Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

What is the New Zealand government doing a speed limit study in the USA for?
1 posted on 11/24/2003 1:11:14 PM PST by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: SLB
In Atlanta, 78% of drivers on one urban interstate exceeded 70 mph, the report found.

It's the other 22% getting in our way that causes the accidents. If you don't do at least 75 mph on I85 through Atlanta, you're going to get run over. That's one of the things I love about this town.

31 posted on 11/24/2003 1:36:29 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
never believe stats generated by a statistician with a point to prove, or money to be made....
32 posted on 11/24/2003 1:36:45 PM PST by Capt.YankeeMike (get outta my pocket, outta my car, and outta the schools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
In Atlanta, 78% of drivers on one urban interstate exceeded 70 mph, the report found.

Yea, right. Show me where any major highway around atlanta gets over 15 mph during rush hour.

33 posted on 11/24/2003 1:40:08 PM PST by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
The reason for this type of study being promoted by the IIHS is very simple:

The IIHS likes speed limits set artificially (ie below the 85th percentile speed) low so that as many people as possible will be ticketed for speeding. Drivers with speeding tickets can be charged higher insurance premiums.

Anyone who thinks the IIHS really cares about the safety of drivers is sadly deluded. They exist to promote the interests of the insurance industry, and the insurance industry's interest is making money, nothing else. Higher or lower overall traffic accidents just mean that the market will settle at higher or lower rates, respectively, in the long term.
37 posted on 11/24/2003 1:46:24 PM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
bump
38 posted on 11/24/2003 1:48:23 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
Speed does not kill. It is the interaction between a moving object at one vector (velocity in a given direction) and another object of whatever different vector that intersects its path, and the sudden dislocations that occur.
39 posted on 11/24/2003 1:48:52 PM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

Or both...
43 posted on 11/24/2003 2:13:11 PM PST by gridlock (Just think how many people would be saved if the speed limit were 25 mph on interstates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
YADA-YADA-YADA
48 posted on 11/24/2003 2:37:37 PM PST by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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 ...

49 posted on 11/24/2003 2:42:48 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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.
50 posted on 11/24/2003 2:44:10 PM PST by CARTOUCHE (The pen is mightier than the sword and so much easier to conceal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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.
51 posted on 11/24/2003 2:45:35 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
,,, 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.
52 posted on 11/24/2003 2:45:49 PM PST by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
"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.
53 posted on 11/24/2003 2:46:45 PM PST by battousai (Coming Soon to an election near you: Pasty White Hillary and the Nine Dwarves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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.

54 posted on 11/24/2003 2:49:39 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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?
55 posted on 11/24/2003 2:50:09 PM PST by LittleJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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?

56 posted on 11/24/2003 2:52:21 PM PST by Timesink (I'm not a big fan of electronic stuff, you know? Beeps ... beeps freak me out. They're bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
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.
58 posted on 11/24/2003 2:56:12 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
There's only one word that describes this:

DUH!

60 posted on 11/24/2003 2:58:59 PM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
Has anyone said DUH???
65 posted on 11/24/2003 3:12:41 PM PST by Poser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SLB
Please save us from the 'protect us at any cost people. Duh, living is dangerous and we are going to die, just a matter of when and how.
72 posted on 11/24/2003 3:29:51 PM PST by vladog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson