BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I don't see why speeding is such a big deal on the interstates with multimillion dollar upgrades to improve safety and such. Oh that's why...

"...only the ones going 80+ mph in a 55 mph zone."

I heard this. That this is a news item is pathetic. That they haven't been doing this all along is complete negligence.

I had heard about the Carnegie results -- the number of cars cited for going over 80 mph in that area, so took it easy on my drive to/from Harrisburg yesterday. I am glad I did. I saw AT LEAST 6 State Police vehicles running radar in my travels each direction. I usually see only one, or maybe two.

When it comes to highways, speed isn't the problem, stupidity is.

When it comes to highways, speed isn't the problem, stupidity is.

Agreed, but speed is a side effect and can be a good indicator.

Other than the safety issue, lest we not forget decreased fuel efficiency over speeds of about 60. Speeding doesn't bother me as much as people driving unsafely. There are stretches of the Turnpike and even PA 28 where you can drive 70, or maybe even faster, safely. Ths means steady acceleration, careful merging, slower speeds and caution around bends with bad sight lines and interchanges. That's how I drive, sadly few others do the same.

A good thing about the old 55 mph speed limit was that all of a sudden people were buying cars that got good gas milage - but had top speeds under 65 mph.

In the U.S., you can't sell a car that won't go 75 mph.

Mick

I'd trade removing limits on the interstates for strict enforcement on surface streets any day. If they're going to do a "blitz" I'd certainly rather they start with the latter.

I still go back to , why in the hell wont they let municipalities use speed sensing device (not vascar). It is rediculous. I owuld love to see limits enforced on say 65 form mckees rocks to west end bridge, or on bigelow.

I'd trade removing limits on the interstates for strict enforcement on surface streets any day. If they're going to do a "blitz" I'd certainly rather they start with the latter.

Not just yeah, but HELL YEAH.

Agreed, but speed is a side effect and can be a good indicator.

I'd venture to say that more accidents are caused by people not using turn signals properly than people speeding.

I did the RED (Reality Education for Drivers?) program a year or two into college (even though it is meant for high school aged drivers). It is a program that you can take to have prevent having points on your record for moving violations.

Pretty much everyone there was there for speeding, including myself. However, almost all of the program focused on the dangers of drunk driving. Why? That's where most of the accident data is, and that's what they could find PSA's about.

The biggest solid argument against speeding is the reduced time needed to prevent an accident caused by higher speeds. This makes perfect logical sense, but speed is not the only factor, nor (do I think) the biggest factor in the time needed to prevent an accident.

What about vehicle weight, mechanical ability to stop about personal reaction time?

What about driving skill?!?

When is the last time you saw someone pulled over for unnecessary vehicle mass? What about the last inferior brake pad liner material citation you've seen?

I've worked in various sectors of the automotive industry for almost off of my working life. I am much more worried about the mechanical state of cars than I am speeding on divided highways.

I am not advocating speeding, I just think that if safety is the concern, law enforcement should concentrate on other things. I'd much rather seen all of the people that don't use turn signals, or use them half way into a turn, be cited.

If I were a cop, I would pull over 6-10 vehicles a day for no headlights. I see at least 2-3 cars with no headlights on. All within a 10 mile drive, and not at sun set either. Last night it was at 9pm, two cars on Liberty near Silky's.

Pretty much everyone there was there for speeding, including myself.

But ndromb, you were only going "1 over".

I think I was doing "81 in a 65" on the turnpike by Gibsonia. There was a girl there who was doing "over 50 in a 25". I don't know how she got away with just the program. I think speeding through a residential neighborhood is a much more serious offense than speeding on a divided interstate.

I am not advocating speeding, I just think that if safety is the concern, law enforcement should concentrate on other things.

the thing about speeding is it's easy to quantify. you can point at someone and easily say "yeah, he's speeding", and prove it. i suppose part of the problem is the culture that causes police to enforce the law only one they can win their case.

you never see reckless driving tickets, even though, i believe, it is the offense that is responsible for more crashes than any other. why? because it's difficult to say what is reckless, and even more difficult to prove it.

Granted, speeding matters, but the amount it matters is inversely proportional to the posted speed limit. Ten or 15 over in a 25 zone is much more likely to cause trouble than 10 or 15 over in a 65 zone.

For many years, I've noted the crash reports over holiday weekends. Many, many more occur on local roads than on big highways, and DUI and stupidity matter more than speed.

you never see reckless driving tickets, even though, i believe, it is the offense that is responsible for more crashes than any other. why? because it's difficult to say what is reckless, and even more difficult to prove it.

I disagree. I know TONS of people with "careless driving" citations. The reason is exactly the reason you say you don't see them.

If speed past a cop but they don't get a reading on your speed, all the can't give you a speeding ticket, but if they think you were speeding, they can give you a careless driving citation. It is much harder to fight a careless driving citation in court than you think.

Even though there may be quite a difference in what a driver and a member of law enforcement constitute as "careless," chances are, the court is going to side with the cop.

you never see reckless driving tickets, even though, i believe, it is the offense that is responsible for more crashes than any other. why? because it's difficult to say what is reckless, and even more difficult to prove it.

I'm convinced this is behind the current strict enforcement of DUI.

Sure, alcohol reduces reflexes and such - but a 22 year old would have to be way, WAY past the legal limit to be as slow as a 75 year-old.

"Drunk driving" is the easiest, most quantifiable, enforceble criteria for this question: "is he driving like an asshole?"

It isn't always accurate - plenty of sober jerks and idiots out there. There used to be people who could drive reasonably well with a bit of a buzz on - but reasonable people have stopped driving with a moderate buzz, due to the legal environment and social strictures.

That is why when I lose it on drivers, the curse I use is "Drunkard." They know they can't be arrested for driving like a sh*thead, so I don't bother with term like that.

Mick

I'm convinced that the strict enforcement of DUI is because something like 1/3rd of all fatal car "accidents" in the US involve drivers under the influence.

When you have a single variable like that responsible for such a high number of the fatal accidents on our roads, wouldn't you aim to reduce it too? It certainly helps we have big lobbying organizations like MADD and no shortage of tragic accidents on our news every night.

Plenty of people might drive reasonably well with a bit of a buzz, and my uncle bob might live to 104 smoking 3 packs a day, of course I may win the lottery too. As far as I know, unbiased statistics say otherwise and I'm comfortable basing our laws on that.

@dwillien you never see reckless driving tickets, even though, i believe, it is the offense that is responsible for more crashes than any other. why? because it's difficult to say what is reckless, and even more difficult to prove it.

First of all, take that number (cited as 40% ! ! ! ! !) with a grain of salt:

From wiki:

NHTSA defines fatal collisions as 'alcohol-related' if they believe the driver, a passenger, or an occupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater.

I checked the original document and they do use BAC of .01 as the definition of of "alcohol related"

(Note: legal limit for driving is BAC= .08)

If a PASSENGER had a 7 oz beer in a fatal accident, it's officially "alcohol related". Actually, it would probably be officially "alcohol-related" if a passenger had HALF of a 7 oz beer.

That is garbage. Propaganda to make a problem -a real and important problem- look bigger than it is.

Makes me want to join DAMM (Drunks against Mad Mothers) and I don't even drive.

Jeez. Why not take the BAC of the people who are in the house that is closest to the accident?

1) It is unmeasurable, but I'm convinced there is a really high correlation bewteen being a little drunk and "driving like a jerk"

2) Driving like a jerk causes a lot of accidents.

In LA in the 80's there were a couple of road rage killings in one week. The perps weren't caught and people were frightened of angering their fellow drivers.

For two weeks follwing that, the traffic (2,000,000 strong) flowed better, for a time savings of of 20 driver-years per day or 200 driver-years over 10 working days. 200 years is three lives or so.

There were fewer accidents. Not sure how many fatal accidents were avoided. More than 2? I don't know.

"Driving like a jerk" is not a social/asthetic issue - lives are at stake. We all know this.

I didn't think it was 40%. I thought it was closer to one third, but I did a bit of digging since I don't really trust lobbyist statistics or wikipedia.

The NHTSA has a publication out as of Dec 09 that defines "An alcohol-impaired-driving crash...as a crash involving at least one driver or motorcycle rider (operator) with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher." That means there is at least one legally drunk driver and would leave out the BAC of passengers, people in the house around the accident, people walking down the street and Santa Claus. In 2008, nationwide ~32% of fatalities were due to these so called "alcohol-impaired-driving crashes". In PA, we did a bit worse than average, ~34%, and unlike just about every other state in the US, had no reduction in this number from 2007 to 2008.

My source (not original data, but a government pub):

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811250.PDF

I never liked the dui checkpoint concept, nor the are-you-wearing-a-seatbelt checkpoint, nor the is-your-kid-in-a-booster-seat checkpoint. What I would like to see is a driver's test administered every time you need to renew your license, random "checkpoints" where you have to drive through a small cone course to test your ability to control your car, and higher fines for agressive driving!

@dwillen

I tracked mine down to a govenment pamplet, too, albeit and older one

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2004.PDF

It's pretty clear about "alcohol-related" crash BAC=.01 I'm goning to have to track down the original material -0 I've seen way too much "science" lately that is trash - but is accepted because the bias is "for the good."

I don't mind seening trash posing as science in the popular media (same as it ever was), but when it is in Nature or something similar? Ugh.

It infuriates me because science is all we've got and BS science weakens it considerably, IMO.

+1 Mick

@ndromb The biggest solid argument against speeding is the reduced time needed to prevent an accident caused by higher speeds

I don't know, seems to me energy considerations are a pretty solid argument.

E= 1/2 m v**2

The 78 mph guys in the 55 zone on I-79? The ones that were going too slow to be cited? They have twice as much kinetic energy as someone going the speed limit.

I can't find the stat that says X mph doubles fatalities but X is surprisingly low. (part of that is the reaction time, of course.)

Kinetic energy is a poor consideration, because it varies based on mass. The loaded semi at 55 has a lot more kinetic energy (AKA 'potential to ruin someone's day') than the Civic cruising at 65.

To put it another way, it's a valid point, but not useful when discussing general speed limits.

[Edited to add:] I can't find the stat either, but I seem to recall that jumping from 25 to 35 mph doubled the chance of fatality when talking about head-on collisions.

Reddan Kinetic energy is a poor consideration, because it varies based on mass. The loaded semi at 55 has a lot more kinetic energy (AKA 'potential to ruin someone's day') than the Civic cruising at 65.

Mass itself is a powerful consideration, though.

The trucking industry widely publicizes the fact that truck drivers have fewer accidents/million miles. They don't mention that they have slightly higher FATAL accidents per million miles and dramatically higher rates for killing other people. More mass.

Car vs bike? Speed and mass.

Mick

Empirically, speed limits have to do with stop-sight distances, while all other issues are a function of that distance.

Greater the speed the longer the distance traveled to recognize a hazard, react and achieve all full stop. the average driver can travel 150-300 feet before reacting to an identified hazard at highway speeds. If you're traveling highway speeds through a neighborhood street, then you'll probably travel through the hazard.

I think the kinetic energy argument would be a better if every vehicle on the road was identical. They aren't though.

I think there are a lot of the other things that are a lot more dangerous than speeding. Next time you are around some cars, check out the tread depth of their tires.

Even the quality of things like brake pads is huge. Most budget brake pads greatly reduce stopping power (compared to factory). These budget pads are extremely popular. When I worked in an auto parts store, at least half the pads the left were budget pads.

I am willing to bet, if you gave me an hour with ever car on the road, I could show you a potentially dangerous hazard with 75% of them.

ndromb, I think the number is higher, 99% of them have drivers, right?