By Jeff on Nov 19, 2008

When the Pennsylvania turnpike first opened in 1940, it had no posted speed limit.

By Jim Walker on Nov 19, 2008

Try again Randy, look up the top speed of average vehicles built in the 1930’s. I think you will find that almost all of them could do 80 and better.

Remember that the 85th percentile speed on rural Missouri 2 lane highways in 1940 was 62.5 mph (and is not over 70 today, so horsepower was not the controlling factor in the 62.5 mph data).

Also, we are still waiting for coherent and specific objections to the Parker study and the Michigan State Police recommendations. Specifically, where and why do you think they are wrong to push for 85th percentile limits that tend to reduce the accident rate?

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Randy on Nov 19, 2008

Shure Jim. Cars back in the 30s were speed demons. Other than a very small amount of cars it looks like a lot were 24hp or 25 hp. Maybe top out at 60 mph after a few minutes of flooring it with the wind.

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_110879/article.html

By Jim Walker on Nov 19, 2008

To Todd: With proper software, I would have no problem with variable limits based on the conditions. They would be good for safety, traffic flow, unusual conditions, etc.

There would be TWO sets of costs involved, neither of which would most venues accept.

1. The capital costs to install the systems over long distances and program them to produce proper limits reflecting the normal prevailing speeds of traffic would be very high.

2. Correctly programmed variable limits would virtually eliminate most lucrative speed traps, and most venues would not pay anything to see their traps shut down by safer and more logical speed limits.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Todd on Nov 19, 2008

To Jim Walker

Why don’t they put an electronic varible speed limit system on the Pennsylvania Turnpike? In fact Varible speed limits should be implemented on all U.S. interstates, rural, highways, etc. The only reason I can think why varible speed limit systems are not implemented would be the $cost$ factor.

By Jim Walker on Nov 19, 2008

When the Michigan State Police and MDOT do a traffic engineering study, the accident rate is one important criteria that is checked. If it is unusually high for the type of road, this is a factor in how the limit is set. It is also a KEY factor for examining the road to find out what are the engineering defects of the road that have caused the accident rate to be high. As far as I know, the accident rate has never been a factor for Washtenaw. The fact that the last study before those that led to the limit increases was done in 1995 indicates that there has been no accident-rate reason to re-study the road since that time.

Ann Arbor and most cities are pretty reluctant to release specific information about their predatory ticketing schemes. I know from personal observation that Washtenaw WAS a highly active trap in three particular locations for several decades. It is no longer a trap, now that the limits are posted correctly to maximize safety.

Overall, Ann Arbor collected on about 25,000 traffic tickets in 2007, the great majority of which would be for speeding. At $130 each for the minor offenses, this produces revenue of well over $3 million dollars and the city gets to keep a large share of that revenue, most of it collected from safe, sane, sober drivers who just committed the “terrible crime” of driving along with the normal flow of traffic in the safest possible manner. Punishing these safe drivers is a moral outrage that must stop.

Cars in the late 1930s had much lower top speeds than modern cars. BUT 1930s cars were capable of well over the 55 and 65 limits now posted on the PA Turnpike. Also note that 1930s cars had AWFUL brakes, tires, suspension systems, steering systems, safety systems, etc., etc. compared to modern cars. Driving the PA Turnpike today at 75 and 65 (sections now posted 65 and 55) would be MUCH, MUCH safer than the current 65 and 55 in a 1930s car.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Randy on Nov 19, 2008

Jim Walker I have heard you talk dozens of times about Washtenaw road but I have never heard you talk about what the accident rate or fatlity rate is for that area or the number of traffic tickets given out.

Also bringing up the fact that a road did not have a speed limit in the 1930s, what were the fastest cars back in those days?

By Jim Walker on Nov 18, 2008

For Todd, I have seen the drive55.org site and some similar sites. I have no doubt that driving at 55 would save some fuel. How much it saves depends on the vehicle. With many high ratio overdrive transmissions, hyper-accurate fuel systems, and vehicles with low coefficients of friction today, the savings are less than the percentages quoted in many places, figures which often use data from many years ago. That said, it is a CHOICE for people to make. I drive reasonably fuel efficient cars that get 25-30 mpg and the time factor is more important to me than moving that to perhaps 28-33 mpg with lower speeds. That is, and should remain, my choice.

Some parts of the PA Turnpike would be OK at 100 mph under very ideal conditions with no other traffic around. Remember that it had NO speed limit when it was opened in the late 1930s. Some parts get pretty challenging at 85 mph in the higher elevations near the tunnels where the curves are sharper and the sight distances are shorter. You need a 100% focus at 85 in those areas, something many drivers are not willing to devote. Overall, I think the PA Turnpike is posted 10 mph too low in most places, based on my observations of what I think the 85th percentile speeds are. Most 65 posted areas should be 75, and most 55 areas should be 65. Enforce with a 4 or 5 mph tolerance and proper 75/65 limits and you would maximize safety and smooth traffic flow for everyone.

I too have driven at 100+ mph at times, when in the right car and without other vehicles near me that I could affect or could affect me. I have had my classic to 130 mph, but not with other vehicles near me. Drivers in the USA do not have the lane discipline to deal with 40 to 50+ mph speed differentials. Drivers do not look well enough before pulling out to pass. If I am at my usual freeway speeds of 80 to 85 mph and encounter a vehicle at about 55, I tend to slow down to keep the speed differential at about 20 mph until I get by them. In Germany, drivers routinely deal with differentials of 80 mph or more when a big Mercedes or Porsche passes a one liter econocar doing 60 or 65 mph. The USA does not have the driver training or lane discipline to deal with this at this time.

For Randy. As I have said many times, I think 85th speeds for free flowing traffic on US freeways vary from about 75 to 85 around the country. Illinois may be closer to the 75 area currently, but it is NOT in the low 70s or less in rural areas. I have driven in and across Illinois many times, before - during - and after the abortive NMSL era. Your state’s speeds simply are not much different than most places.

I have never seen decent US research on any significant effects for lowering long run accident rates with heavy enforcement of speed limits. Can you have some effect in the short run with a blitz — sure. Will those results last - NO - because the effects of speed limit enforcement are fleeting at best. The accident rates are so low on freeways per mile traveled that doing any speed limit enforcement on most freeways is a terrible waste of scarce police resources. They would find MANY more hazardous drivers on two lane highways, county roads, and city streets.

Now, could you get some significant safety improvements with enforcement resources? YES, if they were directed at hazardous drivers, instead of at the safest drivers on the road going along with the normal flow of traffic. Reset all main road speed limits to maximize safety, usually at the 85th percentile speeds. Then redirect the enforcement efforts at hazardous drivers including high DUI, reckless, careless, defective equipment, fatigued, distracted, etc., etc. PLUS the top end speeders who are far out of the normal traffic flow. I am absolutely convinced that this approach would yield a measurable drop in the nationwide accident, injury and fatality rates — perhaps 3% to 5%, or more. But it is not profitable for governments to do this, so it is slow in coming. But it IS coming, as more and more people learn the truth about speed limits with articles like the two in the Detroit News.

Randy, your extreme examples of 85ths at 140 freeway and 70 in town are idiotic. They don’t, and won’t happen, because virtually no drivers would find them safe and comfortable. What you fail to understand, though you admit it occasionally when your guard is down, is that the great majority of drivers, at least 85% to 90%, are sane and competent people who get it right almost all the time. It is the basis of true safety, though you refuse to admit it. Your views are contrary to most of the good independent research, the FHWA, the ITE, at least 17 states publications, and most of the historical research that goes back to at least the 1941 National Safety Council Report on Speed. I choose to believe the overwhelming body of good research, not the ravings of the “safety lobby” that has a BIG financial axe to grind and is willing to present flagrant misinformation and deliberate disinformation to achieve their corrupt end goals.

I agree that 85th studies need to be done at different times of day, days of the week, months of the year, etc. I have that data on many places, including the 45 mph section of Washtenaw where I have multiple studies over 13 years. The max difference is 2 mph and usually show a 1 or 0 mph difference. I have studies with as few as 75 vehicles and as many as about 230 - THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. The latest study I did has an 85th that is 2 mph slower than in 1995 (46 vs 48) and a Pace that is identical (37-46). If the road does not change, the speeds do not change.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Randy on Nov 18, 2008

Jim it is not close to 78 mph here. I would like for you to see it since you do not believe it is possible. As far as your unreliable test of enforcment there have been areas tested that have had hundreds of accidents before enforcment and 30+ percent less when heavier enforcement is done. Go do your research and you will find it. There are dozens of tests that have been done and they all show the same thing no matter how many accidents were in the statistics.

