Ah yes - The joys of SLOW DRIVING

"Pizon" > wrote in
ps.com:

> If a driver is doing the speed limit, isn't it illegal to pass him/her
> anyway (because doing so would require one to drive faster than the
> speed limit)? People are seriously fighting for their right to break
> the law?
>

It's a form of civil disobediance.
When speed limits are proparly set,most drivers obey them.
(85th percentile formula)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Pizon" > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
> > If a driver is doing the speed limit, isn't it illegal to pass him/her
> > anyway (because doing so would require one to drive faster than the
> > speed limit)? People are seriously fighting for their right to break
> > the law?
> >
>
> It's a form of civil disobediance.
> When speed limits are proparly set,most drivers obey them.
> (85th percentile formula)
-----
You -are- a ****ing idiot, aren't you? Proud of it, it seems.

There are many other criteria -besides- the 85th percentile that you
and others choose to ignore. You ****ing maroon.

A sit-in for a -common- just cause is civil disobedience. A march for
a common just cause is civil disobedience. Increasing the potential
for injury of the public for your own selfish motivation is -not- civil
disobedience, nor just.

To be classified as civil disobedience the persons so involved accept
the consequences of their actions and do so anyway in full view and
public defiance of authority.

You... slow when you see a cop or your radar detector goes off to
prevent the consequences of your actions. As would a coward or
"pussy", so to speak.

Because you -know- your "cause" is unjust. You know it benefits nobody
but yourself and your "belief" in your cause is not common and you're
unwilling to accept the consequences.

Dumbass ****ing MFFY...
-----

- gpsman

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> > > "Pizon" > wrote in
> > > ps.com:
> > >
> > > > If a driver is doing the speed limit, isn't it illegal to pass him/her
> > > > anyway (because doing so would require one to drive faster than the
> > > > speed limit)? People are seriously fighting for their right to break
> > > > the law?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's a form of civil disobediance.
> > > When speed limits are proparly set,most drivers obey them.
> > > (85th percentile formula)
> > -----
> > You -are- a ****ing idiot, aren't you? Proud of it, it seems.
> >
> > There are many other criteria -besides- the 85th percentile that you
> > and others choose to ignore. You ****ing maroon.
> >
> > A sit-in for a -common- just cause is civil disobedience. A march for
> > a common just cause is civil disobedience. Increasing the potential
> > for injury of the public for your own selfish motivation is -not- civil
> > disobedience, nor just.
> >
> > To be classified as civil disobedience the persons so involved accept
> > the consequences of their actions and do so anyway in full view and
> > public defiance of authority.
> >
> > You... slow when you see a cop or your radar detector goes off to
> > prevent the consequences of your actions. As would a coward or
> > "pussy", so to speak.
> >
> > Because you -know- your "cause" is unjust. You know it benefits nobody
> > but yourself and your "belief" in your cause is not common and you're
> > unwilling to accept the consequences.
> >
> > Dumbass ****ing MFFY...
>
> Then explain to me why in this area radar detectors are illegal, only a
> very few people actually bother to slow down for cops, THE COPS DRIVE
> FASTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE ANYWAY, and you really aren't at risk for a
> ticket unless you're either clearly the fastest driver on the road or
> egregiously exceeding the speed limit. I've seen cops completely
> ignore whole fleets of cars traveling at >15 over, simply because it's
> a normal, everyday occurrance.
-----
No you haven't. You presume to know the cop's thinking and to what
mission they may have been tasked. You assume to know what's going on
when you don't. You couldn't.

Just because so many people exceed the limit and cops are in
insufficient number to ticket everyone doesn't make ignoring the law
because you don't like it right.

It's -wrong- and you ****ing know it. As well as does every other
proponent of ignoring the law.

The problem seem to be... you're all fulla ****. You rationalize your
behavior.

When somebody points that out irrefutably they get the dreaded "plonk",
or their opponent starts adding or omitting **** to and/or from the
irrefutable's argument. That fools the stupid, nobody else.

How is the driver justified in driving 20 over as "perfectly safe" but
the driver driving 20 under considered "dangerous"? I know your
answer, and it's bull****.

The right to operate over the limit does not exist. To rationalize it
because so many "others" choose to do it is to accept the tyranny of
the majority, pure democracy. In which we do not live.

To argue that it's more safe to speed because "everybody else does it"
so I have to is pure childish bull****. Your responsibility is to obey
the law regardless of the common behavior of other drivers. To do
otherwise is poor citizenship.

