Speeding Ticket While Doing Average Speed

wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > A too-low limit cannot be obeyed.
> >
> > Why not?! I can obey any speed limit you can find.
>
> Then you would be one of the hazards on the road.

That would be a matter of opinion. Legally and logically, the hazard
for drivers in compliance with the speed limit is created by those in
violation, not the other way around.

> Traffic wants and needs to go at a relatively safe and constant flow. A
> too-low limit makes this impossible as it introduces people like you
> who will want to obey it regardless of the flow of traffic, and cause
> safety hazards. What I mean by "cannot" is in the sense of "not
> possible to happen."

Yeah, that's what I deduced. I've been doing the impossible for more
than 30 years without incident.

> > If the SL is 5, and all drivers are in compliance, how would the that
> > "artificially" low SL compromise safety? Because most drivers would
> > violate it? Then, wouldn't the drivers ignoring it be compromising
> > safety, and not the number on the sign? Same thing applies to the
> > limits that are now posted.
>
> No, the number on the sign compromises safety, when it is not properly
> set.

You mean, when it is not observed, of course. The number on the sign
is irrelevant. There are plenty of roads that would be safe at 75mph,
but are posted at 35.

> A SL of 5 cannot be obeyed on a road that is engineered for 65.

Is there some law of physics that prevents it? If an LEO were
stationed every 50 yards could it happen? How 'bout every 50 feet.

> Compliance, quite reasonably, would be zero.

It is unreasonable to violate the speed limit by any significant
margin, no matter what or where it is.

> The hazard then comes from
> the person trying to be law abiding with a limit that is not
> reasonable, and then becomes the hazard in the flow. Same with a speed
> limit of 45 on a highway engineered for 65 on which traffic is already
> safely flowing well in excess of 45, and so on.

You're either mistaken or completely stupid, I suspect the latter.

> > > As we write, Denver is doing a speed
> > > survey on the recently completed T-REX segment of I-25 through the
> > > city. Now 55, about 7 miles through the city has just been widened with
> > > eight lanes instead of three; even in rush hours there are times when
> > > 65 is the average flow. In free flow, 72 has been the average speed.
> > > Obviously the road has been made safer for faster travel and now it's
> > > time to acknowledge it with a higher limit.
> >
> > Obviously, the road has been made more safe for faster travel?
>
> Yes, much.
>
> > Based on the fact that average velocities have increased?
>
> No, based on the $900 million CDOT invested in the project, much of
> which involved safety improvements such as CD systems and braided ramps
> to eliminate former hazards.
>
> > Might your conclusion be based on scanty facts?
>
> <spit take> No! I spent seven years covering the project.

Covering it? With what?

> > Are you aware of the crash
> > statistics of those roads over the past 12 months?
>
> Hasn't yet been opened for 12 months. It was a 19-mile long
> construction zone for five years.

They CLOSED I-25 for a year!!! ****, I drove right through the
barriers.

> > Do you have a cite that specifies that the number of lanes is to be
> > taken into consideration when setting speed limits?
>
> MUTCD. You posted it below. Did you read it?
>
> > > Instead Denver PD was out recently writing tickets for violating 55 in
> > > order to get people to slow down on a newly widened road that has been
> > > made safe for faster travel. Ridiculous.
> >
> > Yes, your conclusion is ridiculous.
>
> No. The enforcement of a limit that is not being obeyed by any driver
> on the road is what is ridiculous, per MUTCD.

Yeranidiot. Your conclusion that -no- driver obeys the SL is too
stupid to entertain. Even if that were true, you have no method of
determining it.

> > Generally, when a freeway is
> > widened from 3 lanes to eight, the run-off area (Road characteristics,
> > shoulder condition/Roadside development and environment) is made
> > smaller.
>
> Not in this case. Quite the opposite. Everything was made wider,
> including left and right shoulder safety zones, in addition to the
> fourth and fifth lanes in each direction where formerly there were only
> three. In fact, most widenings I've seen around here take current
> standards into account and provide those margins.

You... are fulla****.

http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...e-and-I-25.jpg
http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...nd-Buchtel.jpg
http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...he-Narrows.jpg
http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...nterchange.jpg
http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...s-and-I-25.jpg
http://www.trexproject.com/trex_imag...nterchange.jpg

Did you think I would believe they relocated all the business they
allowed to be built right up against I-25 over the last 30 years? I
lived in Castle Rock and commuted to 8th & Broadway.
-----

- gpsman <farts smoke>

wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > >
> > > >> What's the posted speed limit on PA 309?
> > >
> > > > When built it was 50. Raised to 55 in 1960s where it remains.
> > >
> > > So it has the same speed limit as many modern interstates in PA. It's
> > > no wonder no one takes the limit seriously. The last time I drove in PA
> > > on I-279, I was going with traffic around 20 to 25 mph over the limit
> > > (75 to 80 in a 55 mph zone). In WV going that much over the limit on an
> > > interstate is almost unheard of.
> > >
> > > > Typical speed is 70-75.
> > >
> > > Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate of
> > > speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> > > unreliable at best.
> >
> > Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
>
> No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.

Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
him.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
> wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>>>> Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate of
>>>> speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
>>>> unreliable at best.

>>> Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.

>> No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
>> going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.

> Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> him.

The problem stems from an inadequate sample size. A person observing
traffic from a stationary point will observe fare more cars and be able
to get far more sample speeds as opposed to someone driving close to the
speed of other vehicles. Therefore any observations about traffic speed
will have more validity when observed from a stationary point.

Harry K wrote:
> wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Arif Khokar > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Typical speed is 70-75.
> > > >
> > > > Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate of
> > > > speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> > > > unreliable at best.
> > >
> > > Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
> >
> > No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> > going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
>
> Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> him.

That's precisely the point... you *only* know what the car ahead of
you is doing as you are pacing him. That's not what the poster was
saying.

Of course he sees the cars around him... and that's *all* he sees. He
doesn't see the half of traffic that might be going his same speed,
because he neither catches up with nor is overtaken by them. He only
sees the ones going faster than him as they pass him, or the occasional
one going slower that he passes.

It is completely inadequate to do a speed survey while you yourself are
in motion.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:

> Harry K wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
> >>>> Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate of
> >>>> speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> >>>> unreliable at best.
>
> >>> Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
>
> >> No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> >> going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
>
> > Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> > open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> > him.
>
> The problem stems from an inadequate sample size. A person observing
> traffic from a stationary point will observe fare more cars and be able
> to get far more sample speeds as opposed to someone driving close to the
> speed of other vehicles. Therefore any observations about traffic speed
> will have more validity when observed from a stationary point.

Sorry, but you're still talking nonsense.

The distribution of speeds is going to be a fairly steep gaussian
distribution. Hence, unless you're within a few MPH of peak speed you
are either going to be passing a lot of cars, or being passed by a lot
of cars. Adjust your speed until that is not happening and guess what,
you're going to be within a few mph the speed at the peak of the
gaussian.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> Harry K wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Arif Khokar > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Typical speed is 70-75.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate
> > > > > of
> > > > > speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> > > > > unreliable at best.
> > > >
> > > > Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
> > >
> > > No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> > > going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
> >
> > Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> > open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> > him.
>
> That's precisely the point... you *only* know what the car ahead of
> you is doing as you are pacing him. That's not what the poster was
> saying.
>
> Of course he sees the cars around him... and that's *all* he sees. He
> doesn't see the half of traffic that might be going his same speed,
> because he neither catches up with nor is overtaken by them. He only
> sees the ones going faster than him as they pass him, or the occasional
> one going slower that he passes.
>
> It is completely inadequate to do a speed survey while you yourself are
> in motion.

To do a complete survey, true. To get a general sense of what speed most
traffic is moving at, utterly false.

Traffic speeds vary, but not really all that much. The number of
outliers is realtively small. Hence, if you travel only a few mph above
or below the "typical speed" you are going to be passing or you're going
to be passed by a lot of the cars on the road.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to test this hypothesis. Go out on a
road. Travel at the speed where the least traffic seems to be passing
you or you it. Now try driving 5 mph faster. It will become immediately
obvious that you are now traveling faster than a large percentage of the
cars out there, and the same will happen if you slow down 5 mph: you'll
find you're being passed quite a lot. Anyone of even modest powers of
observation will be able to very quickly tell you what the "typical
speed" for that road is.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > Harry K wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Arif Khokar > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Typical speed is 70-75.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> > > > > > unreliable at best.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
> > > >
> > > > No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> > > > going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
> > >
> > > Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> > > open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> > > him.
> >
> > That's precisely the point... you *only* know what the car ahead of
> > you is doing as you are pacing him. That's not what the poster was
> > saying.
> >
> > Of course he sees the cars around him... and that's *all* he sees. He
> > doesn't see the half of traffic that might be going his same speed,
> > because he neither catches up with nor is overtaken by them. He only
> > sees the ones going faster than him as they pass him, or the occasional
> > one going slower that he passes.
> >
> > It is completely inadequate to do a speed survey while you yourself are
> > in motion.
>
> To do a complete survey, true. To get a general sense of what speed most
> traffic is moving at, utterly false.
>
> Traffic speeds vary, but not really all that much. The number of
> outliers is realtively small. Hence, if you travel only a few mph above
> or below the "typical speed" you are going to be passing or you're going
> to be passed by a lot of the cars on the road.
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to test this hypothesis. Go out on a
> road. Travel at the speed where the least traffic seems to be passing
> you or you it. Now try driving 5 mph faster. It will become immediately
> obvious that you are now traveling faster than a large percentage of the
> cars out there, and the same will happen if you slow down 5 mph: you'll
> find you're being passed quite a lot. Anyone of even modest powers of
> observation will be able to very quickly tell you what the "typical
> speed" for that road is.

Other than proving my point about the vast majority of traffic
traveling at or near the same relative speed (thank you!), it is not
utterly false that you will get a completely inadequate speed survey if
you conduct while you yourself are in motion.