Jim to show the extreme, what if your 85 percentile was 140 mph on the highway and 70 mph in town? Would that be a safe speed? You only need to get 16 percent of the drivers to make up the 85 percentile speed by the way. Also your survey of car speeds on your roads that were done how scientific was that when only 100 cars were checked? To be scientific you need to check at different times of the day and different days of the week and different months in the year to get a true reading on speeds.

By Todd on Nov 18, 2008

To Jim Walker

Please go to http://www.drive55.org and also while your at that site view its content and tell me what you think.

Jim do you think that 100 mph could be done safely on the Pennsulvania Trunpike on a sunny day when little to no other vehicles are around? Its just so werid that some people think that anything above 55 mph is deadly. There is just so many myths about speed. One person told me that at 100 mph a well maintained car will shake and fall apart. Can you believe that? I have gone 100 mph when conditions permited it safely and my car did not fall apart or shake. I know the answers to these questions but I wish to here what you think.

By Jim Walker on Nov 18, 2008

The second half of the Detroit News series on speeding tickets is on line now. It details the abusive use of ticket quotas, among other things. This reporter really did his homework well.

http://www.detnews.com and scroll down a bit.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Jim Walker on Nov 18, 2008

southernboy said: “Over most of the south on most two lane & four lane roads the real limit seems to be just under 70 mph in good weather. You can run just shy of 70 mph on most 55 posted roads before any enforcement might happen.

On freeways it seems to be ~78-80 mph with no regard to the posted 65 or 70 mph. These by the way are the observed limits while a HP officer is in the area.”

These numbers are pretty typical all across the USA on good rural highways and freeways.

southernboy also concluded: ” If we ever expect to have drivers pay any attention to posted limits they need to reflect the reality of 85th percentile actual speeds.”

Correct, and then the police could perform needed enforcement activity versus drivers who are committing hazardous actions that threaten the safety of everyone.

Using patrol officers as road tax collectors is a terrible perversion of their oath to “serve and protect”. The Detroit News articles make it clear that many officers do NOT like their public service mission changed to that of a hated tax collector.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By southernboy on Nov 18, 2008

I have been reading this for a while and thought I would chime back in. In many southern states they still stick to 55 unless otherwise posted as the law.

This has created a 100 % ignored law by all, cops included since the 70s. What this gives you is an “American Autobahn” mentality on all roads throughout the state that adhere to this rule. What that means is no one, not one driver pays any attention to most posted limits across these state. It is a pick your speed and once that speed is settle on that is where the enforcement kicks in with no regard to the posted limit.

Over most of the south on most two lane & four lane roads the real limit seems to be just under 70 mph in good weather. You can run just shy of 70 mph on most 55 posted roads before any enforcement might happen.

On freeways it seems to be ~78-80 mph with no regard to the posted 65 or 70 mph. These by the way are the observed limits while a HP officer is in the area.

Three weeks ago I traveling @ a GPS verified 73-74 mph in a posted 65 zone when passed by a NCHP trooper. And I was one of the slower ones. He drove in a pack of cars running in the high 70s for about 5 miles then exited without pulling anyone .

A trip across the upstate of GA & SC a week earlier yielded the exact same results . With no regard to posted freeway limit all traffic was cruising along in the high 70s to low 80s mph. SCHP & GHP officers were around but made no effort to interfere with the smooth safely flowing traffic.

The NCHP just announced an effort to slow drivers from now to end of the year. But all evidence from previous efforts shows that they intend to only go after super speeders well above 80 mph on the freeway system.

Above is proof to me at least that even the police know for a fact the limits are under posted across most of the US. If we ever expect to have drivers pay any attention to posted limits they need to reflect the reality of 85th percentile actual speeds.

