re-establish
it, the car ahead of me (which is a whiz-bang sports car with huge
antilock brakes) goes into full stop for no reason...
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
richard welty
well, it's really not as simple as all of that. there are a number of
studies going back several decades. the essence of it is that traffic
engineers observed a long time ago that motorists didn't really take
speed limits into account much when driving; ensuing studies have looked
at the likelyhood of accident involvement given percentile speed and
what types of traffic control devices and signs actually can effect
speeds. the 85th percentile rule is a rule of thumb arising from these
studies.
richard
--
richard welty 518-393-7228
we...@cabot.balltown.cma.com
``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
-- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
Dan Lucko
writes:
>
> Perhaps you can explain then why it is that I am constantly being
> tailgated when driving in the right two lanes of a four lane highway.
.
.
.
> --
> Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
> law...@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
--
Dan Lucko
--- -----
Mark A. Roces
>> It would be interesting if someone could compile data on pro-Indurain
>> posts on this network for the following time periods: the period prior
>> to last July, the period between last July and this July (with special
>> regard to this past May-June), and the period after this July.
>> Somehow I'd imagine that the total number of pro-Indurain posts >>before
>> and after the July 1991/July 1992 period wouldn't be anywhere near >>the
>> number of pro-Indurain posts within that period.
>> Not to undermine the siginficant achievements of Indurain, but I >>wonder
>> how many of you, who are so eager to rip off your shirts and show the
>> Banesto jersey that you wear with such fervor, will be bowing before a
>> different pair of shaved legs next July, should Miguel lose his Yellow
>> jersey this year.
>What the hell is an "Indurain"? I can't remember seeing any pro-, anti-,
>or who-cares-about-indurain posts from anywhere!
Sorry, but my post was only supposed to go to netnews.rec.bicycles, and
not to the other networks. Oh, the confusion!
-Mark A. Roces
The Chipmunk
by law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson):
: In article <1992Jun30.1...@introl.introl.com> pe...@introl.introl.com
: (Pete Ikusz) writes:
:
: >I think the point needed to be made is that people who drive faster than the
: >posted speed limit have no problems with people that drive the speed limit.
: >The problem lies in the latters' understanding of the statement, "SLOWER
: >TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT".
:
: Perhaps you can explain then why it is that I am constantly being
: tailgated when driving in the right two lanes of a four lane highway.
They've probably gotten used to seeing road-hogging speed limit "sheep"
in the left lane. To actually find one in the right where they belong
was probably so shocking, they didn't have time to react!
--
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
Stult's Report: Our problems are mostly behind us. What we have to do
now is fight the solutions.
Jeffrey Baer
>From article <1992Jul2.0...@nsc.nsc.com>, by ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer):
>>>
>>>You are mistaken, and I can prove it both through observation and
>>>statistics.
>>
>> Sorry, anecdotal evidence is not a proof. And statistics (which
>> you never quote, by the way) can say anything you want them to.
>>
>
>does not convince, what will? If a theory is to be tested observations
>will have to be made at some point. If, in general, one discounts
>all empirical evidence a priori, then one has no way of knowing what
>is true.
An anecdote is CLEARLY not proof, as I'm sure you'll agree. People
have survived jumping out of airplanes and having their chutes not
open. And yet, it's hard to say this is proof that it is quite safe
to jump out of a plane without a parachute.
I have studied statistics a lot in my academic life (in fact, I have
an advanced degree in the field). I have learned many, many methods
of massaging and manipulating statistics so they tell any story you want
them to. Philosopically, a well laid-out statistical argument, with
all assumptions and methodology clearly presented, tells a convincing
story. However, this is their merit and their vice. "Four out of five
dentists recommend XYZ Toothpaste over the competition" (in
teeny-tiny print: sheep dung). It is very possible to make completely
bogus statistics sound eminently "scientifical" and believable,
and it happens all the time.
You tried to bulldoze me with statistics that weren't even quoted.
That is what I had a problem with.
Noemi Berry
having been without a speedometer for 6 months now, i haven't missed
it at all -- going by feel and traffic flow has been fine. if i'm
speeding in such a way to get a ticket, then i'm going faster than
traffic flow and i *know* i'm speeding. the exact amount doesn't
matter so much.
even on a highway alone, i have a rough idea of how fast i'm going
(and can interpolate from the tach in 6th gear, but have even stopped
doing that.)
the ONE time i miss the speedo is travelling on a road that goes through
a town and the speed limit drops to 35mph from whatever it was (i didn't
need to know!) -- then i like to conform to local speed limits, and if
there are no cars to follow, it's a guess. even then, i slow down a
LOT and am still safe (being safe, and safe from cops).
i agree a certain amount luck has been involved in not getting pulled
over -- but it is less than you might think! i'd venture that i may
even be SAFER from not being goaded by my speedo and going by feel
instead, like on twisties marked 35mph (but i agree no judge would
buy that). it has cured me of the habit of judging a marked 30mph
turn by the speedo; instead, i have learned to judge the curve by
using the 30mph marking as a ballpark and then judging my entry speed
by feel and looking farther around the curve. and i don't look DOWN
at the speedo before or during the curve, another important thing.
i know that not having a working speedo might be illegal, but i kinda
like not having it (less distracting at, er, crucial moments :-))
and am in no hurry to fix it.
it's offered an interesting perspective on speed by feel and forcing
me to judge safe speed and road conditions for myself. next one will
have a speedo, but i am glad for all i've learned without it. and i am
definitely not someone who gets on the roads and shuts their brain off
(so easy to do in a car!).
just my $0.02 + tax,
noemi
--
no...@cs.ucla.edu
Jeffrey Baer
>ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
>>But, somebody
>>who is now comfortable driving 70 will continue to drive 70 (or perhaps 75).
>>I can't see what would cause them to drive slower [if the limit were 65].
>
>Actually you do see people slow down if the limit is pretty close to
>what they're comfortable driving -- I see this all the time in NH.
Man, I've gotta be careful driving in New Hampshire. Traffic there seems
to do a lot of things different from what I'm used to in California.
>
>>In many other states, they put up a minimum and maximum speed limit.
>>The minimum is typically 40. You may not like seeing grandma on
>>the freeway going 40, but it is legal. Grandma is not going to
>>go 65 just because prevailing traffic is going 65, or because the
>>limit is set to 65. So, the differential still exists.
>
>Someone maintaining the minimum is a really rare case. Just how often
>do you see someone doing 40mph in a 55 zone?
I don't see it often (except for vehicles that obviously can't do
55 but still need reason to be on the road like trucks towing
weird things). But, it's still legal.
>Further, there's no
>particular reason why the minimum can't be raised; someone
>uncomfortable with driving at or above that minimum, or who has a
>vehicle which cannot safely maintain the that minimum, shouldn't use
>the road. This is common sense.
See above. There ARE some vehicles that can't safely maintain the
minimum AND need to be on the road. They clearly aren't the norm,
but it's not realistic to kick them off.
>You will find that it's legal for
>the police to stop grandma doing 40mph if she's obstructing traffic --
>you don't see it very often but it is the law; she's endangering other
>drivers.
I think it was covered that this is in a legal grey area, if she's
obstructing people who are driving significantly above the limit
(and are thus also unsafe).
>
>>Things that are wrong should change. Haven't seen any proof that it's
>>seriously broken.
>
>When compliance with a law is less than 15% it should be obvious that
>most people believe there's something wrong with the law. In a
>government "by the people, for the people" this is all the reason we
>should need.
I'd say about 100% of people in Manhattan jaywalk on a regular basis.
But, the law against jaywalking has good basis in safety, and it
makes rational sense, even if people disregard it.
I'd say also that more than 85% of people don't agree with
income taxation. It is the job of government to do some things that
are pretty damn unpopular, some for peoples' own good, some for
other reasons.
If the law keeps average speed down, it's working, even if compliance
per-se is pretty low. I have not seen proof that the limit doesn't serve
to keep average speed lower than if a higher limit were in effect.
>
>jim frost
>ji...@centerline.com
Pete Ikusz
>In article <1992Jun29.1...@acuson.com> law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson) writes:
>>that the meeting of slow drivers and fast drivers can be hazardous, but
>>I do not accept that the danger comes from the slow driver who is
>>acting consistently. It comes from drivers who don't want to take the
>>time to pass safely.
>Kind of like when they pass cyclists?
>Boy, those cyclists cause so many accidents, out there at 10 mph in 40
>mph traffic.
Where the hell did you get this crap from? Show me some stats. I have
never heard such trash, for the % cars and the % bikes on the road,
there are far fewer bike related accidents.
For the most part cyclists are in the rightmost part of the right lane.
And 95% of the time there is room for cars to pass.
I've never seen a cyclist hogging a full lane in a 2 lane highway.
I've only rarely seen them. Most people are curteous when passing, for those
that arent I usually have a few words for them.
Also the majority that ride on streets w/ a 40mph speed limit are usually
better riders, and not doing 10mph, usually more like 20-35. If there are
just "regualr" riders on such fast streets, one can only question their
judgment, 'cause that doesn't seem to be the way it is around here.
>(Please don't bother flaming me because it's not the same -- I know
>that. This is to think about, not to prove something.)
I bothered.
I am one of the people that usually exceed the speed limit >10mph, however, when
I get near cyclist's I like to be as courteous to them, as I would like
them to be to me. And that also includes watching out for other drivers
as well as the cyclists, and knowing the overall situation.
If all drivers were more observant, and aware of their surroundings
there would be far less accidents. It's not the speed limit. It's courtesy
and respect on the road for other drivers and riders.
That goes for both the slower and the faster drivers.
-Pete
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Pete Ikusz Introl Corporation pe...@introl.com
Chris O'Neill
writes:
>In article <jimf.70...@centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
writes:
>>ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jun26.1...@news.columbia.edu>
ad...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) writes:
>>>>While it is true that there will be some
>>>>people who will go faster most will not.
>>
>>>Bullpucky. I do not believe that if the speed limit were suddenly raised,
>>>most people would drive at EXACTLY the same speed as before. More likely,
>>>the average speed would increase at or near the same amount as the posted
>>>limit. Compliance would increase very little, and the average speed would
>>>go up.
>>[...]
>>>Most drivers
>>>(except for those who religiously follow all speed limits,
>>>known in this group most commonly as "sheep") look at the posted
>>>speed limit, and add a little delta on top of that to determine
>>>their normal operating speed.
>>
>>You are mistaken, and I can prove it both through observation and
>>statistics.
>
>Sorry, anecdotal evidence is not a proof. And statistics (which
>you never quote, by the way) can say anything you want them to.
What standard of proof applies to your assertions?
Chris O'Neill
writes:
>>the police to stop grandma doing 40mph if she's obstructing traffic --
>>you don't see it very often but it is the law; she's endangering other
>>drivers.
>
>I think it was covered that this is in a legal grey area, if she's
>obstructing people who are driving significantly above the limit
and obstructing people who are driving within the limit.
Chris O'Neill
>In article <SOL.92Ju...@kesson.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> s...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Ana) writes:
>
>>I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for the
>>comparatively low American speed limits is not to reduce the number of
>>accidents, but to conserve fuel. As such, they might not be justified,
>>since many engines have their optimum performance at an rpm at which
>>they go faster.
>
>This is true, but it has very little to do with the optimum _speed_ of
>the car driven by that engine in terms of mpg. Since air-drag
>increases at more than the square of speed, it rapidly becomes the
>dominant factor, and _very_ few cars are sufficiently aerodynamically
>smooth to have their best mpg at > 45mph.
So if maximizing mpg was the main concern in choosing speed limits, the highest
speed limit would be something like 45 mph. Clearly, a limit of 55 mph is a
political compromise between a limit to maximize mpg and a limit based on
safety concerns.
Michael Peirce
In article <1992Jul5.2...@cs.ucla.edu> (ba.transportation,ca.driving,rec.autos.driving), no...@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Noemi Berry) writes:
> >People drive what they're comfortable with
>
> i agree with this, and even more so since my speedometer stopped working!
>
> having been without a speedometer for 6 months now, i haven't missed
> it at all -- going by feel and traffic flow has been fine. if i'm
> speeding in such a way to get a ticket, then i'm going faster than
> traffic flow and i *know* i'm speeding. the exact amount doesn't
> matter so much.
I agree with this one too. I drove a car for about a year with a
dead speedometer (in my college days of oh so little money). I didn't
miss it all. I never got a ticket. Just drive along with traffic
or if there is not traffic, drive as conditions demand. You'll do
fine.
-- Michael Peirce -- pei...@outpost.SF-Bay.org
-- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
-- -- San Jose, California USA 95117
-- Makers of... -- voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
-- SMOOTHIE -- AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Dave O'Shea
> In article <22...@hacgate.UUCP>, kem...@ipld01.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
>
> > What is the difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55?
>
> In Massachusetts, $50.00. ;-)
In New York, $150 and 20 days in prison. No shit.
andrew.shaw
> In article <1992Jul2.1...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> as...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) writes:
>>From article <1992Jul2.0...@nsc.nsc.com>, by ba...@nsc.nsc.com (Jeffrey Baer):
>>> In article <jimf.70...@centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You are mistaken, and I can prove it both through observation and
>>>>statistics.
>>>
>>> Sorry, anecdotal evidence is not a proof. And statistics (which
>>> you never quote, by the way) can say anything you want them to.
>>>
>>
>>On a philosophical note: if anecdotal and statistical evidence
>>does not convince, what will? If a theory is to be tested observations
>>will have to be made at some point. If, in general, one discounts
>>all empirical evidence a priori, then one has no way of knowing what
>>is true.
>
> You tried to bulldoze me with statistics that weren't even quoted.
> That is what I had a problem with.
>
No, I did not, as a quick look at the attribution lines above
should serve to indicate.
Dave O'Shea
> In article <soH0mB...@major.panix.com> d...@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
What do I expect from Usenet? :) Worst cross-posting this month:
rec.juggling and alt.sex.bondage....
Kemasa
->In article <1992Jul2.0...@rice.edu> cat...@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
->>In article <1992Jun29.1...@acuson.com> law...@aldia.UUCP (Andrew Lawson) writes:
->...
->For the most part cyclists are in the rightmost part of the right lane.
->And 95% of the time there is room for cars to pass.
->I've never seen a cyclist hogging a full lane in a 2 lane highway.
->
->I've only rarely seen them. Most people are curteous when passing, for those
->that arent I usually have a few words for them.
->Also the majority that ride on streets w/ a 40mph speed limit are usually
->better riders, and not doing 10mph, usually more like 20-35. If there are
->just "regualr" riders on such fast streets, one can only question their
->judgment, 'cause that doesn't seem to be the way it is around here.
->...
There is a group of riders around here that give bicycle riders a bad name.
Normally they are not too much of a problem, but the last time I encountered
it was at a point that had a single lane with a bike lane. The speed limit
was 40 mph. The group was taking up over half the lane (in addition to
the bike lane) and going fairly good for a bike, but not close to the
speed limit and therefore was creating a hazard. Also at one stop sign
a car was attempting to turn right, but all these riders were blowing
through the stop sign and about half were going to the left side of the car
and the other half to the right. When the road got to two lanes they were
still blocking one of the lanes.
While this group is most likely worse than most riders, it is this type
of behaviour that gets noticed and remembered.
Payman Khalili
>jdon...@cvbnet.prime.com (Jeff Donsbach x4365 5-2) writes:
>
>> In article <22...@hacgate.UUCP>, kem...@ipld01.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
>>
>> > What is the difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55?
>>
>> In Massachusetts, $50.00. ;-)
>In New York, $150 and 20 days in prison. No shit.
Are you sure you're right? I got a speeding ticket in NY a year ago and
I think you're wrong!
I was doing 82 in 55. I got a ticket and no jail. I don't know the original
price of the ticket but when I sent the ticket in with an explanation, they
reduced the price to $75.
(this was in the town of Salina in NY).
-Payman
Geoff Kuenning
> I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for the
> comparatively low American speed limits is not to reduce the number of
> accidents, but to conserve fuel. As such, they might not be justified,
> since many engines have their optimum performance at an rpm at which
> they go faster.
This is indeed correct. The 55mph speed limit was introduced as a
response to the original OPEC oil embargo. And at the time, the
Detroit Free Press took three or four cars and drove them between
Detroit and Lansing at both 55 and the still-legal 70 limit, carefully
measuring the mileage. All but one got better mileage at 55. The
exception was the Porsche 914, which had a 5th gear that couldn't be
used below about 60.
Since the introduction of the 55 limit, car manufacturers seem to have
optimized their gearboxes differently, so that 5th will be usable at
55. It's interesting to speculate how the all-important EPA mileage
might improve if the manufacturers were allowed to optimize without
regard to the national limit...
--
Geoff Kuenning ge...@ITcorp.com uunet!desint!geoff
Geoff Kuenning
writes:
>Perhaps you can explain then why it is that I am constantly being
>tailgated when driving in the right two lanes of a four lane highway.
>These drivers with at least two passing lanes to the left still hang on
>my bumber as if it were their duty to help me realize that I've
>forgotten to drive at 65 mph.
Well, I suspect that the most common reason is that they are idiots.
But here are a couple of non-idiotic reasons:
1. They might be about to take an exit, and be worried that they won't
have room to go around you first.
2. They might be truck drivers (here in California, trucks are
normally restricted to the two right lanes).