Y the huge drop in highway deaths in 1974?
Judy Diarya
answers from the speed loons . Here's the issue. If you go to this
thread ---
http://www.disastercenter.com/traffic/Fatality.html
you'll see that in 1973 the highway death toll was 54,000 and the rate
per 100,000,000 miles was 4.1. Then in 1974 the numbers were 45,000
and 3.5. No drop like that has occurred before or since as you can
see from the chart. How to explain it?. It was not due to fewer
miles driven. As the chart shows they just dropped slightly from 1313
billion to 1281 billion. The answer is the lower speed limit. In
1973 a law was passed lowering the max speed to 55 mph. It took
effect at the start of 1974. This is the definitive proof that speed
kills.
Brent P
> I've raised this question on other threads and got nothing but BS
> answers from the speed loons . Here's the issue. If you go to this
> thread ---
The problem is, you dismiss all responses as BS.
We've already pointed the huge safety gains through the late 1960s
and early 1970s. Remember, changes in cars are a fleet wide thing and
by 1973/74 most of the fleet would have the safety improvements. Cars
were kept in service a much shorter time in that era than they are today.
The number of miles driven fell. The times of day people drove changed
as well. And yes people also drove slower to save fuel, but average
speeds NEVER dropped to 55mph.
With all these factors you cannot conclude the speed limit the causing
factor.
Also of interest is the fact that Germany saw a dramatic drop in fatality
rate as well. And unlike that in the USA they did not have a 55mph for
years on end and their drop continued at nearly the same rate for
more than just one year. Between 1972 and 1980 the death
rate per 100 million vehicle miles on Germany's autobahn fell from 4.51 to
1.6. While the US interstate went from 2.29 to 1.51.
Since 1980 both rates for the interstate and autobahn continued to fall
as speeds on both increased.
In fact, when the 55mph NMSL was repealed, there were no significant
changes in driving habbits or technology. This gives us a change where
the only factor is the speed limit. What was the result? Deaths per
100 million vehicle miles traveled on the US interstate dropped from
0.79 to 0.74.
With this information we can safely conclude that the number on the
speed limit sign had no effect on the fatality rate.
Some of the illustrations showing this data from the book American
Autobahn can be found on http://www.americanautobahn.com/
Clark
news:13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com...
If you consider this definitive proof that speed kills, then there must be
an increase in deaths which accompanies the increase in speed limits. Note
that the data does not show an increase.
Now I suggest that you examine the requirements for declaring "definitive
proof" in any type of factual manner.
John David Galt
> If you consider this definitive proof that speed kills, then there must be
> an increase in deaths which accompanies the increase in speed limits. Note
> that the data does not show an increase.
>
> Now I suggest that you examine the requirements for declaring "definitive
> proof" in any type of factual manner.
You might start by reading "Junk Science Judo", which has a good thorough
section on how to tell whether a statistical study can be trusted.
JCWCONSULT
Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2002 9:44 PM
Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
http://www.disastercenter.com/traffic/Fatality.html
There are a lot of reasons for the fatality drop.
1. Many miles traveled are trucks, and diesel was available to heavy trucks.
Only gas was scarce.
2. Cars did drive fewer miles, especially for recreational trips. Gas
stations, when they had gas, often limited purchases to 5 gallons or so.
People combined trips, carpooled more, etc. to cut down the complete
pain-in-the-ass of waiting in a 30-45 minute line to get 5 gallons of gas.
3. Cars drove very little at night, as gasoline was virtually unavailable at
night. I drove all throughout this era and was certain to keep a topped-up
tank to allow some night travel. Many people did not plan so well. I towed a
race car from Ann Arbor to Chicago (300 miles) for the Chicago Auto Show and
took enough gas in cans in the pickup truck to be able to make a round trip
without gas purchases. That pickup truck was a travelling bomb with the total
amount of fuel aboard. I was able to buy some gas along the way by going into
the truck lanes which pissed off some station attendants, so I did not use all
the cans.
4. For a very short few months, people did drive slower TO CONSERVE FUEL, and
YES -- if everyone drove no faster than 50 mph or 40 mph or 30 mph, then
fatalities would drop. But, this is NOT going to happen, except in emergency
times when fuel is not readily available. If everyone drove no faster than 5
mph, then fatalities in vehicles would be almost impossible, even without belts
- but this will never happen.
5. Cars were acquiring safety devices from 1968 on, such as in 1973 all cars
had ignition interlock and would not start without front seat belts being
fastened. This caused a terrible public backlash, but likely influenced
1974/75 fatality numbers. Eventually, the junk microswitches that controlled
that feature failed, and people disconnected the protection system or wired
around it. This single device caused more consumer backlash than all others
combined. I was sales manager in a dealership at the time and customers
screamed at us for the hassle of the required device.
Note there are several examples where things went the other way.
A. When 65 mph became legal to post on rural freeways in 1987, fatalities went
down more in the states that raised limits, compared to those that did not.
This was the subject of a big study by Charles Lave of the Univ. of CA Irvine
and I have copies of two editions of that study.
B. When the NMSL was repealed in late 1995, states that raised limits had
slightly more drop in the fatality rates than states that did not raise limits.
C. In Michigan, we raised rural freeway limits from 65 to 70 and most urban
freeway limits from 55 to 65 or 70. Over the next 3 years, statewide fatality
rates dropped about 17% and continued to drop to a total gain of 18% over 5
years. Our rural 85th percentile speeds for cars are now over 80 mph and
traffic is smoother and safer than it ever has been.
D. The exhaustive Parker study showed that 85th percentile speeds were safest,
with safety declines on roads that had been posted at or near the 85th - but
then had posted limits reduced.
Sorry, Judy, the science is on the side of posted limits at the 85th-90th
percentile, as described in the 1941 National Safety Council Report --- and the
60 years of unbiased research since then.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Clark
"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3C7C624B...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
You can start on your end John and I'll start on mine. Who cares if a study
can or can't be trusted if it doesn't even support the conclusions drawn by
the troll Judy?
Racer X
> There are a lot of reasons for the fatality drop.
>
> 1. Many miles traveled are trucks, and diesel was available to heavy trucks.
> Only gas was scarce.
>
vehicle miles stayed the same or increased slightly, and passenger car
miles dropped significantly. I don't remember where I saw that,
though. Do you have any figures from that era?
<several other good reasons snipped>
You left out two of the biggest factors.
One was fairly unique to 1974. Many of the longer, cross country
interstate highways were completed in 1974. Actually, construction on
the major interstates had been an ongoing project for a long time.
However, some of the major cross country interstates still had small
gaps where all of the interstate traffic was detoured onto very
dangerous rural highways. Many of thes gaps in the system were
completed in 1973 and 1974. This allowed uninterrupted travel for long
distances on the Interstate system, without detours onto dangerous
secondary roads.
For example, my family traveled from Cleveland, Ohio to the Tampa,
Florida area quite often. On our vacation trip in 1972, We had to exit
I-75 in Lenoir City, Tennesse and travel on State Route 11 to
Cleveland, Tennessee. This was about 100 miles of treacherous 2 lane
highway that was overloaded with traffic from the Interstate that was
not yet completed in that section. We also had to exit at Dalton,
Georgia and use US 41 to get to Marietta, Georgia where I-75 picked
back up for the remainder of the trip. That was a particularly
dangerous stretch as well.
In 1973, the stretch in Tennessee where we had to use State Route 11
was only from Lenoir City to Sweetwater. That was about half of what
it was in 1972. In Georgia, the situation was similar. We had to exit
at Cartersville and use US 41 for the stretch to Marietta.
We didn't take a long distance family vacation in 1974, so I don't
know about that road in that year. In 1975, we did travel that whole
trip again, and Interstate 75 was completed through both Georgia and
Tennessee.
