Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:25:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:



On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:



"Speed kills"

is a fallacy made popular by Joan Claybrook et. al.



Now speed too fast for conditions, that's something else... but usually

one is "speeding" at a much slower speed than is legimately too fast for

conditions.



OTOH, the common motorist desire to speed is pretty irrational. What do they really want? They want to get where they're going sooner. But in most cases, higher speed's reduction in travel time varies from zero to negligible.



Example: In Ohio, they recently decided to raise the speed limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70 mph. "Yay!" says the typical motorist.



But if you could drive completely across Ohio at the new vs. old speed limits, you'd save only about 15 minutes. Negligible. And as it happens, I frequently have to make a 50+ mile drive that uses that road for part of the time. The increased speed limit saves me just over one minute. Negligible.



Yet motorists will be quite obnoxious in their efforts to save zero-to-negligible time. Saturday, as I was driving at the speed limit on a freeway, I recall one driver who fought to squeeze into passing traffic to pass me on the left, then _immediately_ cut back in front of me to take an exit ramp. Total time saving? Perhaps three seconds. Negligible.



I think there's some mental confusion between position on the road (who's first, who's second, etc.) and elapsed time, generating the attitude that the guy in front of the queue is getting somewhere way sooner. But he's not. Time differences are usually measured in mere seconds.



- Frank Krygowski



There used to be a writer named Tom McCahil (spelling?) who wrote for

Mechanic's Illustrated (I think it was). He drove a Ford across the

U.S. and back, one way driving as fast as he dared and the return at

legal speed limits. The difference was measured in minutes.


My son drove in from Salt Lake City on Sunday and confessed to crossing much of Idaho at 90mph (I scolded him for speeding). He cut a couple of hours off my time from SLC to Portland. It all depends on the road, IMO. Significant time savings can get eaten up by unforeseen accidents and weather.



-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/16/2013 10:36 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:25:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:



On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:



"Speed kills"

is a fallacy made popular by Joan Claybrook et. al.



Now speed too fast for conditions, that's something else... but usually

one is "speeding" at a much slower speed than is legimately too fast for

conditions.



OTOH, the common motorist desire to speed is pretty irrational. What do they really want? They want to get where they're going sooner. But in most cases, higher speed's reduction in travel time varies from zero to negligible.



Example: In Ohio, they recently decided to raise the speed limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70 mph. "Yay!" says the typical motorist.



But if you could drive completely across Ohio at the new vs. old speed limits, you'd save only about 15 minutes. Negligible. And as it happens, I frequently have to make a 50+ mile drive that uses that road for part of the time. The increased speed limit saves me just over one minute. Negligible.



Yet motorists will be quite obnoxious in their efforts to save zero-to-negligible time. Saturday, as I was driving at the speed limit on a freeway, I recall one driver who fought to squeeze into passing traffic to pass me on the left, then _immediately_ cut back in front of me to take an exit ramp. Total time saving? Perhaps three seconds. Negligible.



I think there's some mental confusion between position on the road (who's first, who's second, etc.) and elapsed time, generating the attitude that the guy in front of the queue is getting somewhere way sooner. But he's not. Time differences are usually measured in mere seconds.



- Frank Krygowski



There used to be a writer named Tom McCahil (spelling?) who wrote for

Mechanic's Illustrated (I think it was). He drove a Ford across the

U.S. and back, one way driving as fast as he dared and the return at

legal speed limits. The difference was measured in minutes.


My son drove in from Salt Lake City on Sunday and confessed to crossing much of Idaho at 90mph (I scolded him for speeding). He cut a couple of hours off my time from SLC to Portland. It all depends on the road, IMO. Significant time savings can get eaten up by unforeseen accidents and weather.



And if you take a large enough sample, like for example driving across
the US and back, you will smooth out the results as it probably did for
the MI writer. Doesn't mean that driving 90mph for 90 miles is going to
take the same time as driving it at 65. Seems like there's a lesson
here somewhere...

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:36:00 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:25:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

But if you could drive completely across Ohio at the new vs. old speed limits, you'd save only about 15 minutes. Negligible. And as it happens, I frequently have to make a 50+ mile drive that uses that road for part of the time. The increased speed limit saves me just over one minute. Negligible.

There used to be a writer named Tom McCahil (spelling?) who wrote for
Mechanic's Illustrated (I think it was). He drove a Ford across the
U.S. and back, one way driving as fast as he dared and the return at
legal speed limits. The difference was measured in minutes.

I remember Tom McCahill fondly. An interesting writer.

My son drove in from Salt Lake City on Sunday and confessed to crossing much of Idaho at 90mph (I scolded him for speeding). He cut a couple of hours off my time from SLC to Portland. It all depends on the road, IMO. Significant time savings can get eaten up by unforeseen accidents and weather.


Of course, if you greatly exceed the speed limit for a large number of miles, it results in significantly lower travel time. It also adds up to significantly increased risk of crashes. But college-age guys are notoriously overconfident in their abilities, and bulletproof in their imaginations.

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/16/2013 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:36:00 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:25:46 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

But if you could drive completely across Ohio at the new vs.
old speed limits, you'd save only about 15 minutes.
Negligible. And as it happens, I frequently have to make a 50+
mile drive that uses that road for part of the time. The
increased speed limit saves me just over one minute.
Negligible.

There used to be a writer named Tom McCahil (spelling?) who wrote
for Mechanic's Illustrated (I think it was). He drove a Ford
across the U.S. and back, one way driving as fast as he dared and
the return at legal speed limits. The difference was measured in
minutes.

I remember Tom McCahill fondly. An interesting writer.

My son drove in from Salt Lake City on Sunday and confessed to
crossing much of Idaho at 90mph (I scolded him for speeding). He
cut a couple of hours off my time from SLC to Portland. It all
depends on the road, IMO. Significant time savings can get eaten up
by unforeseen accidents and weather.


Of course, if you greatly exceed the speed limit for a large number
of miles, it results in significantly lower travel time. It also
adds up to significantly increased risk of crashes.

Absolute rubbish, although a popularly held misconception.

All statistical evidence suggests that *especially* in a highway
scenario, the safest speed (statistically) is slightly higher than the
median, which is well higher than the speed limit nearly everywhere in
the US.

I'm not suggesting that one should drive faster than one feels
comfortable, of course - but please stop spreading Claybrookian
misinformation.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:03:34 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

All statistical evidence suggests that *especially* in a highway
scenario, the safest speed (statistically) is slightly higher than the
median, which is well higher than the speed limit nearly everywhere in
the US.

Jay was talking about his kid driving 90 mph. I don't think that can be called "slightly above the median."

Besides, if your claim is true, what practical advice does it imply? That everyone should drive a little faster than the median? That sounds like a recipe for everyone ultimately driving as fast as their cars can go, since the median would continue to rise.

ISTM the safest situation would be if everyone drove at precisely the same speed, while maintaining proper clear distance - essentially, the same as a train. Technology is taking us in that direction. But it will never happen as long as their are people who think "My few seconds are important, and I'm a _good_ driver, so I get to go faster than everyone else."

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/16/2013 02:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:03:34 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

All statistical evidence suggests that *especially* in a highway
scenario, the safest speed (statistically) is slightly higher than
the median, which is well higher than the speed limit nearly
everywhere in the US.

Jay was talking about his kid driving 90 mph. I don't think that can
be called "slightly above the median."

In my experience that *is* "slightly above the median." Even here on
the east coast, free-flowing (that is, not rush hour) traffic on an
Interstate highway can often be flowing at 75-80 MPH or more. It seems
to hit a wall about 80 MPH in VA at least because that's where Draconian
penalties kick in for getting pulled over, but when traveling out of
state that seems to be the norm. Heck, the speed limit in NC and WV is
70 MPH - and there are starting to be more and more 70 zones in VA itself.

The speed limit in Idaho is 75 MPH by the way, and in Utah it is
generally 75 but sometimes 80.

I imagine if we completely derestricted speed on your average Interstate
highway, people would probably settle in at about 80-85 MPH or so, with
some going a little faster (hopefully those with good reflexes, good
cars, and good tires) but not that much - because that is about the
speed at which it seems people start to think that they actually are
driving at about the right speed for that type of road.


Besides, if your claim is true, what practical advice does it imply?
That everyone should drive a little faster than the median? That
sounds like a recipe for everyone ultimately driving as fast as their
cars can go, since the median would continue to rise.

Not true - really all that it proves is that worrying about speed alone,
or thinking that driving slower makes you safer, is pointless. The best
advice is to "go with the flow" whenever you feel that it is safe to do
so, or reduce your speed to one that you feel is safe for your skill,
your alertness level, and your vehicle if going with the flow is
uncomfortably fast (but not in the passing lane, please, unless you're
actually passing someone slower than you.)

ISTM the safest situation would be if everyone drove at precisely the
same speed, while maintaining proper clear distance - essentially,
the same as a train. Technology is taking us in that direction. But
it will never happen as long as their are people who think "My few
seconds are important, and I'm a _good_ driver, so I get to go faster
than everyone else."

That would make merging, changing lanes, etc. incredibly difficult. I
do agree that split speed limits are dumb and that large speed
differentials are counterproductive, but a little speed differential
between lanes actually facilitates smooth travel.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/16/2013 03:49 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 02:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:03:34 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

All statistical evidence suggests that *especially* in a highway
scenario, the safest speed (statistically) is slightly higher than
the median, which is well higher than the speed limit nearly
everywhere in the US.

Jay was talking about his kid driving 90 mph. I don't think that can
be called "slightly above the median."

In my experience that *is* "slightly above the median." Even here on
the east coast, free-flowing (that is, not rush hour) traffic on an
Interstate highway can often be flowing at 75-80 MPH or more. It seems
to hit a wall about 80 MPH in VA at least because that's where Draconian
penalties kick in for getting pulled over, but when traveling out of
state that seems to be the norm. Heck, the speed limit in NC and WV is
70 MPH - and there are starting to be more and more 70 zones in VA itself.

The speed limit in Idaho is 75 MPH by the way, and in Utah it is
generally 75 but sometimes 80.

I imagine if we completely derestricted speed on your average Interstate
highway, people would probably settle in at about 80-85 MPH or so, with
some going a little faster (hopefully those with good reflexes, good
cars, and good tires) but not that much - because that is about the
speed at which it seems people start to think that they actually are
driving at about the right speed for that type of road.


Besides, if your claim is true, what practical advice does it imply?
That everyone should drive a little faster than the median? That
sounds like a recipe for everyone ultimately driving as fast as their
cars can go, since the median would continue to rise.

Not true - really all that it proves is that worrying about speed alone,
or thinking that driving slower makes you safer, is pointless. The best
advice is to "go with the flow" whenever you feel that it is safe to do
so, or reduce your speed to one that you feel is safe for your skill,
your alertness level, and your vehicle if going with the flow is
uncomfortably fast (but not in the passing lane, please, unless you're
actually passing someone slower than you.)

To add to this - here you can see how things look on the /// sections of
the Autobahnen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...#Travel_speeds

Not a perfect comparison - the roads themselves are built to similar
standards, but, honestly, German cars are safer at higher speeds -
American manufacturers sometimes I don't think take into account that
people drive faster than 55 MPH even though that's been dead for a while
now. Germans on the other hand accept that if a car has an engine that
is capable of pushing a vehicle to 150 MPH that some peopel will
actually drive it that fast, so try to make sure that the suspension,
brakes, etc. are up to the task. On the flip side, some of our
Interstates are wider and straighter than any Autobahn could ever be due
to geographic differences, and there's incentive to drive faster here
because destinations can be so much farther away.

ISTM the safest situation would be if everyone drove at precisely the
same speed, while maintaining proper clear distance - essentially,
the same as a train. Technology is taking us in that direction. But
it will never happen as long as their are people who think "My few
seconds are important, and I'm a _good_ driver, so I get to go faster
than everyone else."

That would make merging, changing lanes, etc. incredibly difficult. I
do agree that split speed limits are dumb and that large speed
differentials are counterproductive, but a little speed differential
between lanes actually facilitates smooth travel.

nate




--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:49:05 PM UTC-7, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 02:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:03:34 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:



All statistical evidence suggests that *especially* in a highway

scenario, the safest speed (statistically) is slightly higher than

the median, which is well higher than the speed limit nearly

everywhere in the US.



Jay was talking about his kid driving 90 mph. I don't think that can

be called "slightly above the median."



In my experience that *is* "slightly above the median." Even here on

the east coast, free-flowing (that is, not rush hour) traffic on an

Interstate highway can often be flowing at 75-80 MPH or more. It seems

to hit a wall about 80 MPH in VA at least because that's where Draconian

penalties kick in for getting pulled over, but when traveling out of

state that seems to be the norm. Heck, the speed limit in NC and WV is

70 MPH - and there are starting to be more and more 70 zones in VA itself..



The speed limit in Idaho is 75 MPH by the way, and in Utah it is

generally 75 but sometimes 80.



I imagine if we completely derestricted speed on your average Interstate

highway, people would probably settle in at about 80-85 MPH or so, with

some going a little faster (hopefully those with good reflexes, good

cars, and good tires) but not that much - because that is about the

speed at which it seems people start to think that they actually are

driving at about the right speed for that type of road.





Besides, if your claim is true, what practical advice does it imply?

That everyone should drive a little faster than the median? That

sounds like a recipe for everyone ultimately driving as fast as their

cars can go, since the median would continue to rise.



Not true - really all that it proves is that worrying about speed alone,

or thinking that driving slower makes you safer, is pointless. The best

advice is to "go with the flow" whenever you feel that it is safe to do

so, or reduce your speed to one that you feel is safe for your skill,

your alertness level, and your vehicle if going with the flow is

uncomfortably fast (but not in the passing lane, please, unless you're

actually passing someone slower than you.)



ISTM the safest situation would be if everyone drove at precisely the

same speed, while maintaining proper clear distance - essentially,

the same as a train. Technology is taking us in that direction. But

it will never happen as long as their are people who think "My few

seconds are important, and I'm a _good_ driver, so I get to go faster

than everyone else."



That would make merging, changing lanes, etc. incredibly difficult. I

do agree that split speed limits are dumb and that large speed

differentials are counterproductive, but a little speed differential

between lanes actually facilitates smooth travel.



BTW, he was getting passed at 90mph (according to him). Much of Idaho looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/oohghmc You just want it to be over. Nonetheless, I don't want him getting a ticket, and there are greater consequences if he has a high speed accident or mechanical failure.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:02:09 PM UTC-7, Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

(Sorry snipped all context but this is kinda OT and GG is a pain)


BTW, he was getting passed at 90mph (according to him). Much of Idaho looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/oohghmc You just want it to be over. Nonetheless, I don't want him getting a ticket, and there are greater consequences if he has a high speed accident or mechanical failure.


I was gonna say - if he was only doing 90 across the Idaho spaces
I might blow by on the outside :-)

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:49:05 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 02:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

ISTM the safest situation would be if everyone drove at precisely the
same speed, while maintaining proper clear distance - essentially,
the same as a train. Technology is taking us in that direction. But
it will never happen as long as their are people who think "My few
seconds are important, and I'm a _good_ driver, so I get to go faster
than everyone else."

That would make merging, changing lanes, etc. incredibly difficult.

It would pretty much eliminate the need to change lanes. And merging would be no problem unless traffic were at absolute maximum density.

At present, most lane changes happen because "I gotta get past this guy." You know, to save a few seconds.

- Frank Krygowski