Not only are you in flux yourself, you are passing through parts of the
corridor with slightly or radically changing characteristics, which
skews the speeds in and of itself. That's in addition to the issue of
excluding from your sample the vehicles behind you traveling at the
same speed as you, but which you would never see. That also skews your
perceptions - you think everyone else is going faster if everyone is
passing you, when in fact half the vehicles on the corridor might be
going the same speed as you.

As Arif said, an adequate speed survey is taken at a stationary point.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
>> open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
>> him.

In fact, most people really don't know how fast traffic is going.
The possibility that you could determine the speed of one car by
putting some effort into the task does not mean that your estimate
of overall speed is accurate.

>The problem stems from an inadequate sample size. A person observing
>traffic from a stationary point will observe fare more cars and be able
>to get far more sample speeds as opposed to someone driving close to the
>speed of other vehicles. Therefore any observations about traffic speed
>will have more validity when observed from a stationary point.

Another problem is observational bias. You notice fast drivers
more than the people going 60 in the right lane. You notice
that your pack is doing 80 and don't average with the pack going
65 that took a couple minutes to filter through at 68. When
accurate sampling is not practical, some consider driving a long
distance passing exactly as many cars as pass you to be a substitute.
That form of estimation requires real effort and cooperative traffic.

Lots of highways where everybody knows that everybody goes 80
in fact have measured average speeds around 70.

--
John Carr )

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
> >>>> Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate of
> >>>> speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> >>>> unreliable at best.
>
> >>> Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
>
> >> No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> >> going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
>
> > Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> > open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> > him.
>
> The problem stems from an inadequate sample size. A person observing
> traffic from a stationary point will observe fare more cars and be able
> to get far more sample speeds as opposed to someone driving close to the
> speed of other vehicles. Therefore any observations about traffic speed
> will have more validity when observed from a stationary point.

True that but it doesn't apply here. The claim was that he observed
the 'flow' was at...mph. If he regularly drives that speed and few
cars pass him, or he passes few cars, then his observation is valid.
Doesn't depend on how 'many' individual vehicles he sees.

Harry K

wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > Harry K wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Arif Khokar > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Typical speed is 70-75.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this based on published speed survey results, or on your estimate
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > speeds from a moving vehicle? If the latter, then your estimate is
> > > > > > > unreliable at best.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not if he drives it regularly at that speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it would still be unreliable. He would only be aware of the people
> > > > > going faster than him, not those going the same speed as him.
> > > >
> > > > Huh?? He doesn't see cars that are around him? Even here in the wide
> > > > open west I know what speed the car ahead of me is going if I am pacing
> > > > him.
> > >
> > > That's precisely the point... you *only* know what the car ahead of
> > > you is doing as you are pacing him. That's not what the poster was
> > > saying.
> > >
> > > Of course he sees the cars around him... and that's *all* he sees. He
> > > doesn't see the half of traffic that might be going his same speed,
> > > because he neither catches up with nor is overtaken by them. He only
> > > sees the ones going faster than him as they pass him, or the occasional
> > > one going slower that he passes.
> > >
> > > It is completely inadequate to do a speed survey while you yourself are
> > > in motion.
> >
> > To do a complete survey, true. To get a general sense of what speed most
> > traffic is moving at, utterly false.
> >
> > Traffic speeds vary, but not really all that much. The number of
> > outliers is realtively small. Hence, if you travel only a few mph above
> > or below the "typical speed" you are going to be passing or you're going
> > to be passed by a lot of the cars on the road.
> >
> > It doesn't take a rocket scientist to test this hypothesis. Go out on a
> > road. Travel at the speed where the least traffic seems to be passing
> > you or you it. Now try driving 5 mph faster. It will become immediately
> > obvious that you are now traveling faster than a large percentage of the
> > cars out there, and the same will happen if you slow down 5 mph: you'll
> > find you're being passed quite a lot. Anyone of even modest powers of
> > observation will be able to very quickly tell you what the "typical
> > speed" for that road is.
>
> Other than proving my point about the vast majority of traffic
> traveling at or near the same relative speed (thank you!), it is not
> utterly false that you will get a completely inadequate speed survey if
> you conduct while you yourself are in motion.
>
> Not only are you in flux yourself, you are passing through parts of the
> corridor with slightly or radically changing characteristics, which
> skews the speeds in and of itself. That's in addition to the issue of
> excluding from your sample the vehicles behind you traveling at the
> same speed as you, but which you would never see. That also skews your
> perceptions - you think everyone else is going faster if everyone is
> passing you, when in fact half the vehicles on the corridor might be
> going the same speed as you.
>
> As Arif said, an adequate speed survey is taken at a stationary point.

Yes, if you want a totally accurate result. To get a general feel for
what the 'flow' is, you only need to be out there in the traffic. For
example, the highway I drive regulary: I know before leaving my drive
that if I set the cruise at 66 very few cars will pass and I will
probably pass noone in 50 miles. I didn't need to do a stationary
survey to determine that, only drive it fairly regularly.

Harry K