I'm certain that other major cross country interstates were completed
in that same time frame, and I seem to remember that there was a big
push to complete most of the major interstates by 1975. I think the
original 1956 legislation called for the major interstates to be
completed by 1969, but the schedule slipped some. I know that those
two sections of Interstate 75 were the last to be completed on the
original length of that route between Detroit, Michigan and Tampa,
Florida. I'm sure that this contributed to a significant reduction in
traffic accidents and fatalities to travellers using that route. In
1972, the AAA packet we got for the trip basically said that the odds
of being in an accident on our trip were slightly less than they were
in 1967, but something like 70% of the accidents on our planned route
occurred within 50 miles of Loudon, Tennesse, or Cartersville,
Georgia. Those breaks in the Interstate were the big danger zones.
The second factor that you don't mention is that in 1973, before the
NMSL, speed limits were generally much closer to correct for the roads
and vehicles of the time. Most people respected the speed limit. So,
when the "Speed Limit 55" signs were first posted, many obeyed.
Compliance was also helped by the scarcity of fuel and the higher
price of fuel. After the crisis was over, though, people expected that
the emergency measures would be lifted. When this didn't happen, they
lost respect for the speed limit signs and started driving faster.
They knew that the roads were safe at the higher speeds because they
remembered driving in safety at higher speeds before the 55 mph speed
limit was posted.
Racer X
1984 VW Jetta Diesel GT
1992 Mazda Miata
1983 VW Rabbit GTI (ITB racer)
1988 Mazda RX-7 (Soon to be ITS racer)
1994 Caravan (need a VW Caddy so I can dump this POS)
1992 GMC Topkick (portable garage for racecar[s])
Judy Diarya
> In article <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>, Judy Diarya wrote:
> > I've raised this question on other threads and got nothing but BS
> > answers from the speed loons . Here's the issue. If you go to this
> > thread ---
>
> The problem is, you dismiss all responses as BS.
>
> We've already pointed the huge safety gains through the late 1960s
> and early 1970s. Remember, changes in cars are a fleet wide thing and
> by 1973/74 most of the fleet would have the safety improvements. Cars
> were kept in service a much shorter time in that era than they are today.
There you go again. Yakking about the safety features implemented over
over a stretch of years and years. That doesn't explain the big drop
immediately after lowering speed limits
>
> The number of miles driven fell. The times of day people drove changed
> as well. And yes people also drove slower to save fuel, but average
> speeds NEVER dropped to 55mph.
The number of miles dropped 2.5% from 73 to 74. Read the chart, you
loon.
>
>
> Also of interest is the fact that Germany saw a dramatic drop in fatality
> rate as well. And unlike that in the USA they did not have a 55mph for
> years on end and their drop continued at nearly the same rate for
> more than just one year. Between 1972 and 1980 the death
> rate per 100 million vehicle miles on Germany's autobahn fell from 4.51 to
> 1.6. While the US interstate went from 2.29 to 1.51.
Who cares about the nazis in 72-80?? Explain the huge US drop in
1974.
>
Judy Diarya
>
> If you consider this definitive proof that speed kills, then there must be
> an increase in deaths which accompanies the increase in speed limits. Note
> that the data does not show an increase.
>
> Now I suggest that you examine the requirements for declaring "definitive
> proof" in any type of factual manner.
The increase in speed limits did not happen all at once like when the
55 speed limit was implemented. The increase has been a gradual
process stretched out over years at the same time while other factors
like more air bags and more DUI vigilance has occurred. May i suggest
you get a book on elementary logic and have some 9 year old explain it
to you. thank you
Judy Diarya
> >
.
>
> You can start on your end John and I'll start on mine. Who cares if a study
> can or can't be trusted if it doesn't even support the conclusions drawn by
> the troll Judy?
HAHAHA. As usual, i'm using facts and logic on the speed loons so
there response is to call me a troll. HAHA
Judy Diarya
>
> 1. Many miles traveled are trucks, and diesel was available to heavy trucks.
> Only gas was scarce.
What the hell does that prove, you loon??
>
> 2. Cars did drive fewer miles, especially for recreational trips. Gas
> stations, when they had gas, often limited purchases to 5 gallons or so.
> People combined trips, carpooled more, etc. to cut down the complete
> pain-in-the-ass of waiting in a 30-45 minute line to get 5 gallons of gas.
Read the chart!!! It shows a drop in miles driven of only 2.5% from
73 to 74.
>
>
> 5. Cars were acquiring safety devices from 1968 on, such as in 1973 all cars
> had ignition interlock and would not start without front seat belts being
> fastened. This caused a terrible public backlash, but likely influenced
> 1974/75 fatality numbers. Eventually, the junk microswitches that controlled
> that feature failed, and people disconnected the protection system or wired
> around it. This single device caused more consumer backlash than all others
> combined. I was sales manager in a dealership at the time and customers
> screamed at us for the hassle of the required device.
Again, what the hell does that prove??? You said the ignition
interlock requirement was in 1973. So why didn't fatalies drop in 73
instead of 74??. Why don't you think b4 you post??
>
> Note there are several examples where things went the other way.
>
> A. When 65 mph became legal to post on rural freeways in 1987, fatalities went
> down more in the states that raised limits, compared to those that did not.
> This was the subject of a big study by Charles Lave of the Univ. of CA Irvine
> and I have copies of two editions of that study.
>
> B. When the NMSL was repealed in late 1995, states that raised limits had
> slightly more drop in the fatality rates than states that did not raise limits.
>
> C. In Michigan, we raised rural freeway limits from 65 to 70 and most urban
> freeway limits from 55 to 65 or 70. Over the next 3 years, statewide fatality
> rates dropped about 17% and continued to drop to a total gain of 18% over 5
> years. Our rural 85th percentile speeds for cars are now over 80 mph and
> traffic is smoother and safer than it ever has been.
>
Regarding points A B and C, none of those examples (assuming they're
true ) are definitive. You're talking about slight increases in
speed limits done on some roads and not others and done over a stretch
of years. OTOH in 1974 we had an all at once big drop in speed limits
everywhere and a corresponding big drop in fatalities. You'll never
find better proof than that.
Brent P
> tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<Q%Xe8.3841$mG.16010@rwcrnsc54>...
>> In article <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>, Judy Diarya wrote:
>> > I've raised this question on other threads and got nothing but BS
>> > answers from the speed loons . Here's the issue. If you go to this
>> > thread ---
>> The problem is, you dismiss all responses as BS.
>>
>> We've already pointed the huge safety gains through the late 1960s
>> and early 1970s. Remember, changes in cars are a fleet wide thing and
>> by 1973/74 most of the fleet would have the safety improvements. Cars
>> were kept in service a much shorter time in that era than they are today.
> There you go again. Yakking about the safety features implemented over
> over a stretch of years and years. That doesn't explain the big drop
> immediately after lowering speed limits
It's called critical mass. A little here, a little there, no significant
effect until it a given point is reached and then there is a dramatic
effect. A large number of factors were at play in 1973-74 that brought
about a critical mass resulting in a dramatic year-to-year drop.
>> The number of miles driven fell. The times of day people drove changed
>> as well. And yes people also drove slower to save fuel, but average
>> speeds NEVER dropped to 55mph.
> The number of miles dropped 2.5% from 73 to 74. Read the chart, you
> loon.
Obviously you cannot read as it is more involved than raw miliage numbers.
The relationship between miles driven and fatality rate should be
nonlinear. Because people drove less there was less congestion, there
were fewer people driving at night. Congestion and darkness are
significant factors in collisions. Also you need to look at passenger
car miles. You also neglect the completion of the interstate system as
mentioned by others.
There are simply many factors that occured durring 1973-74 that make it
impossible to isolate any single one of them as the cause of the decline
in fatality rate. However, we do have other data where only the speed
limit changed. This data shows us that changing the number on the sign
to a lower value did nothing.
