More proof that incresed speed does not equal incresed death

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:12:50 GMT, william lynch > wrote:

>The rates aren't dropping, but have flatlined, which means the
>amount of deaths are rising. Check your facts before spouting
>off next time.
>
>http://www.nhtsa.com/people/Crash/crashstatistics/

Maybe next time you post you should check the cite you use. Only an
idiot would make a claim, and then post a cite that shows he is wrong.

Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and
questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close. I
did my homework and even posted the relevant portions.

It appears that the primary sever is down, You can always look at the
cached copy on Goggle
(http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...v/+MUTCD&hl=en
) or go to an alternate site such as
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/mutcd.htm . Is that good
enough for you?


Ed

Bernard Farquart wrote:

> Some rational people are still able to study the issue.
>
> http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html
>
> F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al.

That, coming from someone who can't even spell "increased" correctly,
and twice in one sentence? You're no scholar and that article tells us
little about speed limits' effect on actual speeds, especially hyper
speeds.

Truly rational people understand that physics matters and laws have
been ignored all along.

Why is it that people who brag about DISobeying the law are the first
to cite it as a measure of actual driving speeds? Year after year, the
NHTSA has documented that speeding causes 30% of serious crashes. It
has little to do with prevailing speed limit laws. It just shows that
stupid people will always take stupid risks in cars at high speeds.

Notice a key quote in that brief article.

"But the long-term decreases continued even when speed limits stayed
the same."

When limits stayed the SAME, decreases still continued. It's mainly
because cars have gotten safer, and possibly in part because traffic
congestion is slowing speeds regardless of posted limits (people don't
get hurt as badly in lower speed crashes). There was a story on that
awhile back.

So, speed LIMITS per se have little to do with the existence of EXTREME
speeding, which has gone on since cars were invented. These are the
people who are always tailgating, weaving and jockeying for position
just to get ahead of everyone else. Their interactions with other
traffic lead to all sorts of pointless crashes and deaths. Here's the
latest news on these idiots:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...as+speeding%22

All other factors being equal, a car moving at a high rate of speed
(especially upwards of 80 or 90 mph where mechanical and tire-grip
thresholds are reached) will have less ability to brake and steer when
the unexpected happens. These drivers do a lot more tailgating, weaving
and other impatient things that cause crashes. Again, here's the latest
news on their preventable carnage:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...as+speeding%22

Denial that the unexpected ever happens is the most common argument
against the realities of physics, and it's ridiculous. Nothing can be
100% anticipated on the road and one of the most important things you
can do is drive at moderate speeds to maintain more control when
*bleep* happens.

My emphasis all along has been speeding on a case by case basis, citing
physics as the reason people lose control at higher speeds. Nobody
involved in the investigation of crashes disputes the role of physics.
If we could get r.a.d. posters to ride with paramedics for a month we'd
see their whole tone change, I'm sure.

Raising speed limits may reduce the dangers of speed-differentials by
making relatively slower drivers speed up, but not by much. That
article notes that improvements in car safety are the main factor.
People will drive at more or less the same speeds regardless of laws.
The real point is that hyper speed-freaks are doing what they've ALWAYS
done and people will keep dying because of it. They don't care whether
the limit is 55 or 75; they'll still drive as fast as they think they
can get away with.

C.T.

http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/

Ed White wrote:
> Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and
> questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close. I
> did my homework and even posted the relevant portions.

There are relevant portions in Ch. 1 as well. You only posted a section
from chapter 2.

On 3 Jul 2005 12:12:03 -0700, "Carl Taylor"
> was understood to have stated the
following:

>Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
>> Some rational people are still able to study the issue.
>>
>> http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html
>>
>> F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al.
>
>That, coming from someone who can't even spell "increased" correctly,
>and twice in one sentence? You're no scholar and that article tells us
>little about speed limits' effect on actual speeds, especially hyper
>speeds.

You've never proven that you're a scholar, either.

>Truly rational people understand that physics matters and laws have
>been ignored all along.

Hey, you got one right! Truly rational people do understand that
physics matters. I guess that explains why you have no grasp of the
concept.

>Why is it that people who brag about DISobeying the law are the first
>to cite it as a measure of actual driving speeds? Year after year, the
>NHTSA has documented that speeding causes 30% of serious crashes. It
>has little to do with prevailing speed limit laws. It just shows that
>stupid people will always take stupid risks in cars at high speeds.

Stupid people take stupid risks in cars at any speed. Last time
someone hit my vehicle was while I was stopped at a red light, and the
gal who had been behind me for little while decided it turned green
while it was still red. All of this occurred at less than 10mph in a
45mph zone. Should we lower the speed limit to 10mph?

>Notice a key quote in that brief article.
>
>"But the long-term decreases continued even when speed limits stayed
>the same."
>
>When limits stayed the SAME, decreases still continued. It's mainly
>because cars have gotten safer, and possibly in part because traffic
>congestion is slowing speeds regardless of posted limits (people don't
>get hurt as badly in lower speed crashes). There was a story on that
>awhile back.
>
>So, speed LIMITS per se have little to do with the existence of EXTREME
>speeding, which has gone on since cars were invented. These are the
>people who are always tailgating, weaving and jockeying for position
>just to get ahead of everyone else. Their interactions with other
>traffic lead to all sorts of pointless crashes and deaths. Here's the
>latest news on these idiots:
>
>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...as+speeding%22

Wow; Carl figured out how to cut-and-paste a URL for a favorite search
of his. Is your next trick counting past 21 while keeping your shoes
and your pants on?

>All other factors being equal, a car moving at a high rate of speed
>(especially upwards of 80 or 90 mph where mechanical and tire-grip
>thresholds are reached) will have less ability to brake and steer when

No ****? You *really* oughtta work for NASA.

>the unexpected happens. These drivers do a lot more tailgating, weaving
>and other impatient things that cause crashes. Again, here's the latest
>news on their preventable carnage:

Got proof on the tailgating and weaving?

>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...as+speeding%22
>
>Denial that the unexpected ever happens is the most common argument
>against the realities of physics, and it's ridiculous. Nothing can be
>100% anticipated on the road and one of the most important things you
>can do is drive at moderate speeds to maintain more control when
>*bleep* happens.

Bull****. Let me away from the cluster **** of retards all traveling
the same speed, so that I have room to maneuver when the unexpected
happens. Most likely, the unexpected is going to come from the
cluster-**** of idiots traveling in a pack.

Why would you want to promote traveling in a pack? Most of us have
evolved from the point of herding like sheep; I guess your family tree
isn't that advanced.

>My emphasis all along has been speeding on a case by case basis, citing
>physics as the reason people lose control at higher speeds. Nobody
>involved in the investigation of crashes disputes the role of physics.

Well, DUH. Physics plays a major roll in understanding how your
automobile will respond to the instructions you give it. If you think
that's an arguable point, you may wish to return to grade school.

>If we could get r.a.d. posters to ride with paramedics for a month we'd
>see their whole tone change, I'm sure.

Keep posting your stupidity. What I would see if I rode with the
paramedics is a group of people who had no reason driving in the first
place.

>Raising speed limits may reduce the dangers of speed-differentials by
>making relatively slower drivers speed up, but not by much. That
>article notes that improvements in car safety are the main factor.

Teach people how to drive, retard, and you won't need those
improvements in car safety to reduce the death toll on the roadways.
Of course, everyone knows that because you and Judy are so stupid, you
would fail such teaching, and that's why you both cry for
nanny-government to come in to save the day.

>People will drive at more or less the same speeds regardless of laws.

No ****? Another news flash from Carl! Could you please inform us what
direction the sun will rise from tomorrow?

>The real point is that hyper speed-freaks are doing what they've ALWAYS
>done and people will keep dying because of it. They don't care whether
>the limit is 55 or 75; they'll still drive as fast as they think they
>can get away with.

I'll drive at a pace that keeps me comfortable and alert, and that I
think is prudent for the conditions at hand. If you think adherence to
some magical "speed limit" is going to keep you safe, go for it. Too
bad I won't be riding around with the paramedics when they come to
pick you up, but that's no big loss.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Days of the New - Phobics of Tragedy - Days of the New 2
K:\Audio\Days Of The New\Days of the New 2\11 - Phobics of Tragedy.mp3
This is track 7 of 304 in the current playlist.

On 1 Jul 2005 09:30:03 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> was understood to have stated the following:

>
>
>David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2005 22:21:09 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>> > was understood to have stated the following:
>>
>> >As for the 85% rule, yes it is silly. A law where the PLAN is for
>> >15% of the public to violate it! Plus it assumes there is some way to
>> >determine how fast people would drive if there were no speed limit!
>>
>> "assumes there is some way to determine how fast people would drive if
>> there were no speed limit!" Now that's a stupid statement. Remove the
>> speed limits from a stretch of road, and measure the resulting
>> traffic. Surely even you aren't *that* stupid.
>
>Most americans don't want to drive on a road where there is no speed
>limit for a week or two just so some speed loons like you can determine

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone with a nym such as "Laura Bush
Murdered Her Boyfriend" has a reasonable idea of what most americans
want.

