Study: Higher speed limits create dangers

USA Today | 24 Nov 03 | AP

[SLB]

WASHINGTON (AP) — States that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more saw a dramatic increase in the number of people killed in traffic accidents, according to a report released Monday by an auto safety group funded by insurers.

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

A separate review of six states by the institute found drivers traveling the fastest they have since long before Congress repealed the 55 mph national speed limit in November 1995. In Colorado, which has a speed limit of 75 mph, researchers observed one in four drivers going above 80 mph. In California, where the speed limit is 70 mph, one in five drivers was clocked at 80 mph.

The New Zealand government agency estimated the death rate for the 22 states that raised their speed limits on rural interstates in 1995 and 1996.

The 10 states that raised limits to 75 mph — all in the Midwest and West — experienced 38% more deaths per million miles driven than states with 65-mph limits, or approximately 780 more deaths.

The 12 states that raised their limits to 70 mph — including California, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri — saw a 35% increase, or 1,100 additional deaths.

Geographical differences in states may have contributed to the numbers. For example, the report said, drivers may go faster in Western states where cities are farther apart. The report didn't examine the effects of other trends, such as the increasing number of sport utility vehicles on the road then.

The Insurance Institute said there is no doubt, however, that when speed limits increase so do deaths. When the national speed limit of 55 mph was adopted 1974, fatality rates dropped, the Insurance Institute's chief scientist Allan Williams said.

The Insurance Institute's separate study of speeds in Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado and California also found that when rates are raised on rural interstates, speeding increased on urban interstates.

Average travel speeds on urban interstates in Atlanta, Boston and Washington were the same as or higher than on rural interstates near those cities, even though the speed limits on those urban interstates were 55 mph. In Atlanta, 78% of drivers on one urban interstate exceeded 70 mph, the report found.

[Dan Evans]

I would expect the insurance industry to be interested in nothing but the truth about safety -- not what their preconceived notions are. I remember a study that showed that accident rates increase if speed limits are reduced too much. The reason is that some drivers will be going at a more rational 70 mph while law-abiding drivers (the ones with a lot of points on their license) tend to stay around 55 or 60. And the difference in speeds is what kills

[q_an_a]

try to drive from west texas to dallas. the extra 15 miles per hour on an eight hour drive means you arrive rested and awake two hours faster. the same is true driving from dallas to houston. those couple of hours makes a big differnec in how tired people get and sleepy people are nearly as big a factor in death as drugs or alcohol.

[gridlock]

Either this study is unbelievably poorly done, or this article is unbelievably poorly written...

Or both...

[T.Smith]

Exactly when is the traffic light enough that you can actually exceed the feed limit?

Touche'! One should definitely stay away during high traffic periods (6:00 - 10:00a & 5:00 - 8:00p). But, most other times, it's smooth sailing. I would never, ever, consider taking an RV through the city. There will always bee too many cars in Atlanta for an RV to cruise easily through the city. My advice: drive through at night!

[FormerlyAnotherLurker]

Using whatever fits their hypothesis better?

[Wright is right!]

"Touche'! One should definitely stay away during high traffic periods (6:00 - 10:00a & 5:00 - 8:00p). But, most other times, it's smooth sailing. I would never, ever, consider taking an RV through the city. There will always bee too many cars in Atlanta for an RV to cruise easily through the city. My advice: drive through at night!"

Well, I cannot go thru town on I-75 at all, because of the narrow lanes and the fact that it's a cars-only deal. The lanes are only 10 feet wide, and the motorhome is 102 inches wide. That gives me a clearance of only 9 inches on either side. So I have to take the loop, with its standard 12-foot driving lanes. The restriction also puts all heavy trucks on the loop as well, so it's a very unpleasant trip around the city. The last trip to FL (from Nashville) I purposely added a stop in the FL panhandle so I could come back home thru Alabammer. I'll do ANYTHING to avoid Et-Lanta.

Michael

[shaggy eel]

and didn't see any kangaroos or straight roads. So how do they know anything about driving in America.

,,, in the mid-east South Island an introduced species of kangaroo, called the Palmer wallaby, is being shot in high numbers because they're classed as pests. They're much smaller than Aussie's larger breeds.

As for driving in America, I found it easy enough as long as I had an idea of where I was headed and when to take the correct exits on freeways.

[Redleg Duke]

YADA-YADA-YADA

[_Jim]

Countries around the world -

- Traffic deaths per 100,000 population in individual representations 1970 - 2002

www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/utility/p103.pdf

The US chart shows a decline until about 1990 at which point it's still decling but at a much smaller rate over the last ten years ...

[CARTOUCHE]

Let's see. Does a van load of illegal immigrants traveling at 65 mph killed in an interstate rollover in Iowa when the driver fell asleep at the wheel while on their way to Chicago count in this increase? Does the increasing number of vehicles on the road figure in? The correlation between increased speed and number of deaths is flawed. There are too many other factors not mentioned here as probables. Another case of statistics used to further someone's agenda so it reads to me. what a surprise.

[narby]

Something like 98% of fatalities take place in urban areas. So they could raise the speed limit to the moon on rural interstate highways and not affect much at all.

[shaggy eel]

,,, New Zealand's LTSAdraws on best practices from around the world in order to reduce road fatalities. Many aspects of their work equate to what's carried out by the DOT. An outward looking approach to solving this has meant comparing data from Sweden, England, the US, Australia and many other countries as a means of working out shortcuts and implementing initiatives to bring the road toll down. New Zealand has a total population of 4 million people.

[battousai]

"auto safety group funded by insurers."

No conflict of interest here... 'gee if all those people stopped getting speeding tickets what excuse can we use to bump up their insurance premiums!'

They should do a study on how many accidents people not travelling with the flow of traffic a responsible for, I'm sure it will be a lot more that people going over the speed limit.

[_Jim]

Countries around the world -

Traffic deaths per 1 billion vehicle kilometres in individual representations since 1970

www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/utility/p102.pdf

A steady decline is indicated for the US in this set of graphs too; the only country showing a slight uptrend in the last 6 years is Iceland.

[LittleJoe]

What is the New Zealand government doing a speed limit study in the USA for?

They have no credibility with their own citizens in New Zealand and hope to gain some by telling their people that the US depends an their fact finding skills.

Has anyone been able to verify their numbers and methods?

[Timesink]

The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.

Uh, were they wearing seat belts or not?

[shaggy eel]

Has anyone been able to verify their numbers and methods?

,,, it seems like you just did.

[_Jim]

From: http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/speed.htm


Speed Limit Rhetoric Plays Fast and Loose with Facts

by Michael Fumento

It's "a death sentence for a lot of Americans on the highways." That's how Joan Claybrook, president of the Naderite group Public Citizen, characterized the Senate voted to end the national speed limit for cars and let the states again choose their speeds.

The White House has joined the cry, as has Transportation Secretary Federico Pe¤a who estimates eliminating the national speed limit will cost an additional 5,000 lives a year. It does seem intuitive that higher speed limits means more deaths. After all, the faster the speed at which two objects collide, the harder the impact and the more things go snap, crackle, and pop. It's also true that the faster you're going when you hit the brakes, the longer it takes to stop.

The problem with applying these two physical laws and coming up with 4,000 more traffic deaths annually is that people are not simple crash dummies--though to look at the decline in SAT scores that may not be true for long.

For one thing, people forced to drive slowly may be less alert and aware than they would be at higher speeds. Speaking from experience, one drives with amazing alertness on the German autobahn when keeping up with most of the traffic at 100 miles an hour and yet regularly forced to move aside by cars blinking their headlights because they want to pass at 150.

Still, low-speed proponents claim they have figures to prove their case. They say, for example, that death rate on the nation's roads declined dramatically after the federal speed limit was imposed in 1974. Yes, but death rates have always been declining. In 1925, 35 Americans died per hundred million miles driven. By the first full year of the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit that was 3.45. Today it is less than two, even though the great majority of states have pushed their limits up to 65. There are many reasons for this decline, but mainly it's because cars and roads just keeping getting safer.

Only in 1991, THREE YEARS after states began pushing their limits back to 65, did the fatalities-per-miles driven rate inch up, only to fall again the next year. Preliminary data shows that 1994 will probably have fewer deaths per mile than any year in history.

National speed limit proponents also note that almost one-third of highway fatalities are "attributed to"speeding. But this means little. If a driver is rip-roaring drunk, swerves all over the highway, and then finally has an accident while doing 75, this gets categorized as "attributed to speeding." Reckless drivers and drunks tend to have accidents and to speed, so it all gets wrapped together. Finally there is an oft-cited study showing that after some states increased their limits from 55 to 65, accident deaths went up on those roads.

But another study commissioned by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety showed that looking statewide, states which increased their speed limits saw fatalities FALL by an average of 3.4 to 5.1 percent. The study author, economist Charles Lave of the University of California at Irvine, said part of the drop appeared to be from drivers switching away from back roads to safer freeways now that they could drive faster on them. Also highway patrols shifted resources away from pulling over safe but speeding drivers and towards catching unsafe drivers.

Lave also speculated that reducing "speed variance" might have made the highways safer. Speed variance means vehicles passing each other--the most likely time for a crash to occur on an interstate highway. By eliminating an artificially low speed limit and allowing drivers to drive closer to what feels natural, raising speed limits can reduce variance, thereby reducing passing and crashes and deaths.

Indeed, an earlier AAA report looking at a number of different studies confirmed "accident rates increase with increasing speed variance for all classes of roads." This is why it wasn't smart for the Senate bill to maintain the national speed limit for commercial trucks and buses, effectively ensuring they will go slower than cars. What's worst about the national speed limit's approach to saving lives is that it uses a shotgun approach, instead of dealing with specific problems. For example, drivers under the age of 20, for example, are involved in more than twice as many fatal accidents as those over 20. Such a disparity results in part from a system that makes getting a driver's license far easier than passing a high school final exam. Make driving a privilege instead of a right and watch traffic deaths plummet.

Finally, even were it conclusively proven that the national speed limits saves lives, it would not be the end of the matter. Why not just lower speed limits all the way down to 20? For that matter, why not mandate that we all drive armored cars?

Because all safety regulations involve tradeoffs. A speed limit is a tradeoff between allowing people and goods to get to their destinations quickly and the possibility of more accidents. Contrast this with seat-belt laws, which impose a real but tiny inconvenience and reap a tremendous award.

In any case, why congressmen from tiny Rhode Island are better able to make the speed-versus-time decision for huge states like Texas is beyond comprehension. Let's let the states set the speed limits where they think they belong and then focus on more useful laws the states can implement that will reduce the deaths on our nation's roads.

[dhs12345]

Energy, too.

[pctech]

There's only one word that describes this:

DUH!