-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
CdwJava
Senior Member
I suppose that other considerations - like cross traffic, presence of pedestrians, homes, businesses, driveways, traffic control devices, and that ever-nasty "reaction time" should not be a consideration for speed limits either?
I can at least accept the argument for higher speeds on the freeways even if I do not agree with them. But in the city?! Or on roads where people are and where commerce is conducted and businesses abound! My God! People react slow enough as it is ... adding higher speeds would be disastrous!
- Carl
I can at least accept the argument for higher speeds on the freeways even if I do not agree with them. But in the city?! Or on roads where people are and where commerce is conducted and businesses abound! My God! People react slow enough as it is ... adding higher speeds would be disastrous!
- Carl
Happy Trails
Senior Member
Obviously, it is someone who has a problem with rules and authority.
CdwJava
Senior Member
Of course.
All because a speed is safe from an engineering standpoint does NOT mean it is safe from a human standpoint. Humans have reaction times that cannot be articificially improved. And roadways include hazards and other things that effect the safe speed ... weather, people, cross traffic, etc.
It is NOT all about engineering.
- Carl
All because a speed is safe from an engineering standpoint does NOT mean it is safe from a human standpoint. Humans have reaction times that cannot be articificially improved. And roadways include hazards and other things that effect the safe speed ... weather, people, cross traffic, etc.
It is NOT all about engineering.
- Carl
James Young
Member
AHA writes:
So it's pedal to the metal for everyone, everywhere at anytime.
Well, I see since you can’t reasonably respond to my argument, you provide one for me.
Have a good night
Thank you, I shall.
So it's pedal to the metal for everyone, everywhere at anytime.
Well, I see since you can’t reasonably respond to my argument, you provide one for me.
Have a good night
Thank you, I shall.
James Young
Member
CdwJava writes:
I suppose that other considerations - like cross traffic, presence of pedestrians, homes, businesses, driveways, traffic control devices, and that ever-nasty "reaction time" should not be a consideration for speed limits either?
They are already built into the 85th percentile speeds. Rural interstate-grade highways don’t have cross traffic, pedestrians, homes, businesses, etc. Drivers automatically accommodate reaction time and their success is evident: 0.87 fatality rate per 100 million VMT, the best ever. Further, they do this without governmental guidance or mandate.
I can at least accept the argument for higher speeds on the freeways even if I do not agree with them. But in the city?! Or on roads where people are and where commerce is conducted and businesses abound! My God! People react slow enough as it is ... adding higher speeds would be disastrous!
Fair enough. However, once again, drivers already incorporate this into their calculus leading to a particular speed and this is reflected in the 85th percentile. I cannot imagine actual speeds varying much from what they are right now on streets such as Wilshire, Sunset, Robertson or La Cienega in Los Angeles. You could set the limit at 500 mph but drivers would be unable to go any faster because of the congestion.
I suppose that other considerations - like cross traffic, presence of pedestrians, homes, businesses, driveways, traffic control devices, and that ever-nasty "reaction time" should not be a consideration for speed limits either?
They are already built into the 85th percentile speeds. Rural interstate-grade highways don’t have cross traffic, pedestrians, homes, businesses, etc. Drivers automatically accommodate reaction time and their success is evident: 0.87 fatality rate per 100 million VMT, the best ever. Further, they do this without governmental guidance or mandate.
I can at least accept the argument for higher speeds on the freeways even if I do not agree with them. But in the city?! Or on roads where people are and where commerce is conducted and businesses abound! My God! People react slow enough as it is ... adding higher speeds would be disastrous!
Fair enough. However, once again, drivers already incorporate this into their calculus leading to a particular speed and this is reflected in the 85th percentile. I cannot imagine actual speeds varying much from what they are right now on streets such as Wilshire, Sunset, Robertson or La Cienega in Los Angeles. You could set the limit at 500 mph but drivers would be unable to go any faster because of the congestion.
James Young
Member
AHA writes:
Well, all I'm being slapped in the face with here is that those limits are just political and have no substance at all!!
That’s true. Sometimes the reality is hard to accept because the perceived and traditional reality is so entrenched. I’m not telling you all these things just to piss you off but to get you to think differently. And I’m not alone in these views: I got them from the scientific community.
I'm glad that I'm not some newly licensed teen reading this or I would learn some really dangerous stuff.
A newly discovered truth can be a little intimidating.
Well, all I'm being slapped in the face with here is that those limits are just political and have no substance at all!!
That’s true. Sometimes the reality is hard to accept because the perceived and traditional reality is so entrenched. I’m not telling you all these things just to piss you off but to get you to think differently. And I’m not alone in these views: I got them from the scientific community.
I'm glad that I'm not some newly licensed teen reading this or I would learn some really dangerous stuff.
A newly discovered truth can be a little intimidating.
James Young
Member
CdwJava writes:
All because a speed is safe from an engineering standpoint does NOT mean it is safe from a human standpoint. Humans have reaction times that cannot be articificially improved. And roadways include hazards and other things that effect the safe speed ... weather, people, cross traffic, etc.
Traffic engineering already incorporates those human elements. It is more than sightlines, at-grade crossings, approach angles, distribution of inflows, etc.
All because a speed is safe from an engineering standpoint does NOT mean it is safe from a human standpoint. Humans have reaction times that cannot be articificially improved. And roadways include hazards and other things that effect the safe speed ... weather, people, cross traffic, etc.
Traffic engineering already incorporates those human elements. It is more than sightlines, at-grade crossings, approach angles, distribution of inflows, etc.
James Young
Member
Happy Trails said:
Or perhaps only with stupid rules and abuse of authority.
James Young said:
The day your idea of free speeding limit all over is in effect hell will have frozen over. So you're not the most reasonable person around either, although you think so.
Reality is hard to accept...for you at least, since there ARE speeding limits your reality is in your own little head. Seek help for that.
And for you to think that something you say will change how I see it is just embarrassing. I'm not weak enough to be influenced by stupidity. I pity the poor teenagers(if you have or ever will have any) that will take driving lessons with you. "Oh, just ignore the speed signs, Daddy has decided they mean nothing, just go as fast as you want". Next you'll will want to ban traffic lights too, right?
It's no point arguing about it. One day when you lose a loved one because of a speeding a-shole you won't be so hell bent on breaking the traffic laws and digging desperately for support for doing it.
James Young
Member
AHA writes:
The day your idea of free speeding limit all over is in effect hell will have frozen over. So you're not the most reasonable person around either, although you think so.
Without knowing exactly what a “free speeding limit” is, I hesitate to respond. However, all I am suggesting is that speed limits be set according to the engineering criteria that ascertain the appropriate percentile (85th or 95th) for the particular roadway. Neither I nor anybody else is suggesting that actual speeds go up but only that those actual speeds are made legal as well as safe.
Reality is hard to accept...for you at least, since there ARE speeding limits your reality is in your own little head. Seek help for that.
Gratuitous recommendation aside, let’s go over this. The current reality is that we have conflicting systems providing us with conflicting conclusions for speed limits. We have the scientific measurements and rigorous examination of data leading to a conclusion that, say, 90 mph is the safest and most efficient speed for a rural interstate-grade roadway. Were limits set at this speed, the only real effect is that 95% of the drivers would be in compliance with the law and that law enforcement could concentrate on the more difficult task of identifying and isolating the truly dangerous drivers, the suicidal, the impaired, and the inattentive.
The other system is the political system that chooses speed limits for completely different reasons, such as the political safety of the legislator, the impact of lobbying efforts and all the money that changes hands. These limits are set below the optimal speed, leading to the unintended consequences of elevated crash, injury and fatality rates, as well as reducing the carrying capacity of the roadway and diminishing economic productivity. These are huge costs.
Jurisdictions have usually tried to justify setting low limits as a safety measure, claiming that slower limits lead to slower speeds leads to fewer crashes. This has been proven false for many years. The facts just do not support that conclusion; as speeds have risen, fatalities have declined. Lower limits have also been justified on grounds of saving fuel and limiting urban sprawl. Recently, many jurisdictions have just come right out and admitted they do it for the money.
This is very difficult for LEOs to accept because it is so counterintuitive to their belief systems and to the political postions of their agencies. They don’t like being confronted with something so alien to their comfortable conventional wisdom.
And for you to think that something you say will change how I see it is just embarrassing.
Ignorance is always a choice. However, I really don’t want you or anybody else to believe me just because I said something. I expect you to break out of that comfort zone and do your own reading, think critically, question and synthesize your own set of information and beliefs with some new thinking.
I pity the poor teenagers (if you have or ever will have any) that will take driving lessons with you.
Both of my children are grown, graduated from college and working on their own. I did teach them how to drive when they were about 12 and I’ve added to their repertoire of skills and critical attitude. My son and I have both been through the Bob Bondurant School and my daughter will go next year. They, like me, have never had any at-fault crashes and no tickets for anything other than speeding. Other kids should be as lucky.
Next you'll will want to ban traffic lights too, right?
Bzzzztttt! Danger! Straw man alert!!!!
It's no point arguing about it. One day when you lose a loved one because of a speeding a-shole you won't be so hell bent on breaking the traffic laws and digging desperately for support for doing it.
It’s not the speeding *******s that scare me. It’s the inattentive, the impaired and the suicidal. I was running across I-80 in Wyoming last month, about 95 mph or just a hair faster than the prevailing 90 mph for most cars. I was passed by a little old lady in her Lincoln Town Car running about 105 mph. That’s fine; she didn’t bother me and I kept in the rightmost lane so I didn’t bother her. I was far more concerned by the moron running 70 mph in the left lane, impeding traffic for most of a mile.
And, once again, Signal 32 tactics were discredited 50 years ago. How is having a bunch of scared drivers going to improve their driving? I must have missed that day in logic class.
Now, I've confronted the LEOs on this board with an uncomfortable look at their role in the traffic flow/traffic safety system. We can continue to trade insults or we can learn. I can do either very well. Our goals are the same. Where do you really want to go from here? Do you want to improve the three key safety measures and the flow of traffic or do you want to do something else?
The day your idea of free speeding limit all over is in effect hell will have frozen over. So you're not the most reasonable person around either, although you think so.
Without knowing exactly what a “free speeding limit” is, I hesitate to respond. However, all I am suggesting is that speed limits be set according to the engineering criteria that ascertain the appropriate percentile (85th or 95th) for the particular roadway. Neither I nor anybody else is suggesting that actual speeds go up but only that those actual speeds are made legal as well as safe.
Reality is hard to accept...for you at least, since there ARE speeding limits your reality is in your own little head. Seek help for that.
Gratuitous recommendation aside, let’s go over this. The current reality is that we have conflicting systems providing us with conflicting conclusions for speed limits. We have the scientific measurements and rigorous examination of data leading to a conclusion that, say, 90 mph is the safest and most efficient speed for a rural interstate-grade roadway. Were limits set at this speed, the only real effect is that 95% of the drivers would be in compliance with the law and that law enforcement could concentrate on the more difficult task of identifying and isolating the truly dangerous drivers, the suicidal, the impaired, and the inattentive.
The other system is the political system that chooses speed limits for completely different reasons, such as the political safety of the legislator, the impact of lobbying efforts and all the money that changes hands. These limits are set below the optimal speed, leading to the unintended consequences of elevated crash, injury and fatality rates, as well as reducing the carrying capacity of the roadway and diminishing economic productivity. These are huge costs.
Jurisdictions have usually tried to justify setting low limits as a safety measure, claiming that slower limits lead to slower speeds leads to fewer crashes. This has been proven false for many years. The facts just do not support that conclusion; as speeds have risen, fatalities have declined. Lower limits have also been justified on grounds of saving fuel and limiting urban sprawl. Recently, many jurisdictions have just come right out and admitted they do it for the money.
This is very difficult for LEOs to accept because it is so counterintuitive to their belief systems and to the political postions of their agencies. They don’t like being confronted with something so alien to their comfortable conventional wisdom.
And for you to think that something you say will change how I see it is just embarrassing.
Ignorance is always a choice. However, I really don’t want you or anybody else to believe me just because I said something. I expect you to break out of that comfort zone and do your own reading, think critically, question and synthesize your own set of information and beliefs with some new thinking.
I pity the poor teenagers (if you have or ever will have any) that will take driving lessons with you.
Both of my children are grown, graduated from college and working on their own. I did teach them how to drive when they were about 12 and I’ve added to their repertoire of skills and critical attitude. My son and I have both been through the Bob Bondurant School and my daughter will go next year. They, like me, have never had any at-fault crashes and no tickets for anything other than speeding. Other kids should be as lucky.
Next you'll will want to ban traffic lights too, right?
Bzzzztttt! Danger! Straw man alert!!!!
It's no point arguing about it. One day when you lose a loved one because of a speeding a-shole you won't be so hell bent on breaking the traffic laws and digging desperately for support for doing it.
It’s not the speeding *******s that scare me. It’s the inattentive, the impaired and the suicidal. I was running across I-80 in Wyoming last month, about 95 mph or just a hair faster than the prevailing 90 mph for most cars. I was passed by a little old lady in her Lincoln Town Car running about 105 mph. That’s fine; she didn’t bother me and I kept in the rightmost lane so I didn’t bother her. I was far more concerned by the moron running 70 mph in the left lane, impeding traffic for most of a mile.
And, once again, Signal 32 tactics were discredited 50 years ago. How is having a bunch of scared drivers going to improve their driving? I must have missed that day in logic class.
Now, I've confronted the LEOs on this board with an uncomfortable look at their role in the traffic flow/traffic safety system. We can continue to trade insults or we can learn. I can do either very well. Our goals are the same. Where do you really want to go from here? Do you want to improve the three key safety measures and the flow of traffic or do you want to do something else?
Happy Trails
Senior Member
James Young meant:
Blah bla blah bla blah...
Blah bla blah bla blah...
James Young
Member
Happy Trails votes for ignorance.
Others?
Others?