You drive however you like. If and when your child is injured in a
crash just remember who set their ****ing example. Your child may
extrapolate -your- disregard for law to other offenses. I hope orange
and/or dirt is a good color for them.
-----

- gpsman

In article .com>,
"gpsman" > wrote:

> How is the driver justified in driving 20 over as "perfectly safe" but
> the driver driving 20 under considered "dangerous"? I know your
> answer, and it's bull****.

When traffic is flowing at 15 over, the 20 over driver is 5 mph / < 10%
faster than traffic flow. In those same conditions the 20 under driver
is 35 mph / nearly 50% slower than other traffic.

That's how.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > To get 100% compliance, you first have to start with a reasonable law
> > to begin with. When speed limits are set below the 50th percentile,
> > it's clear that the majority of drivers don't feel that the law is
> > reasonable.
>
> Most people are stupid. Rationalizing a higher speed limit based on
> what the stupid think without additional criteria isn't a reasonable
> course of action... and no engineer would suggest it.
>

Actually, it's a well-established principle of traffic safety and
engineering, which dates back to the studies of Solomon and Cirillo if
not before.

> > If the speed limits were set at the 85th percentile, barring special
> > cases where there may be hazards not obvious to the average driver
> > where the 85th %ile might actually be unsafe, it's a safe bet that some
> > of the fastest drivers might actually slow down to comply with the new
> > speed limits, as they would recognize them as a good faith effort by
> > the government to set laws that are reasonable and fair. (as opposed
> > to current speed limits which are unreasonable and nearly universally
> > ignored, and really only used as a tool by police to pull people over
> > that they'd like to check out for other reasons.)
>
> Yeah, that's what they'd do, slow down. A "safe bet"... sure. You
> better stay away from Vegas if you're willing to bet on predicting
> human behavior. How do you factor in altered states of consciousness?
> Is there a standard accepted formula?
>

Studies have shown that the behavior of drivers presented with that
situation is exactly as I described. When speed limits are set at or
near the 85th percentile, speed differentials actually decrease.

> I don't think a competent engineer would say that speed limits are
> "unreasonable". Nobody with any sense would opine they're "unfair".
> They apply to all civilian drivers, how could they be deemed unfair?

Insult duly noted. I'll be sure to let my employer know that I'm
apparently an incompetent engineer, according to some guy on Usenet.
Good thing my job title doesn't actually include the word "engineer"
anymore, otherwise I'd be in deep schitt.

>
> Because cops ignore them? Cops park sideways across streets and
> participate in high-speed chases. So you feel you should be allowed
> those rights as well? You are. Get a badge.

Um, no. Cops are required to obey the laws same as the rest of us,
with few exceptions. (Go ahead, Jaybird, tell us about the special
case of Texas. Again.) Personally I would have far fewer problems
with obeying the speed limits if it were clear that the authorities
respected them as well. That would at least be setting a "good"
example, rather than the blatant hypocrisy we have now. The universal
disregard for traffic law on the part of the police seems to reinforce
the common belief that they really aren't about safety after all...
otherwise, wouldn't cops be dying in traffic accidents in record
numbers?

>
> I don't think an engineer would have any difficulty coming up with a
> solution to prevent being "pulled over to be checked out for other
> reasons" in... oh... say less than 0.27659 seconds.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I am sure that it didn't
make any sense.

nate

In article .com>, N8N wrote:

>> Most people are stupid. Rationalizing a higher speed limit based on
>> what the stupid think without additional criteria isn't a reasonable
>> course of action... and no engineer would suggest it.

> Actually, it's a well-established principle of traffic safety and
> engineering, which dates back to the studies of Solomon and Cirillo if
> not before.

Some people think that others should take care of people, rule from on
high, as if a god or king. These people when it comes to speed limits
prefer the pulled-out-of-ass method that is used today by elected
officals. Authority has decided and they must follow. The elected officals
love these sorts of people because they don't question authority.

There really isn't any arguing with such people. They are not going to be
any more moved by the data on speedlimits as anyone else who has a belief
based in faith and authority. They won't hear it.

Any good engineer questions authority and goes by the data. It's the bad
ones who are slaves to the books and political currents. However, people
who believe in rule by authority, don't consider such reasonable.

>> I don't think a competent engineer would say that speed limits are
>> "unreasonable". Nobody with any sense would opine they're "unfair".
>> They apply to all civilian drivers, how could they be deemed unfair?

> Insult duly noted. I'll be sure to let my employer know that I'm
> apparently an incompetent engineer, according to some guy on Usenet.
> Good thing my job title doesn't actually include the word "engineer"
> anymore, otherwise I'd be in deep schitt.

The incompetent engineer is the one that refuses to look at the data.
That would be the one gpsman would find competent.

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > N8N wrote:
> > > To get 100% compliance, you first have to start with a reasonable law
> > > to begin with. When speed limits are set below the 50th percentile,
> > > it's clear that the majority of drivers don't feel that the law is
> > > reasonable.
> >
> > Most people are stupid. Rationalizing a higher speed limit based on
> > what the stupid think without additional criteria isn't a reasonable
> > course of action... and no engineer would suggest it.
> >
>
> Actually, it's a well-established principle of traffic safety and
> engineering, which dates back to the studies of Solomon and Cirillo if
> not before.

Uh, I think not. The additional criteria (Parker 1985) suggests beyond
the 85th percentile speed a

* Type and amount of roadside development.
* Accident experience.
* Adjacent Limits.
* 10 mi/h pace (i.e., speed range that contains the largest percentage
of vehicles).
* Horizontal and vertical alignment.
* Design speed.
* Average test run speed.
* Pedestrians.

I'm pretty damn sure most drivers rarely consider those factors when
they're bitching about speed limits.

- "Joksch (1993) found that the risk of a car driver being killed in a
crash increased with the change in speed to the fourth power as shown
in figure 5. The risk of a fatality begins to rise when the change in
speed at moment of impact exceeds 30 mi/h (48 km/h) and is more than 50
percent likely to be fatal when the change exceeds 60 mi/h (96 km/h).
The probability of death from an impact speed of 50 mi/h (80 km/h) is
15 times the probability of death from an impact speed of 25 mi/h (40
km/h)."

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

Ignored. Most speediots read that and miss that 60 mph equal 2
vehicles colliding head-on at 30 mph. Never occurs to 'em. "No
velocity is unsafe as long as I don't crash... and I'll never crash"
isn't a very realistic POV even if true.

The FHWA opines: Clearly, a research or engineering approach to speed
management that ignores the injury consequences of vehicle speed could
lead to unintended results.


> > > If the speed limits were set at the 85th percentile, barring special
> > > cases where there may be hazards not obvious to the average driver
> > > where the 85th %ile might actually be unsafe, it's a safe bet that some
> > > of the fastest drivers might actually slow down to comply with the new
> > > speed limits, as they would recognize them as a good faith effort by
> > > the government to set laws that are reasonable and fair. (as opposed
> > > to current speed limits which are unreasonable and nearly universally
> > > ignored, and really only used as a tool by police to pull people over
> > > that they'd like to check out for other reasons.)
> >
> > Yeah, that's what they'd do, slow down. A "safe bet"... sure. You
> > better stay away from Vegas if you're willing to bet on predicting
> > human behavior. How do you factor in altered states of consciousness?
> > Is there a standard accepted formula?
> >
>
> Studies have shown that the behavior of drivers presented with that
> situation is exactly as I described. When speed limits are set at or
> near the 85th percentile, speed differentials actually decrease.

So what? What does that have to do with drivers breaking the law?
Nobody here excuses any other violation except -speeding-. And every
one of them "assumes" that speed limits are set too low because they
disregard all criteria except those that fit their pre- and
ill-conceived notion.

I'll bet... if speed limits were reduced to a maximum 45 mph the speed
differential would be even less than at the 85th percentile. I'll bet
if there was a cop every five miles the speed differential would be
even less. That doesn't make those good ideas.

> > I don't think a competent engineer would say that speed limits are
> > "unreasonable". Nobody with any sense would opine they're "unfair".
> > They apply to all civilian drivers, how could they be deemed unfair?
>
> Insult duly noted. I'll be sure to let my employer know that I'm
> apparently an incompetent engineer, according to some guy on Usenet.
> Good thing my job title doesn't actually include the word "engineer"
> anymore, otherwise I'd be in deep schitt.

Peter Principle? Or Dilbert?

What the hell do you engineer anyway? Your thought process and logic,
to me, doesn't seem to conform with any scientific method.
"Reasonableness" is entirely subjective, as in: subject to the
interpretation of all. There's no basis. I suggest that increasing
most speed limits is unreasonable... since there's no good reason to do
it.

You seem to argue emotionally. You excuse violations of law based on
"everybody does it". Or on the way -you- think things -should- be,
except they aren't. You ignore the fact that driver skill varies
considerably, but resides mostly in the "not a very good driver" half
of the curve.

Especially new drivers. But old drivers too. People with one arm; one
eye or diminished vision; no legs, the deaf and the terminally stupid
and overconfident. The roads need to be safe for them too and they may
be somewhat "challenged" to drive at faster velocities with the rest of
us.

So let's increase the speed limits to create a larger differential
speed between the drivers not so well equipped to deal with them?
Unfortunately, that doesn't make any sense. Speeds must and will be
curtailed at a maximum 75 mph for the foreseeable future because they
can't be set according to the best case scenerio. Anyone who thinks
that's a good idea needs to think a little more, IMNSHO. In some
cases, for years.

I just don't see enough benefit and too great a potential downside.
Engineering thought may differ, I don't know.

> > Because cops ignore them? Cops park sideways across streets and
> > participate in high-speed chases. So you feel you should be allowed
> > those rights as well? You are. Get a badge.
>
> Um, no. Cops are required to obey the laws same as the rest of us,
> with few exceptions. (Go ahead, Jaybird, tell us about the special
> case of Texas. Again.) Personally I would have far fewer problems
> with obeying the speed limits if it were clear that the authorities
> respected them as well.

Of course cops are bound by the same laws... but your logic is missing.
You presume to know whether a cop is in violation of the law outside
the line of duty. I contend you have no such knowledge. I might
change my mind if I could duplicate your method.

> That would at least be setting a "good"
> example, rather than the blatant hypocrisy we have now. The universal
> disregard for traffic law on the part of the police seems to reinforce
> the common belief that they really aren't about safety after all...
> otherwise, wouldn't cops be dying in traffic accidents in record
> numbers?

I agree in part. It burns my ass to see cops fail to use a turn signal
in normal traffic, etc.

But you're an adult. Are you still looking for others to set examples
for you? Are you excusing your behavior based on following examples
you know are wrong? That seems an inadequate explanation to me.
R-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n. You know what you should do and why.
You just choose not to do it.

> > I don't think an engineer would have any difficulty coming up with a
> > solution to prevent being "pulled over to be checked out for other
> > reasons" in... oh... say less than 0.27659 seconds.

Your complaint was that cops can pull you over for speeding to check
you out for some other violation. My idea, however poorly
communicated, was that an engineer would be able to solve that problem
very quickly.

Except you can't. A cop can pull you over because he feels like it,
whenever he feels like it. It might not be "right", but that's the way
it is. He can cite you for speeding while you're parked. You gonna
call the Chief and tell on him? Nobody would believe that story and it
wouldn't be worth your while to contest it.

I'll let you have the last word here. I'm sick of this subject for the
moment. But I have enjoyed it. No hard feelings intended. I'm a tad
confrontational when dicussing things I'm passionate about. My
apologies.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>>gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>>To get 100% compliance, you first have to start with a reasonable law
>>>>to begin with. When speed limits are set below the 50th percentile,
>>>>it's clear that the majority of drivers don't feel that the law is
>>>>reasonable.
>>>
>>>Most people are stupid. Rationalizing a higher speed limit based on
>>>what the stupid think without additional criteria isn't a reasonable
>>>course of action... and no engineer would suggest it.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, it's a well-established principle of traffic safety and
>>engineering, which dates back to the studies of Solomon and Cirillo if
>>not before.
>
>
> Uh, I think not. The additional criteria (Parker 1985) suggests beyond
> the 85th percentile speed a
>
> * Type and amount of roadside development.
> * Accident experience.
> * Adjacent Limits.
> * 10 mi/h pace (i.e., speed range that contains the largest percentage
> of vehicles).
> * Horizontal and vertical alignment.
> * Design speed.
> * Average test run speed.
> * Pedestrians.
>
> I'm pretty damn sure most drivers rarely consider those factors when
> they're bitching about speed limits.

Most of those issues don't apply to limited access highways, which are
where most of the speeding occurs, or where the limits are most likely
to be underposted, depending on your perspective.

>
> - "Joksch (1993) found that the risk of a car driver being killed in a
> crash increased with the change in speed to the fourth power as shown
> in figure 5. The risk of a fatality begins to rise when the change in
> speed at moment of impact exceeds 30 mi/h (48 km/h) and is more than 50
> percent likely to be fatal when the change exceeds 60 mi/h (96 km/h).
> The probability of death from an impact speed of 50 mi/h (80 km/h) is
> 15 times the probability of death from an impact speed of 25 mi/h (40
> km/h)."
>
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
>
> Ignored. Most speediots read that and miss that 60 mph equal 2
> vehicles colliding head-on at 30 mph. Never occurs to 'em. "No
> velocity is unsafe as long as I don't crash... and I'll never crash"
> isn't a very realistic POV even if true.
>
> The FHWA opines: Clearly, a research or engineering approach to speed
> management that ignores the injury consequences of vehicle speed could
> lead to unintended results.
>

So would you rather be hit by a "speediot" doing 80 MPH (a reasonable
and not unusual speed, in this area) while you're doing 78 MPH or 55
MPH? Hmm.... I think I'll take the 2 MPH speed differential rather than
the 25 MPH speed differential.

>
>
>>>>If the speed limits were set at the 85th percentile, barring special
>>>>cases where there may be hazards not obvious to the average driver
>>>>where the 85th %ile might actually be unsafe, it's a safe bet that some
>>>>of the fastest drivers might actually slow down to comply with the new
>>>>speed limits, as they would recognize them as a good faith effort by
>>>>the government to set laws that are reasonable and fair. (as opposed
>>>>to current speed limits which are unreasonable and nearly universally
>>>>ignored, and really only used as a tool by police to pull people over
>>>>that they'd like to check out for other reasons.)
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's what they'd do, slow down. A "safe bet"... sure. You
>>>better stay away from Vegas if you're willing to bet on predicting
>>>human behavior. How do you factor in altered states of consciousness?
>>>Is there a standard accepted formula?
>>>
>>
>>Studies have shown that the behavior of drivers presented with that
>>situation is exactly as I described. When speed limits are set at or
>>near the 85th percentile, speed differentials actually decrease.
>
>
> So what? What does that have to do with drivers breaking the law?
> Nobody here excuses any other violation except -speeding-. And every
> one of them "assumes" that speed limits are set too low because they
> disregard all criteria except those that fit their pre- and
> ill-conceived notion.

You have yet to demonstrate anything ill-conceived about it.

>
> I'll bet... if speed limits were reduced to a maximum 45 mph the speed
> differential would be even less than at the 85th percentile. I'll bet
> if there was a cop every five miles the speed differential would be
> even less. That doesn't make those good ideas.

Why not? 45 MPH makes exactly as much sense as 55 MPH on a good
Interstate highway. And yet we have the latter and you seem to be
defending them.

>
>
>>>I don't think a competent engineer would say that speed limits are
>>>"unreasonable". Nobody with any sense would opine they're "unfair".
>>>They apply to all civilian drivers, how could they be deemed unfair?
>>
>>Insult duly noted. I'll be sure to let my employer know that I'm
>>apparently an incompetent engineer, according to some guy on Usenet.
>>Good thing my job title doesn't actually include the word "engineer"
>>anymore, otherwise I'd be in deep schitt.
>
>
> Peter Principle? Or Dilbert?
>
> What the hell do you engineer anyway? Your thought process and logic,
> to me, doesn't seem to conform with any scientific method.
> "Reasonableness" is entirely subjective, as in: subject to the
> interpretation of all. There's no basis. I suggest that increasing
> most speed limits is unreasonable... since there's no good reason to do
> it.

Because it would...

1) decrease speed differentials
2) get rid of the "but he's speeeeeding" defense that people use to
justify all sorts of boneheaded moves, like LLBing or deliberately
cutting off faster traffic, or even worse, deliberately positioning
their vehicles to block faster traffic - and also get rid of the
inevitable conflicts that such behavior causes.
3) due to 2) decrease congestion and travel times
4) due to 3) likely SAVE gas due to less stop-and-go traffic jams
5) improve respect for other traffic laws by not conditioning people to
think of traffic law in general as out of touch with real world conditions
6) free up police resources to focus on the most dangerous driving
behaviors such as inattention, failure to signal, failure to properly
yield right of way when required, poor merging, unsafe lane changes,
etc. etc. etc.
7) by not criminalizing 90% of the drivers on the road, police would no
longer have carte blanche to pull over nearly any driver at will.

just to mention a few.

>
> You seem to argue emotionally. You excuse violations of law based on
> "everybody does it". Or on the way -you- think things -should- be,
> except they aren't. You ignore the fact that driver skill varies
> considerably, but resides mostly in the "not a very good driver" half
> of the curve.

If the law isn't serving the public, who is it serving? And it does not
take any particular amount of skill to drive 75 or 80 MPH on an
Interstate highway.

>
> Especially new drivers. But old drivers too. People with one arm; one
> eye or diminished vision; no legs, the deaf and the terminally stupid
> and overconfident. The roads need to be safe for them too and they may
> be somewhat "challenged" to drive at faster velocities with the rest of
> us.

That is why most freeways are constructed with multiple lanes. We
already have the speed differentials you are talking about; some large
trucks are barely able to pull 45 MPH on steep hills. (in WV and PA
sometimes not even that; and climbing lanes need to be provided for
them.) Meanwhile, the fastest drivers are still traveling at 80+. Now
if someone's comfortable cruising speed is 80 MPH, they're simply not
going to obey a 55 or 65 MPH speed limit. A more reasonable 75 MPH
speed limit, however, they might actually slow down for, as I said
before, recognizing that as a good faith effort on the part of the
authorities to make the limits reflect real world conditions. The
trucker, of course, is still going as fast as he possibly can. As I sad
before, I didn't pull this theory out of my ass, studies have actually
shown that when speed limits are properly set, speed differentials
actually DECREASE.

>
> So let's increase the speed limits to create a larger differential
> speed between the drivers not so well equipped to deal with them?

SMALLER differential.

> Unfortunately, that doesn't make any sense. Speeds must and will be
> curtailed at a maximum 75 mph for the foreseeable future because they
> can't be set according to the best case scenerio.

Ummm... isn't that the DEFINITION of a "limit?" Something achievable
only under ideal conditions? Sadly due to years of underposting it
doesn't work that way in practice, it's more like the "moral minimum" is
about ten over. It shouldn't be that way...

> Anyone who thinks
> that's a good idea needs to think a little more, IMNSHO. In some
> cases, for years.

It would be nice to HAVE 75 MPH speed limits! Here on the east coast,
they're just a nice dream.

>
> I just don't see enough benefit and too great a potential downside.
> Engineering thought may differ, I don't know.
>
>
>>>Because cops ignore them? Cops park sideways across streets and
>>>participate in high-speed chases. So you feel you should be allowed
>>>those rights as well? You are. Get a badge.
>>
>>Um, no. Cops are required to obey the laws same as the rest of us,
>>with few exceptions. (Go ahead, Jaybird, tell us about the special
>>case of Texas. Again.) Personally I would have far fewer problems
>>with obeying the speed limits if it were clear that the authorities
>>respected them as well.
>
>
> Of course cops are bound by the same laws... but your logic is missing.
> You presume to know whether a cop is in violation of the law outside
> the line of duty. I contend you have no such knowledge. I might
> change my mind if I could duplicate your method.

If a cop is breaking a traffic law but is not displaying lights and
siren, he is simply breaking the law. And yet I see it Every. ****ing.
Day. Living in the metro DC area has done more than anything else ever
could to make me lose all respect for police officers. They're
arrogant, they know what's good for you, and they're completely above
the law, at least when it comes to driving. (and at times, it seems
like they're trying to kill you. I have been literally run off the
highway by a police officer just outside of Baltimore - in my GF's
bright red car no less.)

>
>
>>That would at least be setting a "good"
>>example, rather than the blatant hypocrisy we have now. The universal
>>disregard for traffic law on the part of the police seems to reinforce
>>the common belief that they really aren't about safety after all...
>>otherwise, wouldn't cops be dying in traffic accidents in record
>>numbers?
>
>
> I agree in part. It burns my ass to see cops fail to use a turn signal
> in normal traffic, etc.
>
> But you're an adult. Are you still looking for others to set examples
> for you? Are you excusing your behavior based on following examples
> you know are wrong? That seems an inadequate explanation to me.
> R-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n. You know what you should do and why.
> You just choose not to do it.

There's a big difference between, say, not using a turn signal because
nobody else does and not obeying the speed limit because nobody else
does. The former is simply childish and pointless. The latter actually
is SAFER than following the law, as traffic is safest when it flows in
a smooth, predictable manner. I don't particularly like being the "rock
in the stream" and I can't imagine anyone actually advocating that,
unless they haven't actually tried it yet.

>
>
>>>I don't think an engineer would have any difficulty coming up with a
>>>solution to prevent being "pulled over to be checked out for other
>>>reasons" in... oh... say less than 0.27659 seconds.
>
>
> Your complaint was that cops can pull you over for speeding to check
> you out for some other violation. My idea, however poorly
> communicated, was that an engineer would be able to solve that problem
> very quickly.
>
> Except you can't. A cop can pull you over because he feels like it,
> whenever he feels like it. It might not be "right", but that's the way
> it is. He can cite you for speeding while you're parked. You gonna
> call the Chief and tell on him? Nobody would believe that story and it
> wouldn't be worth your while to contest it.
>
> I'll let you have the last word here. I'm sick of this subject for the
> moment. But I have enjoyed it. No hard feelings intended. I'm a tad
> confrontational when dicussing things I'm passionate about. My
> apologies.

No need to apologize, but I don't understand what you're so worked up
about. You really ought to read some of the old traffic safety studies;
you might come to realize that what I and other RAD posters have been
advocating is neither new nor odd; rather, it's pretty much what was
accepted at least until the early 70s when Joan Claybrook started
shooting her mouth off and she and her disciples set our country's
understanding of traffic safety back 40 years.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Alan Baker > wrote in news:alangbaker-
:

> In article .com>,
> "gpsman" > wrote:
>
>> How is the driver justified in driving 20 over as "perfectly safe" but
>> the driver driving 20 under considered "dangerous"? I know your
>> answer, and it's bull****.
>
> When traffic is flowing at 15 over, the 20 over driver is 5 mph / < 10%
> faster than traffic flow. In those same conditions the 20 under driver
> is 35 mph / nearly 50% slower than other traffic.
>
> That's how.
>

Slow drivers cause traffic to BUNCH UP,which is far more hazardous than
faster traffic spread out.

Slow drivers are a hairball in the throat of traffic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

gpsman wrote:
> - "Joksch (1993) found that the risk of a car driver being killed in a
> crash increased with the change in speed to the fourth power as shown
> in figure 5. The risk of a fatality begins to rise when the CHANGE IN
> SPEED AT MOMENT OF IMPACT exceeds 30 mi/h (48 km/h) and is more than 50
> percent likely to be fatal when the change exceeds 60 mi/h (96 km/h).
> The probability of death from an impact speed of 50 mi/h (80 km/h) is
> 15 times the probability of death from an impact speed of 25 mi/h (40
> km/h)."
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

(emphasis added by me)

> Ignored. Most speediots read that and miss that 60 mph equal 2
> vehicles colliding head-on at 30 mph. Never occurs to 'em.

Circular reasoning - you are trying to prove that speeders are
idiots, but you use that as an assumption when you offer
"Never occurs to 'em" as evidence.

Also, it is you who cannot read. In a head-on crash at 30mph,
assuming both vehicles come to a half, the change in speed at
moment of impact is 30mph. My car was going at 30mph before
and now it is going at 0mph. So the risk of fatality is low
according to the quote you gave.

(NB - It seems likely to me that this is a factual error on the
part of the article you quoted, I am not trying to say that a
head-on crash at 30mph has low risk).

> velocity is unsafe as long as I don't crash... and I'll never crash"
> isn't a very realistic POV even if true.

It is more like, "If I do crash then it's me who dies and I only
have myself to blame". I'm one of those people who thinks that
if you want to **** yourself up then the law should not waste
its time trying to stop you.

I also have no sympathy for anyone who dies as a result of
their own error. For example, if I am driving along -- speeding
or not -- and somebody changes lane into me without looking,
and they die, then that's good, one less idiot on the road. Also,
if a pedestrian is illegally crossing the road and I run them over,
then they should not have been jaywalking in the first place.

> The FHWA opines: Clearly, a research or engineering approach to speed
> management that ignores the injury consequences of vehicle speed could
> lead to unintended results.

In another message on this thread, you were advocating that
speed limits are set by traffic engineers and the speediots ignore
the traffic engineers. Now you are contradicting yourself. Please
make up your mind.

>> Studies have shown that the behavior of drivers presented with that
>> situation is exactly as I described. When speed limits are set at or
>> near the 85th percentile, speed differentials actually decrease.
>
> So what? What does that have to do with drivers breaking the law?

You were making the point that the safest situation is the one
in which speed differentials are lowest. This point was in
response to that. Please pay attention.

> Nobody here excuses any other violation except -speeding-. And every
> one of them "assumes" that speed limits are set too low because they
> disregard all criteria except those that fit their pre- and
> ill-conceived notion.

You are the one who is saying that 95% of people or more
(the ones who speed in an "underposted" area) and including
the police, are wrong. In this situation it is up to you to make
a strong case for your minority point of view, and to offer
an explanation as to why the police and the vast majority of
people ignore it. Maybe they have actually thought through
these issues and concluded that speeding suits them better.
Other people are actually able to think for themself, you know.

> Your thought process and logic, to me, doesn't seem to conform
> with any scientific method.

Huh? It is your arguments that are entirely illogical. You give a
premise and a conclusion and when somebody attacks the
premise you call them an idiot and ignore their actual comment.
When somebody gets a conclusion you don't like, you call
them a rationalizer and completely ignore their premises and
argument. Nowhere have you offered a logical argument and
countered objections to it logically. Your posts full of logical
fallacies such as the circular reasoning I pointed out above.

> You seem to argue emotionally.

It is you who is arguing emotionally. I draw attention to your other
post on this thread where you say: what if it is your child that
you kill due to your speeding?

> You excuse violations of law based on "everybody does it".

If everybody does some particular thing, the most likely
explanation is that the law is bad. This is obvious to most
people (really). You sound like a control freak. "The law says
this so you must all OBEY IN AN ORDERLY FASHION".

> You ignore the fact that driver skill varies considerably, but
> resides mostly in the "not a very good driver" half of the curve.

Wow. You attack peoples' scientific ability and then you come
out with something like that? Half of the drivers reside in each
half of the curve, by definition !

Also, this is irrelevant to the 'speediot' argument. Drivers should
drive at a speed at which they have full control of their car, and
this varies from person to person. 90% of people (if not more),
including yourself, are capable of selecting a speed at which
they are comfortable. Most people don't have a death wish and
are able to negotiate their own survival. Really.

> Especially new drivers. But old drivers too. People with one arm; one
> eye or diminished vision; no legs, the deaf and the terminally stupid
> and overconfident. The roads need to be safe for them too and they may
> be somewhat "challenged" to drive at faster velocities with the rest of
> us.

Ah, you are a political correctness freak. That explains it.
We must all suffer so that the weak people do not feel bad.

My view is that if you only have one arm you should not be
allowed to drive a car (in fact it would surprise me if a one-armed
person were allowed to hold a driver's licence). In my country,
you are not allowed to hold a licence if you have diminished
vision.

> So let's increase the speed limits to create a larger differential
> speed between the drivers not so well equipped to deal with them?

Badly-equipped drivers are a minority (10% or less). As mentioned
elsewhere in this thread, a higher speed limit creates a smaller
speed differential across all traffic.

Also, you are forgetting that the limit is a maximum, not a
minimum. Think about a 3-lane highway. The novice or weak drivers
can drive slowly in the right lane, the average drivers can drive in
the
middle lane, and the fast drivers can drive in the left lane. That way,
everyone can be in a situation they are comfortable with.

But this is not good for you -- you want to try and control the
behaviour of everyone on the road. Despite the somewhat
obvious fact that people make the fewest mistakes when they
are inside their comfort zone.

> I just don't see enough benefit and too great a potential downside.

Most people do see the benefit of getting from A to B faster.

For me, it means I have more time to spend on more worthwhile
activities; and less time spent in the company of bad drivers who
could kill me on their whim. I also find that when I drive fast I am
giving my full attention to the road and therefore least likely to
crash; when I am stuck in some slow traffic my attention
wanders. This is obviously a common problem as evinced by the
number of highway nose-to-tail accidents every day.

> Of course cops are bound by the same laws... but your logic is missing.
> You presume to know whether a cop is in violation of the law outside
> the line of duty. I contend you have no such knowledge. I might
> change my mind if I could duplicate your method.

You really think that every speeding cop is on his way to an
important incident?

> I'll let you have the last word here. I'm sick of this subject for the
> moment. But I have enjoyed it. No hard feelings intended. I'm a tad
> confrontational when dicussing things I'm passionate about. My
> apologies.

Have what ever attitude you like, but please try to use some logic.