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

Re: NMA STUDY



In article <3v9env$i9i@news-e1a.megaweb.com>, kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE) writes:
>>
>>In other words, people go to Traffic School because they've gotten a
>>speeding ticket... likely more than one.  When I say "your sample is
>>biased" I mean it isn't representative of the driving public at large
>>... since the majority of them haven't gotten any tickets recently.  
> 
> Was the key word there RECENTLY???  The majority of the
> California driving public HAS gotten traffic tickets.  My students
> are absolutely, positively a cross sections of ALL OF US.

Your last statement here is utter rubbish.  

Off the top of my head I can identify several groups who will be, as 
the statisticians say, under-represented in your classes:

1.  Those who don't get speeding tickets often enough to affect their 
insurance rates.  (This includes lots of drivers who speed, btw.  Such 
as myself.)  

2.  Those with enough money to simply pay the tickets, pay the 
increased insurance if any, and forget about it.  They'll come in only 
when they've gotten so many tickets that their license is up for 
suspension.  

3.  Those without enough money to pay for traffic school.

4.  Those who can't take the time to attend traffic school. 

5.  Those who just ignore the ticket in one way or another; those who 
are driving without a license and/or without insurance; etc.

Now this is not to say that you'll never see ANY members of these
groups in your classes (well, maybe of group 5!) but they'll be rare. 
"Cross-section"?  Well, sure.  But a REPRESENTATIVE cross-section?  I
don't think so. 

You might as well send a pollster around to a single-family-home
neighborhood at 2 PM on a weekday afternoon and then claim that you've
got a "representative cross-section" of the general public.  (Missing 
apartment dwellers, everybody who has to work on weekday afternoons, 
etc., but the point should be obvious.)

>>You know, NOTHING in anything you've written suggests that you've 
>>asked any of these folks the key question:
>>
>>  If the speed limit were set to a little above your comfortable speed for
>>  the road in question, would you still drive at 10 or 15 mph above the 
>>  new limit?
>>
> 
> Here's the answer to THAT question.  In the areas where they raised it
> up to 65....they go faster than the speed of light.  

In other words, you haven't asked them...?    

I've been driving some of those roads for twenty years, and the fact
is that people didn't slow down when the limit was lowered (from 70,
in some cases!) to 55... so why would they have sped up when it was
raised to 65?  

> They had the relativity
> of going from 55 to now a percieved BETTER speed, and STILL speed.

That's a different question.  Your answer assumes that 65 is a little 
above most folks' comfortable limit.  I didn't ask about "65".  I 
asked, "what if the speed limit was at or above your comfortable speed 
for the conditions?"  

The T&W study *demonstrated* that when speed limits are changed there
is very little affect on actual speed.  It did this by *measuring*
what drivers actually do when speed limits are changed.  Note that the
conclusion was not "compliance does not change much", but rather
"speeds do not change much".  You have yet to offer anything to refute
this point, other than your misinterpretation of their blanket
statement, ~"compliance with posted speed limits is poor". 

(Just to forestall future harping on that point, I'll point out again
that the limits referred to in that statement included a majority of
posted limits that were well under the 85th percentile speed; in fact,
"many" were at the 30th percentile.) 

I will also point out, again, that the T&W study measured what drivers
actually *do*.  You're simply *asking* folks why they were speeding. 
Guess which conclusions I believe? 

> On the city streets, the relativity is STILL the same for the reasons I
> have stated.....Jaime....it has LITTLE do do with percieved unfairness
> (Maybe it is for YOU), 

Not at all.  I don't pick my speed as a protest against the law.  I 
drive at the maximum comfortable speed for the situation.  I think 
most people do.  

The REALLY interesting point of the T&W study is that the measured
85th percentile speed... that is, the speed at or below which 85% of
the drivers are travelling... really is a safe speed; the lowest
accident rate was for vehicles in the 30-to-95%ile range.   In other
words drivers are generally quite competent to pick safe speeds. 

> Jaime.....understand.....I WANT the speed limits raised to something
> both safe and comfortable.  I do NOT want people unfairly cited for
> ANYTHING.  There are plenty of peope who will break the law
> fairly and get caught and my classes will STILL be filled (for those
> who believe that my motivation is $$$, which it isn't, but believe
> what you will....I care?)  

No, I don't believe that your self-interest is involved here.  I do 
believe that you're asking the wrong questions of your classes to 
derive the conclusions you're espousing above.  Why don't you TRY 
asking my question and see what answer you get? 

I also believe that you are so firmly wedded to your beliefs in this
area that even if an 85 MPH limit on I-5 through Central CA was tried,
and it was found that most people continued to drive 75-80 as they do
today (and as they did when it was 55, and as they did when it was 70)
you'd claim that the statistics were collected wrong, or something...
anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 

> I am only saying that THIS study, as FACTUAL
> as it is, only addresses a symptom, and NOT the disease.

Gee, that's odd.  A little while ago you were claiming that the study 
was "Bullshit" and that it included evidence that contradicted its own 
conclusions.  

YES, better driver education is needed; I'm not arguing that point.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: jeh@cmkrnl.com (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055  


References: