Again with the ticket quotas

> And it's painfully obvious who has problems with speed limits.
>

That would be 99.99% of drivers on the road.

> It's not rocket scientists...
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

That's true. 99.99% of drivers on the road are not rocket
cientists. -Dave

On 10 Aug 2006 13:36:41 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:

>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:11 -0400, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>So, we've just concluded that speeding tickets are not at all about
>> >>>safety.
>> >>>What ARE they about, then? -Dave
>> >>>
>> >> We didn't conclude that.
>> >> Wanna try again?
>> >
>> >If you deny the logical conclusion supported by the facts, what's left to
>> >discuss?
>> >
>> First, you need to come up with a logical conclusion supported by
>> facts.
>> So far, I've not seen facts supporting the conclusion that speeding
>> tickets are not all about safety.
>> All I've seen is whining.
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>the conclusions seem to be as follows:
>
>1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
>improve the overall safety of traffic.

Not supported by facts.
>
>2) strict enforcement of low speed limits provides large amounts of
>revenue, both for the municipalities and insurance companies (who have
>lots of legislative clout.)

True, but not the same as proving that speed laws are only for revenue
purposes.
>
>It's really not rocket science to figure out *why* speed limits are
>kept artificially low.

An unsupported conclusion, as shown above.
>
>nate
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2006 13:36:41 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:11 -0400, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>So, we've just concluded that speeding tickets are not at all about
> >> >>>safety.
> >> >>>What ARE they about, then? -Dave
> >> >>>
> >> >> We didn't conclude that.
> >> >> Wanna try again?
> >> >
> >> >If you deny the logical conclusion supported by the facts, what's left to
> >> >discuss?
> >> >
> >> First, you need to come up with a logical conclusion supported by
> >> facts.
> >> So far, I've not seen facts supporting the conclusion that speeding
> >> tickets are not all about safety.
> >> All I've seen is whining.
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >the conclusions seem to be as follows:
> >
> >1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
> >improve the overall safety of traffic.
>
> Not supported by facts.

Well, show them, then. I haven't seen ANY data from any unbiased
organization (i.e. not the NHTSA or IIHS) that agrees with you. In
fact, some of the lesser-known NHTSA-sponsored studies still contradict
your assertions. The real facts are, setting speed limits at the 85th
percentile (assuming no hidden hazards) is nearly always the right
thing to do from a safety perspective, and countless links have already
been posted here (RAD) to the studies showing this.

It's a fair bet that any "study" that espouses artificially low speed
limits has some connection to the IIHS. If not them, the NHTSA. the
only exception I can think of is one particularly sophomoric paper that
I think Carl Taylor posted a link to a while back, it originated in
either Australia or New Zealand, and was promptly ripped to shreds by
all readers.

> >
> >2) strict enforcement of low speed limits provides large amounts of
> >revenue, both for the municipalities and insurance companies (who have
> >lots of legislative clout.)
>
> True, but not the same as proving that speed laws are only for revenue
> purposes.
> >
> >It's really not rocket science to figure out *why* speed limits are
> >kept artificially low.
>
> An unsupported conclusion, as shown above.

where? I musta missed it.

nate

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:11 -0400, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>So, we've just concluded that speeding tickets are not at all about
> > > >>>safety.
> > > >>>What ARE they about, then? -Dave
> > > >>>
> > > >> We didn't conclude that.
> > > >> Wanna try again?
> > > >
> > > >If you deny the logical conclusion supported by the facts, what's left to
> > > >discuss?
> > > >
> > > First, you need to come up with a logical conclusion supported by
> > > facts.
> > > So far, I've not seen facts supporting the conclusion that speeding
> > > tickets are not all about safety.
> > > All I've seen is whining.
> > > --
> > > Bill Funk
> > > replace "g" with "a"
> >
> > the conclusions seem to be as follows:
> >
> > 1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
> > improve the overall safety of traffic.
> >
> > 2) strict enforcement of low speed limits provides large amounts of
> > revenue, both for the municipalities and insurance companies (who have
> > lots of legislative clout.)
> >
> > It's really not rocket science to figure out *why* speed limits are
> > kept artificially low.
>
> And it's painfully obvious who has problems with speed limits.
>
> It's not rocket scientists...

Actually, since a "rocket scientist" would be basically either a
physicist or a mechanical or chemical engineer that has specialized,
I'd be willing to bet that most rocket scientists agree with me that a
lot of speed limits are not optimally set.

If speed limits were set according to engineering principles, we
wouldn't be having this discussion (AGAIN.)

nate

gpsman wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote: <brevity snip>
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:25:39 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:
>
> > >The problem is that traffic tickets are a tax on motorists that has nothing
> > >at all to do with safety. If it was about safety, there would be no quota.
> >
> > 40,000+ deaths a year, hundreds of thousands of injuries, untold
> > million$ in property damage, and it's not about safety.
> > Right.
>
> IIRC, the property damage figures are in multiples of "billion"...
>
> An interesting stat is that in 2004 (the latest year figures are
> available), 68.16% of fatal crashes including "all types" of vehicles
> occured while the manuever the vehicle was performing was: "going
> straight". http://tinyurl.com/g5mf3 (bottom of page)
>
> ISTM that what many drivers might consider the safest manuever and
> conditions, driving straight and within their "comfort zone", actually
> proves to be the most dangerous situation.

or it could just be that most road miles are logged while traveling
straight. You can twist statistics to "prove" just about anything; to
really get anything meaningful from them you need to dig deep and at
the same time really think about what it is you want to study.
Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of numbers.

nate

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:

>>1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
>>improve the overall safety of traffic.
>
> Not supported by facts.

West Virginia DOT thinks that underposted speed limits are counterproductive.

http://www.wvdot.com/6_motorists/6c5_speedlimits.htm

" There is a common belief among laymen and even some elected officials
that traffic speeds can be lowered by merely posting signs. This is not
true. Artificially low speed limits invite violations by responsible
drivers. Enforcement of unrealistically low speed limits sets up a .speed
trap. which is poor public relations and causes a loss of respect for
traffic law enforcement activities in general."

So does Washington state DOT:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/traffico...fic/limits.htm

"If safety isn't behind it, what is the purpose of having speed limits?
Safety is always a factor, but the setting of speed limits is, for
completely practical reasons, more fundamentally influenced by some basic
principles of human behavior. When setting speed zones, traffic engineers
base decisions on several fundamental concepts proven over the years to
be true:

* The majority of motorists drive in a safe and reasonable manner
* The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person
should be considered to be legal
* Laws are established for the protection of the public and the
regulation of unreasonable behavior of a few individuals
* Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and
voluntary compliance of the majority

Research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those
that the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that raising and
lowering speed limits doesn't substantially influence that speed."

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>
> >>1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
> >>improve the overall safety of traffic.
> >
> > Not supported by facts.
>
> West Virginia DOT thinks that underposted speed limits are counterproductive.
>
> http://www.wvdot.com/6_motorists/6c5_speedlimits.htm
>
> " There is a common belief among laymen and even some elected officials
> that traffic speeds can be lowered by merely posting signs. This is not
> true. Artificially low speed limits invite violations by responsible
> drivers. Enforcement of unrealistically low speed limits sets up a .speed
> trap. which is poor public relations and causes a loss of respect for
> traffic law enforcement activities in general."
>
> So does Washington state DOT:
>
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/traffico...fic/limits.htm
>
> "If safety isn't behind it, what is the purpose of having speed limits?
> Safety is always a factor, but the setting of speed limits is, for
> completely practical reasons, more fundamentally influenced by some basic
> principles of human behavior. When setting speed zones, traffic engineers
> base decisions on several fundamental concepts proven over the years to
> be true:
>
> * The majority of motorists drive in a safe and reasonable manner
> * The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person
> should be considered to be legal
> * Laws are established for the protection of the public and the
> regulation of unreasonable behavior of a few individuals
> * Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and
> voluntary compliance of the majority
>
> Research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those
> that the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that raising and
> lowering speed limits doesn't substantially influence that speed."

so does the state of Maryland, at least in theory (even though in
practice they still have essentially a 55 MPH state maximum except for
a very few highways which are posted at 65)

http://www.sha.state.md.us/safety/oo...eedlimits2.asp

"Will crashes increase if the speed limit is raised?
Probably not. Research has shown that the posted speed limit has little
effect on the speeds at which most motorists drive. Raising the speed
limit does not significantly raise the speeds at which motorists drive,
and lowering the limit generally does not appreciably decrease their
speeds. However, the more motorists learn from their experiences that
speed limits are set at speeds that they consider safe and reasonable
the greater the chances that the motorists will heed them. Speed limits
significantly lower than the 85th percentile speed are ignored by many
drivers and difficult to enforced

In most instances, a speed limit based on the 85th percentile reflects
the expectations of the largest proportion of drivers; is found by most
to be a safe and comfortable limit; facilitates speed enforcement; and
offers the greatest chance of achieving some uniformity in speeds on a
given road. When motorists drive at a relatively uniform speed,
tailgating, lane changing, and overtaking are reduced. As a result,
collisions are less likely to occur.

Those who drive much faster or slower than most of the drivers around
them place themselves and others at considerable risk of a collision.
When the posted limit is reasonable, enforcement can be targeted to the
relatively small percentage that exceeds the speed limit."

nate

N8N wrote: <brevity snip>

> The real facts are, setting speed limits at the 85th
> percentile (assuming no hidden hazards) is nearly always the right
> thing to do from a safety perspective, and countless links have already
> been posted here (RAD) to the studies showing this.

Duh-uh. As I have pointed out numerous times the 85th percentile
velocity is but *one* criteria for setting speed limits. There are
several other criteria you and others pretend don't exist.

"Hidden hazards"? You mean like perfectly visible and obvious; like no
or little median, andor shoulders, and/or run-off room? Like frequent
entrance and exit ramps...? Like no acceleration/deceleration lanes
and/or 100-200 yd. long ramps?

Yer typical idiot never considers crap like that, and discounts those
criteria acause he knows crashes are the exception rather than the rule
on every stretch of road... and that's enough criteria for him.

I don't know if it's just too complicated to consider more than one
thing when forming an opinion, or it's just become habit... or if it's
actually believed that is it a fact that all speed limits are
"supposed" to be set using only the 85th percentile, due to repetition.

> It's a fair bet that any "study" that espouses artificially low speed
> limits has some connection to the IIHS.

Could you define "artificially low"? If it consists of considering the
85th percentile velocity, hidden hazard and nothing more, don't bother.

I think the reason you and others have a difficult time forming other
than spurious conclusions is that you refuse to consider data or
opinion that conflicts with what you wish to believe.

Additionally, there seems to be a ****ing epidemic of believing ****
that could not possibly be known. Add those together... and any way
you mix them up, they stll produce a blithering idiot every time.

> If not them, the NHTSA. the
> only exception I can think of is one particularly sophomoric paper that
> I think Carl Taylor posted a link to a while back, it originated in
> either Australia or New Zealand, and was promptly ripped to shreds by
> all readers.

<spit take> THIS group of readers?!?! Half of them believe the first
thing that pops into their head, however small and however incorrect it
might be. Take that dumbass who's convinced Hoboken NJ is guilty of
auto theft because they didn't anticipate not paying the licensing fee
for their sota parking lot program might cause the program not to work.
Please.

If the majority of r.a.d. agrees on anything, my bet would be that that
anything would be incorrect... and mostly complete and utter nonsense.
-----

- gpsman

"N8N" > wrote
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2006 13:36:41 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
....
>> >1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
>> >improve the overall safety of traffic.
>>
>> Not supported by facts.
>
> Well, show them, then. I haven't seen ANY data from any unbiased
> organization (i.e. not the NHTSA or IIHS) that agrees with you. In
> fact, some of the lesser-known NHTSA-sponsored studies still contradict
> your assertions. The real facts are, setting speed limits at the 85th
> percentile (assuming no hidden hazards) is nearly always the right
> thing to do from a safety perspective, and countless links have already
> been posted here (RAD) to the studies showing this.

For Bill's edification, he should read
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm.

FloydR

On 11 Aug 2006 12:36:43 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:

>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2006 13:36:41 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bill Funk wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:11 -0400, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>So, we've just concluded that speeding tickets are not at all about
>> >> >>>safety.
>> >> >>>What ARE they about, then? -Dave
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> We didn't conclude that.
>> >> >> Wanna try again?
>> >> >
>> >> >If you deny the logical conclusion supported by the facts, what's left to
>> >> >discuss?
>> >> >
>> >> First, you need to come up with a logical conclusion supported by
>> >> facts.
>> >> So far, I've not seen facts supporting the conclusion that speeding
>> >> tickets are not all about safety.
>> >> All I've seen is whining.
>> >> --
>> >> Bill Funk
>> >> replace "g" with "a"
>> >
>> >the conclusions seem to be as follows:
>> >
>> >1) strict enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to
>> >improve the overall safety of traffic.
>>
>> Not supported by facts.
>
>Well, show them, then. I haven't seen ANY data from any unbiased
>organization (i.e. not the NHTSA or IIHS) that agrees with you. In
>fact, some of the lesser-known NHTSA-sponsored studies still contradict
>your assertions. The real facts are, setting speed limits at the 85th
>percentile (assuming no hidden hazards) is nearly always the right
>thing to do from a safety perspective, and countless links have already
>been posted here (RAD) to the studies showing this.

Studies do show that higher limits could be safer.
They do *NOT* show that lower limits have little or nothing to do with
safety.
>
>It's a fair bet that any "study" that espouses artificially low speed
>limits has some connection to the IIHS. If not them, the NHTSA. the
>only exception I can think of is one particularly sophomoric paper that
>I think Carl Taylor posted a link to a while back, it originated in
>either Australia or New Zealand, and was promptly ripped to shreds by
>all readers.
>
>> >
>> >2) strict enforcement of low speed limits provides large amounts of
>> >revenue, both for the municipalities and insurance companies (who have
>> >lots of legislative clout.)
>>
>> True, but not the same as proving that speed laws are only for revenue
>> purposes.
>> >
>> >It's really not rocket science to figure out *why* speed limits are
>> >kept artificially low.
>>
>> An unsupported conclusion, as shown above.
>
>where? I musta missed it.
>
>nate
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"