Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?
https://priceonomics.com/is-every-speed-limit-too-low/
735 comments
I agree, let's fucking reduce pedestrian deaths! But you're ignoring the analysis given in the article-- drivers already don't acknowledge speed limits. From the article:
> Luckily, there is some logic to the speed people choose other than the need for speed. The speed drivers choose is not based on laws or street signs, but the weather, number of intersections, presence of pedestrians and curves, and all the other information that factors into the principle, as Lt. Megge puts it, that “no one I know who gets into their car wants to crash.”
Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians.
A more complete analysis of pedestrian deaths: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injuries/
Here are some useful factoids:
- Finally, the more one drinks, the higher the risk of being involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality. One study found that out of 176 pedestrian fatalities, 86 of those involved pedestrians who had been drinking, nearly all of whom had BACs of 0.10 percent or more. - In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in urban areas. - Finally, the majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities happen to males between the ages of 25 and 44.
This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas.
> Luckily, there is some logic to the speed people choose other than the need for speed. The speed drivers choose is not based on laws or street signs, but the weather, number of intersections, presence of pedestrians and curves, and all the other information that factors into the principle, as Lt. Megge puts it, that “no one I know who gets into their car wants to crash.”
Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians.
A more complete analysis of pedestrian deaths: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injuries/
Here are some useful factoids:
- Finally, the more one drinks, the higher the risk of being involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality. One study found that out of 176 pedestrian fatalities, 86 of those involved pedestrians who had been drinking, nearly all of whom had BACs of 0.10 percent or more. - In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in urban areas. - Finally, the majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities happen to males between the ages of 25 and 44.
This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas.
Not only that, the article specifically addresses parent comment's concerns:
> “I don’t want to lie to people,” Lt. Megge tells us. It may make parents feel better if the speed limit on their street is 25 mph instead of 35 mph, but that sign won’t make people drive any slower. Megge prefers speed limits that both allow people to drive at a safe speed legally, and that realistically reflect traffic speeds. People shouldn’t have a false sense of safety around roads, he says.
> If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective.
Read the article before commenting, people.
> “I don’t want to lie to people,” Lt. Megge tells us. It may make parents feel better if the speed limit on their street is 25 mph instead of 35 mph, but that sign won’t make people drive any slower. Megge prefers speed limits that both allow people to drive at a safe speed legally, and that realistically reflect traffic speeds. People shouldn’t have a false sense of safety around roads, he says.
> If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective.
Read the article before commenting, people.
This is my huge problem with the article - it argues we have no control over speeding. And then it suggests places that ticket aggressively are behaving irresponsibly, to the point of villafying a town in Missouri for enforcing its speeding laws. All while skirting the fact that there is a clear correlation between higher speeds and higher fatality rates.
Everyone knows a place cops like to hang out, and slows down accordingly.
Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them? Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
Everyone knows a place cops like to hang out, and slows down accordingly.
Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them? Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
The real way to make people drive a certain speed - is to design a road that makes people drive that speed.
It's been a really slow process, but bit by bit we are beginning to recover from the mistake of treating the design of transportation networks as a technical engineering problem rather than a social design problem.
If you want people to drive 25mph, you have to design a 25mph road. You can't treat it like an engineering problem and include a "50% safety buffer", because then you designed a 37.5mph road and that's how fast people will drive.
It's been a really slow process, but bit by bit we are beginning to recover from the mistake of treating the design of transportation networks as a technical engineering problem rather than a social design problem.
If you want people to drive 25mph, you have to design a 25mph road. You can't treat it like an engineering problem and include a "50% safety buffer", because then you designed a 37.5mph road and that's how fast people will drive.
In the UK we have "average speed cameras". They are dotted along a road, and monitor cars individually by their license plate.
I would argue they make drivers far less safe, because whilst on such a road, drivers are glued to their speedometers to make sure they're not going over the limit.
Drivers should be concentrating on driving safely. Not on driving at a specific arbitrary speed.
I would argue they make drivers far less safe, because whilst on such a road, drivers are glued to their speedometers to make sure they're not going over the limit.
Drivers should be concentrating on driving safely. Not on driving at a specific arbitrary speed.
Surely this isn't something we need to guess at, there are roads with such systems and similar roads without and those can be compared.
Also I would think the majority of cars have cruise control (the last three cars I owned were all less than £2000 second hand and all had it) - driving at a specific speed is a button press away.
Also I would think the majority of cars have cruise control (the last three cars I owned were all less than £2000 second hand and all had it) - driving at a specific speed is a button press away.
> Surely this isn't something we need to guess at, there are roads with such systems and similar roads without and those can be compared.
It's mainly done for political reasons or money raising reasons rather than safety. These cameras are usually on motorways which are the safest roads to drive on. It's all just for show, it doesn't actually make us any safer.
It's mainly done for political reasons or money raising reasons rather than safety. These cameras are usually on motorways which are the safest roads to drive on. It's all just for show, it doesn't actually make us any safer.
At least in Scotland, they're predominantly used during road works (and they do vanish afterwards). I can imagine they're worried about incidents especially when there's at times only a line of cones separating cars from workers.
Or they could just, you know, use cruise control.
I almost never touch the gas pedal once I've reached the speed limit: I just turn on cruise control and focus on the road, rather than my speedometer. Makes me a far safer driver, with the added bonus of also being a law-abiding one.
I almost never touch the gas pedal once I've reached the speed limit: I just turn on cruise control and focus on the road, rather than my speedometer. Makes me a far safer driver, with the added bonus of also being a law-abiding one.
I would also say Cruise control results in more dangerous driving. If you're traveling at a constant speed, things get boring FAST. It's easy to just get bored, stop paying attention and zone out.
Cruise control isn't as big a thing in the UK. We have bendy roads and drive manual cars not automatics.
Cruise control isn't as big a thing in the UK. We have bendy roads and drive manual cars not automatics.
My suggestion for people who find cruise control makes driving boring, disengaging, and thus more dangerous is to instead focus on other aspects of driving - perhaps unobvious ones. It's surprisingly effective.
Personally, I use cruise control very often, and the attention freed up by it I typically put toward maintaining lane position and checking my mirrors more often. It keeps the trips engaging and makes me a safer, more consistent driver.
I'm also convinced that traffic flow would be much better if people used cruise control more often. Speed variability seems to cause excessive lane changes as a driver inadvertently slows down and the cars following attempt to pass so that they don't have to slow down too.
Personally, I use cruise control very often, and the attention freed up by it I typically put toward maintaining lane position and checking my mirrors more often. It keeps the trips engaging and makes me a safer, more consistent driver.
I'm also convinced that traffic flow would be much better if people used cruise control more often. Speed variability seems to cause excessive lane changes as a driver inadvertently slows down and the cars following attempt to pass so that they don't have to slow down too.
I rarely ever use cruise control. I actually find it useful to be able to modulate the speed of the vehicle via the accelerator. I find that not using it also helps me to adjust to potential situations that may be developing ahead e.g., letting up on the accelerator to reduce speed before even having to apply the brakes). I also will speed up while passing in order to reduce the time I have to spend in the passing lane.
I don't know whether or not this is related to the use of cruise control, but I have observed many drivers using their brakes on the highway even when it's clearly not necessary. For example, they'll slow down behind a car before switching lanes instead of anticipating the traffic situation and either letting up on the accelerator before catching up to the vehicle in front of them or adjusting their speed and moving into the adjacent lane to pass.
I don't know whether or not this is related to the use of cruise control, but I have observed many drivers using their brakes on the highway even when it's clearly not necessary. For example, they'll slow down behind a car before switching lanes instead of anticipating the traffic situation and either letting up on the accelerator before catching up to the vehicle in front of them or adjusting their speed and moving into the adjacent lane to pass.
Some of this is simply the fact that it's still the case that many cars in Europe don't have cruise control: it isn't driver perception, it's simply the car not having it. On many cars it's something still restricted to higher trim levels or an optional extra.
I'll also say that by and large my experience in the UK is on most motorways traffic is sufficiently busy that cruise control is of relatively little use: there's enough variability in the speed of the traffic in front that you can't actually stay at a constant speed and there's enough traffic that you can't just pull out to overtake.
I'll also say that by and large my experience in the UK is on most motorways traffic is sufficiently busy that cruise control is of relatively little use: there's enough variability in the speed of the traffic in front that you can't actually stay at a constant speed and there's enough traffic that you can't just pull out to overtake.
"Lane changes" aren't really much of a thing in the UK either.
Firstly, in the UK they aren't 'equal' lanes. They are for overtaking only. Undertaking is illegal. So we don't just change lanes willy-nilly. We change lane to overtake someone, and then change back.
Secondly, only motorways and dual-carriage ways are multi-lane. Most roads are single lane.
Firstly, in the UK they aren't 'equal' lanes. They are for overtaking only. Undertaking is illegal. So we don't just change lanes willy-nilly. We change lane to overtake someone, and then change back.
Secondly, only motorways and dual-carriage ways are multi-lane. Most roads are single lane.
What makes a road a 25mph road? One dangerous enough that people don't feel comfortable driving faster -- how is that a solution?
Yes, basically. You make traffic lanes narrower, with much wider shoulders that are textured to discourage use. If there are bike lanes, you separate them with rounded dividers. Trees in the center divider also help. As do curves, and bumpouts around on-street parking.
People will just drive over textured bumps, I've seen it. You need to design the road such that people will damage their vehicle if they drive dangerously (things like on street parking, concrete bollards, tall curbs etc).
Bollards 3, bozos 0. [1]
The Sidney Harbor Tunnel had a serious problem with oversized trucks getting wedged in the tunnel. Watch a truck drive past two sets of giant flashing overhead warning signs. They stop only when they reach the final sign at the tunnel mouth, a water curtain with a giant STOP sign projected on it.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKA7m-tbqM
The Sidney Harbor Tunnel had a serious problem with oversized trucks getting wedged in the tunnel. Watch a truck drive past two sets of giant flashing overhead warning signs. They stop only when they reach the final sign at the tunnel mouth, a water curtain with a giant STOP sign projected on it.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKA7m-tbqM
That water screen is really brilliant.
An earlier bridge for them to crash into will also do the job quite nicely.
To be nice make it out of crumpling noisy material, not concrete.
To be nice make it out of crumpling noisy material, not concrete.
> An earlier bridge for them to crash into will also do the job quite nicely.
Except for the part where it requires significantly more maintenance to fix up the bridge and it's incredibly dangerous for drivers following, whether the truck hard-stops or gets its top sheared off.
Except for the part where it requires significantly more maintenance to fix up the bridge and it's incredibly dangerous for drivers following, whether the truck hard-stops or gets its top sheared off.
Hanging bars seem to solve this problem. Makes a loud terrifying noise when you hit them, but doesn't leave any permanent damage.
Those are good points. Bollards, tall curbs, etc are appropriate for urban streets, because they protect pedestrians on sidewalks. But curbs are hazardous to bicyclists. More generally, you want streets that seem more dangerous than they actually are.
"seems more dangerous" probably only works for so long... Surely people would get used to the "dangerous" streets and realize they aren't as dangerous as they seem.
> But curbs are hazardous to bicyclists.
You can easily cut a bypass through the curb or chicane.
You can easily cut a bypass through the curb or chicane.
True. I've gone down hard, though. At night, they can be hard to see.
In neighborhoods near me we have gently sloping curbs. They are about a foot wider than the normal 90 degree curbs I see in more dense urban areas. It is easy to notice from the car if you pull partially up onto them. I suspect it also makes it slightly easier for cars to go of the road, but that hasn't been a real problem. Cars, bike and people seem to be at less risk from the curb directly.
You could think this way:
When you are driving at day on a parking lot full of cars you drive slowly, right?
And when you drive on a empty highway you drive fast.
Regardless of law or street signals, you would drive at this same speed, right?
Why? Because the environment are different.
This is the point of the article.
We have been giving tickets since forever and yet nothing has really changed, and nothing will change, unless we started to design the roads with the speed they need to have.
Yes but I don't see how making every road as safe to drive in as a parking lot (i.e. not very safe) vs. a big empty highway is a solution. The problem we're trying to solve is safety, not speed. Slowing people down by making roads less safe misses the point.
Traffic calming doesn't make roads less safe.
Advocates of traffic calming measures aren't trying to literally make roads as unsafe as parking lots. What makes parking lots unsafe is the constant threat of someone pulling out in front of you, no one is advocating simulating that.
Think about roundabouts, they force you to slow down because they prevent you from driving directly though an intersection. They are statistically much safer than 4 way stops.
Advocates of traffic calming measures aren't trying to literally make roads as unsafe as parking lots. What makes parking lots unsafe is the constant threat of someone pulling out in front of you, no one is advocating simulating that.
Think about roundabouts, they force you to slow down because they prevent you from driving directly though an intersection. They are statistically much safer than 4 way stops.
> Traffic calming doesn't make roads less safe.
It absolutely does when you measure it against the alternatives instead of the status quo.
The only way you can get an apparent benefit from it is through people overcompensating for danger. People are driving 30MPH, you add some danger, people overcompensate for the danger by driving 25MPH, so the result is as though people were driving 28MPH on the original road. You call this a benefit.
The problem is that it's crazy. You're designing an intentional safety reduction and paying the full cost of it just so that people will overcompensate for it.
What you should be doing is designing a safety improvement that people will undercompensate for. Make the road as safe to drive at 35MPH as it was at 30MPH, but don't make that fact obvious, so that people only drive 2MPH faster even though the road is 5MPH safer. Then people drive 32MPH and the safety level is as though they were driving 27MPH on the original road. Compared to traffic calming you have a safer road and people get where they're going 7MPH faster.
It absolutely does when you measure it against the alternatives instead of the status quo.
The only way you can get an apparent benefit from it is through people overcompensating for danger. People are driving 30MPH, you add some danger, people overcompensate for the danger by driving 25MPH, so the result is as though people were driving 28MPH on the original road. You call this a benefit.
The problem is that it's crazy. You're designing an intentional safety reduction and paying the full cost of it just so that people will overcompensate for it.
What you should be doing is designing a safety improvement that people will undercompensate for. Make the road as safe to drive at 35MPH as it was at 30MPH, but don't make that fact obvious, so that people only drive 2MPH faster even though the road is 5MPH safer. Then people drive 32MPH and the safety level is as though they were driving 27MPH on the original road. Compared to traffic calming you have a safer road and people get where they're going 7MPH faster.
Traffic calming isn't decreasing the safety of a road, it's decreasing the perceived safety of driving at higher speeds.
>Make the road as safe to drive at 35MPH as it was at 30MPH, but don't make that fact obvious
What would that even look like? What would you do to increase the safe speed of road? You'd widen the lanes, limit access etc... All of these things are antithetical to making a road safer for non-motorists.
>Make the road as safe to drive at 35MPH as it was at 30MPH, but don't make that fact obvious
What would that even look like? What would you do to increase the safe speed of road? You'd widen the lanes, limit access etc... All of these things are antithetical to making a road safer for non-motorists.
> Traffic calming isn't decreasing the safety of a road, it's decreasing the perceived safety of driving at higher speeds.
It is decreasing the actual safety of driving at higher speeds. And at lower speeds for that matter. The hope is that people will overcompensate for the danger, so that the safety improvement from driving at lower speed is more than the safety loss from the inherently dangerous design. That is obviously not a desirable trade-off, even when that actually happens.
> What would that even look like? What would you do to increase the safe speed of road? You'd widen the lanes, limit access etc... All of these things are antithetical to making a road safer for non-motorists.
You separate the motorists from the non-motorists. Put sidewalks and bike lanes on the opposite side of each building from the road, so that a building has motorist access on the north and east and non-motorist access on the south and west. Then the building to the north has motorist access on the south and pedestrian access on the north etc.
Build pedestrian tunnels or bridges at busy intersections so that pedestrians and cyclists are never in the road at all.
Houston has a system of underground pedestrian tunnels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_tunnel_system
None of those pedestrians has ever been hit by a car at any speed.
It is decreasing the actual safety of driving at higher speeds. And at lower speeds for that matter. The hope is that people will overcompensate for the danger, so that the safety improvement from driving at lower speed is more than the safety loss from the inherently dangerous design. That is obviously not a desirable trade-off, even when that actually happens.
> What would that even look like? What would you do to increase the safe speed of road? You'd widen the lanes, limit access etc... All of these things are antithetical to making a road safer for non-motorists.
You separate the motorists from the non-motorists. Put sidewalks and bike lanes on the opposite side of each building from the road, so that a building has motorist access on the north and east and non-motorist access on the south and west. Then the building to the north has motorist access on the south and pedestrian access on the north etc.
Build pedestrian tunnels or bridges at busy intersections so that pedestrians and cyclists are never in the road at all.
Houston has a system of underground pedestrian tunnels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_tunnel_system
None of those pedestrians has ever been hit by a car at any speed.
Safer for drivers - maybe. Safer for pedestrians? No.
>Think about roundabouts, they force you to slow down because they prevent you from driving directly though an intersection. They are statistically much safer than 4 way stops.
That's not entirely true, with half decent vision I can drive straight onto and off the roundabout again. Certainly in a 30/40mph limit I don't have to slow down particularly. The point of roundabouts isn't to slow people down, it's to keep traffic moving efficiently and safely.
Four way stops are just obviously an awful solution that I've never understood
That's not entirely true, with half decent vision I can drive straight onto and off the roundabout again. Certainly in a 30/40mph limit I don't have to slow down particularly. The point of roundabouts isn't to slow people down, it's to keep traffic moving efficiently and safely.
Four way stops are just obviously an awful solution that I've never understood
The second benefit of well-made roundabouts is that they impede head-on and T-bone collisions. All accidents become side-by-side accidents.
Depends on the size of the roundabout, some are designed for 40 mph others for a more sane 20 mph.
I mean, a roundabout is a system for efficient "giving way". 20mph is only "more sane" when a roundabout is in a low speed limit area. We've got plenty of them on 60mph zones - you've got no interest in having cars slow down and accelerate again when not necessary (if nothing else because it's a waste of energy as well as time).
By god, I hate roundabouts. Not because I have to slow down. If your exit is 45-90 degrees to the right (which a few of the roundabouts I have to go through are), you can commonly go in a straight line towards it without slowing down the slightest anyway, and going in as straight a line as possible is encouraged over here to make your intentions clear.
However, I feel much less safe going through a traficated, small-radius two-lane roundabout than I do going through a traficated intersection (making a turn or not). First of all, you have to find a gap, which is stressful and entirely unnecessary in a normal intersection. Traffic usually mean that just don't get a large enough gap to get in without accelerating hard, which isn't really safe. If you want an exit that is not the first (sometimes also the second), you have to use the inner lane, meaning that you need to find a gap in two lanes, rather than one. It seriously lacks some fair scheduling.
Depending on the roundabout, exiting can only be done by going "LEEROY JEENKIIIINS". Your mirrors point at nothing useful due to the turn of the roundabout, so the lane change back out involves going fast forward to the left, with your neck twisted as far as you can back to the right. Everyone is moving at their own random, highly variable pace, so a quick orientation is immediately invalidated. On a straight road, you can rely almost entirely on your mirrors so your peripheral vision still covers what's ahead of you.
Collisions between cars are likely milder, as the vehicle velocity is limited by the roundabout geometry, but side collisions are awful, and the chance of collision seems much higher, feeling like a game of Russian roulette. I'm normally (over)confident behind the wheel, with no problem driving like an idiot, around other driving like idiots, and have several hundred thousand kilometers of driving experience, but I get uncomfortable and stressed in those roundabouts.
Some two-lane roundabouts have fixed this by drawing the lines so that the lanes spiral out, with the outer lane going to the next exit, and the inner lane going to the one after it. In this way, going around the roundabout is a constant lane change to the left with no one beside you, and an exit is simply keeping your lane. This helps a lot, but is by no means common. Entry still sucks, though
However, I feel much less safe going through a traficated, small-radius two-lane roundabout than I do going through a traficated intersection (making a turn or not). First of all, you have to find a gap, which is stressful and entirely unnecessary in a normal intersection. Traffic usually mean that just don't get a large enough gap to get in without accelerating hard, which isn't really safe. If you want an exit that is not the first (sometimes also the second), you have to use the inner lane, meaning that you need to find a gap in two lanes, rather than one. It seriously lacks some fair scheduling.
Depending on the roundabout, exiting can only be done by going "LEEROY JEENKIIIINS". Your mirrors point at nothing useful due to the turn of the roundabout, so the lane change back out involves going fast forward to the left, with your neck twisted as far as you can back to the right. Everyone is moving at their own random, highly variable pace, so a quick orientation is immediately invalidated. On a straight road, you can rely almost entirely on your mirrors so your peripheral vision still covers what's ahead of you.
Collisions between cars are likely milder, as the vehicle velocity is limited by the roundabout geometry, but side collisions are awful, and the chance of collision seems much higher, feeling like a game of Russian roulette. I'm normally (over)confident behind the wheel, with no problem driving like an idiot, around other driving like idiots, and have several hundred thousand kilometers of driving experience, but I get uncomfortable and stressed in those roundabouts.
Some two-lane roundabouts have fixed this by drawing the lines so that the lanes spiral out, with the outer lane going to the next exit, and the inner lane going to the one after it. In this way, going around the roundabout is a constant lane change to the left with no one beside you, and an exit is simply keeping your lane. This helps a lot, but is by no means common. Entry still sucks, though
>Collisions between cars are likely milder, as the vehicle velocity is limited by the roundabout geometry, but side collisions are awful, and the chance of collision seems much higher,
One study of 17 intersections found an 84% reduction in injury accidents. And a 100% reduction in fatal accidents. And every study I've seen is pretty similar in terms of injuries avoided.
One study of 17 intersections found an 84% reduction in injury accidents. And a 100% reduction in fatal accidents. And every study I've seen is pretty similar in terms of injuries avoided.
Hmm. Those seem like very solid numbers. I wonder how the total accident count compares. Scratched cars are of course not important in comparison to a human life, but I'm curious whether my gut feeling of not being able to obtain an appropriate overview actually translate to accidents.
Fatal traffic injuries are quite rare over here (175 in 2015, which gives about 1/4th of the fatal injuries in traffic per capita of USA), with most seemingly being bicycles killed in intersections by trucks turning right in the city (We have far more bicycles than cars, and they seem to enjoy ignoring rules while simultaneously going "I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIORITY OVER MOTORISED VEHICLES, SO I SHALL PROCEED BLINDLY").
I might be underestimating the intersection problem as a result of our "gentler" traffic (I don't recall ever actually seeing an intersection incident - I mostly see two-car incidents on the highway, where some idiot is too busy on their phone to see that the car in front is braking).
Fatal traffic injuries are quite rare over here (175 in 2015, which gives about 1/4th of the fatal injuries in traffic per capita of USA), with most seemingly being bicycles killed in intersections by trucks turning right in the city (We have far more bicycles than cars, and they seem to enjoy ignoring rules while simultaneously going "I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIORITY OVER MOTORISED VEHICLES, SO I SHALL PROCEED BLINDLY").
I might be underestimating the intersection problem as a result of our "gentler" traffic (I don't recall ever actually seeing an intersection incident - I mostly see two-car incidents on the highway, where some idiot is too busy on their phone to see that the car in front is braking).
I agree that neighborhood roads should have roundabouts and so on. But that doesn't apply to major arteries, highways, etc.
I would agree, but my father used to drive a bottled water delivery truck. And he's seen lots of neighborhoods where roundabouts are simply not built large enough to accommodate anything with more than two axles. In California, roundabouts tend to be added into new construction, but squeezed into a space that is no larger than a normal intersection.
If they're designed properly, they should be low, almost the same height as speed bumps. That way something with 16 wheels can go straight over them while regular cars will probably go around them.
A neckdown or narrow lanes do not make a road less safe. Instead we see the opposite, traffic naturally slows down and thus the road becomes safer.
They also make the road less useful -- you have to balance safety with something. If not, it's just safer if everybody stays at home.
If the road has to close because of a traffic accident, that makes it less useful too - especially when it seems to happen almost every day. A road with less throughput that at least keeps moving can be better.
I'm a pedestrian. Many roads around me have been made more useful to you, to the point where they're useless to me. If they're all made useful, then I'll be the one who has to stay at home.
[deleted]
There are tricks to making roads feel smaller / trickier / slower. Search for the phrase "traffic calming" to find material on the subject.
There is a layer of perception here. People drive faster when they see lots of open space. For example, adding some barriers that obstruct sight but aren't horrible to crash into makes people drive slower without making the road much more dangerous to drive on.
Adding some trees and shrubbery between the road and the sidewalk also does a lot. Because sidewalks next to a road visually widen the road. This has the added benefit of making pedestrians feel a lot safer. No-one likes walking 2 meters next to cars driving at near-highway speeds.
Adding some trees and shrubbery between the road and the sidewalk also does a lot. Because sidewalks next to a road visually widen the road. This has the added benefit of making pedestrians feel a lot safer. No-one likes walking 2 meters next to cars driving at near-highway speeds.
>For example, adding some barriers that obstruct sight
This sounds like a recipe to increase accidents, just saying.
This sounds like a recipe to increase accidents, just saying.
Experience shows they're just the opposite.
The point is not to have much of the environment hidden from sight. The point is to prevent the 'All I see is open road' feeling. On a slightly too simple note, the point is to make you feel like you need to be more careful without actually adding a lot of risk.
One might say the current road design makes roads feel so safe that the actual safety benefits get canceled out by changed behaviour.
One might say the current road design makes roads feel so safe that the actual safety benefits get canceled out by changed behaviour.
Yes. This is a reason why a lot of one way streets are being made into 2 way streets. And why closing streets temporarily increases traffic but decreases fatalities (and eventually decreases traffic)
There is evieence that removing safety devices reduces speeds. Drivers compensate to the conditions. I found this article interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
Case in point: the traffic lights at the bottom of Ludgate Hill were out this morning so cars and bicyles had to negotiate the intersection without any form of communication or signalling. Nobody died.
Traffic lights are not there for safety, they are there to make cars go faster, while being dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. People are often killed by cars turning right at traffic lights.
Well, here in Sweden the 30km/h roads are often enforced by speed bumps if the cars wouldn't slow down enough by themselves.
Here in the USA, we have speed bumps too. This is why we need to buy huge SUVs with high clearance. With a big enough vehicle, the speed bumps are not an issue. You should try it.
I often wonder what the environmental cost of speed bumps is. It is normal to drive huge SUVs. It is normal to slam on the brakes, go over the speed bump, and then hit the gas. There is also an environmental cost for broken parts that need to be replaced and oil that leaks from broken oil pans.
I often wonder what the environmental cost of speed bumps is. It is normal to drive huge SUVs. It is normal to slam on the brakes, go over the speed bump, and then hit the gas. There is also an environmental cost for broken parts that need to be replaced and oil that leaks from broken oil pans.
I bet if you combined speed bumps with a decent gas tax (with tax discounts for business use) and eliminated the "light truck" tax loophole for SUVs [1], you'd probably wipe out the huge SUV syndrome.
Of course, SUVs are highly profitable for the auto and petroleum industries, heavily represented in lobbyist circles, so it's pretty much a no-go.
[1] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Small-Busines...
Of course, SUVs are highly profitable for the auto and petroleum industries, heavily represented in lobbyist circles, so it's pretty much a no-go.
[1] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Small-Busines...
> gas tax
"How to not get re-elected in the USA 101"
"How to not get re-elected in the USA 101"
Combining two things Americans hate very much, gas prices and taxes.
While I generally think speed bumps are a good thing your comment made me think.
Also I like the matter-of-factly / deadpan style.
Also I like the matter-of-factly / deadpan style.
It's a solution, obviously, because people will drive the speed you want them to, 25mph, on it!
Better idea: make the road actually safe at higher speed.
If you don't want people getting hit by cars, you need to make them visible. Get rid of parallel parking. Get rid of bushes and mailboxes near the road. If there is a sidewalk, put it 10 feet from the road. Get rid of roadside advertising.
With those changes, highway speeds are perfectly safe. People don't pop out from behind opaque objects if there are no opaque objects near the road, and people don't fall into the road if the sidewalk is set back. Drivers have plenty of warning when somebody approaches the road, and there they can pay full attention because the distractions have been removed.
If you don't want people getting hit by cars, you need to make them visible. Get rid of parallel parking. Get rid of bushes and mailboxes near the road. If there is a sidewalk, put it 10 feet from the road. Get rid of roadside advertising.
With those changes, highway speeds are perfectly safe. People don't pop out from behind opaque objects if there are no opaque objects near the road, and people don't fall into the road if the sidewalk is set back. Drivers have plenty of warning when somebody approaches the road, and there they can pay full attention because the distractions have been removed.
Giving drivers sight of pedestrians is good, but giving drivers to much open sight lines is bad. Open sight lines are exactly what make people drive faster. Mailbox near the road seem like a great idea to me. It communicates that people might be here, creates a visual obstacle that will get people to drive slower, and if you hit one, it doesn't cause a shit ton of damage (unlike, say, a tree).
As a counterpoint, having mailboxes right next to the road is a great way to wind up with your mailbox absolutely obliterated by the snowplow as it goes by...
[deleted]
Many ways to skin a cat. Design roads properly, sure. But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. Red light cameras certainly have that effect on red light running, and the negation just seems absurd to me. As a bonus, aggressive ticketing requires no new infrastructure.
What you propose is taking something that has essentially 0 effect on speed right now. And then doing that thing harder. Furthermore the result of not having an effect on speed but posting an authoritative sign that has little to no reflection of the actual speed has a detrimental effect on safety for pedestrians and non-automotive traffic.
There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result."
The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.
There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result."
The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.
I don't think either of the following have been established:
1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed.
2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all).
Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed.
2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all).
Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
The problem is that it's really an economic problem. The existing enforcement is a revenue generation method -- everybody exceeds the speed limit, so you can put a cop anywhere who can just sit there and hand out tickets. It's net income for the government, but there isn't enough enforcement to actually change behavior.
If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
That's an interesting technical problem. PID controllers answer a similar problem in control theory. I don't have the answer here, and I'm not certain there is one. It really depends on how many more cops we'd need to get to a state where enforcement can be rigorous, and whether we as a society prefer the tradeoff of paying for those enforcers to get safer roads. Tough question. But I like tricky questions aimed in a true direction better than easy, wrong answers like, "ticketing people has no effect on speeding."
If people were to stop speeding, perhaps there'd emerge a culture in which speeding is considered bad, reducing the need for traffic cops.
As soon as you stopped enforcing, people would speed again.
In cultures where e.g. drunk driving is considered an awful thing to do, people mostly self-regulate - there's some policing necessary, but it's not like the police are trying to stop something everyone wants to do. There's no reason it would be impossible to create a culture in which speeding is treated similarly.
There's quite a few countries in which people avoid speeding, even when there's no cameras around.
There's quite a few countries in which people avoid speeding, even when there's no cameras around.
Fair enough. The article may not have sufficiently established such a thing. But enforcement when it works is likely to only work when enforcement is frequent enough to create an expectation of getting caught. Given that this would require a significant increase in manpower to truly be effective I'm not sure it's sustainable.
I suppose you could find a way to automate it similar to red light cameras but even those have been shown to be rather ineffective at actually lowering the incidence of violations so I'm not sure anything less than the presence of a police vehicle with flashing lights that pulls up behind you would have an effect.
I suppose you could find a way to automate it similar to red light cameras but even those have been shown to be rather ineffective at actually lowering the incidence of violations so I'm not sure anything less than the presence of a police vehicle with flashing lights that pulls up behind you would have an effect.
> But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding.
It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect.
The question is: What's the goal?
The article shows you how to increase safety.
What is your goal in busting speeders?
It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect.
The question is: What's the goal?
The article shows you how to increase safety.
What is your goal in busting speeders?
Where in the article is there any experimental evidence, or evidence of any kind, that increasing speed limits increases safety? They found one guy who thinks it does, which is not very convincing.
My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
>When the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile speed, the minority of drivers that do conscientiously follow speed limits are no longer driving much slower than the speed of traffic. The choice of the 85th percentile speed is a data-driven conclusion -- as noted Lt. Megge and speed limit resources like the Michigan State Police’s guide -- that has been established by the consistent findings of years of traffic studies.
>This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
>This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
And again, because everyone thinks a speed it's safe doesn't mean a speed it's safe.
People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
Posting speed limits that reflect actual traffic speeds decreases speed variance and decreases the frequency of crashes.
That's actually safer.
That's actually safer.
speed and severity of crashes correlation is quite established in literature, so I'm gonna wait for a study to come up with conclusive statistical data stating speed variance correlates more with injuries than absolute speed.
until then, it's conjecture, feelings and wishful thinking.
edit: then again urban and highway situations are different, so there's that. but you have truck and slow traffic on the highway anyway thus increasing car limit does increase speed variation in that situation and would be detrimental whether variance or absolute speed are considered
until then, it's conjecture, feelings and wishful thinking.
edit: then again urban and highway situations are different, so there's that. but you have truck and slow traffic on the highway anyway thus increasing car limit does increase speed variation in that situation and would be detrimental whether variance or absolute speed are considered
Which studies? What did they show? Again, the fact that some guy claims a study shows he is right does not count for evidence.
The way to go are automated radars, that are clearly visible.
They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit.
Everyone sticks to the speed limit now.
A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either.
With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.
They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit.
Everyone sticks to the speed limit now.
A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either.
With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.
So you like the fact that the police know exactly where and when you drove? Because the licence plate tracking cameras require that, you know.
Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly.
Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5
Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly.
Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5
Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
I see. Your'e saying: since speed limits aren't perfect in all cases, so lets not have them at all.
I do believe in increasing personal responsibility of people and having less of a nanny state, so I do tend towards that answer, but it's really not that black and white. On highways and places where pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed - yes, no speed limit makes a lot of sense (and is available in Germany for example)
In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution.
I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.
In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution.
I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.
> They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit.
> Everyone sticks to the speed limit now.
Has this also resulted in traffic bunching up? That is, long lines of vehicles tailgating each other?
Has this also resulted in traffic bunching up? That is, long lines of vehicles tailgating each other?
I live near a couple of rural small-town speed traps. Yes, I have learned to set my cruise control to 45mph at the sign that is a ridiculous distance from town on otherwise normal highway to avoid tickets. The problem is, not everyone is a local, so you have people driving 45 and people trying to drive 60+ on a two lane highway with all the tailgating and reckless driving that entails. The speed trap isn't making anyone safer, it's just making those police departments richer.
Red light cameras increase accidents because people speed up if they think they are even slightly close to the limit.
Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.
Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.
Your ideas about what red light cameras do are contradicted by the actual studies done to see what red light cameras do. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
Red light cameras increase rear end collisions and decrease side impact collisions; but side impact collisions are more dangerous.
The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light.
But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light.
But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much - people just keep going through until the light turns red. At least in this state, as long as you have already entered an intersection before the light turns red, you haven't run the red light.
I would think that a better strategy would be to increase the delay before turning the next light green, after the last one turned red.
I would think that a better strategy would be to increase the delay before turning the next light green, after the last one turned red.
> In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much
Studies done in Virginia and Texas contradict that assertion. Increasing the yellow phase time decreased the incidence of red light running and the effect was sustained over time.
Studies done in Virginia and Texas contradict that assertion. Increasing the yellow phase time decreased the incidence of red light running and the effect was sustained over time.
I'm interested to read a citation that shows that increasing yellow light length is superior to RLCs. Please send it my way. Thank you.
Compare the percentages for right-angle crashes on page 63 of your link to the numbers here:
http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com...
Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com...
Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
This is interesting, but it seems to mostly be focused on violations rather than crashes. I can see how the two might be related. But I also somewhat suspect that early into red violations may not be the type of red light running that causes accidents the most.
That's not what your link says, there is a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. It found this by: The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes.
Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
It examined the extent to which the rear end crashes negated the economic advantages, and found that they did not fully negate the economic advantages. They instead had an economic advantage of ~40-50k USD per site per year. See pages 5, 68, 74. This is why it's important to go further into papers than just reading the abstract.
I say they increase accidents you say, that's not true they lower costs. I say that does not mean they lower accidents. You respond yes they do, they lower cost. Do you really want me to say that's not my argument using different words?
If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs.
PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.
If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs.
PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.
Around here red light cameras where removed. I heard it was because they where found to significantly increase accidents.
It's a complex matter. The company demands to retain control over the camera and makes the municipality pay rent if not enough tickets are issued.
Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
Around here is not US and while I haven't seen anything written about such incentives I think that might be because any setup like that would be found illegal.
Your "I heard" is not a relevant response to my linked meta-analysis.
You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. Traffic cameras have got to go.
This has been covered to death on here, but your accuser is the officer of the court who signs the ticket, not the camera.
For traffic violations where a law enforcement officer initiates a traffic stop, it's clear that the officer witnessed the violation and when issuing a citation, list details such as the make and model of the vehicle, the identity of the driver, the location of the offense and what what the offense was.
If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc.
He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc.
He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
Has there been something more recent than this case?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf
"Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg.
In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable."
The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf
"Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg.
In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable."
The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.
Yes, there have been a lot of unsuccessful defenses based around the camera being your accuser, here's the first one I found.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html
> there is a clear correlation between higher speeds and higher fatality rates
But according to the article, there is little or no correlation between the posted speed limit and the actual speeds at which people drive. So lowering the speed limit does not actually reduce fatality rates. But it does, as others have commented, creaet a misperception of what the actual expected speeds are on a road, which increases risk.
> Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them?
Because that would be way too expensive, not just in the increased cost of cops but in the lost time of all the people getting stopped even though they are driving at about the average speed of other drivers on the road--which, as the article notes, is the biggest factor in traffic safety.
The enforcement algorithm that most cops appear to actually use is to go after people who are going significantly faster than average, i.e., who are increasing the variance in speeds and therefore the risk of an accident.
> instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
This assumes that driving over the posted speed limit must equate to "driving irresponsibly". I strongly disagree with this assumption, and so, I suspect, do many others.
But according to the article, there is little or no correlation between the posted speed limit and the actual speeds at which people drive. So lowering the speed limit does not actually reduce fatality rates. But it does, as others have commented, creaet a misperception of what the actual expected speeds are on a road, which increases risk.
> Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them?
Because that would be way too expensive, not just in the increased cost of cops but in the lost time of all the people getting stopped even though they are driving at about the average speed of other drivers on the road--which, as the article notes, is the biggest factor in traffic safety.
The enforcement algorithm that most cops appear to actually use is to go after people who are going significantly faster than average, i.e., who are increasing the variance in speeds and therefore the risk of an accident.
> instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
This assumes that driving over the posted speed limit must equate to "driving irresponsibly". I strongly disagree with this assumption, and so, I suspect, do many others.
> Because that would be way too expensive, not just in the increased cost of cops but in the lost time of all the people getting stopped
You can automate it for much less than what traditional cop labour costs, and speeding ticket revenue would pay for the automation. If there was more enforcement, people would keep to the speed limits more frequently and there would be less stops. It's a control system with a feedback loop.
You can automate it for much less than what traditional cop labour costs, and speeding ticket revenue would pay for the automation. If there was more enforcement, people would keep to the speed limits more frequently and there would be less stops. It's a control system with a feedback loop.
France is a natural experiment for that, they have a lot of automated speed traps.
They really ramped up automated radar deployment in 2003-2007, I spent 10 minutes trying to find data that would let me see at a glance if accidents went down more than usual starting in 2003 but didn't find anything straightforward.
Anecdotally, most people who speed just slow down at the traps, then accelerate back. I'm not sure that's much safer than going steady at the higher speed.
They really ramped up automated radar deployment in 2003-2007, I spent 10 minutes trying to find data that would let me see at a glance if accidents went down more than usual starting in 2003 but didn't find anything straightforward.
Anecdotally, most people who speed just slow down at the traps, then accelerate back. I'm not sure that's much safer than going steady at the higher speed.
I found this about France, reporting very encouraging results:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00430965/document
> This public policy has yielded remarkable road toll statistics. The number of fatalities has diminished by over 40% since 2002, and the authorities are speaking of 12,000 lives saved since the new policy was implemented. The number of injuries avoided is also considerable, even if the fatality figures are those that draw most attention from official decision makers and the media.
--
The "slowing down for camera" behaviour might be less of aproblem, if camera locations are biased towards safety critical places. But it also has a fairly simple technical solution: average speed cameras. These work by timing vehicle sightings between two cameras.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00430965/document
> This public policy has yielded remarkable road toll statistics. The number of fatalities has diminished by over 40% since 2002, and the authorities are speaking of 12,000 lives saved since the new policy was implemented. The number of injuries avoided is also considerable, even if the fatality figures are those that draw most attention from official decision makers and the media.
--
The "slowing down for camera" behaviour might be less of aproblem, if camera locations are biased towards safety critical places. But it also has a fairly simple technical solution: average speed cameras. These work by timing vehicle sightings between two cameras.
> Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them?
As long as we do it consistently, actually stop people, and do it across the country... which is pretty hard. The are quite a few issues with just extra ticketing because speeding is dangerous.
The worst ideas imo are the automated checks during holidays. So you get caught on a random road, in a place you're never coming back to. You pay the ticket you get a week after the fact, and what changed? You were still speeding during the busy holiday weekend, you'll likely forget about it next year.
Another one is small speeding (5 km/h) fines in residential area. You're constantly changing direction, slowing down and starting again. Would you rather people paid attention to their dashboard to keep the right speed, or actually looked around for people/cars?
As much as people made fun of it, I liked the idea that was used in Poland (maybe still is?) where instead of actual cameras or patrols, a simple plastic shape of a car painted like the police cars was placed near the road. [0] Works great on non local people and sometimes you would get an actual police car behind it to stop people who get used to / ignore that warning.
[0] https://creators-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage...
As long as we do it consistently, actually stop people, and do it across the country... which is pretty hard. The are quite a few issues with just extra ticketing because speeding is dangerous.
The worst ideas imo are the automated checks during holidays. So you get caught on a random road, in a place you're never coming back to. You pay the ticket you get a week after the fact, and what changed? You were still speeding during the busy holiday weekend, you'll likely forget about it next year.
Another one is small speeding (5 km/h) fines in residential area. You're constantly changing direction, slowing down and starting again. Would you rather people paid attention to their dashboard to keep the right speed, or actually looked around for people/cars?
As much as people made fun of it, I liked the idea that was used in Poland (maybe still is?) where instead of actual cameras or patrols, a simple plastic shape of a car painted like the police cars was placed near the road. [0] Works great on non local people and sometimes you would get an actual police car behind it to stop people who get used to / ignore that warning.
[0] https://creators-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage...
Consistent enforcement is not hard: photo traffic enforcement devices.
Sure, if you don't mind penalizing people who have caused no harm. I strongly disagree with that approach.
This comment is utter nonsense. First off, how is that any different from enforcement from a cop? Secondly, why do we have to wait until someone actually causes an accident? Breaking the speed limit, driving drunk, running red lights isn't bad enough?
I think I've addressed these questions already in other posts in this subthread.
So you're okay with people driving while drunk or high as well?
They might not cause any harm too.
They might not cause any harm too.
If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should.
You seem to think that anything that is legal must be "ok". That is certainly not the position I am taking. Lots of things are legal that I do not think are "ok", and some things that are illegal and I think should not be (such as mere possession of drugs), are still not "ok" to me. I would not advise anyone to drive while drunk or high, and if someone does it and manages to not cause harm, they were lucky and shouldn't expect to be so lucky if they try it again. And if their parents or spouses or significant others want to penalize them for doing something so stupid, that's fine with me. I just don't think the law should penalize them unless they actually cause harm.
You seem to think that anything that is legal must be "ok". That is certainly not the position I am taking. Lots of things are legal that I do not think are "ok", and some things that are illegal and I think should not be (such as mere possession of drugs), are still not "ok" to me. I would not advise anyone to drive while drunk or high, and if someone does it and manages to not cause harm, they were lucky and shouldn't expect to be so lucky if they try it again. And if their parents or spouses or significant others want to penalize them for doing something so stupid, that's fine with me. I just don't think the law should penalize them unless they actually cause harm.
>If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should.
I think that drunk driving checkpoints are often taken advantage of to work around the 4th amendment, but making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US.
What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me?
Is it OK for me to drag race down a residential street at 120mph as long as I don't hit anything?
Lets say the guy next door decides that he's going to build a nuclear reactor. Do you have to wait until your hair starts falling out to stop him?
Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm. Does drunk driving not cross that threshold for you? Where is the limit for you personally?
I think that drunk driving checkpoints are often taken advantage of to work around the 4th amendment, but making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US.
What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me?
Is it OK for me to drag race down a residential street at 120mph as long as I don't hit anything?
Lets say the guy next door decides that he's going to build a nuclear reactor. Do you have to wait until your hair starts falling out to stop him?
Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm. Does drunk driving not cross that threshold for you? Where is the limit for you personally?
You added some more items while I was posting my first response, so I'll address them separately here.
Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm.
Clearly in our current system we do this, yes. And clearly it doesn't always work (as we see in the drunk driving numbers). And even in cases where it does "work", I think that's more because of the cost of the dangerous behavior--very few private individuals have enough wealth to be able to build their own personal nuclear reactor, and the ones that do appear to have better things to do with their wealth--than because of legal prohibitions. ("My house has anti-tiger protection." "But there are no tigers within thousands of miles of your house." "See how well my protection works?")
The fundamental problem is that some people have a propensity to do stupid and dangerous things. How do we stop them? Legal prohibitions don't seem to work very well. (If personal nuclear reactors were affordable, do you think making them illegal would really stop all the people who want to build one?) Plus, legal prohibitions preempt other possible methods, and reduce respect for the law, and undermine personal responsibility. So what are they really gaining us?
Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm.
Clearly in our current system we do this, yes. And clearly it doesn't always work (as we see in the drunk driving numbers). And even in cases where it does "work", I think that's more because of the cost of the dangerous behavior--very few private individuals have enough wealth to be able to build their own personal nuclear reactor, and the ones that do appear to have better things to do with their wealth--than because of legal prohibitions. ("My house has anti-tiger protection." "But there are no tigers within thousands of miles of your house." "See how well my protection works?")
The fundamental problem is that some people have a propensity to do stupid and dangerous things. How do we stop them? Legal prohibitions don't seem to work very well. (If personal nuclear reactors were affordable, do you think making them illegal would really stop all the people who want to build one?) Plus, legal prohibitions preempt other possible methods, and reduce respect for the law, and undermine personal responsibility. So what are they really gaining us?
>The fundamental problem is that some people have a propensity to do stupid and dangerous things. How do we stop them?
And fundamentally the only way to stop some people from doing stupid and dangerous things is with force.
Let's say my neighbor sets up steel target in his backyard. Directly behind the target is my kid's swingset.
My neighbor insists that he is such a good shot that he will never miss. He hasn't actually caused any damage yet.
Let's assume my neighbor is an asshole and asking him (and other forms of social pressure won't work).
You've taken the libertarian anti-regulation stance much further than anyone I've ever met. Most libertarians would say that the mere threat of him missing the target causes me harm, just like the threat of swinging a sword around on a crowded sidewalk causes harm.
> Legal prohibitions don't seem to work very well.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You can't seriously look at the history of regulation over the past century or so and not realize that there are some successes and some failures.
I used to be a hardcore libertarian when I was younger, but I've learned that the world is rarely binary. Dogmatic approaches to governance rarely work, and no regulation is just as bad as a command economy.
The search for a simple set of fundamental governing principles is a search for elegance--the same as trying to design an algorithm with no edge cases and no exceptions. The problem is that I've yet to encounter a system that didn't require edge cases and exceptions.
And fundamentally the only way to stop some people from doing stupid and dangerous things is with force.
Let's say my neighbor sets up steel target in his backyard. Directly behind the target is my kid's swingset.
My neighbor insists that he is such a good shot that he will never miss. He hasn't actually caused any damage yet.
Let's assume my neighbor is an asshole and asking him (and other forms of social pressure won't work).
You've taken the libertarian anti-regulation stance much further than anyone I've ever met. Most libertarians would say that the mere threat of him missing the target causes me harm, just like the threat of swinging a sword around on a crowded sidewalk causes harm.
> Legal prohibitions don't seem to work very well.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You can't seriously look at the history of regulation over the past century or so and not realize that there are some successes and some failures.
I used to be a hardcore libertarian when I was younger, but I've learned that the world is rarely binary. Dogmatic approaches to governance rarely work, and no regulation is just as bad as a command economy.
The search for a simple set of fundamental governing principles is a search for elegance--the same as trying to design an algorithm with no edge cases and no exceptions. The problem is that I've yet to encounter a system that didn't require edge cases and exceptions.
making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US.
And every drunk driver who causes a death should be penalized, no question. But penalizing people who have caused no harm undermines people's respect for the law. It also undermines personal responsibility: people figure that if it's legal, it must be ok, instead of exercising their own judgment.
Actually, the very fact you quote should make you doubt the effectiveness of penalizing drunk drivers who have not caused harm. Everyone knows you can lose your license for drunk driving, yet drunk driving still causes 10k deaths per year? What sort of draconian system would it take to actually deter all those drunk drivers if the law is the only tool we have to do it? I don't want to find that out.
What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me?
Once again, you're conflating "legal" with "ok". Obviously walking down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over your head is stupid and carries a huge risk of harm. And everyone around you should be ducking and screaming at you to stop, for goodness' sake, you're going to hurt someone. But no, the law should not punish you unless you actually do hurt someone.
Your underlying fallacy here is that the only way to prevent people from doing something is to make it illegal. That is both too weak and too strong. Too weak, because, as noted above, even severe legal penalties aren't sufficient to deter some people (including, apparently, 10k drunk drivers a year). Too strong, because there are lots of ways to deter people without any legal penalties whatsoever--but that requires us, as individuals, to take responsibility for regulating our own behavior and pointing out obviously stupid and dangerous things that others around us are doing and asking them to stop, and imposing non-legal penalties if they don't. Sorry, you can't come into my house with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry, you can't come into my store with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry... Pretty soon the idiot will get the idea that nobody is going to interact with him if he persists in swinging his sword around all the time. (Applying similar logic to people who are prone to try driving while drunk is left as an exercise for the reader.)
And every drunk driver who causes a death should be penalized, no question. But penalizing people who have caused no harm undermines people's respect for the law. It also undermines personal responsibility: people figure that if it's legal, it must be ok, instead of exercising their own judgment.
Actually, the very fact you quote should make you doubt the effectiveness of penalizing drunk drivers who have not caused harm. Everyone knows you can lose your license for drunk driving, yet drunk driving still causes 10k deaths per year? What sort of draconian system would it take to actually deter all those drunk drivers if the law is the only tool we have to do it? I don't want to find that out.
What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me?
Once again, you're conflating "legal" with "ok". Obviously walking down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over your head is stupid and carries a huge risk of harm. And everyone around you should be ducking and screaming at you to stop, for goodness' sake, you're going to hurt someone. But no, the law should not punish you unless you actually do hurt someone.
Your underlying fallacy here is that the only way to prevent people from doing something is to make it illegal. That is both too weak and too strong. Too weak, because, as noted above, even severe legal penalties aren't sufficient to deter some people (including, apparently, 10k drunk drivers a year). Too strong, because there are lots of ways to deter people without any legal penalties whatsoever--but that requires us, as individuals, to take responsibility for regulating our own behavior and pointing out obviously stupid and dangerous things that others around us are doing and asking them to stop, and imposing non-legal penalties if they don't. Sorry, you can't come into my house with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry, you can't come into my store with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry... Pretty soon the idiot will get the idea that nobody is going to interact with him if he persists in swinging his sword around all the time. (Applying similar logic to people who are prone to try driving while drunk is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Look at the number of drunk driving deaths (and accidents) from 30 years ago or so and you'll notice that the rate has been dropping since enforcement became more regular. Of course some of that is likely from social pressure, but most studies have shown that enforcement does reduce the number of drunk driving deaths.
But let's not argue in vague generalities about using social pressure instead of laws.
A company builds a nuclear plant on Lake Michigan. There is a 10% chance per year that the plant will fail. The failure will catastrophically damage Lake Michigan and the surrounding area. The company decides that it's worth it.
Under your system, a boycott is the only way to stop them?
A lab decides to manufacture biological weapons to sell to dictators. There is no chance of a boycott doing any good because the owner doesn't sell to anyone in the US. There is a 5% chance per year that safety procedures will fail, releasing a virus that will kill an estimated 50 million people in the US.
Under your system, what do we do about it?
These hypothetical situations are extreme, but I'm trying to find out what your limits are. Because I really don't think you've thought this through.
But let's not argue in vague generalities about using social pressure instead of laws.
A company builds a nuclear plant on Lake Michigan. There is a 10% chance per year that the plant will fail. The failure will catastrophically damage Lake Michigan and the surrounding area. The company decides that it's worth it.
Under your system, a boycott is the only way to stop them?
A lab decides to manufacture biological weapons to sell to dictators. There is no chance of a boycott doing any good because the owner doesn't sell to anyone in the US. There is a 5% chance per year that safety procedures will fail, releasing a virus that will kill an estimated 50 million people in the US.
Under your system, what do we do about it?
These hypothetical situations are extreme, but I'm trying to find out what your limits are. Because I really don't think you've thought this through.
The point of the law is to discourage behaviour that we have agreed as a society should be discouraged.
In some cases, the person who might have an adverse impact of a decision is someone other than the person taking it. And sometimes the impact of that decision may be irreversible.
In those kinds of circumstances, we, as a society have to ask whether the externalised risks (i.e. the risk that person A imposes on person B, against their will or knowledge) outweigh the curtailing of rights (i.e. the right to do whatever I like) that a restriction would impose.
While I don't think that laws are the only way to prevent someone from doing something bad, I will leave you with a potential downside to what you're suggesting:
Lets say someone is rich/powerful, would the rules apply the same to them in your scenario? Should they?
In some cases, the person who might have an adverse impact of a decision is someone other than the person taking it. And sometimes the impact of that decision may be irreversible.
In those kinds of circumstances, we, as a society have to ask whether the externalised risks (i.e. the risk that person A imposes on person B, against their will or knowledge) outweigh the curtailing of rights (i.e. the right to do whatever I like) that a restriction would impose.
While I don't think that laws are the only way to prevent someone from doing something bad, I will leave you with a potential downside to what you're suggesting:
Lets say someone is rich/powerful, would the rules apply the same to them in your scenario? Should they?
The obvious scenario is firearms.
I can take concealed firearms into a public space start firing into the air with no intention of hurting people, and so long as I don't accidentally hurt anyone, the law is powerless to stop me.
No one wants to let me into their store? Ok. I'll just walk down the street and shoot into the air!
I can take concealed firearms into a public space start firing into the air with no intention of hurting people, and so long as I don't accidentally hurt anyone, the law is powerless to stop me.
No one wants to let me into their store? Ok. I'll just walk down the street and shoot into the air!
[deleted]
How much danger should I be allowed to put you in without repurcusions? Should I be allowed to point a loaded firearm at you? As long as I don't pull the trigger I'm not causing any harm. I'm pretty sure most people would appreciate the police getting involved in this type of situation.
Thanks for explaining your position. I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits. While former increase chances for incident later increase lethality and in the end only risk for human injuries / life are matter.
While I don't think that anything legal must be "ok" and law is perfect I still don't agree with you and there is serious reasons for that. First of all one can simply be "lucky" with careless driving or just straight defective brakes.
Second I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin. Even with extreme amount of corruption it's still forced almost everyone to use seat belts, pass vehicle inspection regularly and avoid breaking the law if there is chance that will end up with loss of their driving license or huge bribe. I totally sure that without proper enforcement that would be never achieved otherwise.
Third is that I seen the difference between driving behaviour in the UK and Asia and while UK system cause a lot of false positives lethality numbers make a big deal. Even if enforcement is not the only measure to calm traffic it's important one. I really can't see how one can justify that 3x-10x more people going die.
Last reason is that I simply not believe that society on it's own can change driver behaviour as effective (if at all) as enforcement. Fines and tickets work because they are market mechanism like fuel and horsepower taxes, paid parking and London's congestion charge, etc.
Also there are plenty of other laws that limit overtaking on sidewalk, illegal parking and many more that only work because there are enforced. Remove them and streets of any country will slowly turn into hell.
UPD: Grammar fixes.
While I don't think that anything legal must be "ok" and law is perfect I still don't agree with you and there is serious reasons for that. First of all one can simply be "lucky" with careless driving or just straight defective brakes.
Second I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin. Even with extreme amount of corruption it's still forced almost everyone to use seat belts, pass vehicle inspection regularly and avoid breaking the law if there is chance that will end up with loss of their driving license or huge bribe. I totally sure that without proper enforcement that would be never achieved otherwise.
Third is that I seen the difference between driving behaviour in the UK and Asia and while UK system cause a lot of false positives lethality numbers make a big deal. Even if enforcement is not the only measure to calm traffic it's important one. I really can't see how one can justify that 3x-10x more people going die.
Last reason is that I simply not believe that society on it's own can change driver behaviour as effective (if at all) as enforcement. Fines and tickets work because they are market mechanism like fuel and horsepower taxes, paid parking and London's congestion charge, etc.
Also there are plenty of other laws that limit overtaking on sidewalk, illegal parking and many more that only work because there are enforced. Remove them and streets of any country will slowly turn into hell.
UPD: Grammar fixes.
> I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits.
I see a big difference. Driving drunk/high impairs your judgment; it means you are less capable of knowing what a safe speed is (as well as being less able to judge many other factors). So it obviously increases risk.
Violating the speed limit, assuming you are sober, might not increase risk at all, because the driver has more information about the conditions in the particular situation than whoever set the posted speed limit, and therefore is better able to judge what a safe speed is. His judgment might be (and often is, if typical behavior on highways in the US is any indication) that the posted speed limit is too low--that speeds higher than that limit are still safe. I don't see any basis for saying that he must always be wrong and the posted speed limit must always be right.
> I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin
I didn't say that law enforcement doesn't change behavior. Of course it does. The question is, at what cost? And is the cost less than the benefit? Could the same (or greater) benefit be achieved at a lower cost by some other method.
Your own description suggests very large costs that you do not appear to be taking into account: you speak of "extreme amount of corruption" and "huge bribe". What cost does your society as a whole bear as a result of these things, compared to a society in which people are held strictly responsible when they cause harm and know they can't bribe their way out of being punished?
I see a big difference. Driving drunk/high impairs your judgment; it means you are less capable of knowing what a safe speed is (as well as being less able to judge many other factors). So it obviously increases risk.
Violating the speed limit, assuming you are sober, might not increase risk at all, because the driver has more information about the conditions in the particular situation than whoever set the posted speed limit, and therefore is better able to judge what a safe speed is. His judgment might be (and often is, if typical behavior on highways in the US is any indication) that the posted speed limit is too low--that speeds higher than that limit are still safe. I don't see any basis for saying that he must always be wrong and the posted speed limit must always be right.
> I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin
I didn't say that law enforcement doesn't change behavior. Of course it does. The question is, at what cost? And is the cost less than the benefit? Could the same (or greater) benefit be achieved at a lower cost by some other method.
Your own description suggests very large costs that you do not appear to be taking into account: you speak of "extreme amount of corruption" and "huge bribe". What cost does your society as a whole bear as a result of these things, compared to a society in which people are held strictly responsible when they cause harm and know they can't bribe their way out of being punished?
The article does not claim that we have no control over speeding. We do have control over or speed in numerous ways. The article merely says that signs have little impact on how fast a community goes on any stretch of road... other factors end up being more of a factor. At the same time, road safety is not as strongly tied to the speed of traffic.
This article has an attention-grabbing headline (cop says to increase speeds!), but really it's drawing attention to how there are many factors that go into road usage and laws and there are places where people are starting to take these other factors into account. Sounds like a micro-level revolution in how the executive branch of US government operates.
This article has an attention-grabbing headline (cop says to increase speeds!), but really it's drawing attention to how there are many factors that go into road usage and laws and there are places where people are starting to take these other factors into account. Sounds like a micro-level revolution in how the executive branch of US government operates.
> All while skirting the fact that there is a clear correlation between higher speeds and higher fatality rates.
The NMSL was repealed in 1995 (22 years ago). Most states have raised their interstate highway speed limits from 55 or 65 mph to 70 mph and beyond. Yet, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has dropped substantially since 1995.
Therefore, higher speeds do not have a correlation with higher fatality rates.
The NMSL was repealed in 1995 (22 years ago). Most states have raised their interstate highway speed limits from 55 or 65 mph to 70 mph and beyond. Yet, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has dropped substantially since 1995.
Therefore, higher speeds do not have a correlation with higher fatality rates.
Vehicle safety is a significant confounder here. It is possible that increased deaths from higher limits was more than offset by mandatory airbags, anti lock disc brakes, crumple zones, etc.
Actually it's pretty neat how much safer cars in America have gotten since then.
Actually it's pretty neat how much safer cars in America have gotten since then.
While that is true between 1995 and 2005, if you look at the data [1] between 2005 (roughly 10 years after both drivers and passenger side airbags were required equipment) and 2015, you can see the fatality rate dropped from 1.46 down to 1.08
Given the average age of a vehicle on the road is about 10 years give or take, then by 2005, the majority of vehicles had both drivers and passenger side air bags and crumple zones. Traffic speeds have also increased to some extent in the last 10 years as well.
[1] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Given the average age of a vehicle on the road is about 10 years give or take, then by 2005, the majority of vehicles had both drivers and passenger side air bags and crumple zones. Traffic speeds have also increased to some extent in the last 10 years as well.
[1] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
There are other new safety features introduced on many cars since then. Vehicle stability control is a big one.
Vehicle stability control is a big one.
In some situations, but in other situations it seems to be a negative (at least as implemented on my car, a '13 Hyundai Genesis Coupe).
I can see that it's helpful for low-traction situations where it's just protecting the driver from losing control.
But on my car it has a really annoying, and I think dangerous, side effect. You'll note that difference in wheel speed from left to right is what triggers the stability control behavior, and that this delta is proportionately greater for tighter-radius turns, the ultimate example of which is a right turn from a stop sign or driveway. And the effect of it is to severely limit the force applied to the wheels (whether by pulling back the throttle or by applying a brake to the affected wheel).
But that right turn, when I'm trying to merge into traffic on a road with a 60mph speed limit, is exactly where I need the power to accelerate. So I see a break in traffic, turn onto the road, a tire slips on a bit of sand, and then I'm stuck wallowing there with no power, watching my mirrors as a car barrels down on me from behind.
I've learned that I get the best results if I make the first thing I do when I get into the car, to turn off the traction control unless the pavement is wet.
In some situations, but in other situations it seems to be a negative (at least as implemented on my car, a '13 Hyundai Genesis Coupe).
I can see that it's helpful for low-traction situations where it's just protecting the driver from losing control.
But on my car it has a really annoying, and I think dangerous, side effect. You'll note that difference in wheel speed from left to right is what triggers the stability control behavior, and that this delta is proportionately greater for tighter-radius turns, the ultimate example of which is a right turn from a stop sign or driveway. And the effect of it is to severely limit the force applied to the wheels (whether by pulling back the throttle or by applying a brake to the affected wheel).
But that right turn, when I'm trying to merge into traffic on a road with a 60mph speed limit, is exactly where I need the power to accelerate. So I see a break in traffic, turn onto the road, a tire slips on a bit of sand, and then I'm stuck wallowing there with no power, watching my mirrors as a car barrels down on me from behind.
I've learned that I get the best results if I make the first thing I do when I get into the car, to turn off the traction control unless the pavement is wet.
The NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway safety estimate that stability control could prevent 1/3 of fatal accidents.
Studies show it's effective. Of course it depends on the car, but I've never found it to be a problem unless I'm driving like I'm at the track.
Also where are you turning right onto a road with a 60mph speed limit with no merging lane?
Studies show it's effective. Of course it depends on the car, but I've never found it to be a problem unless I'm driving like I'm at the track.
Also where are you turning right onto a road with a 60mph speed limit with no merging lane?
Studies show it's effective.
I agree that it's doing a good job in keeping me from breaking my tires free, which could lead to losing control. But I'm skeptical that enforcing these tactics blindly in all cases (as my car does) is the best overall strategy.
where are you turning right onto a road with a 60mph speed limit with no merging lane?
Specifically, US 290 west of Austin TX. But this seems to be the norm in much of Texas.
I agree that it's doing a good job in keeping me from breaking my tires free, which could lead to losing control. But I'm skeptical that enforcing these tactics blindly in all cases (as my car does) is the best overall strategy.
where are you turning right onto a road with a 60mph speed limit with no merging lane?
Specifically, US 290 west of Austin TX. But this seems to be the norm in much of Texas.
>But I'm skeptical that enforcing these tactics blindly in all cases (as my car does) is the best overall strategy.
It's not optimal strategy in all cases. But driving 100% of the time with electronic stability control (for which traction control is required) on results in an overall safety benefit as opposed to driving with traction control off 100% of the time. Which is why it is a required feature in all new cars.
>Specifically, US 290 west of Austin TX. But this seems to be the norm in much of Texas.
That's crazy. I've seen something like that in very rural areas, but even then the speed limit was only 55.
It's not optimal strategy in all cases. But driving 100% of the time with electronic stability control (for which traction control is required) on results in an overall safety benefit as opposed to driving with traction control off 100% of the time. Which is why it is a required feature in all new cars.
>Specifically, US 290 west of Austin TX. But this seems to be the norm in much of Texas.
That's crazy. I've seen something like that in very rural areas, but even then the speed limit was only 55.
This is the most dangerous thing about stability control - if you've learned how to drive without it, your instincts are going to be all wrong when it tries to compensate for what it thinks is happening. It's the same problem with ABS brakes, which can be terrifying if it's a little icy and you're expecting them to lock up properly.
I also wonder what's going to happen when those sensors get a little screwed up and start to fail. Or when you put different tires on, or make any modifications to the suspension.
I also wonder what's going to happen when those sensors get a little screwed up and start to fail. Or when you put different tires on, or make any modifications to the suspension.
It's the same problem with ABS brakes
I get your meaning, but any difference with ABS isn't going to put you in harm's way (except some really rare cases of deep snow, where the effect of your tires pushing the snow provides extra resistance). All you have to do with ABS is trust it, but even if you don't it'll work out fine.
But in this case, you've got your mind calibrated to how you know your car can accelerate, and the safety of the maneuver is contingent on the car living up to it. But the stability control makes the car say, "no, I'm not going to do it", leaving you hanging out there in danger.
I get your meaning, but any difference with ABS isn't going to put you in harm's way (except some really rare cases of deep snow, where the effect of your tires pushing the snow provides extra resistance). All you have to do with ABS is trust it, but even if you don't it'll work out fine.
But in this case, you've got your mind calibrated to how you know your car can accelerate, and the safety of the maneuver is contingent on the car living up to it. But the stability control makes the car say, "no, I'm not going to do it", leaving you hanging out there in danger.
Vehicle stability control isn't mandated by NHTSA, and I don't think that it's a feature on a substantial portion of the vehicle fleet.
You would have to look at what vehicle safety features were mandated between 2000 and 2010 to really see if any of them played a part in the decline in the fatality rate in the 2005 to 2015 time period.
You would have to look at what vehicle safety features were mandated between 2000 and 2010 to really see if any of them played a part in the decline in the fatality rate in the 2005 to 2015 time period.
Electronic stability control has been mandated by the NHTSA since 2012 (they required at least 55% of 2009 models sold to be equipped with it, 75% of 2010 models, and 95% of 2011 models)
Also in 2007 about half of all new cars sold were equipped with it.
The NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway safety estimate that stability control could prevent 1/3 of fatal accidents.
If a substantial portion of cars started to be equipped with it around 2005 (they did), it's a likely explanation for a decline in traffic fatalities since then.
Also in 2007 about half of all new cars sold were equipped with it.
The NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway safety estimate that stability control could prevent 1/3 of fatal accidents.
If a substantial portion of cars started to be equipped with it around 2005 (they did), it's a likely explanation for a decline in traffic fatalities since then.
> Electronic stability control has been mandated by the NHTSA since 2012 (they required at least 55% of 2009 models sold to be equipped with it, 75% of 2010 models, and 95% of 2011 models)
I should have looked that up before stating the opposite. My mistake.
> Also in 2007 about half of all new cars sold were equipped with it.
I've read that the average vehicle age is about 10 years. That means that only now are we getting to the point where the vast majority of vehicles would be equipped with electronic stability control. Looking at the FARS page I cited earlier, the decline in fatality rate is pretty clear, but how prevalent ESP was and how much it changed in that time period is not as clear (at least I don't have the data for it).
I should have looked that up before stating the opposite. My mistake.
> Also in 2007 about half of all new cars sold were equipped with it.
I've read that the average vehicle age is about 10 years. That means that only now are we getting to the point where the vast majority of vehicles would be equipped with electronic stability control. Looking at the FARS page I cited earlier, the decline in fatality rate is pretty clear, but how prevalent ESP was and how much it changed in that time period is not as clear (at least I don't have the data for it).
Some very back of the envelope math shows that each year about 7% of vehicles are replaced each year, so by 2012 we can estimate that about 35% of cars would have been 2007 models or newer.
So by 2012 we have a minimum of 17% of cars with electronic stability control (probably much higher given that by 2010 75% of cars sold were mandated to include it). If cars with electronic stability control are really involved in 1/3 few accidents, then we'd expect a very sizeable decrease in vehicle fatalities due to electronic stability control alone by 2012 and probably much earlier.
So by 2012 we have a minimum of 17% of cars with electronic stability control (probably much higher given that by 2010 75% of cars sold were mandated to include it). If cars with electronic stability control are really involved in 1/3 few accidents, then we'd expect a very sizeable decrease in vehicle fatalities due to electronic stability control alone by 2012 and probably much earlier.
After the city put in a speed limit sign with radar that shows speed, kids put up a high score list under the signs. I thought it was hilarious and scary.
> Why not enforce speed limits more frequently so people obey them?
Personally, I prefer to see police enforce more meaningful laws and investigate crimes where there are actual victims involved.
Personally, I prefer to see police enforce more meaningful laws and investigate crimes where there are actual victims involved.
Like hit and runs?
Yes. Seems like drunk driving is a key contributor to that:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/hit-an...
> Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
The article addresses this. the posted speed limit doesn't affect how fast people drive (slow or fast). They drive as fast as is comfortable regardless.
Posting a higher speed limit doesn't make people drive faster. But it does give a clearer warning to pedestrians and parents as to what the probably speed of drivers is, so they can take the appropriate cautions.
> it argues we have no control over speeding. And then it suggests places that ticket aggressively are behaving irresponsibly, to the point of villafying a town in Missouri for enforcing its speeding laws.
He doesn't argue that we have no control. Only that posted speed limits aren't effective as a control measure. The point of discussing the towns that use traffic violations as a revenue source is that, if posted speed limits aren't effective at creating safer drivers, then the only reason to use super low speed limits is to generate revenue which is a conflict of interest and counter productive for the reasons stated above.
The article addresses this. the posted speed limit doesn't affect how fast people drive (slow or fast). They drive as fast as is comfortable regardless.
Posting a higher speed limit doesn't make people drive faster. But it does give a clearer warning to pedestrians and parents as to what the probably speed of drivers is, so they can take the appropriate cautions.
> it argues we have no control over speeding. And then it suggests places that ticket aggressively are behaving irresponsibly, to the point of villafying a town in Missouri for enforcing its speeding laws.
He doesn't argue that we have no control. Only that posted speed limits aren't effective as a control measure. The point of discussing the towns that use traffic violations as a revenue source is that, if posted speed limits aren't effective at creating safer drivers, then the only reason to use super low speed limits is to generate revenue which is a conflict of interest and counter productive for the reasons stated above.
That small town in Missouri was in fact violating the law, and as the article pointed out.
> Why suggest a worse solution (encouraging all drivers to go faster) instead of punishing more people for driving irresponsibly?
This is the same logic that failed in the "War on Drugs". First off, there's a false dichotomy between proscribing a behavior and encouraging it. And strict enforcement of a "crime" that it turns out lots of people commit on a regular basis doesn't really work so well.
This is the same logic that failed in the "War on Drugs". First off, there's a false dichotomy between proscribing a behavior and encouraging it. And strict enforcement of a "crime" that it turns out lots of people commit on a regular basis doesn't really work so well.
I think the problematic logic of the War on Drugs is a bit subtler than "If some people want to do something, it's a bad idea to make it illegal."
Off the top of my head: Many of the drugs in question are responsible for far fewer deaths than cars are, and so it's not obvious why the penalty fits the crime and there's a strong argument for outright legalization. Many of the drugs are physically addictive and not merely something people want to do with full free will; many people arrested would be happy to stop doing drugs if they got treatment instead. The war involved foreign policy and foreign military activity, whereas nobody is suggesting that we bomb Toyota if they refuse to make slower cars. The war has been waged particularly aggressively among historically-oppressed races and classes (cf. The New Jim Crow), whereas no directly analogous danger exists from enforcing low speed limits.
Off the top of my head: Many of the drugs in question are responsible for far fewer deaths than cars are, and so it's not obvious why the penalty fits the crime and there's a strong argument for outright legalization. Many of the drugs are physically addictive and not merely something people want to do with full free will; many people arrested would be happy to stop doing drugs if they got treatment instead. The war involved foreign policy and foreign military activity, whereas nobody is suggesting that we bomb Toyota if they refuse to make slower cars. The war has been waged particularly aggressively among historically-oppressed races and classes (cf. The New Jim Crow), whereas no directly analogous danger exists from enforcing low speed limits.
Alameda CA has all of that too. 25MPH speed limit over most of the city, heavy enforcement of traffic laws, narrow lanes, wide bike lanes, walk buttons with flashers, raised crosswalks for visibility. People still speed but much less so that in neighboring cities
No, that isn't really what it's saying.
Vilifying
You're right (though I like the idea of villafying a town, which I suppose would mean filling it with large Mediterranean-style dwellings) but this sort of correction to something no one was in much danger of misunderstanding doesn't really contribute much and I suggest is best avoided unless (1) the perpetrator specifically asks for corrections, (2) there's serious danger of misunderstanding as a result of the mistake, or (3) correcting it gives the opportunity to say something genuinely interesting and relevant.
It's still bullshit.
Place speed camera every 100 meters and red camera at every cross (without cheating the yellow, which is a separate problem) and watch dead rate drop.
People are notoriously bad at assesting danger and probability. Them driving faster doesn't make the faster speed always reasonable.
Place speed camera every 100 meters and red camera at every cross (without cheating the yellow, which is a separate problem) and watch dead rate drop.
People are notoriously bad at assesting danger and probability. Them driving faster doesn't make the faster speed always reasonable.
And now you have perfect surveillance of everyone, all the time. Bravo; privacy is dead, but at least the roads are safe.
Do you have any concept of how many cameras that would take? That's a ludicrous solution.
[deleted]
The amusing thing is this article suggests people running red lights are a problem, but makes the exact same argument that people make against traffic light cams - "people are going to run red lights anyway, stop ticketing them"
Ticket them and make money for the municipality. Don't engineer new solutions that cost tax payers money and make rodes less safe for people not in cars.
Ticket them and make money for the municipality. Don't engineer new solutions that cost tax payers money and make rodes less safe for people not in cars.
That's not an argument people usually make against red light cameras. The usual arguments are...
* Camera installation is usually accompanied by shortening the yellow light period to increase revenue, which leads to more accidents.
* Most red light camera tickets are for rolling right turns on red. Such a violation rarely leads to accidents. These tickets are more for revenue than safety.
* Camera installation is usually accompanied by shortening the yellow light period to increase revenue, which leads to more accidents.
* Most red light camera tickets are for rolling right turns on red. Such a violation rarely leads to accidents. These tickets are more for revenue than safety.
The second point here is a big one. Quite a few cities in California make significant revenue off ticketing rolling right turns, because they can argue the vehicle code is ambiguous enough to let them ticket it under the infraction for running the light (which is $500 plus a couple hundred extra for traffic school if the driver doesn't want to get points on their license). There's a bill that's perpetually in and out of the state legislature to close that down and make it absolutely clear that a rolling turn is a lesser violation (one with a fine too low to be worth the cost of enforcement), but it mostly tends to get shouted down by cyclists who think the oversize fine protects them.
> "people are going to run red lights anyway, stop ticketing them"
Did you read the article?
The problem is that the speed limit doesn't correlate with accidents. The speed variance (or spread) however does correlate with accidents.
So, what the article says, very politely, is that the schmucks who regard the speed limit as an actual limit cause more accidents than the people driving at the consensus average.
And, just so you know, most people don't object to red light cameras for public safety. There are dangerous intersections where a red light camera would be quite appropriate.
However, much like speed limits, red light cameras seem to grow on revenue producing intersections with low fatality rates but a mis-engineered light sequence while somehow missing intersections which actually are low-volume but very dangerous.
Did you read the article?
The problem is that the speed limit doesn't correlate with accidents. The speed variance (or spread) however does correlate with accidents.
So, what the article says, very politely, is that the schmucks who regard the speed limit as an actual limit cause more accidents than the people driving at the consensus average.
And, just so you know, most people don't object to red light cameras for public safety. There are dangerous intersections where a red light camera would be quite appropriate.
However, much like speed limits, red light cameras seem to grow on revenue producing intersections with low fatality rates but a mis-engineered light sequence while somehow missing intersections which actually are low-volume but very dangerous.
> Ticket them and make money for the municipality.
Traffic citations should have the ultimate goal to increase the level of safety on roadways. Revenue should play no part in it.
A better proposal would be to remove all fines and court costs associated with a traffic citation and change the penalty to only be demerit points on the offender's drivers license. If they accumulate enough points, then their license is suspended. If they're caught driving on a suspended license, they're arrested and go to jail pending a hearing.
Traffic citations should have the ultimate goal to increase the level of safety on roadways. Revenue should play no part in it.
A better proposal would be to remove all fines and court costs associated with a traffic citation and change the penalty to only be demerit points on the offender's drivers license. If they accumulate enough points, then their license is suspended. If they're caught driving on a suspended license, they're arrested and go to jail pending a hearing.
> Ticket them and make money for the municipality.
That is a bad idea, because then the traffic arrangements will drift to be optimized for revenue generation, not safety nor fluent traffic.
That is a bad idea, because then the traffic arrangements will drift to be optimized for revenue generation, not safety nor fluent traffic.
> "people are going to run red lights anyway, stop ticketing them"
That's not what the article is saying. The best way to put it is to say that "people are going to run red lights anyway, so make the yellow light longer so that less people will run red lights".
That's not what the article is saying. The best way to put it is to say that "people are going to run red lights anyway, so make the yellow light longer so that less people will run red lights".
The problem is the article is just wrong. Speed camera tickets go down very quickly after being installed because people know that they'll get a ticket:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-spee...
I have to say, this article simply is not rigorous.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-spee...
I have to say, this article simply is not rigorous.
[deleted]
> Rather than speed limits, we need to look at other avenues to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths. Just shooting from the hip, I think that we could do more to communicate to drivers the presence of pedestrians, and to make sure that rural highways and boulevards have shoulders or sidewalks for pedestrians.
I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present.
> This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas.
Isn't that classic victim-blaming? Getting pedestrians off the road would reduce pedestrian deaths, but it's the wrong way to solve it as a matter of principle.
I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present.
> This gives us a pretty targeted demographic! Start a "dangers of the road" campaign targeted at pedestrians who are men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas.
Isn't that classic victim-blaming? Getting pedestrians off the road would reduce pedestrian deaths, but it's the wrong way to solve it as a matter of principle.
> I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present.
Sounds plausible, I'd love to know the context. Got a link?
As for the victim-blaming... Teaching safety isn't something that should be controversial. If it's victim-blaming to teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street, then I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage.
Sounds plausible, I'd love to know the context. Got a link?
As for the victim-blaming... Teaching safety isn't something that should be controversial. If it's victim-blaming to teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street, then I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage.
> I'm ready to throw American culture into the garbage.
That "American culture" is actually a by-product of the automotive industry. In the early 1900s the automobile manufacturers managed to turn around the image of cars being child killing machines, which they were, into it being the fault of the kids.
Drive down that cul-de-sac at the speed limit and if you run over a kid, the kid wasn't looking properly, you're not at fault! How could you be when the child wasn't looking?
The driver should almost always be responsible for hitting something. In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened.
That "American culture" is actually a by-product of the automotive industry. In the early 1900s the automobile manufacturers managed to turn around the image of cars being child killing machines, which they were, into it being the fault of the kids.
Drive down that cul-de-sac at the speed limit and if you run over a kid, the kid wasn't looking properly, you're not at fault! How could you be when the child wasn't looking?
The driver should almost always be responsible for hitting something. In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened.
> In North America the sad truth is killing someone with a car by "accident" is actually less of an inconvenience than getting a root canal. You pay a small fine, you go on with life as if it never happened.
This comes off as incredibly flippant. Is this something you've personally experienced? Would you elaborate on what you mean by a small fine? Going on with life as if it never happened? I fortunately have not been through anything like this, but I've never come across anyone who considers vehicular manslaughter insignificant.
This comes off as incredibly flippant. Is this something you've personally experienced? Would you elaborate on what you mean by a small fine? Going on with life as if it never happened? I fortunately have not been through anything like this, but I've never come across anyone who considers vehicular manslaughter insignificant.
Flippant? I'm trying my best to be civil here because the truth is absolutely infuriating. There are so many examples it's utterly preposterous, but here's one that surfaced in the news recently: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/erica-stark-toro...
Driver ran down a mother of three children on the sidewalk, killing her. The punishment for the driver? "Ms. Taylor was fined $1,000 and given six months of probation and six months of varying driving restrictions."
A good thing the driver wasn't downloading an illegal song while driving or they'd face ten years in jail!
There was a day last year here where eighteen(!) pedestrians were hit by bad drivers: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/21/10-pedestrians-w...
Eighteen people. One twenty-four hour period.
It was absoultely astounding, yet sadly all too typical. Drivers don't care, and why should they? What's the worst that could happen? A six month partial suspension?
Driver ran down a mother of three children on the sidewalk, killing her. The punishment for the driver? "Ms. Taylor was fined $1,000 and given six months of probation and six months of varying driving restrictions."
A good thing the driver wasn't downloading an illegal song while driving or they'd face ten years in jail!
There was a day last year here where eighteen(!) pedestrians were hit by bad drivers: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/21/10-pedestrians-w...
Eighteen people. One twenty-four hour period.
It was absoultely astounding, yet sadly all too typical. Drivers don't care, and why should they? What's the worst that could happen? A six month partial suspension?
Yeah, flippant. :-/ Your writing style makes it seem like you just want to rage.
IDK, this seems like it's more an issue with Canada's justice system. Canada is more humane than the US is, and that means forgiveness. The article mentioned that the driver broke down crying in court. Does it seem to you like the driver DGAF about her actions?
There is a good points in the article you posted:
> Long-term data from the city show that drivers are responsible in the majority of pedestrian deaths. In spite of this, public-safety campaigns have tended to focus more on pedestrian behaviour. On Monday – coincidentally, at the same time as Ms. Taylor’s case was being heard – the police released a video urging those who walk to be more careful.
Yeah. With the stats from the USA that I posted, it seemed like it was drunk people that were putting themselves in danger. They share some responsibility. But if pedestrians don't have any behavior changes they can do to get better outcomes then of course, we should target drivers and re-engineer roads.
IDK, this seems like it's more an issue with Canada's justice system. Canada is more humane than the US is, and that means forgiveness. The article mentioned that the driver broke down crying in court. Does it seem to you like the driver DGAF about her actions?
There is a good points in the article you posted:
> Long-term data from the city show that drivers are responsible in the majority of pedestrian deaths. In spite of this, public-safety campaigns have tended to focus more on pedestrian behaviour. On Monday – coincidentally, at the same time as Ms. Taylor’s case was being heard – the police released a video urging those who walk to be more careful.
Yeah. With the stats from the USA that I posted, it seemed like it was drunk people that were putting themselves in danger. They share some responsibility. But if pedestrians don't have any behavior changes they can do to get better outcomes then of course, we should target drivers and re-engineer roads.
> Canada is more humane than the US is...
Not really. It's just that the judges don't need to look "tough" to get re-elected. They're all appointed and can just go about doing their job.
I'm just exposed to local news more than other cities, but across North America the punishment for bad driving is astonishingly weak.
Most of the American stories I hear relayed to me are from cyclists who cannot believe the complete indifference police have to their plight. You got run down on the road and the driver fled the scene? Yeah, well, you had it coming and be thankful you're not dead. It doesn't even get reported because the police won't bother.
Not really. It's just that the judges don't need to look "tough" to get re-elected. They're all appointed and can just go about doing their job.
I'm just exposed to local news more than other cities, but across North America the punishment for bad driving is astonishingly weak.
Most of the American stories I hear relayed to me are from cyclists who cannot believe the complete indifference police have to their plight. You got run down on the road and the driver fled the scene? Yeah, well, you had it coming and be thankful you're not dead. It doesn't even get reported because the police won't bother.
I do not agree that drunken people share responsibilities for being killed by drivers. That's like saying everyone who go outside needs to be at full mental capacity unless they want to be killed by drivers. There is so much wrong with that.
God, that's backward. I can't believe that your license is not taken away for YEARS if you hit someone.
I have. My great aunt was killed as a pedestrian crossing a busy road in an strip mall area. She was not crossing illegally. No charges to the driver. The driver felt horrible about it. No one in my family really blamed the driver. The mindset seems to be she shouldn't have been crossing that busy road to get to the grocery store. She was an old woman who wasn't being careful. This is a classic example of how American culture has changed. For me, it is not the fault of the pedestrian, or the driver, but rather our society for allowing retail areas to be unsafe for pedestrians.
Its an open secret, if you want to murder someone just run them over with your car. As long as you don't flee and aren't drunk you can just shrug and say "my bad" and you'll almost certainly get off with minimal to no penalities.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/If-you-...
>How many of this year’s 63 fatalities will result in criminal charges? The four November deaths, some of the most horrific of 2016, are all still under investigation, according to police. But if history proves any guide, only in those cases in which the motorists committed other crimes, such as driving drunk or fleeing the scene, will police hold drivers accountable.
>although statistics are hard to come by, every transportation official I spoke with cited anecdotal evidence suggesting that the odds of drivers' avoiding repercussions in fatal car crashes far outweighed the likelihood of criminal charges.
>“If the driver isn’t drunk, it just gets declared a terrible accident,” says Andrew Stober, who helped oversee Mayor Michael Nutter’s transportation office. Even when the driver is found to have been speeding, there are often no charges, adds Kate Fillin-Yeh, who runs the National Association of City Transportation Officials.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/you-can-kill-anyone-you-w...
>According to a recent report by the League of American Bicyclists, barely one in five drivers who end bicyclists’ lives are charged with a crime. The low prosecution rate isn’t a secret and has inspired many to wonder whether plowing into a cyclist with a car is a low-risk way to commit homicide.
>Nationwide, incidents like Cann’s often result in misdemeanor charges, tickets, or nothing. Leah Shahum from the San Francisco Bike Coalition told the New York Times last year that her organization does “not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for DUI or hit-and-run.” Kristin Smith, also of the SF Coalition, says that “Last year, four people were hit and killed in San Francisco and no charges were ever brought,” including for a collision captured on video that showed the driver was at fault. Last year in New York City, the bike-advocacy organization Time’s Up pushed for changes in police investigations of bicyclist deaths by painting chalk-body outlines on streets, marked with words familiar from NYPD reports: “No Criminality Suspected.”
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...
>This time, the driver of a Jaguar traveling down 42nd Street in Manhattan struck another car and lost control, flipping onto the sidewalk and striking several pedestrians. Amazingly, given that this is one of the most crowded parts of town, no one was killed. Less amazingly, given the New York Police Department’s general approach toward car-pedestrian or car-bicycle crashes, the driver will apparently not face any criminal charges.
>Despite remarkable recent gains in pedestrian safety – thanks in part to design changes aimed at slowing down drivers – cars still jump the curb nearly every day. Drivers who kill or maim pedestrians with their vehicles are still only rarely treated as criminals in New York, as long as they are not drunk and do not flee the scene. Even that is sometimes not enough to merit serious charges.
>Twenty years ago, an out-of-control driver plowed through New York’s Washington Square Park, killing 5 people and injuring 27 others. That horrific incident caused a public outcry and galvanized advocates in what has become known as the livable streets movement. But the driver, a 74-year-old woman, was not charged with any crime.
http://startribune.com/in-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-the-...
>Carol Wiggins crossed Territorial Road every day at the crosswalk on her way home from work in Watertown. But the driver of the car that hit her one evening said he didn’t see her until it was too late.
>Wiggins never recovered from the traumatic brain injury from the 2011 crash, dying weeks later in a Minneapolis hospital. The driver never faced any charges — not even a traffic citation.
>The decision not to cite the driver who struck Wiggins isn’t unusual. The majority of drivers who killed pedestrians between 2010 and 2014 were not charged, according to Star Tribune analysis of metro area crash data. Those who were charged often faced misdemeanors — from speeding to careless driving — with minimal penalties, unless the driver knowingly fled or was intoxicated at the time of the crash.
>Charles Roger Lord died after being struck by a van while checking out a Nice Ride bike on a north Minneapolis sidewalk in 2014. The van “reportedly driving at a high rate of speed” jumped the curb, hit him and dragged his body across a vacant lot before crashing into a building, according to a police report.
>The driver fled, but was later arrested. He said he did not know he had hit someone before fleeing and blamed the crash on problems with the van’s steering. He was never charged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recreational-cycling/why-do-d...
>Despite the cyclist having clear, unambiguous footage of the incident, the CPS decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute. The reason, apparently, is that it was a hire car and so they couldn’t say for sure who was driving. Nottinghamshire police say the man and woman who were eligible to drive the car both ignored a legal request to provide driver details despite being summonsed to court. The man got six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide details and no action was taken over the hit and run.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/If-you-...
>How many of this year’s 63 fatalities will result in criminal charges? The four November deaths, some of the most horrific of 2016, are all still under investigation, according to police. But if history proves any guide, only in those cases in which the motorists committed other crimes, such as driving drunk or fleeing the scene, will police hold drivers accountable.
>although statistics are hard to come by, every transportation official I spoke with cited anecdotal evidence suggesting that the odds of drivers' avoiding repercussions in fatal car crashes far outweighed the likelihood of criminal charges.
>“If the driver isn’t drunk, it just gets declared a terrible accident,” says Andrew Stober, who helped oversee Mayor Michael Nutter’s transportation office. Even when the driver is found to have been speeding, there are often no charges, adds Kate Fillin-Yeh, who runs the National Association of City Transportation Officials.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/you-can-kill-anyone-you-w...
>According to a recent report by the League of American Bicyclists, barely one in five drivers who end bicyclists’ lives are charged with a crime. The low prosecution rate isn’t a secret and has inspired many to wonder whether plowing into a cyclist with a car is a low-risk way to commit homicide.
>Nationwide, incidents like Cann’s often result in misdemeanor charges, tickets, or nothing. Leah Shahum from the San Francisco Bike Coalition told the New York Times last year that her organization does “not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for DUI or hit-and-run.” Kristin Smith, also of the SF Coalition, says that “Last year, four people were hit and killed in San Francisco and no charges were ever brought,” including for a collision captured on video that showed the driver was at fault. Last year in New York City, the bike-advocacy organization Time’s Up pushed for changes in police investigations of bicyclist deaths by painting chalk-body outlines on streets, marked with words familiar from NYPD reports: “No Criminality Suspected.”
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...
>This time, the driver of a Jaguar traveling down 42nd Street in Manhattan struck another car and lost control, flipping onto the sidewalk and striking several pedestrians. Amazingly, given that this is one of the most crowded parts of town, no one was killed. Less amazingly, given the New York Police Department’s general approach toward car-pedestrian or car-bicycle crashes, the driver will apparently not face any criminal charges.
>Despite remarkable recent gains in pedestrian safety – thanks in part to design changes aimed at slowing down drivers – cars still jump the curb nearly every day. Drivers who kill or maim pedestrians with their vehicles are still only rarely treated as criminals in New York, as long as they are not drunk and do not flee the scene. Even that is sometimes not enough to merit serious charges.
>Twenty years ago, an out-of-control driver plowed through New York’s Washington Square Park, killing 5 people and injuring 27 others. That horrific incident caused a public outcry and galvanized advocates in what has become known as the livable streets movement. But the driver, a 74-year-old woman, was not charged with any crime.
http://startribune.com/in-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-the-...
>Carol Wiggins crossed Territorial Road every day at the crosswalk on her way home from work in Watertown. But the driver of the car that hit her one evening said he didn’t see her until it was too late.
>Wiggins never recovered from the traumatic brain injury from the 2011 crash, dying weeks later in a Minneapolis hospital. The driver never faced any charges — not even a traffic citation.
>The decision not to cite the driver who struck Wiggins isn’t unusual. The majority of drivers who killed pedestrians between 2010 and 2014 were not charged, according to Star Tribune analysis of metro area crash data. Those who were charged often faced misdemeanors — from speeding to careless driving — with minimal penalties, unless the driver knowingly fled or was intoxicated at the time of the crash.
>Charles Roger Lord died after being struck by a van while checking out a Nice Ride bike on a north Minneapolis sidewalk in 2014. The van “reportedly driving at a high rate of speed” jumped the curb, hit him and dragged his body across a vacant lot before crashing into a building, according to a police report.
>The driver fled, but was later arrested. He said he did not know he had hit someone before fleeing and blamed the crash on problems with the van’s steering. He was never charged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recreational-cycling/why-do-d...
>Despite the cyclist having clear, unambiguous footage of the incident, the CPS decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute. The reason, apparently, is that it was a hire car and so they couldn’t say for sure who was driving. Nottinghamshire police say the man and woman who were eligible to drive the car both ignored a legal request to provide driver details despite being summonsed to court. The man got six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide details and no action was taken over the hit and run.
Thanks for digging up some citations. It's a shame there isn't a centralized place that tracks these. Open data helps set policy.
I found it really hard to find cases of people actually being convicted because most articles mentioning a fatality and an aggressor never yielded much in terms of court records. It's like they just shrug and move on. It's the worst.
I found it really hard to find cases of people actually being convicted because most articles mentioning a fatality and an aggressor never yielded much in terms of court records. It's like they just shrug and move on. It's the worst.
Horrifying. Thank you for collecting some sources.
If I flip unto the curb by accident and kill someone, what would be the point of punishing me in court? Unless I drove recklessly I couldn't really prevent the accident.
How do you "flip unto the curb by accident" if you are driving within the limits of the car and driver? Cars don't randomly spin out of control - when they do spin, it's almost always because the driver wasn't paying attention or was driving too fast for conditions.
Yes, sometimes, some other vehicle will swerve and force you off the road. That seems to be the exception, not the common case.
Very rarely, a mechanical fault will cause an accident. But, even those are generally do to lack of maintenance. Personal example - I was almost hit by a detached car wheel/tire a few months ago while riding my bicycle on a bike trail. The car was an old beater. No muffler, rusty, etc.
Yes, sometimes, some other vehicle will swerve and force you off the road. That seems to be the exception, not the common case.
Very rarely, a mechanical fault will cause an accident. But, even those are generally do to lack of maintenance. Personal example - I was almost hit by a detached car wheel/tire a few months ago while riding my bicycle on a bike trail. The car was an old beater. No muffler, rusty, etc.
If you flip onto the curb "by accident" and kill someone then, sorry, you suck at driving. The roads should be reserved for people who can control their vehicles, and in that instance you proved you couldn't.
Current laws don't do much, but an incident like that should be a minimum automatic five year suspension with mandatory re-testing.
Current laws don't do much, but an incident like that should be a minimum automatic five year suspension with mandatory re-testing.
To reserve the roads for people who are able and willing to control their vehicles enough to not "accidentally" flip onto the curb. The majority of "accidents," especially those involving pedestrians, are caused by a wonton disregard for safety. I was almost run over at a clearly marked crosswalk crossing at the prescribed time following the "walk sign." The driver than screamed profanities at me for getting in his way. If he would have killed me it would have been a "accident."
Click on the last link and watch the video. It's a video that can only be described as a brutal and unprovoked attack with a deadly weapon, caught on camera. The author described it as "attempted murder." If someone was caught on camera beating someone else with any other weapon (nightstick, bat, hammer) police would be a lot more interested in following up and making sure the attacker doesn't attack again.
I think the big problem is there is rarely any sort of investigation unless it's really, really egregious. You just say "whoops" and maybe get a ticket for speeding or failure to keep right or running a stop sign and that's the end of it.
The fact this comment actually exists shows the problem.
Click on the last link and watch the video. It's a video that can only be described as a brutal and unprovoked attack with a deadly weapon, caught on camera. The author described it as "attempted murder." If someone was caught on camera beating someone else with any other weapon (nightstick, bat, hammer) police would be a lot more interested in following up and making sure the attacker doesn't attack again.
I think the big problem is there is rarely any sort of investigation unless it's really, really egregious. You just say "whoops" and maybe get a ticket for speeding or failure to keep right or running a stop sign and that's the end of it.
The fact this comment actually exists shows the problem.
Thank you to everyone who's contributed to this thread! I've found it very useful, as have others.
It's worse in China. There you are better off killing someone in an accident than injuring them [1].
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
The driver is absolutely responsible. However it is important to also teach safety. You can teach safety without condoning a driver's collision.
Teaching is always used as a suggestion by people who don't want to address the real problem.
Rather than actually changing anything, suggest education.
Rather than actually changing anything, suggest education.
And when the problem could be mitigated by education, what, we just don't do it because attempting to inform people that the multi-ton chunk of metal travelling 30+ feet per second can't stop on a dime and that making themselves more visible is a Good Thing is "victim blaming"?
(A phrase, I might add, is the single most useless one in the english language? It's a thought-terminating cliche.)
(A phrase, I might add, is the single most useless one in the english language? It's a thought-terminating cliche.)
Says who? Certainly not the courts. Drove into a building "by accident" and ran someone down? Don't worry, wasn't your fault, here's a $500 fine.
> Isn't that classic victim-blaming?
If you're dead or severely injured, what does it matter if it was not legally your fault? I pay attention to other cars regardless of whether I have the right-of-way or not. This has saved me from accidents. I don't care to be "dead" right.
I don't understand pedestrians and bikers who wander carelessly into traffic, presuming that having the right-of-way is some magic shield against getting run over.
If you're dead or severely injured, what does it matter if it was not legally your fault? I pay attention to other cars regardless of whether I have the right-of-way or not. This has saved me from accidents. I don't care to be "dead" right.
I don't understand pedestrians and bikers who wander carelessly into traffic, presuming that having the right-of-way is some magic shield against getting run over.
Do you also dress conservatively whenever you go out at night? Isn't that the same thing?
I step into the road when I have a right - while being careful, but still taking a risk that isn't strictly necessary - because it is my right and I care about that.
I step into the road when I have a right - while being careful, but still taking a risk that isn't strictly necessary - because it is my right and I care about that.
> Do you also dress conservatively whenever you go out at night? Isn't that the same thing?
I don't leave valuables in plain sight in my car when I leave it, and I lock the door on my dwelling. I don't go around flashing wads of cash.
This is not victim blaming, as flashing cash does not reduce the culpability of the robber in the slightest. I just don't care to be a target. And that's my choice.
I don't leave valuables in plain sight in my car when I leave it, and I lock the door on my dwelling. I don't go around flashing wads of cash.
This is not victim blaming, as flashing cash does not reduce the culpability of the robber in the slightest. I just don't care to be a target. And that's my choice.
That's your choice if you want to, but I think a campaign encouraging people to hide valuables/hide cash would be a bad thing. (I know some police campaigns do this). Locking doors is a bit different as it clearly communicates intent.
That's a serious problem here in Boulder. Drivers tend to be extremely conscious of pedestrians/bicyclists which lulls them into a false sense of security.
> I've seen it argued that shoulders/sidewalks actually make roads more dangerous, because drivers drive faster when they're present.
It depends on a lot of factors. The presence of a separated sidewalk might imply a hard separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic which can increase speeds. Deliberately blurring those boundaries, as is often done in small European cities, makes the road more ambiguous and this leads to slower, more cautious drivers.
Confidence equals speed. Long, straight, wide roads with ample room for stopping encourage people to drive faster. Narrow, winding, difficult to navigate roads are naturally approached with more caution. The trend has been to straighten out and widen narrow roads, to eliminate any impediments to "traffic flow", which often makes for roads over-engineered for their intended speeds.
The presence of a sidewalk doesn't make people drive faster, but the philosophy of separation of traffic flows that leads to sidewalks being used does.
It depends on a lot of factors. The presence of a separated sidewalk might imply a hard separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic which can increase speeds. Deliberately blurring those boundaries, as is often done in small European cities, makes the road more ambiguous and this leads to slower, more cautious drivers.
Confidence equals speed. Long, straight, wide roads with ample room for stopping encourage people to drive faster. Narrow, winding, difficult to navigate roads are naturally approached with more caution. The trend has been to straighten out and widen narrow roads, to eliminate any impediments to "traffic flow", which often makes for roads over-engineered for their intended speeds.
The presence of a sidewalk doesn't make people drive faster, but the philosophy of separation of traffic flows that leads to sidewalks being used does.
The most effective thing, as shown in European cities, is to make it hard to speed. Have narrower roads that cannot be easily traversed at high speed. To see an example in the US, look at Center City Philadelphia. Outside a few major thoroughfares like Market Street, the roads are one way in each direction and very narrow. Walking as a pedestrian on Walnut (a major retail road) feels very safe.
This is also an idea in Christopher Alexander's "Timeless Way Of Building" book, and a topic that's been taken up a bunch of times by the Strong Towns blog.
> men, aged 25-44, drink at night and who live in rural areas
Think you may be mixing up two words
> In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in __urban__ areas
Think you may be mixing up two words
> In addition, the same study noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes in the United States in 2000 occurred in __urban__ areas
Oh shit, thanks. The post is too old to edit. :/
In the UK many towns have 20mph on residential streets. It is not just signs though, there are humps to drive over "sleeping policemen" and other obstacles that would make it harder to drive faster.
I remember when I was on a college campus that had those. All the gear-heads on campus did their best to make the pavement on the far side of the speed table look like the end of a runway. You didn't even have to break the speed limit to do it.
Ideally the speed limit should be whatever is objectively safe given the immediate environment.
The problem is that enforcement of such a rule is impractical in most situations. If you're going 35Mph in what was once posted as a 25Mph zone, and it was posted as 25Mph because there's a school zone in two blocks, even if there's a strong argument that 25Mph is the objectively safest limit, you'll then have to prove that the driver knew there was a school in two blocks. Then the driver could argue school was out. Etc, etc, etc.
There's a tension between administrative efficiency regarding enforcement and fairness to the accused. This tension is made greater the larger the community. In a tiny community everybody can trust the sheriff to make a judgment call, and the ticketed person not to contest the issue. As the community becomes more diverse and less personally connected, and the environment more complex, you need to rely on strict, clearly articulated rules that minimize discretion.
There's another axis we're dealing with here, too. Do we emphasize overall outcomes, or do we emphasize individual justice (for victims, for offenders)? If you emphasize overall outcomes then we focus on prevention and social measures. If you emphasize individual justice you want to make it easier to punish offenders, as well as make the rules clear so that everybody knows precisely how to avoid offending.
I tend to emphasize more on overall outcomes. I think most people do, at least in the abstract. But the moment a kid or a biker is run over many people switch into individual justice mode, and that's how elections play out.
The problem is that enforcement of such a rule is impractical in most situations. If you're going 35Mph in what was once posted as a 25Mph zone, and it was posted as 25Mph because there's a school zone in two blocks, even if there's a strong argument that 25Mph is the objectively safest limit, you'll then have to prove that the driver knew there was a school in two blocks. Then the driver could argue school was out. Etc, etc, etc.
There's a tension between administrative efficiency regarding enforcement and fairness to the accused. This tension is made greater the larger the community. In a tiny community everybody can trust the sheriff to make a judgment call, and the ticketed person not to contest the issue. As the community becomes more diverse and less personally connected, and the environment more complex, you need to rely on strict, clearly articulated rules that minimize discretion.
There's another axis we're dealing with here, too. Do we emphasize overall outcomes, or do we emphasize individual justice (for victims, for offenders)? If you emphasize overall outcomes then we focus on prevention and social measures. If you emphasize individual justice you want to make it easier to punish offenders, as well as make the rules clear so that everybody knows precisely how to avoid offending.
I tend to emphasize more on overall outcomes. I think most people do, at least in the abstract. But the moment a kid or a biker is run over many people switch into individual justice mode, and that's how elections play out.
Shouldn't you just remove cars from every place where pedestrians are allowed?
I lived on the Isle of Man, where there are very strict 30mph speed limits in the towns, but no speed limits outside the towns.
The roads there are twisty, with dry stone walls either side, mostly. Except for the mountain roads that are spectacular.
Then there's the TT, when bikers from all over the world come there to race, and about a dozen or so die each year. Apart from that, though, road fatalities are not exceptional.
Driving there is great, because you don't have the constant worry of "am I going over the limit?" or "what is the limit here?". You stop worrying about the number, or checking your speedo, and concentrate on driving safely on the road. How fast or slow you're going becomes irrelevant, it's all about how you drive on the road you're given.
The speed limit is as much a target as a limit. If the limit is 60 then there's a feeling that "well, they know their business, it must be safe to drive at 60 here". What is authorised becomes advised. No-one can blame you if you lose control due to speed, because you were driving under the speed limit so it must have been OK.
With no limits, it becomes your responsibility to decide what's safe. And yes, there are people who think they can drive safely much faster than they actually can. But they they tend to head for the mountain roads where's less traffic to get in their way. There's also less macho bullshit around it because there's no "rebel cred" in driving over the limit when there is no limit.
Conversely, driving slowly in town is accepted, because it's clearly done for good reasons. Speeding in town isn't socially acceptable (if you want to go fast, head to the mountain and do your worst). People drive more safely, and more courteously because they have responsibility.
It's a great system. I wish we adopted it here in Australia.
The roads there are twisty, with dry stone walls either side, mostly. Except for the mountain roads that are spectacular.
Then there's the TT, when bikers from all over the world come there to race, and about a dozen or so die each year. Apart from that, though, road fatalities are not exceptional.
Driving there is great, because you don't have the constant worry of "am I going over the limit?" or "what is the limit here?". You stop worrying about the number, or checking your speedo, and concentrate on driving safely on the road. How fast or slow you're going becomes irrelevant, it's all about how you drive on the road you're given.
The speed limit is as much a target as a limit. If the limit is 60 then there's a feeling that "well, they know their business, it must be safe to drive at 60 here". What is authorised becomes advised. No-one can blame you if you lose control due to speed, because you were driving under the speed limit so it must have been OK.
With no limits, it becomes your responsibility to decide what's safe. And yes, there are people who think they can drive safely much faster than they actually can. But they they tend to head for the mountain roads where's less traffic to get in their way. There's also less macho bullshit around it because there's no "rebel cred" in driving over the limit when there is no limit.
Conversely, driving slowly in town is accepted, because it's clearly done for good reasons. Speeding in town isn't socially acceptable (if you want to go fast, head to the mountain and do your worst). People drive more safely, and more courteously because they have responsibility.
It's a great system. I wish we adopted it here in Australia.
A friend of mine lives, well lived, on the Isle of Man. He's been in a rehabilitation center on the mainland for the past year, after being hit by a Ferrari driving at entitled velocity.
Why do you even need cars there? Everything is within cycling distance.
Why do you even need cars there? Everything is within cycling distance.
horizontal rain... umbrellas don't survive there. I would hate to cycle there
I've been a "victim" of speed limit. When I was early 18 (just got my license, European), I crashed my car because I passed a speed limit sign, but there was a sharp left turn that wasn't visible. I went exactly the speed limit, thinking "they would put a lower one here if it wasn't absolutely safe" - and immediately lost control of my car in the turn.
Nowadays, I ignore any speed limits. I'm frequently speeding when it's safe, and I'm very frequently going slow enough to people flash lights or honk at me - no crashes since that.
I of course recognise I was at fault and don't blame the speed limit - I should've known to adjust my driving regardless of the limit. However this way of thinking isn't uncommon and while the speed limit isn't at fault, it had its part in causing the crash.
Nowadays, I ignore any speed limits. I'm frequently speeding when it's safe, and I'm very frequently going slow enough to people flash lights or honk at me - no crashes since that.
I of course recognise I was at fault and don't blame the speed limit - I should've known to adjust my driving regardless of the limit. However this way of thinking isn't uncommon and while the speed limit isn't at fault, it had its part in causing the crash.
It is a speed /limit/, it absolutely does also require you to make judgements for yourself, but not to drive above that speed.
It would be unreasonable (& annoying) to have different speed limits for every different corner/stretch of road. There's also considerations such as the weather & lighting conditions to take into account (& while I have seen signs on motorways for variable speed limits based on those in Europe, you cannot expect every case to be covered).
It would be unreasonable (& annoying) to have different speed limits for every different corner/stretch of road. There's also considerations such as the weather & lighting conditions to take into account (& while I have seen signs on motorways for variable speed limits based on those in Europe, you cannot expect every case to be covered).
In many European countries, there actually is a speed limit before almost every turn or intersection that's in or near a bigger city, and thus people begin to think like this, which is the point - the speed limit is so overused that people stop thinking for themselves.
The problem of speed limit overuse (recognized even by our officials) is a lot smaller in western Europe, if you got your experience from their roads.
The problem of speed limit overuse (recognized even by our officials) is a lot smaller in western Europe, if you got your experience from their roads.
[deleted]
>> this way of thinking isn't uncommon
I seriously doubt this. It's a speed 'limit' not a speed 'target'. I can't fathom how you could think 'sign says x, I'm sure if I go that speed I can get around this sharp turn safely'. How strict were the driving tests where you learned?
I seriously doubt this. It's a speed 'limit' not a speed 'target'. I can't fathom how you could think 'sign says x, I'm sure if I go that speed I can get around this sharp turn safely'. How strict were the driving tests where you learned?
>How strict were the driving tests where you learned?
Please be aware that the rather strict driving test in the Netherlands means that you are trained for at least 40 odd hours, or let's call it 60 hours on average, to drive at the speed target. Going too slow means you're unable to handle the traffic, and going too fast is illegal, so this strictness can instruct people to drive at the speed target.
Yes, I did name them targets, because that's what they're used for. It looks like a target, it acts like a target, it's called a target. Legally, they're limits, but I don't think you'll ever see many people driving at the limit. Always at least 1 or 2 km/h faster.
Please be aware that the rather strict driving test in the Netherlands means that you are trained for at least 40 odd hours, or let's call it 60 hours on average, to drive at the speed target. Going too slow means you're unable to handle the traffic, and going too fast is illegal, so this strictness can instruct people to drive at the speed target.
Yes, I did name them targets, because that's what they're used for. It looks like a target, it acts like a target, it's called a target. Legally, they're limits, but I don't think you'll ever see many people driving at the limit. Always at least 1 or 2 km/h faster.
I failed my first try because a guy in a BMW didn't wait until I pass before he turned left and I waited - they said I was too unsure and thus failed.
Same experience with the speed target/limit in the Czech republic.
Same experience with the speed target/limit in the Czech republic.
Sure but if you have had 40 hours training you know to slow down when you see a bend and not to continue at the target speed. Hell if you've had zero hours training but have been in a car before you know that.
If there's a lower limit before every turn you've ever encountered, many people don't even think about it.
I don't have any hard evidence, though a lot of people I know think like this - which is why I wrote the comment.
In many European countries, there actually is a speed limit before almost every sharp turn that's in or near a bigger city, and thus people begin to think like this.
In many European countries, there actually is a speed limit before almost every sharp turn that's in or near a bigger city, and thus people begin to think like this.
Interesting it's not something I've noticed before. I'm 99% we don't have these in the UK (although on country roads there will sometimes be a sign indicating a sharp bend).
The problem of speed limit overuse is small or non-existent in western Europe, but common in central and eastern Europe - it's even recognized by our officials as a huge problem causing crashes.
Not only there are speed limits before sharp turns, but unnecessary small limits in regular turns or on straight motorways, which makes people go over the limit even when the limit makes sense.
Not only there are speed limits before sharp turns, but unnecessary small limits in regular turns or on straight motorways, which makes people go over the limit even when the limit makes sense.
Cycling must be a nightmare.
yeah, but not because of the roads. It rains a lot and is very windy, and also very hilly. It's not a cycling kind of place.
Public transport is good, though.
Public transport is good, though.
Practical examples:
1. How not to do it IMO: Road next to me had a limit of 60 because of "road works", there even was a road works sign standing there. Everyone knew it was safe to drive 80.
One day I was driving suddenly after months of inactivity a worker comes walking out into the road while I come driving. The sun was low and I just saw his legs moving and managed to brake and steer away.
If I had crashed it would have been my fault - and I would have deserved jail and losing my license. But I totally wouldn't say road authorities would have been without blame:
Designing a 80 zone, then training everyone to think the road works sign is just a forgotten artifact is really really not a good idea if you intend to suddenly send your people out there in low light.
2. How it should be done IMO: Next to a school that I sometimes drive past there is a 60 zone. But it (used to) only apply when kids could be reasonably expected to be there (0600 - 2000 or something). Every summer road authorities would even cross it out.
This way we are constantly reminded about why there is a very valid reason to slow down at this place - and we are reminded that at least some of them honestly think before they restrict us.
1. How not to do it IMO: Road next to me had a limit of 60 because of "road works", there even was a road works sign standing there. Everyone knew it was safe to drive 80.
One day I was driving suddenly after months of inactivity a worker comes walking out into the road while I come driving. The sun was low and I just saw his legs moving and managed to brake and steer away.
If I had crashed it would have been my fault - and I would have deserved jail and losing my license. But I totally wouldn't say road authorities would have been without blame:
Designing a 80 zone, then training everyone to think the road works sign is just a forgotten artifact is really really not a good idea if you intend to suddenly send your people out there in low light.
2. How it should be done IMO: Next to a school that I sometimes drive past there is a 60 zone. But it (used to) only apply when kids could be reasonably expected to be there (0600 - 2000 or something). Every summer road authorities would even cross it out.
This way we are constantly reminded about why there is a very valid reason to slow down at this place - and we are reminded that at least some of them honestly think before they restrict us.
But the point of the article is that changing speed limits doesn't change the speed of cars. If we want to slow cars down, we need to use traffic calming mechanisms that work. Speed limits don't.
I have a rather different hypothesis in my mind: changing the speed limit does not change the speed of cars relative to the speed limit. People who go 10% over will continue to go 10% over, people who go 20% over will continue to go 20% over. Obviously this can't hold true for extreme values (changing from 50 to 5 or to 500), but in the range where speed limits actually do change from time to time, this is exactly what I see happening.
"Authorities consider this road safe for average drivers at x mph, therefore it must be safe for me at x * 1.y".
The y in the "1.y" pseudomath btw is proof enough to me that claims about enforcement not working are wrong: when you cross state borders it is easy to witness considerable changes in "typical y", the amount of relative speeding customary in the local population of drivers. Road design certainly has an influence on actual speed, but so do limits and enforcement.
"Authorities consider this road safe for average drivers at x mph, therefore it must be safe for me at x * 1.y".
The y in the "1.y" pseudomath btw is proof enough to me that claims about enforcement not working are wrong: when you cross state borders it is easy to witness considerable changes in "typical y", the amount of relative speeding customary in the local population of drivers. Road design certainly has an influence on actual speed, but so do limits and enforcement.
> changing the speed limit does not change the speed of cars relative to the speed limit.
Studies [1] have shown that not to be the case.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
Studies [1] have shown that not to be the case.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
But why do you want to adjust all the roads in the country where maximum speed ever is 90mph, at least in the USA? Just pass the law to limit cars from driving faster than that, and problem solved!
It always amazes me how cars commercials show awesome dashboards with 250 mph speedos, perfectly knowing there is no single road that you can lawfully go that fast.
Heck, it probably won't cost much more than a thumb drive to stick into your car computer port to update speed limits built in.
It always amazes me how cars commercials show awesome dashboards with 250 mph speedos, perfectly knowing there is no single road that you can lawfully go that fast.
Heck, it probably won't cost much more than a thumb drive to stick into your car computer port to update speed limits built in.
[deleted]
Speed limits can act as a target, though. It'd be a little weird to have a 'realistic' speed limit of 35 mph, and then introduce traffic calming measures designed to slow people down to way lower than that, no?
The speed limit should reflect the reality of the road. No, you shouldn't go around tomorrow updating all your speed limits to 85% percentile graded and then try to redraw the roadways to traffic shape to desired speeds. You would do the latter first, then update your signs.
Except in most places, neither is happening. People are driving dramatically over the speed limit because that is the natural speed of the road, and no attempts to change the actual speeds of traffic are happening because they cost money.
So people get to die for the multitude of reasons the article outlines because of political deadlock.
Except in most places, neither is happening. People are driving dramatically over the speed limit because that is the natural speed of the road, and no attempts to change the actual speeds of traffic are happening because they cost money.
So people get to die for the multitude of reasons the article outlines because of political deadlock.
The point of the article is that for 85% of the people driving on the road the speed limit most emphatically does not act as a target. If it did then modifying the limit would be a useful knob you could turn. Since it isn't all it does if give the non-automotive traffic a false sense of security regarding how fast traffic might be coming at them.
I think the idea is to use traffic calming methods to change the 'realistic' speed limit from 35 mph to 25 mph, and then post signs for 25 mph.
I think the debate on speed is about limited-access freeways, where no bikes or pedestrians should be, and where other vehicles won't be doing things like making u-turns, parallel parking etc. As someone who uses basically all the modes of travel that a complete street allows, I'm all for lowering the speed limits (especially through road design, not just a speed limit sign). But a highway is completely different, the only thing you have to worry about are other cars.
In the context of the article, it would be about any state-controlled roads. Many of those roads would not be limited-access freeways.
Given the stated stated observation that speed limit signs have very little correlation with driver behavior, the only way to significantly impact road speeds is through road design.
Given the stated stated observation that speed limit signs have very little correlation with driver behavior, the only way to significantly impact road speeds is through road design.
That's true. So yes, road design.
I vaguely recall that the US interstate system was generally designed for 150-200 km/hr.
I vaguely recall that the US interstate system was generally designed for 150-200 km/hr.
The solution is narrower lanes on side streets. Narrower lanes naturally makes people drive more slowly. Lowering the speed limit won't solve it. Bonus: making lanes narrower also makes room for bike lanes.
Why should we care about pedestrians crossing highways? The biggest gains for something like this isn't a local side street. It's changing the interstate speed limit.
Attempting to reduce pedestrian deaths using speed limits seems the wrong way to handle it. Attempting to limit 'bad' behavior doesn't work well. Just look at the war on drugs.
It seems like it would compared to a wild west situation where everyone is doing lots of drugs/going as fast as possible, but in our current society cracking down further offers no further benefits and may come at additional costs.
For example:
Automatic breaking technology on cars that can detect people who the driver might not be able to see (child running out from in-between parked cars).
Better selective enforcement of speed limits so that people pay a bit more attention. When an empty country road says 25mph due to a speed trap, it reduces the trust people place in speed limits, meaning they won't respect the 25mph speed limit as much even when it is in a school zone where children are constantly crossing the street.
Better side walk design. I shouldn't be only two feet from a speeding 2 ton object even when everyone is following the law correctly. Having space between the road and sidewalk helps. Maybe add some trees and other objects that will stop a drunk driver who runs off the road.
Bike paths for those riding bikes. Also separated from the road.
It seems like it would compared to a wild west situation where everyone is doing lots of drugs/going as fast as possible, but in our current society cracking down further offers no further benefits and may come at additional costs.
For example:
Automatic breaking technology on cars that can detect people who the driver might not be able to see (child running out from in-between parked cars).
Better selective enforcement of speed limits so that people pay a bit more attention. When an empty country road says 25mph due to a speed trap, it reduces the trust people place in speed limits, meaning they won't respect the 25mph speed limit as much even when it is in a school zone where children are constantly crossing the street.
Better side walk design. I shouldn't be only two feet from a speeding 2 ton object even when everyone is following the law correctly. Having space between the road and sidewalk helps. Maybe add some trees and other objects that will stop a drunk driver who runs off the road.
Bike paths for those riding bikes. Also separated from the road.
Having a super-wide "complete street" with separated bike lanes and set back sidewalks everywhere isn't realistic, particularly in mature neighbourhoods. I mean, we already have fully separated car-only thoroughfarse— they're the interchange-access highways.
I'd rather figure out how to make city drivers more attentive and responsible than effectively turn every arterial road into a mini highway.
I'd rather figure out how to make city drivers more attentive and responsible than effectively turn every arterial road into a mini highway.
I had the same thought as I read the article. In the author's defense there was a single sentence towards the end of the article that mentioned effective ways of lowering driving speeds. More discussion of those methods would've been a nice addition.
The author of the article already pointed out and rebutted your precise argument. Can you counter his rebuttal? If you can't, you've added exactly nothing to the debate.
> Results show that the average risk of severe injury
I'll stop you right there.
We are talking about how to prevent accidents, not how to make them less serious.
I have often heard cited, the fact that force scales with acceleration in a non-linear way, as the reason for speed limits. That is not the case, nor should it be.
I'll stop you right there.
We are talking about how to prevent accidents, not how to make them less serious.
I have often heard cited, the fact that force scales with acceleration in a non-linear way, as the reason for speed limits. That is not the case, nor should it be.
I've been driving through rural Serbia for the past day on two lane highways with no sidewalks & not much of a shoulder. There are ton's of people walking along the edges of these streets, traveling from one town to the next. I even offered of a couple of them a ride, and they were happy to keep walking. Another man reading a newspaper was leaning up against a guardrail on the side of the road, again no sidewalk, on a two lane road with a speed limit of 80 kph. And I came across many tractors driving slowly, and a big cart of wood being being driven buy 2 peopled & pulled by oxen. I also drove by 2 kids walking side by side holding hands, walking along the edge of the road in the same lane I'm driving.
These roads are not just for fast driving cars.
These roads are not just for fast driving cars.
The article was talking about 55 mph speed limits on freeways -- highways restricted to vehicular traffic only. Roads likely to be used by pedestrians or cyclists will have a limit of 25 to 45 mph.
The main street in the town I live in (population 4500, not that big) has a posted speed limit of 25mph. Until last year, the road was in such bad repair that most traffic only averaged around 30. Then they repaved the road, and despite it still being 2 lane with parking on both sides, tons of merge traffic without any lights (from stopsigns) and being next to the town park with a ton of foot traffic, I'd estimate the average speed on that road is now 45-50mph. Precisely because its straight, freshly paved, and nobody wants to slow down the traffic when its smooth sailing with no lights.
To try to counteract this, those signs that tell you your speed were put up that blink when you are going over the limit. They were promptly ignored.
So really I'm just trying to reiterate that what the article says is absolutely true - people will drive what they feel comfortable going, not what the posted speed limit says. In practice, the risks are there, but nowadays everyone knows to avoid main street for pedestrian crossing because its approaching highway speeds now. But on very congested roads like our main street (this being a 250 year old town, where there is no traffic shaping planned, so all through traffic goes down the road that also has the most foot traffic) you aren't going to have an easy answer, because slowing down traffic can be just as dangerous when its bumper to bumper for the ~5 mile long road through town and drivers will go mad being forced back to 25mph combined with the immense traffic bottleneck it would reintroduce (the main reason they fast tracked paving the road in the first place - traffic would back up onto the nearby highway offramp because of how bad main street traffic is).
I think the reality is that busy streets are just never safe for pedestrians (or bikes, etc). That is why you invest in crosswalks meant to funnel people across them all at once, in centralized places, where traffic is already forced to stop. And if you really care, you get the cars out of downtown entirely.
To try to counteract this, those signs that tell you your speed were put up that blink when you are going over the limit. They were promptly ignored.
So really I'm just trying to reiterate that what the article says is absolutely true - people will drive what they feel comfortable going, not what the posted speed limit says. In practice, the risks are there, but nowadays everyone knows to avoid main street for pedestrian crossing because its approaching highway speeds now. But on very congested roads like our main street (this being a 250 year old town, where there is no traffic shaping planned, so all through traffic goes down the road that also has the most foot traffic) you aren't going to have an easy answer, because slowing down traffic can be just as dangerous when its bumper to bumper for the ~5 mile long road through town and drivers will go mad being forced back to 25mph combined with the immense traffic bottleneck it would reintroduce (the main reason they fast tracked paving the road in the first place - traffic would back up onto the nearby highway offramp because of how bad main street traffic is).
I think the reality is that busy streets are just never safe for pedestrians (or bikes, etc). That is why you invest in crosswalks meant to funnel people across them all at once, in centralized places, where traffic is already forced to stop. And if you really care, you get the cars out of downtown entirely.
That is not the case. The article says Every year, traffic engineers review the speed limit on thousands of stretches of road and highway.
In Pennsylvania, I once rode my bike on a 55-mph, four-lane divided highway that is designated as an official bike route[0]. Traffic was sparse on the road so it objectively probably wasn't too bad, but it wasn't a pleasant experience to have cars rush by you at those speeds.
[0]: http://bikepa.com/routes/index.htm
[0]: http://bikepa.com/routes/index.htm
Source?
I have cycled routinely on roads with speed limits greater than this. The first that comes to mind is Madison Ave in Sacramento (often 50mph+). For that matter I used to have a commute that took me on a brief stretch of I-5 in San Diego - that was hair-raising, to say the least. It's legal there due to lack of other options.
I have cycled routinely on roads with speed limits greater than this. The first that comes to mind is Madison Ave in Sacramento (often 50mph+). For that matter I used to have a commute that took me on a brief stretch of I-5 in San Diego - that was hair-raising, to say the least. It's legal there due to lack of other options.
Petrol consumption is often best in cars at around 45mph (70km/h), so one effect of increasing highway speed limits not mentioned would be worse fuel economy.
That number comes from a time of 3-speed transmissions and non-aerodynamic bodies. I heard better numbers back when 5-speed was becoming common, but now we're seeing 8-speed and 9-speed and CVT. It's probably around 65mph now.
I've heard 70km/h elsewhere, but the only personal data I have is I used to drive a 2002 5-speed manual VW Golf Mk IV, the 2L petrol version, and that had a fuel economy display on it plus a nice chart of economy per gear in the owner's manual. The book similarly said best would be at around 70km/h (~45mph) in 5th gear, and I confirmed that was true in my own tests. The 6-speed GTI was charted in the owner's manual as well and its best economy was shown as a little faster, in its extra 6th gear.
Aerodynamic resistance (“drag”) doesn't care about your transmission. The sweet spot is even lower with electric cars (especially with all the peripheral devices turned off).
However, a modern mid-sized car with an efficient engine gets 40 MPG or more at 75 MPH, while a gas guzzler won't get such mileage at any speed.
However, a modern mid-sized car with an efficient engine gets 40 MPG or more at 75 MPH, while a gas guzzler won't get such mileage at any speed.
Own a 2014 6-speed petrol VW and according to the manual the optimal speed for max mileage is around 70-75 km/h
Spark ignition engines suffer from pumping losses when throttled. So it is a pretty broad generalization to throw that number out. Fuel economy will depend on rolling resistance, gearing, and aerodynamics.
[deleted]
Your analysis is fine but there are plenty of cases when Pedestrians should not be factored and still the speed limit is too low. We are talking about one way highway traffic where no pedestrian can enter (or at least should not enter), where opposing traffic risk is Zero (one way), visibility very good etc. there are plenty of examples like this one where you really have to try hard to stay in the speed limit. and cases like this just make it hard to respect the speed limits even when they should be respected because they teaching us that the speed limits are arbitrary and we human beings do not like arbitrary things.
The article talked specifically about that exact scenario, and then concluded that a number on a sign won't make any difference in driver speed. Only proper road engineering can slow drivers down.
One factor that you may not be considering is that by routinely posting overly low speed limits, the belief that the posted speed limit is the "moral minimum" speed or that it's okay to exceed it by a certain amount is reinforced.
The speed limit is supposed to be the upper bound. By over using low speed limits, we indirectly increase the danger level for vulnerable road users because of the reasons detailed above.
The speed limit is supposed to be the upper bound. By over using low speed limits, we indirectly increase the danger level for vulnerable road users because of the reasons detailed above.
I recently returned from vacation in Chile, where I noticed the majority of freeways had separate speed limits based on vehicle class. Two axle private vehicles had a speed limit of 130 km/h while trucks were only 100, and double-trailer trucks were slower still.
i think the article is about highways and fast Intercity roads where pedestrians have no business to be and not local city communications. of course within city limits the speed should be as low as possible (most of EU is 50kmph, personally i would not mind even 35-40kmph) to discourage individual transport to motivate people to use public transport
and this should come together with ban of cars older than 10-15 years not meeting current safety standards and of course all cars should be checked for quality of their brakes and other parts before being allowed to drive
and this should come together with ban of cars older than 10-15 years not meeting current safety standards and of course all cars should be checked for quality of their brakes and other parts before being allowed to drive
I've read arguments that 20mph is the max theoretical running speed for a human. The argument goes evolution has finely tuned us to deal with anything below that speed, but above it, not so much.
There is a 10% chance of not being severely injured when struck at 46 mph? Amazing.
A good chunk of this article talked about Michigan and the reasoning behind its increasing speed limits, but it somewhat failed to address your point, so I'll do so since I know a bit about this subject (hell, everyone who lives in Michigan at a certain age becomes an expert on these things -- there's nothing resembling useful public transportation here).
We have several cities, but they're somewhat small by comparison to some of the places a lot of HN readers are from. There's no analog to SF/Silicon Valley here. Sure, people walk around Detroit, but for the most part, that's down-town in a few select areas (yes, people do walk in the outskirts, as well, but there are much larger dangers going on there than pedestrian fatalities). There are several other cities where there is a lot of walking traffic. The speed limits are 25MPH in all of the places you'd expect them to be[0]. The 85th percentile rule does not apply in these cases nor does it apply on residential roads. I live on a main subdivision road and folks commonly exceed 25MPH. I call the cops when I see it and they've had patrols going on in my neighborhood every day for the last two weeks (it's very profitable for them). People are finally slowing down again. You will get pulled over for going 5MPH over the limit in these situations, whereas that would never happen on a main road unless you were doing something else wrong.
I'm a huge supporter of the 85th percentile rule, but only when applied outside of these cases. Yes, people walk on the county/state roads that are set by this rule, but there are proper signals with increased delay times when pedestrians push the magic button (which, on these roads, actually does something -- the walk/don't walk signals won't turn to walk ... ever ... if the button isn't pressed). On freeways, there's no pedestrian traffic (on purpose, anyway).
[0] My daughter is hard of hearing (with hearing aids and all) and ADHD. She's the kid who's going to chase a ball into the road without looking and not have strong enough hearing to notice a car before it's too late (she rarely wears the hearing aids at play outside to fear of damaging them). I have followed kids home in my car and had discussions with their parents about their driving. I stick with the rule of "keep up with traffic" and will speed when that's how fast everyone else is going, but I never exceed the speed limit in pedestrian areas and I hope most adults follow suit ... though if my neighborhood is any indication, the worst time for speeding is when parents are heading to the Elementary school (located in my neighborhood!) to pick up their children. They'll blow past the crossing guards while kids are walking home from school doing 40 MPH. I guess if it's not their kid on side-walk, some folks feel it's more important to get where their going.
We have several cities, but they're somewhat small by comparison to some of the places a lot of HN readers are from. There's no analog to SF/Silicon Valley here. Sure, people walk around Detroit, but for the most part, that's down-town in a few select areas (yes, people do walk in the outskirts, as well, but there are much larger dangers going on there than pedestrian fatalities). There are several other cities where there is a lot of walking traffic. The speed limits are 25MPH in all of the places you'd expect them to be[0]. The 85th percentile rule does not apply in these cases nor does it apply on residential roads. I live on a main subdivision road and folks commonly exceed 25MPH. I call the cops when I see it and they've had patrols going on in my neighborhood every day for the last two weeks (it's very profitable for them). People are finally slowing down again. You will get pulled over for going 5MPH over the limit in these situations, whereas that would never happen on a main road unless you were doing something else wrong.
I'm a huge supporter of the 85th percentile rule, but only when applied outside of these cases. Yes, people walk on the county/state roads that are set by this rule, but there are proper signals with increased delay times when pedestrians push the magic button (which, on these roads, actually does something -- the walk/don't walk signals won't turn to walk ... ever ... if the button isn't pressed). On freeways, there's no pedestrian traffic (on purpose, anyway).
[0] My daughter is hard of hearing (with hearing aids and all) and ADHD. She's the kid who's going to chase a ball into the road without looking and not have strong enough hearing to notice a car before it's too late (she rarely wears the hearing aids at play outside to fear of damaging them). I have followed kids home in my car and had discussions with their parents about their driving. I stick with the rule of "keep up with traffic" and will speed when that's how fast everyone else is going, but I never exceed the speed limit in pedestrian areas and I hope most adults follow suit ... though if my neighborhood is any indication, the worst time for speeding is when parents are heading to the Elementary school (located in my neighborhood!) to pick up their children. They'll blow past the crossing guards while kids are walking home from school doing 40 MPH. I guess if it's not their kid on side-walk, some folks feel it's more important to get where their going.
Over here in Germany a speed limit typically means there's a good reason to follow it. On the Autobahn we've got places where there is no speed limit at all (yep, there's places where I can legally go 250 km/h) and on other places the speed may be set as low as 80 km/h (around 50mph).
A low speed limit typically is enforced with a traffic camera. Additionally we've go a lot of dynamic speed signs which show a speed limit which fits the current traffic conditions. (empty road at night - it's turned off. Rush hour - 80 km/h. Fog - 60 km/h And several steps in between)
Not having a "fixed" all the time limit makes drives accept the speed limit more easily.
Oh yes, and 85'th percentile. I frequently drive "+15km/h", so I go 95 when there's 80 allowed because the fine when I get caught that is not too expensive. (Fines for speeding are lower when you get caught outside city limits, speeding in a residential zone or in front of a school for example is one thing I have no tolerance for as well.)
A low speed limit typically is enforced with a traffic camera. Additionally we've go a lot of dynamic speed signs which show a speed limit which fits the current traffic conditions. (empty road at night - it's turned off. Rush hour - 80 km/h. Fog - 60 km/h And several steps in between)
Not having a "fixed" all the time limit makes drives accept the speed limit more easily.
Oh yes, and 85'th percentile. I frequently drive "+15km/h", so I go 95 when there's 80 allowed because the fine when I get caught that is not too expensive. (Fines for speeding are lower when you get caught outside city limits, speeding in a residential zone or in front of a school for example is one thing I have no tolerance for as well.)
Germany is also the most stressful country to drive in I think. You usually have three or four lanes - 80 kmph truck lane, 140 kmph standard lane, 200 kmph I'm slightly crazy lane and 250 kmph I'm a loonie lane.
When you accelerate from the 80kmph to the 140kmph you better have a good engine or you feel stressed like hell slowing everybody else down.
And keeping right all the times just creates a lot of unnecessary dynamics in traffic flow.
Don't even get me started on congestions when everybody slams their breaks and hit the warning blinkers.
German traffic is for macho wannabe race drivers.
I rather have US traffic or the traffic in the Netherlands where everybody just set their cruise control and drive casually.
In the Netherlands they also have trajectory speed checks, so you cannot speed anywhere from point A to B, since they clock your total time. Works wonders for getting a nice steady flow on the highway.
My 5 cents anyway.
When you accelerate from the 80kmph to the 140kmph you better have a good engine or you feel stressed like hell slowing everybody else down.
And keeping right all the times just creates a lot of unnecessary dynamics in traffic flow.
Don't even get me started on congestions when everybody slams their breaks and hit the warning blinkers.
German traffic is for macho wannabe race drivers.
I rather have US traffic or the traffic in the Netherlands where everybody just set their cruise control and drive casually.
In the Netherlands they also have trajectory speed checks, so you cannot speed anywhere from point A to B, since they clock your total time. Works wonders for getting a nice steady flow on the highway.
My 5 cents anyway.
I just returned from a 2 week driving trip through Germany and vastly preferred driving there to driving in the U.S. The "always pass on the left and never on the right" seemed like it led to more systematic and predictable behaviors, and also tremendously reduced the competitiveness of the driving experience as compared to the U.S.
It might all be cultural differences though. I noticed drivers seemed more attentive and never used their phones (unless completely stopped in traffic jams), whereas here in the U.S. it is extremely common to have drivers piddling in the left lane and absolutely oblivious to the goings on around them.
The only stressor I could see from driving on the autobahn was easily overcome - before passing someone on the left, just be sure to check really, really far back towards the horizon to make sure one one is coming.
It might all be cultural differences though. I noticed drivers seemed more attentive and never used their phones (unless completely stopped in traffic jams), whereas here in the U.S. it is extremely common to have drivers piddling in the left lane and absolutely oblivious to the goings on around them.
The only stressor I could see from driving on the autobahn was easily overcome - before passing someone on the left, just be sure to check really, really far back towards the horizon to make sure one one is coming.
I agree with all of this. Driving in the US is very unpredictable-- from the road surface to the drivers. In Germany, the road surface is great, and the flow of traffic is easy to understand. Sure, sometimes someone will flash their lights at you because you're only doing 130 in the passing lane, but you just pull over and they go by and everything's fine.
That said, if you do have an accident at those speeds... The one wreck I saw looked like a tin can had met a hydraulic press.
That said, if you do have an accident at those speeds... The one wreck I saw looked like a tin can had met a hydraulic press.
Wait, german highways are frequently concrete highways with junctions. Not so great??
Much better than the average concrete US interstate. ;-)
Also, speed limits on the Autobahn are lower in construction zones, urban areas with more traffic, and anywhere the roads are not that great (still good by Jersey Turnpike standards).
The stretches with no speed limit are really well maintained.
Also, speed limits on the Autobahn are lower in construction zones, urban areas with more traffic, and anywhere the roads are not that great (still good by Jersey Turnpike standards).
The stretches with no speed limit are really well maintained.
Huh. Fascinating how different experiences can be: I found the roadtrip through northeast US I made a few years ago one of the most relaxing freeway driving experiences ever.
Sure, as an Austrian I prefer driving on German autobahns as well (due to better perceived discipline), but the US trip was something else entirely - and I've come to think that it's maybe because almost every car has cruise control.
It's not even the speed differences between different lanes, but staying in lane, setting CC and not having to correct it for a really long time is not something I was used to, and going 600km or more a day left me far less tired than over here.
EDIT: Maybe there are intra-US differences as well? Since most here seem to talk about California...
Sure, as an Austrian I prefer driving on German autobahns as well (due to better perceived discipline), but the US trip was something else entirely - and I've come to think that it's maybe because almost every car has cruise control.
It's not even the speed differences between different lanes, but staying in lane, setting CC and not having to correct it for a really long time is not something I was used to, and going 600km or more a day left me far less tired than over here.
EDIT: Maybe there are intra-US differences as well? Since most here seem to talk about California...
Depends where in the US. You're unlikely to set your cruise control and leave it in a big city, unless it's late night/early morning.
Outside of the big cities, it can be much more relaxing. I drove across the mid-west and did the same as you. Drive at 70-80 mph and not take the cruise control off for hours.
Outside of the big cities, it can be much more relaxing. I drove across the mid-west and did the same as you. Drive at 70-80 mph and not take the cruise control off for hours.
Theoretically "always pass on the left" is a rule in the US too, it's just a rule that is not consistently observed.
I have noticed a tendency for many slow, timid appearing drivers to prefer to campout in the left lane because it gives them the least amount of interaction with other highway traffic.
On a typical 3-lane highway, the right lane will have many big trucks, plus merging traffic entering and exiting constantly. The center lane puts them right in the middle of all the chaos, getting passed by other traffic regularly on both sides. In the left lane they can set their cruise control to 5mph below the limit and squat.
Even when there are lulls in the amount of traffic, many times I have approached this type of driver from behind in the left lane, paused to see if they would move over for me to pass, and they almost never do.
Disclaimer: I like to drive 5-10mph over the speed limit :)
On a typical 3-lane highway, the right lane will have many big trucks, plus merging traffic entering and exiting constantly. The center lane puts them right in the middle of all the chaos, getting passed by other traffic regularly on both sides. In the left lane they can set their cruise control to 5mph below the limit and squat.
Even when there are lulls in the amount of traffic, many times I have approached this type of driver from behind in the left lane, paused to see if they would move over for me to pass, and they almost never do.
Disclaimer: I like to drive 5-10mph over the speed limit :)
>5mph below limit, left lane
Horrifying! :) But yes, the left lane is much nicer to camp out in on, say, a long commute - as long as you can handle maintaining the speed.
I live in the Dallas area and the lanes usually seem to be, from right to left: "the limit", "+5-10” and "+10-15". 15mph over is my cutoff, more or less, so I keep an eye on the mirror and try to shift over if someone is clearly coming up fast. Besides, don't want anyone tailgating me at those speeds tbh.
Does get a bit aggravating when what I consider "safe following distance at speed" is considered by the driver behind me as "this dumb econo-box being slow" and they whip around me. Doubly so when all it achieves is the two of us swapping places because there are no open avenues forward, lol. I'd have given it to him if there was one.
But "everyone else is a bad driver" will always be with us (myself no exception) so what can you do but grin and turn the music up.
Horrifying! :) But yes, the left lane is much nicer to camp out in on, say, a long commute - as long as you can handle maintaining the speed.
I live in the Dallas area and the lanes usually seem to be, from right to left: "the limit", "+5-10” and "+10-15". 15mph over is my cutoff, more or less, so I keep an eye on the mirror and try to shift over if someone is clearly coming up fast. Besides, don't want anyone tailgating me at those speeds tbh.
Does get a bit aggravating when what I consider "safe following distance at speed" is considered by the driver behind me as "this dumb econo-box being slow" and they whip around me. Doubly so when all it achieves is the two of us swapping places because there are no open avenues forward, lol. I'd have given it to him if there was one.
But "everyone else is a bad driver" will always be with us (myself no exception) so what can you do but grin and turn the music up.
That's because too many people drive in the left lane all the time. In my commute, traffic gets inverted where the left lane becomes clogged with people not going fast enough and to get anywhere requires passing on the right.
I can appreciate not wanting to go back and forth between say the middle lane and left lane all the time. I just wish people could figure out they are holding up traffic and get out of the way for a minute or two every now and then.
I can appreciate not wanting to go back and forth between say the middle lane and left lane all the time. I just wish people could figure out they are holding up traffic and get out of the way for a minute or two every now and then.
> I can appreciate not wanting to go back and forth between say the middle lane and left lane all the time.
That is about as self centered one can be in trafic. In reality, they are endangering themself and everybody else near them.
That is about as self centered one can be in trafic. In reality, they are endangering themself and everybody else near them.
Lane changes are dangerous too. I have no real statistics to back me up, but most of the signs of accidents that I see appear to stem from lane change collision.
I base that on sideways skid marks and wall impact.
I base that on sideways skid marks and wall impact.
Why?
If I do a steady 140 km/h in the middle lane, as mostly everybody else (here in germany), then why am I endangering anybody, if I just stay there? There is still the left lane for the faster ones and the right for the slower. (in the 3 lane scenario)
If I do a steady 140 km/h in the middle lane, as mostly everybody else (here in germany), then why am I endangering anybody, if I just stay there? There is still the left lane for the faster ones and the right for the slower. (in the 3 lane scenario)
Sitting in the middle lane with adequate speed is fine when there is heavy and/or slower trafic in the right lane. The grandparent talks about sitting in the leftmost lane because it's more convient, rather than sitting in the middle lane and using the left lane when passing.
Eh, I'd have to agree that staying in the middle lane and going the speed limit is the smarter thing to do. There are too many badly-designed on-ramps and people that don't understand how merging works for staying in the right lane to be practical, in most cases.
It's about sitting in the right most lane, because it's more convient, and not because you're passing.
In the 3 US states I've lived in, always pass on the left has been a "rule of thumb" but has never been illegal. So long as the right lane is a legal travel lane.
Huh. I thought it was a law in CA, which it technically is... but with exceptions for highways with two or more lanes in each direction.
It's illegal here in Massachusetts.
It's legal on highways, e.g. "any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement"
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Ch...
I lived in Massachusetts for 3 years and routinely passed people on the right, sometimes even in the breakdown lane if it was open for traffic.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Ch...
I lived in Massachusetts for 3 years and routinely passed people on the right, sometimes even in the breakdown lane if it was open for traffic.
> The "always pass on the left and never on the right" seemed like it led to more systematic and predictable behaviors, and also tremendously reduced the competitiveness of the driving experience as compared to the U.S.
Isn't that a thing in the U.S. as well? At least where I'm from (the northeast), passing someone on the right generally gets you a loud honk on the horn and occasionally a flip-off.
Isn't that a thing in the U.S. as well? At least where I'm from (the northeast), passing someone on the right generally gets you a loud honk on the horn and occasionally a flip-off.
The problem with "pass on the left" is that it requires to drivers to consciously treat the left lane as a passing-only lane. That doesn't happen in California. The left lane in California is the "let me zone out and ignore all these cars passing me" lane.
I disagree with strictfp that "staying to the right" creates unnecessary traffic dynamics. What happens in California is worse. Someone holds up the left lane, so all the faster cars will pile up on the right lane and try to sneak in front of the slow car, but inevitably they'll cut someone off and set off a chain reaction of braking for everyone that was patiently queued up in the left lane.
(Granted on two-lane I-5 there are some legitimate a reason for this: the right lane is used heavily by trucks, so the road wears down quicker and becomes rougher in the right lane than the left. Naturally people gravitate towards smoother asphalt. And if you just passed a truck a few minutes back and are gonna pass another one again, why not just stay in this lane?)
I disagree with strictfp that "staying to the right" creates unnecessary traffic dynamics. What happens in California is worse. Someone holds up the left lane, so all the faster cars will pile up on the right lane and try to sneak in front of the slow car, but inevitably they'll cut someone off and set off a chain reaction of braking for everyone that was patiently queued up in the left lane.
(Granted on two-lane I-5 there are some legitimate a reason for this: the right lane is used heavily by trucks, so the road wears down quicker and becomes rougher in the right lane than the left. Naturally people gravitate towards smoother asphalt. And if you just passed a truck a few minutes back and are gonna pass another one again, why not just stay in this lane?)
This only happens on poorly designed roads that cannot handle their traffic flow. Most people in most places will obey the left passing rule only so long as there are enough lanes that the traffic fits in lanes - 1 so one can always be open.
Since the US infrastructure system is a colossal piece of shit, highways built 40 years ago still stand exactly as they were then today having to accommodate multiple times more traffic than they were ever meant to. This breaks down the road rules when its bumper to bumper and every lane is backed up.
Since the US infrastructure system is a colossal piece of shit, highways built 40 years ago still stand exactly as they were then today having to accommodate multiple times more traffic than they were ever meant to. This breaks down the road rules when its bumper to bumper and every lane is backed up.
The scenario illustrated in the GP happens because the the rightmost lane is subject to merging traffic from onramps and offramps, and also tends to be the lane where trucks and vehicles obeying the speed limit (or both) congregate.
Meanwhile, the leftmost lane attracts people wanting to drive faster than traffic, the people who just want to get one car ahead, as well as the people who just want to drive without having to let cars in all the time.
If there's only two lanes -- like on most rural interstates -- and sufficient volume exists to prevent the left lane from actually clearing out cars, this creates a tragedy-of-commons situation in the left lane where there's more empty space in the right lane than in the left. A subset of people will then use the empty slots in the right lane to try to get ahead, making the situation even riskier.
But this poster's right; the root cause is not enough lanes to ensure a high level-of-service.
Meanwhile, the leftmost lane attracts people wanting to drive faster than traffic, the people who just want to get one car ahead, as well as the people who just want to drive without having to let cars in all the time.
If there's only two lanes -- like on most rural interstates -- and sufficient volume exists to prevent the left lane from actually clearing out cars, this creates a tragedy-of-commons situation in the left lane where there's more empty space in the right lane than in the left. A subset of people will then use the empty slots in the right lane to try to get ahead, making the situation even riskier.
But this poster's right; the root cause is not enough lanes to ensure a high level-of-service.
Totally agree, but the US is huge!
It would be much more informational to take into account things like average number of cars traveling between various locations, number of lanes between said locations, residential density...
It would be much more informational to take into account things like average number of cars traveling between various locations, number of lanes between said locations, residential density...
Another issue is mobility in America. It's not uncommon for people to move across the country for work. So cities like Portland or Austin don't expect the sudden boom in population and increased traffic that entails.
> Most people in most places will obey the left passing rule only so long as there are enough lanes that the traffic fits in lanes - 1 so one can always be open.
By that logic, that would mean at 11pm at night on US-101 between SF and San Jose, I shouldn't need to pass anyone on the right, but I guarantee you there's always drivers lingering in the left-most lane.
By that logic, that would mean at 11pm at night on US-101 between SF and San Jose, I shouldn't need to pass anyone on the right, but I guarantee you there's always drivers lingering in the left-most lane.
If the road is usually congested, frequent traversers of that road will just get in the habit of staying left until they are near their destination. I do it on PA-22 all the time (albeit not in a condition where people need to pass me on the right), even when the traffic is light, because its what people expect behavior wise on that road.
highway 5 between sf and la is notorious for this. it's a 2-lane highway and the right lane is filled with trucks, so all cars go in the left lane. passing is some crazy game where you try to get around slow cars in the left lane while trying not to get stuck behind a truck. it's just awful. rush hour makes it even worse.
It depends on the state. In many states passing on the right is illegal and considered rude, but California is a notable exception. Also, while there is a law here in CA that slower traffic should stay out of the left lane, I think it is more of a recommendation -- I can't recall ever seeing it enforced. I think most drivers make some effort to follow it, but not to the extent that people do on the east coast.
In most states (all?) "passing on the right" does not mean passing someone on the right in a regular traffic lane.
It refers to passing people while in an exit-only lane, turn-only lane, shoulder, etc.
It refers to passing people while in an exit-only lane, turn-only lane, shoulder, etc.
In Massachusetts, passing on the right on a divided highway is legal. I'd argue that in a lot of cases, it's the fault of drivers on the left not moving out of their lane. But you also have situations where, with lanes of steady traffic, the right lane just gets moving faster.
Now, yes, you get situations where people veer from lane to lane because the overall flow of traffic isn't fast enough for their tastes. But, especially on three lane each direction roads, you get cars and trucks that don't want to deal with merging traffic at exits just sitting in the middle.
Now, yes, you get situations where people veer from lane to lane because the overall flow of traffic isn't fast enough for their tastes. But, especially on three lane each direction roads, you get cars and trucks that don't want to deal with merging traffic at exits just sitting in the middle.
I believe that there it's ruled so that you have to use the rightmost lane that's free - so if it's possible to pass someone on the right, then it means that they're not in a position to honk and flip off because they're driving wrong themselves.
> Isn't that a thing in the U.S. as well?
Yes, but not normally observed in more densely populated areas. In Los Angeles, for example, it's use any lane you can to pass. I've personally witnessed people, who were driving slower than the flow of traffic, move all the way to the left to "get out of the way" of other drivers. It's well-intentioned, though poor understanding.
Licensing needs to be more rigorous, but many cities rely very heavily on commuting without a proper public transportation infrastructure in place.
Yes, but not normally observed in more densely populated areas. In Los Angeles, for example, it's use any lane you can to pass. I've personally witnessed people, who were driving slower than the flow of traffic, move all the way to the left to "get out of the way" of other drivers. It's well-intentioned, though poor understanding.
Licensing needs to be more rigorous, but many cities rely very heavily on commuting without a proper public transportation infrastructure in place.
The left lane is also, almost universally, a "I expect to speed" lane. When I need to use the left lane to pass and I'm driving the speed limit, I'm almost always tailgated.
Well at least you know why they're tailgating you.
It is a law everywhere that you must pass on the left. Slower traffic keep right. It is a cultural issue.
I think "Slower traffic keep right" is part of the problem, nobody wants to think of themselves as "slower". The signs should read "Left lane for passing only" or similar.
Also, I pass people on the right all the time, but I blame them for it. :-) If people don't want to be passed on the right, they shouldn't drive on the left. Simple enough.
Also, I pass people on the right all the time, but I blame them for it. :-) If people don't want to be passed on the right, they shouldn't drive on the left. Simple enough.
At least here, the signs say "State law: Left lane for passing only." Slower drivers never enter the left lane, and the right lane is consistently fast and accessible if you're willing to meet the speed requirements of going above the limit a bit.
Passing on right is legal on roads with two or more lanes going in the same direction.
Laws for passing on the left was intended for roads with one lane going in opposite directions.
Driving the speed limit is considered normal speed according to case law. Slow traffic is going 10 on a 25.
Laws for passing on the left was intended for roads with one lane going in opposite directions.
Driving the speed limit is considered normal speed according to case law. Slow traffic is going 10 on a 25.
Anyone who hasn't driven in congested roadways like 880 or new jersey turnpike cannot understand that left lane as passing completely breaks down when you have too many cars and too many exits. We just have too many goddamn cars.
[deleted]
>Germany is also the most stressful country to drive in I think.
I'm guessing you've never been to any developing country. India doesn't even respect traffic lights or the concept of "lanes." You have modern cars sharing the roads with literal ox-drawn carriages and they're all splitting lanes with hundreds of little scooters.
Hell, even Italy is a complete clusterfuck. If Germany is stressful to drive in for someone I would question if that person is comfortable behind the wheel of a car at all.
In fact, I'll say this is one of the big problems with how lax driving standards are in America. There are lots of people who drive everywhere here who do NOT have the skill, attention span, or reflexes to be behind the wheel of a car. It's too economically essential to be a functioning member of society to make the standards any stricter, but they're so lax that we have a glut of terrible drivers. Terrible drivers lead to overly permissive road design (that winds up being unsafe for anyone not in a car like bikers, cyclists or pedestrians) and that just leads to a bad quality of life overall for everyone.
I'm guessing you've never been to any developing country. India doesn't even respect traffic lights or the concept of "lanes." You have modern cars sharing the roads with literal ox-drawn carriages and they're all splitting lanes with hundreds of little scooters.
Hell, even Italy is a complete clusterfuck. If Germany is stressful to drive in for someone I would question if that person is comfortable behind the wheel of a car at all.
In fact, I'll say this is one of the big problems with how lax driving standards are in America. There are lots of people who drive everywhere here who do NOT have the skill, attention span, or reflexes to be behind the wheel of a car. It's too economically essential to be a functioning member of society to make the standards any stricter, but they're so lax that we have a glut of terrible drivers. Terrible drivers lead to overly permissive road design (that winds up being unsafe for anyone not in a car like bikers, cyclists or pedestrians) and that just leads to a bad quality of life overall for everyone.
Yep, not trying to be disrespectful to fellow South American or African HNers, anyone that thinks driving in Germany is stressful won't ever manage to drive in those countries as well.
Yet people do manage to have some kind of order within chaos, that makes the whole traffic flow.
Yet people do manage to have some kind of order within chaos, that makes the whole traffic flow.
I'm the original poster and I've driven in central and south america and found it completely fine. I guess I prefer common sense to idiotic speeds and strict rules ;)
> Italy is a complete clusterfuck.
Yes, but only until you understand the trick: do NOT expect perfect adherence to driving code from others. That's it!
For example, when approaching an intersection where you have right of way, expect someone to try and pass anyway: it basically means slowing a bit down and paying attention on the incoming roads. Applying this grain of salt would prevent a good part of the car crashes I see on youtube (namely "driving in Russia", but not only).
And, by the way, expecting bad behaviour from others is not a justification for when I'll be the other.
Yes, but only until you understand the trick: do NOT expect perfect adherence to driving code from others. That's it!
For example, when approaching an intersection where you have right of way, expect someone to try and pass anyway: it basically means slowing a bit down and paying attention on the incoming roads. Applying this grain of salt would prevent a good part of the car crashes I see on youtube (namely "driving in Russia", but not only).
And, by the way, expecting bad behaviour from others is not a justification for when I'll be the other.
Last time I was there, Indians referred to western traffic as "Streamlined." I remember Delhi had the words "Relax" printed on all the stop lights, in English. I'm not sure it really helped.
Hmm, on a related thought, how could self driving cars ever work there?
They won't. Firstly because the traffic is insane. Secondly because labor rates are so low that rickshaw and taxi drivers are dirt cheap. The productivity function is way skewed towards labor in India to where expensive robots to drive the cars don't make economic sense.
If it follows other tech trends(eg: cell phones bypassing land lines), India and other developing countries will see self-driving cars before freeways and owned cars. Well, I'm an optimist.
Cell phones bypassing land lines makes sense because you can cover more customers with less cost. Self-driving cars may eventually be less costly than human driven cars, but for the near future, the costs you add (sensors, software, actuators, etc) are way more expensive than the costs you save (driver's attention, optimistically damage to persons and property reduced through collision avoidance), particularly in developing countries where a person's attention has less monetary value, but the raw materials for the car have similar costs. It's unlikely that you'd get much of the ancillary benefits of usability by unlicensed drivers either -- few people will be able to afford a driverless car to cart their kid around to school or wherever, anyway those people could just hire a driver and a normal car.
Maybe. But I'm not sure it's as easy as putting things in a scale from more modern to less modern. The places where India has leapfrogged has been on stuff that needs new infrastructure development since there was never any good old infrastructure to take up resources or incumbent players to choke out new players.
Self driving cars don't need new infrastructure, its functionally an application that runs on existing infrastructure. If you have decent roads it'll work the same way whether you're in India or anywhere else.
Although I guess you could argue that Indians are less prissy about what they're willing to tolerate. A self-driving auto-rickshaw wouldn't fly in America, but it would be just fine for just about any Indian, and it's a much more useful application of self-driving tech than expecting everyone to have their own robo-chauffeured luxury cars.
Self driving cars don't need new infrastructure, its functionally an application that runs on existing infrastructure. If you have decent roads it'll work the same way whether you're in India or anywhere else.
Although I guess you could argue that Indians are less prissy about what they're willing to tolerate. A self-driving auto-rickshaw wouldn't fly in America, but it would be just fine for just about any Indian, and it's a much more useful application of self-driving tech than expecting everyone to have their own robo-chauffeured luxury cars.
I would think they would work even better there?
Highly doubtful. There are way too many variables. If they worked at all, they'd be unable to move or only at a speed of <5kph. It's simply too chaotic and way too many variables.
I see what you are saying, but I still think a computer would do better in an environment like that with less rules than say the US. At least with the goal being not causing accidents. A computer with 360 vision is undoubtedly better at avoiding accidents probably in any condition. It may result in as you say too slow speeds or paralyzation, but many "rules" in the US either arent written down, or often arent followed making that situation more likely than with less rules imo.
> In fact, I'll say this is one of the big problems with how lax driving standards are in America. There are lots of people who drive everywhere here who do NOT have the skill, attention span, or reflexes to be behind the wheel of a car.
So should we only allow some of the population to utilize cars? Considering how vital they are to the American lifestyle (the US covers so much land), that seems unreasonable.
So should we only allow some of the population to utilize cars? Considering how vital they are to the American lifestyle (the US covers so much land), that seems unreasonable.
Only those who are qualified to operate a vehicle should be allowed to do so.
Where is the controversy in that statement?
The way you seem to put it is that only a small portion (sounds like less than 25%) should be allowed to drive.
How is the rest of the population supposed to get around?
How is the rest of the population supposed to get around?
Ever heard of public transports?
I have as my girlfriend and I have lived for over a year without a car. We walk/lyft/occasionally use the Seattle lite rail to get to 90% of the places we want to go.
However, despite the amazing hiking/backpacking places we can go here, we have only done that a few times (relying on other people driving).
Should we always rely on other people to go to non-public transportation routes (This has also hampered us from doing lots of other things hence why we got a zipcar membership recently)?
However, despite the amazing hiking/backpacking places we can go here, we have only done that a few times (relying on other people driving).
Should we always rely on other people to go to non-public transportation routes (This has also hampered us from doing lots of other things hence why we got a zipcar membership recently)?
Well, at least drivers should be prepared and trained thoroughly. I'm not sure if this is still true but it is my understanding that getting a drivers license is a very casual affair in the US - a quick theoretical and a practical test and you're done. In Germany you have to finish about two dozen practice sessions, in class and on the road, before you can apply for a theory or road test.
And it will cost you - over the whole course it will almost certainly be above € 1000 and generally depend on how well you do, how many sessions/tests you need. With these kind of costs people take this very serious and still fail all the time.
Naturally I'm not a fan of the costs, but I think thorough preparation and training is essential. Operating a car is a huge responsibility that affects not only your safety but that of other drivers, pedestrians, passengers, etc. Getting the license to do so should not be a cakewalk.
On a sidenote: Of course this approach requires valid alternatives to a car, like efficient public transport options, but that's another discussion.
And it will cost you - over the whole course it will almost certainly be above € 1000 and generally depend on how well you do, how many sessions/tests you need. With these kind of costs people take this very serious and still fail all the time.
Naturally I'm not a fan of the costs, but I think thorough preparation and training is essential. Operating a car is a huge responsibility that affects not only your safety but that of other drivers, pedestrians, passengers, etc. Getting the license to do so should not be a cakewalk.
On a sidenote: Of course this approach requires valid alternatives to a car, like efficient public transport options, but that's another discussion.
The US covers a lot of land, but the American population does not. And there is no real reason it even needs to occupy as much land as it presently does. It's bad urban planning and dubious tax incentives that makes us sprawl. Most people in or near major metros shouldn't need a car to be a functioning member of society. It's a major policy failure that it is presently so.
I don't know how you just pulled "25%" out of the air. Most people could be trained to drive better, they just never bother learning because the standards for licensing are so lax that there is no downside to doing so. There are lots of areas where you can get a drivers' license without even knowing how to parallel park.
I don't know how you just pulled "25%" out of the air. Most people could be trained to drive better, they just never bother learning because the standards for licensing are so lax that there is no downside to doing so. There are lots of areas where you can get a drivers' license without even knowing how to parallel park.
I'm not from the US, but the hearsay is that getting a driver's license is a lot easier than in e.g. in Germany. Here in Germany getting a license costs ~1500 Euro and it's not uncommon for people to flunk their first attempt.
I took a semester long drivers education class and then had to have a 50 hours of driving with my parents (Although I heard of other parents just signing the forms for driving with parents (my parents did not)).
> had to have a 50 hours of driving with my parents
The assumption with this requirement is that the parents are good drivers. That may or may not be the case. It would be better to require that the 50 hours be completed with a certified driving instructor.
The assumption with this requirement is that the parents are good drivers. That may or may not be the case. It would be better to require that the 50 hours be completed with a certified driving instructor.
It's very subjective. I find driving in Germany to be not very stressful, despite the relatively narrow lanes and high speeds.
Now, one has to compare similar situations, not a German Autobahn in a Metropolitan region with a empty desert highway... But comparing a busy Autobahn with a busy freeway (say the interstate into Chicago), I found the freeway to be much more stressful. People are passing on both sides! And there is not much speed differential. I can't just fall back to the right if I want to take it slow. There is often no emergency lane. I feel like I'm being pushed along, and if I can't keep up, I will be ran over.
In Germany, people can go faster, but it feels very predictable, clockwork-like. Yes, you have occasional idiots speeding with 250 km/h on the left lane that don't slow down and assume you will move out of the way out of self-preservation. But those are outliers, other than that I rarely have complaints. Maybe it is a cliche, but it seems the drivers' education, and the condition of cars and streets, is really good in Germany.
Now, one has to compare similar situations, not a German Autobahn in a Metropolitan region with a empty desert highway... But comparing a busy Autobahn with a busy freeway (say the interstate into Chicago), I found the freeway to be much more stressful. People are passing on both sides! And there is not much speed differential. I can't just fall back to the right if I want to take it slow. There is often no emergency lane. I feel like I'm being pushed along, and if I can't keep up, I will be ran over.
In Germany, people can go faster, but it feels very predictable, clockwork-like. Yes, you have occasional idiots speeding with 250 km/h on the left lane that don't slow down and assume you will move out of the way out of self-preservation. But those are outliers, other than that I rarely have complaints. Maybe it is a cliche, but it seems the drivers' education, and the condition of cars and streets, is really good in Germany.
>Maybe it is a cliche, but it seems the drivers' education, and the condition of cars and streets, is really good in Germany.
It is not a cliche. I have lived in the US for the past 5 years and lived for 20 years in Germany before that. Germans roads are like 5000x better than US roads (at least here in California).
Road paintings here are a joke, especially at night or when it is raining. The only exception is when a road gets painted freshly. Then it is good for like 2 months.
It is not a cliche. I have lived in the US for the past 5 years and lived for 20 years in Germany before that. Germans roads are like 5000x better than US roads (at least here in California).
Road paintings here are a joke, especially at night or when it is raining. The only exception is when a road gets painted freshly. Then it is good for like 2 months.
What do the German road engineers do that make road paintings last for more than 2 months?
I'm gonna guess some combo of "pay for materials that last more than 2 months" and "paint every two months". Which is doable when you have 200% less roads / vehicles and politicians unwilling to let the infrastructure of your country fall to shit.
I think it's just the overall road maintenance that is better.
Not have to deal with salt, snow plows and residual abrasive material.
There's winter in Germany, too, you know? Salt is used, too.
However, you hardly see any grit/sand on the roads. There's a lot of salt.
Where I live (Finland) we have lots of sand but much less salt. The salt use is diminished to protect the environment, but the sand eats the road, as well as the studs most people use in winter tires.
(Yes, we change to winter tires in the autumn and summer tires in the spring; this seems to be an unknown thing in Britain or France and even a bit of snow produces a mess there. Germans have non-studded winter tires which work fine with the amount of salt.)
Where I live (Finland) we have lots of sand but much less salt. The salt use is diminished to protect the environment, but the sand eats the road, as well as the studs most people use in winter tires.
(Yes, we change to winter tires in the autumn and summer tires in the spring; this seems to be an unknown thing in Britain or France and even a bit of snow produces a mess there. Germans have non-studded winter tires which work fine with the amount of salt.)
Do drivers in Finland ever use studless snow tires like Bridgestone Blizzaks, or do they always rely on studded tires.
I live in the US and switch to those tires in the winter and find that they have much better traction compared to the all season tires I have on my other car. Other than icy conditions, does having studs have much advantage over studless. I suspect that the damage to roadways caused by studs could be substantially reduced if more people used studless snow tires in the winter.
I live in the US and switch to those tires in the winter and find that they have much better traction compared to the all season tires I have on my other car. Other than icy conditions, does having studs have much advantage over studless. I suspect that the damage to roadways caused by studs could be substantially reduced if more people used studless snow tires in the winter.
In Finland, about 85 % use studded winter tyres, 15 % use tyres without studs. Sweden is similar but somewhat less studs.
Studded tyres are more noisy, and they do eat the road more. They are more consistent - in snow, there's no difference; when the road is clean, studs do slightly worse; when the road is particularly slippery and icy, the studded tyres are much better. However, I can deal with that, so I prefer studless tyres. Last winter I had studded ones because they came with the used car I bought. I'm switching to studless for next winter.
It would be good to reduce the number of studded tyres, but people like them for the consistency. However, it wouldn't be good if all switched to studless tyres, because then the roads would sometimes become extremely slippery and polished. The studs remove the ice so that main roads become safer also for studless tyres. I think that a ratio of 30 % of studded tyres would be good for the whole.
If everyone had studless tyres, there would need to be substantially more salt and grit on the roads, and then there would again be more dust and damage to waterways.
(Currently we can see the polishing impact on bus stops: buses are heavy vehicles which do not have studs, and they sometimes get stuck on bus stops at a slight uphill, as the area is polished ice, while everyone else drives by normally.)
Studded tyres are more noisy, and they do eat the road more. They are more consistent - in snow, there's no difference; when the road is clean, studs do slightly worse; when the road is particularly slippery and icy, the studded tyres are much better. However, I can deal with that, so I prefer studless tyres. Last winter I had studded ones because they came with the used car I bought. I'm switching to studless for next winter.
It would be good to reduce the number of studded tyres, but people like them for the consistency. However, it wouldn't be good if all switched to studless tyres, because then the roads would sometimes become extremely slippery and polished. The studs remove the ice so that main roads become safer also for studless tyres. I think that a ratio of 30 % of studded tyres would be good for the whole.
If everyone had studless tyres, there would need to be substantially more salt and grit on the roads, and then there would again be more dust and damage to waterways.
(Currently we can see the polishing impact on bus stops: buses are heavy vehicles which do not have studs, and they sometimes get stuck on bus stops at a slight uphill, as the area is polished ice, while everyone else drives by normally.)
Wow. I live within the USA snowbelt, but studded tires are pretty uncommon outside remote undeveloped areas and mountainous areas. Studless (or unstudded, studdable) winter tires are very common in the winter. Poor or clueless people or those who don't drive much will use all-season year-round. Studded (and obviously even winter) tires are very much a regional thing, but studded tires do very much eat the roads and are regulated or banned on many roads.
We do use a lot of salt. I don't think rock salt is much of an environmental concern. It can kill plants by the roadside until it's flushed out of the soil, but the roadside is already a degraded environment for flora. Normal rock salt is a natural material.
What's worse is that some towns will use raw "frack juice" as we call it for deicing roads. This is a mixture of water, salt, and chemicals that spits out of gas wells in the hydrofracking process. Often they'll just remove some of the water to concentrate a brine and apply it to roads as well. There is unbelievably little oversight, it's done on a local level, the chemicals are considered an industry trade secret and god knows what they're spreading around in those communities that allow this to happen.
We do use a lot of salt. I don't think rock salt is much of an environmental concern. It can kill plants by the roadside until it's flushed out of the soil, but the roadside is already a degraded environment for flora. Normal rock salt is a natural material.
What's worse is that some towns will use raw "frack juice" as we call it for deicing roads. This is a mixture of water, salt, and chemicals that spits out of gas wells in the hydrofracking process. Often they'll just remove some of the water to concentrate a brine and apply it to roads as well. There is unbelievably little oversight, it's done on a local level, the chemicals are considered an industry trade secret and god knows what they're spreading around in those communities that allow this to happen.
Having grown up in Germany and living in the US, I feel the opposite. The US traffic is far less predictable. In the US, you have to look, left, right, back and ahead when trying to switch lane, as anyone could appear from anywhere. You never know which lane you should stay on to drive "a little faster". Generally, people just don't pay attention.
In Germany it is in one direction only. Left to overtake, right to pull back over. In addition you do have to monitor your back mirror more carefully, which people in the US do not seem to do (though they should). In Germany, virtually no one plays with their phones on highways.
Also, traffic deaths are more than half in Germany than in the US, despite higher speeds [0].
I feel like traffic rage in the US is much more prevailent, particularly in the east coast. Having said that, Dutch or Danish traffic is far more relaxing. But also much much slower...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
In Germany it is in one direction only. Left to overtake, right to pull back over. In addition you do have to monitor your back mirror more carefully, which people in the US do not seem to do (though they should). In Germany, virtually no one plays with their phones on highways.
Also, traffic deaths are more than half in Germany than in the US, despite higher speeds [0].
I feel like traffic rage in the US is much more prevailent, particularly in the east coast. Having said that, Dutch or Danish traffic is far more relaxing. But also much much slower...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
US resident here. On the local freeway, when I signal I wish to make a lane change, other drivers often speed up. I really don't get it. What did I do to their family?
The trick is to follow the mirror, signal, maneuver method. In other words, you don't signal until you know you have a gap to change lanes into. If you signal first without checking for a gap first, then you're treating the signal as a way to ask for permission to change lanes. Other drivers may or may not allow you to do so.
My experience driving in Germany is that it's very rare to see four lanes. Three is common enough, but usually around major cities where there's a speed limit. More typical is two.
The highways are also regularly torn up and rebuilt to maintain a glass-smooth surface on which one could safely drive 300 km/h, but it's only possible to maintain that for a minute because then you hit another construction zone or traffic jam caused by inadequate capacity. Despite all the construction, the highways rarely get widened, just resurfaced.
I don't think the main problem is that speed differentials are causing poor dynamics, but that the roads don't have enough lanes.
The highways are also regularly torn up and rebuilt to maintain a glass-smooth surface on which one could safely drive 300 km/h, but it's only possible to maintain that for a minute because then you hit another construction zone or traffic jam caused by inadequate capacity. Despite all the construction, the highways rarely get widened, just resurfaced.
I don't think the main problem is that speed differentials are causing poor dynamics, but that the roads don't have enough lanes.
> I don't think the main problem is that speed differentials are causing poor dynamics, but that the roads don't have enough lanes.
I don't know.
I drove throughout Germany a few times last year, and I didn't really understand why there were so many jams and general slowdowns. I usually drive in France where the highways are almost exactly the same as Germany (most often two lanes, frequently three, rarely more, usually in very good state) and traffic is rarely as bad. I got stranded a few times in completely still traffic, for tens of minutes, during a normal working day, while this only ever happens at the worst time of holiday traffic in France.
Maybe it's because French highways are paying which probably discourages some drivers, but I also noticed a lot of roadworks in Germany (almost as bad as Belgium during the height of roadworks there last year). Enough, as you said, to never be able to maintain a high speed for long, while you barely ever notice those in France. I don't know how French companies do it, but I'm pretty sure it helps with the traffic.
Other than the traffic though, driving in Germany was a pleasure. People are aware of their surroundings and don't drive like the road was theirs.
I don't know.
I drove throughout Germany a few times last year, and I didn't really understand why there were so many jams and general slowdowns. I usually drive in France where the highways are almost exactly the same as Germany (most often two lanes, frequently three, rarely more, usually in very good state) and traffic is rarely as bad. I got stranded a few times in completely still traffic, for tens of minutes, during a normal working day, while this only ever happens at the worst time of holiday traffic in France.
Maybe it's because French highways are paying which probably discourages some drivers, but I also noticed a lot of roadworks in Germany (almost as bad as Belgium during the height of roadworks there last year). Enough, as you said, to never be able to maintain a high speed for long, while you barely ever notice those in France. I don't know how French companies do it, but I'm pretty sure it helps with the traffic.
Other than the traffic though, driving in Germany was a pleasure. People are aware of their surroundings and don't drive like the road was theirs.
Germany Autobahn see more use and needs more maintance. Besides more Germans on the road, a lot of trafic pass through German, a lot more than in France.
And the fact that the French highways require payment reduce trafic even more. But they are a joy to drive on. Set the CC and just go.
And the fact that the French highways require payment reduce trafic even more. But they are a joy to drive on. Set the CC and just go.
And the fact that SNCF has dedicated high speed infrastructure for the TGV, whereas DB runs the ICE mostly on mixed use tracks which makes it more challenging to provide fast, predictable service, all while having to compete with faster best-case speeds on the road.
The difference really is that many French motorways are toll roads (that péage sign) and have far fewer cars and lorries than the German autobahns.
In Germany, the logistics clearly utilizes the autobahns a lot. You see constant lines of heavy vehicles on the rightmost lane, and sometimes your overtaking them is interrupted by one truck passing another one, very very slowly as they both have a speed limiter, just adjusted slightly differently.
In Germany, the logistics clearly utilizes the autobahns a lot. You see constant lines of heavy vehicles on the rightmost lane, and sometimes your overtaking them is interrupted by one truck passing another one, very very slowly as they both have a speed limiter, just adjusted slightly differently.
In 2015, according to estimates by the World Bank, Germany had 234 people per square kilometer. France had 122. And then there are the tolls.
I'm pretty sure Germany is trying to use less road for a lot more cars and everything else is secondary with regard to traffic jams.
I'm pretty sure Germany is trying to use less road for a lot more cars and everything else is secondary with regard to traffic jams.
Having driven in both countries, I think that has a lot to do with the extremely steep tolls on French highways, and the much higher gas tax. I believe Germany also has a higher rate of car ownership and the average population density is higher.
> I don't think the main problem is that speed differentials are causing poor dynamics, but that the roads don't have enough lanes.
Actually the limited number of lanes is what enables us to survive the speed differentials. Fast/[middle/]slow lanes can easily be enumerated without counting, which makes situational awareness so much easier. And you certainly do need a lot of situational awareness. It's a bit like CPU registers vs. an unconstrained stack.
I have only ever seen more than three regular lanes in large metropolitan areas where there is hardly any open road between interchanges and where speed limits are a certainty. I don't know if a single piece of four lane unrestricted driving exists in all of Germany, I would not even be entirely surprised if you could not legally build one.
Actually the limited number of lanes is what enables us to survive the speed differentials. Fast/[middle/]slow lanes can easily be enumerated without counting, which makes situational awareness so much easier. And you certainly do need a lot of situational awareness. It's a bit like CPU registers vs. an unconstrained stack.
I have only ever seen more than three regular lanes in large metropolitan areas where there is hardly any open road between interchanges and where speed limits are a certainty. I don't know if a single piece of four lane unrestricted driving exists in all of Germany, I would not even be entirely surprised if you could not legally build one.
> on which one could safely drive 300 km/h, but it's only possible to maintain that for a minute because then you hit another construction zone or traffic jam caused by inadequate capacity
Anecdote: recently went from Offenburg to Stuttgart and back and could drive a pretty much constant 190~240kph all the way (~1h30) except for a couple sections which were not unlimited. Having to slow down to 190kph isn't quite what I'd call a traffic jam. 300kph is just harder because there's not that many vehicles able to go that fast, so you end up catching up with the "slower" (so to speak) ones, and since vehicles are (supposed to) be electronically limited to 250kph, you're bound to meet some anyway.
Anecdote: recently went from Offenburg to Stuttgart and back and could drive a pretty much constant 190~240kph all the way (~1h30) except for a couple sections which were not unlimited. Having to slow down to 190kph isn't quite what I'd call a traffic jam. 300kph is just harder because there's not that many vehicles able to go that fast, so you end up catching up with the "slower" (so to speak) ones, and since vehicles are (supposed to) be electronically limited to 250kph, you're bound to meet some anyway.
vehicles are (supposed to) be electronically limited to 250kph
It was my impression that vehicles aren't supposed to be able to go faster than the speed rating of their tires. Since 250 km/h is a common speed rating for tires, and higher ratings tend to get expensive fast, German cars are often limited to 250 km/h.
No current Porsches (real ones, not the SUVs) are that slow, and the Porsche tire recommendation guide calls for tires rated for 300 km/h, or "over 300 km/h" (the standardized ratings don't go higher) for all models except the Macan SUV with 18" wheels, for which it recommends 270 km/h.
http://files2.porsche.com/filestore/download/usa/none/porsch...
It was my impression that vehicles aren't supposed to be able to go faster than the speed rating of their tires. Since 250 km/h is a common speed rating for tires, and higher ratings tend to get expensive fast, German cars are often limited to 250 km/h.
No current Porsches (real ones, not the SUVs) are that slow, and the Porsche tire recommendation guide calls for tires rated for 300 km/h, or "over 300 km/h" (the standardized ratings don't go higher) for all models except the Macan SUV with 18" wheels, for which it recommends 270 km/h.
http://files2.porsche.com/filestore/download/usa/none/porsch...
The index rating on a tire basically reflects the speed limit that a tire can sustain for at least (IIRC) 10 mins before giving up and being destroyed, minus one. So a tire that sustained 10 min of U rating (200kph) speed and suffered drastic damage (typically, tire blows and tread band goes off) right after that mark gets a T rating (190kph). This is oversimplified but that's the gist of it.
You can thus see why the index of stock tires always vastly overshoot the top speed of a car, e.g my car gets a Y tyre stock even though its top speed is 245kph, and my ex car has a W rating when the top speed is 210kph.
It's not a good idea to go anywhere near the limit of your tire speed index, nor to go cheap and skimp on the index when buying a replacement tire.
I bet the Macan that gets 18" and the W index is the one with low enough top speeds (below 230kph, that'd be 2.0L four-pot petrol and 3.0L V6 Diesel ones)
EDIT: found a reference again WRT index tests
> Speed ratings are based on laboratory tests where the tire is pressed against a large diameter metal drum to reflect its appropriate load, and run at ever increasing speeds (in 6.2 mph steps in 10 minute increments) until the tire's required speed has been met.
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=...
You can thus see why the index of stock tires always vastly overshoot the top speed of a car, e.g my car gets a Y tyre stock even though its top speed is 245kph, and my ex car has a W rating when the top speed is 210kph.
It's not a good idea to go anywhere near the limit of your tire speed index, nor to go cheap and skimp on the index when buying a replacement tire.
I bet the Macan that gets 18" and the W index is the one with low enough top speeds (below 230kph, that'd be 2.0L four-pot petrol and 3.0L V6 Diesel ones)
EDIT: found a reference again WRT index tests
> Speed ratings are based on laboratory tests where the tire is pressed against a large diameter metal drum to reflect its appropriate load, and run at ever increasing speeds (in 6.2 mph steps in 10 minute increments) until the tire's required speed has been met.
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=...
> that the roads don't have enough lanes.
Almost every freeway around major American cities is 4 lanes and yet traffic persists. Some freeways in LA are 6 lane parking lots.
Almost every freeway around major American cities is 4 lanes and yet traffic persists. Some freeways in LA are 6 lane parking lots.
It's pretty well known that simply building more roads does not fix traffic problems, it basically only generates more traffic.
Yes, and Manhattan has hundred-story apartment buildings, yet living there still costs a fortune.
I agree that driving on a German highway is a stressful experience. Especially since there is not so many highways with more than 2 lanes, occasionally changing to 3 lanes.
On a highway with no speed limit and only 2 lanes, the difference between the right lane and the left lane is just so freaking huge, you are stressed out every time you need to pass a truck or slower car, and almost always see your random Ferrari / Maseratti / Porsche approaching at a fraction of second of the time you spend on the left lane.
I would advocate for no speed limit on highways with >= 3 lanes, but would put a limit of 140-150 on those with only 2.
On a highway with no speed limit and only 2 lanes, the difference between the right lane and the left lane is just so freaking huge, you are stressed out every time you need to pass a truck or slower car, and almost always see your random Ferrari / Maseratti / Porsche approaching at a fraction of second of the time you spend on the left lane.
I would advocate for no speed limit on highways with >= 3 lanes, but would put a limit of 140-150 on those with only 2.
It depends on where you drive. Where I'm from, most highways have 3 lanes.
I find the US much more stressful to drive in, because you have to constantly assume that people don't use their turn signals when changing lanes randomly. You obviously also have to do these dangerous lange changes because people drive slowly for no reason whatsoever wherever they want (e.g. most left lane).
I have noticed that a lot of people change into the middle lane for no reason at all. This results in you having to pass on the right, especially if there is a slow driver on the left lane. So now you have to change 2 lanes to pass 2 cars....
Fact is, if you learn how to drive well and everyone else does as well, then driving is not at all stressful. You can still use your cruise control in Germany, just not on the left lane (if you are going 80 or whatever).
I have noticed that a lot of people change into the middle lane for no reason at all. This results in you having to pass on the right, especially if there is a slow driver on the left lane. So now you have to change 2 lanes to pass 2 cars....
Fact is, if you learn how to drive well and everyone else does as well, then driving is not at all stressful. You can still use your cruise control in Germany, just not on the left lane (if you are going 80 or whatever).
Personally after living in the Dutch half of Belgium for 7 years, I find Belgian and Dutch (it's possibly Belgian drivers in Dutch cars) drivers to be the worst drivers I have come across, certainly compared to German and British drivers.
I've always wanted to take a dash cam and compare the driving styles when driving to the Eurotunnel in the UK and then driving across Belgium. The ring around Antwerp is an absolute mess of people driving in a dangerous manner.
Belgian drivers typically will leave no more than a 1 second gap. In the UK this is repeatedly drummed into you that it should be 3 seconds.
Also I find Belgian and Dutch drivers react erractically, they will switch lanes erratically and move very close to the car in front before switching lanes often without indicating. Germans and British seem to leave much more room and perform maneouvres in a much more deliberate manner.
Certainly with Belgian drivers, this is back up with statistics, their death rates per 100k population are 2x that in the UK and 1.5x Germany [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
I've always wanted to take a dash cam and compare the driving styles when driving to the Eurotunnel in the UK and then driving across Belgium. The ring around Antwerp is an absolute mess of people driving in a dangerous manner.
Belgian drivers typically will leave no more than a 1 second gap. In the UK this is repeatedly drummed into you that it should be 3 seconds.
Also I find Belgian and Dutch drivers react erractically, they will switch lanes erratically and move very close to the car in front before switching lanes often without indicating. Germans and British seem to leave much more room and perform maneouvres in a much more deliberate manner.
Certainly with Belgian drivers, this is back up with statistics, their death rates per 100k population are 2x that in the UK and 1.5x Germany [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
I certainly agree about the Belgians ;)
Good thing is you never really have to drive if you don't want to. Most small towns are connected by commuter rails, ICE and PostBus (5 euro rides if you book early). Small towns like Jena of only 100k people have full tram and bus networks.
German autobahn is fine driving. You would just have to make sure your car got that extra kick if you want to go to the left.
Driving in Italy, Rome esp, is fine too. There is a reason the red light is so big and so much larger than the green light though :)
Driving in Italy, Rome esp, is fine too. There is a reason the red light is so big and so much larger than the green light though :)
Driving in Italy, and Spain for that matter, is....exciting. Especially the intersection rules in Spain takes some getting used to. Oh there is green, I can go - but why are trafic still going from the other direction? Oh, the light closest to me is red, so I may not drive...
A differing five cents:
Germany is the best country in the world in which to drive.
Drivers are trained well. They look before they turn. THEY DON'T USE THE LEFT LANE AS A CRUISING LANE - they move over, pass, and return to the right lane. They use their turn signal.
You can go very, very fast in situations where it's warranted. In situations where it's not, people slow down. As someone who walks, rides a bike, and enjoys not being deafened by road noise in towns, this is good.
My experience driving has primarily been California, Ireland, and Germany, and Germany has been _far_ superior to the other two.
Germany is the best country in the world in which to drive.
Drivers are trained well. They look before they turn. THEY DON'T USE THE LEFT LANE AS A CRUISING LANE - they move over, pass, and return to the right lane. They use their turn signal.
You can go very, very fast in situations where it's warranted. In situations where it's not, people slow down. As someone who walks, rides a bike, and enjoys not being deafened by road noise in towns, this is good.
My experience driving has primarily been California, Ireland, and Germany, and Germany has been _far_ superior to the other two.
Driving on the German Autobahn is not stressful. 3-4 lanes highway are usually around the bigger cities and they have a speedlimit anyway.
Because people know cars can fly past them with more than 200 kmh, they also actually stay to the right and use the left lane to pass and not to cruise. All in all it's a pleasant experience and all a driver really needs to wrap his head around is to keep as much track of the traffic behind and as in the front.
Because people know cars can fly past them with more than 200 kmh, they also actually stay to the right and use the left lane to pass and not to cruise. All in all it's a pleasant experience and all a driver really needs to wrap his head around is to keep as much track of the traffic behind and as in the front.
Try India. According to the WHO, traffic fatalities is the #4 health problem there.
One interesting reason for imposing speed limits on some sections of German highway is to reduce road noise. It's not always a traffic engineering reason.
The article talks about differential speed and lane discipline. In Germany, it's not rare to see people driving 250 km/h (155 mph), but some heavy trucks are restricted to 80 km/h (50 mph) regardless of the speed limit. Germans are very strict about lane discipline though. It's generally illegal to pass on the right or be in the left lane when not passing, and someone who puts their turn signal on to move left will usually respond to a flash of the headlights from an approaching car and wait for it to go by.
As an American who has spent a lot of time in Germany, and driven across Texas a few times, I sometimes wish for German style speed unlimited-speed highways in the US, but I think it would be hard to get American drivers to adopt German attentiveness and discipline.
The article talks about differential speed and lane discipline. In Germany, it's not rare to see people driving 250 km/h (155 mph), but some heavy trucks are restricted to 80 km/h (50 mph) regardless of the speed limit. Germans are very strict about lane discipline though. It's generally illegal to pass on the right or be in the left lane when not passing, and someone who puts their turn signal on to move left will usually respond to a flash of the headlights from an approaching car and wait for it to go by.
As an American who has spent a lot of time in Germany, and driven across Texas a few times, I sometimes wish for German style speed unlimited-speed highways in the US, but I think it would be hard to get American drivers to adopt German attentiveness and discipline.
I live near the Germany border and the speed limits here in France just consistently produce some of the most dangerous behaviors I've witnessed, while crossing the border and it's just fine, even if people sometimes pass you on the right, and even if, like anywhere, shitty dicks do exist. Also, it's far from a stress free experience in France when there are speed checks at every corner and you spend your time looking at your speedometer and on the lookout for controls even if you respect the speed limit instead of the road and other drivers, because it's so easy to ever so slightly drive above the limit as it's set to such an unnatural value. You just feel coerced, constantly watched and judged as guilty by default and it's terrible. Worse, there is a whole category of people that feel safe as long as they dutifully respect the limit and since it's so low they get bored and text or phone or play with the kids or fiddle with their GPS, not feeling responsible the least about hurling more than a metric ton of metal at speeds that are anyway entirely unnatural. In Germany you just drive and since there is quite the gradient of speed alongside the perpendicular axis of the road, it's just fine and you feel safe at whatever speed you drive: people just don't close-call zoom past you at 200+kph when you cruise at 120kph. It's just surprising at first because you got that message shoehorned at every moment that speed kills and speeders are the worst scumbags on earth, but as soon as you learn to drive socially so to speak and not like an individualist prick isolated in your cage of metal, things get really better. The road is best lived together, pay respect to the flow which you're part of and you'll be damn fine.
> when there are speed checks at every corner and you spend your time looking at your speedometer and on the lookout for controls even if you respect the speed limit instead of the road and other drivers
If you cannot check your speedometer, and safely navigate in the trafic at the same time, you should stop and look inwards. It is not hard.
If you cannot check your speedometer, and safely navigate in the trafic at the same time, you should stop and look inwards. It is not hard.
There's a difference between looking at the speedo because you're rechecking your speed and feeling pressed into doing it out of fear of being caught speeding 2kph above the limit simply because there's variability. I'm not saying it's hard, I'm saying it's distracting and stressful having to constantly poll and check for an arbitrary number that bears no actual relation to safety (which is the factor that drives anyone's natural speed limit feedback loop). IOW here I'm talking about the psychological effect that induces fear, stress and guilt in the driver, not the technical ability to do it. I believe coercion is not the proper way to educate people into living respectfully together.
When driving in Germany I noticed that I hardly ever used cruise control - you need to change speeds quite often since areas with reduced speed and unlimited speed change all the time. In US I use cruise control all the time since speed limits are constant over very long stretches. This makes driving in Germany fun, but driving in US less stressful and tiresome.
I love driving in Germany. The only things I wish they'd explained to me before picking up a rental car:
1) The "priority road" system, indicated with diamond signs, for right of way on secondary roads. This isn't quite as weird for outsiders as the weird British Columbia flashing green lights thing (wtf), but still, almost caused an accident the first time I encountered it at night.
2) When traffic is stopped and you want to allow emergency vehicles, you make a gap between (California) lanes 1 and 2, i.e. where Californian motorcycles go; in the US (and everywhere else I've seen), emergency vehicle drive on the shoulder. Either makes sense, but knowing what's going to happen is good. I naturally pulled toward the right in the leftmost lane until I looked behind me and saw flashing lights coming up fast.
1) The "priority road" system, indicated with diamond signs, for right of way on secondary roads. This isn't quite as weird for outsiders as the weird British Columbia flashing green lights thing (wtf), but still, almost caused an accident the first time I encountered it at night.
2) When traffic is stopped and you want to allow emergency vehicles, you make a gap between (California) lanes 1 and 2, i.e. where Californian motorcycles go; in the US (and everywhere else I've seen), emergency vehicle drive on the shoulder. Either makes sense, but knowing what's going to happen is good. I naturally pulled toward the right in the leftmost lane until I looked behind me and saw flashing lights coming up fast.
> a speed limit typically means there's a good reason to follow it
I'd say in the UK it's pretty similar as well. The standard limit on single-carriageway roads, unless indicated, is 60mph/97kmh. This could be anything from a bypass around a town, to a small country road with tight bends and steep drops at the side.
The limit is usually only lowered if going through a town/village (typically 30mph or 40mph) or if there is a some sort of danger that you wouldn't expect, like a hidden junction on a bend.
I'd say in the UK it's pretty similar as well. The standard limit on single-carriageway roads, unless indicated, is 60mph/97kmh. This could be anything from a bypass around a town, to a small country road with tight bends and steep drops at the side.
The limit is usually only lowered if going through a town/village (typically 30mph or 40mph) or if there is a some sort of danger that you wouldn't expect, like a hidden junction on a bend.
Other cities might be different, but small (and some no-so-small) streets in Munich streets have a 30km/h limit (note to Americans, that's less that 20 mile/h). I never saw many cars obeying those limits.
As far as I can see those limits exist to make the politicians responsible for them look concerned about safety.
As far as I can see those limits exist to make the politicians responsible for them look concerned about safety.
Drivers don't obey those limits to the letter, but they certainly do recognize them in so far as that they go considerably slower than the speed they would drive if the limit wasn't there.
> we've got a lot of dynamic speed signs which show a speed limit which fits the current traffic conditions.
> Rush hour - 80 km/h
Does "rush hour" mean something different in Germany? You couldn't go 80 km/h in rush hour if you tried.
> Rush hour - 80 km/h
Does "rush hour" mean something different in Germany? You couldn't go 80 km/h in rush hour if you tried.
It's a maximum speed limit, not a minimum speed. Rush hour means jams in Germany too - that is the reason for the speed limit, so you don't drive into the back of a traffic jam going 80 miles an hour.
> A low speed limit typically is enforced with a traffic camera.
Is it possible you live in NRW? It's a bit extreme there. Much fewer speed cameras in other parts of the country.
Is it possible you live in NRW? It's a bit extreme there. Much fewer speed cameras in other parts of the country.
Don't you get a point on your driving record when driving over 10km\h over the limit or was that 20?
One of the consequences of the authorities in the US tacitly accepting normal traffic to flow at speeds considerably above the posted maxima is that they could, if they choose to, pull over almost any of the drivers without there being pesky issue with whether there was a valid reason to do so.
And, potentially, pull you over for complying with the speed limit if the normal rate around you is large. Either way, you could lose.
This is a tactic used by authoritarian governments and is a distinct reason why laws that are poorly enforced are bad laws.
A poorly enforced law provides a tool for executives (the law enforcers) to legislate (make their own laws) without any say from the real legislators. It's a loophole of sorts in the US's separation of powers.
Take marijuana. It's illegal to smoke marijuana. It's not illegal to be black. Yet the selective enforcement of the marijuana law allows authorities in any given district to shape policy on race without ever having to explicitly put a law on the books.
This is why the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is so dangerous. It is broad enough to be used as a tool to enforce laws that would be too unpopular to explicitly pass.
It's also why threats from the US government to "ban encryption" should not be taken idly. You think to yourself, "Certainly they couldn't ban encryption, nothing would work without it." But they wouldn't enforce it across the board, only selectively.
A poorly enforced law provides a tool for executives (the law enforcers) to legislate (make their own laws) without any say from the real legislators. It's a loophole of sorts in the US's separation of powers.
Take marijuana. It's illegal to smoke marijuana. It's not illegal to be black. Yet the selective enforcement of the marijuana law allows authorities in any given district to shape policy on race without ever having to explicitly put a law on the books.
This is why the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is so dangerous. It is broad enough to be used as a tool to enforce laws that would be too unpopular to explicitly pass.
It's also why threats from the US government to "ban encryption" should not be taken idly. You think to yourself, "Certainly they couldn't ban encryption, nothing would work without it." But they wouldn't enforce it across the board, only selectively.
This is very specifically a tactic used in Russia to exploit control over policing powers into corrupt control or exploitation of businesses. They make byzantine laws that are extraordinarily difficult to comply with, then provide unofficial licenses to ignore those laws to those who remain in their favor. (And even if you did manage to comply with the laws, your corrupt competitors don't, and will out-compete you).
I remember reading a story of a multi-billion dollar corporation in Russia being sold for pennies on the dollar, essentially at gunpoint. Otherwise, they'd prosecute it for being run illegally, since essentially all corporations are run illegally, because that's how Russia's legal system is set up.
I remember reading a story of a multi-billion dollar corporation in Russia being sold for pennies on the dollar, essentially at gunpoint. Otherwise, they'd prosecute it for being run illegally, since essentially all corporations are run illegally, because that's how Russia's legal system is set up.
EDIT: I was wrong. Original comment:
Last I checked, encryption _is_ banned in the U.S., isn't it? So it's already the case that the government could selectively jail people for using encryption, as it sees fit.
Last I checked, encryption _is_ banned in the U.S., isn't it? So it's already the case that the government could selectively jail people for using encryption, as it sees fit.
Source? AFAIK, encryption has never been illegal in the US. Export of encryption was, but currently is in a reasonable state.
Ah, sorry, forgot the "export" part, you're right.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States, the regulations are still in effect. It doesn't say what the U.S. loosened them to, but they do still exist.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States, the regulations are still in effect. It doesn't say what the U.S. loosened them to, but they do still exist.
And how often are people driving at the speed limit in the right lane pulled over for obstructing traffic?
I've seen it happen in passerby and to my father. It is an excuse, yes, but when you are always guilty, officers can pull you over at their discretion whenever they have the slightest whiff of suspicion about you.
The officers argument to my dad was "why would you go so much slower than traffic (this is on i78 in PA, mean traffic is around 75 and he was going the posted 55) if you aren't trying to hide something by going the speed limit" when the back of his covered pickup was full.
Turns out he was just bringing china plates to my grandparents.
He didn't get ticketed for it, but it gave the police a legal reason to pull him over beyond arbitrary suspicions.
The officers argument to my dad was "why would you go so much slower than traffic (this is on i78 in PA, mean traffic is around 75 and he was going the posted 55) if you aren't trying to hide something by going the speed limit" when the back of his covered pickup was full.
Turns out he was just bringing china plates to my grandparents.
He didn't get ticketed for it, but it gave the police a legal reason to pull him over beyond arbitrary suspicions.
With respect, I have a feeling the police officer didn't give your father a ticket because he never intended to give a ticket for that reason; it's probable that it's not actually a real offense and he would have lost that battle in if it was fought. As long as he came up with a halfway decent excuse for pulling your father over, he'd be able to check out the truck without needing to commit to anything. Rational, and effective.
Not often enough. Looking at you highway 101.
Yep, this is actually what many police departments do when they need to generate extra revenue (to make up for shortcomings from other revenue sources).
A big reason that the posted speed limit is only loosely correlated with the actual speed driven is because the speed people go is not based on the sign, but rather on the design of the road. There are various standards for traffic engineering that define various parts of the road based on the speed expected on them: things like lane widths, curve radii, the presence of fences and guards, and more. A 35mph road will have a smaller turn radius than a 65mph highway, for example. These standards have margins built in to them, obstinately because the standards for faster roads are safer. If, for example, you need a 200 foot turn radius to avoid skidding at 45mph, then the road will be designed with a 300 foot turn radius that would prevent skidding at 55mph, and a 55mph road will have a 400 foot turn radius that would prevent skidding at 65mph. However, what happens is that people will drive at the speed that's safe, not the speed that's posted. People will go 55mph around the 300 foot radius turn that's posted for 45mph.
The solution to this seems to be to make the roads designed for lower speeds, or to reduce the safety margin, or as other commenters suggest to add traffic calming measures. I'm pretty sure this would reduce traffic speeds, but I don't know if it would reduce traffic safety.
The solution to this seems to be to make the roads designed for lower speeds, or to reduce the safety margin, or as other commenters suggest to add traffic calming measures. I'm pretty sure this would reduce traffic speeds, but I don't know if it would reduce traffic safety.
Yup. There's a two-lane road in my hometown that was built and designed for 45 MPH traffic. The rich residents that had trouble pulling out of their driveways onto that road successfully petitioned to get the speed limit reduced to 35 MPH - but this does absolutely nothing to change the design of the existing road. Traffic on that road routinely goes 45-50 MPH on it. If you go the posted speed limit, it feels like you're crawling along.
Wouldn't it be nice if those "rich residents" focused on fixing their driveways instead of forcing everyone around them to alter their way of life?
It's not a problem with their driveways. It's a geographic problem, really, with lakefront houses in the 100-400ft strip between an arterial road and the lake. The other side is a steep hill, so you can't make more room, and the main road has to wind a bunch. You don't have the room to put in collection streets and make controlled intersections, so you basically just have to make them wait for a gap and pull out.
And as with pretty much any community that has that much value in their house, they're huge NIMBYs.
And as with pretty much any community that has that much value in their house, they're huge NIMBYs.
In the UK, where roads are rarely designed for the speed limits posted, it doesn't stop anyone from driving dangerously fast. So I don't really buy this argument. Cars simply handle and drive too well these days for the road to be an impediment. Especially in the UK where most cars have summer tyres, unlike the all-weather tyres common in the US. If anything, it encourages the wannabe-racers to drive fast for a challenge.
No. Cars today are so much faster and more powerful than they were only 20 years ago. Here in the UK the speed limit on motorways is 70mph. I learned to drive in 2000 in a Rover Montego that would cruise fairly well at that speed, but later my family purchased the very popular VW Golf Mk4 TDi and all of a sudden we could cruise at 100mph and barely notice it, the level of comfort and noise insulation was that good. This is a car from 2002. But we are not better drivers than people from 20 years ago; yet we all drive around in these vastly overpowered machines. Brakes are better, tyres are better, sure, but that can bring with it false confidence. Our reaction times are exactly the same - if not worse thanks to all the modern distractions of technology - yet there are vastly more vehicles on the road for us to deal with. I drive to the speed limit everywhere I go, and I constantly have a queue of cars behind me. If you're in a rush, get up 5 minutes earlier. Plan better. If you like to drive fast, spend 30 minutes at a local go-kart track.
Cars are like bullets in our hands and should be handled with the utmost of care.
Cars are like bullets in our hands and should be handled with the utmost of care.
OTOH, a limit of 70mph might be too high for my granny. And 100mph is a joke for somebody with racing experience. Who do you design for? You are very responsible and everybody should behave like you; but what if you get diminishing safety returns when driving lower than 90mph because your reflexes are good enough? Should you get fined for driving 90 then, and my granny (who can barely handle city traffic) is not fined for driving 70 while endangering other people?
Edit: Forgot to add my favorite solution: Add a very high, hard speed limit (130mph?) on all streets, and let traffic signs serve as recommendations. Obviously, also limit to walking speed in neighborhoods where kids play in the streets, or city centers.
Edit: Forgot to add my favorite solution: Add a very high, hard speed limit (130mph?) on all streets, and let traffic signs serve as recommendations. Obviously, also limit to walking speed in neighborhoods where kids play in the streets, or city centers.
I hear a lot of people claim they are such good drivers they should be allowed to drive faster.
I don't trust their self-evaluation of their own skills.
I don't trust their self-evaluation of their own skills.
If your granny can't handle driving the speed limit, maybe she should hand in her driver's license.
> And 100mph is a joke for somebody with racing experience.
Racing is dangerous and the people who do it know that they're taking a risk. It's not appropriate to take that risk when driving on a road.
Racing is dangerous and the people who do it know that they're taking a risk. It's not appropriate to take that risk when driving on a road.
Cars today are also far, far safer than 20 (ok, 40) years ago. But speed limits have increased, and fatalities per mile driven have decreased.
The point of the article was that speed limits should be set to keep the most amount of people at the same speed. Otherwise by reducing them too much, you create environments where there are greater differences in speed between cars. That is what is dangerous, not the actual number itself.
The point of the article was that speed limits should be set to keep the most amount of people at the same speed. Otherwise by reducing them too much, you create environments where there are greater differences in speed between cars. That is what is dangerous, not the actual number itself.
Higher speed is absolutely more dangerous than slower. Yes speed differences are dangerous as well, but hitting a wall at 40 mph is a lot better than at 80. Higher speeds are also much more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, someone posted the numbers in another comment.
"If you like to drive fast, spend 30 minutes at a local go-kart track."
Or come over to Germany sometime and enjoy some Autobahn driving with literally no speed limit whatsoever (on certain sections). Early Sunday morning (when trucks are banned) in a good car; that should be on those "N things you do before you die" - bucket lists.
Or come over to Germany sometime and enjoy some Autobahn driving with literally no speed limit whatsoever (on certain sections). Early Sunday morning (when trucks are banned) in a good car; that should be on those "N things you do before you die" - bucket lists.
If you want to drive fast, drive in Wales. One lane each way and everyone is driving 80 mph. Honestly, quite a crazy experience.
On highways, the 85th-percentile rule makes some sense. The evidence seems to suggest that raising speed limits slightly increases fatality rates, but not accident rates, and doesn't have much influence on driver speed.
At the other extreme, on neighborhood streets in residential areas, the rationale for the 85th percentile rule (reducing the speed differential between cars traveling in the same direction) is absurd: these speed differentials are much lower and much less important than other speed differentials. If a car driving down my street at 30mph has trouble dealing with a car going the same direction at 20mph, it will also have trouble with the kids playing basketball in the street, or the car headed the opposite direction without room to pass, or the car backing out of a driveway, or the bike going 15mph. Conflicts between drivers headed the same direction are a non-issue on these types of streets.
And there are streets in the middle. A major commercial street in my town is four very narrow lanes (the right lane is actually less wide than a city bus, so when a bus is traveling the same direction you must enter the oncoming lane if you try to pass), with very small blocks, crosswalks at every intersection, tons of pedestrians and cyclists, tons of cars turning left across traffic, etc. Should this be set at the 85th percentile speed? Although it's more debatable, again, I don't think that the speed differential between cars traveling the same direction is likely to be a major contributor to fatal accidents here--on a busy urban street like this the danger is much more likely to arise from the speed differential between pedestrians and cars, a car turning left and an oncoming car, cyclists and cars, etc.
At the other extreme, on neighborhood streets in residential areas, the rationale for the 85th percentile rule (reducing the speed differential between cars traveling in the same direction) is absurd: these speed differentials are much lower and much less important than other speed differentials. If a car driving down my street at 30mph has trouble dealing with a car going the same direction at 20mph, it will also have trouble with the kids playing basketball in the street, or the car headed the opposite direction without room to pass, or the car backing out of a driveway, or the bike going 15mph. Conflicts between drivers headed the same direction are a non-issue on these types of streets.
And there are streets in the middle. A major commercial street in my town is four very narrow lanes (the right lane is actually less wide than a city bus, so when a bus is traveling the same direction you must enter the oncoming lane if you try to pass), with very small blocks, crosswalks at every intersection, tons of pedestrians and cyclists, tons of cars turning left across traffic, etc. Should this be set at the 85th percentile speed? Although it's more debatable, again, I don't think that the speed differential between cars traveling the same direction is likely to be a major contributor to fatal accidents here--on a busy urban street like this the danger is much more likely to arise from the speed differential between pedestrians and cars, a car turning left and an oncoming car, cyclists and cars, etc.
Not to mention that one of the main reasons for speed limits typically being 30mph or lower in urban areas even where the roads are fairly easy to drive on is those kids playing basketball in the street or cyclist are much more likely to survive an impact even if the driver isn't able to anticipate and avoid it than at 40mph, when they have a 95% chance of being killed (it's 95% chance of survival at 20mph)
Obviously this applies less to country roads where pedestrians are rarely encountered, speed limits are well over 40mph and drivers often should be paying more attention to the bends ahead of them than the notional speed limit when judging how fast to go anyway.
Obviously this applies less to country roads where pedestrians are rarely encountered, speed limits are well over 40mph and drivers often should be paying more attention to the bends ahead of them than the notional speed limit when judging how fast to go anyway.
As the article says, people won't slow down just because you posted a lower limit. A better way to protect these children would be to change the design of the road (this report seems to be a good overview of ways to do this: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216727/mu...).
In the last 20 years Denmark have had focus on doing this in villages along main roads. Before it was normal to see cars on through the village with 100kmh, now they'll crash if they try to do that, because on entry and exit in the village there is a chicane.
> The evidence seems to suggest that raising speed limits slightly increases fatality rates, but not accident rates
Accident rates are only a concern because of harms from accidents, including, most especially, fatalities.
Accident rates are only a concern because of harms from accidents, including, most especially, fatalities.
beyond agreeing with just about everything in the article, a few points to add/emphasize:
* speed limits are set at the 85th percentile of speeds to minimize speed variance, giving slow drivers a target speed and thereby making them go faster than they might otherwise go (but still at a safe speed).
* larger variances in speeds correlate with both greater traffic and frustration. if highway patrol could enforce just one law, it should be that drivers should move to the right if they are not passing cars on the right. this allows faster cars to clear out of congestion, increasing the overall average speed and throughput for a given section of road. it also reduces overall frustration.
* traffic enforcement as a revenue generator creates a perverse incentive and adversarial relationship largely exacerbated by artificially low speed limits. let's abolish those limits and bad incentives and give the police more time to develop relationships within their community.
* change the term "speed limit" to "safe speed" on signs (along with commensurate fines/laws), because that would have the same normalizing effect on speed variance, while also removing the revenue incentives for police.
* distracted driving is the real killer on the roads, not speed. changing roads to make them more hazardous (like narrower lanes, obstructing sightlines) probably reduces distracted driving more than it reduces speeding (just my conjecture), and thereby lowering accidents. i don't mind narrower lanes and such, but i'd advocate separating cars from bikes and pedestrians as much as possible so that cars can still move at a good clip while providing greater safety for pedestrian and bike traffic.
* speed limits are set at the 85th percentile of speeds to minimize speed variance, giving slow drivers a target speed and thereby making them go faster than they might otherwise go (but still at a safe speed).
* larger variances in speeds correlate with both greater traffic and frustration. if highway patrol could enforce just one law, it should be that drivers should move to the right if they are not passing cars on the right. this allows faster cars to clear out of congestion, increasing the overall average speed and throughput for a given section of road. it also reduces overall frustration.
* traffic enforcement as a revenue generator creates a perverse incentive and adversarial relationship largely exacerbated by artificially low speed limits. let's abolish those limits and bad incentives and give the police more time to develop relationships within their community.
* change the term "speed limit" to "safe speed" on signs (along with commensurate fines/laws), because that would have the same normalizing effect on speed variance, while also removing the revenue incentives for police.
* distracted driving is the real killer on the roads, not speed. changing roads to make them more hazardous (like narrower lanes, obstructing sightlines) probably reduces distracted driving more than it reduces speeding (just my conjecture), and thereby lowering accidents. i don't mind narrower lanes and such, but i'd advocate separating cars from bikes and pedestrians as much as possible so that cars can still move at a good clip while providing greater safety for pedestrian and bike traffic.
>while also removing the revenue incentives for police.
Well that will never happen..
Well that will never happen..
Virtually eliminating road fatalities is quite possible, Sweden has done it. The low speed limits and infrastructure spending on separated pedestrian & cyclist paths would never fly in the United States.
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/
I feel like there should be an internet wide ban on comparing Sweden and Norway to the US, China, India or Russia or, hell pretty much anywhere.
Obligatory Reference to wit: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/08/29/will_everyo...
Obligatory Reference to wit: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/08/29/will_everyo...
I was hoping there would be a novel reason to stop comparing Nordic countries to the rest of the world. Sadly the main points the article makes are: (1) they are welfare states and that would never be welcome anywhere else and (2) they have small populations.
So... (1) maybe a welfare state isn't that bad? and (2) that's akin to not believing in small-scale trials/pilots because they're small.
So... (1) maybe a welfare state isn't that bad? and (2) that's akin to not believing in small-scale trials/pilots because they're small.
I think #2 is the most valid and compelling reason for a host of reasons. The other thing that is in the article that shouldn't be dismissed the homogeneity of the population. That goes a long way toward making #1 possible as it's easier to empathize across a smaller population.
Plenty of US states have small populations, no? Also lots of states are comparatively homogeneous (Sweden has 19% of population as recent immigrants).
Sure, so those comparisons are actually more apt! You rarely if ever see them made however.
Georgia, Michigan, NC and NJ are the closest in size but that's about where it ends. Michigan probably has the closest demographic homogeneity. However the existence of the federal government as well as natural resources as a economic base throws a wrench into any further comparisons.
Georgia, Michigan, NC and NJ are the closest in size but that's about where it ends. Michigan probably has the closest demographic homogeneity. However the existence of the federal government as well as natural resources as a economic base throws a wrench into any further comparisons.
> natural resources as a economic base
True for Norway, but not any other country in the neighborhood (fine, Scotland I guess)
True for Norway, but not any other country in the neighborhood (fine, Scotland I guess)
Homogeneity isn't one of the main points though. The article barely touches on it -- mentioned in one sentence, almost as an afterthought.
Also, as some other commenters point out, their homogeneity isn't on a different scale from places that aren't topping the charts.
Also, as some other commenters point out, their homogeneity isn't on a different scale from places that aren't topping the charts.
Also that they're incredibly homogenous and that they may be just as racist and unequal as the rest of us, but nobody notices because everybody in their country is the same race.
Sweden has its share of problems. It's not a fantasy state where everything is hunky-dory. The south of Sweden is a European hotspot for anti-semitic violence, for example. It also currently has a spate of hand-grenade attacks by organised crime, the only area of its kind in the West[1].
As for 'incredibly homogenous', they have a larger foreign-born population (15%) than the US (14%) or the UK (12%). While that number doesn't tell the full story, sure, it does show that Sweden isn't some hermit-state. And it's neighbour Norway has the highest immigration rate of any western democracy that isn't a city-state.
Trying to find reasons to exclude Sweden as a comparator is basically condoning bad behaviour. It's not a perfect fantasy state; they're just doing really well in the quality-of-life stakes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
As for 'incredibly homogenous', they have a larger foreign-born population (15%) than the US (14%) or the UK (12%). While that number doesn't tell the full story, sure, it does show that Sweden isn't some hermit-state. And it's neighbour Norway has the highest immigration rate of any western democracy that isn't a city-state.
Trying to find reasons to exclude Sweden as a comparator is basically condoning bad behaviour. It's not a perfect fantasy state; they're just doing really well in the quality-of-life stakes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
I don't understand how having a small population means anything when it comes to the most local of things: the speed limit on a bit of road.
I can understand saying "well they have a bunch of Oil money and not much ground to cover" but most things in the universe can be solved at scale in the same way they're tackled in these countries.
It'd be like if Sweden was the only place that invented spark plugs and you're like "Well they're a really small country so they have less people to give spark plugs to so it's feasible".
I can understand saying "well they have a bunch of Oil money and not much ground to cover" but most things in the universe can be solved at scale in the same way they're tackled in these countries.
It'd be like if Sweden was the only place that invented spark plugs and you're like "Well they're a really small country so they have less people to give spark plugs to so it's feasible".
Which is really sad, because (and I say that as a hard core auto driver) riding a bike through the city significantly lowers your death risk (also by health benefits) as long as there are bike lanes.
Bike riders also solve traffic jams (by NOT going bar car), make cities more silent and more liveable, bring more business to local stores and restaurants etc.
Bike riders also solve traffic jams (by NOT going bar car), make cities more silent and more liveable, bring more business to local stores and restaurants etc.
This only works since Sweden is so sparsely populated. People here routinely drive 40 -60 kmph above the speed limit, especially where the new limits are ridiculously low considering road conditions.
Geographically, Sweden and the US are immensely different. Sweden, as well as most of Europe, is densely populated and has good public transportation infrastructure. The US on the other hand is a very large area with low density and poor public transport.
Sweden and the US have almost exactly the same population density (22/km2 vs 24/km2) and GDP (50K vs 56K). The only reason that Sweden has substantially better public transportation infrastructure than the US is because it chooses to.
You can't compare population densities that way. They vary far too much from place to place. In the US, for instance, 2/3 of the population lives east of the Mississippi River. Most of that other 1/3 lives on the west coast (largely California), while states like Wyoming are almost completely empty (~500k people total). Also, if your number includes Alaska, that skews it horribly because Alaska has an enormous amount of land and very little population.
Similarly, the Nordic countries are not homogeneous: most of the population lives near their southern borders (on the Baltic Sea), while their northern areas are barely populated at all. It's very similar to Canada: most of the population there lives within 100 miles of the southern (US) border.
So you can't compare population densities like that: you have to focus on specific areas. What's the population density of Malmo versus Philly? Stockholm vs. DC? And even here it's hard to compare, because for instance "DC" could mean just the District itself, or it could mean the much larger metro area around it, and all parts that are reasonably commutable. Most of the "DC" population lives outside of DC.
Offhand, I'd say Sweden has substantially better public transportation because most of the population lives in a few large cities, and also because it's a better-managed country that invests more in infrastructure for the common good.
Similarly, the Nordic countries are not homogeneous: most of the population lives near their southern borders (on the Baltic Sea), while their northern areas are barely populated at all. It's very similar to Canada: most of the population there lives within 100 miles of the southern (US) border.
So you can't compare population densities like that: you have to focus on specific areas. What's the population density of Malmo versus Philly? Stockholm vs. DC? And even here it's hard to compare, because for instance "DC" could mean just the District itself, or it could mean the much larger metro area around it, and all parts that are reasonably commutable. Most of the "DC" population lives outside of DC.
Offhand, I'd say Sweden has substantially better public transportation because most of the population lives in a few large cities, and also because it's a better-managed country that invests more in infrastructure for the common good.
I'd say the US invests in infrastructure, specifically, roads, the interstate system is an amazing way to get around and much more flexible than trains. For numerous reasons other forms of public infrastructure not centered around cars get much less investment.
Population density varies a lot in Sweden, too. A vast majority of Swedes live south of a line that is slightly north of Stockholm, and the northernmost Norbottens län has 21 % of land area and 2.5 % of population.
It's also much easier to build infrastructure in regions of 447,435 km² than it is for 9.834 million km². Sweden is a little larger than California (423,970 km²)
"The United States has terrible public transport" doesn't hold true for pocket regions which have very reliable public transport. You just can't very reliably go across the country because some of our states are larger than many, if not most, European countries. Not to mention geographical differences. Compare a topography map of Sweden with California.
"The United States has terrible public transport" doesn't hold true for pocket regions which have very reliable public transport. You just can't very reliably go across the country because some of our states are larger than many, if not most, European countries. Not to mention geographical differences. Compare a topography map of Sweden with California.
> You just can't very reliably go across the country because some of our states are larger than many, if not most, European countries.
This is such a weird argument. I can take a train from London to Paris to Zurich to Berlin, despite them being entirely different countries. You're telling me travelling between US states is somehow massively harder?
> Compare a topography map of Sweden with California.
Switzerland has a) some of the most challenging topography in the world and b) one of the most extensive, heavily used train systems in the world.
This is such a weird argument. I can take a train from London to Paris to Zurich to Berlin, despite them being entirely different countries. You're telling me travelling between US states is somehow massively harder?
> Compare a topography map of Sweden with California.
Switzerland has a) some of the most challenging topography in the world and b) one of the most extensive, heavily used train systems in the world.
> This is such a weird argument. I can take a train from London to Paris to Zurich to Berlin, despite them being entirely different countries. You're telling me travelling between US states is somehow massively harder?
I think this has to do with the frequency of rest-stops/ tourist destinations.
There are many places to stop and see if you were to have a track going through all of the EU, but if you do that with the U.S, you're just going through "nothing" for hours on end. There's no site-seeing, sparse and isolated rest-stops, etc.
This is if we assume coast-to-coast travel, not just state-to-state. If we do, it's just not worth it to spend that much money.
I think this has to do with the frequency of rest-stops/ tourist destinations.
There are many places to stop and see if you were to have a track going through all of the EU, but if you do that with the U.S, you're just going through "nothing" for hours on end. There's no site-seeing, sparse and isolated rest-stops, etc.
This is if we assume coast-to-coast travel, not just state-to-state. If we do, it's just not worth it to spend that much money.
How long does it take for a train to get from London to Paris? A few hours? We have something like that: the Amtrak northeast corridor line between DC and Boston (with stops in Baltimore, Philly, NYC, and others along the way). Going from DC to NYC is probably somewhat comparable, and I think that takes 3.5 hours. However, going from the east coast to the west coast on a train means several days of travel. We do have that too, with Amtrak. It's horribly slow and no one uses it except people who really want the "see the nation on a train" experience. It's also really expensive, because you'll surely want a sleeper cabin for such a long trip.
> How long does it take for a train to get from London to Paris? A few hours?
2 hours 16 minutes.
Of course, as always, this is from station to station, not your real total journey because you don't live at the station.
2 hours 16 minutes.
Of course, as always, this is from station to station, not your real total journey because you don't live at the station.
Yes, the US is bigger than Europe: https://jeffsbiketour.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/usa-europe...
Both the US and Europe are about 10M square kilometers in size, with Europe ending up marginally larger.
Even your own map doesn't show that.
The US is 3.797 million mi². Europe is 3.931 million mi².
The US is 3.797 million mi². Europe is 3.931 million mi².
Your map clearly shows Europe being larger. Unless you want to completely ignore European Russia.
So, you're ok with Turkey and Syria being included in Europe?
Both countries are far, far smaller than Russia.
The rail network in Switzerland runs primarily through the easiest to deal with terrain. There are a few lines that go through mountainous terrain. IIRC, none of them are any worse than some of the easiest traversals of the Rockies.
Your examples are all within a pretty close range of each other. Not to mention all being popular tourist destinations. Throw a trip to Italy in there and it doesn't change much. You've traveled to four different countries: roughly the size of a few states and only a fraction of the size of the US.
A train from New York to Miami, Florida is around 2057 km leaving from Penn Station. From Paris to Zurich and Zurich to Berlin is 1622~ km. Although a tad larger going back to Paris from Berlin, a total of 2676 km.
So for comparable distances and from [Tourist Attraction] --> [Tourist Attraction] things are comparable.
Take a train around all of Germany, Switzerland, and France. The entire countries - and not just the capitals! You've still only covered a small portion of the US [0].
Things don't work when there is large amounts of nothing between areas that need to be connected. This is also why the US has laughably bad internet connections in most of the nation. It isn't worth laying down fiber in towns with populations <5,000 nor is it worth laying down rail.
Size isn't the only issue but it is, in my opinion, the largest issue. Pun not intended.
>Switzerland has a) some of the most challenging topography in the world and b) one of the most extensive, heavily used train systems in the world.
My understanding of it is as coredog64 said in their reply, but also Switzerland is yet-another-tiny-country. It'd be more fair to compare it with a 3rd of New York. Does a third of New York have an extensive, heavily used train system? Yes. It so happens to have one of the most extensive rail systems out of any state in the US even! Why? My guess is the size: it's a smaller state with more concentrated populations.
New York (State): 141,300 km² Switzerland: 41,285 km²
Does anyone have information on how extensive and heavily used public transport is in, say... Russia? Then we'd at least be closer to any size comparisons. I'm only familiar with Moskva and Sankt-Peterburg (Moscow and Saint Petersburg) which is the capital and the second largest city, so I'd expect them to be well connected - so that isn't exactly saying much. Looking at the rail map on Wiki [1] doesn't tell you which are public transport lines and which are freight lines. So it's hard to get a good idea.
[0] http://i.imgur.com/uwOnbWY.png
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Russia_R...
A train from New York to Miami, Florida is around 2057 km leaving from Penn Station. From Paris to Zurich and Zurich to Berlin is 1622~ km. Although a tad larger going back to Paris from Berlin, a total of 2676 km.
So for comparable distances and from [Tourist Attraction] --> [Tourist Attraction] things are comparable.
Take a train around all of Germany, Switzerland, and France. The entire countries - and not just the capitals! You've still only covered a small portion of the US [0].
Things don't work when there is large amounts of nothing between areas that need to be connected. This is also why the US has laughably bad internet connections in most of the nation. It isn't worth laying down fiber in towns with populations <5,000 nor is it worth laying down rail.
Size isn't the only issue but it is, in my opinion, the largest issue. Pun not intended.
>Switzerland has a) some of the most challenging topography in the world and b) one of the most extensive, heavily used train systems in the world.
My understanding of it is as coredog64 said in their reply, but also Switzerland is yet-another-tiny-country. It'd be more fair to compare it with a 3rd of New York. Does a third of New York have an extensive, heavily used train system? Yes. It so happens to have one of the most extensive rail systems out of any state in the US even! Why? My guess is the size: it's a smaller state with more concentrated populations.
New York (State): 141,300 km² Switzerland: 41,285 km²
Does anyone have information on how extensive and heavily used public transport is in, say... Russia? Then we'd at least be closer to any size comparisons. I'm only familiar with Moskva and Sankt-Peterburg (Moscow and Saint Petersburg) which is the capital and the second largest city, so I'd expect them to be well connected - so that isn't exactly saying much. Looking at the rail map on Wiki [1] doesn't tell you which are public transport lines and which are freight lines. So it's hard to get a good idea.
[0] http://i.imgur.com/uwOnbWY.png
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Russia_R...
The problem with US public transit is not its interregional distances, but the low density of its regions. Diffuse populations defeat transit. People in those diffuse regions are more likely to utilize cars for midrange travel because the time to reach transit is high. In many regions, this means that transit is only for people too poor to have reliable cars, introducing another problem.
That we have any American cities with decent transit seems to be largely thanks to the restrictive geography of those cities, as well as some excellent activists (Jane Jacobs being the easiest example.)
That we have any American cities with decent transit seems to be largely thanks to the restrictive geography of those cities, as well as some excellent activists (Jane Jacobs being the easiest example.)
So... it's the interregional distances between populated regions? Same difference honestly. The argument boils down either way to "US is too big".
Smaller countries or countries where half the country isn't populated (due to geography such as frozen tundra or large mountains), focusing population in a smaller region of that country don't have to deal with as many pockets of low density populations.
Because they're small.
Smaller countries or countries where half the country isn't populated (due to geography such as frozen tundra or large mountains), focusing population in a smaller region of that country don't have to deal with as many pockets of low density populations.
Because they're small.
> So... it's the interregional distances between populated regions?
No. It's a lack of "populated" regions at all. The problem being described is that the population density is too even.
No. It's a lack of "populated" regions at all. The problem being described is that the population density is too even.
Thanks for responding. I'm afraid I haven't made myself clear; let me see if I can do better.
The issue is not the spacing of our metro areas in relation to one another (interregional distances). Rather, we have bad geometry withinour metros (intra-regional distances.) To me, this seems to stem largely from the many ways we've subsidized automotive transit and low density, single family residences since WWII.
The difficulty created by our development pattern is that you can almost never gather enough people into one place to justify building a train station, subway station, or even a bus stop. When you can gather them, it's normally by those people driving to the stop, and the disappointing crowd that shows up often doesn't pull enough weight to get reliable, frequent service to those stops. And as long as those people are going to get in the car anyway, and then have to wait a long time to catch the next bus/train, a lot of them are just going to say "the hell with it" and drive to their destination instead.
Alternatively, maybe you live in a downtown area where there actually are enough people in close proximity to justify transit stops with a high level of service. If you're in a typical American city, you'll run into the problem at the other end of your journey. Sure, you easily walked to your stop, but maybe when you get off at your other stop, several miles from the center of town, you're still several miles from the store, or the restaurant, or your friend's house. And it's typically not on streets that are pleasant to walk, because they're not very interesting and the cars may be quite fast. So you'll have to make your friend pick you up, or pay for Ubers both ways, or walk anyway in an act of defiance against the place you've ended up. None of that sounds great, and if you even did it once, you're probably thinking seriously about driving your car next time.
And so it turns out that what you really need are at least two places, neither of which really require cars, for transit to be all that helpful. And in the US, we seldom have that, because we have a single center of intensity, with the density decreasing radially in all directions.
These places don't have to be huge, either. A compact outlying town of 30,000 or so could reasonably have hourly bus service to the major city an hour away. The key is that the town needs to be walkable enough that people can easily get to the bus, and the big city also needs to be navigable without a car.
As to intercity: I'm not saying NYC and LA should have a dedicated rail line between them, but it would certainly be reasonable to have SF, LA, and SD all connected by rail, perhaps high-speed. But at the same time, given the spread out development of those three cities, it doesn't surprise me at all that that's not feasible.
The issue is not the spacing of our metro areas in relation to one another (interregional distances). Rather, we have bad geometry withinour metros (intra-regional distances.) To me, this seems to stem largely from the many ways we've subsidized automotive transit and low density, single family residences since WWII.
The difficulty created by our development pattern is that you can almost never gather enough people into one place to justify building a train station, subway station, or even a bus stop. When you can gather them, it's normally by those people driving to the stop, and the disappointing crowd that shows up often doesn't pull enough weight to get reliable, frequent service to those stops. And as long as those people are going to get in the car anyway, and then have to wait a long time to catch the next bus/train, a lot of them are just going to say "the hell with it" and drive to their destination instead.
Alternatively, maybe you live in a downtown area where there actually are enough people in close proximity to justify transit stops with a high level of service. If you're in a typical American city, you'll run into the problem at the other end of your journey. Sure, you easily walked to your stop, but maybe when you get off at your other stop, several miles from the center of town, you're still several miles from the store, or the restaurant, or your friend's house. And it's typically not on streets that are pleasant to walk, because they're not very interesting and the cars may be quite fast. So you'll have to make your friend pick you up, or pay for Ubers both ways, or walk anyway in an act of defiance against the place you've ended up. None of that sounds great, and if you even did it once, you're probably thinking seriously about driving your car next time.
And so it turns out that what you really need are at least two places, neither of which really require cars, for transit to be all that helpful. And in the US, we seldom have that, because we have a single center of intensity, with the density decreasing radially in all directions.
These places don't have to be huge, either. A compact outlying town of 30,000 or so could reasonably have hourly bus service to the major city an hour away. The key is that the town needs to be walkable enough that people can easily get to the bus, and the big city also needs to be navigable without a car.
As to intercity: I'm not saying NYC and LA should have a dedicated rail line between them, but it would certainly be reasonable to have SF, LA, and SD all connected by rail, perhaps high-speed. But at the same time, given the spread out development of those three cities, it doesn't surprise me at all that that's not feasible.
> It's also much easier to build infrastructure in regions of 447,435 km² than it is for 9.834 million km².
If that's true, so what?
Split it into 20 separate jobs, each equivalent to Sweden in terms of landmass, population, and budget.
Or maybe 48 separate jobs.
If that's true, so what?
Split it into 20 separate jobs, each equivalent to Sweden in terms of landmass, population, and budget.
Or maybe 48 separate jobs.
I just laughed seeing as the comment above you right now says "This only works since Sweden is so sparsely populated"
The road to my son's high school has a 5 MPH speed limit. Have you ever tried to drive 5 MPH? My speedometer doesn't register that low. My car goes faster than that at idle.
My favorite are the 7.5mph, 14mph, and other odd increments ment to convey percision, while we just ballpark most slow speed limits. Reminds me of the guy who set all his meetings at exactly 7 minutes after the hour to convey promptness.
I read somewhere that the original goal of those oddball speed limits was to get drivers to notice them and therefore, hopefully, obey them. It's easy to tune out yet another 25 mph sign, but 23 mph stands out.
anyway your speedometer always show more than it's real speed, so maybe real reason is to follow speed from speedometer since 23mph means roughly 25mph displayed on speedometer instead of doing opposite, setting speed limit 25 but people trying to match it with speedometer displaying 27
But why? I understand 25mph just fine. 23mph is only going to distract me.
i think that's the point, so you pay close attention to speed limits instead of overlooking them if they are everywhere same, of course you can drive at common lowest denominator and don't be distracted
Paying inordinate attention to the limit means not paying as much attention to driving.
I have never paid too little attention to the speed limit being 25mph. I have always been very well aware of being in such a residential zone.
I have never paid too little attention to the speed limit being 25mph. I have always been very well aware of being in such a residential zone.
5mph is just about the lowest I can drive on a motorcycle, and it's real hard to maintain balance. Have to focus so much on that there is less attention for, say, looking out for kids running across road.
I don't even think I can go 5mph on flat ground on my bicycle. Like you said, it's a balance thing.
Try dragging the rear brake, if you're not already. It can help stability a lot.
FTA: "Fortunately, American roadways are safer than ever, with highway fatalities at historic lows. Roads can be dangerous, but the perception of roads getting increasingly dangerous is a false one."
...
"Published Jul 23, 2014"
And then: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-shar...
And then: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-shar...
> Almost half of passenger vehicle occupants killed were not wearing seat belts. Research shows almost one in three fatalities involved drunk drivers or speeding. One in 10 fatalities involved distraction.
Someone has a pretty big axe to grind when they have to lump speeders in with drunk drivers in order to get the statistics they need... I suspect that the number is almost the same even if you remove the non-drunk speeders from it. (I'm being a little snotty and disingenuous--I suspect that the issue is that the number of non-drunk, speeding fatalities is almost nil and that drunk and fatality almost always implies speeding as well).
And I still can't believe how many people die because they won't put on a bloody seat belt. Sheesh.
So, what we know is that using electronic devices in cars is more dangerous than speeding. So, we clearly need to remove the cellular towers near highways, right?
Someone has a pretty big axe to grind when they have to lump speeders in with drunk drivers in order to get the statistics they need... I suspect that the number is almost the same even if you remove the non-drunk speeders from it. (I'm being a little snotty and disingenuous--I suspect that the issue is that the number of non-drunk, speeding fatalities is almost nil and that drunk and fatality almost always implies speeding as well).
And I still can't believe how many people die because they won't put on a bloody seat belt. Sheesh.
So, what we know is that using electronic devices in cars is more dangerous than speeding. So, we clearly need to remove the cellular towers near highways, right?
Indeed. Looking at the local accident statistics and investigation reports where I live (Finland), it is easy to see that small breach of speed limit is fairly negligible as a cause for accidents. In some part of accidents it is one contributing factor, but there are quite large groups where speed limits are not relevant at all:
- suicides (somewhere between 10 % and 20 %) - spontaneous deaths (around 10 % of traffic deaths, driver dies of old age or similar; they are included in statistics even though the accident was not actually cause of death) - gross negligence (at least 30 %: the driver is severely drunk, does not have a license, the vehicle has not passed inspection and the driver is trying to escape the police at 160 km/h on a 50 km/h zone; sometimes you have all these at the same time!) - freak observation errors (at a rail crossing, just drive under the train)
- suicides (somewhere between 10 % and 20 %) - spontaneous deaths (around 10 % of traffic deaths, driver dies of old age or similar; they are included in statistics even though the accident was not actually cause of death) - gross negligence (at least 30 %: the driver is severely drunk, does not have a license, the vehicle has not passed inspection and the driver is trying to escape the police at 160 km/h on a 50 km/h zone; sometimes you have all these at the same time!) - freak observation errors (at a rail crossing, just drive under the train)
> American roadways are safer than ever
Well, even then, the US still has somewhere around 3-4 times more deaths on the roads per capita than other western countries.
Well, even then, the US still has somewhere around 3-4 times more deaths on the roads per capita than other western countries.
Some of this may be due to the skillset to obtain a license in most states in the US is a quick written test and a 15 minute driving test in a parking lot, whereas other countries require actual studies, hand-on road instruction, and about 30x more cost ($32 for Georgia vs ~$1000 for many European countries).
To be fair, distracted driving is a larger problem for fatalities than speeding. Also, I think we probably have far more than 3-4 times the people who drive and the corresponding roadways than most other western countries.
It would be interesting to know what the ratio of deaths per driving regularly capita is for all western countries.
It would be interesting to know what the ratio of deaths per driving regularly capita is for all western countries.
[deleted]
To be fair, that has more to do with everyone now having mini super-computers in their possession distracting them than with speed limits.
And even at the historic lows, numerous studies suggest fatality rates would be even lower if we'd stuck to the national 55/65 speed limits.
Rates would be lower if we all drove at the same speed, no matter what that speed is. Setting the speed limit at 55/65 doesn't make everyone drive at 55/65.
That may be true, but doesn't change the fact that we've done this experiment nationally, and adjusted for other factors that are known to affect speed, there were fewer fatalities when the limit was lower.
Setting the limit at 80 doesn't make everyone drive 80, either.
Setting the limit at 80 doesn't make everyone drive 80, either.
That's why you set it to the 85th percentile speed, as the article explains, rather than picking some arbitrary speed and expecting everyone to go at that speed.
> And even at the historic lows, numerous studies suggest fatality rates would be even lower if we'd stuck to the national 55/65 speed limits.
Evidence, please.
We did this experiment and the evidence is against you.
Fatalities did not significantly increase for any of the states that increased their limits after the 55mph thing ended and there was some weak evidence that they went down.
Evidence, please.
We did this experiment and the evidence is against you.
Fatalities did not significantly increase for any of the states that increased their limits after the 55mph thing ended and there was some weak evidence that they went down.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724439/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-...
http://www.livescience.com/33202-higher-speed-limits-cause-m...
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/09/23/crashes-spike-...
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/speed-limit-increa...
Did you even read the report, or did you simply pull a summary? The numbers are all over the map and the P values look hacked to generate a paper.
In addition, if you look at the fatality and injury numbers for urban interstate they went down for 65MPH and up for 55mph and 75mph. That makes no sense.
Basically, the statistics are sufficiently close to a wash that the confounding factors (like texting or rerouting due to more convenience) matter more than the speed limit.
In addition, if you look at the fatality and injury numbers for urban interstate they went down for 65MPH and up for 55mph and 75mph. That makes no sense.
Basically, the statistics are sufficiently close to a wash that the confounding factors (like texting or rerouting due to more convenience) matter more than the speed limit.
Not only that, but there is a study [1] that shows that traffic speeds do not change significantly even if the speed limit dies have a significant change.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
In my experience, all this does is create a dangerous speed differential between the people who go 80 regardless of the posted speed limits, and the people who follow the speed limits with room to spare.
And it's the large differentials in speed which create the most dangerous conditions and accidents.
Even rigorous enforcement can't catch everyone, and the high speeds quickly become the norm; with people going 65 the dangerous exceptions.
And it's the large differentials in speed which create the most dangerous conditions and accidents.
Even rigorous enforcement can't catch everyone, and the high speeds quickly become the norm; with people going 65 the dangerous exceptions.
Your experience is directly contradicted by what people studying this observed as the national limit was relaxed and then removed completely.
55? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!
You jest, but given that the average lifespan is about 622k hours, I think you can have a serious moral argument about whether it's better to kill one person or make a million people late by an hour.
Ooo, this will be a good one for the ethics panel. How many of those million people could have saved, or ended a life in that time? Its a juicy one.
I think the argument rests on the fact that on net, people generally do positive things with their time.
If the break-even point isn't 1 million people, where is it? 622k? 100 billion? 3^^^3?
This is Eliezer Yudkowski's dust speck argument all over again. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/
If the break-even point isn't 1 million people, where is it? 622k? 100 billion? 3^^^3?
This is Eliezer Yudkowski's dust speck argument all over again. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/
I have a hard time taking the conclusions seriously when I compare the situation with Switzerland.
The current Swiss yearly deaths are around 250, a very significant drop from the typical 1000 I remember growing up in the 80s - http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/7515011ec041... lists a maximum of 1720 in 1971. As the population increased about 25% in the same period, that's about an 8x drop in per-capita rate.
In the same period, US fatalities dropped from 52000 to 35000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...), for a per-capita drop of 2.3x (the per-mile drop is 4x, the current Swiss per-mile rate is 60% of the US one).
In the period I remember:
- speed limits were reduced in town from 60 to 50km/h, on highways from 100 to 80 km/h and on freeways from 130 to 120 km/h
- speed limit enforcement became much more pervasive (there's an automated radar every 10km or so on busy freeways?)
- cars got safer (this applies everywhere)
- drunk driving limits were reduced (and people's attitude to driving after drinking changed substantially)
So suggestions that speed limits are irrelevant and pointing to reduced death rates in the US as evidence are not very convincing when other countries saw substantially larger improvements over the same period.
The current Swiss yearly deaths are around 250, a very significant drop from the typical 1000 I remember growing up in the 80s - http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/7515011ec041... lists a maximum of 1720 in 1971. As the population increased about 25% in the same period, that's about an 8x drop in per-capita rate.
In the same period, US fatalities dropped from 52000 to 35000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...), for a per-capita drop of 2.3x (the per-mile drop is 4x, the current Swiss per-mile rate is 60% of the US one).
In the period I remember:
- speed limits were reduced in town from 60 to 50km/h, on highways from 100 to 80 km/h and on freeways from 130 to 120 km/h
- speed limit enforcement became much more pervasive (there's an automated radar every 10km or so on busy freeways?)
- cars got safer (this applies everywhere)
- drunk driving limits were reduced (and people's attitude to driving after drinking changed substantially)
So suggestions that speed limits are irrelevant and pointing to reduced death rates in the US as evidence are not very convincing when other countries saw substantially larger improvements over the same period.
[deleted]
Is it also possible that the roads themselves became safer?
Better signs, redesign of dangerous intersections, highway bridges and tunnels replacing mountain passes, barriers, lighting at night, good maintenance, etc...
It's also possible that drivers has simply been shamed into driving less, not more safely.
I'm curious what per-capita driving hours and mileage changes look like over the same period.
I'm curious what per-capita driving hours and mileage changes look like over the same period.
What is ridiculous is that in many European countries speed limits haven't changed since the 70's, when cars used to be a lot less safe and driving education was a joke as compared with today's standards.
You can see that this holds true when looking at some of the Eastern European countries that only recently got better road infrastructure. E.g in Poland, the max speed limit at a highway is 140 km/h, whereas countries like France or Spain keep lower limits (130 & 120 respectively).
I think that today, any highway limit below 140 km/h is just obsolete and should be revised. Now, I would prosecute harder those who speed in urban areas, where the risk of hitting pedestrians or cyclist is real.
You can see that this holds true when looking at some of the Eastern European countries that only recently got better road infrastructure. E.g in Poland, the max speed limit at a highway is 140 km/h, whereas countries like France or Spain keep lower limits (130 & 120 respectively).
I think that today, any highway limit below 140 km/h is just obsolete and should be revised. Now, I would prosecute harder those who speed in urban areas, where the risk of hitting pedestrians or cyclist is real.
1. The speed limit should be tied to average driver reaction times, not the engine or safety of the car.
2. Speed limits help maintain a steady flow of traffic.
My father found driving in France terrific because all lanes were limited to 130 km/h. Steady flow, no stress. In Germany, driving on the autobahn is stressful. The speed difference between the lanes is too big. From my experience, it is: right lane 100 km/h, middle lane 140 km /h, left lane “Get out of my way you sucker!!” >180 km/h. Passing someone on the middle lane means taking the left lane and accelerating as fast as possible because the next space ship SUV is coming closer at rocket speed. They tailgate you, sometimes flash lights or use their left blinker to bully you to switch lanes. Because of that, many people cut into the safety distance of the car they just barely passed to get rid of the bully.
The speed difference also causes backpropagating traffic jams. To the observer there is no obvious reason where the slowdown comes from. It was simply created by people driving too fast compared to the car in front of them, having to brake, causing the cars behind them to brake, etc.
2. Speed limits help maintain a steady flow of traffic.
My father found driving in France terrific because all lanes were limited to 130 km/h. Steady flow, no stress. In Germany, driving on the autobahn is stressful. The speed difference between the lanes is too big. From my experience, it is: right lane 100 km/h, middle lane 140 km /h, left lane “Get out of my way you sucker!!” >180 km/h. Passing someone on the middle lane means taking the left lane and accelerating as fast as possible because the next space ship SUV is coming closer at rocket speed. They tailgate you, sometimes flash lights or use their left blinker to bully you to switch lanes. Because of that, many people cut into the safety distance of the car they just barely passed to get rid of the bully.
The speed difference also causes backpropagating traffic jams. To the observer there is no obvious reason where the slowdown comes from. It was simply created by people driving too fast compared to the car in front of them, having to brake, causing the cars behind them to brake, etc.
> 1. The speed limit should be tied to average driver reaction times, not the engine or safety of the car.
Hence why distance to the car in front matters, proportionally to speed, not speed itself as an absolute metric. 180kph is not a definitive tailgating trigger when people behave. Case in point, in France people regularly tailgate you too even at 130kph, even more so because they feel safer due to the comparatively reduced speed.
> The speed difference also causes backpropagating traffic jams. [...] It was simply created by people driving too fast compared to the car in front of them, having to brake
It was created by people either braking too late and having too much of a tendency to tailgate you, or jumping out of their lane and sitting there, and it happens just as much in France. It's a property of reaction time and distance WRT speed, not speed itself.
> They tailgate you, sometimes flash lights or use their left blinker
I've mostly seen this behaviour when the car either cruises at a reduced speed on the left lane or irresponsibly takes over when it should have no business in doing so WRT current traffic: it's just as disrespectful to others to tailgate someone as it is to take over and block a lane when you're driving at a locked 140kph to overtake someone at 138kph and there's constant faster traffic on the left. I've also witnessed people playing vigilante and do this voluntarily precisely because of the existing speed limit.
My experience is that most issues on the road are a byproduct of terrible individualistic human behaviour, and setting limits on arbitrary metrics do not solve that.
Hence why distance to the car in front matters, proportionally to speed, not speed itself as an absolute metric. 180kph is not a definitive tailgating trigger when people behave. Case in point, in France people regularly tailgate you too even at 130kph, even more so because they feel safer due to the comparatively reduced speed.
> The speed difference also causes backpropagating traffic jams. [...] It was simply created by people driving too fast compared to the car in front of them, having to brake
It was created by people either braking too late and having too much of a tendency to tailgate you, or jumping out of their lane and sitting there, and it happens just as much in France. It's a property of reaction time and distance WRT speed, not speed itself.
> They tailgate you, sometimes flash lights or use their left blinker
I've mostly seen this behaviour when the car either cruises at a reduced speed on the left lane or irresponsibly takes over when it should have no business in doing so WRT current traffic: it's just as disrespectful to others to tailgate someone as it is to take over and block a lane when you're driving at a locked 140kph to overtake someone at 138kph and there's constant faster traffic on the left. I've also witnessed people playing vigilante and do this voluntarily precisely because of the existing speed limit.
My experience is that most issues on the road are a byproduct of terrible individualistic human behaviour, and setting limits on arbitrary metrics do not solve that.
> Speed limits help maintain a steady flow of traffic.
I don't understand why this isn't mentioned in every speed limit discussion. Driving in Australia / New Zealand with very strict speed limit laws is so much more relaxing compared to the anarchic mess on German autobahn or the disobedient mentality of Czech roads...
I don't understand why this isn't mentioned in every speed limit discussion. Driving in Australia / New Zealand with very strict speed limit laws is so much more relaxing compared to the anarchic mess on German autobahn or the disobedient mentality of Czech roads...
In reference to your first point, would you be willing to raise the speed limit once more cars start having AEB systems?
The speed limits are not just for safety.
They are also so that cars can get on the highway (some older cars or larger cars can't get to 140). Then you have trucks that have 80/90kph max. The differential gets large.
And then there is the issue of noise and particles in the air. Cars are most economic around 80kph.
At least these are reasons in the netherlands
They are also so that cars can get on the highway (some older cars or larger cars can't get to 140). Then you have trucks that have 80/90kph max. The differential gets large.
And then there is the issue of noise and particles in the air. Cars are most economic around 80kph.
At least these are reasons in the netherlands
Sure, but the Netherlands being such a small country doesn't have the "need" for higher speed limits. I know the same holds true in Switzerland, where crossing the country basically takes a 3-hour drive, so there is not much you can gain from going a bit faster.
I think you mean prosecute? Or maybe you really do mean persecute...
Yes, I meant prosecute, it is a false friend. In other languages, like Spanish, "perseguir" could be translated to both, but in this context, you are absolutely right that I wanted to use "prosecute" :)
Ooh good point, I can imagine why. Even in English, law enforcement "going after" somebody could essentially mean either.
If reducing speed is really desired, there are other ways:
- make roads narrower (either by optical illusion with narrower painted lanes or physically)
- reduce stretches of straight road: traffic circles are great at breaking up a straight line
- remove all straight lines from highways, making them perpetually in a slight curve. This is something that has been done in many place in Europe for newer highways. This breaks up the monotony of being on a straight stretch of highway and therefore feeling the need to drive faster. As an example, notice the slight curves in the limited access highway (A5) and compare to the 2-lane road that runs parallel to it (D605) in segments of straight lines:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A5,+France/@48.4802471,2.7...
- make roads narrower (either by optical illusion with narrower painted lanes or physically)
- reduce stretches of straight road: traffic circles are great at breaking up a straight line
- remove all straight lines from highways, making them perpetually in a slight curve. This is something that has been done in many place in Europe for newer highways. This breaks up the monotony of being on a straight stretch of highway and therefore feeling the need to drive faster. As an example, notice the slight curves in the limited access highway (A5) and compare to the 2-lane road that runs parallel to it (D605) in segments of straight lines:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A5,+France/@48.4802471,2.7...
Reducing accidents, injuries, and fatalities are is what really desired -- not reducing speed. This seems to be an argument for making roads more dangerous because people slow down when things are dangerous.
The government recently increased the speed limit on a long highway I take a few times a year. Honestly a lot of people were driving at or below the limit and I felt no reason to speed. The highway also seemed to move better and felt a lot safer with fewer lane changes needed.
The government recently increased the speed limit on a long highway I take a few times a year. Honestly a lot of people were driving at or below the limit and I felt no reason to speed. The highway also seemed to move better and felt a lot safer with fewer lane changes needed.
The bottom line of the article gets it totally backwards: "Raise speed limits, make roads safer." It should really be "design roads for lower speeds, make roads safer".
They aren't mutually exclusive. Existing roads are wide and straight and have too-low speed limits. Revamping them to be lower speed roads takes more money than just fixing the sign.
+1 for narrow roads. By my house there are suuuper wide roads with no houses on them, but 3-4 turn-offs into subdivisions. The roads have 20ft on either side of them that is mowed grass and huge shoulders. The subdivisions usually have turn lanes into them. Everyone goes 55-60 because the road is designed that way. The actual speed limit: 40. Lesson: Design the road for the speed limit that is intended.
Actual lesson: Post the speed limit the road was designed for.
This is what made the article a maddening experience to read, for me. Thankfully the article called out to these practices just a smidge at the very end.
But it seems wrongheaded to focus on 85/15 out of safety, in areas where the safety concerns are for surrounding property, bikers, and pedestrians. I'd love to see more emphasis on designing roads for intended speed limits.
But it seems wrongheaded to focus on 85/15 out of safety, in areas where the safety concerns are for surrounding property, bikers, and pedestrians. I'd love to see more emphasis on designing roads for intended speed limits.
The officer in the article is absolutely right: if communities want to reduce speeds then they need to do more the number on the sign. I notice the wider and more open the roadway is, the faster I'll drive. Even if a large bike lane replaces my lane, that space is still available to take up the slack for mistakes. Whereas a narrow county road or narrow residential street lined with cars will certainly slow me down, especially with oncoming traffic.
Agree. One thing I've never understood is why people ever thought it was a good idea to combine vehicle, foot, and bicycle traffic on essentially the same roads. Side walks are just another lane.
Communities need to enforce zoning that makes certain areas (malls, downtown, etc.) pedestrian areas only. Additionally, separate bicycle traffic onto different paths.
That would probably increase safety quite a bit.
Communities need to enforce zoning that makes certain areas (malls, downtown, etc.) pedestrian areas only. Additionally, separate bicycle traffic onto different paths.
That would probably increase safety quite a bit.
How many people are injured or killed annually by motor vehicles traveling on sidewalks?
I think you meant to put this into a Google search, not a comment.
Because in the early days cars were not traveling at lethal speeds. Collisions are very rarely fatal to people being hit at speeds below 20mph, and somewhat easier to prevent at those speeds as well. In a real mixed use street, any driver can instinctually feel that 20 mph is recklessly fast. The problem was surrendering primacy to the cars.
Should it not be very much dependant on the car? A modern car with new tires can safely go (and stop) much better than a junker from the 70s with no abs, bald tires and no independent suspension.
Yup. My car can pull 1.17g on a skidpad, but you pulled me over instead of the SUV that can barely stay in his lane at legal speeds. A classification system seems logical. We already have one, trucks often have seperate limits. Why not one for people with better car, and perhaps a driving skills certification.
This makes sense (and I have often advocated for it as well) but I would imagine enforcement would be ridiculous.
I'd like to see more license classes than "Car, Car with Motorcycle rider, CDL (over 13 tons), and CDL with Trailer". One could start with a "light weight class" like moped/motorcycle/small car, then have a progressive system for "heavy weight cars" (SUV or pickup truck) or "high HP/Ton cars" (Sports car). These "advanced licenses" would have a higher standard of testing and stiffer penalties if you are driving a car that meets these higher-spec classes.
I'd like to see more license classes than "Car, Car with Motorcycle rider, CDL (over 13 tons), and CDL with Trailer". One could start with a "light weight class" like moped/motorcycle/small car, then have a progressive system for "heavy weight cars" (SUV or pickup truck) or "high HP/Ton cars" (Sports car). These "advanced licenses" would have a higher standard of testing and stiffer penalties if you are driving a car that meets these higher-spec classes.
We have something like this in Europe. There is a classification between different vehicle types. There is A,A1 for Motorcycles of different sized motors; B,BE for cars below 3.5 tones; C,CE,C1,C1E for "cars" above 3.5 tones and D,DE,D1,D1E for buses. There are also classes like M which are for Motorcycles caped at 25km/h which can be obtained even at 16. All the other ones only for 18 and older.
Well, that's for state safety inspections to determine what's the baseline condition for safety. However, not all states have safety inspections.
agreed, i like Singaporean model where cars older than maybe 10 years are not allowed on the roads, of course even cars allowed on roads should be regularly checked for functionality of brakes, steering, lights, etc.
In my experience, the 85th percentile is at the speedlimit + 10-15 mph. It's as if people have decided they're unlikely to be ticketed by going "only" 10 mph over the limit. I rarely see anyone driving at or below the speed limit.
In Europe I've gotten tickets driving only 5mph over the limit (58 km/h on a 50 road), which would explain why the 85th percentile is closer to the actual speedlimit there.
In Europe I've gotten tickets driving only 5mph over the limit (58 km/h on a 50 road), which would explain why the 85th percentile is closer to the actual speedlimit there.
My wife was born and raised in the Southern US, and whenever we travel on the interstate system here she assures me that so long as I remain within 15mph of the posted speed limit I'll never be ticketed. When she first told me her theory it's fair to say I was a deep sceptic (as a foreign-born LPR), but nearly a decade on and she hasn't been wrong yet.
I will admit though, she counsels me against following the rule in Virginia because the cops there don't mess around.
EDIT: I should add that 15mph over the limit is usually "going with the flow". If the other cars are traveling at 70 then 85 really stands out.
I will admit though, she counsels me against following the rule in Virginia because the cops there don't mess around.
EDIT: I should add that 15mph over the limit is usually "going with the flow". If the other cars are traveling at 70 then 85 really stands out.
Yeah, absolutely do not follow that rule in Virginia. We have roads where the speed limit is 70MPH. If you're driving 80MPH or over, it's automatically a reckless driving charge, which is an actual crime, not just a moving violation. And if your attention drifts a bit and you accidentally break 90MPH, you'll probably end up in jail.
My usual rule is 5MPH over. I sometimes increase it to 10MPH, but it works almost everywhere.
My usual rule is 5MPH over. I sometimes increase it to 10MPH, but it works almost everywhere.
In general:
5 over is safe everywhere in the USA except school zones. 10 is generally safe in suburban and rural areas. 14 over on highways, unless mitigating situations exist (bridge, visibility, twisties)
Beware, almost every area has some county or township that abuses their little patch of highway, and they tend to be well known to locals, but prey on passers by.
This is not bulletproof, but has been my experince.
5 over is safe everywhere in the USA except school zones. 10 is generally safe in suburban and rural areas. 14 over on highways, unless mitigating situations exist (bridge, visibility, twisties)
Beware, almost every area has some county or township that abuses their little patch of highway, and they tend to be well known to locals, but prey on passers by.
This is not bulletproof, but has been my experince.
This is true but personally I would rather see this shift to something closer to +10%. Going 35 in a 25 mph residential zone puts anyone not in a car in significant danger. Going 27 or 28 doesn't change the risk nearly as much.
This rule of thumb still allows for 61 mph on urban freeways and 77 to 83 on rural interstates.
This rule of thumb still allows for 61 mph on urban freeways and 77 to 83 on rural interstates.
Federal standards for car spedometers allow 10% error. Because of liability, cars are not sold with spedometers that read low.
If you are less than 10% over, the cops would need to prove that you knew it. This would involve testing your car. Nobody wants to bother with that, so you normally get an extra 10%.
If you are less than 10% over, the cops would need to prove that you knew it. This would involve testing your car. Nobody wants to bother with that, so you normally get an extra 10%.
Source of said standard? Older cars (pre-1990) had pretty inaccurate speedometers, 5-10% off. Modern cars are very accurate.
There is no such need for cop to "prove" you "knew" you were speeding. Ignorance of the law (or the condition of your vehicle, or whatever) is no excuse, as the saying goes. When you sign up for a driver's license (in the US) you agree that you will abide by all traffic laws.
There is no such need for cop to "prove" you "knew" you were speeding. Ignorance of the law (or the condition of your vehicle, or whatever) is no excuse, as the saying goes. When you sign up for a driver's license (in the US) you agree that you will abide by all traffic laws.
People have decided they are unlikely to get punished for going slightly over the speed limit because they are. I regularly pass speed traps on my daily commute going (precisely) 15 over. Would be nice if speed limit was actually the limit instead of the selectively enforceable suggestion that it is.
> Would be nice if speed limit was actually the limit instead of the selectively enforceable suggestion that it is.
Why? It would add time to your (and everyone else's) commute, while simultaneously being unlikely to substantially improve traffic safety.
Why? It would add time to your (and everyone else's) commute, while simultaneously being unlikely to substantially improve traffic safety.
I think there's an implied suggestion here that the number on the sign would go up to match the enforcement, not the other way around.
He obviously wants the speed limit on the sign raised to what the actual enforcement is (currently the limit +15 or so).
Probably because some people values clear rules that are enforced; not because they actually want to a slower commute.
In the US you usually wont be pulled over unless you are blatantly (10 mph+ depending on the road) speeding. Going 5 over will pretty much never get you pulled over unless you have a tail light out, or a warrant for your arrest or something
I think ticketing for 5 over would open up the floodgates to a debatably valid reason/excuse: a speedometer only reports accurate numbers when tuned to the wheel configuration. It's common enough for tire sizes to be changed on a vehicle, especially in regions where larger summer tires are swapped out for smaller winter tires, without the speedometer readings being adjusted for the new tire size.
It could be argued that the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring this adjustment is made every time tires are changed, but with no real way for the average consumer to verify or measure the difference, the fact is we depend on the business providing the service to do it for us.
It could be argued that the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring this adjustment is made every time tires are changed, but with no real way for the average consumer to verify or measure the difference, the fact is we depend on the business providing the service to do it for us.
While there is a standard for claims of speedo deviation, it usually is not claimed due to the 10mph or larger discrepancy commpn for tickets. You are right on about snow tires, but mine are larger, and my summer tires low profile. But those who swap wheels also tend to mentally recalibrate while passing those speed signs. I have to on all my motorcycles, as manufacuturers all seem to want me to think I am going 15% faster.
It also helps that every speedometer installed in cars is 1-3 MPH slow on purpose (estimating above true velocity is obviously a real problem, and I believe results in fines to the manufacturer).
Plug an OBDII reader + app into your car to see the true velocity.
Plug an OBDII reader + app into your car to see the true velocity.
Well, true velocity as reported by the car. Slop in the drivetrain, tire inflation differences, temperature differences... these can add up to up to 10% differences between your speed as reported by radar/gps and what your car measures from the drivetrain.
The heuristic I tend to follow is "9 you're fine, 10 you're mine". It has not failed me yet. Traffic cops are reasonable unless they're running behind quota.
> Traffic cops are reasonable unless they're running behind quota
It's kind of funny to watch on the last two or three days of the month how many of the state troopers are out on the interstate, doing speed traps all day long. The rest of the month, you'll almost never see them, unless they are escorting an oversize load.
It's kind of funny to watch on the last two or three days of the month how many of the state troopers are out on the interstate, doing speed traps all day long. The rest of the month, you'll almost never see them, unless they are escorting an oversize load.
IF a department was going to set up quotas for speeding tickets but also wanted to slow drivers down as much as possible, why not have the quota deadline be rolling? Officer Jones has to meet his quota by the 3rd of the month. Officer Smith must meet hers by the 5th and so on. Quotas without the end of month blitz and more reliable enforcement.
Just a friendly reminder (most) quotas are techically illegal, yet we still all accept it as the norm.
There is another factor (human) that is not taken into consideration about accidents.
Just like the recent discussion about "troublemakers", 90% to 95% of drivers are - with different levels of driving competence - OK.
It is the remainining 5%, maybe 10%, that create most of the issues, directly or indirectly, that is not only speeding, it is often distraction, aggressivity at the wheel, etc..
One of the reasons why "black boxes" that record driving habits are not as common as they could or should be, besides of course the usual privacy risks, is that everyone is afraid if the data that would come out of them.
If all drivers were monitored it would likely come out that a small minority (the said 5% or so) should simply be deprived of the right to drive any vehicle (no insurance would ever cover them, as insurance is about risks, not about certainties) and this would break quite a few "social contracts", including the unwritten one in which there is a "right to drive" (because our cities and lives are organized in such a way that a car is needed to commute, to take kids to school, etc.).
Just like the recent discussion about "troublemakers", 90% to 95% of drivers are - with different levels of driving competence - OK.
It is the remainining 5%, maybe 10%, that create most of the issues, directly or indirectly, that is not only speeding, it is often distraction, aggressivity at the wheel, etc..
One of the reasons why "black boxes" that record driving habits are not as common as they could or should be, besides of course the usual privacy risks, is that everyone is afraid if the data that would come out of them.
If all drivers were monitored it would likely come out that a small minority (the said 5% or so) should simply be deprived of the right to drive any vehicle (no insurance would ever cover them, as insurance is about risks, not about certainties) and this would break quite a few "social contracts", including the unwritten one in which there is a "right to drive" (because our cities and lives are organized in such a way that a car is needed to commute, to take kids to school, etc.).
> If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective.
This paragraph is really key. You want to design the road and the area around it to encourage an appropriate speed, and then set the speed limit at that speed (which should work out to the 85th percentile of what people would drive anyway). IMO most freeways, at least where I'm from, should have higher speed limits (and are already designed to support them). Some residential streets should probably have lower ones, but would need design changes to encourage people to actually drive at an appropriate speed.
This paragraph is really key. You want to design the road and the area around it to encourage an appropriate speed, and then set the speed limit at that speed (which should work out to the 85th percentile of what people would drive anyway). IMO most freeways, at least where I'm from, should have higher speed limits (and are already designed to support them). Some residential streets should probably have lower ones, but would need design changes to encourage people to actually drive at an appropriate speed.
There's a 3 lane (each way) street with traffic lights in my suburban city that I drive every day. I refuse to go above the speed limit (40mph) while driving in general but the generally accepted speed is 55mph and there's no enforcement.
Either they need to raise the limit or enforce it. I'm sick of being the asshole going too slow.
Also my speed is generally more a function of gas mileage than anything else. With stop lights littering the route I don't feel that driving 55 is any faster than 40. It just wastes more gas. So maybe it wouldn't even make sense to raise it and instead it just needs to be enforced.
Either they need to raise the limit or enforce it. I'm sick of being the asshole going too slow.
Also my speed is generally more a function of gas mileage than anything else. With stop lights littering the route I don't feel that driving 55 is any faster than 40. It just wastes more gas. So maybe it wouldn't even make sense to raise it and instead it just needs to be enforced.
You're not bothering anyone if you stay to the right (assuming US) so they can pass.
I think this needs to be drilled into young drivers heads so the highways of the future have less morons on them.
In fact, I think it needs to go a step further - ALWAYS stay to the right. Only move to the other lane to pass or turn left.
In fact, I think it needs to go a step further - ALWAYS stay to the right. Only move to the other lane to pass or turn left.
The problem is, at least in more populated areas, there are so many exits that traveling in right-most lane can be dangerous with all of the merging traffic. Large trucks in particular will just cut off cars forcing you to slam on the breaks at least once every mile or two.
The the police should... police that.
Staying out of the passing lane when not passing someone is actually the law in many states. You must keep right if able.
All 50 US states have some type of keep-right law. Whether it's an absolute "keep right unless actively passing" or a looser "keep right when slower than other traffic" varies, but all of them have some kind of enforceable keep-right rule.
All US traffic laws come from the Uniform Vehicle Code. Keep right rules are meant for absolutely slow traffic and not for driving the speed limit. The UVC has keep right exceptions for divided highways with multiple lanes going in one direction.
Passing left laws were intended for two way streets with one lane in each direction when the only way to pass is by driving on the lane going the opposite direction.
Passing left laws were intended for two way streets with one lane in each direction when the only way to pass is by driving on the lane going the opposite direction.
> Keep right rules are meant for absolutely slow traffic and not for driving the speed limit.
Do you have a citation for that? Many state laws use the speed of traffic as a reference to define slower as opposed to using the posted speed limit as the reference. If they meant to say only slower than the speed limit, then the text of the law would be explicit on that point.
Do you have a citation for that? Many state laws use the speed of traffic as a reference to define slower as opposed to using the posted speed limit as the reference. If they meant to say only slower than the speed limit, then the text of the law would be explicit on that point.
It's the law here in Colorado. I don't think it's working. People drive in the left lane (when the middle lanes are wide open) all the time.
[deleted]
I've been road-raged doing the speed limit in the right-hand lane. You shouldn't be bothering people doing that, but people aren't rational.
It's really better and safer to drive at a speed similar to the speed of the rest of traffic. If the speed limit is 55 mph and the pace speed lies between 65 to 75 mph, then the minimum speed you should be driving is 65 mph.
Having less speed variance leads to smoother flow and traffic that's more spread out. That increases safety overall.
Having less speed variance leads to smoother flow and traffic that's more spread out. That increases safety overall.
The pace of traffic is 55 mph when police cars are around.
So I can ruin my gas mileage slowing and stopping every time someone in front of me turns onto a side street or pulls out in front of me?
No thanks!
Generally its the middle lane I use, but sometimes it's even the left if some landscaping truck or cement mixed is in front of me dropping who knows what into the road.
No thanks!
Generally its the middle lane I use, but sometimes it's even the left if some landscaping truck or cement mixed is in front of me dropping who knows what into the road.
In the city, you are correct. The far right in a 3 lane is often just for turning and merging, making the middle the travel lane. The point is not to travel in the passing lane.
I don't think that passing makes any sense on this kind of road. It's just bad for your wallet in both gas and maintenance on your vehicle and also it's bad for the environment.
The chief component in getting to one's destination is the traffic and the second one is number of lights you get stopped out. Since all the lights are timed to 40mph it doesn't make sense to go faster unless they re-engineer the road.
Generally any car that passes me will be stuck at the light ahead and if there is light traffic I will pass them because I have a rolling start and if there is heavy traffic it's all the same.
Staying to the right in this situation only makes sense if you're unable to accelerate at a reasonable speed or unable to go the speed limit at all.
The chief component in getting to one's destination is the traffic and the second one is number of lights you get stopped out. Since all the lights are timed to 40mph it doesn't make sense to go faster unless they re-engineer the road.
Generally any car that passes me will be stuck at the light ahead and if there is light traffic I will pass them because I have a rolling start and if there is heavy traffic it's all the same.
Staying to the right in this situation only makes sense if you're unable to accelerate at a reasonable speed or unable to go the speed limit at all.
There is no passing lane. Passing left laws were meant for passing on the opposite side of the street. Traveling the speed limit in the left lane is the original intention. See the Uniform Vehicle Code, the standard that state traffic laws are derived from.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's a two-lane (each way) street near me with no houses along it, split carriageways and great visibility. It's a 30 zone with speed cameras. After 5 years of living in this city I finally fouled up and it got me.
One problem i see here is that what we call the "speed limit" is not simply a speed limit it is the speed you are suppose to drive at.
I often drive a section of about 2 miles of highway where I need to average 33 mph to arrive at a traffic light just turning green. Although the speed limit there was recently lowered from 55mph to 45mph, every other car drives well over 50mph, and it takes a lot of will power to maintain my much lower speed. You're right that speed limits often feel more like minima than maxima.
Yes, this is a problem. I would often drive slower, if there wasn't a speed limit.
Personally I think a recommend and speed limit should exist, (on the same road/sign).
That's the German approach actually. There is no speed limit on some of the highways, yet the recommended speed is 130 km/h.
Genuine question...if we really cared about speeding, couldn't we just put speed cameras everywhere and issue tickets automatically for people who are driving too fast?
The randomness of having a human officer grab me (not the other 1,000 people) off the road for going too fast feels unfair and ineffective.
The randomness of having a human officer grab me (not the other 1,000 people) off the road for going too fast feels unfair and ineffective.
> couldn't we just put speed cameras everywhere and issue tickets automatically for people who are driving too fast?
There are stretches in DC with exactly that strategy. As a consequence, people speed and then hit the brakes right before the cameras.
I'd love to know the accident stats right around those stretches.
There are stretches in DC with exactly that strategy. As a consequence, people speed and then hit the brakes right before the cameras.
I'd love to know the accident stats right around those stretches.
Average speed cameras are a solution to that problem and frequently used for long-running road works on UK motorways.
how do they deal with stopovers? average speed measuring is useful only for continuous trip and very short distances between measuring points so they can't be cheated by stops, but I can see how delivery driver with many stops could easily break speed limits even with average measuring
They're only done on motorways (~freeway) in general, and there tend to be at the very least cameras before/after each junction. Any directly on-carriageway parking places tend to be closed off, hard shoulders are for emergency use only, and service areas are considered junctions for this.
I don't think I've ever seen anywhere with them with less than, say, half a mile separation between junctions. At that point, you just get normal speed cameras.
I don't think I've ever seen anywhere with them with less than, say, half a mile separation between junctions. At that point, you just get normal speed cameras.
In 2013, there were 4,071,000 miles of roads [1]. How many cameras are we going to need? I think the idea of randomness is supposed to make people think "there could be a cop anywhere, so I'd better not speed", but I think a basic psychology education (and driving on a US highway for three minutes) proves that that's not actually how people behave.
[1] https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
[1] https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
That's solving the wrong problem. We want to keep the roads safe and fine drivers that drive at an unsafe speed. Since speed limits are not tied to the safe speed in most cases then you are just fining people in a way that does nothing to help society.
You need to fix the core speed limit problem before fully enforcing the limits.
You need to fix the core speed limit problem before fully enforcing the limits.
Doing so would be too unpopular, Especially in the wide range of cases where speed limits are set too low for the geometry of the road.
this is already taken care of, in EU within few years so roads must have toll gate system monitoring passing cars with unit built in car, so you can easily measure average speed, though it's not perfect solution if there is longer distance between gates
My favorite is when people go 40mph on a 65mph road and nearly cause everybody else who was previously driving safely and happily to nearly rear end each other and cause unnecessary brake and tire wear. There ought to be some sterner punishments for driving too slow as well.
As usual, the answer to the headline is "no." Probably most freeway speed limits are too low, and many others, but lots of smaller streets have appropriate limits, or even ones which are too high.
It's a fun (and annoying) game to observe how people's speed varies compared to the limit. I almost always go at the limit plus 5MPH unless that would make me dangerously slow. Sometimes this makes me the fastest car on the road, and other times the slowest.
There's a road I drive about twice a day where the first half has a 25MPH limit and the second half is 35MPH. I'm usually a slowpoke on the first half, building up a queue of cars behind me, and then end up the fastest car around on the second half. (And to preempt any haters, the 25MPH segment is less than a mile long, so I'm not severely inconveniencing people.)
Rural interstates here have a 70MPH limit, so I go 75MPH. Most people go 65-70MPH. As you get into the city where I live, the limit drops progressively to 55MPH, and most people go... 65-70MPH.
It's a fun (and annoying) game to observe how people's speed varies compared to the limit. I almost always go at the limit plus 5MPH unless that would make me dangerously slow. Sometimes this makes me the fastest car on the road, and other times the slowest.
There's a road I drive about twice a day where the first half has a 25MPH limit and the second half is 35MPH. I'm usually a slowpoke on the first half, building up a queue of cars behind me, and then end up the fastest car around on the second half. (And to preempt any haters, the 25MPH segment is less than a mile long, so I'm not severely inconveniencing people.)
Rural interstates here have a 70MPH limit, so I go 75MPH. Most people go 65-70MPH. As you get into the city where I live, the limit drops progressively to 55MPH, and most people go... 65-70MPH.
My opinion is that most are not too high. Though there are many that may /technically/ be that way due to the driveways of older houses which are a legacy from before the rest of the city moved out to the area. Society should do a better job of encouraging the increase of density and arterial conversion.
"I’ve found that about 10% of drivers truly identify the speed limit sign and drive at or near that limit"
I really hope this is not the case
I really hope this is not the case
Former FDA chief john nestor was known in DC for setting his cruise control to 55 and parking in the left lane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor
Some cops claim that aggressive traffic enforcement leads to knock-on effects in reducing gun crime:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/809689.pdf
> Gun seizures by police in the target area increased by more than 65 percent, while gun crimes declined in the target area by 49 percent
It probably makes sense -- any kind of warrantless search has the potential to decrease crime.
Some cops claim that aggressive traffic enforcement leads to knock-on effects in reducing gun crime:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/809689.pdf
> Gun seizures by police in the target area increased by more than 65 percent, while gun crimes declined in the target area by 49 percent
It probably makes sense -- any kind of warrantless search has the potential to decrease crime.
I'm not surprised that someone with a psychopathic desire to inconvenience people would seek employment in government bureaucracy.
That "psychopath" was the major force in bringing to light the effects of Thalidomide in the early 1960s. He stood up to drug companies.
> A plot was hatched, fueled by indignation: "By God, I've paid taxes for a long time -- and more than a lot of those trucks." First he consulted with the commonwealth attorney's office and other traffic authorities to ensure that his plan was legal, that passing on the right was acceptable on multilane highways and that traveling over 55, even to pass, was against the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1984/11/21/...
> A plot was hatched, fueled by indignation: "By God, I've paid taxes for a long time -- and more than a lot of those trucks." First he consulted with the commonwealth attorney's office and other traffic authorities to ensure that his plan was legal, that passing on the right was acceptable on multilane highways and that traveling over 55, even to pass, was against the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1984/11/21/...
[deleted]
It's definitely true in my experience, or rather that those people drive at 5-10mph slower. This problem is exasperated in those small towns where overzealous officers strictly enforce a ridiculously limit, simply to fill their ticket quotas.
Maybe police should try enforcing the traffic laws?
I refuse to speed; I think it is immoral. This is because I ride a bicycle everywhere, and the extent to which people speed on surface streets has an obvious and tangible effect on my safety. My town has a narrow bridge that used to be the only way for cyclists to get across the river, where drivers routinely exceed the 35 mph speed limit by 20 mph or more. It is terrifying, and people have gotten killed. I wish they would put a speed camera on that bridge.
The argument that "the speed limit doesn't matter because people will travel the same speed" only makes sense under the assumption that the only people who will use the public roads are drivers who feel like they can do whatever they want. Plenty of drivers feel entitled to run red lights, too, and that causes more collisions.
I refuse to speed; I think it is immoral. This is because I ride a bicycle everywhere, and the extent to which people speed on surface streets has an obvious and tangible effect on my safety. My town has a narrow bridge that used to be the only way for cyclists to get across the river, where drivers routinely exceed the 35 mph speed limit by 20 mph or more. It is terrifying, and people have gotten killed. I wish they would put a speed camera on that bridge.
The argument that "the speed limit doesn't matter because people will travel the same speed" only makes sense under the assumption that the only people who will use the public roads are drivers who feel like they can do whatever they want. Plenty of drivers feel entitled to run red lights, too, and that causes more collisions.
Your counter argument only makes sense under the assumption that there is no other way to change travel speeds. As others have mentioned, narrow lanes do wonders, as do trees near the roadway and shorter sight lines. The trees are even more effective if they become mature enough to form a canopy across the top of the roadway. You can also achieve these changes with more temporary measures, such as paint and cones.
Your situation sounds ripe for change. Look into street calming demonstrations, and seek neighborhood support to do one as well as possibly painting lines to narrow the lanes for drivers.
Just don't be surprised that drivers try to drive highways like highways, even when you try with signs to tell them that it's a low speed road.
Your situation sounds ripe for change. Look into street calming demonstrations, and seek neighborhood support to do one as well as possibly painting lines to narrow the lanes for drivers.
Just don't be surprised that drivers try to drive highways like highways, even when you try with signs to tell them that it's a low speed road.
You must learn to differentiate legality from morality.
Right. It's illegal to exceed the traffic limit. It's immoral to speed excessively in way that causes needless risk of physical harm to other people.
It's immoral to drive at any speed which causes needless risk of physical harm to other people, speeding or otherwise. There are times when speeding does not cause this risk though.
The phrase "speed excessively" in your second sentence directly implies that "speeding" leads to the immorality rather than just speed. Additionally, "excessive" is approaching a tautology. In your first comment though you just talk about "speeding" without the excess and then say that's flatly immoral.
The phrase "speed excessively" in your second sentence directly implies that "speeding" leads to the immorality rather than just speed. Additionally, "excessive" is approaching a tautology. In your first comment though you just talk about "speeding" without the excess and then say that's flatly immoral.
Sure, but in my experience people who are speeding at 10-20 mph on 35-mph-limited mixed-user surface streets are doing both. That's true as well on rural highways with hidden curves and possibly animals or tractors, or complex urban interstates with lots of traffic merging. These account for a majority of the driving people do. The case of a rural interstate with few interchanges is what people mostly think of with speed limits, but many of these have already been raised to a limit of 70–80 mph.
People are bad at assessing risk and bad at awareness of road conditions. And I think learning to disregard posted speed limits corrodes regard for other rules of the road, like stopping at traffic lights.
People are bad at assessing risk and bad at awareness of road conditions. And I think learning to disregard posted speed limits corrodes regard for other rules of the road, like stopping at traffic lights.
>It's immoral to speed excessively in way that causes needless risk of physical harm to other people.
Even in jurisdictions that didn't have speeding laws (before we had a national standard) those people were still prosecuted for reckless driving. The standard speeding law is whatever is reasonable and prudent given the traffic, weather, and road conditions. It's a subjective standard that offers police a lot of leeway, but so it goes.
Even in jurisdictions that didn't have speeding laws (before we had a national standard) those people were still prosecuted for reckless driving. The standard speeding law is whatever is reasonable and prudent given the traffic, weather, and road conditions. It's a subjective standard that offers police a lot of leeway, but so it goes.
Normal traffic is driving up to the legal speed limit.
> On the other hand, a New York judge announced that he would not convict drivers for blocking speeding traffic, People v. Ilieveski, 175 Misc. 2d 943; 670 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Monroe County N.Y. 1998).
> On the other hand, a New York judge announced that he would not convict drivers for blocking speeding traffic, People v. Ilieveski, 175 Misc. 2d 943; 670 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Monroe County N.Y. 1998).
Failing to keep pace with the flow of traffic is just as much of a safety hazard. I see near misses all the time on the highway due to people make desperate lane changes to avoid getting stuck behind a slower car.
Mostly I'm talking about surface roads, especially where people go at ~50 mph in a 35 mph zone, without regard for road conditions or other road users.
But drivers have developed a sense of entitlement to speed at least 10 mph, and regard the posted speed limit as a speed minimum. But if a car is traveling 65 mph in a 65 mph zone in a center or right lane, and a car behind him traveling at 75 mph swerves recklessly into another lane in order to avoid having to slow down to the posted speed limint, then the responsibility for the risk of that unsafe lane change is the responsibility of the driver who did it, not the car driving at the posted speed limit in the right lane.
But drivers have developed a sense of entitlement to speed at least 10 mph, and regard the posted speed limit as a speed minimum. But if a car is traveling 65 mph in a 65 mph zone in a center or right lane, and a car behind him traveling at 75 mph swerves recklessly into another lane in order to avoid having to slow down to the posted speed limint, then the responsibility for the risk of that unsafe lane change is the responsibility of the driver who did it, not the car driving at the posted speed limit in the right lane.
> drivers have developed a sense of entitlement to speed at least 10 mph, and regard the posted speed limit as a speed minimum.
This is the result of underposting highway speed limits for decades. Had that not happened, then dotted limits would have a lot more respect today.
This is the result of underposting highway speed limits for decades. Had that not happened, then dotted limits would have a lot more respect today.
The National Maximum Speed Limit law was passed in 1974 and repealed in 1995. It's been repealed for longer than it was in effect. Virtually all of the lower 48 US states have an interstate speed limit on the order of 70-80 mph.
Yes, though a lot of them have 85th percentile speeds more than 5 mph above the speed limit. And they still have a tendency to randomly reduce the speed limit to 55 mph without any obvious difference in road design (Pennsylvania and Maryland for example). Also, a lot of those states only recently allowed speed limits above 65 mph (far more recently than 1995).
So you basically have a generation of motorists who grew up and spent a substantial portion of their driving years with highway speed limits that virtually no one complies with, and that it was okay to drive 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit. This attitude spread to other road types as well meaning that even appropriately posted speed limits (e.g., 25 mph residential streets) have a high degree of noncompliance.
It's going to take a while to undo the damage, but that's what happens when traffic control devices are effectively used to "cry wolf".
Edit: s/compliance)/noncompliance/
So you basically have a generation of motorists who grew up and spent a substantial portion of their driving years with highway speed limits that virtually no one complies with, and that it was okay to drive 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit. This attitude spread to other road types as well meaning that even appropriately posted speed limits (e.g., 25 mph residential streets) have a high degree of noncompliance.
It's going to take a while to undo the damage, but that's what happens when traffic control devices are effectively used to "cry wolf".
Edit: s/compliance)/noncompliance/
The flow of traffic is the speed limit when police are around.
The key word there is "excessively". Going faster than the posted speed limit doesn't mean you're endangering others. And, heck, driving at or lower than the posted speed limit also doesn't mean that you aren't endangering others (e.g. under poor weather conditions).
The point of this article is that often, speeding is safer than obeying the speed limit. In those cases it seems moral to speed.
For drivers, I'm sure. Not for cyclists or pedestrians. Depends on the street of course.
In general, I think speed limits can be higher on highways, but should be much lower and actually enforced in town. Fast cars are absolutely terrible for the safety and comfort of walkers and bikers.
In general, I think speed limits can be higher on highways, but should be much lower and actually enforced in town. Fast cars are absolutely terrible for the safety and comfort of walkers and bikers.
Mixed-use streets and a mis-guided desire to build urban and suburban areas on grids of wide straight roads are the root cause of the problem. Fast cars are just a symptom.
In my area the state and/or county went to great lengths to create a bidirectional bicycle highway alongside (but physically separated from) some of the freeways, but the city can't be bothered to provide bicycle lanes and street lights along the full length of any of the major roads through town. During most of the year I prefer to stick to the major roads in the early morning hours because the vehicle traffic usually keeps the coyotes away. The only thing more likely to cause a driver to hit me than swerving to avoid an animal (assuming I'm complying with the laws while riding my bicycle in the street) would be if the driver is impaired or passes too close, either of which is a law I would be much happier to see an officer enforce than the speed limit.
Every time a car, train, boat, or plane crosses paths with one of the other modes of transportation on that list we make sure that someone has to have a lapse of attention, poor judgment, or some form of vehicular malfunction to violate the right of way. When it comes to a car, bicycle, or pedestrian, though, we tell them it's ok to share the same road and pretend that there's nothing wrong with that assumption, even when more people every year seem to be completely unaware that they're supposed to share the road with bicycles (and more cyclists seem to be unaware of which side of the road they're supposed to be on or that any laws regulate them).
In my area the state and/or county went to great lengths to create a bidirectional bicycle highway alongside (but physically separated from) some of the freeways, but the city can't be bothered to provide bicycle lanes and street lights along the full length of any of the major roads through town. During most of the year I prefer to stick to the major roads in the early morning hours because the vehicle traffic usually keeps the coyotes away. The only thing more likely to cause a driver to hit me than swerving to avoid an animal (assuming I'm complying with the laws while riding my bicycle in the street) would be if the driver is impaired or passes too close, either of which is a law I would be much happier to see an officer enforce than the speed limit.
Every time a car, train, boat, or plane crosses paths with one of the other modes of transportation on that list we make sure that someone has to have a lapse of attention, poor judgment, or some form of vehicular malfunction to violate the right of way. When it comes to a car, bicycle, or pedestrian, though, we tell them it's ok to share the same road and pretend that there's nothing wrong with that assumption, even when more people every year seem to be completely unaware that they're supposed to share the road with bicycles (and more cyclists seem to be unaware of which side of the road they're supposed to be on or that any laws regulate them).
I think the article was about highways specifically (the arguments do not really hold up in an urban environment), but I don't think it said so specifically.
Probably, but the title of the article is "Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?"
People seem have a bias towards thinking about speed limits in terms of interstate travel speeds, which frequently have been raised to 70–80 mph anyway.
Perhaps this is because most speeding enforcement is on interstates and there is relatively little enforcement of speed limits on surface streets unless they are very egregious.
People seem have a bias towards thinking about speed limits in terms of interstate travel speeds, which frequently have been raised to 70–80 mph anyway.
Perhaps this is because most speeding enforcement is on interstates and there is relatively little enforcement of speed limits on surface streets unless they are very egregious.
The paragraphs under the "Slowing Down" heading kind of imply that they think the argument also applies in an urban environment. It's incredibly frustrating and infuriating to read such an utterly anti-bike anti-walker policy get advocated like this.
The point of this article is not that speeding is safer, but that wide variance in speed create their own risks, and some drivers will obey a posted speed limit that is lower than the road mean. OTOH, many surface streets necessarily have wide variances in vehicle speeds because they serve varied vehicle users or other reasons, and wide variances in speed are more likely to be cause by speeding cars.
Our community is a short cut. Its 25Mph even outside school hours. Its at the bottom of a hill. Someone blew by me this morning doing easily 50Mph. We've had someone roll their SUV onto the sidewalk, narrowly missing my wife and kids - and that driver was going uphill! So totally get it. I've usually got the fastest car in sight, and I'm doing the speed limit through town. On the freeway I go the same speed as everyone else. Sometimes a bit faster, sometimes a bit slower. Data shows that driving at the speed of traffic, or slightly faster, is less dangerous than driving 5mph slower. Where I live, the freeway is regularly 75mph, even though the limit is 65mph. With the obvious exception of rush hour, when I encounter a traffic knot, its because two people are driving slower than the rest of traffic wants to, and everyone has to negotiate around them. One could view the 50 people wanting to pass the two as the problem, or we could criticize the two traveling the speed limit. In the absence of those two people, the safety of the other 50 would increase. Conversely, in the absence of those other 50 people, the safety of those two would increase. Seems an obvious choice to me. Its easy to point out yahoos who run red lights or speed through town, but these are not representative, and doing 10 mph over the limit through a school zone is not remotely like doing 10mph over the limit on a freeway.
Where I live, running red lights, easing through right-on-red turns without stopping or looking, and speeding in school zones are very common. In my view, these are related problems: people develop an entitlement to speed 10-15 mph on the interstate, broaden that to speeding 10-15 mph everywhere, and start disregarding traffic laws more generally.
If one views the problem as one of lawlessness, then it certainly looks that way, and certainly there are people like that. I view the problem as one of safety: drive 25mph through school zone because kids, drive 80mph on freeway because safe. Regardless, if you continue to drive at 65mph when everyone else is doing 75mph, then you are making accidents more likely. This is no longer the moral choice. This is just righteousness.
Speed limits are about all I ever see the police enforcing, which is yet another reason to do away with them or raise them.
I ride as well (about 1000 miles a year) and normally will not exceed speed limits on surface streets while diving. In some cases, I'll actually ride faster than I drive on some roads. I practice vehicular cycling when riding.
But when driving on a limited access highway,I will speed most of the time because the speed limit is based on a now defunct national motor vehicle maximum speed law that was repealed over 20 years ago instead of an actual traffic and engineering study.
But when driving on a limited access highway,I will speed most of the time because the speed limit is based on a now defunct national motor vehicle maximum speed law that was repealed over 20 years ago instead of an actual traffic and engineering study.
Your argument just tells me you need a ped bridge, not slower speed limits. Even as it is, bikes are traffic, and drivers can wait. The differential is not the root issue in your case.
The problem isn't that the posted speed limit was too high, it's that the road mean is 55 mph in a 35 mph zone with little room to pass.
Then they built a ped bridge, and threatened to kick off cyclists because cyclists are vehicles that travel 10-20 mph faster than pedestrians (and don't integrate well with pedestrian traffic generally).
Then they built a ped bridge, and threatened to kick off cyclists because cyclists are vehicles that travel 10-20 mph faster than pedestrians (and don't integrate well with pedestrian traffic generally).
If you want people to drive slower, there are effective ways of doing that. Changing the speed limit is not one of them. Try removing the lines, removing the curbs, sporadically insetting curbs, adding trees, etc.
Changing the speed limit isn't the question, since the speed limit is low enough but simply not enforced. Enforcing the existing speed limit is a strategy that can be tried. but yes, most streets are built to encourage fast auto traffic, and need physical changes to calm the street down. Some cannot.
Slightly off topic. If you're interested to see how time saved speeding actually nets you check out this app I wrote: https://jakehilborn.github.io/speedr/
I used to time my commute to the second and found that 'timing the lights' still got me there faster than the day I drove 20 over like an asshole. Changed my whole driving outlook.
Reading through a number of the comments, my thoughts on this matter may draw some ire, but here they are anyway, FWIW.
I would really like to see some consistency applied to how the law is enforced and written when it comes to traffic safety. What I mean by that is driving is clearly an inherently dangerous activity given the frequency of traffic incidents on a per-capita basis compared with just about anything else. Well, for every other type of inherently dangerous activity we are all forced to sign wavers basically saying that we understand and accept said risk and we are willing to take that risk. That acceptance protects mostly everything but situations involving negligence or gross negligence. I never understood why driving is treated any differently.
Also, when you look at what traffic law is at its most basic level, it makes little sense when compared to the rest of the body of law that exists for everything else. Traffic law exists primarily to increase safety on the roads and reduce the risk of accidents. Now, statistics do show that enforcing traffic laws do actually make the roads safer. I acknowledge that up front. But my issue with them is that the overwhelming majority of traffic citations are issued for violations that have caused no harm. That is, drivers are cited and forced to pay a fine simply for increasing the odds of an accident happening. The accident need not actually have occurred. Nowhere else does that shit fly. You can't go to court and sue someone for anything without there being some sort of harm/tort/injury/etc. That's basic law. If someone, for example, tried to defraud you but you were slick enough to spot it and stopped it, you can't sue them in court because you didn't actually lose money.
I'd much rather see a situation where either people accept the risks of the road and only have limited options like negligence and perhaps a few others - or, to see cops citing people only when they are deemed the cause of the accident or the rare cases when someone is driving so insanely on the road that their driving alone is enough to justify gross negligence (i.e. racing or doing 50 in a 25 in the rain).
I would really like to see some consistency applied to how the law is enforced and written when it comes to traffic safety. What I mean by that is driving is clearly an inherently dangerous activity given the frequency of traffic incidents on a per-capita basis compared with just about anything else. Well, for every other type of inherently dangerous activity we are all forced to sign wavers basically saying that we understand and accept said risk and we are willing to take that risk. That acceptance protects mostly everything but situations involving negligence or gross negligence. I never understood why driving is treated any differently.
Also, when you look at what traffic law is at its most basic level, it makes little sense when compared to the rest of the body of law that exists for everything else. Traffic law exists primarily to increase safety on the roads and reduce the risk of accidents. Now, statistics do show that enforcing traffic laws do actually make the roads safer. I acknowledge that up front. But my issue with them is that the overwhelming majority of traffic citations are issued for violations that have caused no harm. That is, drivers are cited and forced to pay a fine simply for increasing the odds of an accident happening. The accident need not actually have occurred. Nowhere else does that shit fly. You can't go to court and sue someone for anything without there being some sort of harm/tort/injury/etc. That's basic law. If someone, for example, tried to defraud you but you were slick enough to spot it and stopped it, you can't sue them in court because you didn't actually lose money.
I'd much rather see a situation where either people accept the risks of the road and only have limited options like negligence and perhaps a few others - or, to see cops citing people only when they are deemed the cause of the accident or the rare cases when someone is driving so insanely on the road that their driving alone is enough to justify gross negligence (i.e. racing or doing 50 in a 25 in the rain).
A follow up thought - the article also mentions that revenues generated from citations are another possible reason for the speed limits being what they are and speed traps being a known money grab nationwide. This is definitely true, and pretty much everyone who drives knows this intuitively. The authorities always like to claim that it is always about safety.
Well, I might believe that if they didn't derive a sizable chunk of revenue from this enforcement. I think society as a whole might actually believe them if and only if it became a legal requirement that any and all revenues coming directly from fines are required to be donated to charity. Then I would be far, far more likely to actually believe that I'm getting a citation because the officer truly thinks I did something unsafe and worthy of being fined for. Since courts typically also assign a court fee if you decide to (or are required to) show up in court, there would need to be some kind of protection to prevent them from jacking up the court costs as well.
Well, I might believe that if they didn't derive a sizable chunk of revenue from this enforcement. I think society as a whole might actually believe them if and only if it became a legal requirement that any and all revenues coming directly from fines are required to be donated to charity. Then I would be far, far more likely to actually believe that I'm getting a citation because the officer truly thinks I did something unsafe and worthy of being fined for. Since courts typically also assign a court fee if you decide to (or are required to) show up in court, there would need to be some kind of protection to prevent them from jacking up the court costs as well.
I suggested eliminating fines and court costs associated with a traffic citation and just rely on license demerit points as the penalty for a traffic violation. Once a diver accumulates enough demerit points on their license, it's suspended. If they're caught driving on a suspended license, then they're arrested and taken to jail pending a hearing.
I strongly suspect that without the possibility of making money from traffic violations, most law enforcement agencies wouldn't bother doing any enforcement.
I strongly suspect that without the possibility of making money from traffic violations, most law enforcement agencies wouldn't bother doing any enforcement.
> That is, drivers are cited and forced to pay a fine simply for increasing the odds of an accident happening. The accident need not actually have occurred
I don't know about the US, but in Germany there are many cases where you can be fined for decreasing safety, even if no accidents happened.
For example obstruction of escape ways, violations of fire safety rules, organizing large events without the required quota of paramedics present and so on.
Another category is the possession of weapons without permit, which is illegal even if you haven't shot anybody.
I don't know about the US, but in Germany there are many cases where you can be fined for decreasing safety, even if no accidents happened.
For example obstruction of escape ways, violations of fire safety rules, organizing large events without the required quota of paramedics present and so on.
Another category is the possession of weapons without permit, which is illegal even if you haven't shot anybody.
> If someone could wave a wand and get every American to drive below 60 mph, roads would be safer.
That wand exists - it's called "enforce the law". Increase penalties, or decrease them if you need a revenue-neutral plan, but enforce that 60MPH is a limit, not a suggestion.
This article parrots the same concept as most speeding solutions: speed doesn't kill, only variance in speed is dangerous. That makes perfect sense. So why increase the possible variance from zero, and why let people complain about driving at the limit being too slow? If you're above the limit, _you_ are increasing the variance, and _you_ need to slow down.
That wand exists - it's called "enforce the law". Increase penalties, or decrease them if you need a revenue-neutral plan, but enforce that 60MPH is a limit, not a suggestion.
This article parrots the same concept as most speeding solutions: speed doesn't kill, only variance in speed is dangerous. That makes perfect sense. So why increase the possible variance from zero, and why let people complain about driving at the limit being too slow? If you're above the limit, _you_ are increasing the variance, and _you_ need to slow down.
Your logic while flawed is actually sound if you increase the speed limits to realistic levels and then enforce them at that point.
Enforcing the limits when they are artificially low helps no one except for the police.
Enforcing the limits when they are artificially low helps no one except for the police.
> Enforcing the limits when they are artificially low helps no one except for the police.
Sufficient enforcement will, over time, reduce speed variance, which is the behavioral problem which leads to the conclusion that speed limits are "too low". So, no, increasing enforcement of limits that are "too low" based on the variance of speeds produced on those roads given present enforcement patterns helps safety in the same way as raising speed limits does, by reducing speed variance. And it does so without increasing the number of people who are driving faster than is safe for their own abilities because of traffic pressure.
Now, you might argue that the cost of enforcement or the travel time make it undesirable.
Sufficient enforcement will, over time, reduce speed variance, which is the behavioral problem which leads to the conclusion that speed limits are "too low". So, no, increasing enforcement of limits that are "too low" based on the variance of speeds produced on those roads given present enforcement patterns helps safety in the same way as raising speed limits does, by reducing speed variance. And it does so without increasing the number of people who are driving faster than is safe for their own abilities because of traffic pressure.
Now, you might argue that the cost of enforcement or the travel time make it undesirable.
Did you even read the article? Many speed limits are not based on safety, which is the entire point of a speed limit. That's where "artificially low" comes from. 85% of people drive at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is. The speed limit should more closely match that safe speed.
Forcing everyone to drive at a slower speed than what's safe by force does not actually make the road safer. 100% enforcement of current speed limits would not actually make things better.
Forcing everyone to drive at a slower speed than what's safe by force does not actually make the road safer. 100% enforcement of current speed limits would not actually make things better.
> Did you even read the article?
Yes, and I directly addressed it's points. Did you read my post? Because you don't seem to address what I've said, and you ignore that I've more directly dealt with the points made in the article than you do in yours.
> 85% of people drive at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is.
No, traffic engineers have come to the conclusion that, because speed variance is a significant source of risk, the safest speed limit (considering auto vs. auto issues only) is the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the road, which (at least with patterns of enforcement over the time the rule was found and since) seems not to vary much based on posted limits, in any case.
That's the 85th percentile rule, and it's the single most common rule for setting speed limits in the US. Its incorporated in federal guidance, its incorporated in most state laws (though with some exceptions—e.g., school zones, upper highway speed limits—in virtually all of them).
Given that the 85th percentile speed will rarely fall on exactly a convenient numbee, you'd expect nearly half of limits to be below that because of rounding, and add in some conditions which create downward departures in limited cases, and, sure, as the article body says, most (>50%) are below. But that's not the headline's "every speed limit".
Not is it clear, as I stated previously, that the 85th percentile rule is ideal for safety for mixed use. There's considerable global evidence that lower speed limits are better for that.
Yes, and I directly addressed it's points. Did you read my post? Because you don't seem to address what I've said, and you ignore that I've more directly dealt with the points made in the article than you do in yours.
> 85% of people drive at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is.
No, traffic engineers have come to the conclusion that, because speed variance is a significant source of risk, the safest speed limit (considering auto vs. auto issues only) is the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the road, which (at least with patterns of enforcement over the time the rule was found and since) seems not to vary much based on posted limits, in any case.
That's the 85th percentile rule, and it's the single most common rule for setting speed limits in the US. Its incorporated in federal guidance, its incorporated in most state laws (though with some exceptions—e.g., school zones, upper highway speed limits—in virtually all of them).
Given that the 85th percentile speed will rarely fall on exactly a convenient numbee, you'd expect nearly half of limits to be below that because of rounding, and add in some conditions which create downward departures in limited cases, and, sure, as the article body says, most (>50%) are below. But that's not the headline's "every speed limit".
Not is it clear, as I stated previously, that the 85th percentile rule is ideal for safety for mixed use. There's considerable global evidence that lower speed limits are better for that.
Suppose I am driving down a street. The sign says the limit is 60kmph. However the condition of the road is good. It's well maintained, it's nice and wide. I can clearly go faster. Say 70kmph. Most people realise this so they go faster too. Say between 65-70kmph.
But the sign clearly said 60. Further more, you know you can get ticketed. Even if the limit is artificially low and the police are doing it for revenue raising reasons, why not just slow down regardless of the conditions?
It seems irrational to me that you would go faster on a street where they enforce the limit just because the conditions are good. Why even bother risking the ticket and losing points on your license.
I drive in Sydney. There are signs well in advance of red light cameras and speed cameras. And people still speed through them. There are certain roads where I see the camera go off quite regularly. Hell, a couple of times I've seen signs, slowed to match the limit and people behind me will change lanes and speed to over take me, triggering the cameras. Sometimes I am already over the limit, and the person behind me will decide I am not over enough, change lanes and speed to overtake.
But the sign clearly said 60. Further more, you know you can get ticketed. Even if the limit is artificially low and the police are doing it for revenue raising reasons, why not just slow down regardless of the conditions?
It seems irrational to me that you would go faster on a street where they enforce the limit just because the conditions are good. Why even bother risking the ticket and losing points on your license.
I drive in Sydney. There are signs well in advance of red light cameras and speed cameras. And people still speed through them. There are certain roads where I see the camera go off quite regularly. Hell, a couple of times I've seen signs, slowed to match the limit and people behind me will change lanes and speed to over take me, triggering the cameras. Sometimes I am already over the limit, and the person behind me will decide I am not over enough, change lanes and speed to overtake.
Limit = 55MPH, existing speed is between 45 and 70 = 25MPH max variance.
Enforce limit, speed is now 45 to 55 = 10MPH max variance, a 60% reduction.
Enforcing limits will reduce variance. Please explain how this is flawed?
Enforce limit, speed is now 45 to 55 = 10MPH max variance, a 60% reduction.
Enforcing limits will reduce variance. Please explain how this is flawed?
Ah yes, let's just be "tough on crime". I mean, cops sit and clock traffic all the time. Hey, that must be why nobody speeds anymore! Oh wait...
Nope, I'm good, thanks.
Fortunately the cops in CA don't share your opinion.
Fortunately the cops in CA don't share your opinion.
I stumbled upon this presentation to local city leadership by the police department (https://youtu.be/BJNCCAJUEgM?t=9m36s). The commentary by the police contradicts some of these facts from this article but I would have to assume there is a vested interest in saying "pulling people over more saves lives." There are likely many variables at play so its hard to say what truly helps prevent accidents...
I think Low speed limits are a source of revenue for a lot of cities.
This article makes it sound like 85th percentile speed is the one and only way speed limits are set. This in not true. Often times, 85th percentile speed is a starting point. Other metrics that come into play are pace and mode. The pace of a traffic stream is defined as the 10 mph increment in speed in which the highest percentage of drivers is observed. Mode is the most commonly reported speed. Beyond these statistics based measure, roadside environment is considered. The number of access points per mile, functional classification, geometry, and traffic volumes are relevant when assigning speed limits.
There is very little benefit to increasing speed limits beyond the 85th percentile. The capacity of the roadway does not increase because of the increased headway between vehicles. As vehicles speed up, the distance between vehicles increases and thus the total number of vehicles that can occupy a given segment of roadway is decreased. At 30 mph, about 36 vehicles can fit within a one mile stretch (assuming 3 second following distance, 15 ft long vehicles and one travel lane). Under the same assumptions only about 16 vehicles would fit in a one mile section at 70 mph. However, slow speeds everywhere is not reasonable and that is why some measure of central tendency is used to establish speed limits.
There is very little benefit to increasing speed limits beyond the 85th percentile. The capacity of the roadway does not increase because of the increased headway between vehicles. As vehicles speed up, the distance between vehicles increases and thus the total number of vehicles that can occupy a given segment of roadway is decreased. At 30 mph, about 36 vehicles can fit within a one mile stretch (assuming 3 second following distance, 15 ft long vehicles and one travel lane). Under the same assumptions only about 16 vehicles would fit in a one mile section at 70 mph. However, slow speeds everywhere is not reasonable and that is why some measure of central tendency is used to establish speed limits.
> The pace of a traffic stream is defined as the 10 mph increment in speed in which the highest percentage of drivers is observed.
Doesn't the upper limit of that usually match the 85th percentile speed of traffic?
> There is very little benefit to increasing speed limits beyond the 85th percentile.
Assuming traffic speeds follow a normal distribution, even those who exceed the 85th percentile speed don't exceed it by much (more than 5 mph). Beyond that, we're talking about 97th percentile speed or greater.
> As vehicles speed up, the distance between vehicles increases and thus the total number of vehicles that can occupy a given segment of roadway is decreased. At 30 mph, about 36 vehicles can fit within a one mile stretch (assuming 3 second following distance, 15 ft long vehicles and one travel lane). Under the same assumptions only about 16 vehicles would fit in a one mile section at 70 mph.
As traffic volume increases, the overall flow speed decreases which should offset the issues you noted.
Doesn't the upper limit of that usually match the 85th percentile speed of traffic?
> There is very little benefit to increasing speed limits beyond the 85th percentile.
Assuming traffic speeds follow a normal distribution, even those who exceed the 85th percentile speed don't exceed it by much (more than 5 mph). Beyond that, we're talking about 97th percentile speed or greater.
> As vehicles speed up, the distance between vehicles increases and thus the total number of vehicles that can occupy a given segment of roadway is decreased. At 30 mph, about 36 vehicles can fit within a one mile stretch (assuming 3 second following distance, 15 ft long vehicles and one travel lane). Under the same assumptions only about 16 vehicles would fit in a one mile section at 70 mph.
As traffic volume increases, the overall flow speed decreases which should offset the issues you noted.
I don't know what is the problem with speed limits in the US.
Here in Switzerland (and throughout Europe), most limits are mostly sane. We have 120 km/h (75 mph) global highway limit, which you mostly don't want to ignore (especially in the mountains, which is like almost anywhere). And on the smaller roads, if it suddenly says e.g. 80 km/h, you better reduce your speed, otherwise you'll risk not fitting into the turn.
Here in Switzerland (and throughout Europe), most limits are mostly sane. We have 120 km/h (75 mph) global highway limit, which you mostly don't want to ignore (especially in the mountains, which is like almost anywhere). And on the smaller roads, if it suddenly says e.g. 80 km/h, you better reduce your speed, otherwise you'll risk not fitting into the turn.
The last few days have been really interesting to me in regards to speed limits. I grew up in rural Germany moved to the US west coast ten years ago. However, I've been spending the last week on vacation in rural Ireland. At first the speed limits here struck me as insane. Super narrow roads where I was terrified to pass any cars coming my way out of fear of hitting them or the wall to my left. Yet the speed limit is frequently 100km/h(60mph) and it only changes in proper villages. If there are just a few houses on the side of the road it still stays at 100. I was terrified on my first to days if driving here (the whole driving on the left thing didn't help really either). After a while I recalled that that's really how it worked in rural Germany as well when I learned driving. Frequently the speed limit will be really high, much higher than you could actually drive. However, there is trust that drivers know how to drive a car safely given the conditions they can observe. Very interesting and different approach.
Wait a minute.
> 85% of drivers drive at or below the speed limit. ... > “I’ve found that about 10% of drivers truly identify the speed limit sign and drive at or near that limit,” says Megge. Since these are the slowest share of drivers, they don’t affect the 85th percentile speed.
If 85% of drivers drive at or below the speed limit, then why are the 10% who follow the speed limit amongst the slowest of drivers?
> 85% of drivers drive at or below the speed limit. ... > “I’ve found that about 10% of drivers truly identify the speed limit sign and drive at or near that limit,” says Megge. Since these are the slowest share of drivers, they don’t affect the 85th percentile speed.
If 85% of drivers drive at or below the speed limit, then why are the 10% who follow the speed limit amongst the slowest of drivers?
85% drive at or below in an ideal 85th-percentile-posted-limit situation. In reality, posted limits are rarely even close to the 85th-percentile speed of traffic.
“We all speed, yet months and months usually pass between us seeing a crash,” Lt. Megge tells us when we call to discuss speed limits. “That tells me that most of us are adequate, safe, reasonable drivers. Speeding and traffic safety have a small correlation.”
So the standard for acceptability is that you only see a crash (i.e. a tragic event, often with fatalities) every several months?
According to https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/ "more than 32,000 people are killed and 2 million are injured each year from motor vehicle crashes. In 2013, the US crash death rate was more than twice the average of other high-income countries." With that data, I don't know how a post that starts by saying this even gets this high in HN.
Car travel is more than one order of magnitude more unsafe than train travel, and two orders of magnitude more unsafe than plane travel. I think our grandchildren will wonder how people in our time were so crazy to drive around so much in cars, just as we now wonder how they were so crazy some decades ago to watch nuclear tests live or hold asbestos shoving competitions.
As for the argument of the overwhelming majority of people not obeying limits, I don't know the laws in the US but I suspect it may be relating to not fining enough. It used to be the same way in Spain until they introduced more fines the possibility of taking "points" off your license, which you lose for six months (and it's cumbersome to get back) if you get to zero. Now most people follow the limit or only drive slightly over it (there is a certain tolerance level below which there are no fines) and when some years ago it went temporarily from 120 to 110 km/h in highways, it was very visible how most people were indeed driving slower.
So the standard for acceptability is that you only see a crash (i.e. a tragic event, often with fatalities) every several months?
According to https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/ "more than 32,000 people are killed and 2 million are injured each year from motor vehicle crashes. In 2013, the US crash death rate was more than twice the average of other high-income countries." With that data, I don't know how a post that starts by saying this even gets this high in HN.
Car travel is more than one order of magnitude more unsafe than train travel, and two orders of magnitude more unsafe than plane travel. I think our grandchildren will wonder how people in our time were so crazy to drive around so much in cars, just as we now wonder how they were so crazy some decades ago to watch nuclear tests live or hold asbestos shoving competitions.
As for the argument of the overwhelming majority of people not obeying limits, I don't know the laws in the US but I suspect it may be relating to not fining enough. It used to be the same way in Spain until they introduced more fines the possibility of taking "points" off your license, which you lose for six months (and it's cumbersome to get back) if you get to zero. Now most people follow the limit or only drive slightly over it (there is a certain tolerance level below which there are no fines) and when some years ago it went temporarily from 120 to 110 km/h in highways, it was very visible how most people were indeed driving slower.
What is even more concerning, we have evidence[0] that raising the speedlimit results in more fatalities, irrespectable of the 85th percentile.
In Denmark we raised the highway limit from 110kmh to 130kmh on half of all highway. In the 2 years before and the 2 years after (ignoring the initial 2 months) the number of accidents and injuries on all roads fell roughly -15%. But on the highways with the new limit, it increased with 14%, and the average speed barely changed. The parts of the road where the 110kmh limit is saw significantly less accidents as well, probably because the average speed here decreased.
But the conclusion is fairly straight forward. The average speed barely increased, but the number of accidents rose significantly.
[0] http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/DA/viden_og_data/publikationer...
In Denmark we raised the highway limit from 110kmh to 130kmh on half of all highway. In the 2 years before and the 2 years after (ignoring the initial 2 months) the number of accidents and injuries on all roads fell roughly -15%. But on the highways with the new limit, it increased with 14%, and the average speed barely changed. The parts of the road where the 110kmh limit is saw significantly less accidents as well, probably because the average speed here decreased.
But the conclusion is fairly straight forward. The average speed barely increased, but the number of accidents rose significantly.
[0] http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/DA/viden_og_data/publikationer...
Everyone bringing up how things are in different countries from Switzerland to Germany needs to stop it.
There are fundamental differences in the way people in different countries approach driving and nothing's going to change that.
Swiss and Germans LIKE FOLLOWING RULES. It makes them happy (source: I work with a lot of both and they will frequently make statements like "Rules exist for a reason. If everyone just followed them the world would be better for all." Yes, I jump straight to Hitler with my counterarguments)
Americans do not. To an extreme detriment to their own health and safety (see: Airbag regulations that assume Americans won't have their seat belt on - a basic prerequisite to driving for literally everyone else on the planet. See also: socialized healthcare being "controversial").
There are fundamental differences in the way people in different countries approach driving and nothing's going to change that.
Swiss and Germans LIKE FOLLOWING RULES. It makes them happy (source: I work with a lot of both and they will frequently make statements like "Rules exist for a reason. If everyone just followed them the world would be better for all." Yes, I jump straight to Hitler with my counterarguments)
Americans do not. To an extreme detriment to their own health and safety (see: Airbag regulations that assume Americans won't have their seat belt on - a basic prerequisite to driving for literally everyone else on the planet. See also: socialized healthcare being "controversial").
Near where I live, there is a split 3-lane-each-way toll road. The speed limit is 85mph.
Directly on either side of the toll road are the free roads. The only difference is one fewer lane each way. The speed limit is 60mph.
I do not believe there is enough difference between the two roads to justify a 25mph speed limit difference, except to create an artificial police-enforced incentive to fork over if you want to be able to drive as fast as you should.
I suspect many speed limits are designed in this way: either mostly arbitrary or calculated to maximize revenue (for police, toll road operators, etc.). They are not designed with optimizing driver utility in mind.
There are few things better than when you end up driving in a swarm of experienced drivers who are willing to safely exceed the speed limit. Safety (and efficiency!) in numbers.
Directly on either side of the toll road are the free roads. The only difference is one fewer lane each way. The speed limit is 60mph.
I do not believe there is enough difference between the two roads to justify a 25mph speed limit difference, except to create an artificial police-enforced incentive to fork over if you want to be able to drive as fast as you should.
I suspect many speed limits are designed in this way: either mostly arbitrary or calculated to maximize revenue (for police, toll road operators, etc.). They are not designed with optimizing driver utility in mind.
There are few things better than when you end up driving in a swarm of experienced drivers who are willing to safely exceed the speed limit. Safety (and efficiency!) in numbers.
Dallas, Austin or San Anton? 131 is(was?) the highest speed limit in the country. And had it's first fatality within 24 hours of raising to 85 MPH. I will take this over the previous 65 day / 55 night option. Nothing quite as infuriating as getting a ticket for driving 65 in Nowhere, West Texas.
This is essentially what the DC region has with Virginia's Express lanes, though the difference here is only 10 MPH.
The waste of space and resources that was required to put those extra lanes in, and all of the traffic control measures could have EASILY doubled the number of lanes on the beltway - alleviating traffic for many many years to come.
Instead, they've just created a false economy around the pricing of convenience. It's essentially rent seeking by the government.
The waste of space and resources that was required to put those extra lanes in, and all of the traffic control measures could have EASILY doubled the number of lanes on the beltway - alleviating traffic for many many years to come.
Instead, they've just created a false economy around the pricing of convenience. It's essentially rent seeking by the government.
> The waste of space and resources that was required to put those extra lanes in, and all of the traffic control measures could have EASILY doubled the number of lanes on the beltway - alleviating traffic for many many years to come.
Adding traffic lanes increases traffic. (Amusingly, I originally learned this reading about the research that went into SimCity, though I've done a lot more reading on urban and traffic planning since.)
Adding traffic lanes increases traffic. (Amusingly, I originally learned this reading about the research that went into SimCity, though I've done a lot more reading on urban and traffic planning since.)
> alleviating traffic for many many years to come
This never seems to happen in practice tho, from what I understand. Traffic always seems to 'magically' expand to match capacity.
This never seems to happen in practice tho, from what I understand. Traffic always seems to 'magically' expand to match capacity.
Because the highways have never been big enough in the first place.
I'm of the opinion that most people are just in too much of a hurry. I like to leave early, take my time and do the limit when possible. I get better fuel economy that way.
I still find myself speeding up to match the flow when the roads are busy though.
I still find myself speeding up to match the flow when the roads are busy though.
> This is why getting slow drivers to stick to the right lane is so important to roadway safety
Can you be prosecuted for driving at the speed limit in the fast lane? It seems like nobody would be legally allowed to use that lane if that were the case.
Can you be prosecuted for driving at the speed limit in the fast lane? It seems like nobody would be legally allowed to use that lane if that were the case.
Driving the speed limit in the left lane is legal.
John Nestor tested the law in D.C. He was the major force in bringing to light the effects of Thalidomide in the early 1960s. He stood up to drug companies.
> A plot was hatched, fueled by indignation: "By God, I've paid taxes for a long time -- and more than a lot of those trucks." First he consulted with the commonwealth attorney's office and other traffic authorities to ensure that his plan was legal, that passing on the right was acceptable on multilane highways and that traveling over 55, even to pass, was against the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1984/11/21/...
John Nestor tested the law in D.C. He was the major force in bringing to light the effects of Thalidomide in the early 1960s. He stood up to drug companies.
> A plot was hatched, fueled by indignation: "By God, I've paid taxes for a long time -- and more than a lot of those trucks." First he consulted with the commonwealth attorney's office and other traffic authorities to ensure that his plan was legal, that passing on the right was acceptable on multilane highways and that traveling over 55, even to pass, was against the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1984/11/21/...
It isn't the 'fast' lane. It is the overtaking lane. Slow and lazy drivers are an absolute scourge on motorways in the UK. The French seem to get by okay with two lanes, the Brits can't manage with three. People in France move over when they are done overtaking. It works much better that way. Nobody has to speed really.
This depends somewhat on the number of lanes and the situation. In California it is possible that you could be ticketed for impeding the flow of traffic, although most officers are unlikely to pull you over for this as long as you get out of the lane when they come up behind you (unless you were causing a serious problem).
One of the reasons they would prefer to flush you out of the lane rather than pull you over and give you a ticket is that the very action of pulling you over (possibly across all lanes of traffic) and sitting on the side of the road while ticketing you causes other drivers to slow down (sometimes erratically) and increases the likelihood of a collision.
The CalTrans manual for setting speed limits includes some references for many of the issues this article is discussing: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/california-man...
One of the reasons they would prefer to flush you out of the lane rather than pull you over and give you a ticket is that the very action of pulling you over (possibly across all lanes of traffic) and sitting on the side of the road while ticketing you causes other drivers to slow down (sometimes erratically) and increases the likelihood of a collision.
The CalTrans manual for setting speed limits includes some references for many of the issues this article is discussing: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/california-man...
There is a 7 lane road where I live, no residential houses on it. Speed limit? 45 mph. Cops sit on the other side of a small bridge and run radar all the time. It's a joke since everyone does the "safe" speed limit of 55.
Surprised no one linked the Montana Paradox
https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safet...
https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safet...
So I've driven around a fair amount of the US. Has anyone noticed that practically EVERY highway, people drive 70-80 mph. Regardless of the posted sign. I wonder if anyone knows why it is specifically that range.
I know this will be unpopular with libertarian streak on HN, but if this is the case, I think every driver should be fined, or every speed limit should be raised if safe to do so. People should NOT be picking and choosing which limits they think apply to them. If you want to drive like a maniac, buy your own private road. Keep away from me and my family. (I don't mean you in particular, dear poster!)
>>If you want to drive like a maniac...
The whole point of this article was that driving those speeds isn't driving like a maniac. Because if that is the flow of traffic the maniac thing to do is drive at the speed limit.
The whole point of this article was that driving those speeds isn't driving like a maniac. Because if that is the flow of traffic the maniac thing to do is drive at the speed limit.
In S.Korea, you never see a cop on the highway. They just have speed cameras on accident prone zones and put up camera warning signs miles ahead so people actually slow down. It seems pretty effective.
They tried speed cameras with warning signs on the highways in Phoenix, Arizona. They also had mobile vans with automatic cameras to catch people that weren't paying attention. The population mostly refused to pay the tickets and used every legal means available to dispute them, from ignoring the letters until served to fighting the tickets in court. Some people wore masks so the photos couldn't prove they were driving. Others did some shenanigans like registering the car to a cooperation which somehow couldn't get a traffic ticket (not sure that really worked). Still others installed reflective glass that would obscure their license plate when the flash went off (though that was quickly made illegal).
I also believe it came out that the company providing the cameras was getting a cut of every ticket issued, leading to a tendency towards false positives. The program wasn't profitable for the state and people complained so much that the cameras were gone a short time later. I remember most people would slam on the brakes just before the stationary cameras, cruise through at exactly 64 or 74 mph (the cameras went off at 10 mph above the posted limit) and then accelerate to whatever speed they wanted. It was way worse than people just speeding.
Maybe it works well in S. Korea because the incentives aren't so screwed up, but here in the States "Cameras" mean someone is getting a cut and the people are getting screwed. The camera's get set up in the best places to get revenue (downhill when the speed limit changes from 65 mph to 55 mph around a bend so you don't even see the sign before it's too late).
I also believe it came out that the company providing the cameras was getting a cut of every ticket issued, leading to a tendency towards false positives. The program wasn't profitable for the state and people complained so much that the cameras were gone a short time later. I remember most people would slam on the brakes just before the stationary cameras, cruise through at exactly 64 or 74 mph (the cameras went off at 10 mph above the posted limit) and then accelerate to whatever speed they wanted. It was way worse than people just speeding.
Maybe it works well in S. Korea because the incentives aren't so screwed up, but here in the States "Cameras" mean someone is getting a cut and the people are getting screwed. The camera's get set up in the best places to get revenue (downhill when the speed limit changes from 65 mph to 55 mph around a bend so you don't even see the sign before it's too late).
While it's true there are speed cameras everywhere (with ample camera-ahead-warning signs) here in South Korea, they seem to be duds or at least not enforced.
Pretty much no-one seems to obey the official speed limits, instead opting to go with the subjective "safe speed" as per the current weather conditions, traffic flow, visibility etc (just like the article explains).
Is your experience driving in S. Korea that different?
Pretty much no-one seems to obey the official speed limits, instead opting to go with the subjective "safe speed" as per the current weather conditions, traffic flow, visibility etc (just like the article explains).
Is your experience driving in S. Korea that different?
It is probably true that following too closely and careless lane changes are more dangerous than going slightly over the speed limit.
That said, in addition to safety, cars get lower gas mileage at higher speed (above about 50 mPH). Every time I see someone speed, follow too closely, or is careless in lane changing, I think "there goes a selfish a$$hole who doesn't care about the safety of others or the environment." I have never had a speeding ticket, BTW. People who speed and drive carelessly are self centered a$$holes.
That said, in addition to safety, cars get lower gas mileage at higher speed (above about 50 mPH). Every time I see someone speed, follow too closely, or is careless in lane changing, I think "there goes a selfish a$$hole who doesn't care about the safety of others or the environment." I have never had a speeding ticket, BTW. People who speed and drive carelessly are self centered a$$holes.
Weak article - nothing really about driving on other country's roads (Germany is an excellent example). In Germany, the autobahn is unlimited speed but in other areas, it's quite strict and every zone has a speed limit sign and then when that limit is over, it's the same number with a slash through it (i.e. the end of that rule). Like everything else, the US has so much to learn.
.... although the yellow stripe between opposite directions of traffic is something the rest of the world sorely needs.
.... although the yellow stripe between opposite directions of traffic is something the rest of the world sorely needs.
...and right on red after a stop!
"The United States' only contribution to the modern world" to paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson.
"The United States' only contribution to the modern world" to paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson.
Fucking obviously they are too low. Everyone knows this. Absolutely no one drives exactly the speed limit. Speed limits are low to increase revenues from speeding tickets.
[deleted]
This topic comes up, and people really love the "people don't follow the speed limit", but I remember seeing a couple studies that were very explicit. Places raised the speed limit, and fatalities spiked upwards.
People focus on whether the speed limit will be respected and not on what the full consequences up.
(Right now I can find a couple studies, but they're mostly from... insurance lobbyists? I feel like the interests are aligned there but lobbyists so...)
People focus on whether the speed limit will be respected and not on what the full consequences up.
(Right now I can find a couple studies, but they're mostly from... insurance lobbyists? I feel like the interests are aligned there but lobbyists so...)
In a vacuum, the safest speed to be driving is one close to that of other traffic around you. Outside of some specific situations (sharp curves, ice on road, etc.), absolute speed does not cause accidents: speed differential causes accidents, and does so in both directions. In other words, a car traveling significantly faster than surrounding traffic is a danger, but so is a car traveling significantly slower than surrounding traffic.
The intuitive explanation is to consider that every instance of passing or being passed is an opportunity for a collision, and increasing the number of instances (either by being faster and passing many vehicles, or by being slower and being passed by many vehicles) will inevitably catch up to you the longer you do it.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of well-done research around this. But several factors get in the way of doing the ideal thing (which is usually to put the speed limit either at the design speed of the road segment, or at the 85th percentile of observed traffic speed). The biggest problem is political forces causing a road to have a posted limit significantly lower than its design speed; many people will, unless they're laser-focused on the speedometer, end up driving around the design speed of the road regardless of posted limit, because they'll take their cues from the road (width, length of curves, length of turning and merging lanes, etc.) rather than from infrequently-placed signs.
The intuitive explanation is to consider that every instance of passing or being passed is an opportunity for a collision, and increasing the number of instances (either by being faster and passing many vehicles, or by being slower and being passed by many vehicles) will inevitably catch up to you the longer you do it.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of well-done research around this. But several factors get in the way of doing the ideal thing (which is usually to put the speed limit either at the design speed of the road segment, or at the 85th percentile of observed traffic speed). The biggest problem is political forces causing a road to have a posted limit significantly lower than its design speed; many people will, unless they're laser-focused on the speedometer, end up driving around the design speed of the road regardless of posted limit, because they'll take their cues from the road (width, length of curves, length of turning and merging lanes, etc.) rather than from infrequently-placed signs.
Of course, this is all based on a single study from the 1960's (Solomon, David, "Accidents on main rural highways related to speed, driver, and vehicle"), which has been pretty thoroughly debunked (http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/ruralspeed/RURALSPEED.PDF).
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Germany: 4.3 deaths/100k inhabitants, 6.8 deaths/100k vehicles.
United States: 10.6 deaths/100k inhabitants, 12.9 deaths/100k vehicles.
Germany: 4.3 deaths/100k inhabitants, 6.8 deaths/100k vehicles.
United States: 10.6 deaths/100k inhabitants, 12.9 deaths/100k vehicles.
Deaths per billion vehicle-km:
Germany: 4.9 US: 7.1
I'd say that's a more reasonable measure.
Germany: 4.9 US: 7.1
I'd say that's a more reasonable measure.
So, given that this is how speeds get set, I'm guessing truly driverless cars will completely break this paradigm by more rigorously adhering to the posted limits? (They don't right now, instead following the flow of traffic, but they might start once an autonomous-car maker gets sued for their algorithm getting someone a speeding ticket.)
The biggest problem is following distance... 100mph is safe on the highway if you have enough distance to safely stop
I wonder what the impact on this will be when a significant minority of cars are self-driving and do stick to the speed limits? Unlike humans they won't be persuaded by what the other drivers are doing - will the human drivers have to slow to accommodate them?
This comment will probably drain in the mountain of comments but:
I had this wonderful experience in the south of Portugal, where they had traffic lights that would only go on red if you were speeding, and if you would ignore the red light you would get a fine for it.
I thought it was pretty genius.
I had this wonderful experience in the south of Portugal, where they had traffic lights that would only go on red if you were speeding, and if you would ignore the red light you would get a fine for it.
I thought it was pretty genius.
This is a good article with sensible rationale for raising the speed limit on freeways. It starts to touch on why local safety advocacy groups push for lower speed limits, but it only really addresses speed in the context of other motorized traffic.
"If every car sets its cruise control at the same speed" I wish cruise control use was more common on the highway than it appears to me, at least in eastern Massachusetts. I don't want to play passing games; I just want to leave my cruise control set at the speed limit.
Instead, many people seem content to do a bad job modulating their speed with the pedal on hills, and average just under the speed limit instead; or swerve like a maniac across as many lanes as it takes to get ahead a few car lengths. It's really frustrating.
Instead, many people seem content to do a bad job modulating their speed with the pedal on hills, and average just under the speed limit instead; or swerve like a maniac across as many lanes as it takes to get ahead a few car lengths. It's really frustrating.
> many people seem content to do a bad job modulating their speed with the pedal on hills,
That's the behavior of my wife's cruise control on her truck; we have to set it to account for 8-10mph slop on either side of the set point, depending on the slope of the hill. It's not even an old truck...
That's the behavior of my wife's cruise control on her truck; we have to set it to account for 8-10mph slop on either side of the set point, depending on the slope of the hill. It's not even an old truck...
Adaptive cruise makes highway driving so much less stressful. You don't even notice the small changes in speed. It's becoming pretty popular and will soon be standard on even lower end cars.
My wife's car has ACC. I typically set it for about 6-7 over the limit on the freeway (about 85% speed here). Every now and then I will suddenly realize that I'm now going 50. Usually about the time some car flies past my in the left lane and I'm wishing for some traffic enforcement. Then I see that he was really only going the speed I planned to go and I've settled in behind a slow poke.
If every car set its cruise control to the same speed, nobody would ever be able to change lanes; merging and exiting would become an impossibility.
That's why it's so bloody dangerous that clueless folks plod along in the left lane obstructing traffic. It's extremely common to see 1/4mi or more of open roadway ahead of knotted up traffic driving the same speed.
That's why it's so bloody dangerous that clueless folks plod along in the left lane obstructing traffic. It's extremely common to see 1/4mi or more of open roadway ahead of knotted up traffic driving the same speed.
Bookmarked. Not because I don't know all this, but so I have something to cite to when you jerks forget it all sometime next week...
Why not just put speed limiters in cars? I feel like this is a technological problem that could be solved with enough effort. Install a GPS in every car that speed limits based on road. Require GPS updates at the yearly MOT/smog check.
The speed of light is definitely too low.
I just wish I could get tickets electronically and paid monthly. I'll pay the stupid fine, just don't pull me over and waste my time.
It's not just the ticket. It's the whole legal machine spinning up and siphoning a pile of money off of you:court costs, lawyer/legal fees, auto insurance increases for the next x years. And as you've mentioned, time away from productive work.
The ticket is only a small part of the actual costs.
And even worse, while this combination-punch can be irritating to middle- and upper-class folks, it can be financially devastating to someone living on the edge of sustainability.
But then, somebody has to pay for all those shiny new Police Intercept cruisers, SUVs, tactical body armor, new weapons & training, drones, robots, etc. etc. etc.
The ticket is only a small part of the actual costs.
And even worse, while this combination-punch can be irritating to middle- and upper-class folks, it can be financially devastating to someone living on the edge of sustainability.
But then, somebody has to pay for all those shiny new Police Intercept cruisers, SUVs, tactical body armor, new weapons & training, drones, robots, etc. etc. etc.
How about a $200/mo subscription plan where I get to go as fast as I want? I'd get on board with that. :D
Have you heard the steve jobs approach? Ethically dubious, but very effective. He just got a new car long enough he could avoid having a real plate so he could park illegally.
I don't think it was that deep -- I think Jobs was simply being a self-absorbed asshole in this case.
I've not read of him routinely buying new cars - quite the contrary. In this case I believe it was a simple disregard for the laws that only applied to "little people." He couldn't be bothered and didn't care.
Related: He routinely parked his Mercedes (the one without a license plate) in a reserved Handicapped parking space.
source: Walter Isaacson's Jobs biography, Sculley's book, and Amelio's book on his time at Apple.
I've not read of him routinely buying new cars - quite the contrary. In this case I believe it was a simple disregard for the laws that only applied to "little people." He couldn't be bothered and didn't care.
Related: He routinely parked his Mercedes (the one without a license plate) in a reserved Handicapped parking space.
source: Walter Isaacson's Jobs biography, Sculley's book, and Amelio's book on his time at Apple.
Don't see how that would be effective for speeding though.
I think the police departments get those from the federal government for free [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program
'Free'
Be careful what you wish for. It sounds like you want camera traps which issue tickets unapologetically and with the relentless efficiency of a robot.
There are speeding camera/radar setups. They will mail you a ticket.
I've always considered speeding tickets to be the small fee I pay for the privilege of driving faster. Last year I got about $250 in tickets in 40,000+ miles of driving. Totally worth it.
85% seems a bit just-so, I would bet they could find a more empirically-sound number; but a good start I guess.
A perfect example of Betteridges Law (and a very clickbait title): no, every speed limit is not too low.
The article implicitly accepts the conventional 85h percentile rule as defining correctness, and it's the single most common rule used to set speed limits in the US. Yes, some are below because of rounding rules, and some are below because of special safety conditions (in California, in general, these allow 5mph downward departures), because of specific legislative exceptions (school zones), or because of state maximums (which mostly affect major highways, not city streets).
And, outside of restricted-access highways, while the 85th percentile rule may be ideal for automotive traffic alone, there's a reasonable case that it's too high for mixed uses. [0]
[0] An example of the argument is here: http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/06/15/legal-obstacles-to-safe...
The article implicitly accepts the conventional 85h percentile rule as defining correctness, and it's the single most common rule used to set speed limits in the US. Yes, some are below because of rounding rules, and some are below because of special safety conditions (in California, in general, these allow 5mph downward departures), because of specific legislative exceptions (school zones), or because of state maximums (which mostly affect major highways, not city streets).
And, outside of restricted-access highways, while the 85th percentile rule may be ideal for automotive traffic alone, there's a reasonable case that it's too high for mixed uses. [0]
[0] An example of the argument is here: http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/06/15/legal-obstacles-to-safe...
There's also the issues of roads being designed to be traveled at a certain speed; the limit needing to suit all traffic, including heavy vehicles; and the limit needing to be somewhat suitable for poor weather, because some people don't actually drive to the conditions, especially when the conditions are marginally poor.
Michiganian here ... I've watched the speed limits increase over the last few years on all but residential roads and though my take is anecdotal, it's a fantastic thing as far as I'm concerned.
I used to drive 62 miles round trip to work, worked at home for a bit in between and am now back to about a 30 mile round-trip commute. Both were split equally on surface and freeway roads. Back when the speed limits were lower it was generally expected that most drivers -- during rush hour (assuming one could reach the speeds) -- would drive 50 MPH in a 40 and around 55 in a 50. It always surprised me -- every morning and evening on about a 6-mile stretch of road marked 40 MPH, there wasn't a car driving under 50 (and when that rare driver arrived, he was often tailgated so hard that traffic safety decreased considerably for him). Then, out of the blue, almost every road I took to work was changed to 50 MPH. Surprisingly, people weren't suddenly driving 60 MPH. I'm now on a similar commute as I was years ago, taking that same road, and people are consistently driving between 50 and 55 MPH on it.
I love our 85th percentile rule. It makes sense -- that one driver who's obeying the speed limit is being tail-gated by everyone else, reducing the distance between him and other cars, which increases accident probability and the relative severity of the accident since it will happen at a higher speed due to reduced braking time. When everyone is going about the same speed on the road, cars tend to be more spaced out and the relative difference in speed between the two objects colliding affects the severity of the accident.
There's also a lot of misconceptions about how speed is enforced -- at least in my area -- and what rules exist around speeding. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be that you were legally allowed to exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH on a freeway to overtake a vehicle in the passing lane. I have family who work in traffic patrol for the county and this topic comes up regularly. The department they work in encourages targeting people driving in excess of the speed of traffic, not folks who are keeping up with the speed of the cars around them. Of course, you can be pulled over in this scenario, and you are breaking the law[0], but at least in my area, it's not encouraged. An orderly system is safe, an outlier is unsafe, so they aim for folks who are driving in the left lane on a freeway in low traffic volumes, folks going over 20% of the speed of others and exceeding the speed limit, people jumping solid lines[1] and the huge problem caused by large numbers of people running red lights and failing to yield right-of-way when turning left[2].
[0] Both of them will tell you "If I want to pull you over, I can find a reason". A common one is those plastic covers/dealer advertisements around license plates or things hanging from a rear-view mirror. Some of the plate variations are legal (but there are very specific rules and almost all of them are not -- it's just rarely enforced), but most things hanging from the rear view mirror are obstructions.
[1] There are many places on the freeways in Michigan where the lane markers are solid white and for some reason, people don't understand that it's illegal to change lanes -- that's why they're solid. Aside from safety (they're put in due to increased blind-spots that make lane changes unsafe), they're often located in areas where people are entering the freeway and backups occur. Folks who panic at merging traffic or just don't want to slow down will jump lanes ... causing a worse backup.
[2] I realized this is going to sound uncommon to folks who don't live here, so pardon the long explanation. Easily the most common issue on road-ways in my area is people failing to yield when turning left at an intersection (my cousin/uncle will tell you this, but if you live here you're either already aware of the problem, or you aren't realizing you're doing it). Red light running is also more common here than in most of the country because of the frequency with which people encounter one-way intersections. It's legal, everywhere (except NYC and a probably a few other corner cases), to turn left on red when the road is one-way. Where I live, every road over three lanes (and many under) are engineered using the "Michigan Left" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left). Often, though becoming less common, the "turnaround" is configured so that you can only turn left onto the same road heading in the opposite direction. Everything's fine when this is the case. However, it's grown popular to position these turnaround lanes in places that coincide with large retail business entrances or moderate traffic side-roads. All bets are off here. Because people are used to turning left on red in these turn-arounds, they assume they can also, legally, go straight into the side-road/business on red. Go ahead and google for signs telling people not to run red lights ... I couldn't find any. We have several of them on Hall Road in Macomb County. People are also used to "just going" when it's green, but you can't do that if the turnaround has traffic entering the road on the other side -- all of that traffic is turning right and has the right-of-way, just like in any other intersection -- left must yield unless they have a green arrow. I've been honked at on more than a few occasions by other drivers for not just plowing into the intersection, or not running the red to enter a side-street when traffic is clear but the light is red. Worse, once they put these hybrid side-street/turnarounds in, it destroys any advantage that the Michigan Left supposedly provides. It's already at a disadvantage since a portion of the traffic now has to pass through an intersection twice, but now the advantage of the "increased flow due to reduced traffic light phases" is overcome by the backups occurring in both turnarounds bleeding into a lane of traffic and the sudden pouring in of new traffic -- which has priority over existing traffic due to right-of-way -- entering in from popular businesses and busier side-streets (and, yes, a vein is popping out in my forehead now).
I used to drive 62 miles round trip to work, worked at home for a bit in between and am now back to about a 30 mile round-trip commute. Both were split equally on surface and freeway roads. Back when the speed limits were lower it was generally expected that most drivers -- during rush hour (assuming one could reach the speeds) -- would drive 50 MPH in a 40 and around 55 in a 50. It always surprised me -- every morning and evening on about a 6-mile stretch of road marked 40 MPH, there wasn't a car driving under 50 (and when that rare driver arrived, he was often tailgated so hard that traffic safety decreased considerably for him). Then, out of the blue, almost every road I took to work was changed to 50 MPH. Surprisingly, people weren't suddenly driving 60 MPH. I'm now on a similar commute as I was years ago, taking that same road, and people are consistently driving between 50 and 55 MPH on it.
I love our 85th percentile rule. It makes sense -- that one driver who's obeying the speed limit is being tail-gated by everyone else, reducing the distance between him and other cars, which increases accident probability and the relative severity of the accident since it will happen at a higher speed due to reduced braking time. When everyone is going about the same speed on the road, cars tend to be more spaced out and the relative difference in speed between the two objects colliding affects the severity of the accident.
There's also a lot of misconceptions about how speed is enforced -- at least in my area -- and what rules exist around speeding. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be that you were legally allowed to exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH on a freeway to overtake a vehicle in the passing lane. I have family who work in traffic patrol for the county and this topic comes up regularly. The department they work in encourages targeting people driving in excess of the speed of traffic, not folks who are keeping up with the speed of the cars around them. Of course, you can be pulled over in this scenario, and you are breaking the law[0], but at least in my area, it's not encouraged. An orderly system is safe, an outlier is unsafe, so they aim for folks who are driving in the left lane on a freeway in low traffic volumes, folks going over 20% of the speed of others and exceeding the speed limit, people jumping solid lines[1] and the huge problem caused by large numbers of people running red lights and failing to yield right-of-way when turning left[2].
[0] Both of them will tell you "If I want to pull you over, I can find a reason". A common one is those plastic covers/dealer advertisements around license plates or things hanging from a rear-view mirror. Some of the plate variations are legal (but there are very specific rules and almost all of them are not -- it's just rarely enforced), but most things hanging from the rear view mirror are obstructions.
[1] There are many places on the freeways in Michigan where the lane markers are solid white and for some reason, people don't understand that it's illegal to change lanes -- that's why they're solid. Aside from safety (they're put in due to increased blind-spots that make lane changes unsafe), they're often located in areas where people are entering the freeway and backups occur. Folks who panic at merging traffic or just don't want to slow down will jump lanes ... causing a worse backup.
[2] I realized this is going to sound uncommon to folks who don't live here, so pardon the long explanation. Easily the most common issue on road-ways in my area is people failing to yield when turning left at an intersection (my cousin/uncle will tell you this, but if you live here you're either already aware of the problem, or you aren't realizing you're doing it). Red light running is also more common here than in most of the country because of the frequency with which people encounter one-way intersections. It's legal, everywhere (except NYC and a probably a few other corner cases), to turn left on red when the road is one-way. Where I live, every road over three lanes (and many under) are engineered using the "Michigan Left" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left). Often, though becoming less common, the "turnaround" is configured so that you can only turn left onto the same road heading in the opposite direction. Everything's fine when this is the case. However, it's grown popular to position these turnaround lanes in places that coincide with large retail business entrances or moderate traffic side-roads. All bets are off here. Because people are used to turning left on red in these turn-arounds, they assume they can also, legally, go straight into the side-road/business on red. Go ahead and google for signs telling people not to run red lights ... I couldn't find any. We have several of them on Hall Road in Macomb County. People are also used to "just going" when it's green, but you can't do that if the turnaround has traffic entering the road on the other side -- all of that traffic is turning right and has the right-of-way, just like in any other intersection -- left must yield unless they have a green arrow. I've been honked at on more than a few occasions by other drivers for not just plowing into the intersection, or not running the red to enter a side-street when traffic is clear but the light is red. Worse, once they put these hybrid side-street/turnarounds in, it destroys any advantage that the Michigan Left supposedly provides. It's already at a disadvantage since a portion of the traffic now has to pass through an intersection twice, but now the advantage of the "increased flow due to reduced traffic light phases" is overcome by the backups occurring in both turnarounds bleeding into a lane of traffic and the sudden pouring in of new traffic -- which has priority over existing traffic due to right-of-way -- entering in from popular businesses and busier side-streets (and, yes, a vein is popping out in my forehead now).
Yup, the good old federal highway funding, the stick that keeps the states in line. Also why we have the absurd and harmful drinking age of 21.
Agreed - 21 is absurd. I'd be curious to see the effects of lowering the drinking age (in the US) to 18 for those who graduate from high school (or equivalent). I honestly doubt we'd see a more-than-negligible increase in underage drinking.
I am guessing 21 was selected as a kind of social quid-pro-quo to get a consensus around repealing prohibition, and after that it stuck.
Do any/many states have lower ages?
Do any/many states have lower ages?
Too low or too high?
Far too high. If I recall correctly there is heaps of evidence that lowering the age decreases alcohol abuse in populations long term.
16 would be reasonable. Lower in the company of parents.
This is totally American way of thinking. Just look at other countries, like Switzerland where the death rate is 3x lower per person: make sure that every car takes the law seriuously and put drivers who drive 2x faster to prison.
Not seeing a person dying in an accident in the last couple of months is not a good enough excuse for me. Even the fact that I know 1 person in my life who died in a car accident means that we should be stricter in law enforcement with speed limits.
Not seeing a person dying in an accident in the last couple of months is not a good enough excuse for me. Even the fact that I know 1 person in my life who died in a car accident means that we should be stricter in law enforcement with speed limits.
With traffic fatalities back up at levels not seen in something like a decade due to inattentive drivers, the last thing we need is more speed.
What we need is autonomous vehicles, because the sad truth is that a very large portion of the driving population should never have been issued a license in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the 85th percentile thing. That is a poster child for lazy engineering and government.
What we need is autonomous vehicles, because the sad truth is that a very large portion of the driving population should never have been issued a license in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the 85th percentile thing. That is a poster child for lazy engineering and government.
> With traffic fatalities back up at levels not seen in something like a decade due to inattentive drivers
Do you have a citation for the increase being caused by inattentive drivers? There could be other factors, such as more people driving instead of flying, for instance.
Do you have a citation for the increase being caused by inattentive drivers? There could be other factors, such as more people driving instead of flying, for instance.
My right foot and sticky tires say yes.
But I do wish everyone would just drive to their abilities rather than some prescribed upper limit. Our laws made sense back when you still found carriages on the road. (Sorry Amish).
But I do wish everyone would just drive to their abilities rather than some prescribed upper limit. Our laws made sense back when you still found carriages on the road. (Sorry Amish).
Unfortunately you're asking people to gauge their own driving abilities. And it's known that most people are overconfident in their abilities.
Yes, my comment was equally serious and tounge in cheek.
As I mentioned in another comment, I would love to see an advanced driver certification available. My main gripe with the common driver is their being unaware of the fundamental shift in car handling above 50mph, countersteering with loss of traction, and tire condition.
As I mentioned in another comment, I would love to see an advanced driver certification available. My main gripe with the common driver is their being unaware of the fundamental shift in car handling above 50mph, countersteering with loss of traction, and tire condition.
I was going to suggest different driver classes as a tongue in cheek solution. Because Americans would love more rules. ;)
[deleted]
Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or death for a 70‐year‐old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30‐year‐old pedestrian struck at 35 mph. https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011Pedest...
Please think of everyone on the roads, not just drivers, when making arguments like these.