There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result."
The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.
1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed.
2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all).
Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
There's quite a few countries in which people avoid speeding, even when there's no cameras around.
In most of the existing places with a culture of respect for the speed limit, they have a higher speed limit.
I suppose you could find a way to automate it similar to red light cameras but even those have been shown to be rather ineffective at actually lowering the incidence of violations so I'm not sure anything less than the presence of a police vehicle with flashing lights that pulls up behind you would have an effect.
It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect.
The question is: What's the goal?
The article shows you how to increase safety.
What is your goal in busting speeders?
My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
>This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
That's actually safer.
until then, it's conjecture, feelings and wishful thinking.
edit: then again urban and highway situations are different, so there's that. but you have truck and slow traffic on the highway anyway thus increasing car limit does increase speed variation in that situation and would be detrimental whether variance or absolute speed are considered
That is if a crash happens. If you compare crash rates and fatality rates on limited access highways where speeds are higher to other types of roads, you'll find that the former is lower on both counts.
> but you have truck and slow traffic on the highway anyway
Trucks do not drive that much slower than cars unless they're going uphill or have a speed limiter. With higher speed limits, slower traffic will most likely speed up to some extent and trucking companies may remove their limiters (or increase the speed where they kick in).
They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit.
Everyone sticks to the speed limit now.
A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either.
With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.
Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly.
Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5
Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution.
I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.
Has this also resulted in traffic bunching up? That is, long lines of vehicles tailgating each other?
Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.
The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light.
But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
I would think that a better strategy would be to increase the delay before turning the next light green, after the last one turned red.
Studies done in Virginia and Texas contradict that assertion. Increasing the yellow phase time decreased the incidence of red light running and the effect was sustained over time.
http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com...
Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs.
PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.
Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc.
He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf
"Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg.
In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable."
The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.