Speeding Ticket While Doing Average Speed

wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>
>>Some less intelligent people seem to believe that speed limits are safe
>>to drive at all times, and this belief likely comes from the fact that
>>it pretty much *is* safe to exceed any posted speed limit on any
>>highway under 99% of the weather conditions likely to be encountered.
>>Posting speed limits correctly might go a long way toward disabusing
>>people of this notion.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> The vast majority of drivers DO understand that the posted speed limit
> is understood to be a maximum--

maximum WHAT?

> that adverse conditions generally
> require a reduction in speed to accomodate them.
>

generally, no, not below the posted speed, unless it's snowing or an
exceptionally torrential rain.

> While it may be "safe" to exceed a posted speed limit, the drivers who
> do so are generally only considering their own abilities--which may or
> may not be as high as they believe. The problems come from other
> things: other vehicles, animals, curves, phase of the moon, etc., that
> the speeding driver seems not to consider.
>
> It may well be (and I don't know) that the "safe" speed is determined
> to be that speed which is safe for the average driver. Perhaps certain
> people in this ng are better than average. However, they are still
> saddled with the speed limit that exists for EVERYbody. So be it.
> Exceed it at your peril--ticketwise and otherwise, and expect the
> preditable attitude that goes with it.
>

Exceeding the speed limit is perfectly safe even for the "average"
(read: **** poor) driver. Daily experience proves is.

nate

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

Harry K wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>In article om>,
>> "Harry K" > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The people at those meetings are people with a lot of free time and/or
>>>>>>axes to grind. Usually exactly the sort of people you don't want
>>>>>>making decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a very condescending attitude toward the very basics of
>>>>>democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is also wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>When there is a major issue on the table, you can be assure that the
>>>>>meetings will be packed with people. One issue that is quite sensitive
>>>>>is the safety of children. Parents are very concerned if roadway
>>>>>traffic is too fast for kids to safely cross the street and will work
>>>>>quite hard to eliminate the problem. I've seen many local politicians
>>>>>get elected on a "slow down traffic" platform.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to the issue of people demanding lower speeds then speeding
>>>>>themselves, could anyone cite a source to substantiate that claim? Or
>>>>>is it just an urban legend?
>>>>>
>>>>>As to the claim the "super majority" of motorists want higher speed
>>>>>limits, well, keep in mind:
>>>>>1) Nobody likes getting a speeding ticket,
>>>>>2) People want to get where they're going quickly,
>>>>>3) If the "super majority" motorists truly felt that strongly that
>>>>>speed limits were too low or enforcment too high, they would speak out
>>>>>about. But they do not*.
>>>>>4) Elected officials like their jobs and want to get re-elected.
>>>>>Upsetting the voters with unpopular positions is a quick way to get the
>>>>>boot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thus the claimed "super majority" just doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>*I might note there were complaints about too-tough red-light
>>>>>enforcement, that is, citizens came to public meetings and called for
>>>>>cops to give more leeways on yellow lights. The cops did ease up on
>>>>>that issue. So you can see public will works both ways.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "leeways on yellow lights?" In most states I
>>>>know (LA being an exception) it is not illegal per se to enter an
>>>>intersection on a yellow light. Why would cops "ease up" on writing
>>>>tickets for something that isn't illegal in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>If motorists are currently driving safely on a road at a certain
>>>>prevailing speed, then they have voted with their accelerators as to
>>>>what the safe speed limit ought to be.
>>>
>>>Not quite. They have voted what the safe speed to drive is in the
>>>presence of Law Enforcement, i.e., a speed above the limit but such
>>>that the likliehood of getting a ticket is miniscule. Were the limits
>>>removed entirely the speed would be higher than the current 'flow'.
>>>
>>>Harry K
>>
>>Sorry, but over and over, unless the enforcement is overwhelming this
>>has proven *not* to be the case. Yes, a *few* people no longer feel
>>constrained to drive within x of the old limit, but that *reduces* the
>>spread of speeds.
>>
>>--
>>
>
>
> Over the yearsI have only seen one person post an example where flow
> speed did _not_ go up when the limits were either raised or pulled. I
> think it was Brent. The highway I travel on mosst is SR195 in Eastern
> Wa. Posted 60. Flow is right at 65/66. This is a wide, 2-lane (most
> of it is acturally 1/2 of a proposed 4 lane and built to interstate
> standards. It winds (gently) through rolling hills with visibility,
> except in a few places, excellent. If you think that the 'flow' would
> remain 65/66 if the posted were raised to 65 or done away with
> entirely, I have a beach front property for sale.
>
> Harry K
>

I'd bet that it would remain within a few MPH of current. Not only do
statistics show that but it sounds like it's not grossly underposted, as
my own personal experience says that people have no qualms about
shattering a grossly underposted limit by 15-20 MPH or more.

nate

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

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>While it may be "safe" to exceed a posted speed limit, the drivers who
>do so are generally only considering their own abilities--which may or
>may not be as high as they believe. The problems come from other
>things: other vehicles, animals, curves, phase of the moon, etc., that
>the speeding driver seems not to consider.