By Todd on Nov 18, 2008

Randy we are going nowhere because both me and Jim are telling you are points and trying to give you the facts but you just don’t seem to want to listen. It’s ok because if thats the sandpoint you wish to take then so be it. I guess we just have to respectfully disagree for now.

By Jim Walker on Nov 18, 2008

Randy said: “By Randy on Nov 18, 2008
Todd you could have fooled me that this site is not about complaining about government ripping people off with tickets and unfair enforcement etc. There is 10 times more of that than talking about any safety. In fact there is more of a push against safety on this site than for safety measures. The only thing many seem to be for is the 85 percentile rate which means nothing if it is too fast for the road. From what I have read on this site though most here would not fall under the 85 percentile in speeds today. Everything that I have read about setting speeds only has the 85 percentile rate as a fraction of what sets speeds and dozens of other things are also taken into consideration but those are neglected on this site. If you allow the faster drivers to go as fast as they want then it brings the speed of the majority of other drivers up also and even “me” said that and it is true and verified by science. It has been proven that people do not always know the correct speed to drive at for safety because when enforcement is increased in many areas or cities accident rates drop by about a third in most places.”

Randy, the essence of the science is that the 85th percentile methodology tends to reduce the accident rate to its lowest level. You really have to READ the Parker study and try to understand it. Using 85th methods tends to maximize safety. If you are against that, then you are promoting ideas and procedure that tend to raise the accident rate.

Yes, there are other issues that SOMETIMES cause a good engineer to set a posted limit below the 85th, but they are the exceptions, the unusual cases. These unusual cases are for hazards that the normal motorists will NOT take into account in their choice of speeds because cannot see them. If the hazards like bikes, pedestrians, driveways, curves, narrow lanes, etc., etc. are visible to the average motorist, then they have already been taken into account in the choices of speeds. Remember that only a few cars will be right at the 85th, most will be below that speed.

And, you do NOT let the fastest drivers go as fast as they want. Your claim here is totally false. You set the limit at the 85th, allow a narrow tolerance window which will contain the majority of the cars above the 85th, and stop the fastest ones who are way over the normal traffic pattern. Notice that the 90th percentile speed is only ONE mph above the 85th (47 vs 46). In the 45 mph section of Washtenaw above, you would probably use a 4 mph tolerance window (46-49 which takes you up to the 97th percentile) and stop those at 50 or above. NOW you are stopping the top 2 or 3 % of the venicles, the ones way out of the normal traffic pattern that may be causing hazards for other drivers. Before, under a posted 35, you had 96% of the cars above that idiotic and predatory limit, so the tickets went at random, mostly to the safest drivers who were in the normal traffic flow and not causing hazards to anyone. Get it Randy? (Sadly, he probably does not.)

Remember, the actual travel speeds did NOT change, only the definition of who is a criminal that deserves $500 - $1,000 penalties of tickets and insurance surcharges. I think it is morally wrong to give those punishments to the safe drivers in the 10 mph Pace with the normal traffic flow. Randy seems to think, falsely, that it is OK to punish the safest drivers.

The reason there is so much complaint about being ripped off for tickets and unfair enforcement is that the posted limits tend to be set below the 30th percentile speed of free flowing traffic, and often below the bottom of the 10 mph Pace which usually contains 70+% of all vehicles. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that a posted limit that defines 100% of the normal traffic flow as criminals is wrong. It is also less safe and tends to increase the accident rate slightly.

The 85th percentile speed is rarely too fast for the road, Randy, you are simply wrong here. Unless the road has an unusually high accident rate over time, the 85th is just right. Normal, safe operation of the road trumps any theoretical or judgemental considerations of how the speed limit should be set. If it ain’t broke, only fools (or those driven by greed for ticket revenue) try to fix it — using methods that they know in advance do not work.

In the British report they caution jumping to conclusions on accident trends in small areas over short periods of time because of the issue of Regression to the Mean. Simply stated, over a long period of time, the statistical spikes of events above or below the mean tend to level out around the mean. Suppose you had these results in a city area:

Year Accidents
2001 20
2002 25
2003 15
2004 21
2005 19
2006 18
2007 22

If you had an enforcement blitz in 2003 using grant monies from NHTSA to pay for lots of extra enforcement, I guarantee you there would be huge articles in the paper about how the increased enforcement led to a 40% reduction in accidents (25 down to 15). Is that real????? Of course not. It is the normal situation of statistical spikes over time above and below the mean of 20 accidents per year in this small area. If you look at the long view, nothing has changed. The year of 25 was unusual, as was the one of 15, but the mean remains unchanged at 20.

In 1995/96, I talked to the safety chiefs of the state DOTs in many states. The guy in Arizona said that no conclusions about cause and effect after a change like a speed limit change should be considered valid until you have AT LEAST 3 years worth of data, and preferably more.

Randy simply does not wish to read and understand the science. He is NOT unusual, and it isn’t really his fault. He and millions of other people have bought the misinformation and deliberate disinformation put out by NHTSA, the IIHS and the rest of the safety lobby for the last 35 years.

Remember the claim from the safety lobby that allowing 65 mph after 1987 would cause up to 6,400 more deaths per year? It was complete BS and those making the idiotic “prediction” knew it was BS. Then they claimed that repealing the NMSL in 1995 would cause up to 6,000 more deaths per year, another utter BS claim that they knew was totally false. Those organizations were trying to frighten ignorant legislators and citizens about what would happen, to protect their revenue stream from tickets and surcharges. Some were trying to protect their job securiy by defining a “problem” that absolutely cannot be solved with their methods. Since their methods can never work in the way they claim (and know is wrong), they will always have a job trying over and over to “solve” the problem.

Setting artificially low posted speed limits to define 70% or 80% or 90+% of all drivers as criminals is a corrupt racket which damages safety and mobility for everyone.

It must stop.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Randy on Nov 18, 2008

Todd you could have fooled me that this site is not about complaining about government ripping people off with tickets and unfair enforcement etc. There is 10 times more of that than talking about any safety. In fact there is more of a push against safety on this site than for safety measures. The only thing many seem to be for is the 85 percentile rate which means nothing if it is too fast for the road. From what I have read on this site though most here would not fall under the 85 percentile in speeds today. Everything that I have read about setting speeds only has the 85 percentile rate as a fraction of what sets speeds and dozens of other things are also taken into consideration but those are neglected on this site. If you allow the faster drivers to go as fast as they want then it brings the speed of the majority of other drivers up also and even “me” said that and it is true and verified by science. It has been proven that people do not always know the correct speed to drive at for safety because when enforcement is increased in many areas or cities accident rates drop by about a third in most places.

By Todd on Nov 18, 2008

Randy you said “According to everyone on this site enforcement is all about the cash and governements making huge sums of money giving out tickets acccording to everyone here.” Randy this web site is not just about complaining on how the governments rip people off with tickets, unfair enforement, etc. This web site is about making the road safer without sucking the pleasureable driving experiance and with enforcement to a reasonable fair extent.

You also asked “How can it cost a community much money to have more police giving out more tickets?” Yes is does cost communitys money to send out police enforcement to enforce speed limits that are UNREASONABLEY LOW and as a result the police gets money from ticketing motorists who drive at a reasonable and prudent speed in which is above the too low speed limit and with that money they further enforce UNREASONABLEY LOW speed limits. Can you see the vicious cycle at play? If speed limits are set at a reasonable and prudent level then alot of motorists will obay it and thus less law breakers are made. Since there are less law breakers then less police enforcement is needed and as a result the community is able to invest less money in sending police enforcement out. The vicious cycle then becomes a more reasonalbe cycle that only targets real reckless drivers unstead of the reasponsible normal driver.

Randy we need to be VERY clear about something. Even if I disagree with you I still RESPECT you and your comments.

By Jim Walker on Nov 17, 2008

Randy, what you have with the British report is a very long PROPOSAL to do some real research. It is designed to give out enough “teasers” get the funding agency to spend a LOT of money to do a real report with real data that is current and large enough to be definitive.

As Todd noted, the report is principally about low speed areas with limits under 40. A LOT of what we have discussed are freeways and rural surface highways with much higher speeds and higher speed limits.

This piece quotes several other small reports, without conversion to rates of events per 100 million miles or billion kilometers. Did you ever think that a visible and advertised enforcement campaign on road A will sometimes drive a significant number of people to take the roughly parallel road B to avoid getting their wallet picked?

We have previously discussed the fact that reports like Elvik are not very applicable to US conditions. The results you could obtain in Scandanavia and quite a number of other countries depend a LOT on the differences in cultures, and are not very useful to determine what would happen in the USA.

The report they liked the best to suggest further study on the speed limit side of things seemed to be the one from the Netherlands on pages 8-9-10. For starters, they already had an 80th percentile posted limit (only 19.9% above the limit before the enforcement). You must have understood nothing whatsoever that we have been discussing. We have NOT had such proper limits in the USA since 1974, except in rare instances. Then, they got the compliance up to about 86% after enforcement (14.4% above the limit) by stopping 1 in 6 violators.

Do you, Randy, have the slightest clue of the enormous police resources it would take to stop 1 in 6 violators on a major highway anywhere in the USA? Do you have the slightest clue about what chaos that would create on that road if you even tried it? You would have traffic backed up for MILES and likely a lot of reat-ender crashes that would occur several miles away from the complete stop traffic jam that would occur if you had enough police to actually stop 1 in 6 of the 70+% of drivers that are above the posted limits on an average Interstate. Ridiculous to even consider.

Then they talked about the halo effects lasting up to 8 weeks and 1.5 to 5 miles from the enforcement sites — with a net reduction in speeds of 1 to 2 mph. I have driven about 20 times in Britain and the level of visible enforcement outside of towns is virtually nil. You just never see in-person police enforcement, at least outside of London. I don’t know where the data purports to come from, and to expend any significant resources to get a net reduction in speed of 1 to 2 mph is lunacy.

You DO see speed cameras all over Britain and the halo effects last for about 100 yards and about 10 seconds past the cameras.

Halo effects in the USA from visible enforcement seem to last perhaps a mile or two past the cop car on the highway, and perhaps a block or two in town.

There is NO legitimate US research that I know of from unbiased sources that claims to show any significant benefits from enforcement. Many of the biased reports say we need a three E’s approach, engineering, education and enforcement. If you got the engineering as good as the example in the Netherlands, with a posted limit at the 80th percentile speed, you need very little of the other two E’s. Stopping 1 in 6 of the violators only changed things by 1 or 2 mph, a trivial difference for the effort.

This was a nice try, but it was mostly a proposal, not a real study.

Parker’s exhaustive study, by contrast, was done with 100 sites all across the USA, all in the same time frame, and with control sites to be sure what they saw was real.

We have tried enforcement of artificially low posted speed limits in the USA since 1974, and the results are almost zero. Speed traps are common all across the US and they would cease to exist if enforcement actually lowered travel speeds — but it does not do so with any level of resources that authorities can afford to use. The traps make a LOT of money for corrupt governments willing to fine their safest drivers, but they have virtually no effect on travel speeds.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By Randy on Nov 17, 2008

Todd you did not read the report. It was a summary about dozens of other studies and reports about enforcement all over the world and was not about death statistics in Longdon. They may have given numbers but that is not what the report is all about. The report was to find the solution to decrease the bad statistics. True fatalities do not give a correct idea of what is happening but usually things are a lot worse than what fatality numbers show.

According to everyone on this site enforcement is all about the cash and governements making huge sums of money giving out tickets acccording to everyone here. How can it cost a community much money to have more police giving out more tickets?

It does not take that much more man hours for enforcement if it is done correctly. If you have limited manpower rotating areas it is very effective. If as a state you let all the reckless drivers run wild then it becomes much more difficult to slow the true reckless drivers down.

By Todd on Nov 17, 2008

Wow Randy that report that you told us to read was very long but anyway here are some quotes from that report “In London in 2002, over 41,000 people were injured in road accidents, more than 5,500 of whom were killed or seriously injured” and another is “In Great Britain in 2002 over 300,000 people were killed or injured in over 220,000 road traffic accidents, with the majority occurring on roads where the speed limit was at most 40 mph (Department for Transport, 2003).” Randy this data is just a tally of the number of people killed or seriously injured in accidents and the NMA would refer to this as “Fatality figures — a simple tally of the number of people killed in automobile accidents — are the least useful criteria for analyzing highway safety trends. Reports and studies based on the numbers of fatalities have little merit or meaning within the context of highway safety trends.” Measuring the number of accidents would be a better method. If you wish to read up about it the name of the article is “Making Sense of Highway Crash Data” which is from the NMA. Maybe James Young, or Jim Walker can explain this better to you Randy.

