Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:02*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
part:
\

Nice post, Ed! *Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
of "straw man" *(you must not know the definition of that term!), no
real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
the data presented in a citation.

\
Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
"profssl".

Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.

I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
participated in threads in which this other character posted. The
headers are not anywhere near the same.

Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.

Your routine is boring.
--
zk

On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:


Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.

False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.

There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.

For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
what Stephen Harding found and posted. I quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely you won't dispute the relation of high speed with more fatal
accidents when accidents occur? Physics alone should be persuasive
enough on that count.

I've gone through a bunch of web sites for studies of the effects of
speed limits on crashes (fatal or non-fatal) and I believe the results
vindicate my position.

However, it has been an education for me as well, as I have learned
that there certainly are cases that raising or lowering have effects
completely the opposite, or no effect, on crash rates. That I found
surprising.

Nonetheless, only a dumb as dirt ideologue would argue the evidence
for increased speed effecting accident rates was "BS" or without any
evidence, or mere propaganda output from MADD.

http://car-accidents-attorneys.blogs...-accident-fata...
quote
Speed is another factor when dealing with crash fatalities. More
than
half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed
limits
of over 55 mph. While only 20 percent of crashes that occurred on
these roads were "property-damage-only" crashes.
/quote

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf

A large report by the Transportation Research Board:

quote
In 1987 Congress allowed states to raise
speed limits from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on qualifying
sections of rural Interstate highways. In the immediately
following
years, most states that raised limits observed increases on the
order of 4 mph (6 km/h) in average speeds and 85th percentile
speeds, and increases in speed dispersion of about 1 mph (2 km/
h).
These speed changes were generally associated with statistically
significant increases in fatalities and fatal crashes on the
affected highways--a plausible finding because of the strong link
between even modest increases in speed at higher speeds and
increased crash severity.
/quote

They do go on to say there have been mixed results in some studies
of speed relationships to fatalities, due to overlooking of other
"system wide effects". Nonetheless, they claim a strong link between
speed and crash severity.

One such contrary result was in CA where 65mph speed limit was
credited for luring motorists to the faster, safer highways due to
increased speed limit rather than more dangerous side roads
(http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf).

An interesting result, but the tide seems to support the "speed
kills" argument in what I've been reading.

quote
Studies have been conducted following repeal of federal maximum
speed limits in 1995; many of them focused on Interstate
highways.
Most found results similar to the speed limit changes in 1987:
modest increases in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds
and,
in some cases, speed dispersion on highways on which speed limits
were raised. Although not consistent across all states, most
studies
indicated an increase in fatalities on highways on which speed
limits were raised. Most studies did not explore any possible
system
effects, and the results should be considered preliminary because
they are generally based on 1 year of data or less.
/quote

Basic Newtonian physics alone should make it rather obvious that
increased speeds are going to increase the likelihood of serious
injury if a crash occurs.

Mentioned in this report are many other studies such as Treat, et al,
1977:

quote
The role of speeding as a crash cause was probably first analyzed
in
a detailed and comprehensive manner in Indiana University's Tri-
Level Study (Treat et al. 1977). Speed was defined as causal if
it
met two conditions: (a) it deviated from the "normal" or
"expected"
speed of the average driver for the site conditions, and (b) it
"caused" the crash, that is, the crash would not have occurred
had
the speed been as expected. On the basis of this definition, the
study estimated "excessive speed" to be a definite cause in 7 to
8
percent of the crashes and a probable cause in an additional 13
to
16 percent of the crashes.37 Speed was identified as the second
most
common factor contributing to crash occurrence, second only to
"improper lookout" (i.e., inattention) (Treat et al. 1977 in
Bowie
and Walz 1994, 32).
/quote

quote
The clinical studies are unanimous in their finding that
"excessive
speed," that is, driving too fast for conditions, contributes to
a
significant share of all crashes and a higher share of severe
crashes. As the following section shows, the evidence for the
effect
of speed on crash severity is far more conclusive.
/quote

This report is quite comprehensive and does seem to present a balanced
picture of the relationship of speed and crash effects. It's hardly
something put out by MADD propagandists!

quote
Despite different data files, different definitions of speeding
and
excessive speed, and different and often subjective techniques
for
making judgments about crash causation, the studies consistently
found that speeding or excessive speed contributes to a
relatively
small but significant percentage of all crashes and a higher
percentage of more severe crashes.
/quote

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

quote
Table 3. Summary of the effects of raising or lowering speed
limits.

