Speed limits

toedtoes wrote:

wing_zealot wrote:
While there may be no evidence that differential speed causes accidents, there is certainly empirical evidence that the greater the differential speed, the greater the potential for having accidents and the greater the severity of the accidents.

Hence there is a reason why there is a minimum speed limit on freeways and why you can't drive your moped on them.

Yes, there are minimum speed limits on freeways. But that minimum is "waived" all the time. Stop and go traffic, road work, icy roads, fog, stormy weather, etc.

One person driving too slow may be annoying. But as long as others are driving an appropriate speed for the conditions and are paying attention, there will be no accident. It's when all those other "people factors" come in that accidents happen. Like the driver who chooses not to slow down but instead swerve around the slow driver on a crowded freeway.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC-1609_478401_7.pdf

There is plenty of evidence. See pg7 of the attached (right side graph)
- About 7mph above the average speed (not speed limit) is the safest speed, though obviously, everyone can't go 7mph above the average or the average would move.
- 20mph below average is far worse than 20mph above average (around 3 times as likely to be in a crash).

This graph is from the 1960's but I've seen similar studies that show the same basic pattern.

Going significantly slower than average is dangerous.

toedtoes wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you don't believe speed kills just look at the pileups with 40-50 cars. Those who are driving the limit are not the problem the speeder is the problem.

Typically, that is poor visibility. They are rarely doing the speed limit. It's more often someone nervous who is traveling substantially below the average of nearby traffic (high differential speed).

Of course, until we have wide spread adaptive speed limits, the limits posted for normal conditions will be too much for icy white out conditions.

According to the NHTSA, approx 94% of car crashes are caused by drivers.

Of those, over 40% are "recognition mistakes" - this is distracted driving or simply not paying attention.

"Decision errors" cause 33.3% of crashes - this includes speeding, tailgating, driving recklessly, and incorrectly judging the speed of other cars or space the driver has to complete an action (e.g., passing another vehicle).


"Driver performance" causes more than 10% - this is oversteering, losing control, etc.

Other errors not related to performance, which mostly is the driver falling asleep causes 7%.

Unknown or unspecified reasons cause 8%.


Note that "driving too slowly" is not listed in any of these categories.

That suggests that your claim that those pile ups are caused by some nervous nellie is inaccurate. It is NOT the nervous nellie who causes the accident - it is the driver who is distracted or is making decision mistakes. If that driver were not distracted, speeding, tailgating, miscalculating speed of or space between other vehicles, then the collision would not have occurred.

The nervous nellie does NOT hit other vehicles - other drivers hit the nervous nellie. And they do so because they are distracted or making bad decisions.

In a foggy situation, with a speed limit of 55mph, one should expect and be extra observant of vehicles driving much slower, or even stopped traffic. A driver who chooses to drive 55 in that situation has no one to blame but himself if he hits a car going 45mph.

You've found a flaw in the way crashes are reported. The cop is almost never present to see the accident unfold. They typically have little or no evidence to go off of (usually conflicting he said/she said), so they typically fall back following to closely for conditions or driving too fast for conditions...well because if they weren't there wouldn't have been a crash.

That's great in terms of handing out a ticket or determining who's insurance pays up. It's not very useful in determining how to fix the problem.

If there is a 100 car pile up, that suggests 99 cars selected a speed they felt was reasonable and 1 felt they needed a significantly slower speed...but again, if the average speed is 50mph in a 70mph zone, it's not relevant to setting the speed limit.

BobsYourUncle wrote:
A point perhaps worth considering regarding a LEO and driving is that they are not an average driver taught by mom and dad how to pilot a car.

They undergo rigorous training behind the wheel. They are taught to be observant of all things and situations. They are taught to be keenly aware of their surroundings and more.

Their drivers ed teaches them by actual scenarios how to react in a multitude of traffic situations. Things like a pursuit chase - they learn by controlled training how to react to their surroundings, what to expect from other drivers etc etc.

Bottom line is that a LEO is far better equipped to handle a vehicle than the average driver is.

So if I take a driving course down at the local race track, can I get a sticker on my plate that allows me to legally speed because I've undergone rigourse training behind the wheel?

rhagfo wrote:
I have seen drivers doing 60 to 70 in pea soup fog, that they can't see much more than three car lengths in front of them.

But on a freeway, 60mph is 10mph below the speed limit, so do you set the speed limit on freeways to 25mph 24/7/365 because occasionally it gets icy or foggy?

spoon059 wrote:

So... you want him fired for not enforcing the law... but you agree with Lynmor and fj12ryder that he should be fired for speeding. Which is it? By the way, enforcing the law doesn't mean enforcing EVERY SINGLE LAW, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Otherwise he would have to pull you over for doing 56 in a 55, thus not being available to pull the next guy over for doing 90 in a 55. Maybe he isn't making a traffic stop for speeding because he is headed to a call for service, or maybe he's headed to someone's house to tell them that their child is dead, or maybe he's going to a call for a missing child, or maybe he's gotta go to the bathroom.

You can't catch every traffic violator and have to strike a balance between those that are worth pulling over and those that aren't. There are plenty of threads on RV.net complaining about that "a-hole cop" that stopped someone for rolling through a stop sign or some other "minor" offense. But you want him FIRED if he doesn't stop someone for a traffic violation?

But then you contradict yourself and indicate you DO want him fired for speeding. It would be easier to follow your logic if you kept it straight yourself.

I do not think I said a cop should be fired for speeding. My suggestion he be fired was when he is in a position to see speeders, is not on a more important call, and does not enforce the law My opinion is a cop, on or off the job, should be treated just like a citizen. Maybe because he is advertised to be a super trained, super aware driver he should get less tolerance then others, not more. And if you ever spent time with a police monitor you know that minute by minute dispatch knows when LEO is on a call. (Once in a tow truck I saw a city cop running toward his car, radioed my dispatch to notify city where I was going, would meet officer there. I saw the beacons go off when cop got the message. Know a cop does not need to stop to prove has a reason to be in hurry)
If the cop is just watching traffic go by over the limit, he is not earning his pay. Sure, he can't stop all, and likely doesn't need to write a ticket on every stop. Just like a cop, everybody has a excuse. How much over are you allowed to go because you need to use the restroom? (For many kids, the first lesson in respect for law is in the backseat while a parent tries to get out of a ticket)

Now for the "There are plenty of threads on RV.net complaining about that "a-hole cop" that stopped someone for rolling through a stop sign or some other "minor" offense." deal.
Ask "Did you roll that sign?" If so "Well Keren, what makes you think you have a right to do that?" Next, did you indicate to the cop you thought he was "a-hole cop"?
My last speeding ticket; (9 years next month) Mid day, mid week, 2 lane rural highway, bright summer day. I see the bearmobile meeting me, check the speedometer. Check mirror, see him pull to shoulder just before I crest hill. Down far enough that traffic if any can see us, I pull to side, and angle the pickup so the rear will protect him from traffic when at my door, and waited for him. He asked if I knew what the limit was. "I'm sure it is not 70" (If I was to guess under other conditions I would of said 65) He told me because of lake traffic the limit thru there was set at 55, and he clocked me at 69. He took my paperwork back to his car for a few minutes came back with my ticket. "We know 10+ over will jack with your CDL, and increase the fine." He wrote it for 64 in a 55.

toedtoes wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I have no problem with a marked emergency vehicle driving over the speed limit. The assumption is that they are doing so in the performance of their duties and that the excess speed is necessary. I am willing to accept that assumption.

I do take issue with off duty law enforcement officers (or off duty emergency personnel) in private vehicles speeding and not being ticketed if stopped. The "good ole boy" wave 'em on attitude is wrong.

Do you stand opposed to the 1500 private jets landing in Sun Valley bringing billionaires together to talk about climate change?:)

What does that have to do with this?

Maybe nothing .... It's just the hypocrisy of police officers jumping in their personal vehicles and doing what they ticket us for kind of makes me think of these billionaires jumping in their private jets flying to a meeting to discuss what they can do to get us to reduce our carbon foot print.

Many times cops respond to calls ASAP without lights or sirens. Most likely at night, or not to arouse the suspect.

The way police officers are being treated in some city's I suspect there's going to be less urgency and less officers to patrol. That's the real shame! I could care less what speed they drive when doing their job.

MFL wrote:
Not to stir the pot, but no matter how fast they drive, you can never have a cop show up when you need one! When you don't want to see one... you guessed it!

No offence to officer Putman! :)

Jerry

You aren't kidding, that's the truth. People complain that cops are driving too fast, until they need a cop NOW and it "takes too long" for them to arrive. People complain that cops are enforcing too many traffic laws, until they aren't enforcing the ones that THEY want enforced. People complain that cops aren't enforcing enough traffic laws, until they get stopped for something.

I just find it amusing the double standards that people have for cops. A cop speeds, so he deserves to be fired...? How about a construction worker? A supermarket clerk? Dentist?

Not to stir the pot, but no matter how fast they drive, you can never have a cop show up when you need one! When you don't want to see one... you guessed it!

No offence to officer Putman! :)

Jerry