GPS Study Shows Drivers Will Slow Down, At A Cost

I'm an engineer. Just not a traffic engineer. Does this still count?

It is painfully obvious that you are viewing this issue through only one of the many regional driving cultural lens of this country, and haven't experienced the 'speed traps' close to the places I've lived most of my life. All my lifetime traffic stops have been for speeds 5 mph or less over the limit. (No tickets yet, but they were stops nonetheless.)

In fact, I learned to drive at a time and place where a habitual 5 mph over the limit was a recipe for license revocation, for excessive points, in roughly a year. Decades after I left, my brother was the prosecutor there. One of his stories was of an out-of-state businessman who stormed into his office, absolutely furious about getting ticketed for less than 10 over the limit. It seemed that such speeds were virtually a birthright in some other areas.

Now, in another state, while the overall road culture is a bit more relaxed, I still happen to live next to another zone of strict street enforcement. And when local news once attended a pre-announced special emphasis speed enforcement on nearby I-5, one of the interviewed drivers behaved the same as the guy who stormed into my brother's office -- furious about the violation of his birthright, to the point of being unable to speak without spitting every word, and vowing to never ever ever return to this state. It was actually comical.

Numerous rural communities sprinkled throughout this region have strict enforcement when the town cop is on shift, and I have witnessed many drivers pulled over for speeds that you would find shockingly low. And because I cannot know where all these places are, and set aside no budget for traffic tickets, I obey.

Sometimes it seems unsporting to know where the speeds traps are likely to be. The car behind, with a plate from a state infamous for speeding and tailgating, is clueless. After several miles of trying to push me faster, refusing to use the safe passing zones, it flies around in an unsafe zone, right into a radar gun. Thank you for your financial donation to my state!

 

Whoa there a minute, I don't think ana yone was brushing off deaths from people going unsafe speeds, but that is a different matter than wanting an insurance company, or the state to be able to put a device in our cars to track us. Remember how the insurance companies told us that raising the speed limit would cause thousands of more deaths? Since they have been raised, there has been less speeding, and the fatality rate is the lowest its ever been.

I don't quite understand. I really don't trust insurance companies that may track me and sell the data. That is part of my implied right of privacy. I don't think anyone said that they want to be able to drive recklessly. If you go 58 in a 55, it does not drastically increase the chances of an accident. If you go 40 in a 25 it does. The majority of fatalities are not caused by speeding. That's pretty incredible don't you think, its caused by driver error. The big thing is distracted driving, and we seem to be becoming more distracted all the time. I like the tesla response for not having a lock out on there screen though, it lets the passenger use it, and if the driver ends up using it, they would rather have them looking at a 17" screen than a 3" phone. Concentrating everything on speeding is looking at a 70s problem, not the big one we have in 2012. And yes I have seen women putting on makeup going 60 mph on the highway, as I passed going the speed limit.

FWA recommends tolerances at a minimum of 5 mph.

 

Much of this thread is not about just the left lane. It includes the other lanes, and roads with just one lane.

Have you read the last five words of the section? Could 'compliance with law' include speed limit law?

 

I read it and mentioned it in my post. My post was about those that have the delusion that the speed limit is absolute. Going the speed limit and staying in the passing lane while others want to go faster is illegal in California, and yes I lived there and know the law. This may not be the law where you live, but going the speed limit in the left lane and impeding traffic is definitely bad behavior IMHO.

I was only commenting on that aspect. You are allowed to exceed the posted limit in order to pass. You are not required to stare at your spedometer. Unless it is an unethical jurisdiction trying to get tourists in a speed trap, in other words dirty cops, going a few over the limit is not against the law.

 

Try plotting the annual highway death rate, per 100M miles traveled, since WWII. Yes, it has been trending down all along, and is now the lowest it has ever been.

But looking closer. In particular, look at what happened when the national 55 speed limit was being repealed, and limits were gradually being pushed up. What do you see?

I haven't yet produced a polished chart to post. My recollection is a long term death rate reduction of about 30%/decade. Unfortunately, higher speed limits coincided with a long period where safety improvements slowed, to about 15%/decade.

This was also the same period where millions of Americans moved into SUVs 'for safety'. I don't know how to separate the multiple factors.

 

You are wrong on this one. The speed limit is an absolute legal limit. Obviously it's not a physical limit, as you can choose to speed, but from a legal standpoint you are breaking the law.

From a practical standpoint, all law enforcement allows some wiggle room with the speed limit. Some places less than others. For example, you don't want to speed on the highways in Ohio, especially with out-of-state plates.

Tom

 

This varies from state to state. I gave examples from both a mixed and a prima facie state. Since you are an engineer, and are usually right on these matters, I'm sure you will look at the evidence.

State Traffic and Speed Laws

bold italics mine. I thought a survey source instead of a california or texas set of laws would be better for this discussion. In prima facie states it certainly is considered legal to exceed the posted speed under circumstances of safely passing, and judges that aren't corrupt will excuse tickets from speed traps.

I normally consider people that go the speed limit in the passing lane like preachers that tell children they will go to hell for masturbating. Then that preacher gets caught doing something worse in a hotel room. Definitely its good for all you folks that always follow the letter of the law, but there are worse sins than going 59 in a 55.

I do worry about those in charge in states like washington that have decide 1 over the posted limit is reckless, but it does have this note

 

Here you go, its population not miles, but do your chart too. Don't look at the years, guess where the laws changed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtion_1900-2010.png
It was predicted that there would be a 6400 person spike of the death toll. I don't see it. I do see many spikes as a long term decline happened.

SUVs are supposedly a factor in increasing fatalities from unequal weight and lack of visibility of cars behind them. Large numbers of SUVs explain some areas accident rates. Much more major in the chart are anti-lock brakes, air bags, and lower numbers of drunk drivers. I bet if you didn't know the year the speed limit was raised, but only knew the prediction, you would pick a different area of the chart.

Remember to plot your death rate per mile, not just highway miles. The raise of the speed limits on interstates, was predicted to move traffic from more dangerous rural roads, and this effect can be seen statistically. The other effect is a more uniform speed on roads with appropriate speed limits. You can see adjustments to the speed limits on the chart though. When the 55 mph was first enacted, that along with the oil shortage caused a drop in deaths, but as people adjusted there was a spike back up. Not adjusting for the oil crisis or advances in cars is part of the blame for the bad statistics that assumed the drop in fatalities had everything to do with the speed limit. Looking further down the chart this appears not to be the case. As the limit was raised, there was also an adjustment to the new speeds, which slowed the fatality decline. As people got used to appropriate speed limits, the drop in fatalities regressed to the mean again. There is the effect of high oil prices and recession on the tail of the chart.

 

Your biased interpretation, not supported by data. Perhaps the drop was from any of a host of other factors like safety improvements. Unless the data is analyzed using multi-variate techniques these discussions are bias flagellations. To my mind the other red flag in the data is assigning some mystical importance to the date of introduction of changes. In some cases the change was linear; in others it was exponential; and in the case of speed limits, variably ignored. This data is *very* hard to make sense of.

My opinion: expensive fuel will encourage drivers to slow down on the highways, while urban planning favoring bicycles will slowly move the Merkin iceberg to more rationale transport modes.

As for the study mentioned in the OP, keep in mind the drivers are a self-selected group. Merkins at large would play out differently.

Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/gps-study-shows-drivers-will-slow-down-at-a-cost.111114/page-3#ixzz1yq8crKDA​

 

I would say so, but it is just one subsection of the code that might be clarified in another section.
If not passing, stay right might also be on the books there. So the speeding of the herd could cause a person obeying the speed limit to be breaking a law. Then it's up to the cop to decide what should be enforced.

Of course, the written law may not have been proofread for interpetation. During my high school years in NJ, a classmate noted that when a line of cars are stopped a stop sign, and the first car moves on, the other cars do not have to stop at the sign and just drive through it. He pointed this out to his lawyer(had a couple of tickets), and lawyer said that what be interesting to defend. California's ban on gay marriage is a more recent example. When challenged, the Ca Supreme court upheld it, but noted that, as written, the law banned the use of the word marriage for a homosexual union. So a civil union, or any other name for the legal joining of gay couple as a pair, can grant all the rights that a married hetero couple has.

 

Safety is primary. I have found that any "violation of law" that impairs a person's safety is usually dismissed by a reasonable judge. I have also found that "adherence to the law" that puts a person's safety at risk is not an acceptable excuse to a reasonable judge.