Reference Country Change Results

Speed Limit DECREASES

Nilsson (1990) Sweden 68 mi/h to 56 mi/h
Speeds declined by 14 km/h Fatal crashes declined by 21%

Engel (1990) Denmark 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Fatal crashes declined by 24%. Injury crashes declined by 9%

Peltola (1991) UK 62 mi/h to 50 mi/h
Speeds declined by 4 km/h. Crashes declined by 14%

Sliogeris (1992) Australia 68 mi/h to 62 mi/h
Injury crashes declined by 19%

Finch et al. (1994) Switzerland 81 mi/h to 75 mi/h
Speeds declined by 5 km/h. Fatal crashes declined by 12%.

Scharping (1994) Germany 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Crashes declined by 20%

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia 3-12 mi/h decreases
No significant change (4% increase relative to sites not
changed)

Parker (1997) USA 22 states 5-20 mi/h decreases
No significant changes

Speed Limit INCREASES

NHTSA (1989) USA 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 21%

McKnight, Kleinand Tippetts (1990), US 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 22%; Speeding increased by 48%

Garber and Graham (1990) USA (40 States) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatalities increased by 15%; Decrease or no effect in 12 States

Streff and Schultz (1991) USA (Michigan) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal and injury crashes increased significantly on rural
freeways

Pant, Adhami and Niehaus (1992) USA (Ohio) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Injury and property damage crashes increased but not fatal
crashes

Sliogeris (1992) Australia 62 mi/h to 68 mi/h
Injury crashes increased by 25%

Lave and Elias (1994) USA (40 states) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5%; (Significant in 14 of
40 States)

Iowa Safety Task Force (1996) USA (Iowa) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 36%

Parker (1992) USA(Michigan) Various
No significant changes

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia(Victoria) 3-12 mi/h
increases)
Crashes increased overall by 8%; 35% decline in zones raised
from
60-80

Parker (1997) USA22 states 5-15 mi/h
No significant changes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll note that he was honest enough to say that some studies
indicated otherwise, but that the bulk of studies show positive
correlation between speed and fatality rates.

That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
reliable studies." Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
on whether you like its outcome?

I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
been: Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
faster. Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
faster. There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
faster. Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
because we want to drive faster. We'll refuse to shop in your area -
because we want to drive faster.

If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
_little_ less bias. But in the several years we've had these repeated
discussions, that's never happened.

Slow down, boys. You're just making yourself agitated by always
trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
with the time you save, if any.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:51:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On Mar 3, 7:19*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:18:36 -0600, Tom Sherman

Many drivers wish to project their self-worth through the car they
drive. I've no problem with that. It helps me regard them as
something less than human. *They're just plain "squishy turds in a
can" when considering them collectively and caged.

Which, of course, you never say aloud in public.

It's easy to be a usenet hero. It's harder IRL.


The sticker clearly visible on my rear fender sums it up:
CARS SUCK

Another bike says: ANY IDIOT CAN DRIVE

I've another that says: FUKENKARZ.

I'm no Usenet hero so have probably disappointed at least seven
posters and probably a few lurkers in r.b.m I've had the pleasure
to meet, IRL.*

When I simply looked at a driver like an overflowing toilet and they
give me the finger I know they got the message. My initial response
was to grab my crotch. Fool pulls over, gets out and runs into the
street. When he punched me in the back after I'd avoided hitting him,
I had a feeling he might like to talk. After turning around and
slowly coasting back along the sidewalk I started reciting his plate
number aloud when within earshot. At twenty feet he bolted, got back
into his coffin and fuktoff.

I couldn't prove assault without a witless but later got satisfaction
when I heard the plates on the MB SUV he was driving were the plates
off his beater. Towed, impounded and fined looked good on the coward.

A lot of drivers can read my lips even when they don't speak English.
Well timed and deniability aimed expectorations will get me a meter
clearance or punctuate the look the driver already got.

Another fool thought I was trying to spit on his van after I'd just
cleared an intersection that prohibits through traffic, except
bicycles. Logically, I couldn't expect another vehicle to be behind
me. This squishy turd just wanted to shout though.

*IRL, lots of people know me as Zoot Katz but mostly call me the
same name as my mother did. Don't start your credibility of anonymous
posters routine. "profssl" was deliberately misspelled and you
corrected it. Headers don't prove anything. I got my Usenet chops in
a baptism of fire on the warez groups. I was posting mp3 within weeks
of the first groups' creation. I've posted to Usenet through
mix-master mail servers, PGP, the whole shtick. Faking headers was
never easier than it is now.
--
zk

wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:04 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!


Drive 45 with your tailgate down.

Hey what's the r.a.d. position on tailgates down?

Don't do it! It doesn't help and may hurt mpg.

Putting a tonneau cover is about the best you can
do or leave it stock and hope the air bubble in
the bed helps keep air flow laminar as much as some
automotive engineers claim.


SMH

wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.

But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
technique.

On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.

Of course you do.

I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
won't get out of your way fast enough.

SMH


Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
passing lane.

If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.

I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
over the past 20 years.

I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
I don't have traffic hassles. Overall, despite the high
18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
bikes and cars generally get along quite well.


SMH

Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:59 am, Stephen Harding wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:

In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
higher speed limits, fatalities went down.

How incredibly strange.

"Speed kills" is a lie.

Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars.


And better medical care.


So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).

So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.


In reality, it's "collisions kill". And when you mine the data, what
happens is that impaired driving is the biggest single factor.
Whether through alcohol or sleepiness or some other impairment, the
stats look a LOT different when you view them through that lens.

Well sure. The mechanism of the fatality is the collision.

The alcohol issue is the prime example of merged effects.
Alcohol or "judgment impairment" can manifest itself as
excessive speed for conditions.

Many of the studies I've looked over mention the difficulty
of categorizing crash responsibilities which can indeed
sometime blur responsibility scopes. I think alcohol related
crashes (or fatalities, I forget) are considered to be in the
40% range. A similar value was reported for a UK summary.


The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
the equation.

I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").


SMH

On Mar 5, 6:43 am, Stephen Harding wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.

But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
technique.

On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.

Of course you do.

I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
won't get out of your way fast enough.

SMH

Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
passing lane.

If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.

I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
over the past 20 years.

I don't spend a lot of time out that way. Glad to hear things are a
little better over there though.


I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
I don't have traffic hassles.

I envy you, and miss when I had the same luxury. Then again, that was
back when I lived at home, and I don't miss that. I also miss when I
could ride a mile or so and take the train the rest, which was the
case with my 2 previous residences. Where I live now I could ride 3-4
miles and take a bus the rest. However, the commute takes 2 hours
instead of 40 minutes and costs more than the gas, maintenance and
wear on my vehicle combined.


Overall, despite the high
18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
bikes and cars generally get along quite well.

I find that cars and bikes almost always coexist better in college
neighborhoods than in the suburbs. I figure the college kids all are
used to bikes, and have friends that ride if they don't themselves.
In the suburbs you get the yuppies who consider you a lower life form
and yell things like "Get off the road! Get a car loser!" Never mind
that I have a truck and a motorcycle...

On Mar 4, 6:12*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero





wrote:
On Mar 4, 4:02*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
part:
\

Nice post, Ed! *Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
of "straw man" *(you must not know the definition of that term!), no
real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
the data presented in a citation.

\
Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
"profssl".

Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.

I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
participated in threads in which this other character posted. *The
headers are not anywhere near the same.

Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.

Your routine is boring.

So, that's a half-assed admission that I'm right. Nice of you to
admit it. Sort of.

And you completely trimmed the other part - the part where I spoil
your argument fun by actually holding you to a standard of *gulp*
reason.

If you find me boring, you can certainly pick up your ball and go play
in some other sandbox. Nobody is forcing you to be an idiot here,
after all.

E.P.

On Mar 5, 3:51*am, Stephen Harding wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Uh, that's the graph we're both looking at. We don't disagree at all.

I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
the equation.

All data points to the simple fact that if you reduce collisions, you
reduce fatalities. Velocity, while a contributing factor in the
fatality rate, is not in itself, a correlating factor.

I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").

That's exactly the one I mean. Speed, in and of itself, is not the
problem. Reduce the collisions, and your reduce the carnage. That's
number one. Keep the drunks off the road, and the carnage goes down a
lot.

Which means, if you can get folks to all travel at about the 85th
percentile velocity, and keep drunk people out of cars, and you'll
have some success in reducing roadway carnage.

E.P.

On Mar 5, 12:33*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

wrote:

Your post calls for no real addressing. *The data, almost ALL of it,
shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.

False. *Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.

There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.

For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
what Stephen Harding found and posted. *I quote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------------------

Surely you won't dispute the relation of high speed with more fatal
accidents when accidents occur? *Physics alone should be persuasive
enough on that count.

I've gone through a bunch of web sites for studies of the effects of
speed limits on crashes (fatal or non-fatal) and I believe the results
vindicate my position.

However, it has been an education for me as well, as I have learned
that there certainly are cases that raising or lowering have effects
completely the opposite, or no effect, on crash rates. *That I found
surprising.

Nonetheless, only a dumb as dirt ideologue would argue the evidence
for increased speed effecting accident rates was "BS" or without any
evidence, or mere propaganda output from MADD.

http://car-accidents-attorneys.blogs...-accident-fata...
quote
* * Speed is another factor when dealing with crash fatalities. More
than
* * half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed
limits
* * of over 55 mph. While only 20 percent of crashes that occurred on
* * these * roads were "property-damage-only" crashes.
/quote


Link is truncated so doesn't work. but "blogspot?" come on.

the bit you quoted does not address the likelihood of crashes
occurring in the first place.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf

A large report by the Transportation Research Board:

quote
* * *In 1987 Congress allowed states to raise
* * *speed limits from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on qualifying
* * *sections of rural Interstate highways. In the immediately
following
* * *years, most states that raised limits observed increases on the
* * *order of 4 mph (6 km/h) in average speeds and 85th percentile
* * *speeds, and increases in speed dispersion of about 1 mph (2 km/
h).
* * *These speed changes were generally associated with statistically
* * *significant increases in fatalities and fatal crashes on the
* * *affected highways--a plausible finding because of the strong link
* * *between even modest increases in speed at higher speeds and
* * *increased crash severity.
/quote

How about fatalities per vehicle mile traveled or passenger mile
traveled? If they're looking at raw fatality data and not per VMT,
that's called cooking the books.


They do go on to say there have been mixed results in some studies
of speed relationships to fatalities, due to overlooking of other
"system wide effects". *Nonetheless, they claim a strong link between
speed and crash severity.

Of course they do.


One such contrary result was in CA where 65mph speed limit was
credited for luring motorists to the faster, safer highways due to
increased speed limit rather than more dangerous side roads
(http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf).

An interesting result, but the tide seems to support the "speed
kills" argument in what I've been reading.

No, no it really doesn't. It's not apparently politically fashionable
to stand up to the Claybrookian propaganda, but "speed kills" is *not*
strongly supported by data, and some data actually contradicts it.


quote
* * *Studies have been conducted following repeal of federal maximum
* * *speed limits in 1995; many of them focused on Interstate
highways.
* * *Most found results similar to the speed limit changes in 1987:
* * *modest increases in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds
and,
* * *in some cases, speed dispersion on highways on which speed limits
* * *were raised. Although not consistent across all states, most
studies
* * *indicated an increase in fatalities on highways on which speed
* * *limits were raised. Most studies did not explore any possible
system
* * *effects, and the results should be considered preliminary because
* * *they are generally based on 1 year of data or less.
/quote


Again, is this per VMT or raw? I suspect the latter.

Basic Newtonian physics alone should make it rather obvious that
increased speeds are going to increase the likelihood of serious
injury if a crash occurs.


Key word, *IF.* There is no strong link between increased speed and
increased crash risk.

As you may well know, *most* crashes occur close to home and at low
speed. That may well be because that's where most of the driving
occurs, but generally, on a per VMT basis, a freeway will be the
safest road on which to travel.

Mentioned in this report are many other studies such as Treat, et al,
1977:

quote
* * *The role of speeding as a crash cause was probably first analyzed
in
* * *a detailed and comprehensive manner in Indiana University's Tri-
* * *Level Study (Treat et al. 1977). Speed was defined as causal if
it
* * *met two conditions: (a) it deviated from the "normal" or
"expected"
* * *speed of the average driver for the site conditions, and (b) it
* * *"caused" the crash, that is, the crash would not have occurred
had
* * *the speed been as expected. On the basis of this definition, the
* * *study estimated "excessive speed" to be a definite cause in 7 to
8
* * *percent of the crashes and a probable cause in an additional 13
to
* * *16 percent of the crashes.37 Speed was identified as the second
most
* * *common factor contributing to crash occurrence, second only to
* * *"improper lookout" (i.e., inattention) (Treat et al. 1977 in
Bowie
* * *and Walz 1994, 32).
/quote

OK, that sounds reasonable. However, they're using two different
terms - "speeding" is usually defined as "exceeding the speed limit"
and "excessive speed" is "too fast for conditions" - they are rarely
the same thing. Can't say which viewpoint that cite supports without
more detail.


quote
* * *The clinical studies are unanimous in their finding that
"excessive
* * *speed," that is, driving too fast for conditions, contributes to
a
* * *significant share of all crashes and a higher share of severe
* * *crashes. As the following section shows, the evidence for the
effect
* * *of speed on crash severity is far more conclusive.
/quote

Too fast for conditions is quite often 20MPH over the speed limit.


This report is quite comprehensive and does seem to present a balanced
picture of the relationship of speed and crash effects. *It's hardly
something put out by MADD propagandists!

quote
* * *Despite different data files, different definitions of speeding
and
* * *excessive speed,

Indeed, that is the problem.

and different and often subjective techniques
for
* * *making judgments about crash causation, the studies consistently
* * *found that speeding or excessive speed contributes to a
relatively
* * *small but significant percentage of all crashes and a higher
* * *percentage of more severe crashes.
/quote

So which is it?


http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

quote
* * *Table 3. Summary of the effects of raising or lowering speed
limits.

* *Reference * *Country * * * * Change *Results

Speed Limit DECREASES

Nilsson (1990) *Sweden * * * 68 mi/h to 56 mi/h
* * * Speeds declined by 14 km/h * *Fatal crashes declined by 21%

Engel (1990) * *Denmark * * *37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
* * * Fatal crashes declined by 24%. Injury crashes declined by 9%

Peltola (1991) *UK * * *62 mi/h to 50 mi/h
* * * Speeds declined by 4 km/h. *Crashes declined by 14%

Sliogeris (1992) *Australia *68 mi/h to 62 mi/h
* * * Injury crashes declined by 19%

Finch et al. (1994) Switzerland *81 mi/h to 75 mi/h
* * * Speeds declined by 5 km/h. *Fatal crashes declined by 12%.

Scharping (1994) Germany * * 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
* * * Crashes declined by 20%

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia *3-12 mi/h decreases
* * * No significant change (4% increase relative to sites not
changed)


Not applicable to the US. I'm not callously dismissing those results,
but the US is somewhat unique as drivers have had close to 35 years of
consistently unreasonable speed limits, so they've been conditioned to
disregard them. There's several generations that don't remember the
pre-NMSL era (myself among them.) And again, how are fatalities
counted for purposes of these reports, raw or per VMT?

Parker (1997) *USA 22 states * *5-20 mi/h decreases
* * * No significant changes

that's what I expected.


Speed Limit INCREASES

NHTSA (1989) * *USA * * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
* * * Fatal crashes increased by 21%

again, raw or per VMT? NHTSA has a nasty habit of using raw data to
support their preconceived conclusions.


McKnight, Kleinand Tippetts (1990), *US * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
* * * Fatal crashes increased by 22%; Speeding increased by 48%

I'd be really interested to see this one, how can speeding increase by
48%? I can't remember the last time I drove on a highway where less
than 53% of the drivers weren't already speeding.


Garber and Graham (1990) * *USA (40 States) * * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
* * * Fatalities increased by 15%; Decrease or no effect in 12 States

raw or per VMT?


Streff and Schultz (1991) * * * USA (Michigan) *55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
* * * Fatal and injury crashes increased significantly on rural
freeways

raw or per VMT?

snip because I'm going to ask the same question of any study that
indicated an increase in fatalities


You'll note that he was honest enough to say that some studies
indicated otherwise, but that the bulk of studies show positive
correlation between speed and fatality rates.

No, they show an increase in FATALITIES. Not fatality rates. If more
people drive more cars more miles, there will be more crashes and more
fatalities, even if the rate goes down.


That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
reliable studies." *Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
on whether you like its outcome?

It depends on whether or not the study uses a valid metric to come to
its conclusions.


I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
been: *Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
faster. * Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
faster. *

No, all of the above are because what a safe speed is to drive depends
on two factors - one, the maximum safe speed of a road (on a freeway,
with no traffic and a good car, that could be well over 100 MPH) and
the speed of other traffic. If all other traffic is going 70 MPH, but
the speed limit is 55, and the maximum safe speed of the road is
higher than either, you will be safest "going with the flow."

There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
faster. *

No, because we don't want to have to stop unnecessarily, wasting time
and fuel.

Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
because we want to drive faster.

Speed humps should not be used because they are almost universally
poorly implemented and not compliant with recommendations (and
therefore potentially damaging to vehicles) and also almost never
accomplish the desired goals.

We'll refuse to shop in your area -
because we want to drive faster.

If I have a choice between driving in an area that is pleasant to
drive in, and one that is a speed bump infested hellhole, and they are
otherwise equivalent, that's a no brainer.


If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
_little_ less bias. *But in the several years we've had these repeated
discussions, that's never happened.

Because I am not aware of anywhere that speed limits are too high.

I've repeatedly said that I agree with many school zone and
residential area speed limits, however.

Slow down, boys. *You're just making yourself agitated by always
trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
with the time you save, if any.

Really. Who are you to judge how productive I am? I can use the time
I'd otherwise be mindlessly droning down a freeway in the right lane
dodging impaired mergers to respond to marginally interesting topics
on Usenet. Some people may consider that productive

Hey, you might even learn something

nate