Speed loon? Displaying your ignorance as always. You keep claiming you
want to see the number of deaths occurring daily to reduce, and yet
when the opportunity presents itself you have no interest in it. I
guess that's similar to the hypocrisy you share on the issue of being
tough on DUIs and thinking Teddy Kennedy is guiltless.

>the average speed. And besides the results would just apply to that
>stretch of road. You gonna do this nationally?? HAHA. The 85
>percentile rule is nonsense and you are a moron for not seeing that.

I can understand how you would feel it's nonsense, since it's beyond
your ability to comprehend.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> LeMod Pol wrote:
> > Bernard Farquart wrote:
> > >
> > > Some rational people are still able to study the issue.
> > >
> > > http://www.turnto10.com/news/4640037/detail.html
> > >
> > > F*ck you Carl, Judy et.al.
> >
> > If you call that little news item - a rational
> > study - you are not very rational yourself.
> >
> > Certainly safety measures in vehicle construction
> > and shoulder harnesses have reduced the %age of
> > deaths per accident. Miles travelled is only a
> > guesstimate easily rigged and thus can not enter
> > any equation.
>
> Accidents??? Very few of them on the highways. It's a euphemism the

****, there's an accident on the highway every time you get behind the
wheel of that beater of yours.

> media uses so people will not recongnize the fact that 99% of the
> CRASHES on the highways are due to bad driving and could easily be
> prevented. Too much money in car crashes to stop them now. The auto
> industry loves them as does the medical and legal industry.

If you had a clue, you might amount to something. No wonder you can't
afford anything other than a beater.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ed White wrote:

> Others made the claim that the MUTCD would answer my concerns and
> questions. I reveiwed the document and it did not even come close.

You must not have read very carefully or completely. Perhaps you didn't
look at the MUTCD itself, but rather lazed out and looked at some sort of
excerpt somebody posted.

> is that good enough for you?

Most of the time, poorly-done homework that is not complete does not get a
good grade. So, no.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Ivan wrote:

> WASHINGTON --The highway fatality rate sank to a record low last year,
> the government estimated Thursday, but the administration and auto
> safety advocates bemoaned an increase in the total number of traffic
> deaths and urged a national focus on seat belt use.

Uh-huh. Meanwhile, 15 nations are safer than the US in terms of deaths per
thousand vehicles, and nine nations are safer than the US in terms of
deaths for same travel distance - data from the various countries is he

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/m/data/USrank.xls

> The fatality rate slid from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
> traveled in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. It was the lowest since records
> were first kept in 1966, when the rate was 5.50 deaths.

Uh-huh. Taking a look at that data, we see that the 2004 death rate (which
translates to 9.1 per billion kilometres) was bested in 2002 by Canada,
Australia, The Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and the
UK. The UK and Australian results are particularly interesting, since
those countries have the greatest commonality with North America in terms
of roadway geometries and conditions and (with respect to Australia)
distances.

I suppose NHTSA does need to put a positive spin on it, though. They can't
exactly say "We're pounding our chests about what a great 'n' groovy job
we're doing, and we're making a lot of noise about how our cars are the
safest and best in the whole wide world, even though it's, um, not true".

The only reference in Chapter 1 was a brief definition. If you think I
am missing something, Why not post the relevant sections. I showed you
where there was an online copy. Do I need to post the entire chapter as
well?

Chapter 1 of the 2003 Edition (see
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traff...n/pdfs/Ch1.pdf
) has the following section that references the 85th percentile speed:

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

"Speed-speed is defined based on the following classifications:
Advisory Speed-a recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a
section of highway and based on the highway design, operating
characteristics, and conditions.
Average Speed-the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured
speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of
vehicles observed.
Design Speed-a selected speed used to determine the various geometric
design features of a roadway.
85th-Percentile Speed-The speed at or below which 85 percent of the
motor vehicles travel.
Operating Speed-a speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall
traffic operates. Operating speed might be defined with speed values
such as the average, pace, or 85th-percentile speeds.
Pace Speed-the highest speed within a specific range of speeds that
represents more vehicles than in any other like range of speed. The
range of speeds typically used is 10 km/h or 10 mph.
Posted Speed-the speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed
Limit signs.
Statutory Speed-a speed limit established by legislative action that
typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional,
jurisdictional and/or location characteristics and is not necessarily
shown on Speed Limit signs."

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

That is ALL of the references to the 85 percentile speed in Chapter 1.
It doesn't anwer any of the questions I posed.

Please if I am missing something enlighten me.

Ed