Government regulation saving lives

[BobK]

AUP,

Looking at your figures is very impressive. Unfortunately, your math was not done properly.

Using your figures...

Australia = 1 death per 100,000,000km
U.S = 1.51 deaths per 100,000,000mi

Seems to me that you simply multiply Australian deaths by the english to metric conversion factor of 1.61.

That gives a figure of 1.61 deaths for Australia.

Looks like it's still larger than the U.S.

edit...
Rounded the conversion factor to nearest two decimals for better comparison with two decimal U.S. deaths

 

[a_unique_person]

You are correct. I really should have written it down rather than trying to do it in my head.

However, the statement that deaths/mile driven is a better indicator than deaths/head population needs to be queried. If you follow the link to the database I found for Australian statistics, there is a very interesting fact. The rate of deaths for each speed is not linear. That is there are almost no deaths below 60km/h speed limit, then the rate drops, then it picks up again at high speed limits.

Since those going at 60km/h are not going far, they are probably just driving in their local area, it appears that the claim that deaths per mile is a good better indicator is wrong.

Number of fatalities *



Year
2003
25 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 UNLIMITED UNKNOWN
1 8 127 313 78 172 30 420 118 26 56


Data Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau
* Between 01JAN2003 and 31DEC2003.
The state(s) specified is/are All.
The crash type(s) specified is/are All.
The speed is set to All limits.
The age is set to ALL ages. The Gender is All sexes.
The Road User(s) is/are All.
The hour of day is from All times.
The day of week is from All days.

 

[shanek]

No, no need to shoot anyone.

It's not a question of need; it's a question of what is justified. And the ends can never justify the means.

It is much easier and safer if we all just stick to the limits posted.

And it's also much easier if those posted speed limits reflect the 85th percentile.

My wife and family are far more in danger from speeding motorists than the home invader.

If this is the case, then why, all across America, have the fatality rates and accidents-per-mile rates gone down after the speed limits were raised? And why did the fatality rate on Montana's rural interstates nd highways go down while there was no speed limit at all?

 

[shanek]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/index.cfm

Why are you comparing fatality rates from 1970 to 2002 and pretending that it's the speed limits that are to credit for that? Don't you think that innovations like automobile safety measures added over a 30-year time period at the very least might have something to do with it?

Not a measurement over the same period of time,

So not a measurement that takes into account the same factors like the one I mentioned above,

but still a rough indication that Australia has achieved a greater reduction,

No, it's a rough indication that you are using junk data. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[a_unique_person]

And it's also much easier if those posted speed limits reflect the 85th percentile.



If this is the case, then why, all across America, have the fatality rates and accidents-per-mile rates gone down after the speed limits were raised? And why did the fatality rate on Montana's rural interstates nd highways go down while there was no speed limit at all?

As I pointed out before, you have to go the speed everyone else is, or you will be harrassed. Even 60km/h is fatal.

Why don't you find out why the rate went down. One anecdote does not prove your case. All it does is show that speed limits are not the only factor in fatalities. I have never claimed they are. I have only claimed that they are a large factor, and linked lowering speed with reducing road toll.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why are you comparing fatality rates from 1970 to 2002 and pretending that it's the speed limits that are to credit for that? Don't you think that innovations like automobile safety measures added over a 30-year time period at the very least might have something to do with it?

I was first and foremost pointing out the huge reduction over one year, when speed limits were more rigidly enforced.

The extra years were to cater for the measurement you referred to, deaths/distance travelled.

So not a measurement that takes into account the same factors like the one I mentioned above,



No, it's a rough indication that you are using junk data. Garbage in, garbage out.

However, if you think about deaths/distance travelled has it's own problems.

 

[corplinx]

My god, if the government just outlawed travel by motor vehicle, think of how many lives would be saved!

 

[shanek]

Why don't you find out why the rate went down.

I did. They're in the links I posted. People simply drive more safely without speed limits.

One anecdote does not prove your case.

More of your dishonesty. Much of the linked material were actual studies, not anecdotes.

 

[Suddenly]

What "government regulation" is being referenced in this thread? The speed limits are pretty much simply criminal statutes where I come from, and if we are counting criminal statutes as "regulation" then why not discuss the murder statutes? They save lives as well.

This seems to be more about automated enforcement than regulation. The idea that if everyone drove slower the fatality rate would drop is one thing, but quite another is getting that to happen in the real word. We discussed this a little while back in the thread about the guy that flashed his lights to warn others about a speed trap.

Two obvious problems with aggressive enforcement is that it causes some speeding drivers to pay more attention to possible enforcement than the road, thus multiplying the danger. Second, it encourages speed differential, which is an obvious source of danger. Drivers that worry go under the limit, those that don't go well over it, and thus we have accidents. These effects are exaggerated when speedlimits are set lower than natural speed of traffic.

Now, if you use speed bump-type measures that (gulp) shanek mentions, that make all drivers slow down, as well as the 85 percentile concept that (gulp) shanek mentioned, both of these problems go away to the most extent, but less money is created by ticketing.

All speed traps tend to do (at least in the US) is create the sense that the cops are the bad guys. When the task is farmed out to private companies for the purpose of more efficient "enforcement" it just makes things worse as now there are two entities profiting from a particular method of law enforcement. Enough of that stuff and people start becoming libertarians, and nobody wants that...

Plus I have huge, huge problems with the state putting a private party in a position where it profits by accusing people of criminal behaviour. It is my understanding that in several US jurisdictions these kinds of tickets were nullified by a reviewing court. None of this keeps the state from buying their own cameras, of course, but I just wanted to throw that in there.

 

[Thanz]

There is a sensible way to enact a speed limit policy; but it's not a way that generates much in the way of revenues for the government, so good luck actually getting it implemented.

I am shocked that you would advocate this system - it requires so much more gov't intervention and spending. Systematic studies of all of these roads? Updated every 5 years? And then they want to make sure that every ticket is contested by putting in the "I was driving safe anyway" defence. Court costs would skyrocket.

Further, I think the idea of basing the speed limit on how fast people actually drive has some flaws. For example, school zones. You are required to drive slower not because the road conditions demand it, but because kids may dart out unexpectantly. Also, for residential main roads, speed limits help those who live on them actually get out of their driveways.

I think this proposal doesn't get implemented because it is needlessly complex and expensive - things that you usually complain about, especially with regards to gov't.

 

[shanek]

What "government regulation" is being referenced in this thread? The speed limits are pretty much simply criminal statutes where I come from, and if we are counting criminal statutes as "regulation" then why not discuss the murder statutes? They save lives as well.

That is an excellent point; it's also true that you can go whatever speed you want on private roads; speed limits only apply to government roads. (Of course, in most cases the government has given themselves a monopoly on roads...)

So no, they're not regulations. But they could be implemented a lot better than they are now.

 

[shanek]

I am shocked that you would advocate this system - it requires so much more gov't intervention and spending.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't require them to really do all that much more than they're doing right now.

Further, I think the idea of basing the speed limit on how fast people actually drive has some flaws. For example, school zones. You are required to drive slower not because the road conditions demand it, but because kids may dart out unexpectantly.

Um, what part of the phrase "for the prevailing conditions" escapes you? Or did you even bother to read the link?

Also, for residential main roads, speed limits help those who live on them actually get out of their driveways.

Something that, as I mentioned, speed ramps would do much more cheaply and effectively.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That is an excellent point; it's also true that you can go whatever speed you want on private roads; speed limits only apply to government roads. (Of course, in most cases the government has given themselves a monopoly on roads...)

So no, they're not regulations. But they could be implemented a lot better than they are now.

That's quite true. I agree with speed limits in residential areas and such, because that's a reasonable public safety issue. But I see so many areas where they make no sense whatsoever. Not a mile from where I sit there is a five mile stretch of road that is flat, straight, and with nothing but sagebrush on either side for a hundred yards. The city has set the speed limit through it is 35. I could come up with other examples if I had time.

Besides, I have noticed that on many roads, obeying the speed limit is the exception, not the rule. In cases like that, it would seem logical to closely examine the law.

 

[BTox]

Since those going at 60km/h are not going far, they are probably just driving in their local area, it appears that the claim that deaths per mile is a good better indicator is wrong.

Not following your logic here. Don't know about Australia, but around here, no one drives at a constant speed. For example, I drive 19 km each way to work every day. My speed is probably 40 kph for 4 km, 55 kph for 8 km and 75 kph for the remaining 7 km. When I drive the 160 km to visit my dad, I still drive a significant portion below 60 kph.

You have to look at deaths per miles because raw deaths being decreased can be simply due to less driving.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not following your logic here. Don't know about Australia, but around here, no one drives at a constant speed. For example, I drive 19 km each way to work every day. My speed is probably 40 kph for 4 km, 55 kph for 8 km and 75 kph for the remaining 7 km. When I drive the 160 km to visit my dad, I still drive a significant portion below 60 kph.

You have to look at deaths per miles because raw deaths being decreased can be simply due to less driving.

That should read 60 km/h speed zone. What it is indicating is that many deaths happen in the local, residential streets.

 

[BTox]

That should read 60 km/h speed zone. What it is indicating is that many deaths happen in the local, residential streets.

Again, it would be interesting to see how many total miles are driven in each one of those speed zones. I hazard a guess that a significant percentage is in that 60 km/h zone.

Are those really residential streets? Here the majority of residential streets are 40 kph limit.

 

[Thanz]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't require them to really do all that much more than they're doing right now.

Of course it does. It requires them to do a survey of the speed for each road classification every five years. Currently, speed limits are set at definite numbers, and generally those numbers do not change every five years, or even every ten years. This system requires a massive study every five years for speed limits. How is that an efficient use of money?

