"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
> >That isn't technical research, it's a survey.
>
> It's research.
Not meeting the standard for technical purposes.
> There's other research as well. Some which shows that drivers split pretty much equally between
> safe, injudicious, dissociated-active and dissociated-passive, for example. Plenty out there.
Those types might.
> >What people think about their skills does not necessarily bear any relation to what they
> >actually are.
>
> And there I was thinking that was the whole point ;-)
It is.
> >> But when average speeds reduce, crashes and fatalities reduce.
>
> >To what level?
>
> Irrelevant.
Not necessarily, if average speeds are skewed by increasing one tail of the distribution. In which
case it is quite possible that the likelihood of collision will increase with lower speeds
sufficiently to offset the greater likelihood of serious injury in collisions at higher speeds.
> >And if you aren't pushing for the minimum possible, who has any right to say that their chosen
> >point is any more reasonable than anyone else's?
>
> Irrelevant. The point at issue is whether going faster increases safety. The evidence says the
> opposite. You can argue for faster limits if you want, just don't try to pretend that it's for
> safety reasons.
I have not been. But sometimes it is. In fact that would virtually always be the case in the
U.S., in any environment that it would be even remotely likely that those in power would let
limits be raised.
> Faster limits are always about the desire to go faster, in the knowledge that the one who dies
> will probably not be you.
True. And especially if it (a.) actually decreases _everyone's_ likelihood of being involved in a
collision, or (b.) does not significantly change that possibility, you're right.
> This is a very weak argument, as it ignores the possibility of using automated enforcement, say,
> to remove the speed variatiuon pretty much completely. It's funny how in so many things the
> response to spiralling lawlessness is zero-tolerance and increased enforcement, whereas in
> motoring offences it's to cave in.
Zero tolerance does not allow for individual responsibility, and presumes guilt. I do not see that
as a constructive way to run a democratic nation unless the activity being suppressed is always, by
definition, harmful. Besides, even cameras don't catch everyone, nor do they completely eliminate
speed variance.
> You speak from ignorance as well as bigotry here. The point is that the 85th centile creeps over
> time. A limit originally set at 85th centile has over time migrated to significant lawbreaking.
> Increased enforcement has brought the average spees back down, and with them the fatality rate.
I remain suspicious as to whether speed was the major factor in that, unless there was _significant_
migration from the limit. "Speed" enforcement could have accounted for the cessation of other
behaviors as well, and if done with cameras, paradoxically might not be observable. At any rate I
don't have the specific data so I can't really comment.
Speeds have gone up over time, very slightly, in the United States, and fatality rates have been on
a steady downward trend since prior to 1970.
> If you've never been to France then don't presume to judge their driving style or their national
> personality.
Frenchmen. Heh, heh, heh...
Seriously, it's only the individual that matters, in that regard.
> The underlying cause in general is small risks taken very large numbers of times. I stand by that.
Yes, if the risks are large enough or likely enough to cause a collision. As I believe you said, it
isn't black and white. Risk is dependent on situation and ever changing. There is always a point
that, if something happens, there wouldn't be time to do anything about it, except for not being
there at the time. As to who, if anyone, should be considered at fault if anything _did_ happen,
that's again dependent on the situation at hand.
> >given the number of collisions caused by or involving members of the driving public compared to
> >the number of total vehicle miles traveled I do not see that that is a major problem in practice.
> >The likelihood of being involved in a major collision is very low.
>
> But very much higher than in many other countries.
A few other countries, and I suspect not as much higher as some might suggest.
> >> And the car industry, which saw an opportunity to take advantage of a tariff barrier to shore
> >> up its declining domestic market.
>
> >Oh they've long done that anyway, I can't see how it would be a major factor influencing whether
> >people want to buy trucks instead of much more reasonable equivalent cars.
>
> Company pays X to build a car or X-25% to build a truck without the car-standard safety feaures
> and using old engines made on old tooling. That's how it got started.
But that wasn't a tariff barrier, it applies equally to domestic companies. And they started it.
> >It would however help if the latter hadn't been squeezed out by making them too expensive to
> >develop as reasonably priced mass market vehicles,
>
> It's not so expensive that Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and so on can't afford it. That's just
> an excuse.
No, it's maximizing your profit while minimizing your outlay. It should be expected.
> >As to trucks, foreign manufacturers are more than happy to sell theirs here, too, and even make
> >newer bigger ones specifically for this market.
>
> I don't know if the tariff barrier has been dropped now.
It doesn't have to be, they just have to sell enough to make it worth their while.
> >If the roads have enough open space for vehicles to pass without forcing others to slow, then
> >they just aren't going to produce any bottlenecks or other turbulence-causing points in the
> >traffic pattern.
>
> This does not apply to any road in the urban ocntext, of course.
No, nor during periods of congestion, but it does describe many non-urban U.S. roadways most
of the time.
> So don't let them. Make the camera companies not-for-profit.
If that were actually the case, leeway (for passing, etc.) was given, and other strictly binding
rules of use were set, I might not have a problem with it.
> >also useless absent heavy traffic, where speed will not be inevitably connected to
> >collision risk.
>
> Except that this is not the case.
Absent heavy traffic, it is overall when proper precautions are taken. And if they can't be, you
slow down until an adequate distance can be maintained.
> >people are dying anyway, so picking one number doesn't make it any more righteous than the next,
> >just because it happens to be lower. Otherwise you're heading for zero again and that is not
> >reconcilable with vehicle travel.
>
> Great idea - give up entirely. Maybe that's why our fatality rate is so much lower than yours,
> because we haven't.
That is not what I said. Just that _if_ the rate can be reduced by letting people go as fast as the
reasonable majority of them want to, it's rather pointless to hold them back instead, just someone's
power trip because they've decided _they_ hold the Right Number. (Of mph or fatalities, your
choice.) Unless they set it at zero, which no one can dispute is the safest it could be.
> >No, it's following distance and sightlines. Altering the former while still having enough of the
> >latter makes the risk equivalent at different speeds. And smoothing traffic flow in addition will
> >reduce it.
>
> You can never make the risk equivalent at different speeds, because of the kinetic energy of the
> vehicle, dynamics at speed and so on. To take an extreme example: a blowout at 10mph will be
> undramatic. One at 100mph could be fatal under some circumstances.
Sure you can. On roads designed for higher speeds, with wide shoulders and good sightlines, not
considering risks so small they're pointless to worry about--such as being hit by an ice slug from
an airliner toilet. And absent heavy traffic.
A 100mph blowout should not be that dangerous provided you know how to handle it--the vehicle won't
settle onto that tire until you slow down, so as long as you let it coast and don't slam on the
brakes you should be fine. Years ago when I was a new driver the car I was driving suffered a
catastrophic blowout--a piece of metal tore a chunk out of a tire--at ~70mph and it wasn't a
problem. I'd been told a car with a flat tire would pull to one side, but it didn't, until I got
down to about 20 or so. By that time I was already pulling onto the shoulder.
> The very very few are actually members of the very many with whom the law of averages has
> caught up.
I fail to see how that can be deduced from any data. Just that a certain, relatively constant
percentage of drivers cause such casualties.
> We have more children walking on the street, and a smaller proportion of them die under the wheels
> of cars.
I would hope they'd be walking on the sidewalk. It seems like a better proposition all around.
> Germany's record is better than ours and the Dutch better still, not least because they have a
> presumption of fault if you hit a cyclist or a pedestrian.
Ah, good old presumed guilt. That's certainly fair. If anyone is inept enough to run into me they
can damn well take all of the responsibility for it. And pay for the damage to my vehicle as well as
their own medical costs.
> Yeah, I wonder what ity is about the streets that makes them want ot ride on the footway where
> it's statistically five times more dangerous? Someone ought to look into that some time...
I have to add that if the choice was forced on me I''d rather be hit by the bike than any motor
vehicle, but that should go without saying.
> >> Human society is all about interaction. The trend to moving between hermetically sealed
> >> buildings in hermetically sealed cars is surely one of the more socially destructive aspects of
> >> the great car culture.
>
> >Because I'm just a little, well, not anti-social. Unsocial. There's plenty of time during the day
> >to interact whether I want to or not, so I figure I ought to have some time to hole up as well.
>
> And all the better if Uncle Sam subsidises it, eh ;-)
Yeah, well it's no problem of yours ;-]
(Seriously, I really don't care one way or the other--and I was speaking in terms not exclusive
to driving.)
> It depends. At one time the majority view was that slavery was perfectly acceptable., The only
> ones who disagreed were the slaves. Right now the ones who disagree most with deferring at all
> times ot the car, are those who don't or can't use them.
Which isn't _exactly_ the same argument. The data will out, and AFAIC, that's what's important.
Whichever side it ends up supporting. Though I doubt it will be that black and white.
> The point is that slower always equals safer. Or as nearly always as makes no difference, for
> the purposes of establishing a general rule. That doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to go
> faster, just that trying to use safety to justify it is going to be wrong in all buit a very few
> specific cases.
More than a few. But it depends where the limits are set, why they are set, and what types of roads
you're talking about.
> >I consider it to be artificially slow if I could get there much faster with no detectable
> >decrease in safety,
>
> But your view of what's safe is (a) not the only one and (b) not necessarily fully informed.
> There's a road near me witha 40 limit I always thought was completely arbitrary. I cycled past it
> one day and it turns out there's a primary school hidden behind the trees just past the 40 sign.
I'm pretty fully informed about my local environs, and U.S. rural highways however. I'm not arguing
that it's prudent to go flying down roads where you don't know and can't tell what's ahead. Or urban
streets in general.
> Yes. I'm confident we agree on the need for moderate speeds in residential areas. The question is
> on the less obviously peopled streets where cycling and walking are in decline. Setting that
> decline in stone by allowing increased speeds may not be the smartest long-term move.
Nor may doing so by building roads that facilitate that if they aren't really necessary.
--Aardwolf.
