Arizona Highway Cameras

[Lacrosse Boy]

Now this is VERY interesting: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

This is an obvious call to action. Something must be done. We need more laws, more money for enforcement and more citations written - Speed Kills!

Sounds like some here.

The NMA has long held that true highway safety can only be achieved by following sound engineering practices, not conjecture, and we wanted to find out what really happened in Montana. In this study we examined the 2 classifications of highway where the effects of no limits and full enforcement could be definitively compared. These Montana findings add weight to 70 plus years of consistent engineering findings to the same effect.

Hmm... sound engineering practices combined with no speed limits result in FEWER fatalities when there is no speed limit? Are you reading this Vince?

From an engineering perspective the evidence strongly suggests that some of these lives lost were a direct result of Montana’s politicians succumbing to unfounded conjecture. They passed a politically correct law at a time when the state’s fatal accidents were at a modern low and its roads were never safer. Why are they responsible, they simply ignored (US title 23, federal law) federal safety requirements that sound engineering standards and practices be followed – resulting in non–complying signs being posted, adoption of unsafe practices that are known to increase accident rates, which most certainly includes hazards remaining unmarked or with insufficient warning.

Interesting that you'd feel safer on the Arizona roads with strictly enforced speed limits. Perhaps it's because you're not in California anymore, coupled with a false sense of security?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personifies the traffic enforcement industry, because this industry is its primary constituent. In its role, it first created “Speed Kills”, next was “Road Rage” and then the “Aggressive Driving” slogans and supporting propaganda campaigns to scare the public into growing the enforcement industry (revenues, equipment, staffing). Its press releases as a matter of practice grossly misrepresent data (invent a crisis, then the need to intervene) – engineering findings never support its conclusions. At what cost? Fatality rates in 2000 increased again, sound engineering practices have been undermined, road blocks for checking your papers are now legal and common, vehicle confiscation for minor infractions now accepted practice, mothers are thrown into jail for not wearing seat belts – and a public gladly sacrificing its liberty to false safety idols.

Engineering findings are contradictory to propaganda? NO WAYYYYY. Inventing crises and putting in place more measures to reap more profit? The government wouldn't do that now, would they? Let's all just putter around at 55 MPH until this crisis fixes itself, right?



I strongly encourage you to read the rest of the article. Once again, what I (and others) have been saying here was correct all along. Of course, you may not want a slice of humble pie, but the fact still remains that through disobedience and noncompliance will we see any change in this bad law. I'm not saying floor it -- but I have no hesitation to drive "Reasonable and Prudent". I'm not a big speeder, but I always drive reasonable and prudent for the conditions, and haven't gotten a ticket for several years.



I'll leave you with this:


"MONTANA PARADOX: Is that the desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them."


What do you think of them apples?

[Chavez Ravine]

Now this is VERY interesting:
I'll leave you with this:


"MONTANA PARADOX: Is that the desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them."


What do you think of them apples?

How does montana law affect freeway solutions in a city or a highway that actually has cars on it.

I agree there should be speed limits in Montana...NO ONE IS THERE

But speed limits on freeways within a city provide safety since freeway conditions change quickly. Even highways moderately traveled should have some boundaries.

[refurbmike]

*looking for the discussion about highway cameras*

[Lacrosse Boy]

How does montana law affect freeway solutions in a city or a highway that actually has cars on it.

I agree there should be speed limits in Montana...NO ONE IS THERE

It backs up the findings of even more populated places, such as Germany. If closed-minds refused to consider Germany because it's on a different continent, perhaps they'd consider Montana because it is here. Apparently not. You don't like the findings of the studies, so then you resort to attacks? And yet you conveniently address the reason why fatalities DOUBLED from there being no day-time limit to there being a set limit?

But speed limits on freeways within a city provide safety since freeway conditions change quickly. Even highways moderately traveled should have some boundaries.

We're talking about freeways in general. Should speed "zones" be setup where there's turbulence? Perhaps... if it's within reason. I've been saying this all along. If there are limits in these stretches, they should be set to the speed that that majority feel comfortable driving along with the design of the road. Vince posted those standards earlier, but made a fatal flaw in realizing that engineers created those standards but those standards are not the ones that actually are used.

