Again with the ticket quotas

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:54:56 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> good. I'm saying that a blanket statement such as that "strict
>> enforcement of low speed limits do little to nothing to improve the
>> overall safety of traffic" are wrong. The 85th percentile doesn't
>> measure safety, it measure how safe drivers feel. That *on average*
>> they are right doesn't mean they are always right.
>
>And in so it reduces you essentially to cretin of usenet, who goes
>around nit picking language for the fun of it.
>

Sure.
It's nitpicking to point out that the 85th percentile measures
something other than what most seem to think it does.
Are you *ever* wrong?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:07:10 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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.
>
>They *UNIVERSALLY* show that the only thing that happens when you drop a
>speed limit below what it should be is that people ignore it and keep
>driving the same speed they always did. Thus even if you accept the
>spurious premise that if we could get everyone to drive slower that the
>roads would be safer, in practice, a lower speed limit will not
>accomplish this goal.
>
>nate

That people speed does not mean they are safe. Or safer.
You are making blanket statements that aren't applicipable.

Don't think I'm against higher speed limits; I'm not, generally.
But I am against the idea that higher speed limits are a universal
panacea.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> It's nitpicking to point out that the 85th percentile measures
> something other than what most seem to think it does.
> Are you *ever* wrong?

Once again, it's the nit picker with no cites vs. well supported
arguments with cites.

"N8N" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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.

I have to admit, it surprised me. I would've guessed "while turning left"
or some sort of turning maneuver as the biggest group. Granted, a turning
left accident tends to involve at least one other person going straight, and
the most common accident I believe is a rear-ender, which would again
involve mostly vehicles going straight.

Now that I've read this fact, I've wisened up. No more straight driving for
me... I'm going to weave all over the freeway... ;-)

brink

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:40:40 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:52:58 -0500,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06220/711935-85.stm
>>
>>Yep, same old thing... there are no 'quotas' but if you bring in a below
>>average amount of money expect to be punished. If you want to be
>>promoted bring in a lot of cash.
>>
>
>This problem would go away if traffic crimes were punished with DL
>suspension or jail time instead of fines. You want that? I do.

Fines are useless because they only punish the poor and lead to
corruption. Jail costs tax payers too much money. Suspension makes
people a burden when they lose their job or have to be carted around
by other people, plus they usually just drive on the suspension anyway
and we wind up back on the jail option. I think forms of humiliating
community service would be the best punishment. In fact I think that
is a good way to get those jobs done that nobody wants to do and put
an end to that illegal immigrant argument. While we are at it, put the
welfare freeloaders to work on some of these jobs. And if they don't
do a good job, their sentence gets extended or benefits get cut. Kill
two birds with one stone.

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> > Studies do show that higher limits could be safer.
>> > They do *NOT* show that lower limits have little or nothing to do with
>> > safety.
>>
>> If you read the studies, you'll find that the underposted speed limits
>> are not safety positive and often safety negative.
>
> If you understand the studies, you'll find that the underposted speed
> limits are not safety positive and often safety negative not because
> they are "underposted" but because they are so often violated. I think
> I can argue that leads to the statistically most dangerous condition of
> a larger disparity in vehicle velocities although I know most here
> blame that on the drivers who are operating at the limit.

Small sample from my state's DOT web site, (link is to PDF)

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

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...itsInfov02.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/nfbxz

Bernard