As far as whether or not police enforcement can reduce the number of accidents I have to agree with Jim Walker when he said “Now, IF you allocate your scarce police resources and you put them in the small areas that already have a much higher-than-normal accident rate, then you may well reduce the accident rate in those limited areas” however if it is a road flaw then fixing it would be more better and cheeper in the long run which is like what Jim Walker said. Randy I have no problem with enforcement just as long as it is reasonalbe and fair for everyone and most importantly is reduces the number of accidents and makes the road safer however the problem is that sometimes the police enforcement is not fair.

By Randy on Nov 17, 2008

James here is the most comprehensive report I found and there is a lot in it. It shows enforcement works for slowing people down and decreasing accidents. It also says that you do not need 24/7 enforcement to do it. Jim you also do not have to give everyone tickets to reduce the risk of accidents and speeds. When people learn that they very well could get a ticket at any time they follow the law and do not get tickets. Enforcement equalizes speeds more than anything out there including your 85 percentile rule and when speeds are more consistent accidents are reduced and lower speeds also allow more avoidance time of accidents.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Policing-Affect-Road-Casualty-Rates.pdf

By Jim Walker on Nov 17, 2008

Visible, near 24/7, police presence can have some effects to reduce accidents. It can also reduce speeds in the small areas where the police presence is visible, which may or may not have an effect on accidents. The problem is that no venue can afford anything like 24/7 police presence on most of their major roads.

Now, IF you allocate your scarce police resources and you put them in the small areas that already have a much higher-than-normal accident rate, then you may well reduce the accident rate in those limited areas. You could also reduce those accidents by fixing whatever engineering defects are causing the areas to have a higher than normal accident rate. Fixing the engineering defects is usually cheaper and more effective in the long run — but it doesn’t get the politicians the headlines they want for their next elections.

Regards,

Jim Walker

By James Young on Nov 17, 2008

Randy writes: {James Young I am sorry I can not be online every minute to answer your questions. The truth is that accidents do not continue to improve after police enforcement. They imrove almost right away a large amount. **Everything** I have seen is around 30+ percent decrease.} [emphasis added by JY]

All I’m trying to do is to get you to read and understand the basic science that NMA reports and that Jim Walker has outlined so many times. Obviously, you do not understand the science that we have been using because you cannot even restate it correctly, nor can you apply it to situations correctly and your comments arising from the discussion display no synthesis of the science with anything else.

You claim to have an extraordinary amount of data ["Everything"] about the relationship between enforcement and crash rates. Now is the time to provide that data. In fact, if you have data sufficient to prove what you claim, the insurance companies will pay you millions of dollars because they stand to make billions if what you say is true. It is not true, of course, and you’re just making yourself look silly by claiming it as gospel.

By Randy on Nov 17, 2008

James Young I am sorry I can not be online every minute to answer your questions. The truth is that accidents do not continue to improve after police enforcement. They imrove almost right away a large amount. Everything I have seen is around 30+ percent decrease.

By James Young on Nov 17, 2008

Randy writes: {No James Young. There have been multiple test areas where they increased police enforcement and all of the had huge reductions in accidents. That is scientific so you probably do not understand.}

Bullshit. Show us the data. Now, show us the long-term trend for the data, i.e., that if ever more enforcement resources and time are devoted to traffic control and enforcement, then the rate of crashes, injuries and fatalities will continue to improve.

[jeopardy music goes here]

What? You couldn’t find any? Well, that’s hardly surprising since the insurance industry and the enforcement world have been looking for just such a relationship for 60 years and THEY can’t find it either.

Just for fun, do some library research on Abraham Ribicoff, then governor of CT, elected Senator on his success at reducing crashes on CT highways through a massive crackdown by police. Of course, the year after he was sent to the senate, the crackdown intensified and the crashes went back up. Can you say “anomaly”?