[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: NMA STUDY



In article <3v1f6b$idk@news-e1a.megaweb.com>,
KENNY MORSE <kennystar@megaweb.com> wrote:
>
>Well folk........
>
>Jaime was kind enough to send me the TIGNOR/WARREN study, and,
>as I thought, their assertion that "If speed limits were raised to more
>realistic levels, would drivers automatically drive 5-10 mph over the
>new speed limit as is commonly believed? The answer is no.  Raising
>the speed by various amounts up to 15 mph has little or no effect
>on speeds over a broad range of road types and speed levels".
>
>This is misleading BULLSHIT.
>
>This is nonsense..... and conclusions WERE drawn in the study that
>standing on a highway over 24 hours at 102 sites in 23 states before and
>one year after a speed change took place, concluded that "Driver 
>compliance with speed limits was poor".
>
>THAT tells you that no matter where and what the speed limit set,
>people STILL did NOT comply.  THAT is EXACTLY my experience
>for the past 8 years.  The study as written, contradicts it's own conclusions.

At this point I wonder if you are misreading the data, misinterpreting the
data, or are intentionally misleading the rest of us. Yes, Driver compliance
with speed limits was poor. Just because when you raise or lower the speed
limit a little bit, does not mean that people will adhere to it. The Tignor/
Warren study showed that the average driver's speed is very much independent
of the posted speed limit. Let me quote the study:

   "The primary conclusion of this research is that the majority of
   motorist on the nonlimited access rural and urban highways examined in
   this study did not decrease or increase their speed as a result of
   either lowering or raising the posted speed limit by 4, 10, or 15 mi/h
   (8, 16, or 24 km/h). In other words, this nationwide study confirms
   the results of numerous other observational studies which found that
   the majority or motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed
   limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.

   The data clearly show that lowering posted speed limits did not reduce
   vehicle speeds or accidents. Also, lowering speed limits well below
   the 86th percentile speed did not increase speeds and accidents.
   Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds
   and accidents. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 to 10 mi/h (8
   to 16 km/h) above the posted speed limit when speed limits were
   raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h)
   when speed limits were lowered."

At this point, we have the facts. The facts are that people will drive a
certain speed on a road regardless of the posted speed limit. It follows
that if the posted limit were at or above the 85th percentile speed, drivers
would continue to drive at the speed they drove before, therefore driving
at or below the speed limit.

At this point the "Why"s of people speeding becomes largely irrelevant. Because
the study CLEARLY shows that raising the limit 5-10 mph does not increase
the average speed of traffic by 5-10 mph. Yet you continue to assert that
raising the limit 5-10 mph *would* increase traffic speeds by 5-10 mph. Why
do you continue to say this?


>I do NOT measure THAT they speed....I measure WHY they speed in
>my classes.  Jaime says that my "sample" is biased and doesn't reflect
>anything significant.  That TOO is nonesence (respectfully, Jaime).
>The reasons people go to Traffic School is twofold: 1)To keep the
>driving privledge from being lost and 2)To keep the insurance company
>from finding out about it.

But nobody goes to traffic school because one day they woke up and decided
to keep their driving privilege from being lost. They must first receive
a ticket. This is the primary form of selecting that your group entails.
You do not deal with a cross section of all drivers; you deal with a 
cross-section of drivers who have received a ticket. Using this sample
to represent all drivers is misleading.

>I TOTALLY reject any notion that "most" people WILL comply with a speed limit that
>is set "reasonably" set, as based on fantasy, and selfish self-interest. Until there is
>a change in the education and atitudes of driver in this country to a mode of COURTESY,
>CONSIDERATION, SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS, KNOWLEDGE OF THE
>RULES OF THE ROAD (which I might add, is SORELY lacking) AND RESPECT 
>FOR THEM (other than speeding)...then respect for speed laws will loom miniscule.

I'm sorry, Kenny, but totally rejecting a notion that flies in the face of fact
is not the action of a reasonable person. I have no argument with you that
there is much more to automobile safety than reasonable speed limits, but
I do not understand why you are so vehemently opposed to setting reasonable
speed limits? Why are you so much in favor of penalizing drivers who drive
above 65 mph? Why 65 mph, as opposed to 70, 75, or whatever is appropriate
for the particular road?

Also, please keep your line length under 80 characters. It makes it much 
easier to read.

>$$$ instead of safety.
Well, here we agree.

-- 
Adam Villani
addam@cco.caltech.edu
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
"I was in this prematurely air-conditioned supermarket..."


Follow-Ups: References: