Discussion
"... In 1999, after 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on these classifications of highways, outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.
Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatalities is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community..."
Any speed control advocates care to comment?
Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatalities is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community..."
Any speed control advocates care to comment?
Having just come back from the motoring heaven that is the German Autobahn I can only concur in the simplest sense with these findings.
We found cruising at 110mph to be perfectly feasible and safe. Why? Because we had a car which was perfectly capable (S2000), and because of the way that lane discipline is policed there. Anytime we caught up with someone in the outside lane they would ensure they were out of our way as soon as possible.
Of course, the opposite is practised here now - numpties believe they have the right to sit in the middle lane at 65mph and outside lane at 70mph. This is reducing traffic flow, increasing bunching, and therefore inherently dangerous.
Of course the past 55mph limit in the USA was even worse!
We found cruising at 110mph to be perfectly feasible and safe. Why? Because we had a car which was perfectly capable (S2000), and because of the way that lane discipline is policed there. Anytime we caught up with someone in the outside lane they would ensure they were out of our way as soon as possible.
Of course, the opposite is practised here now - numpties believe they have the right to sit in the middle lane at 65mph and outside lane at 70mph. This is reducing traffic flow, increasing bunching, and therefore inherently dangerous.
Of course the past 55mph limit in the USA was even worse!
Of course something like that will work in Montana. One has to bear in mind that the entire state has a population of less than a million people with a density of 6.2 people per square mile.
Compare that to the UK with 242 people per square mile and an overall population of 60 million! Can't see it working over here IMHO.
Compare that to the UK with 242 people per square mile and an overall population of 60 million! Can't see it working over here IMHO.
Respectfully T5-R I think you miss the point.
I don't doubt the accuracy of your figures, the fact is that when people are allowed/encouraged to make sensible decisions about their driving without being nannied into an artificial speed they are generally safer.
The problem is that driving like an idiot will not get you prosecuted (unless you crash and hurt someone), but driving a few miles over the limit will.
I don't doubt the accuracy of your figures, the fact is that when people are allowed/encouraged to make sensible decisions about their driving without being nannied into an artificial speed they are generally safer.
The problem is that driving like an idiot will not get you prosecuted (unless you crash and hurt someone), but driving a few miles over the limit will.
T5-R said:
Of course something like that will work in Montana. One has to bear in mind that the entire state has a population of less than a million people with a density of 6.2 people per square mile.
Compare that to the UK with 242 people per square mile and an overall population of 60 million! Can't see it working over here IMHO.
The point is this "... In 1999, after 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on these classifications of highways, outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate..."
The two methods were tried and one failed (the speed limit method). Population has little to do with it. Germany's unrestricted autobahns are safer than 55mph-limit American freeways and I'm sure the two road traffic populations of these two are roughly similar.
IIRC the Montana experiment now generally known as the 'Montana Paradox' was stopped in the late 90's partly because of concern by local government of being held liable for high speed crashes!
I think they lost their bottle.
It's a shame, if it continued it could have acted as a useful control for comparison. I don't think the experiment was long enough to have huge statistical value, although it's very enlightening. The fatality rates per bvkms in Montana were atrocious, but I think that despite the post experiment slump, they have improved more recently.
I think they lost their bottle.
It's a shame, if it continued it could have acted as a useful control for comparison. I don't think the experiment was long enough to have huge statistical value, although it's very enlightening. The fatality rates per bvkms in Montana were atrocious, but I think that despite the post experiment slump, they have improved more recently.
I think there is the quote:
'There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics'.... (please correct me if that is a misquote).
There are plenty of stats which show that the camera make no difference whatsoever to the number of deaths. According to the 'speed kills' ideology the German autobahns must be like a scene from Mad Max. I cannot comment as I have never had the pleasure of driving there, but to be frank I would feel a whole lot safer as in that kind of situation, proper checking of mirrors, lane discipline and proper use of the road is not just a mark of courtesy as it is in the UK, it is *mandatory* and the reason why it works.
To really get to the crux of understanding *why* the government from the top down has the vendetta on speed we have to look at their position and motives. Whether the systems that are introduced actually work will never be known as to a certain extent this is irrelevant for them. We have to remember that each person in the chain from Transport Minister down to the civilian operating the village scamera has their job to keep and must show what they are doing is useful.
As a former salesman, who was also judged on figures a theory or a hope wasnt good enough. Whether no-one was there that day to buy (no accidents due to speed) was irrelevant.
I kept my job and got my bonus because I sold to justify my job (making quantifyable progress through more cameras) and at the end showed my boss how good I was by showing him hard sales figures (reduction in number of deaths/accidents/serious accidents/accidents due to speed or whatever gives most spin with the available figures).
At the end of the sales day no-one cared about whether the customers got the best product, or didnt as we didnt have stock, whether they wont use the extra warranty etc. Conversely whilst these *were* the most important things and what would be the motive in providing the best for the company, from the top down the culture promoted the bottom line in that case £ note sales figures.
The speedkills system has now completely abstracted itself from what they are really there to do, to save lives because the people who are paid to do the job arnt paid for saving lives. They are paid to produce good results. The camera operator is praised when they get more people stopped. The scamera partnership is praised when the figures come in when they get more money. The spin statistician will be used again because they were able to produce the most media friendly stats, and finally the media methods will be used again as it painted the process in a good light and justified everyones jobs yet again.
Did any of these people really save a life?
I dont blame the police or the middle managers which are in this case the partnerships, they are just cogs in the game. The problem is from the top down. One way or another figures must be produced and publicised to justify the goverments very existance.
If you make comparisons with the NHS, you will never hear hard facts such as 1995: %age of patients diagnosed with cancer saved compared to 2005 %age of patients diagnosed with cancer saved.
What you will hear is the same old story as the scameras 'Speed kills right, look at this... and look how we reduce speed' In the case of the NHS it is 'NHS is underfunded... look how much more is being spent'
Yet again, the problem is completely abstracted and the public is spun into accepting the problem is solved by reporting figures of something they can quantify, whether this makes a difference to the original factor or not.
One thing I am glad about there are enough people of intelligence on here to be able to see through the spin and down to the facts, whether we can do something about it in at least a small part I would like to think so!
'There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics'.... (please correct me if that is a misquote).
There are plenty of stats which show that the camera make no difference whatsoever to the number of deaths. According to the 'speed kills' ideology the German autobahns must be like a scene from Mad Max. I cannot comment as I have never had the pleasure of driving there, but to be frank I would feel a whole lot safer as in that kind of situation, proper checking of mirrors, lane discipline and proper use of the road is not just a mark of courtesy as it is in the UK, it is *mandatory* and the reason why it works.
To really get to the crux of understanding *why* the government from the top down has the vendetta on speed we have to look at their position and motives. Whether the systems that are introduced actually work will never be known as to a certain extent this is irrelevant for them. We have to remember that each person in the chain from Transport Minister down to the civilian operating the village scamera has their job to keep and must show what they are doing is useful.
As a former salesman, who was also judged on figures a theory or a hope wasnt good enough. Whether no-one was there that day to buy (no accidents due to speed) was irrelevant.
I kept my job and got my bonus because I sold to justify my job (making quantifyable progress through more cameras) and at the end showed my boss how good I was by showing him hard sales figures (reduction in number of deaths/accidents/serious accidents/accidents due to speed or whatever gives most spin with the available figures).
At the end of the sales day no-one cared about whether the customers got the best product, or didnt as we didnt have stock, whether they wont use the extra warranty etc. Conversely whilst these *were* the most important things and what would be the motive in providing the best for the company, from the top down the culture promoted the bottom line in that case £ note sales figures.
The speedkills system has now completely abstracted itself from what they are really there to do, to save lives because the people who are paid to do the job arnt paid for saving lives. They are paid to produce good results. The camera operator is praised when they get more people stopped. The scamera partnership is praised when the figures come in when they get more money. The spin statistician will be used again because they were able to produce the most media friendly stats, and finally the media methods will be used again as it painted the process in a good light and justified everyones jobs yet again.
Did any of these people really save a life?
I dont blame the police or the middle managers which are in this case the partnerships, they are just cogs in the game. The problem is from the top down. One way or another figures must be produced and publicised to justify the goverments very existance.
If you make comparisons with the NHS, you will never hear hard facts such as 1995: %age of patients diagnosed with cancer saved compared to 2005 %age of patients diagnosed with cancer saved.
What you will hear is the same old story as the scameras 'Speed kills right, look at this... and look how we reduce speed' In the case of the NHS it is 'NHS is underfunded... look how much more is being spent'
Yet again, the problem is completely abstracted and the public is spun into accepting the problem is solved by reporting figures of something they can quantify, whether this makes a difference to the original factor or not.
One thing I am glad about there are enough people of intelligence on here to be able to see through the spin and down to the facts, whether we can do something about it in at least a small part I would like to think so!
IaHa said:
IIRC the Montana experiment now generally known as the 'Montana Paradox' was stopped in the late 90's partly because of concern by local government of being held liable for high speed crashes!
So far as I know, the Federal Government told them that unless they intriduced limits, Federal Highway Funding would be withdrawn. Montana were between a rock and a hard place.
zumbruk said:This is similar to what the federal government did with drinking...
IIRC the Montana experiment now generally known as the 'Montana Paradox' was stopped in the late 90's partly because of concern by local government of being held liable for high speed crashes!
So far as I know, the Federal Government told them that unless they intriduced limits, Federal Highway Funding would be withdrawn. Montana were between a rock and a hard place.
A few states still allowed drinking from age 18 - the Feds told them money would be withdrawn unless the age was raised to 21...
'Democracy'
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff