CdwJava writes:
Actually, I don't. I do not need to prove that shoplifting and theft is a detriment to society and thus justify the use of surveillance cameras either.
As I said, if you want to be credible . . .
Shoplifting and theft have victims; speeding does not. Driving at the speeds most drivers choose, scientifically measured at the 85th or 95th percentiles, are statistically the safest, yet they are still illegal and drivers receive speeding citations for doing this.
If you want justification, argue with the courts, the legislators, and others who weight the evidence and make law and policy. It's sort of like arguing with the baker who cannot explain how an oven works.
I have argued with the courts and legislatures in probably a dozen different states. Not only do they not weigh the evidence, fewer and fewer of them are even trying to camouflage that they do this for the money even at the cost of their integrity. During lobbying efforts in Oklahoma two years ago and Utah this year, we had legislator’s aides ask us outright how much we had contributed to his re-election campaign. The insurance and enforcement industries contribute millions to state legislators with the result that they are more than willing to overlook the science of their own engineers and keep speed limits artificially low.
Do you really think that the bouncer at the door of the whorehouse doesn’t profit from the system perpetuated inside. You’re part of the problem.
I didn't say it was. I said it was a factor in collisions. In CA it was one of the top three primary collision factors.
What you said was in black and white and in my quote of you: “And it can be easily proven that unsafe speed is a common cause of many (most?) collisions.” If “unsafe speed” is – as you clearly say – the cause of many (most) collisions, then ought it not be the focus of our policy decisions and efforts? Yet, we know statistically that speed unsafe for conditions (as distinct from “speeding”) accounts for about 5-8% of fatal crashes, at least according to NHTSA. You’re probably more familiar with their “speed as a factor in” analysis, an analysis that includes any crash with speeds over the posted limit, too fast for conditions, too slow for conditions, and unsafe lane changes. Normalization of the data reduces their argument to dust.
If CA has it as one of the top three factors, that makes CA different from the rest of the US. It also makes their stats suspect.
Maybe. But you are talking about things that I don't have knowledge of. I can't speak to "speed traps" in other places. In CA we receive very little money from traffic tickets. The BIG money is in parking tickets - not traffic.
However, drivers must drive in all these other places and deal with the LEOs out to make a buck or two from the village speed trap. The fact that CA agencies do not profit does not lessen the damage done by the rest of the nation. I agree that CA is far more enlightened vis a vis speed control that the rest of the states. However, speed control is a hundred billion dollar a year industry, a price paid by motorists for doing something that benefits them and benefits society but that has been arbitrarily declared as illegal.
And radars and lidars are tools to confirm visual estimations of speed. How they are used or misused elsewhere is the problem of that locale, and not the fault of the tool but the policy that guides it's deployment.
Agreed. However, once again, a citation from Stringtown, OK has the same legal standing as one from a Chippie on the 5; the motivation of the issuing agency is not only unknown to the motorist, it’s also irrelevant. And the money to pay or fight that citation is just as real, as well.
No. It's just one of the top three primary collision factors.
Even assuming that’s true, agencies such as the Texas DPS issue more speeding citations than all others combined by two to one. Yet, they don’t even recognize suicide, for example, as a causative agent.
I beg to disagree. And as speeds have risen, so have injuries and fatalities. Therefore, control of speed IS an important matter.
Nonsense. The fatality rate during the height of the NMSL (1974-1977) was right around 5.67 per 100 million VMT. For 2003 it was 1.80 and for interstates was 0.87. [Those are from memory but they’re very close.] Injuries and crashes per 100 million VMT acted similarly. During the interim, we’ve had two major increases in the speed limit and rescinded the NMSL as well.
I take it that you are one of those guys that advocates autobahn style highways where you can put your pedal to the metal whenever you wish?
Only where appropriate.
We can [show that enforcement results in an improvement in traffic safety]. Whenever you see increased traffic enforcement, you see a marked drop in traffic collisions and even traffic fatalities.
This is false and if you have evidence to the contrary, you need to present it. I’ve been looking for it since 1958 and – outside of some anecdotal stories – have not found any independent and peer-reviewed studies to support your assertion.
Cities do extensive studies on this. Both San Diego and Los Angeles both have significant amounts of research on the decline in the number of traffic collisions and fatalities. In a city I used to work in (of 160,000 people in So. Cal.) we were able to cut traffic related injuries and collisions by more than 50% in key intersections simply by greater enforcement of traffic laws to include speed and red light enforcement.
Then we need to see those for the reasons stated supra. And red-light enforcement is a totally different animal from speeding.
The best known study of this type was by the Connecticut State police many years ago. They instituted heavy and strict enforcement and the number of deaths declined dramatically. Then Governor Ribbicoff rode this wave to US senator from CT. The CSP then became even more Draconian, vastly increasing the number of cops and citations. The deaths and, more importantly, the fatality rate, rose to their previous level before the special program. The decline was simply a statistical anomaly. If you’re going to try to show a direct and significant correlation – not to mention causation – between enforcement level and improved safety measures, you’re going to have to look very hard. I’ve been looking for 46 years and haven’t found any.
Am I going to produce this data for you? No. Why? Because I do not have to, and do not wish to waste the time trying to "prove" something to you that you will not buy in to anyway.
Oh, please. You can’t produce it because it doesn’t exist or, more likely, has been discredited.
Expend you energies trying to change the law if you find it so wrong. In the meantime I'll keep scraping the remains of the victims off the pavement.
Spare us the Signal 32 bull****. That only shows that you know how to clean up the aftermath of a crash, not that you have any idea how to prevent them in the first place. I worked in the emergency room of a major hospital for a while and the carnage I saw only solidified my extant desire to improve traffic safety from a scientific point of view.
Just pay it and move on.