To say that the government sets a speed limit to simply increase revenue is foolish. There is a broader picture than the conspiracy world you live in.

I never said that this was simply to increase revenue, but given the amount of revenue that is now obtained off of faulty, misleading, and simply false basis, it makes it more difficult to turn around the bad laws which fly in the face of scientific reasoning and proven facts. Propagandists have created a culture in which those who question the their valued-beliefs apparently become conspiracy-theorists.

My conclusions in this issue are based off of a rejection of propaganda and examining all the facts of the matter. I opened my mind, eyes, and ears along with a good dash of my own experience, common sense, and propositional logic.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But no one has presented any data that traffic cameras and speed limits improve safety. Meanwhile, boatloads of data reject and debunk that position. But in rejecting and debunking that position, then those of us who believe in sound engineering, sound data, and "reasonable & prudent" driving under the conditions become law-breakers who are looking for excuses. Great argument, there. :rolleyes:

[WrongWay]

*looking for the discussion about highway cameras*

The politicians have agreed to delay the installation of the next phase of 100 additional cameras due to public anger.

[Tiggerlives]

that's cool I haven't followed this thread very closely, it is about traffic. It can only be so interesting.

It seems to have morphed into a discussion as to which laws are OK to break, and which ones should be followed.

Some think that if you disagree with a law- work to change it.

Others think change comes by the masses disobeying laws they simply don't agree with.

[Tiggerlives]

MONTANA PARADOX: Is that the desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them."


What do you think of them apples?

I think Montana has a highway system in place with most of the miles on FLAT and STRAIGHT surfaces. Which, I believe, I already said.

In Southern California, for instance, the highways curve A LOT- meaning that centrifugal forces are at play- causing natural slow downs around the curves- which if someone is going 75- 80 MPH can cause accidents when that driver has to slam on his/her breaks for the NATURAL curves in the roads.

[Chavez Ravine]

Driving in Downtown LA on the 101 there's a section that is 55 MPG because the lanes are twisty and narrow. They were built along time ago.

Several months ago while driving through there one night, I commented to my wife I could see why they kept the speed at 55, it was a tricky area.



In retrospect I realize that the popo were just trying to nail me with a speeding ticket.

[Lacrosse Boy]

Driving in Downtown LA on the 101 there's a section that is 55 MPG because the lanes are twisty and narrow. They were built along time ago.

Several months ago while driving through there one night, I commented to my wife I could see why they kept the speed at 55, it was a tricky area.

Yes - a speed zone. The German autobahn has those, too. I am not necessarily against limits within certain areas. Are you failing to realize that I've now stated the same thing repeatedly in this thread? In tricky areas, I don't necessarily mind them, though traffic engineering axioms state “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”

Still, I think that "Reasonable and Prudent" is still a good rule of thumb wherever you go. The limit is: REASONABLE AND PRUDENT. Traffic is self-regulating. Studies and data back me up. Why am I the only one who is doing actual research in this thread instead of posting hyperbole and inaccurate speculation?

What do you have to prove your case? What you told your wife?

In retrospect I realize that the popo were just trying to nail me with a speeding ticket.

Methinks you aren't reading the posts and just picking out one aspect. The "popo" should be looking for people that aren't driving reasonably and prudently.

Others think change comes by the masses disobeying laws they simply don't agree with.

Tell me how our nation was founded. Sitting down to talk to the King sure did a lot of good, didn't it?

Some think that if you disagree with a law- work to change it.

People commonly breaking a law that is widely disdained or ignored proves a law is ineffective to begin with. As has been stated, linked-to, and proven repeatedly, it is not a law that serves people if most people break it. Again, I have to present the fact that 85% of people did not comply with the law when the speed limit was 55. And most don't comply with the speed laws. The data doesn't support your conclusions - so this is the best counter-argument you can come up with?

Some use data, studies, logic, examples, and common sense to come to sound conclusions. Others don't.

[Mortimer]

L.B. you need to take a chill pill dude. Chavez was just stating something that happened to him first hand. Or are you just joking with the tone?