Posting and enforcing a reduced speed limit that interrupts the safe flow of traffic is illegal. We used to have many local government cases of phantom "work zones" with reduced speed limits until the state legislature required such zones to add "while workers present".

 

That is generally taken care of by wording to the effect of "get out of the way as soon as it is safe to do so". If you are impeding traffic but can't safely get out of the way, then you generally aren't committing an obstruction violation.

 

Granted. Laws do vary by state and country. However, most states use the Uniform Vehicle Code for the basis of their traffic laws, and those that don't generally find themselves under pressure from the federal government to do so. The site you cite acknowledges this:

Adding to this is the questionable nature of fighting a prima facie speeding ticket. The absolute burden of proof falls on the speeder, who must prove that driving above the prima facie limit was safe under the circumstances, and this defense must be done in the local court where the ticket was issued. Successful defenses are very rare, and usually cost much more than the ticket. In practice, prima facie speed limits are effectively absolute limits, unless one enjoys fighting the legal system.

Tom

 

That is the reason I always ask the officer if my speed or driving was unsafe and why. If their response is a simple "the speed limit is xx" then I am fairly sure that I will either be issued a warning or the ticket will be dismissed.

 

The law does not say what you seem to think it does. The phrase unless . . . in compliance with law means that you may travel at the speed limit, even if other drivers want to go faster.

Here is another snip from CA law:

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.​

Emphasis is mine. Note that the sections 22349 and 22356 set the speed limit on various types of roads and under various conditions. Subdivision (b) of Section 22351 simply states: (b) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2001.

A person driving so slowly as to impede the flow of traffic in a safe manner at a speed not to exceed the speed limit could be ticketed. But not if they're going the speed limit. This was discussed here, too: (Moved) California Carpool lanes and lollygagging drivers | PriusChat

These sorts of laws are on the books of most states to prevent incidents like slow farm equipment impeding traffic on a highway. They do not protect speeders.

 

Yeah, reality bites. But as far as the local court problem goes, in California you have the right to have your traffic violation court appearance in the county seat. That is no advantage if you are ticketed in the county seat, but if you get a minor traffic ticket 75 miles from the county seat, there is a fair chance the cop won't show up at your court appearance.

 

Well absolute isn't absolute I cited the most important states, the ones I have had drivers licenses in, California and Texas which both do not have absolute speed limits. Since I have friends in the department of transportation this makes sense to me. It allows ticketing for too fast for conditions, it stops officers from setting up speed traps and grabbing cars going at a safe speed.

The point of them is to set limits of police to set speed traps, but allow them to catch speeders and enforce good laws. It also allows state troopers to lecture people about hogging the passing lane.

I was given a speeding ticket on my bicycle in California, and still wonder what the cop was thinking. Yes I passed him, but I was on a bike, who was I going to hurt. I did go to court and was able to have the charge dismissed, after the judge pretended it would be enforced. Definitely a lot of cops wasting their time in California. You can get a dui on your bicycle and that will stick.

I have traveled through 48 of the states, and some of those states with absolute laws seem to absolutely have the most offenders. I wish that people were not so dogmatic.

 

Section 22349 states the hard speed limits for different types of roads. Section 22356 cover the rest of them and those are prima facie limits. They are not absolute limits. However, as Tom noted earlier, good luck using that as a defense.

Yes they can, they are still required to get out of the way. On a two lane road, they are required to pull off the road at the first safe opportunity if 5 or more cars are held up behind them.

 

In high school in the late 1950s I was riding on the back of a friends much modified 125cc Vespa on a freeway east of Fairfield California. He got a ticket for exceeding the 65 mph speed limit and driving an underpowered vehicle on a freeway, at the time IIRC the definition of underpowered was anything under 15 hp from the factory.

Bill took it to the local traffic court and pointed out the incongruity of getting ticketed for going 70 mph (while riding double) and operating an underpowered vehicle on a freeway at the same time. The small town judge laughed, said "dismissed and don't do it again".

Edit: I used the term underpowered vehicle because the official CVC terminology "motor driven cycle" gets confused with motorcycle. IIRC, the definition used to be anything under 15hp, it's now anything under 150cc.

 

as evidenced by what? our increased enforcement of the speed limit or our acquiescent nature that simply raises the limit to accommodate?