This unsupported assertion was disproved long ago. Drivers are
_better_ at judging a safe speed than the people who choose speed
limits, cows, politicians, parents of free-range children, etc.
The people who drive slowly, whether out of fear of the gibbous
moon or otherwise, have more accidents. People who drive below
the speed limit are especially dangerous, with an accident rate
several times average. On a freeway, drivers going more than
10 miles per hour over the average speed are _less_ likely than
average to collide with another vehicle.

The 85th percentile rule takes into account the average and
below-average driver, as well as conditions outside the vehicle.

--
John Carr )

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >>In article om>,
> >> "Harry K" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> wrote:
> >>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The people at those meetings are people with a lot of free time and/or
> >>>>>>axes to grind. Usually exactly the sort of people you don't want
> >>>>>>making decisions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's a very condescending attitude toward the very basics of
> >>>>>democracy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is also wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>When there is a major issue on the table, you can be assure that the
> >>>>>meetings will be packed with people. One issue that is quite sensitive
> >>>>>is the safety of children. Parents are very concerned if roadway
> >>>>>traffic is too fast for kids to safely cross the street and will work
> >>>>>quite hard to eliminate the problem. I've seen many local politicians
> >>>>>get elected on a "slow down traffic" platform.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As to the issue of people demanding lower speeds then speeding
> >>>>>themselves, could anyone cite a source to substantiate that claim? Or
> >>>>>is it just an urban legend?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As to the claim the "super majority" of motorists want higher speed
> >>>>>limits, well, keep in mind:
> >>>>>1) Nobody likes getting a speeding ticket,
> >>>>>2) People want to get where they're going quickly,
> >>>>>3) If the "super majority" motorists truly felt that strongly that
> >>>>>speed limits were too low or enforcment too high, they would speak out
> >>>>>about. But they do not*.
> >>>>>4) Elected officials like their jobs and want to get re-elected.
> >>>>>Upsetting the voters with unpopular positions is a quick way to get the
> >>>>>boot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thus the claimed "super majority" just doesn't exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>*I might note there were complaints about too-tough red-light
> >>>>>enforcement, that is, citizens came to public meetings and called for
> >>>>>cops to give more leeways on yellow lights. The cops did ease up on
> >>>>>that issue. So you can see public will works both ways.
> >>>>
> >>>>What do you mean by "leeways on yellow lights?" In most states I
> >>>>know (LA being an exception) it is not illegal per se to enter an
> >>>>intersection on a yellow light. Why would cops "ease up" on writing
> >>>>tickets for something that isn't illegal in the first place?
> >>>>
> >>>>If motorists are currently driving safely on a road at a certain
> >>>>prevailing speed, then they have voted with their accelerators as to
> >>>>what the safe speed limit ought to be.
> >>>
> >>>Not quite. They have voted what the safe speed to drive is in the
> >>>presence of Law Enforcement, i.e., a speed above the limit but such
> >>>that the likliehood of getting a ticket is miniscule. Were the limits
> >>>removed entirely the speed would be higher than the current 'flow'.
> >>>
> >>>Harry K
> >>
> >>Sorry, but over and over, unless the enforcement is overwhelming this
> >>has proven *not* to be the case. Yes, a *few* people no longer feel
> >>constrained to drive within x of the old limit, but that *reduces* the
> >>spread of speeds.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >
> >
> > Over the yearsI have only seen one person post an example where flow
> > speed did _not_ go up when the limits were either raised or pulled. I
> > think it was Brent. The highway I travel on mosst is SR195 in Eastern
> > Wa. Posted 60. Flow is right at 65/66. This is a wide, 2-lane (most
> > of it is acturally 1/2 of a proposed 4 lane and built to interstate
> > standards. It winds (gently) through rolling hills with visibility,
> > except in a few places, excellent. If you think that the 'flow' would
> > remain 65/66 if the posted were raised to 65 or done away with
> > entirely, I have a beach front property for sale.
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> I'd bet that it would remain within a few MPH of current. Not only do
> statistics show that but it sounds like it's not grossly underposted, as
> my own personal experience says that people have no qualms about
> shattering a grossly underposted limit by 15-20 MPH or more.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

If you drove that highway you would be pushing for posted of 70 or
more. Most of it is even limited access and the entire thing runs
through sparsely populated (as in maybe 30 residences/farms in 50
miles).

Then there is the 30 miles to the south of Colfax to the Idaho state
line. Used to be posted at 55 and flow about 61. They finally bent to
complaints and raised it to 60. Guess what, flow is now 65/66.