>> Also of interest is the fact that Germany saw a dramatic drop in fatality
>> rate as well. And unlike that in the USA they did not have a 55mph for
>> years on end and their drop continued at nearly the same rate for
>> more than just one year. Between 1972 and 1980 the death
>> rate per 100 million vehicle miles on Germany's autobahn fell from 4.51 to
>> 1.6. While the US interstate went from 2.29 to 1.51.
> Who cares about the nazis in 72-80?? Explain the huge US drop in
> 1974.
Your lack of thinking ability is not my concern.
What we have is a drop in fatality rate on the US interstate and we
want to answer the question, was the speed limit change to 55mph the
cause? What we do is we look at other speed limit changes and other
similiar road systems. What we find is that other speed limit changes
had no such dramatic effect and another road system saw the same sort
of dramatic drop in the same period (in fact sustained over multiple
years) without the permanment reduction in speed limit. Because of this
we can safely conclude that the speed limit change was not cause. Can
we say that any single item of the remaining factors was the primary
cause? No, because there is not enough data. There is enough data however
to eliminate the speed limit change as a possibility.
Alex Rodriguez
utepa...@yahoo.com says...
>
>The increase in speed limits did not happen all at once like when the
>55 speed limit was implemented. The increase has been a gradual
>process stretched out over years at the same time while other factors
>like more air bags and more DUI vigilance has occurred. May i suggest
>you get a book on elementary logic and have some 9 year old explain it
>to you. thank you
Air bags are pretty useless at saving lives since they probably kill
as many people as they actually save. A good seat belt is a much better
safety device with proven benefits. Air bags at best reduce injuries and
their severity.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Clark
Nope. The speed limit increases have been in two steps, once for an increase
on interstates to 65 and then the general increase on interstates and other
roads. According to your theory, there should be two noticeable increases in
highway deaths. Since there are *no* increases according to the data you
cite, your arguments are not based in fact. As a concession to Mr. Galt, I
agree the data may be flawed if for no other reason than the binning appears
to be arbitrary and lacks the resolution to identify and research trends.
As for your suggestion re: logic, thanks but I've got it covered. You see, I
develop software for a living. One thing about computers and logic, they
keep you honest since they only do exactly what you program them to do. The
end result is that I get reality check on my logic every day. A logic check
is something you are obviously missing.
Now if you wish to go ahead with your dilettantish research and presentation
methods, go right ahead. Just don't expect to convince many people. Also,
before you scream about my criticism of your research, please note that I
have earned a couple of graduate degrees so I'm quite qualified to comment.
JCWCONSULT
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2002 11:36 AM
Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
>
> Also of interest is the fact that Germany saw a dramatic drop in fatality
> rate as well. And unlike that in the USA they did not have a 55mph for
> years on end and their drop continued at nearly the same rate for
> more than just one year. Between 1972 and 1980 the death
> rate per 100 million vehicle miles on Germany's autobahn fell from 4.51 to
> 1.6. While the US interstate went from 2.29 to 1.51.
Who cares about the nazis in 72-80?? Explain the huge US drop in
1974.
>
>>
We may have found a crack in Judy's understanding. She seems to think the
Nazis were still in control of Germany between 1972 and 1980.
This may hint at MANY other obvious lapses in knowledge and intelligence.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2002 11:47 AM
Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
>>
In 1987, 65 limits became legal and about 30 states quickly changed to them.
Charles Lave showed over 3,000 more lives saved in those states, compared to
the ones that retained 55.
The NMSL was repealed 12/20/95 and several states had pre-passed laws raising
their speed limits the day after the repeal. Many others, at least 35 states
now, have changed.
My Michigan data is documented year by year following the change, with a drop
in fatality rate of about 15% over the first 3 years and 18% now after 5 years.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2002 12:10 PM
Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
jcwco...@aol.com (JCWCONSULT) wrote in message
news:<20020226234409...@mb-fz.aol.com>...
>
> >>
>
> There are a lot of reasons for the fatality drop.
>
> 1. Many miles traveled are trucks, and diesel was available to heavy trucks.
> Only gas was scarce.
What the hell does that prove, you loon??
JCW-Truck miles traveled did not change, and some believe it increased.
Therefore the % drop in total miles traveled (if true) was ALL in cars, and a
lot more significant than you falsely claim.
> 2. Cars did drive fewer miles, especially for recreational trips. Gas
> stations, when they had gas, often limited purchases to 5 gallons or so.
> People combined trips, carpooled more, etc. to cut down the complete
> pain-in-the-ass of waiting in a 30-45 minute line to get 5 gallons of gas.
Read the chart!!! It shows a drop in miles driven of only 2.5% from
73 to 74.
JCW-See point one above re trucks, it explains a lot of the change and why it
is not very significant overall. (General rule: you should engage your brain
before putting your mouth or keyboard in gear.)
>
> 5. Cars were acquiring safety devices from 1968 on, such as in 1973 all cars
> had ignition interlock and would not start without front seat belts being
> fastened. This caused a terrible public backlash, but likely influenced
> 1974/75 fatality numbers. Eventually, the junk microswitches that controlled
> that feature failed, and people disconnected the protection system or wired
> around it. This single device caused more consumer backlash than all others
> combined. I was sales manager in a dealership at the time and customers
> screamed at us for the hassle of the required device.
Again, what the hell does that prove??? You said the ignition
interlock requirement was in 1973. So why didn't fatalies drop in 73
instead of 74??. Why don't you think b4 you post??
JCW-Just in case you had not noticed at dealerships near you, it takes a full
12 month year to sell a model year's worth of vehicles and it will be the next
year before you see any impact from safety changes in the new model. You have
to get the new ones on the road for some miles before you can measure changes.
I ALWAYS think before posting, you might take your own advice on this one.
>
> Note there are several examples where things went the other way.
>
> A. When 65 mph became legal to post on rural freeways in 1987, fatalities
went
> down more in the states that raised limits, compared to those that did not.
> This was the subject of a big study by Charles Lave of the Univ. of CA Irvine
> and I have copies of two editions of that study.
>
> B. When the NMSL was repealed in late 1995, states that raised limits had
> slightly more drop in the fatality rates than states that did not raise
limits.
>
> C. In Michigan, we raised rural freeway limits from 65 to 70 and most urban
> freeway limits from 55 to 65 or 70. Over the next 3 years, statewide
fatality
> rates dropped about 17% and continued to drop to a total gain of 18% over 5
> years. Our rural 85th percentile speeds for cars are now over 80 mph and
> traffic is smoother and safer than it ever has been.
>
Regarding points A B and C, none of those examples (assuming they're
true ) are definitive. You're talking about slight increases in
speed limits done on some roads and not others and done over a stretch
of years. OTOH in 1974 we had an all at once big drop in speed limits
everywhere and a corresponding big drop in fatalities. You'll never
find better proof than that.
>>
JCW-1987 changed from 55 to 65 - which is significant, an 18% rise in posted
limits.
1997 in Michigan changed rural freeways from 65 (30th percentile) to 70 (45th
percentile) PLUS changed most urban freeways from 55 mph to either 65 or 70 mph
- which is very significant for the urban ones. My last speeding ticket from
the early 90's was for 70 in a 55 in a place that is now posted 70, and should
be posted at 80 -- if safety were the goal. It is the best piece of freeway in
Michigan (I-696, near Orchard Lake Rd.)
From 1996-1998 or so, many states changed limits by at least 10 mph, some by 15
mph. These ARE significant. States that changed had a slightly better drop
in fatality rates than the backward states that retained 65 rural/55 urban
limits.
By yo states that raised limits.
It did not happen, and EVERY unbiased traffic safety researcher knew for
certain that it would not happen. The American Association of State Highway
Traffic Officials lobbied hard for the repeal of the NMSL, because they knew it
would be much safer to set limits more scientificallly.
Only cops, traffic court treasurers, insurance company treasurers and ignorant
people like yourself support unscientific and less-safe lower posted limits.
Scientists, and those that understand the science, want the safer 85th-90th
percentile limits to save more lives.
It is unfortunate that you want to kill more people with artificially-low
limits. Fortunately, the tide is changing in favor of the science, and away
from the process of wallet rape with too-low limits.
About 1,000 more people are alive today in Michigan, thanks to our higher
posted limits. (Approx. 200 lives saved per year).
Regards,
Jim Walker
Clark
Oops, sorry, please replace troll with loon or net.kook in my post. Again,
my humblest apologies for this error.
Robert Briggs
> OTOH in 1974 we had an all at once big drop in speed limits
> everywhere and a corresponding big drop in fatalities.
Ah! A correlation (for one year, at least).
> You'll never find better proof than that.
Not so, Judy.
Correlation does NOT necessarily indicate causation.
Suppose I can show a correlation between possession of gold pocket
watches and obesity are correlated.
By your logic, someone who wants to gain (or lose) weight should buy (or
sell) a gold pocket watch.
Splashcat
> Regarding points A B and C, none of those examples (assuming they're
> true ) are definitive. You're talking about slight increases in
> speed limits done on some roads and not others and done over a stretch
> of years.
Most of the states that increased limits after the NMSL repeal did so
in the first year after the repeal. It wasn't a 'stretch of years'.
> OTOH in 1974 we had an all at once big drop in speed limits
> everywhere and a corresponding big drop in fatalities. You'll never
> find better proof than that.
It's pretty easy to poke holes in this "proof".
from http://www.milken-inst.org/mod35/mir4_22_speed.pdf
Of interest is the statement: "The fatality rate in December 1974
under the National Maximum Speed Law was
nearly a third higher than it was in December 1973
without it.""
<quote>
Although the original rationale for higher
speed limits was energy conservation, this
justification lost its appeal in the collapse of
fuel prices in the mid-1980's. Hence, the "Stay
Alive at 55" campaign was born.
There was certainly strong circumstantial
evidence that the lower speed limits were
reducing traffic fatalities. The first year after
the limits were in place, highway deaths
plunged by 15 percent. But there are many
reasons to believe that the relationship
between the reduction in traffic fatalities in
1974 and the lowering of speed limits was
spurious.
First, higher gasoline prices and sporadic
shortages reduced driving. And the decline in
miles traveled was particularly substantial
during discretionary driving periods – week-ends
and holidays – when the rate of traffic
accidents is higher than average.
Moreover, the cut in traffic fatalities in
1974 actually predated the raising of the
Federal speed limit. Milton Copulos of the
Heritage Foundation noted that "In October
1973, when the OPEC embargo was
announced, somewhat more than 4.4 people
were killed on the nation's highways per 100 million miles traveled.
By February 1974, one month before the National
Maximum Speed Law was enacted, the fatality rate had dropped
to slightly more than 3 per 100 million miles traveled. Over the next
nine months, with the
newly instituted speed limit, the fatality rate rose
to close to 4 persons per 100 million miles traveled by November 1974,
then dropped somewhat
in December. The fatality rate in December 1974 under the National
Maximum Speed Law was
nearly a third higher than it was in December 1973
without it."
</quote>
Racer X
OK, I'll take a crack at this. You seem to have ignored my previous
post in response to the points made by Jim Walker.
First, some explanation of the time periods coverred by the numbers in
the web page you referred to. The years shown are fiscal years (for
NHTSA, the federal agency that maintains those statistics). So what is
shown as 1974 is all accidents and fatalities between 10-1-1973 and
9-30-1974.
The National Maximum Speed Limit took effect on March 3, 1974.
Therefore, the 1974 data on FARS (the data that table you linked to is
based on) shows about 5 months (10-1-1973 through 3-2-1974) of higher
speed limits and about 7 months (3-3-1974 through 9-30-1974) of 55 mph
speed limits. This makes your claim even more amazing, as there are 5
months in that data where people were allowed to travel at horribly
dangerous higher speeds.
There were several factors that explain the lower fatality rates in
1974.
First, cars were safer in 1974 than they were in 1973. I'm not talking
about long term trends that had been happening since the 1960's. To be
sure, those improvements didn't hurt. But during those years, people
bought new cars much more frequently than they do today. So, many of
the automobiles on the road in 1974 were 1973 and 1974 models.
There were several changes to Federal safety standards for automobiles
in 1972 and 1973. These changes were implement in the 1973 and 1974
models.
- Bumper standards were implemented in late 1972. Many cars were
redesigned for the 1973 model year to meet the new standards for the
bumpers.
- Side impact protection standards were implemented in early 1973.
Some 1973 model year cars had improved side impact protection in the
doors. All 1974 model year cars had these features.
- Three point safety belts (both lap and shoulder belts) were required
starting late in 1973. These had been options on some cars prior to
that, but before 1973, only lap belts were mandatory.
- In August of 1973, NHTSA instituted a regulation requiring an
interlock between the seat belts and the ignition on all 1974 model
year cars. Almost all cars sold in the United States in the 1974 model
year would not start unless the driver and front seat had their safety
belts fastenned. This resulted in a large increase in seat belt use,
and also a law prohibiting NHTSA from requiring the interlock in cars
made after October of 1974. The sudden increase in seat belt use alone
could explain the numbers you see in the traffic fatality statistics
you refer to.
All of these safety innovations were in the 1973 and 1974 model year
cars. Maybe these safety features worked, and that might explain fewer
highway deaths in 1974.
Another factor is that the roads were better in 1974 than they were in
1973.
I can't remember a family vacation that we took prior to 1974 where we
didn't have to exit the interstates and use really bad, dangerous, two
lane rural highways for part of the trip. The Interstate highway
system wasn't finished back then. Our family didn't take a long
vacation in 1974, but on 1975 and later family vacations, I seem to
remember that we stayed on the Interstate highways until we got to our
destination.
Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence based on my own personal
memory. So I called my dad and asked him about it. My parents are pack
rats, and they keep lots of old stuff from family vacations. There's a
photo album and book from each of our vacations. We also kept some of
the maps from those years. It turns out he still has those albums, and
the maps, too.
So I asked him to look at the maps from our trip to Florida in 1973,
and from our trip to Florida in 1975. He had AAA maps of the Eastern
U.S. for those trips, in addition to the "Trip Tik" from one vacation.
He even checked the 1971 maps, too. Sure enough, the 1971 map of the
Eastern United States shows many gaps in the Interstate highway
system. There are dashed lines indicating highways under construction
but still incomplete, and other dashed lines indicating proposed
routes for highways where construction hasn't even started yet. The
1973 map of the Eastern United States still shows many gaps, but they
are smaller, and mostly under construction. The 1975 map shows almost
all of the major Interstate highways in the Eastern United States are
completed.
Now, the construction of the Interstates helped reduce traffic
accidents. Interstate highways are safer than the rural two lane
highways we had before that. But toward the end of the Interstate
construction phase, the two lane higways that filled the gaps were
particularly dangerous. Eliminating the traffic overload on these
roads would probably cause a signifcant reduction in accident rates
and fatalities. And this happened across much of the Eastern United
States in 1974.
All of these facts can explain a lower fatality rate and lower
accident rates on the highways in 1974 than in 1973.
Finally, if the 55 mph speed limit were the only factor involved, you
would expect to see two dramatic drops. The first drop should be in
the 1974 data, which includes 7 months of 55 mph speed limits and 5
months of higher fatalities with higher speed limits. Then, another
drop would be expected in the 1975, which has 12 months of data with
55 mph speed limits, and no additional fatalities from the months with
higher speeed limits. If 7 months of 55 mph speed limits lowered
fatality rates from 4.1 per 100 million vehicle miles to 3.5 per 100
million vehicle miles, then 12 months of 55 mph speed limits in the FY
1975 data _should_have_ lowered the fatality rate to 3.1 per 100
million vehicle miles. The fact that FY 1975 data shows 3.4 per 100
million vehicle miles shows that something other than the 55 mph speed
limit must have happened in the 1974 period. Otherwise, how do you
explain the lack of consistency with the 1975 figures?
