The Montana Paradox
Paul Smith
Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
all-time low.
Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
There's a detailed report here:
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
I'm not in the least surprised by this.
Comments?
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
------------
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
Dave Mar
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>all-time low.
>
>Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>
>There's a detailed report here:
>
>http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>
>I'm not in the least surprised by this.
>
>Comments?
I haven't looked a the report you mention, but it doesn't surprise
me what you say. Without the speed limits the drivers could concentrate
purely on driving rather than having to constantly eyeball their
speedoes and being on the checkout for Boss Hogg hiding behind
a bush. People driving in a relaxed way without being suppressed
are less likely to get tetchy and dangerous.
But we have to remember the roads in Montana are very different to
those over here, I suspect they are far less conjested than
ours; and have far fewer junctions.
Paul Smith
<dave...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>>speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>>time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>>all-time low.
>>Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>>restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>>There's a detailed report here:
>>http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>>I'm not in the least surprised by this.
>>Comments?
>I haven't looked a the report you mention, but it doesn't surprise
>me what you say. Without the speed limits the drivers could concentrate
>purely on driving rather than having to constantly eyeball their
>speedoes and being on the checkout for Boss Hogg hiding behind
>a bush. People driving in a relaxed way without being suppressed
>are less likely to get tetchy and dangerous.
Yes, agreed.
>But we have to remember the roads in Montana are very different to
>those over here, I suspect they are far less conjested than
>ours; and have far fewer junctions.
Totally different, yes. That shouldn't lead us to conclude that the
effect would be different, or even conclude that the effect would be
the same. We just don't know.
What we do have is strong evidence that in some circumstances a speed
limit increases the danger.
Nick Finnigan
news:rt0ngtkui3j8vno3m...@4ax.com...> Comments?
Do you reckon 'multiple vehicle accidents'
means at least 2 vehicles, or at least 3?
Interesting that the author points out that
German autobahns are safer than US
highways without mentioning other countries.
Paul
Dave {Reply Address in.sig} wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 10:38:45 -0400, Dave Mar wrote:
>
>I'd say their freeways are no better or worse than our motorways when
>not in built-up areas with lots of junctions. US freeways in cities
>seem particularly dangerous, often with junctions every 1/4 to 1/2
>mile.
In my limited experience of driving on American freeways the worst thing
about them is the signposting which usually occurs at the very last minute
possible and never before.
On long journeys another peril is convoys of articulated trucks driving
nose-to-tail at 55 on cruise control in the middle lane (and we complain
about Nissan Micras!)
P
Paul Smith
wrote:
>Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:rt0ngtkui3j8vno3m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> There's a detailed report here:
>>
>> http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Do you reckon 'multiple vehicle accidents'
>means at least 2 vehicles, or at least 3?
Americans? At least three, but more in Texas :-)
> Interesting that the author points out that
>German autobahns are safer than US
>highways without mentioning other countries.
More slightly sloppy reporting than anything else I think.
Nick Finnigan
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:12:30 +0100, "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > Do you reckon 'multiple vehicle accidents'
> >means at least 2 vehicles, or at least 3?
>
> Americans? At least three, but more in Texas :-)
So 50% of accidents on rural 2 lane primary roads in
underpopulated Montana involved 3 or more vehicles ?
How do they manage it...
Martin Smith
Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>all-time low.
>
>Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>
>There's a detailed report here:
>
>http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>
>I'm not in the least surprised by this.
Neither am I, as it is published by a group (National Motorists
Association; NMA) who lobby for North Americam motorists interests;
it does not read like a balanced article.
That said, why the paradox of Montana? What about the experiences
of other states and countries where accidents and deaths have
apparently decreased with stricter limits? There is are a lot
more studies than this, for a review of them (and IMO a much
more balanced read) see
http://www.tfhrc.gov///safety/speed/speed.htm
I don't know if the cited literature is properly representative
of the field, and there is little very recent stuff, but the weight
of the evidence would suggest that Montana is indeed an exception
to the trend; why should it be regarded as being the gold standard?
The NMA themselves cite factors other than the speed limit as
influences on the fatality numbers (e.g. unsafe practices, unmarked
hazards). And what about compliance? If only a proportion of people
observe new limits so that speed differentials increase, one would
expect accidents to increase.
Martin Smith
Paul Smith
(Martin Smith) wrote:
>In article <rt0ngtkui3j8vno3m...@4ax.com>,
>Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>>speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>>time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>>all-time low.
>>
>>Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>>restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>>
>>There's a detailed report here:
>>
>>http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>>
>>I'm not in the least surprised by this.
>
>Neither am I, as it is published by a group (National Motorists
>Association; NMA) who lobby for North Americam motorists interests;
>it does not read like a balanced article.
Agreed. I've emailed them and asked for their sources.
>That said, why the paradox of Montana? What about the experiences
>of other states and countries where accidents and deaths have
>apparently decreased with stricter limits? There is are a lot
>more studies than this, for a review of them (and IMO a much
>more balanced read) see
>
>http://www.tfhrc.gov///safety/speed/speed.htm
>
>I don't know if the cited literature is properly representative
>of the field, and there is little very recent stuff, but the weight
>of the evidence would suggest that Montana is indeed an exception
>to the trend; why should it be regarded as being the gold standard?
>The NMA themselves cite factors other than the speed limit as
>influences on the fatality numbers (e.g. unsafe practices, unmarked
>hazards). And what about compliance? If only a proportion of people
>observe new limits so that speed differentials increase, one would
>expect accidents to increase.
Exception to the trend? What other opportunities have we had to see
the effects of "no speed limit"?
The speed differentials thing isn't so easy. With speed differentials
there's more scope for hitting things, but also more work for the
drivers; their alertness may be higher or their planning more careful
as a consequence. Having inattentive drivers is about the very worst
thing for road safety, and low speed limits can promote inattention.
Martin
>>German autobahns are safer than US
>>highways without mentioning other countries.
>More slightly sloppy reporting than anything else I think.
No. Presumably comparing to the only country with (some) unrestricted speed
Autobahns.
I have driven a lot in USA, admittedly some time ago.
Around NY and NJ the traffic was often very heavy, with four lanes at steady
55, it feels dead slow
(and safe with all the heavy metal around you), which makes
people to drive far too close together while doing their knitting.......
Clearly at unrestricted speeds people do drive further apart and your
self-preservation instinct
keeps you alert.
Driving from NY for a weekend in Vermont, 400 miles each way, at 55mph on 4
lanes of near empty 'highway'
it was near impossible not to fall asleep, which is why I got clocked at 110
mph and was thrown to jail,
but that is a long story !
Regards,
Martin
Uno-Hoo!
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
> speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
> time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
> all-time low.
>
> Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
> restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>
> There's a detailed report here:
>
> http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>
> I'm not in the least surprised by this.
I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports the
opposite argument:
Copyright 20001 <no....@thanks.sol.com> wrote in message
news:fnj4gt87ukdmd70sm...@4ax.com...
> from SSI Spring 2001 Newsletter, 'Slowdown'
>
> How dangerous is speed? The ABDąs lonely 'factoidą and the real world
>
> The Association of British Drivers (ABD) likes to cite a Transport
> Research Laboratory (TRL) report as a source for the true contribution
> of speed to road crashes and casualties. ABD members use the TRL
> report to contradict the 'mainstreamą figure indicating that at least
> one-third of crashes are speed-related. According to the ABD, the TRL
> report proves that the true figure is under 5%. This is the only
> source of such a low figure. The ABD and a few motor lobby
> journalists are the only people to use it, generally to support the
> argument that 'it is not speed but bad driving that is dangerousą. The
> ABD especially likes to use the figure in letters to local papers
> where highway authorities are implementing speed control measures in
> response to deaths and serious injuries or local demands for safer
> communities. (Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to
> flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they
> have widespread public support.)
>
> The Slower Speeds Initiative wrote to the Transport Research
> Laboratory concerning the ABDąs use of the study. The TRL referred us
> to reports on speed. This is because the TRL study cited by the ABD,
> TRL Report 323, concerns 'A new system for recording contributory
> factors in road accidentsą. TRL 323 is not a study of crash
> causation. It is a study of how to collect data. It was not designed
> to draw statistically reliable conclusions about the causes of road
> crashes. The accidents included in the three month study were not a
> statistically representative sample of all accidents. There is no
> basis for using the study to generalise about the speed-crash
> relationship.
>
> The very low figure quoted by the ABD comes from a table which showed
> pairings of factors: In 4.04% of crashes recorded in the study, the
> person filling in the form paired 'excessive speed' (nowhere defined)
> with 'loss of control of vehicle'. 4.04% is only a subset of all
> speed related crashes recorded in the study. This use of statistics
> has been described by a professional statistician as 'extremely
> naughtyą and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
> Regions as 'mischievousą. DETR go on to say 'it is interesting that
> none of the many other TRL reports on speed and accident risk have
> been mentioned by those using this report as the basis for their
> argument.ą
>
> The TRL 323 methodology for recording contributory factors simply does
> not ask the questions which would reveal the inherent dangers of
> speed:
>
> * Would the factor still have been present if the driver, and/or all
> the other drivers involved, had been driving more slowly?
>
> * IF YES, Would the factor still have resulted in a crash?
>
> * IF YES, Would the crash still have been so severe?
>
> It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian
> motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the
> amount of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that
> higher speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of
> reduced speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no
> mystery. In fact, the TRL study beloved of the ABD and its
> fellow-travellers, indirectly acknowledges the overriding importance
> of speed:
>
> 'Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that
> all would have been avoided if those involved had known with
> certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the
> occur.ą
>
> Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
>
> Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, 'The
> effects of driversą speed on the frequency of road accidentsą
> published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to
> discover the speed-crash relationship. The authors looked at 300
> sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000
> drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
>
> * the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are
> (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of
> average traffic speed)
>
> * the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes
> there are Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us,
> they also found that:
>
> * drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also
> to do so on all roads
>
> * higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater
> crash involvement than are slower drivers
>
> For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers
> (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be
> reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general
> ruleą relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph
> reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
> specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
>
> * 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
>
> * 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
>
> * 3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
>
> To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
> care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
> Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
> average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
> casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target
> (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a
> 'reasonable minimumą to aim for. More importantly they use it to show
> 'the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average
> speedą. In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds
> that TRL323ąs methodology wouldnąt even record. thanks to Stephen
> Plowden, Rosamund Weatherall and DETR
>
Kev
Mudge
Uno-Hoo! wrote in message <9em7e2$ts4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:rt0ngtkui3j8vno3m...@4ax.com...
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>> speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>> time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>> all-time low.
>>
>> Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>> restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>>
>> There's a detailed report here:
>>
>> http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
>>
>> I'm not in the least surprised by this.
>
>I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports the
>opposite argument:
>
I think we're getting a bit tired of you recycling the same old rubbish from
the SSI.
If anyone's like the Waffen SS it's them for wanting to exercise
totalitarian control over drivers.
Regards,
Peter
--
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing"...Edmund Burke
The Curmudgeon Page: http://www.curmudgeon.co.uk/
Transport and Driving in the North-West: http://petered.dreamwater.com/
Paul Smith
<Kev...@NOSPAMBigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
>> speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
>> time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to an
>> all-time low.
>> Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have been
>> restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
>I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports the
>opposite argument:
I've read what you pasted. Much of it I disagree with, but none of it
is really relevant to the figures from Montana.
If we are to improve road safety, then we need to understand the real
relationships.
There are a million theories, but the Montana thing is about the only
known case of actually scrapping speed limits on "highways". The
results in terms of fatalities are quite remarkable.
Anyone who cares about road safety had better be sure to understand it
before they waste lives by following a different course that doesn't
work. {equally it would be wrong to attempt to replicate conditions in
Montana if "something else" caused the effects noted).
At the very least it's food for thought.
Paul Smith
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
Martin:
>>Neither am I, as it is published by a group (National Motorists
>>Association; NMA) who lobby for North Americam motorists interests;
>>it does not read like a balanced article.
Paul:
>Agreed. I've emailed them and asked for their sources.
For information:
Email reply from Chad Dornsife, the report's author:
>The data is from the traffic safety office of the MONTANA department of
>transportation.
>We separated fatal accident by road classification. We started tracking all
>accidents, but that became impossible because the head of the Highway Patrol
>was demanding speed limits and during the early period of no limits changed
>the procedures for reporting them. The before an after could no longer be
>compared. So I switched to tracking fatal accidents on the 2 primary types
>of highways in Montana - Interstates and Primary 2 lanes.
>I asked the DOT to extract fatal accidents by time of day (Daytime, Dawn
>Dusk, Night) and if it was a single or multiple vehicle accident. The
>original Montana paradox covered 6 years of data and it showed that the
>safest period was when there was no limits. In February I asked them to do a
>follow up run on the data so we could compare it. As the report shows fatal
>accidents were at an all time modern high after the full enforcement and
>artificial low limits were in full force.
>How do the safety pundits explain the fact that after the most revered
>safety program was instituted, fatal accidents went from the lowest to the
>highest. It sure doesn't support their claims, traffic engineering never
>found this to be effective. Most of the safety benefits reported by the
>NHTSA during the decades of lowered US speed limits was not supported by
>field data. In short they were blatantly lying to the public. It became a
>billion dollar industry here and from the the looks of it there too.
>http://www.nj.npri.org/nj99/03/fedagency.htm
>http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/index.html
>Your question is simple.. the data is from Montana DOT, the commentary and
>conclusions are mine. The data speaks for itself - loudly. Once you left any
>town in Montana there was no speed limit anywhere, on any type of rural
>roadway. This data collection was asked for by me looking at specific
>classification of roadways. There is a national data base at NHTSA online
>but it mixes them all 2 lanes together. That is why I asked for it strictly
>by roadway classification so it could be compared.
>The source of the data is stated at the bottom of the both reports. Jack
>Williams with Montana DOT, along with his title.
Lamebert
>I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports the
>opposite argument:
Yes I'm sure you believe every word of it....
>> For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers
>> (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be
>> reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general
>> ruleน relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph
>> reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
>> specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
>>
>> * 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
So in 30 mph limits your 10% + 2 ACPO guidelines may be responsible for 30%
(or 28% if you want to properly compound the 6%s) of all accidents?
>> To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
>> care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
>> Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
>> average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
>> casualties a year.
Except it would not. I haven't looked at the study, I did look at an
Australian study which came up with the same ridiculous conclusions.
In a nutshell they discovered that half of cars involved in crashes were
travelling slightly (a few mph) above the speed limit. Anyone with a brain
cell would conclude from this there is not much correlation between speed
and crashing.
Of course if you have *already* made the assumption that speed is the
*only* cause of crashes then these cars would not have crashed if they had
been traveling a few mph slower and that is how they came up with stupid 6%
per 1 mph reduction statistics.
Stevie D
> I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this
> supports the opposite argument:
Yes, and we bloody wish you hadn't.
Once would have been plenty, thank you. I really don't need to scroll
through reams and reams of quoted text because you never get round to
trimming it, and reams and reams of one report repeated several times
with nothing extra added to any of them.
--
Cordon Bleu songbook, featuring "Little Red Courgette" by Mince.
Uno-Hoo!
"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9em8ts$s12$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Uno-Hoo! wrote in message <9em7e2$ts4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:rt0ngtkui3j8vno3m...@4ax.com...
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> Various legislation problems in the US led to some "unconventional"
> >> speed limit legislation in Montana. There was no speed limit for a
> >> time. While there was no speed limit the accident figures dipped to
an
> >> all-time low.
> >>
> >> Since the legislation has been worked out and speed limits have
been
> >> restored accidents and deaths have INCREASED dramatically.
> >>
> >> There's a detailed report here:
> >>
> >> http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
> >>
> >> I'm not in the least surprised by this.
> >
> >I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports
the
> >opposite argument:
> >
> I think we're getting a bit tired of you recycling the same old
rubbish from
> the SSI.
>
> If anyone's like the Waffen SS it's them for wanting to exercise
> totalitarian control over drivers.
Perhaps you would like to explain the flaws in the above argument???
Kev
Mudge
Uno-Hoo! wrote in message <9eoeva$das$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>> >I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports
>the
>> >opposite argument:
>> >
>> I think we're getting a bit tired of you recycling the same old
>rubbish from
>> the SSI.
>>
>> If anyone's like the Waffen SS it's them for wanting to exercise
>> totalitarian control over drivers.
>
>Perhaps you would like to explain the flaws in the above argument???
>
Take a look at:
http://www.abd.org.uk/onemph.htm
which fairly comprehensively demolishes the points made in the SSI article.
Uno-Hoo!
"Lamebert" <lam...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bddtgtkgda77m4t8u...@4ax.com...
> "Uno-Hoo!" <Kev...@NOSPAMBigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this supports
the
> >opposite argument:
>
> Yes I'm sure you believe every word of it....
Not necessarily - I'm merely pointing out that statistics can be made
to prove anything!
>
> >> For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest
drivers
> >> (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be
> >> reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust
general
> >> ruleน relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1
mph
> >> reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
> >> specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
> >>
> >> * 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
>
> So in 30 mph limits your 10% + 2 ACPO guidelines may be responsible
for 30%
> (or 28% if you want to properly compound the 6%s) of all accidents?
They're not 'my' guidelines - and you may be right!
>
> >> To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many
drivers
> >> care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
> >> Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction
in
> >> average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
> >> casualties a year.
>
> Except it would not. I haven't looked at the study, I did look at an
> Australian study which came up with the same ridiculous conclusions.
In your opinion!
>
> In a nutshell they discovered that half of cars involved in crashes
were
> travelling slightly (a few mph) above the speed limit. Anyone with a
brain
> cell would conclude from this there is not much correlation between
speed
> and crashing.
>
> Of course if you have *already* made the assumption that speed is the
> *only* cause of crashes
I don't believe that I have anywhere stated such an assumption - and I
certainly do not believe that.
then these cars would not have crashed if they had
> been traveling a few mph slower and that is how they came up with
stupid 6%
> per 1 mph reduction statistics.
But it is hard to argue against this suggestion:
"It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian
motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount
of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher
speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced
speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery."
Kev
Uno-Hoo!
"Stevie D" <stev...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
news:3B0EC3FC...@e-garfield.com...
> Uno-Hoo! wrote:
>
> > I've cut 'n pasted this item a couple of times now but this
> > supports the opposite argument:
>
> Yes, and we bloody wish you hadn't.
Why? Because you don't like to read anything which contradicts your own
blinkered view of speeding????
>
> Once would have been plenty, thank you. I really don't need to scroll
> through reams and reams of quoted text because you never get round to
> trimming it, and reams and reams of one report repeated several times
> with nothing extra added to any of them.
The same text was relevant to a number of different postings in
different threads - that's why I pasted it more than once!
Kev
Mudge
Uno-Hoo! wrote in message <9eofb2$gra$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>"It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian
>motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount
>of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher
>speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced
>speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery."
>
Any transport system has to represent a compromise between the utility of
higher speeds and the potential danger they cause. However, engineering and
design measures can greatly reduce the risk caused by higher speeds. Driving
at 70 mph through an urban shopping centre is grossly irresponsible, but on
a motorway it is entirely reasonable - and motorways are our safest roads.
Obviously if you continue to reduce actual impact speeds the damage done
will decrease, up to the point where at zero speed there is no damage. You
have to make a judgment somewhere about what level of speed is acceptable.
But drivers will tend to adopt on any given road a speed where they feel
comfortable that they can deal with any hazards that occur. Forcing them to
reduce their speed by 10 mph is in practice not going to deliver any
worthwhile road safety benefits, particularly if they end up staring at the
speedometer rather than the road. The whole principle of speed limit setting
is based on the 85th percentile rule - that you set a speed limit that
legitimises the speed of the overwhelming majority, but puts the
irresponsible minority where they belong - outside the law.
The claim that a 1% reduction in average speeds leads to a 5% reduction in
accidents is based - insofar as it has any basis - on reducing the speed of
the small minority who choose to drive at excessive speeds that are
inappropriate for the road.
Lamebert
>> So in 30 mph limits your 10% + 2 ACPO guidelines may be responsible
>for 30%
>> (or 28% if you want to properly compound the 6%s) of all accidents?
>
>They're not 'my' guidelines - and you may be right!
However you have often stated your support for them.
>> In a nutshell they discovered that half of cars involved in crashes
>were
>> travelling slightly (a few mph) above the speed limit. Anyone with a
>brain
>> cell would conclude from this there is not much correlation between
>speed
>> and crashing.
>>
>> Of course if you have *already* made the assumption that speed is the
>> *only* cause of crashes
>I don't believe that I have anywhere stated such an assumption - and I
>certainly do not believe that.
I did not say *you* have - I am saying those analysing these studies did
and you are suggesting we believe their conclusions.
>then these cars would not have crashed if they had
>> been traveling a few mph slower and that is how they came up with
>stupid 6%
>> per 1 mph reduction statistics.
>
>But it is hard to argue against this suggestion:
I am not finding it hard.
>"It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian
>motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount
>of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher
>speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced
>speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery."
Oh yawn - of course you have all the thinking time in the world and zero
crash damage while standing still. The importance of speed in actually
being able to move from place to place is no mystery either.
Lordy
> from place to place is no mystery either.
Yup, the extra few minutes saved are of vital importance. Especially
those ones where you get to relax for a few minutes at the next traffic
lights whilst the foolish slower moving traffic is still approaching
behind you, hah ! no rest for them !
--
Lordy
Stevie D
> Why? Because you don't like to read anything which contradicts
> your own blinkered view of speeding?
Not at all. I am always pleased to read the other person's point of
view, and to change my mind or attempt to set them right as appropriate.
I have now done the latter ...
I was annoyed at you sending it several times. Once, yes, that is fine
and good, but no more than once. If it crops up as relevant, refer back
to your earlier message, and include a Message-ID if necessary so people
can find it easily. If you really feel you absolutely have to, quote
selected paragraphs again, but not the whole damn lot.
Just remember that every message you send is stored on hundreds,
probably thousands, of news servers across the world, and downloaded by
many more people. Repeating a message of that size, many times, puts a
lot of unnecessary strain on the internet as a whole.
--
Lamebert
Traffic lights (excepting controlled series of lights) delay all vehicles
by a random amount - on average they have no effect. You do not catch up at
the lights any more than you get left behind at the lights.
Lordy
> by a random amount - on average they have no effect.
That's strange then, because I see it all the time on the town roads and
single carraigeway (A38) in my area.
> You do not catch up at the lights any more than you get left behind
> at the lights.
I'll remember that the next time the little Escort or whatever that I
just flew past at 90 pulls up alongside me at the next set of traffic
lights one mile down the road.
--
Lordy
Mudge
Lordy wrote in message ...
It's the law of averages. Three things can happen:
(1) You get through the lights, the car you've passed doesn't
(2) Both of you get through the lights
(3) Neither of you get through the lights
You only notice it when (3) happens.
Paul
Martin wrote in message <9ekca3$q9f$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>>> Interesting that the author points out that
>>>German autobahns are safer than US
>>>highways without mentioning other countries.
>
>>More slightly sloppy reporting than anything else I think.
>
>No. Presumably comparing to the only country with (some) unrestricted speed
>Autobahns.
Can't have done a lot of research then!
Roads in the Northern Territories of Australia have no speed limit. You
probably get the same level of traffic as in Montana and the same types of
hazard (kangaroos rather than moose, though). The only difference might be a
higher concentration of tourists.
P
Lordy
> smugness as he does from his driving style.
I doubt it, as I get to roast the little Escorts again to the next set of
lights :) j/k
--
Lordy
Paul
Huge wrote in message <9eqro9$bmk$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <3b10...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "Paul" <pa...@wmcs.fsnet.co.uk>
writes:
>>
>>Martin wrote in message <9ekca3$q9f$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>>>>> Interesting that the author points out that
>>>>>German autobahns are safer than US
>>>>>highways without mentioning other countries.
>>>
>>>>More slightly sloppy reporting than anything else I think.
>>>
>>>No. Presumably comparing to the only country with (some) unrestricted
speed
>>>Autobahns.
>>
>>Can't have done a lot of research then!
>>
>>Roads in the Northern Territories of Australia have no speed limit.
>
>my Ozzie mate told me, which may not be definitive!)
It was true in January 2000 when I was out there. A sign very similar to our
own NSL sign meant "No Speed Limit".
Try looking here:
http://www.ntholidays.com/nt_travinfo.asp?iTravInfoID=20&strPage=Driving+Tip
s
Paul
Uno-Hoo!
Criticism accepted - I wont do it again!!!
Kev
Aidan Stanger
> Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
> >"Paul" <pa...@wmcs.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> > >Roads in the Northern Territories of Australia have no speed limit.
Northern TERRITORY! There is only one territory in the northern part of
the Australian mainland.
> > AFAIK, this is untrue.
>
It is true. The cops won't do you for speeding in the outback, but they
may do you for dangerous driving instead.
Of course, roads in towns do have speed limits.
> AFAIR from my brother who did a bit of work in the Northern territories
> it is true, but unusable. Roads with no speed limit are usually
> unmetalled and subject to the passage of road trains. You can drive as
> fast as you can, but the chances of having a fatal accident are high and
> there's not much chance of being found in the first hour.
>
> Some of the locals have modded 4x4s but even these have a natural upper
> speed limit of 80ish MPH due to the potholes.
The Alice Springs to Darwin road (which gets the most road trains) is
entirely sealed. I think the same is now true of Highway 1 (right across
the Territory near the North coast), Tennant Creek to Mount Isa, and
Alice Springs to South Australia. The rest of the roads don't go
anywhere much, so you'd be unlikely to see any road trains on them.