There is no real heavy LE presence. Normal patrol assigned is 2 state
and 2 county covering it plus 2 other state highways on days, nights 1
each up to 2 am then noone until 6 or 7.

Harry K
Harry K

Harry K wrote:

> Then there is the 30 miles to the south of Colfax to the Idaho state
> line. Used to be posted at 55 and flow about 61. They finally bent to
> complaints and raised it to 60. Guess what, flow is now 65/66.

When WV raised its limit on ARC routes from 55 to 65, the 85th
percentile speed increased from 62 to 66 mph. The compliance rate with
the 55 mph limit was roughly 15 to 20%. The compliance rate with the 65
mph limit is about 75 to 80%.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> No they don't. If most drivers overestimated their skill, then most
> drivers would be crashing in all conditions. That doesn't happen in
> reality.

There are far, far too many vehicle crashes. The cost to all of us is
enormous.

Because of driver incompetence, we must spend much money in airbags for
our cars and lots of safety features on the highway.

John F. Carr wrote:
> This unsupported assertion was disproved long ago. Drivers are
> _better_ at judging a safe speed than the people who choose speed
> limits, cows, politicians, parents of free-range children, etc.

Cite, please.

How do cows choose speed limits?


> People who drive below
> the speed limit are especially dangerous, with an accident rate
> several times average.

When you say "accident rate" do you mean chargeable accidents?
Also, do you have a cite for this?


> On a freeway, drivers going more than
> 10 miles per hour over the average speed are _less_ likely than
> average to collide with another vehicle.

Again, cite? What about colliding with another object? Tire blowout?
Loss of control from hitting a bad pothole or pavement defect?


In any event, reality is that motorists will find a variety of drivers
alongside them on the highways. Unless you want to ban half the
motorists and their vehicles, that is a fact of life of a public
highway.


> The 85th percentile rule takes into account the average and
> below-average driver, as well as conditions outside the vehicle.

Says who? No one has posted a reputable cite for the source of this
magic "85th percentile" as being the sole criteria to use or even where
this came from. (Why 85th? Why not 70th? Or 90th? Please explain
why "85th" was chosen.) But others have posted official lists of a
variety of conditions that must be considered in setting speed. For
example, congestion and traffic volume of a particular road is a factor.

John F. Carr wrote: <brevity snip>
> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >While it may be "safe" to exceed a posted speed limit, the drivers who
> >do so are generally only considering their own abilities--which may or
> >may not be as high as they believe. The problems come from other
> >things: other vehicles, animals, curves, phase of the moon, etc., that
> >the speeding driver seems not to consider.
>
> This unsupported assertion was disproved long ago.

Disproved? By whom? You need a cite for your unsupported assertion.

> Drivers are
> _better_ at judging a safe speed than the people who choose speed
> limits, cows, politicians, parents of free-range children, etc.

Aren't "people who choose speed limits" and politicians also drivers?
How 'bout the drivers who choose to operate at or below the limit,
they're drivers, aren't they? Did you conclude that drivers who ignore
the SL somehow possess better judgment than those who don't? I dare
say there must be some absence of logic there. Increasing the risk of
being cited on the side of the road doesn't sound like the best
judgment. But, that's just me.

> The people who drive slowly, whether out of fear of the gibbous
> moon or otherwise, have more accidents.

You need a cite here. I would think that, since they're "drivers",
they're better judges of a safe velocity "than the people who choose
speed limits, cows, politicians, parents of free-range children, etc."

> People who drive below
> the speed limit are especially dangerous, with an accident rate
> several times average.

And here. AFAICT operating a 10 over is about equally likely to result
in a crash as 10 under.

> On a freeway, drivers going more than
> 10 miles per hour over the average speed are _less_ likely than
> average to collide with another vehicle.

And here.

> The 85th percentile rule takes into account the average and
> below-average driver, as well as conditions outside the vehicle.

And here. What -exactly- is the definition of the "85th percentile
rule" as applied to speed limits?

> --
> John Carr )

Maine Institute of Typing...?
-----

- gpsman

wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> No they don't. If most drivers overestimated their skill, then most
>> drivers would be crashing in all conditions. That doesn't happen in
>> reality.

> There are far, far too many vehicle crashes. The cost to all of us is
> enormous.

The ratio of the number vehicles involved in crashes in a given time
period over the number of vehicles not involved in crashes in that same
time period is quite small.

> Because of driver incompetence, we must spend much money in airbags for
> our cars

Airbags were mandated because of an old hag's lobbying efforts which
were based on false presumptions that airbags were like pillows to crash
victims. The standard for airbags in the US (not Europe) is to protect
an unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy. This standard has
resulted in a number serious injuries and deaths of smaller drivers and
children directly caused by airbag deployment.

wrote:

> Cite, please.
>
> How do cows choose speed limits?

By telling drivers to mooooove it