Next, you don't even address the court costs. By providing a "Yes, I was over the limit but I was still driving safely" defence, you invite every single speeding ticket to be challenged in court, and each case more difficult to determine on the merits.

Um, what part of the phrase "for the prevailing conditions" escapes you? Or did you even bother to read the link?

Have YOU read the link? It says nothing about schools or anything else - only road conditions. It relies on the good will of drivers. They want to let people go as fast as they want and then set the limit based on that. It makes little sense for some roads, especially otherwise main roads with schools on them. Without a school zone posted limit, the cars would not slow down for the school zone.

Something that, as I mentioned, speed ramps would do much more cheaply and effectively.

I disagree. For example, I live on what is designated a "minor arterial road". It is a residential street, but is a straight north-south street that is quite long, so it tends to be used as, well, a minor arterial road. The posted limit is 50 km/h, and the amount of traffic is generally steady. It doesn't make sense to put speed bumps or ramps on this road - it would slow down traffic too much. But, without the limit of 50, cars would routinely go 60-70 km/h, which would make it much more difficult to get out of the driveway and much more dangerous for the neighbourhood kids. A couple of km down the street is a school zone, with a limit of 40 km/h. If there were no posted limits, most people would drive the entire stretch at 60-70 km/h, which would lead to a limit under this system of about 65 or so. This limit is unsafe for the school and for the residents on the street.

There are simply other concerns regarding the setting of speed limits than how fast people want to go. And they are cheaper, as well.

 

[SlippyToad]

Um, everything BTox said. If you don't consider miles driven in your figures, all you've basically got is a bunch of meaningless numbers.

I've pointed out before how fatality rates plummeted in Montana when they completely did away with speed limits

It's taken me several days to come up with some stats, but I thought you should try actually looking at Montana's accident statistics before you say something like that. Your linked article clearly states that speed limits were unhooked from federal control in 1996. Oddly enough, in 1997 Montana's accident rates spiked, going from ~200 to 265. It's a small sample, and may not be totally significant, but it's one hell of a spike nonetheless, and it sustains from 1997 to present. Other states with much larger samples went down, or stayed the same, not varying significantly enough to determine if the change made any difference or not. Of course, anyone who's actually done some interstate driving can see that speed limits are generally lower as you go East (even if the drivers aren't actually slower).

In any case I thought a little factual information would shed some light on this debate. I will persist in maintaining my bizzare belief that driving slower is actually safer.

 

[shanek]

Of course it does. It requires them to do a survey of the speed for each road classification every five years.

I don't know about where you are, but in NC they're doing that anyway. In fact, they publish statistics on average speeds on an annual basis.

Currently, speed limits are set at definite numbers, and generally those numbers do not change every five years, or even every ten years.

Speed limits on many interstates and even rural highways and two-lane roads have changed about three times in the last five years here in NC. (And they're always lowered...)

This system requires a massive study every five years for speed limits.

Again, at least in NC they're doing that anyway. And I imagine NC is not alone in this.

Next, you don't even address the court costs. By providing a "Yes, I was over the limit but I was still driving safely" defence, you invite every single speeding ticket to be challenged in court, and each case more difficult to determine on the merits.

That wasn't the experience Montana had with it. It wouldn't be the money-making engine it is for the state, but it wouldn't be a drag on the system, either.

Have YOU read the link? It says nothing about schools or anything else - only road conditions.

That is just completely dishonest. It specifically says that roadside features (which include things like schools) should be considered.

It relies on the good will of drivers.

No; it's based on a realistic assessment of driving behavior.

I disagree. For example, I live on what is designated a "minor arterial road". It is a residential street, but is a straight north-south street that is quite long, so it tends to be used as, well, a minor arterial road. The posted limit is 50 km/h, and the amount of traffic is generally steady. It doesn't make sense to put speed bumps or ramps on this road - it would slow down traffic too much. But, without the limit of 50, cars would routinely go 60-70 km/h, which would make it much more difficult to get out of the driveway and much more dangerous for the neighbourhood kids.

First off, you should support your assertion that the traffic would go faster without speed limits.

Second, such conditions are among those that the proposal says should be considered.

Third, 50km/h is about 30mph. There are 30mph speed humps; I can tell you exactly where some of them are.

A couple of km down the street is a school zone, with a limit of 40 km/h. If there were no posted limits, most people would drive the entire stretch at 60-70 km/h, which would lead to a limit under this system of about 65 or so.

Again: 1) support your assertion, 2) the proposal would take this into effect, and 3) 40 km/h is about 25mph, and again I can take you to speed humps that regulate this speed.

 

[shanek]

Oddly enough, in 1997 Montana's accident rates spiked, going from ~200 to 265. It's a small sample, and may not be totally significant, but it's one hell of a spike nonetheless, and it sustains from 1997 to present. Other states with much larger samples went down, or stayed the same, not varying significantly enough to determine if the change made any difference or not.

The problem is, those statistics are total fatalities, not per vehicle mile traveled. The statistics linked to from motorists.org look at accidents and fatalities per mile.