Judy Diarya
>
> It's called critical mass. A little here, a little there, no significant
> effect until it a given point is reached and then there is a dramatic
> effect. A large number of factors were at play in 1973-74 that brought
> about a critical mass resulting in a dramatic year-to-year drop.
Any evidence for your "theory".?? >
>
> There are simply many factors that occured durring 1973-74 that make it
> impossible to isolate any single one of them as the cause of the decline
> in fatality rate. However, we do have other data where only the speed
> limit changed. This data shows us that changing the number on the sign
> to a lower value did nothing.
HAHAHA. What other factors?? You havent documented a one. You just
prattle away about how policies started in 69 didn't have an impact
till 74!!! URALOON.
>
>
>
> What we have is a drop in fatality rate on the US interstate and we
> want to answer the question, was the speed limit change to 55mph the
> cause? What we do is we look at other speed limit changes and other
> similiar road systems.
And you haven't produced a one. You don't have a single instance of a
speed limit reduction comparable to the one in 1974. HAHAHA.
WHATALOON.
Judy Diarya
Well, hell. Let's just start making stuff up around here. HAHAHA
JCWCONSULT
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2002 10:05 PM
Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
Dear Judy and all others following the thread,
I have not had this debate for several years as to why the claimed death rate
reduction for 1974 is bogus. I kept thinking there IS another big reason, but
I could not remember what it was.
Now I found my reference to it.
In 1973, the definition of a traffic fatality was changed. Before the change,
if someone died within 365 days after the accident, they were considered a
fatality related to that accident. After the change, the window was changed to
just 30 days after the accident to be considered related to that accident.
NHTSA claims to have adjusted the earlier data to reflect the change, but the
amount of work to have individually re-examined 50,000+ cases per year for
perhaps ten years before the change -- to look for the exact date of death
versus the exact date of the accident would have been an overwhelming job. One
by one on original reports, states did the reporting contemporaneously and the
data from local police agencies is pretty reliable. To redo all of that, after
the fact, from Washington, would have been an overwhelming job.
The chances that the re-adjustment was done accurately case-by-case is almost
nil, so the figures for 1974 and later CANNOT be compared to those from 1973
and earlier. It simply is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Reference to this was in the Traffic Safety Facts of 1994, but this is now too
old to download from NHTSA -- and I cannot find my hard copy. The 1995
report does not have the explanatory reference to the database definition
change.
it is one of those "dirty little secrets" that NHTSA and the "safety-lobby"
wanted us all to ignore.
1974 and later data is NOT comparable to 1973 and earlier. Apples to pumpkins
- worthless.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Brent P
> tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> It's called critical mass. A little here, a little there, no significant
>> effect until it a given point is reached and then there is a dramatic
>> effect. A large number of factors were at play in 1973-74 that brought
>> about a critical mass resulting in a dramatic year-to-year drop.
> Any evidence for your "theory".?? >
It has been discussed at length. I am not going to repeat it.
>> There are simply many factors that occured durring 1973-74 that make it
>> impossible to isolate any single one of them as the cause of the decline
>> in fatality rate. However, we do have other data where only the speed
>> limit changed. This data shows us that changing the number on the sign
>> to a lower value did nothing.
> HAHAHA. What other factors?? You havent documented a one. You just
> prattle away about how policies started in 69 didn't have an impact
> till 74!!! URALOON.
I have presented facts that are known to anyone with a half a clue
regarding automotive history. Since you are about 52 cards short of
a full deck it is no wonder why you cannot figure this out.
Also, if you had a clue you would have noticed fatality rate had
been droping for years prior. But since you don't have a clue and cannot
be bothered to think it's no wonder that you missed it.
>> What we have is a drop in fatality rate on the US interstate and we
>> want to answer the question, was the speed limit change to 55mph the
>> cause? What we do is we look at other speed limit changes and other
>> similiar road systems.
> And you haven't produced a one. You don't have a single instance of a
> speed limit reduction comparable to the one in 1974. HAHAHA.
> WHATALOON.
Seriously, what is your malfuction? Do you get your jollies posting
like this?
If it were true that dropping the speed limit reduced the fatality
rate, raising the speed limit should increase the fatality rate.
Everywhere that speed limits increased closer to the proper value
has seen decreases in fatality rates greater than where they remained
the same. This eliminates the NMSL from consideration as a causing
factor for 1974's drop in fatality rates.
Mike Thomas
Your using isolated statistics and LOONLOGIC. Not the same in the real
world, Judy. Sorry to disapoint.
And those "nazis" drive without speed limits on little round signs and they
die less often. FACT, so either its the badly-trained couch potato point and
click dodgem car mentality of the average American "driver", or its your
badly posted revenue generating speed limits. Or, more likely, its a
combination of the two.
Alex Rodriguez
>Well, hell. Let's just start making stuff up around here. HAHAHA
You don't need to say the obvious that applies to you.
--
Racer X
> rac...@winning.com (Racer X) wrote in message news:<4b7d95d.02022...@posting.google.com>...
> > utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote in message news:<13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > OK, I'll take a crack at this. You seem to have ignored my previous
> > post in response to the points made by Jim Walker.
> >
> > First, some explanation of the time periods coverred by the numbers in
> > the web page you referred to. The years shown are fiscal years (for
> > NHTSA, the federal agency that maintains those statistics). So what is
> > shown as 1974 is all accidents and fatalities between 10-1-1973 and
> > 9-30-1974.
> >
> > The National Maximum Speed Limit took effect on March 3, 1974.
> > Therefore, the 1974 data on FARS (the data that table you linked to is
> > based on) shows about 5 months (10-1-1973 through 3-2-1974) of higher
> > speed limits and about 7 months (3-3-1974 through 9-30-1974) of 55 mph
> > speed limits. This makes your claim even more amazing, as there are 5
> > months in that data where people were allowed to travel at horribly
> > dangerous higher speeds.
> >
>
> Well, hell. Let's just start making stuff up around here. HAHAHA
What are you accusing me of "making up?"
I'll assume that since you only quoted the first three paragraphs, you
must think I made up some of the data in those paragraphs.
Are you saying I "made up" the dates when the national maximum speed
limit took effect? That's a matter of public record. The law that
established the national maximum speed limit was the "Emergency
Highway Energy Conservation Act." It was public law 93-239. You can
look it up at any law library. Public Law 93-239, the "Emergency
Highway Energy Conservation Act," was signed by President Nixon on
January 2, 1974. The law stated that 60 days after it was enacted,
states must reduce their speed limits to 55 mph, or they would not be
allowed to continue with projects on the Interstate highway system.
That means that the states had to lower their speed limits by March 3,
1974. Many states did not lower the speed limits until the deadline.
One or two states didn't lower them until after they challenged the
law in court and lost the challenge. If you don't believe the dates I
give are true, look at the U.S. Department of Transportation web page
at http://isweb.tasc.dot.gov/Historian/chronology.htm
Here's a quote from that page:
January 2, 1974, Nixon signed into law the Emergency Highway
Energy Conservation Act, which mandated the 55-mph national
maximum speed limit, to take effect in sixty days. The act
required that the Department approve no highway projects for
states having a maximum speed limit greater than 55 mph.
Sixty days after January 2, 1974 was March 3, 1974. That was the day
the speed limit took effect.
Also, that DOT page isn't entirely accurate about the requirement that
the department "approve no highway projects for states having a
maximum speed limitgreater than 55 mph." The act required "that the
Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project within the
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in any State which
has a maximum speed limit on any public highway within its
jurisdiction in excess of 55 miles per hour." So it only restricted
funding for Interstate highway projects.
As for the period covered by the figures in the table you posted the
link to. Do you know the source for those figures? Did they come from
some agency of the federal government? If they did, they are probably
for the federal fiscal years mentioned. Federal agencies generally
report on fiscal years, not on calendar years. The federal fiscal year
starts on October 1 of the previous calendar year and runs through
September 30 of the year. For example, fiscal 2002, the current year,
started 10-1-2001 and will end on 9-30-2002. This is why you always
hear about the budget running out at the end of September when
congress doesn't finish all the appropriations bills by October 1st.
They have to pass those "continuing resolutions" or the federal
government agencies that don't have appropriations bills passed by
Congress and signed by the President have to shut down because they
have no money to operate.
If you can show me that the numbers in the table are for calendar year
1974, not federal fiscal year 1974, I'd be happy to revise my
statements. However, without knowing where the numbers in that table
came from, I'll assume they came from a federal agency and represent
federal fiscal year 1974. You have to prove it to me if it's
different.
As for the rest of my original post. If you think I made any of that
up, please feel free to ask me about it. I'll be happy to post links
to information that supports the facts there. If you want to see 1973
and 1975 AAA maps of the Eastern United States, I'll get them from my
dad and scan them for you. That might take a few weeks to do. I won't
see him until some time in April.
Judy Diarya
Racer X
> Dear Judy and all others following the thread,
>
> I have not had this debate for several years as to why the claimed death rate
> reduction for 1974 is bogus. I kept thinking there IS another big reason, but
> I could not remember what it was.
>
> Now I found my reference to it.
>
> In 1973, the definition of a traffic fatality was changed. Before the change,
> if someone died within 365 days after the accident, they were considered a
> fatality related to that accident. After the change, the window was changed to
> just 30 days after the accident to be considered related to that accident.
>
Are you certain that this happened between 1973 and 1974? According to
the various NHTSA and DOT sites, FARS was established in 1975 and
always used the 30 day criterion. I can't find any reference to where
data prior to 1975 came from. It would seem that this change you are
mentioning might have been a difference between FARS and the previous
system. If so, then it would also seem logical that 1973 and 1974 are
both from the previous system and use the same criteria.
> NHTSA claims to have adjusted the earlier data to reflect the change, but the
> amount of work to have individually re-examined 50,000+ cases per year for
> perhaps ten years before the change -- to look for the exact date of death
> versus the exact date of the accident would have been an overwhelming job. One
> by one on original reports, states did the reporting contemporaneously and the
> data from local police agencies is pretty reliable. To redo all of that, after
> the fact, from Washington, would have been an overwhelming job.
>
Again, are you certain that this was so overwhelming. Since this is a
statistical analysis system, it seems to me that it would have been
possible to do a statistical sample of perhaps several hundred, or
maybe a couple thousand cases. Using that you could determine a
correction factor that has a fairly high degree of confidence (95% or
better), and apply that correction factor to the older data.
> The chances that the re-adjustment was done accurately case-by-case is almost
> nil, so the figures for 1974 and later CANNOT be compared to those from 1973
> and earlier. It simply is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
>
Has anybody ever made a FOIA request to find out how the adjustment
was done? It seems that there would have been documentation of the
adjustment process and whether it was done with statistical sampling,
or with a case by case review. If it was done with statistical
sampling, then the statistical confidence of the adjustment should be
avaialable, as well as the potential range(s) for which higher
confidence levels can be assumed.
> Reference to this was in the Traffic Safety Facts of 1994, but this is now too
> old to download from NHTSA -- and I cannot find my hard copy. The 1995
> report does not have the explanatory reference to the database definition
> change.
>
> it is one of those "dirty little secrets" that NHTSA and the "safety-lobby"
> wanted us all to ignore.
>
> 1974 and later data is NOT comparable to 1973 and earlier. Apples to pumpkins
> - worthless.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Walker
IMO, you are slightly over playing this difference. While that
difference certainly might throw some uncertainty into the
comparisons, it should still be possible to find some useful
information in the comparisons. I'm still not entirely convinced that
there wasn't a real drop in fatalities in 1974. However, I am pretty
certain that the 55 mph speed limit was not the only factor, and I
seriously doubt that it was a major factor.
However, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were many changes
in the 1974 time frame that could explain the drop in fatalities that
year.
I've been trying to find hard numbers on seat belt usage, because,
with the ignition interlock on the 1974 models, that could explain a
lot of the difference. Also, 1973 models from Ford, GM and the other
American makers had much better safety belts that were much easier to
use. I know we had a 1972 Ford LTD and a 1973 Gran Torino. The belts
were much, much better on the Gran Torino. Nobody never wore the
shoulder belts on the LTD because they were such a PITA to deal with.
The Torino had the sewn together lap/shoulder belt with the spring
loaded inertia reals on both belts that was very common until airbags
and passive restraints came along. The shoulder belt on the 1972 LTD
snapped into the lap belt buckle piece, and the belt had to be
adjusted manually for length. That shoulder belt generally stayed
clipped up on the ceiling hooks.
Side impact protection and major improvements in the highway system
also probably made major contributions to the drop in fatalities.
JCWCONSULT
>Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2002 12:22 PM
>Message-id: <13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com>
It is a documented change in public policy on how FARS (Fatal Accident
Reporting System) and other researchers chose to treat fatalities from car
accidents. It was death within a year, it became death within 30 days of the
accident.
The fact that you may choose to consider this public policy change to be
fiction has no effect on the reality of what happened.
NHTSA does claim to have made "adjustments" to the fatality figures for before
the change, but the probability that this massive job was done thoroughly and
accurately is nil.
If you would like to send me a private email with a fax number, I will fax a
chart from some years ago that comes from the 1994 Traffic Safety Facts, on
which is noted the policy change is. My email address is real and unaltered.
I should have remembered the public policy change in counting fatalities about
200 posts ago, it would have saved a lot of everyone's time. No comparisons
before and after the 1973 change have any statistical validity.
Apples versus pumpkins comparisons are worthless.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Racer X
> interlock requirement was in 1973. So why didn't fatalies drop in 73
> instead of 74??. Why don't you think b4 you post??
The regulation requiring the ignition interlock went into effect
August of 1973, and applied to all 1974 model year vehicles. There
were no vehicles on the road with the interlock prior to September of
1973.
All 1974 model year vehicles had the interlock (except for about ten
thousand General Motors cars that were equipped with airbag only and
no seat belts, and were exempt from the interlock requirement).
Therefore, 1974 was the first full year when the vehicles with the
interlock could have been driven. If the figures in your chart are for
federal fiscal years, there was only 1 month in 1973 when vehicles
with interlocks were even available. That was September. If the
numbers in your chart were for calendar years, then the vehicles with
interlocks were available for 4 months. Still, the interlock
requirement would have had its biggest effect on the 1974 year (either
fiscal year or calendar year).
The ignition interlock systems were outlawed, along with continuous
warning buzzers or continuous warning lights, for vehicles made after
October of 1974.
Racer X
Robert Briggs
> I should have remembered the public policy change in counting fatalities about
> 200 posts ago, it would have saved a lot of everyone's time. No comparisons
> before and after the 1973 change have any statistical validity.
That's probably stretching it a bit, Jim.
While the change would, indeed, have reduced the fatality figures for
later years, I *suspect* that the reduction was rather small, and that
the principal effect of the change was to make a year's figures
available eleven months earlier.
That said, ISTM that the effect of this change would merely add to the
efects of the other changes you so ably described.
C.R. Krieger
OK. You go first. Oh. You already did. Sorry ...
--
C.R. Krieger
"Don't argue with 'em, dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
dizz
wrote:
>I'll say one thing for you. You have a hell of an imagination.
I like how you call someone a liar, when in fact they are correct.
Asshole.
Bernd Felsche
>jcwco...@aol.com (JCWCONSULT) wrote in message
>news:<20020227232929...@mb-fx.aol.com>...
[snip]
>> it is one of those "dirty little secrets" that NHTSA and the
>> "safety-lobby" wanted us all to ignore.
>>
>> 1974 and later data is NOT comparable to 1973 and earlier.
>> Apples to pumpkins - worthless.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jim Walker
>I'll say one thing for you. You have a hell of an imagination.
Debating tactic #47: When you can't deliver a valid
counter-argument, question the integrity of the opposition.
I have news for you: this is *not* politics. It's lives we're
talking about.
Under-posted limits cost lives.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!
JCWCONSULT
>Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2002 9:29 PM
>Message-id: <q1pm5a...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>I have news for you: this is *not* politics. It's lives we're
>talking about.
>
>Under-posted limits cost lives.
>--
>/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
But they are $$$$$soooooooo profitable.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Matthew Russotto
Racer X <rac...@winning.com> wrote:
>
>The ignition interlock systems were outlawed, along with continuous
>warning buzzers or continuous warning lights, for vehicles made after
>October of 1974.
My 1999 Miata has a continuous warning light (but no buzzer)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Racer X
> In article <4b7d95d.02022...@posting.google.com>,
> Racer X <rac...@winning.com> wrote:
> >
> >The ignition interlock systems were outlawed, along with continuous
> >warning buzzers or continuous warning lights, for vehicles made after
> >October of 1974.
>
> My 1999 Miata has a continuous warning light (but no buzzer)
Sounds like it might be broken. The current standard does not allow a
continuous warning light. The light _must_ go out after 8 seconds.
If your Miata is still within the waranty, you should get this fixed.
Since this is a "safety" item, the waranty for this might be longer
than the general waranty on the rest of the car. Again, the government
specifies that safety items must work for a fairly long time. The
manufacturer must fix these things, even if the general waranty period
or mileage on the vehicle has passed.
I'm assuming you are in the United States. Other countries might have
different rules for the seat belt warning lights.
egpowers
> "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Well, hell. Let's just start making stuff up around here.
>
> OK. You go first. Oh. You already did. Sorry ...
Interesting isn't it that the Germans have begun implementing speed
limits on parts of the autobahn to combat a rise in traffic
fatalities. There is significant proof (state of Montana) that
increased speed, and split speed limits lead to high fatalities.
Since the change in NMSL there has been an increase in traffic
fatalities in some, but not all classes of vehicle. As also has there
been in states with split speed limits. But, one thing all of you
ignore is that the people who set these speed limits, are often not
the politician, but rather individuals who study stretches of road,
use police ticket data, as well as statistical review of the area.
Many time they use traffic recorders, to monitor traffic flow numbers,
as well as speed. All this data is used to compile what the speed
limit should be. Now for those of you who still insist that the speed
limit is arbitrarily too low, I would suggest that on those stretches
of highway that you feel this way about, seek out the imperical
statistical data on that road, going back ten year. Some interesting
FACT for you. There is a stretch of interstate highway near me, with
the 55 mph speed limit, police records showed the average speed was 63
mph. After raising the limit to 75 mph, the average speed limit
increased as well, to 85 mph. Now some more data for you, under the
55 mph limit, the accident rate, not per miles but day was 1 to 3 per
day, with a fatal rate of 1 a week. Since raising the limit, the
accident rate is now 3 to 5 per day, with a fatality rate of 2 to 5
per week (seasonal depending). Recently, the highway dept. lowered
the speed limit to 65 mph in the same area, speeds have actually
stayed in the 85 mph range for travellers, while those who live in the
area are doing the new limit. Since the change, the ingorance of the
new limit by travellers has resulted in another increase in traffic
accidents. This is on a rural, 15 mile stretch of highway. What I
find even more amusing, is that 90% of those who blame the ignorantly
low speed limits are also the same people who pay me $150.00 to pull
them out of the ditch in the winter time after they go off the road
while driving like maniacs. In the past 36 hours, we have seen a 40
deg. drop in temps. and 8" of snow, the accident rate has also gone
through the roof. In 15 hrs yesterday (3/1/02), I pulled 30 vehicles
out of the ditch, recovered another 6 that had been involved in high
speed rollovers, and helped the EMS recover three bodies after some
asshole totaled a '01 BMW 740 while driving 85 mph on ice. He is now
in intensive care at the hospital, his wife and two kids are dead.
The state trooper who worked the accident, asked the guy some basic
questions at the hospital, this guy claimed that the accident was not
his fualt, but rather the fualt of the state highway dept. for not
having the highway cleared. Interesting, it's snowing at the rate of
1" per hour, has been for 10 hours, the highways are icy, traffic flow
is in the 55mph range 75 mph limit and this asshole blames everyone
else.
Brent P
> Interesting isn't it that the Germans have begun implementing speed
> limits on parts of the autobahn to combat a rise in traffic
> fatalities. There is significant proof (state of Montana) that
> increased speed, and split speed limits lead to high fatalities.
> Since the change in NMSL there has been an increase in traffic
> fatalities in some, but not all classes of vehicle.
Your knowledge is only partical. Montana's fatalities went down when
they had reasonable and prudent. They have since increased by going
to numerical limits. Also keep in mind that durring the NMSL years
montana only enforced 55mph in appearances. They issued tickets with
a fine so trival the processing cost more in symbolic gesture to the
federal government. Now montana is like many other states, issuing
speeding tickets with regards to a limit set below engineering standards
and people die because of it.
Arif Khokar
>
> Interesting isn't it that the Germans have begun implementing speed
> limits on parts of the autobahn to combat a rise in traffic
> fatalities. There is significant proof (state of Montana) that
> increased speed,...lead to high fatalities.
Actually, the opposite is true. Take a look at the following link:
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
<snip>
> But, one thing all of you
> ignore is that the people who set these speed limits, are often not
> the politician, but rather individuals who study stretches of road,
> use police ticket data, as well as statistical review of the area.
That is not correct. Speed limits are set by class of road which is
defined in state law. For instance, West Virginia has the following
speed limits defined in state law. Fifteen mph in a school zone, 25 mph
in a residential district, and 55 mph on an open country highway. Those
are the default speed limits in absence of a traffic and engineering
study. A number of states in the eastern part of the US have maximum
speed limit laws that limit urban highways to 55 mph and rural highways
to 65 mph (which is in contradiction to traffic and engineering surveys).
Therefore, the speed limits are effectively set by politicians, not
traffic (civil) engineers.
> Many time they use traffic recorders, to monitor traffic flow numbers,
> as well as speed. All this data is used to compile what the speed
> limit should be.
There are several factors that are considered before setting a speed
limit. Take a look at the following link and click on Chapter 2B and
browse the pdf file to section 11.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.18.00.htm
> Now for those of you who still insist that the speed
> limit is arbitrarily too low...
We're basing that statement on traffic and engineering studies of those
roads, not our personal opinion. If the 85th percentile speed
determined by one of those studies is 74 mph, then a 55 mph speed limit
as defined in state law for that class of road is arbitrarily low, period.
<snip>
> Some interesting
> FACT for you. There is a stretch of interstate highway near me, with
> the 55 mph speed limit, police records showed the average speed was 63
> mph. After raising the limit to 75 mph, the average speed limit
> increased as well, to 85 mph.
I'm assuming that you have an actual printed study from the department
of transportation/highways of that state to base that statement on. If
not, then what you say about average speeds is at best woefully inaccurate.
> Now some more data for you, under the
> 55 mph limit, the accident rate, not per miles but day was 1 to 3 per
> day, with a fatal rate of 1 a week. Since raising the limit, the
> accident rate is now 3 to 5 per day, with a fatality rate of 2 to 5
> per week (seasonal depending).
Fatalities (or accidents) per 100 million vehicles miles is a better
statistical measure than fatalities (or accidents) per day. The former
statistic takes into account relative vehicle exposure as well as
increased traffic density.
> Recently, the highway dept. lowered
> the speed limit to 65 mph in the same area, speeds have actually
> stayed in the 85 mph range for travellers, while those who live in the
> area are doing the new limit.
The highway department evidently raised the speed differential by
lowering the limit. That's a bad move since studies show that raising
the limit by as much as 15 mph or lowering it by as much as 20 mph does
not affect traffic speeds by more than ą1.5 mph. Take a look at the
following link for one such study.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/index.html
<snip>
>, and helped the EMS recover three bodies after some
> asshole totaled a '01 BMW 740 while driving 85 mph on ice.
<snip>
I don't recall you saying that you were a professional accident
investigator. Since you're not, I seriously doubt you could determine
his speed before the accident with any certainty.
Matthew Russotto
Racer X <rac...@winning.com> wrote:
>russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<u7v8nsq...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> In article <4b7d95d.02022...@posting.google.com>,
>> Racer X <rac...@winning.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The ignition interlock systems were outlawed, along with continuous
>> >warning buzzers or continuous warning lights, for vehicles made after
>> >October of 1974.
>>
>> My 1999 Miata has a continuous warning light (but no buzzer)
>
>Sounds like it might be broken. The current standard does not allow a
>continuous warning light. The light _must_ go out after 8 seconds.
I have the wiring diagram. It's deliberate. The light is connected
directly to the seat belt sensor.
Jacques
Because gasoline was hard to come by and expensive. Next question?
Rob Bonette
>Because gasoline was hard to come by and expensive.
>Next question?
In Texas there was no shortage of gasoline and the fatalities
still dropped. You forgot that speeder logic works only on
speeders, not thinkers.
RB
Brent P
And texas still saw the other factors. Unless you can show an increase
in fatality rate in texas after the NMSL was repealed, the number on
the sign didn't matter one bit.
Brandon Sommerville
So, speed limits in Texas now being around what they were pre-NMSL,
the fatality rate has gone up to match it, right?
--
Brandon
You're just jealous because the little voices talk to ME.
Remove ".gov" to e-mail
Rob Bonette
Hey moron, all I did was point out that the gasoline shortage
theory was bullshit. I'm not out to prove anything one way or the
other. Unlike you I have no desire to spend my every waking hour
on the Internet trying to convince the world (insert your favorite
crime here) is okay. There is more to life than that kind of
pathetic behavior.
Toodle-oo
RB
JCWCONSULT
>Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2002 9:10 PM
>Message-id: <3C842923...@nospam.com>
>
>Hey moron, all I did was point out that the gasoline shortage
>theory was bullshit.
In MI and IL, for two I know about first hand, gas was quite difficult to buy
in sufficient quantities in the daytime, and nearly impossible to buy after
dark. Texas was lucky if you did not have those problems.
I had to tow a race car to Chicago for an auto show and built up enough gas
supply in jerricans that I could go without stopping for gas - just in case.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Brent P
Hey you fucking moronic dipshit, you must be stupid beyond all limits
to believe that just because texas fatalities dropped and there was
alot of gasoline in texas means the that not enough gasoline in other
places didn't have an effect in those other places. You offer no
comparitive data. You offer nothing that shows texas saw a greater,
equal, or less reduction than other states that had a fuel shortage.
To show that the fuel shortage causing people to drive less did not
have an effect, that it was indeed 'bullshit', requires you to show
that texas had a drop equal to or greater than states that had a shortage.
Maybe if you weren't a moronic jackass, you would have realized what
it takes to show it is 'bullshit'.
Now as far as the rest of your assine post is concerned, you have
no clue and it shows. So go back to your tv, pop open a cold one
and drink yourself into a stupor, I've got more important things
to do. But should you want to learn something about road safety,
feel free to read some posts. Then travel to a major city that hasn't
seen a speed limit change since the NMSL was put in back in the 1970s
and drive the speed limit while traffic is free flowing. Try not to
take a dump in your pants.
Mike Thomas
"egpowers" <egpo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5fa1390b.0203...@posting.google.com...
> "C.R. Krieger" <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote in message
news:<3c7ea688$0$3036$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>...
> > "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:13fbd448.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Well, hell. Let's just start making stuff up around here.
> >
> > OK. You go first. Oh. You already did. Sorry ...
>
> Interesting isn't it that the Germans have begun implementing speed
> limits on parts of the autobahn to combat a rise in traffic
> fatalities. There is significant proof (state of Montana) that
> increased speed, and split speed limits lead to high fatalities.
Is that higher fatalities *per accident* or higher fatalities *per mile
driven*.
I think you will find that at an 85%ile limit, the number of fatalities *per
accident* could well increase (more speed = more risk of death *if* you
crash) BUT the number of accidents will *GO DOWN*. Thus, in effect, REDUCING
the rate of fatalities *per mile driven*.
Mike Thomas
This is on a rural, 15 mile stretch of highway. What I
> find even more amusing, is that 90% of those who blame the ignorantly
> low speed limits are also the same people who pay me $150.00 to pull
> them out of the ditch in the winter time after they go off the road
> while driving like maniacs. In the past 36 hours, we have seen a 40
> deg. drop in temps. and 8" of snow, the accident rate has also gone
> through the roof. In 15 hrs yesterday (3/1/02), I pulled 30 vehicles
> out of the ditch, recovered another 6 that had been involved in high
> speed rollovers, and helped the EMS recover three bodies after some
> asshole totaled a '01 BMW 740 while driving 85 mph on ice.
That BMW driver is a w*nker who doesnt deserve his licence and is a danger
to himself and society. He is, and I quite A LOON! You should always drive
as per the conditions. If the conditions warrant 10MPH, then you should be
doing 10MPH.
He is now
> in intensive care at the hospital, his wife and two kids are dead.
> The state trooper who worked the accident, asked the guy some basic
> questions at the hospital, this guy claimed that the accident was not
> his fualt, but rather the fualt of the state highway dept. for not
> having the highway cleared. Interesting, it's snowing at the rate of
> 1" per hour, has been for 10 hours, the highways are icy, traffic flow
> is in the 55mph range 75 mph limit and this asshole blames everyone
> else.
There is noone to blame but himself. Every person is always resonsibile for
his own actions, period.
JCWCONSULT
>Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2002 9:23 AM
>Message-id: <a62k2u$68q$1...@newsfeed.pit.comms.marconi.com>
Correct. Fatality rate is the combination of risks of dying in an accident
plus the risks of having the accident in the first place.
With higher posted limits on major roads, our fatality rate is lower today than
before the NMSL was repealed.
The IIHS, NHTSA, etc all said we would have 6,000+ more deaths without the NMSL
- and that was utter nonsense. Fatalities remained about the same, miles
traveled went up as usual, and the fatality rate went down. The "prediction"
of carnage was fabricated deliberate disinformation by people with $$$$$ axes
to grind.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Ennui Society
Nope. The speed does not kill in 1973/4. The obscene increase in price
of petrol and severe shortage did kill the people's joy of driving. Get
real! I am thinking you are one of Carl Taylor's diguise to prop up your
dimwitted views... Oh, yeah, the dimwit kills, the genuis saves!
Oliver
Judy Diarya wrote:
>I've raised this question on other threads and got nothing but BS
>answers from the speed loons . Here's the issue. If you go to this
>thread ---
>
>http://www.disastercenter.com/traffic/Fatality.html
>
>you'll see that in 1973 the highway death toll was 54,000 and the rate
>per 100,000,000 miles was 4.1. Then in 1974 the numbers were 45,000
>and 3.5. No drop like that has occurred before or since as you can
>see from the chart. How to explain it?. It was not due to fewer
>miles driven. As the chart shows they just dropped slightly from 1313
>billion to 1281 billion. The answer is the lower speed limit. In
>1973 a law was passed lowering the max speed to 55 mph. It took
>effect at the start of 1974. This is the definitive proof that speed
>kills.
>
--
To reply, remove *NO* from my email address.