Speeding Crackdown.

[smhog]

This week all New England states announced the State Police will begin to crackdown on speeders. This is part of "increasing highway safety."
The news announced Interstates 91 and 95 will be the main focus, but that doesn't mean the other roads won't be.

Just a headsup for eveyone, your states may be doing the same.

Here in Massachusetts we finally have some fantastic weather and the urge to open'er up is tough to resist.

Tim

[JonB ~ PartsRack]

Great, I make my annual pilgrimage to Watkins Glen next week, just in time for the trooper's ''Memorial Day Speeder Practice!''

Do they use airborne spotters? Or just Laser-Radar? Valentine One is a confidence builder.

Next month off to VIR where Valentine One is illegal!

[Viktimize]

Why worry about protecting your citizens when you can collect revenue right? This world is going to shit.

[SA Heat]

Your threshold for the world going to shit is pretty low.

[LeadfootRT10]

Why worry about protecting your citizens when you can collect revenue right? This world is going to shit.

do you believe stopping speeders does not protect citizens?

[Coloviper]

Not the world, just Alberta! NDP? What the hell is going on up there? Saskatchewans like me worked 50 years to remove the oppression of that kind of Government. I mean the PCs went crazy there for awhile but to vote in NDP? That gulag will make you give up your Viper yet!

[Viktimize]

Not the world, just Alberta! NDP? What the hell is going on up there? Saskatchewans like me worked 50 years to remove the oppression of that kind of Government. I mean the PCs went crazy there for awhile but to vote in NDP? That gulag will make you give up your Viper yet!

Well PC's had to get the boot one way or another. Wildrose doesn't have enough members to even form a majority government. NDP was the only choice for a lot of people. They did the right song and dance to trick people into giving them their vote. In 4 years people will wonder what the hell they were thinking and vote a PC government back in. On the bright side, at least the PC's will realize they aren't invincible and it will knock them down a peg. Maybe they will smarten up next time.

[Coloviper]

Well PC's had to get the boot one way or another. Wildrose doesn't have enough members to even form a majority government. NDP was the only choice for a lot of people. They did the right song and dance to trick people into giving them their vote. In 4 years people will wonder what the hell they were thinking and vote a PC government back in. On the bright side, at least the PC's will realize they aren't invincible and it will knock them down a peg. Maybe they will smarten up next time.

Maybe but you do NOT vote in the NDP (Democrats) to prove a point. It will affect the whole Oil & Gas World now and Alberta/Canada/parts of the U.S. with this brilliant move. You guys know not what you have done. It's like Texas voting in a Democratic government. Speeding issues is the absolute least of your worries for world going to shit now.

I agree with Leadfoot though, "extreme" speeding curb does increase safety.

[Viktimize]

Maybe but you do NOT vote in the NDP (Democrats) to prove a point. It will affect the whole Oil & Gas World now and Alberta/Canada/parts of the U.S. with this brilliant move. You guys know not what you have done. It's like Texas voting in a Democratic government. Speeding issues is the absolute least of your worries for world going to shit now.

I agree with Leadfoot though, "extreme" speeding curb does increase safety.

Preaching to the choir brother. I sure as hell didn't vote for them.

[ViperSmith]

Waze.

[Bugman Jeff]

I got a speeding ticket when I was 17, haven't had one since. I discovered this super awesome method of avoiding getting pulled over. I heard about a guy who used this ultra secret method and tried to write a book about it, but the government hushed him up. Since I like you guys, I'll let you in on it, but you can't tell anyone else. You don't want "them" to find out you know this fool proof method of avoiding speeding tickets. Here's the secret to my speeding ticket avoidance program: I drive at or below the posted speed limit speed limit.

[SA Heat]

I drive at or below the posted speed limit speed limit.

That takes a lot of will power to do consistently, especially in certain cars.

[Bugman Jeff]

I see so many drivers that I wouldn't trust to drive safely at the speed limit, much less over it. While I know I am capable of safely driving well over the limit, I don't have the confidence that the guy in the minivan next to me could be safe at 5mph over.

[Viktimize]

do you believe stopping speeders does not protect citizens?

Is that a trick question? Speeding has never been the cause of any accident in history. So no I don't believe speed traps nailing people for driving perfectly safe protects anybody.

Now if they wanted to start cracking down on distracted driving(the number one cause of majority of accidents), then I'd be in full support.

I see so many drivers that I wouldn't trust to drive safely at the speed limit, much less over it. While I know I am capable of safely driving well over the limit, I don't have the confidence that the guy in the minivan next to me could be safe at 5mph over.

Bingo! So start cracking down on unsafe driving and address the route cause. Just blindly attacking anyone speeding means you have no idea whether the culprit is unsafe driver or not unless you actually viewed them doing something unsafe. And if you do view somebody doing something unsafe, why not ticket them for that instead of speeding? The whole point of consequence is to teach a lesson. But since speeding in itself is not a dangerous act, then the unsafe driver really has no idea what he/she needs to correct from their behaviour, except to slow down and just be a slower travelling unsafe driver.

[SA Heat]

Speeding has never been the cause of any accident in history.

I'll have to write that one down. You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

[LeadfootRT10]

I'll have to write that one down. You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

I vote for not very bright....

[DEADEYE]

Saying that speeding has never caused a crash is like saying no one has ever died by falling because, you see, it's the sudden stop, not the fall that killed them. Speeding is a major contributing factor in fatal crashes. Even as a mere contributor, not a direct cause, it invites danger and the police are charged with the responsibility of making it as safe as they reasonably can by curtailing dangerous driving behavior.

Speeding increases the amount of distance travelled during a given reaction time. Speeding, when a crash does occur, increases the amount of damage caused to persons and property. Speeding during inclement weather can lead to hydroplaning, over driving your sight ahead in dense fog etc. Speeding can create conditions where one overdrives ones own abilities as well as the tires, brakes and suspension. Furthermore, speeding on a bad road surface, like with loose material such as gravel, and crossing animals can potentially lead to a crash. Not to mention the fact that those who share the road are also placed in a situation of undue and increased danger. We aren't in controlled conditions here.

I'm a fan of school zones as well.

[Viktimize]

Saying that speeding has never caused a crash is like saying no one has ever died by falling because, you see, it's the sudden stop, not the fall that killed them. Speeding is a major contributing factor in fatal crashes. Even as a mere contributor, not a direct cause, it invites danger and the police are charged with the responsibility of making it as safe as they reasonably can by curtailing dangerous driving behavior.

Speeding increases the amount of distance travelled during a given reaction time. Speeding, when a crash does occur, increases the amount of damage caused to persons and property. Speeding during inclement weather can lead to hydroplaning, over driving your sight ahead in dense fog etc. Speeding can create conditions where one overdrives ones own abilities as well as the tires, brakes and suspension. Furthermore, speeding on a bad road surface, like with loose material such as gravel, and crossing animals can potentially lead to a crash. Not to mention the fact that those who share the road are also placed in a situation of undue and increased danger. We aren't in controlled conditions here.

I'm a fan of school zones as well.

What you are referring to is driving too fast for conditions. Many times this has very little to do with the speed limit. As you can drive too fast for conditions below the "safe" speed limit depending on conditions.

A sudden stop still occurs due to an accident. Accidents themselves have causes. The causes of these accidents are never speeding. The cause of a fatality in an accident can be directly related to the amount of force generated due to the speeds travelled, but that has nothing to do with the cause of the accident in the first place. That is the issue. Speeding can certainly increase our risk of an accident should you be doing something else unsafe in the first place. But why would you try to stop something that is merely a "factor", when you can go right after the route cause? As mentioned earlier, all you do by enforcing speed is slow down safe and unsafe drivers alike. Now you still have just as many unsafe drivers on the road not learning anything, they're just less likely to die in the event of an accident. You go enforce the route cause, and now you hit 2 birds with one stone. Not only do you decrease fatalities by forcing people to be better drivers through enforcement of bad behaviors. But you also decrease accidents as well. I'm all for decreasing deaths of innocent people, but I don't feel like it is very fair to punish safe drivers and completely neglect injuries that occur in accidents to do so. Enforcing route cause addresses all these concerns.


And I don't know if I need to clarify? But obviously I am talking about the highway here. (Where 99% of speed traps are set up)

At the end of the day, the sats speak for themselves. And they clearly show that speeding does not cause accidents.

[DEADEYE]

What you are referring to is driving too fast for conditions. Many times this has very little to do with the speed limit. As you can drive too fast for conditions below the "safe" speed limit depending on conditions.

A sudden stop still occurs due to an accident. Accidents themselves have causes. The causes of these accidents are never speeding. The cause of a fatality in an accident can be directly related to the amount of force generated due to the speeds travelled, but that has nothing to do with the cause of the accident in the first place. That is the issue. Speeding can certainly increase our risk of an accident should you be doing something else unsafe in the first place. But why would you try to stop something that is merely a "factor", when you can go right after the route cause? As mentioned earlier, all you do by enforcing speed is slow down safe and unsafe drivers alike. Now you still have just as many unsafe drivers on the road not learning anything, they're just less likely to die in the event of an accident. You go enforce the route cause, and now you hit 2 birds with one stone. Not only do you decrease fatalities by forcing people to be better drivers through enforcement of bad behaviors. But you also decrease accidents as well. I'm all for decreasing deaths of innocent people, but I don't feel like it is very fair to punish safe drivers and completely neglect injuries that occur in accidents to do so. Enforcing route cause addresses all these concerns.


And I don't know if I need to clarify? But obviously I am talking about the highway here. (Where 99% of speed traps are set up)

At the end of the day, the sats speak for themselves. And they clearly show that speeding does not cause accidents.

By logical conclusion of your view, there can only be contributing factors and no direct causes of crashes outside of intent. It seems that only a careless or reckless free willed decision could be the blame. Any link in the temporal chain of events between the careless or reckless decision and the crash wouldn't be causal as they themselves would be ultimately traced back to the careless or reckless decision which set the events off into motion. Like falling dominos, the mind controlling the finger that pushed the first domino is the root cause (agent causation), not the previous domino. I see no logical reason why exceeding the speed limit, (a domino), would enjoy sole immunity whereas other violations (other dominos) would not. It would be helpful to define what you mean by 'cause' here, as it seems you arbitrarily rule out speeding as a cause while holding to other factors as 'causes'. Similarly you seem to proclaim axiomotically that speeding alone is safe, which is problematic because there's simply no possible way to know all the things that could go wrong while speeding...until they go wrong.

If speed is determined to be a factor in any crash, then that person was evidently, by definition, driving too fast for some condition. The problem, Viktimize, is that we can't know that the speeding was unsafe until the crash has taken place! But police are supposed to prevent crashes from taking place!

But how do we attack the root cause decision that is the product of free will? The most logical method of crash prevention is to curtail dangerous unlawful behavior through law enforcement and education. This can only be accomplished after observing said behavior and necessarily points the finger right at the person displaying the bahavior, not the officer who's reacting to it.

Theoretically, one can 'safely' drive while intoxicated on the interstate and not crash, arriving safely at his destination. Therefore, had this person been stopped, the stop would have been unjustified by this logic. The same can be said for any other traffic law violation.

Speed limits are set up after studies by traffic engineers and are put in place so as to take into account the least experienced, least skilled, lowest capable drivers among us allowed by law, surrounded by the same, who can be unfamiliar to the roadway. They will drive in uncontrolled conditions on deteriorating roadways in poorly maintained vehicles during inclement weather. Factors such as entrance/ exit ramp proximity, curve radius and banking are dialed in as well. These conditions are ever present! Using the factors above, engineers determine the safest speeds at which a roadway can be travelled. They then reduce that number to dial in a margin of error. So nearly all speeding is driving too fast for some condition.

Further, when the police do make the stop, they too will give a margin of error before making the stop. The ticket, once received, isn't a final judgement. It can be contested before a judge and dismissed if the judge is convinced that it ought to be.

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

[SlateEd]

....

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

Well written post in general, but this part strikes me as more than an aside - I think you've hit the nail on the head. Enforcement shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator, but in many cases it does.

The public, in general, is comfortable with 5-15mph over the highway limit, but most people are not comfortable with much more than that.

The public, in general, is comfortable with "sneaking a quick text message at the red light" or "just reading that email but not trying to write back to it"

The public, in general, considers driving to be a necessary action that gets you around places but interrupts whatever else you're doing, which today includes living with at least 1 eye glued to the phone.

Take a quick poll among people you know who don't LOVE driving (probably most people...) How many of them would sympathize with someone who gets a ticket for using the cell phone, but would look condescendingly at someone who gets ticket for 80-in-a-55 zone?

[Viktimize]

By logical conclusion of your view, there can only be contributing factors and no direct causes of crashes outside of intent. It seems that only a careless or reckless free willed decision could be the blame. Any link in the temporal chain of events between the careless or reckless decision and the crash wouldn't be causal as they themselves would be ultimately traced back to the careless or reckless decision which set the events off into motion. Like falling dominos, the mind controlling the finger that pushed the first domino is the root cause (agent causation), not the previous domino. I see no logical reason why exceeding the speed limit, (a domino), would enjoy sole immunity whereas other violations (other dominos) would not. It would be helpful to define what you mean by 'cause' here, as it seems you arbitrarily rule out speeding as a cause while holding to other factors as 'causes'. Similarly you seem to proclaim axiomotically that speeding alone is safe, which is problematic because there's simply no possible way to know all the things that could go wrong while speeding...until they go wrong..

Any accident will have multiple factors, but there will always be a root cause. I think you might be mistakenly blurring the line between the two? If you're not mistaking them, then I would be interested to hear your theory on how speed enforcement is the best approach?

Speaking of logical conclusions. One should logically conclude from your go to physics lesson of increased stopping distances, that you would advocate for a speed limit of 1mph everywhere at all times. If going faster is more dangerous, than going slower should be less dangerous right? Obviously this is absurd, which is exactly my point. The fact we have 60mph speed limits is because we deem it an acceptable risk. So if 59mph above 1mph is an accpetable risk, then who is to say that 69mph above 1mph wouldn't also be an acceptable risk?

If speed is determined to be a factor in any crash, then that person was evidently, by definition, driving too fast for some condition..

This is incorrect. And I think this misunderstanding has a major role to play in why the public is so onboard with the speed enforcement brain washing epidemic. If speeding is a factor, then that means that one of the vehicles involved in the accident was travelling above the posted limit. That is all it means when it comes to accident investigation. And further more, the statistics are highly skewed in that regard. The factors are simply whatever the attending officer checks off on the list at the scene of the accident. Being that his list of available items is lacking many options, and that the officer is most likely not even trained in accident investigation, speed tends to be the go to factor that gets checked off. Even with this bias that exists, speeding is still only a factor in 25-30% of accidents. It is pretty easy to see that speed is not an issue with the actual statistics in mind.

The problem, Viktimize, is that we can't know that the speeding was unsafe until the crash has taken place! But police are supposed to prevent crashes from taking place!.

Really? You've never viewed someone driving erratically? Swerving in their lane? Tail gating? Not using signals? It is actually incredibly easy to see who is speeding safely and who is not.

But how do we attack the root cause decision that is the product of free will? The most logical method of crash prevention is to curtail dangerous unlawful behavior through law enforcement and education. This can only be accomplished after observing said behavior and necessarily points the finger right at the person displaying the bahavior, not the officer who's reacting to it.

Ummm, exactly. So we are on the same page now? We seem to have no problem identifying speeding and ticketing that, why should there be any issue to identify and ticket the numerous behaviors that have a statistically high risk of accident causation instead?

Theoretically, one can 'safely' drive while intoxicated on the interstate and not crash, arriving safely at his destination. Therefore, had this person been stopped, the stop would have been unjustified by this logic. The same can be said for any other traffic law violation.

For intoixication yes. For virtually every other traffic violation that exists, they can all be responsible for causing an accident all on their own. So no, the same connot be said for any other traffic law.

Speed limits are set up after studies by traffic engineers and are put in place so as to take into account the least experienced, least skilled, lowest capable drivers among us allowed by law, surrounded by the same, who can be unfamiliar to the roadway. They will drive in uncontrolled conditions on deteriorating roadways in poorly maintained vehicles during inclement weather. Factors such as entrance/ exit ramp proximity, curve radius and banking are dialed in as well. These conditions are ever present! Using the factors above, engineers determine the safest speeds at which a roadway can be travelled. They then reduce that number to dial in a margin of error. So nearly all speeding is driving too fast for some condition.

Engineers do recommend speed limits. And they are generally set with the 85th percentile rule in mind. But then governments take those recommendations and lower them to a point that makes speed enforcement lucrative.

Further, when the police do make the stop, they too will give a margin of error before making the stop. The ticket, once received, isn't a final judgement. It can be contested before a judge and dismissed if the judge is convinced that it ought to be.

You would hope that an officer would be prudent in his/her job and try to focus on safety as that is what they are essentially paid to do. But reality is that police officers are no different than your average citizen. They are just as easily swayed by fear mongering propaganda as you are. They are also trained to take orders. Not to mention they are motivated to meet "performance criteria" which can lead to better pay or better jobs. Officers do not hand out speeding tickets based on any sort of excess knowledge of the system over the average citizen.

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

Yup. Half the problem with the enforcement system is right there.

[DEADEYE]

Any accident will have multiple factors, but there will always be a root cause. I think you might be mistakenly blurring the line between the two? If you're not mistaking them, then I would be interested to hear your theory on how speed enforcement is the best approach?

Viktimize,

Rather than arbitrarily stopping at a place which is convenient for your claim to hold, that is, speeding is uniquely a traffic law violation which is unjustifiably targeted because it never caused a crash but other traffic law violations do. I've simply taken the bus to the end of the line...the logical conclusion. The conclusion is that, if your claim holds, traffic law violations which share the lack of causal power towards crashes don't begin and end soley with speeding but must necessarily include any other traffic law violation which can possibly take place without causing a crash (which is just about every traffic law violation save Hit and Run). Most, if not all traffic law violations, would enjoy the same status as being an impotent violation. If not, why not? Why be so biased towards speeding? To be sure, I'm not claiming that speeding directly causes crashes, I'm just claiming that under this criteria, neither do other traffic law violations. If every traffic law violation which could be committed without necessarily causing a crash would be treated equally, then under your own view, neither should they be enforced. Police would only react to crashes, not endeavour to prevent crashes through enforcement.

Speeding, like other traffic law violations, increase the risk of being involved in a crash. Stopping speeders from speeding by stopping those who speed is by definition the most direct way to curtail dangerous speeding behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of being involved in a crash.

Speaking of logical conclusions. One should logically conclude from your go to physics lesson of increased stopping distances, that you would advocate for a speed limit of 1mph everywhere at all times. If going faster is more dangerous, than going slower should be less dangerous right? Obviously this is absurd, which is exactly my point. The fact we have 60mph speed limits is because we deem it an acceptable risk. So if 59mph above 1mph is an accpetable risk, then who is to say that 69mph above 1mph wouldn't also be an acceptable risk?

Hahahaha, I wouldn't advocate a universal 1mph speed limit at all. The obsurdity lies in the impracticality of the proposal though, not in the notion that it would actually be safer. Indeed, it really would be safer! It would definately suck but it would be safer. Viktimize, you may have just pulled the rug from beneath your own feet here. By your own admission, speeding is a risk! As far as where we terminate the acceptability of that risk, engineers and our elected law makers determine that. I'll ask you the same question. Who's to say that 1mph + as fast as your vehicle can travel wouldn't be an acceptable risk? If you choose any speed lower than 'as fast as possible', then you too agree that speeding is a risk worth being kept in check. You may choose a different speed but then you'd have to justify why your speed as opposed to other's speeds should carry more weight.

This is incorrect. And I think this misunderstanding has a major role to play in why the public is so onboard with the speed enforcement brain washing epidemic. If speeding is a factor, then that means that one of the vehicles involved in the accident was travelling above the posted limit. That is all it means when it comes to accident investigation. And further more, the statistics are highly skewed in that regard. The factors are simply whatever the attending officer checks off on the list at the scene of the accident. Being that his list of available items is lacking many options, and that the officer is most likely not even trained in accident investigation, speed tends to be the go to factor that gets checked off. Even with this bias that exists, speeding is still only a factor in 25-30% of accidents. It is pretty easy to see that speed is not an issue with the actual statistics in mind.

The above presupposes speed limits to be arbitrary. If speed was determined to be a factor in a crash and that determined speed limit was grounded in an honest study of physics, then the charge of speed being a factor is true, not arbitrary. The truthfullness of the danger of a given speed doesn't become any less truthfull once its made law. As far as officers checking off a list, speed is indeed asked about on the report. But because the speed is inquired of, doesn't necessarily make it a causal factor, even in the report. In my experience, following too close and careless operation are by far the most common factors.

Really? You've never viewed someone driving erratically? Swerving in their lane? Tail gating? Not using signals? It is actually incredibly easy to see who is speeding safely and who is not.

Not only have I observed this behavior on display, I've seen drivers not get involved in crashes despite doing it, just like speeding. What we cannot know about a driver who is speeding is whether or not the unobservable and unpredictable risk factors are being magnified and invited by the speeding.

Ummm, exactly. So we are on the same page now? We seem to have no problem identifying speeding and ticketing that, why should there be any issue to identify and ticket the numerous behaviors that have a statistically high risk of accident causation instead?

Again, can you please define what you mean by causation here? A thought experiment which includes other violations while simultaneously and necessarily excluding speeding in a way that can't be true about the other violations might be helpful.

For intoixication yes. For virtually every other traffic violation that exists, they can all be responsible for causing an accident all on their own. So no, the same connot be said for any other traffic law.

Thought experiment:

If I travelled at 60 mph and the vehicle before me travelled at the speed limit of 50 mph, I will eventually hit the vehicle before mine. Excessive speed will be the only moving violation. This happens sometimes.

Engineers do recommend speed limits. And they are generally set with the 85th percentile rule in mind. But then governments take those recommendations and lower them to a point that makes speed enforcement lucrative.

Whatever the speed limit is, as long as it is known, the person who freely exceeds it is ultimately to blame.

You would hope that an officer would be prudent in his/her job and try to focus on safety as that is what they are essentially paid to do. But reality is that police officers are no different than your average citizen. They are just as easily swayed by fear mongering propaganda as you are. They are also trained to take orders. Not to mention they are motivated to meet "performance criteria" which can lead to better pay or better jobs. Officers do not hand out speeding tickets based on any sort of excess knowledge of the system over the average citizen.

In the intrest of full disclosure, I'm a Police Sgt. with 20 years experience. I can confirm that there is pressure to perform.
As far as succumbing to fear mongering, fear mongering need not take place. We see with our own eyes all too often the effects of dangerous driving. And I have seen and experienced more than the average person.

Yup. Half the problem with the enforcement system is right there.

Yup.

[Coloviper]

I believe he means speed traps not all excessive driving. In Alberta, they set up speed traps where they take an impounded car, pull a tire off and have it by the side of the road. Like an innocent car in distress. Then a chicken shit cop jumps out with his laser to nail you. It is just a bad situation overall. Not a fan of the speed trap. Not really a fan of most cops especially city cops. Most are more crooked than those they chase.

Absolutely support school zones. Construction zones, most companies should be charged for excessive coning and unnecessary disruption. Common sense seems to have left this world in 2015.

[DEADEYE]

Yeah, the terminology "speed trap", as in entrapment, seems to be one that elicits emotion. I'm not sure how much of a trap something could be if there are speed limit signs and general knowledge of highway speeds, not to mention that there is typically a given margin of error, like say 5-15 mph over. Would the use of aerial enforcement be a speed 'trap' as well?

[Vprbite]

I've always thought of a speed trap as taking advantage of a place where even the most cautious drivers speed, if completely unintentionally. Like at the bottom of a hill. Or here in Tucson there was a place near campus where it went from 45 to 35 right after an intersection and the motorcycle cops would sit there 3 at a time and pop people all day. I feel like that was catching people off guard, not targeting speeders.