SL set to rise in Texas, Utah
John Lansford
(entire article posted)
"Speed limits are set to rise in the coming weeks in both Utah and
Dallas, Texas. The Utah Department of Transportation has now been
granted full legal authority to set the maximum speed limit on a test
stretch of Interstate 15 according to recognized engineering safety
standards, including a consideration of the actual speed at which the
majority of traffic is moving in safety. As the road is already posted
at 75 MPH, this means the agency could either choose to join Texas in
posting an 80 MPH speed limit or become the nation's fastest road by
setting an 85 MPH limit. Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) signed the
legislation authorizing the speed limit increase on March 18.
In Dallas, the North Texas Tollway Authority plans to increase the
maximum speed limit on large stretches of the Bush Turnpike and Dallas
North Tollway from 60 to 70 MPH. A series of investigative reports by
WFAA-TV over the past six months had revealed that the authority
violated state laws requiring that speed limits be set according to
recognized engineering safety standards. The authority never conducted
any such studies.
The artificially low speed limits turned the 22.5 miles of toll road
into a bonanza for the cities in their path, including Dallas, Frisco,
Garland, Irving and Plano. With just four miles of toll road under its
jurisdiction, Irving police issued $375,000 worth of tickets in a
year. Garland with only two miles of road generated $400,000 in
revenue, WFAA reported.
"I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic trap
for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
-----------------------------------------
Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
gpsman
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2356.asp
>
> (entire article posted)
Generally, I think it's best to cite the original source.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080501_mo_speedtraps.bc781247.html#
> A series of investigative reports by
> WFAA-TV over the past six months had revealed that the authority
> violated state laws requiring that speed limits be set according to
> recognized engineering safety standards. The authority never conducted
> any such studies.
>
> The artificially low speed limits turned the 22.5 miles of toll road<>
So... no such study was conducted. Shouldn't somebody mention how the
SL was determined to be "artificially low", perhaps the
"investigator"...?
Nah, that so rarely happens it can't be expected.
> "I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic trap
> for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
What else could she say?! There's nothing to prevent any driver from
complying with the SL, no matter what it is, other than stupidity/lack
of driving skill/poor judgment.
Under optimal conditions 22.5 miles at 60mph = 22.5 minutes. 75mph=
18 minutes. Sitting on the shoulder getting a ticket has got to take
more than 4.5 minutes.
-----
- gpsman
Arif Khokar
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2356.asp
> In Dallas, the North Texas Tollway Authority plans to increase the
> maximum speed limit on large stretches of the Bush Turnpike and Dallas
> North Tollway from 60 to 70 MPH. A series of investigative reports by
> WFAA-TV over the past six months had revealed that the authority
> violated state laws requiring that speed limits be set according to
> recognized engineering safety standards. The authority never conducted
> any such studies.
Nothing unusual about that.
> The artificially low speed limits turned the 22.5 miles of toll road
> into a bonanza for the cities in their path, including Dallas, Frisco,
> Garland, Irving and Plano. With just four miles of toll road under its
> jurisdiction, Irving police issued $375,000 worth of tickets in a
> year. Garland with only two miles of road generated $400,000 in
> revenue, WFAA reported.
>
> "I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic trap
> for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
Well, if she didn't care about keeping her job, she would have been more
honest.
East Coast Hive Mind
Arif Khokar wrote:
> > Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
>
> Well, if she didn't care about keeping her job, she would have been more
> honest.
Honest and government rarely go together. esp. if the police are
involved.
My Land of Misery
I'm not so sure how the NTTA would get by with posting 70 since the
DFW area is under the 65 max set for environmental reasons.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> John Lansford wrote:
>
> > The artificially low speed limits turned the 22.5 miles of toll road
> > into a bonanza for the cities in their path, including Dallas, Frisco,
> > Garland, Irving and Plano. With just four miles of toll road under its
> > jurisdiction, Irving police issued $375,000 worth of tickets in a
> > year. Garland with only two miles of road generated $400,000 in
> > revenue, WFAA reported.
> >
> > "I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic trap
> > for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
>
> Well, if she didn't care about keeping her job, she would have been more
> honest.
Nothing will stop them from issuing as many tickets, or for that matter
10 times more tickets, with the 10 mph higher speed limit.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Nate Nagel
Dear god you're fucking retarded. The obvious implication of the
article, and I'm sure how everyone else read it was that the studies
*hadn't* been conducted, one finally was, and it determined that the
speed limit was too low.
If you have a more plausible explanation please post it. If you have a
less plausible explanation do us all a favor and just keep it to yourself.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Arif Khokar
>>> "I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic trap
>>> for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
>> Well, if she didn't care about keeping her job, she would have been more
>> honest.
> Nothing will stop them from issuing as many tickets, or for that matter
> 10 times more tickets, with the 10 mph higher speed limit.
In the article, they stated that spot checks revealed an 88 percent
noncompliance rate with the 60 mph limit. Raising the speed limit to 70
mph would most likely reduce the noncompliance rate to 15 to 25 percent.
Given that with the 60 mph limit, you had anywhere from 15 to 25
percent of drivers going more than 10 mph over the limit (and around 50
percent going more than 5 mph over the limit), once the limit is
increased to 70 mph, you'll have less than 1 percent going more than 10
mph over the limit (and less than 10 percent going more than 5 mph over
the limit).
So, if the percentage of drivers eligible for a citation drops
significantly, then how exactly would they be issuing as many, let alone
10 times the number of citations (assuming you were referring to
speeding citations)?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Nothing will stop them from issuing as many tickets, or for that matter
> > 10 times more tickets, with the 10 mph higher speed limit.
>
> In the article, they stated that spot checks revealed an 88 percent
> noncompliance rate with the 60 mph limit. Raising the speed limit to 70
> mph would most likely reduce the noncompliance rate to 15 to 25 percent.
On a tollway that carries close to 100,000 AADT, only an infinitesimal
percentage of those 15 to 25 percent would be ticketed. That is because
traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food chain of law
enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
For that matter, they could issue 100s if not 1,000s of times more
tickets, with the 10 mph higher speed limit.
> Given that with the 60 mph limit, you had anywhere from 15 to 25
> percent of drivers going more than 10 mph over the limit (and around 50
> percent going more than 5 mph over the limit), once the limit is
> increased to 70 mph, you'll have less than 1 percent going more than 10
> mph over the limit (and less than 10 percent going more than 5 mph over
> the limit).
Bull. Made up numbers. The article said nothing of the sort.
Bill
"My Land of Misery" <gr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:51015359-c759-4954...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The state long since repealed the law authorizing Environmental Speed Limits
(ESLs), but DFW highways were grandfathered in. I'm guessing the
grandfathering applied to the highways with the lower limits, as opposed to
the region.
- B
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>> Nothing will stop them from issuing as many tickets, or for that matter
>>> 10 times more tickets, with the 10 mph higher speed limit.
>> In the article, they stated that spot checks revealed an 88 percent
>> noncompliance rate with the 60 mph limit. Raising the speed limit to 70
>> mph would most likely reduce the noncompliance rate to 15 to 25 percent.
> On a tollway that carries close to 100,000 AADT, only an infinitesimal
> percentage of those 15 to 25 percent would be ticketed. That is because
> traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food chain of law
> enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
Garland, TX patrols a 2 mile section of the road in question. In one
year it issued 2500 citations. Several paragraphs down, they state that
one out of every 5 citations was issued to a motorist on that road. To
me, that doesn't seem like a small allocation in resources.
>> Given that with the 60 mph limit, you had anywhere from 15 to 25
>> percent of drivers going more than 10 mph over the limit (and around 50
>> percent going more than 5 mph over the limit), once the limit is
>> increased to 70 mph, you'll have less than 1 percent going more than 10
>> mph over the limit (and less than 10 percent going more than 5 mph over
>> the limit).
> Bull. Made up numbers.
No, I have data to back it up (which I posted several years ago to this
newsgroup). When WV increased their speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph
on ARC routes, the 85th percentile speed increased from 62 to 66 mph.
Given that traffic speeds typically follow a normal distribution (with
70 to 90 percent of traffic driving within 10 mph range of speeds), with
an 85th percentile speed of 62 mph, the median speed was roughly 57 mph
and the 15th percentile speed was around 52 mph. That means roughly 60
to 70 percent of drivers were exceeding the 55 mph limit. With an 85th
percentile speed of 66 mph, around 20 percent are exceeding the 65 mph
limit. Note that at the tail ends of the distribution, the change in
speed over the change in percentile ranking increases substantially
(hence my statement of a low percentage of drivers exceeding the speed
limit by more than 5 mph).
In Charleston, WV on I-77/I-64, a speed survey back in 1998 revealed
that 0 percent of traffic was in compliance with the then 50 mph limit,
23 percent were driving below 55 mph, 73 percent were driving below 60
mph, and 85 percent were driving below 62 mph.
Scott M. Kozel
> > percentage of those 15 to 25 percent would be ticketed. That is because
> > traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food chain of law
> > enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
>
> Garland, TX patrols a 2 mile section of the road in question. In one
> year it issued 2500 citations. Several paragraphs down, they state that
> one out of every 5 citations was issued to a motorist on that road.
More made up claims. The article made no such claims. Stop making
stuff up as you go.
> > Bull. Made up numbers.
>
> No, I have data to back it up (which I posted several years ago to this
> newsgroup). When WV increased their speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph
> on ARC routes [...]
A meaningless mathematical game where you try to compare dissimilar
types of roads, states, and geographical areas, to support a
preconceived outcome.
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
> > On May 8, 4:09 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>The authority never conducted
> >>any such studies.
>
>
> article, and I'm sure how everyone else read it was that the studies
> *hadn't* been conducted, one finally was, and it determined that the
> speed limit was too low.
Yes, of course. You can't read, so I'm retarded.
"The authority *never* conducted *any* such studies." (emphasis added,
but probably wasted)
------
- gpsman
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> Garland, TX patrols a 2 mile section of the road in question. In one
>> year it issued 2500 citations. Several paragraphs down, they state that
>> one out of every 5 citations was issued to a motorist on that road.
> More made up claims. The article made no such claims. Stop making
> stuff up as you go.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080501_mo_speedtraps.bc781247.html
First, stop acting like an ass. Second, try actually reading the article.
>> No, I have data to back it up (which I posted several years ago to this
>> newsgroup). When WV increased their speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph
>> on ARC routes [...]
> A meaningless mathematical game where you try to compare dissimilar
> types of roads, states, and geographical areas, to support a
> preconceived outcome.
Limited access highways which support 65 to 70 mph limits are really not
that dissimilar. Pretending that they are doesn't bolster your side of
your nonexistent argument.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> >> Garland, TX patrols a 2 mile section of the road in question. In one
> >> year it issued 2500 citations. Several paragraphs down, they state that
> >> one out of every 5 citations was issued to a motorist on that road.
>
> > More made up claims. The article made no such claims. Stop making
> > stuff up as you go.
>
> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080501_mo_speedtraps.bc781247.html
>
> First, stop acting like an ass.
I was wondering if you might have pulled it from there, when I didn't
see the article link in the original post.
> Second, try actually reading the article.
It reinforces my point, that only an infinitesimal percentage were
ticketed, that traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food
chain of law enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
> > A meaningless mathematical game where you try to compare dissimilar
> > types of roads, states, and geographical areas, to support a
> > preconceived outcome.
>
> Limited access highways which support 65 to 70 mph limits are really not
> that dissimilar. Pretending that they are doesn't bolster your side of
> your nonexistent argument.
Let's see ... partially controlled access rural highway in mountainous
terrain, being compared to an urban freeway on level terrain carrying
over 10 times as much traffic. Very dissimilar.
Nate Nagel
> On May 8, 9:20 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>On May 8, 4:09 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>The authority never conducted
>>>>any such studies.
>>
>>>So... no such study was conducted.
>>
>>Dear god you're fucking retarded. The obvious implication of the
>>article, and I'm sure how everyone else read it was that the studies
>>*hadn't* been conducted, one finally was, and it determined that the
>>speed limit was too low.
>
>
> Yes, of course. You can't read, so I'm retarded.
>
> "The authority *never* conducted *any* such studies." (emphasis added,
> but probably wasted)
In the past, they never did, despite the requirement that they do so.
That's part of the problem.
Clearly, the required studies finally *have* been done, or at least an
interested party conducted a similar survey to establish the invalidity
of the current speed limits, otherwise the claims presented in the
article couldn't have made.
You are a dumbass because you can't read. And because you argue against
the most plain, obvious facts simply because they don't fit with your
flawed worldview.
John Lansford
So 23% of the traffic was driving between 50-55mph while the SL was
50mph? That can easily be explained in individual speedometer
variances, and would not be considered "exceeding the SL" by police
anyway.
In fact, it sounds as if 85% of the traffic would not have been
ticketed anyway, since police routinely grant a 10mph variance to
motorists for any given speed limit.
Arif Khokar
It depends on the police officer. If driving at 2 am on a Friday or
Saturday night, you could get pulled over for going 55 mph in a 50 mph
zone (while the officer is fishing for something else).
> In fact, it sounds as if 85% of the traffic would not have been
> ticketed anyway, since police routinely grant a 10mph variance to
> motorists for any given speed limit.
Like I said, it depends on the police officer. I was pulled over and
given a warning for going 55 mph in a 50 mph zone in the same city. I'd
rather have a higher speed limit with little tolerance (5 mph max)
rather than an absurdly low limit and trying to figure out by trial and
error what the police will tolerate in terms of speeding.
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080501_mo_speedtraps.bc781247.html
>>
>> First, stop acting like an ass.
> I was wondering if you might have pulled it from there, when I didn't
> see the article link in the original post.
My apologies. I had assumed you had seen both links.
>> Second, try actually reading the article.
> It reinforces my point, that only an infinitesimal percentage were
> ticketed, that traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food
> chain of law enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
>
> The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
> on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
> Let's see ... partially controlled access rural highway in mountainous
> terrain, being compared to an urban freeway on level terrain carrying
> over 10 times as much traffic. Very dissimilar.
Yet they have speed limits within 5 mph of each other. Very dissimilar
indeed.
My Land of Misery
> >>http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080...
>
> >> First, stop acting like an ass.
> > I was wondering if you might have pulled it from there, when I didn't
> > see the article link in the original post.
>
> My apologies. I had assumed you had seen both links.
>
> >> Second, try actually reading the article.
> > It reinforces my point, that only an infinitesimal percentage were
> > ticketed, that traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food
> > chain of law enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
>
> > The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
> > on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>
> That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
>
> > Let's see ... partially controlled access rural highway in mountainous
> > terrain, being compared to an urban freeway on level terrain carrying
> > over 10 times as much traffic. Very dissimilar.
>
> Yet they have speed limits within 5 mph of each other. Very dissimilar
> indeed.
Not only that but speed limits in odd multiples of 5 (55, 65 etc).
1100GS_rider
> police routinely grant a 10mph variance to
> motorists for any given speed limit.
Not everywhere, and not all the time. I personally know people who have
received speeding tickets for 3 mph over the limit.
Scott M. Kozel
> > ticketed, that traffic law enforcement is at the bottom of the food
> > chain of law enforcement, and gets relatively very little resources.
> >
> > The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
> > on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>
> That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Apparently you and people like you think that zero is the only
acceptable number.
My Land of Misery
I know of a few who have received tickets for 1 over.
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>> The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
>>> on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>> That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
> Apparently you and people like you think that zero is the only
> acceptable number.
And you believe it's acceptable for cities to make money off of drivers
for doing something that is in no way abnormal nor unsafe?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> >>> The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
> >>> on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>
> >> That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
>
> > Apparently you and people like you think that zero is the only
> > acceptable number.
>
> And you believe it's acceptable for cities to make money off of drivers
> for doing something that is in no way abnormal nor unsafe?
An average of 7 citations per day on a highway that has almost 100,000
AADT, and you presume that none of that infinitesimal number did
"something that is abnormal or unsafe"?
You don't believe in having any traffic law enforcement, apparently.
Nate Nagel
Heck, I personally *did* receive a ticket - and a safety lecture - for
"61 in a 55" once. And I don't think I was even going that fast,
because my speedo said exactly 55 (I'd spotted the cop a long way off)
and every time I checked it it appeared to be accurate. Never
underestimate the power of a small town Ohio cop. And this was on a
clear night on a six-lane freeway with nobody else on the road, save for
the cop parked in front of a billboard. SL could have easily been 75 or
80 and nobody would have been any less safe.
Nate Nagel
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>>>>The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7 per day,
>>>>>on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>>
>>>>That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
>>
>>>Apparently you and people like you think that zero is the only
>>>acceptable number.
>>
>>And you believe it's acceptable for cities to make money off of drivers
>>for doing something that is in no way abnormal nor unsafe?
>
>
> An average of 7 citations per day on a highway that has almost 100,000
> AADT, and you presume that none of that infinitesimal number did
> "something that is abnormal or unsafe"?
>
> You don't believe in having any traffic law enforcement, apparently.
>
I don't believe in citing people unless it can be proven that they did
something "abonormal or unsafe." A speeding ticket for violating an
unnecessarily low speed limit does not prove that. It also sends the
message that whatever other shenanigans they may or may not have been
doing are OK, but that speeding is bad, when in fact likely the reverse
is true.
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The 2,500 citations per year is an (infinitesimal) average of 7
>>>>>> per day,
>>>>>> on a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT.
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make it any more acceptable.
>>>
>>>> Apparently you and people like you think that zero is the only
>>>> acceptable number.
>>>
>>> And you believe it's acceptable for cities to make money off of drivers
>>> for doing something that is in no way abnormal nor unsafe?
>>
>>
>> An average of 7 citations per day on a highway that has almost 100,000
>> AADT, and you presume that none of that infinitesimal number did
>> "something that is abnormal or unsafe"?
>>
>> You don't believe in having any traffic law enforcement, apparently.
>>
>
> I don't believe in citing people unless it can be proven that they did
> something "abonormal or unsafe." A speeding ticket for violating an
> unnecessarily low speed limit does not prove that. It also sends the
> message that whatever other shenanigans they may or may not have been
> doing are OK, but that speeding is bad, when in fact likely the reverse
> is true.
>
> nate
>
State Troopers on our area freeways don't do speed enforcement very
often. If you're driving like a moron, have an unsafe vehicle, etc,
you'll be pulled over. I've actually spoken to the plods, and *they*
think the 65 MPH limit is a joke.
--
Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > An average of 7 citations per day on a highway that has almost 100,000
> > AADT, and you presume that none of that infinitesimal number did
> > "something that is abnormal or unsafe"?
> >
> > You don't believe in having any traffic law enforcement, apparently.
>
> I don't believe in citing people unless it can be proven that they did
> something "abonormal or unsafe." A speeding ticket for violating an
> unnecessarily low speed limit does not prove that. It also sends the
> message that whatever other shenanigans they may or may not have been
> doing are OK, but that speeding is bad, when in fact likely the reverse
> is true.
The above stats show that the highway is being radically under-policed
(or at least under-enforced). Only 0.007% of the traffic was cited, and
a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
unsafe". A 100- to 110-mph speeding ticket for violating what you think
is an "unnecessarily low speed limit" is a perfectly legitimate ticket,
and there are probably one or two orders of magnitude more that 7
drivers per day on that highway that are going that fast.
Arif Khokar
> The above stats show that the highway is being radically under-policed
> (or at least under-enforced). Only 0.007% of the traffic was cited, and
> a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
> 5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
> unsafe". A 100- to 110-mph speeding ticket for violating what you think
> is an "unnecessarily low speed limit" is a perfectly legitimate ticket,
> and there are probably one or two orders of magnitude more that 7
> drivers per day on that highway that are going that fast.
That's highly unlikely. Using a median speed of 68 mph, a standard
deviation 7 mph, 100 mph is the 99.999997576 percentile speed (I
remember you liking a lot of digits after the radix point). This means
that less than 0.000242448% of drivers are going at or faster than 100
mph. Out of 100,000 drivers a day, it's less than one. Statistically
speaking, you'd have about one driver every 4 days going at least that
fast give or take. It seems that your estimate is at least several
orders of magnitude off the mark.
Scott M. Kozel
Arif's mathematical machinations to arrange a preconceived outcome.
A 20 mile drive on a freeway with that level of traffic, will usually
observe at least one car going that fast. In 24 hours it could easily
be one order of magnitude (70 or 0.07%) if not a lot higher, of the
total traffic.
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>> A 100- to 110-mph speeding ticket for violating what you think is an
>>> "unnecessarily low speed limit" is a perfectly legitimate ticket, and
>>> there are probably one or two orders of magnitude more that 7 drivers
>>> per day on that highway that are going that fast.
>> That's highly unlikely. Using a median speed of 68 mph, a standard
>> deviation 7 mph, 100 mph is the 99.999997576 percentile speed (I
>> remember you liking a lot of digits after the radix point). This means
>> that less than 0.000242448% of drivers are going at or faster than 100
>> mph. Out of 100,000 drivers a day, it's less than one. Statistically
>> speaking, you'd have about one driver every 4 days going at least that
>> fast give or take. It seems that your estimate is at least several
>> orders of magnitude off the mark.
> Arif's mathematical machinations to arrange a preconceived outcome.
>
> A 20 mile drive on a freeway with that level of traffic, will usually
> observe at least one car going that fast. In 24 hours it could easily
> be one order of magnitude (70 or 0.07%) if not a lot higher, of the
> total traffic.
Remember that the article stated that a spot check revealed 88% of
drivers exceeding 60 mph. Try this in Microsoft Excel:
=NORMDIST(60, 68, 7, TRUE)
You'll get 0.126549006 (which means that about 12 to 13% of drivers are
going 60 mph or less with that particular set of parameters (speed of
60, median of 68, standard deviation of 7, and the last parameter is to
return the cumulative probability that a given observed value will be
less than or equal to the first parameter (i. e., the percentile
ranking). The values I posted previously were obtained by changing the
first parameter to 100. Trying 110 resulted in 0.999999999.
But if we're going to resort to anecdotes, I'd have to say that I rarely
see any traffic going much faster than 80 mph no matter where I drive.
In the last 18 years, I've encountered maybe 2 drivers going over 100 mph.
Laurence Sheldon
> But if we're going to resort to anecdotes, I'd have to say that I rarely
> see any traffic going much faster than 80 mph no matter where I drive.
> In the last 18 years, I've encountered maybe 2 drivers going over 100 mph.
Pretty much matches my experience. And they are always cops.
Scott M. Kozel
> > observe at least one car going that fast. In 24 hours it could easily
> > be one order of magnitude (70 or 0.07%) if not a lot higher, of the
> > total traffic.
>
> Remember that the article stated that a spot check revealed 88% of
> drivers exceeding 60 mph. Try this in Microsoft Excel:
Arif, you can't construct some precise mathematical model and then claim
that every highway everywhere exactly follows that mathematical model.
With that much traffic there could be over 100 daily "extreme outliers"
without affecting the overall model.
In your case, your claim doesn't pass the giggle test.
The stats showed that the highway is being radically under-policed
(or at least under-enforced). Only 0.007% of the traffic was cited, and
a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
unsafe".
--
Nate Nagel
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An average of 7 citations per day on a highway that has almost 100,000
>>>AADT, and you presume that none of that infinitesimal number did
>>>"something that is abnormal or unsafe"?
>>>
>>>You don't believe in having any traffic law enforcement, apparently.
>>
>>I don't believe in citing people unless it can be proven that they did
>>something "abonormal or unsafe." A speeding ticket for violating an
>>unnecessarily low speed limit does not prove that. It also sends the
>>message that whatever other shenanigans they may or may not have been
>>doing are OK, but that speeding is bad, when in fact likely the reverse
>>is true.
>
>
> The above stats show that the highway is being radically under-policed
> (or at least under-enforced). Only 0.007% of the traffic was cited, and
> a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
> 5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
> unsafe".
Agreed, but at least around here it seems that most of the enforcement
is indeed for speeding, but most of the unsafe behavior (I can't even
call it "abnormal") is not speed-related but inattention-related or
assholishness/MFFY-related.
> A 100- to 110-mph speeding ticket for violating what you think
> is an "unnecessarily low speed limit" is a perfectly legitimate ticket,
> and there are probably one or two orders of magnitude more that 7
> drivers per day on that highway that are going that fast.
I don't see that, so I'll have to defer to those with more knowledge of
the roads currently under discussion. What I do see is people driving
generally 65-80 MPH on roads signed for 55 MPH, and I don't have any
problem with that whatsoever.
I don't even have a problem with people doing 100 so long as everyone on
the road is driving in compliance with all other laws (notably KRETP)
but I've never seen that, so generally 100+ is only safe when there is
no other traffic at all.
1100GS_rider
> a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
> 5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
> unsafe".
Now there's some serious quantitative data!
My Land of Misery
<raashan...@ndki.rk> wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> 'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretty much the same here as well. Of all the times I have been
stopped and cited (which has not happened in 12 years, knock on wood)
all but one have been local police. The one time it came from a state
trooper it was for high speed at night. The SL was posted 55 but the
citation was for over 60 at night (using the pre-NMSL law while the
NMSL version 1.0 was in effect).
A lot of it also depends on locality. One citation 13 years ago was
in Overland Park, Kansas for 7 over. Fortunately it was in a low-
traffic area, so I managed to avoid an additional traffic-impedement
citation. However, along IH29 near the KCI Airport the SL is 70 and
KC police generally doesn't jack with drivers going 80 or slower.
Premier Bush
> John Lansford wrote:
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2356.asp
>
>> In Dallas, the North Texas Tollway Authority plans to increase the
>> maximum speed limit on large stretches of the Bush Turnpike and
>> Dallas North Tollway from 60 to 70 MPH. A series of investigative
>> reports by WFAA-TV over the past six months had revealed that the
>> authority violated state laws requiring that speed limits be set
>> according to recognized engineering safety standards. The authority
>> never conducted any such studies.
>
>
>> The artificially low speed limits turned the 22.5 miles of toll road
>> into a bonanza for the cities in their path, including Dallas,
>> Frisco, Garland, Irving and Plano. With just four miles of toll road
>> under its jurisdiction, Irving police issued $375,000 worth of
>> tickets in a year. Garland with only two miles of road generated
>> $400,000 in revenue, WFAA reported.
>>
>> "I don't believe the speed limits have, in any way, set a traffic
>> trap for motorists," NTTA spokesman Sherita Coffelt told WFAA."
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Of course Ms. Coffelt says that; what else would she say?
>
> Well, if she didn't care about keeping her job, she would have been
> more honest.
It's pretty sad that lying is becoming part of the job requirements,
especially when it involves the government. Are the resumes of the future
going to list "Good liar" as a virtue? Will job ads say "Good lying skills
required"?
Michael D. Adams
> Remember that the article stated that a spot check revealed 88% of
> drivers exceeding 60 mph. Try this in Microsoft Excel:
>
> =NORMDIST(60, 68, 7, TRUE)
>
> You'll get 0.126549006 (which means that about 12 to 13% of drivers are
> going 60 mph or less with that particular set of parameters (speed of
> 60, median of 68, standard deviation of 7, and the last parameter is to
> return the cumulative probability that a given observed value will be
> less than or equal to the first parameter (i. e., the percentile
> ranking). The values I posted previously were obtained by changing the
> first parameter to 100. Trying 110 resulted in 0.999999999.
Of course, you're making an assumption that the Normal distribution
applies here. That's probably not a good assumption. Depending on
precisely what you're trying to measure, I'd think that a better model
would be a mixed lognormal or some other compound distribution.
> But if we're going to resort to anecdotes, I'd have to say that I rarely
> see any traffic going much faster than 80 mph no matter where I drive.
> In the last 18 years, I've encountered maybe 2 drivers going over 100
> mph.
I think that observed speed is rather dependent on where and when you're
driving.
For example, on I-91 around Hartford, during daylight non-commute hours,
one will generally observe traffic flowing at 60-75mph under normal
circumstances. You can encounter the occasional driver going 80, but
that seems to be a rough upper limit.
Weekend days, speeds will tend to be a touch lower (weekend/amateur
drivers).
However, at night, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, there are
a handful of cars and motorcycles that do fly on the highway at speeds
higher than I would care to estimate, but which make 70-75 feel like
standing still.
That's been my experience on I-91 locally.
However, when I've lived or traveled elsewhere....well, during my time
in Alabama, I became quite familiar with I-65 and US 231 between
Birmingham and Dothan; and I-85 between Montgomery and Atlanta. I don't
know that trans-100 speeds were common there, but I do recall frequently
being passed while doing 80 myself.
Out west, especially on flatter/straighter roads with lower traffic... I
can easily imagine 100+ being more frequently observed.
--
Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>> The above stats show that the highway is being radically under-policed
>>> (or at least under-enforced). Only 0.007% of the traffic was cited, and
>>> a casual observation of traffic on most any highway indicates more like
>>> 5% to 10% of the traffic is doing something that is "abnormal or
>>> unsafe". A 100- to 110-mph speeding ticket for violating what you think
>>> is an "unnecessarily low speed limit" is a perfectly legitimate ticket,
>>> and there are probably one or two orders of magnitude more that 7
>>> drivers per day on that highway that are going that fast.
>> That's highly unlikely. Using a median speed of 68 mph, a standard
>> deviation 7 mph, 100 mph is the 99.999997576 percentile speed (I
>> remember you liking a lot of digits after the radix point). This means
>> that less than 0.000242448% of drivers are going at or faster than 100
>> mph. Out of 100,000 drivers a day, it's less than one. Statistically
>> speaking, you'd have about one driver every 4 days going at least that
>> fast give or take. It seems that your estimate is at least several
>> orders of magnitude off the mark.
>
> Arif's mathematical machinations to arrange a preconceived outcome.
>
> A 20 mile drive on a freeway with that level of traffic, will usually
> observe at least one car going that fast. In 24 hours it could easily
> be one order of magnitude (70 or 0.07%) if not a lot higher, of the
> total traffic.
>
I'm not a mathematician of any stripe, but I can't recall ever seeing
anyone drive that fast on the freeways I use daily. Troopers rarely
break 90.
Premier Bush
I've probably seen 5 vehicles (mostly crotch-rocket motorcycles) going that
fast on urban freeways in the 20+ years that I have been driving. And I've
lived in several different cities in different parts of the country. I've
seen a few more on rural freeways, but these freeways had very little
traffic and the driver doing 100 MPH didn't present a danger like one on a
busy urban freeway would.
I'd give you $100 if you could find a vehicle going over 100 MPH in Tulsa in
20 minutes. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody going over 70 on I-44.
There's more traffic in this area going UNDER the speed limit than over, as
this area is notorious for slow (and bad) drivers. They don't call it
Pokelahoma for nothing.
Premier Bush
That would also cut down on profiling. If you're white/drive a nice car/are
over 60/whatever, you might be able to get away with 10 over. If you're
black/poor/young, you can be stopped for driving 2 over.
Scott M. Kozel
Maybe 100 mph is an overestimate on my part, but it is not rare to see
the occasional car blowing by the typical freeway traffic speed, by 20
to 30 mph higher.
1100GS_rider
> Maybe 100 mph is an overestimate on my part, but it is not rare to see
> the occasional car blowing by the typical freeway traffic speed, by 20
> to 30 mph higher.
How do you estimate the speed?
Scott M. Kozel
Short of pacing the vehicle, it is not an exact science, but anyone can
see what the differential looks like if they go 20 to 30 mph slower than
typical freeway traffic speed.
1100GS_rider
> bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe 100 mph is an overestimate on my part, but it is not rare to see
> > > the occasional car blowing by the typical freeway traffic speed, by 20
> > > to 30 mph higher.
> >
> > How do you estimate the speed?
>
> Short of pacing the vehicle, it is not an exact science, but anyone can
> see what the differential looks like if they go 20 to 30 mph slower than
> typical freeway traffic speed.
30 mph is a *very* large speed differential. I doubt you see it often.
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
> > On May 8, 9:20 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>gpsman wrote:
>
> >>>On May 8, 4:09 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>The authority never conducted
> >>>>any such studies.
>
>
> >>Dear god you're fucking retarded. The obvious implication of the
> >>article, and I'm sure how everyone else read it was that the studies
> >>*hadn't* been conducted, one finally was, and it determined that the
> >>speed limit was too low.
>
> > Yes, of course. You can't read, so I'm retarded.
>
> > "The authority *never* conducted *any* such studies." (emphasis added,
> > but probably wasted)
>
> Clearly, the required studies finally *have* been done, or at least an
> interested party conducted a similar survey to establish the invalidity
> of the current speed limits, otherwise the claims presented in the
> article couldn't have made.
How does that perspective differ from, "I know it's true, I read it on
the interweb"... besides your not having read it...?
> You are a dumbass because you can't read. And because you argue against
> the most plain, obvious facts simply because they don't fit with your
> flawed worldview.
You'll have to forgive me for not accepting as fact something I
haven't read, which is arguably a fundamental part of the news story.
The reporter could simply have written, -Previously-, "The authority
never conducted any such studies".
But they didn't.
And it appears you still have yet to read the actual article of which
the newspaper.com report was derived.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> Scott M. Kozel <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > bmw110...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
>
> > > Scott M. Kozel <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe 100 mph is an overestimate on my part, but it is not rare to see
> > > > the occasional car blowing by the typical freeway traffic speed, by 20
> > > > to 30 mph higher.
>
> > > How do you estimate the speed?
>
> > Short of pacing the vehicle, it is not an exact science, but anyone can
> > see what the differential looks like if they go 20 to 30 mph slower than
> > typical freeway traffic speed.
>
> 30 mph is a *very* large speed differential. I doubt you see it often.
I see it all the time, from a stop while parked at the curb.
The speed of a vehicle can be estimated by noting the speed of
separation. A vehicle pulling away at the pace of a walk is going
3-4mph faster; at the pace of running, 10-15mph faster.
At the pace of a bike, 20-30mph faster.
85mph is not at all an uncommon estimate for me while traveling 55 in
a 55.
-----
- gpsman
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>> A 20 mile drive on a freeway with that level of traffic, will usually
>>> observe at least one car going that fast. In 24 hours it could easily
>>> be one order of magnitude (70 or 0.07%) if not a lot higher, of the
>>> total traffic.
>> Remember that the article stated that a spot check revealed 88% of
>> drivers exceeding 60 mph. Try this in Microsoft Excel:
> Arif, you can't construct some precise mathematical model and then claim
> that every highway everywhere exactly follows that mathematical model.
> With that much traffic there could be over 100 daily "extreme outliers"
> without affecting the overall model.
>
> In your case, your claim doesn't pass the giggle test.
A claim backed up by statistics versus a claim backed up by anecdote.
Ok, something backed up by documentation "doesn't pass the giggle test."
Whatever you say Scott.
> The stats showed that the highway is being radically under-policed
> (or at least under-enforced).
Unless the highway in question has a crash rate that's not in line with
other highways in the area, I don't see why enforcement should even be
an issue. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence of any correlation
(positive or negative) relating crash rates to enforcement level (which
is mainly because police don't enforce traffic laws that when violated
increase the likelihood of a collision.
In fact, several months ago, I observed a police officer who was
enforcing the limit (I was sitting at a bus stop several hundred feet
away). While the police car was waiting there, one car ran a yield sign
while the other vehicle it was supposed to yield used the horn (for
quite a while).
The police officer didn't bother doing anything about it. Several
minutes later, another car goes by above the limit and the police
officer turns on the lights and pulls the driver over.
Arif Khokar
> Of course, you're making an assumption that the Normal distribution
> applies here. That's probably not a good assumption.
For a sample, it should follow the normal distribution. Actual speeds
may not, but I'm not sure how much of a difference a lognormal would
make in terms of the proportion of high speed (over 100 mph) drivers
overa normal distribution. Would it be enough to say that it's far more
common (tens a day), or not much more common (one every two days to
every day)?
> However, at night, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, there are
> a handful of cars and motorcycles that do fly on the highway at speeds
> higher than I would care to estimate, but which make 70-75 feel like
> standing still.
I've driven on Friday and Saturday nights and haven't encountered this.
I guess there isn't much of a street racing subculture where I live.
> However, when I've lived or traveled elsewhere....well, during my time
> in Alabama, I became quite familiar with I-65 and US 231 between
> Birmingham and Dothan; and I-85 between Montgomery and Atlanta. I don't
> know that trans-100 speeds were common there, but I do recall frequently
> being passed while doing 80 myself.
I have noticed that traffic does go faster in the southeast compared to
where I live (near the WV/VA border). If I go 80 mph on I-77 in WV or
I-81 in VA, I'm generally passing everyone. If I go 80 mph on I-77 in
NC, I'm just keeping up with traffic.
> Out west, especially on flatter/straighter roads with lower traffic... I
> can easily imagine 100+ being more frequently observed.
I guess we either need to have actual statistics for the road in
question, or someone who actually drives on the road in question could
provide some input.
Michael Angelo Ravera
In California, CHP often doesn't bother with enforcing the statewide
maximum 70 MPH.(CVC22356). They make a point of citing for the much
more serious 100+MPH (CVC22348B).
The reason? people go to court for 77-85 in a 70 and the fine for it
usually ends up about $46, if you go in and plead guilty. The traffic
referees are sympathetic to 77-85 in a 70. The fine for CVC22348B ends
up about $1300 and Superior court judges are NOT sympathetic to 100+
tickets. If you give them the "but, Your Honor, I was only going 95",
they often offer to find you guilty of Reckless Operation and fine you
about twice as much.
If you haven't seen 100+MPH, you haven't driven on I-280 in southern
San Mateo or northern Santa Clara counties on a Sunday Afternoon when
it isn't raining and there isn't a sporting event in town.
I sometimes call in apparent racers (usually a Porcshe or Ferrari vs a
US Muscle Car) when I'm going 80-85 MPH (in the second lane) and they
pass me (on the right) like I'm standing still. I don't even bother
with the motorcycles (who are often going much faster). I figure that
GOD will enforce the speed limit on them sooner or later. I also don't
bother calling in on any cars whose make I can still easily identify
in the time that it takes me to get out of their way, look for the
next guy in the race, and pick up the cell phone. If they haven't put
300-400 m between themselves and me in 15-20 seconds (thus exceeding
my speed by at least 50 km/h), they are just driving fast in a pack,
not racing.
If the cops only issue 7 tickets per day on a road that sees 100000
cars per day, enforcement has to be pretty lax (possibly because they
know that no survey backs up the posted speed limit os that they don't
bother anyone who isn't significantly over the proper limit). Even a
properly posted speed limit would probably produce 1000 or so cars per
day that are outside the safe range.
Scott M. Kozel
> > that every highway everywhere exactly follows that mathematical model.
> > With that much traffic there could be over 100 daily "extreme outliers"
> > without affecting the overall model.
> >
> > In your case, your claim doesn't pass the giggle test.
>
> A claim backed up by statistics versus a claim backed up by anecdote.
> Ok, something backed up by documentation "doesn't pass the giggle test."
What "statistics" are you referring to? You put some numbers together,
and then in effect claimed that every highway everywhere exactly follows
your set of numbers.
> > The stats showed that the highway is being radically under-policed
> > (or at least under-enforced).
>
> Unless the highway in question has a crash rate that's not in line with
> other highways in the area, I don't see why enforcement should even be
> an issue.
In other words you don't think that an average of 7 citations per day on
a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT, can justifiably be found that
truly deserve a citation.
That is why I made the comment that you don't believe in having any
traffic law enforcement at all, and you make it obvious that you don't.
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> What "statistics" are you referring to? You put some numbers together,
> and then in effect claimed that every highway everywhere exactly follows
> your set of numbers.
Strawman. I used a 88% noncompliance spot check report in the article
and constructed a normal distribution that models that.
>>> The stats showed that the highway is being radically under-policed
>>> (or at least under-enforced).
>> Unless the highway in question has a crash rate that's not in line with
>> other highways in the area, I don't see why enforcement should even be
>> an issue.
> In other words you don't think that an average of 7 citations per day on
> a highway that has almost 100,000 AADT, can justifiably be found that
> truly deserve a citation.
Given that the pool of drivers eligible for a citation (88% of all
drivers) is so large, the chances that police will cite someone for
something serious, instead of going 10 over the limit, is next to nil.
And I highly doubt any of those speeding citation were for speeds that
were out of line compared to the rest of traffic.
> That is why I made the comment that you don't believe in having any
> traffic law enforcement at all, and you make it obvious that you don't.
Another strawman. You snipped my comment where I made it clear that
police ignore traffic violations that make a collision more likely
(right-of-way violations, for example).
gpsman
>
> Given that the pool of drivers eligible for a citation (88% of all
> drivers) is so large, the chances that police will cite someone for
> something serious, instead of going 10 over the limit, is next to nil.
> And I highly doubt any of those speeding citation were for speeds that
> were out of line compared to the rest of traffic.
"Two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
> Another strawman. You snipped my comment where I made it clear that
> police ignore traffic violations that make a collision more likely
> (right-of-way violations, for example).
Spurious conclusion: You have no data to support that assertion...
and that data does not exist.
Basically, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you
seem too stupid to know it.
-----
- gpsman
Michael Angelo Ravera
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael Angelo Ravera
>
> <marav...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >In California, CHP often doesn't bother with enforcing the statewide
> >maximum 70 MPH.(CVC22356). They make a point of citing for the much
> >more serious 100+MPH (CVC22348B).
>
> MPH in a 65 MPH zone. I have passed many CHP officers at that speed
> and they don't bother to pursue me (and you can't say they "just
> didn't notice" a Safety Yellow Corvette driving past :).
>
> >If you haven't seen 100+MPH, you haven't driven on I-280 in southern
> >San Mateo or northern Santa Clara counties on a Sunday Afternoon when
> >it isn't raining and there isn't a sporting event in town.
>
> multiple occasions I have been *passed* at that speed.
>
> >I sometimes call in apparent racers
>
> after day? Don't they get tired of hearing from you? :)
I don't drive that I-280 stretch that often in that good of weather
when there isn't a sporting event in town and, as I said in my earlier
post, I don't call in single cars who don't drive on the shoulder,
motorcycles, cars that pass me on the left, cars that fire their
brights early enough to get me to move over, or anyone whom I estimate
is travelling well below 200 km/h.
If I called in single cars, motorcycles, fast drivers who otherwise
obey traffic laws, or anyone "who might be close to 100", or I *WOULD*
be on the phone all of the time and the dispatcher *WOULD* get tired
of hearing from me!
1100GS_rider
> 85mph is not at all an uncommon estimate for me while traveling 55 in
> a 55.
I believe you that you estimate lots of 85 drivers.
US 71
then less tax revenue is coming in. Encouraging people to drive faster
encourages more gas consumption which leads to more gas tax revenue. ;)