Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 23, 2009 7:01 am) That's where the main opposition of photo radar comes from. Believe it. All the rest of those arguments are just a smoke screen. If I were putting a realistic percentage on the reasons for the opposition, I would put it here: Desire to speed unimpeded: 85% Completely unjustified "Big Brother-ish" paranoia: 10% Other: 5%
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 7:41 am) However, I cannot believe your numbers or opinion since it is not supported by any objective or subjective measure that I can analyze. Further, I cannot see how your percentages further any debate or support any opinions in this forum, unless you back them up with some link or data that can be verified, analyzed or discussed. Having said that, I will say that your point of view adds to this forum, since it allows for further debate of both sides of the issue, and therefore is valuable. Just to further the debate, in a friendly manner here is a link about speeds and their roles in crashes and highway safety: from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause US Department of Transportation study finds only five percent of crashes caused by excessive speed. As lawmakers around the country continue to consider speed limit enforcement as the primary traffic safety measure, the most comprehensive examination of accident causation in thirty years suggests this focus on speed may be misplaced. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated 5,471 injury crashes that took place across the country between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007. Unlike previous studies automatically generated from computerized data found in police reports, researchers in this effort were dispatched to accident scenes before they were cleared. This allowed a first-hand comparison of physical evidence with direct interviews of witnesses and others involved in the incident. NHTSA evaluated the data to determine the factors most responsible for the collision. "The critical reason is determined by a thorough evaluation of all the potential problems related to errors attributable to the driver, the condition of the vehicle, failure of vehicle systems, adverse environmental conditions, and roadway design," the report explained. "The critical pre-crash event refers to the action or the event that puts a vehicle on the course that makes the collision unavoidable, given reasonable driving skills and vehicle handling of the driver." Overall, vehicles "traveling too fast for conditions" accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events (page 23). More significant factors included 22 percent driving off the edge of a road, or 11 percent who drifted over the center dividing line. When driver error was the primary cause of a crash, researchers went further to identify the "critical reason" behind that error. Distraction and not paying attention to the road accounted for 41 percent of the errors. Ten percent of errors were attributed to drivers lacking proper driving skills and either freezing up or overcompensating behind the wheel. Eight percent were asleep, having a heart attack or otherwise incapacitated. A similar eight percent of errors were attributed to driving too fast for conditions and five percent driving too fast for a curve (page 25). The NHTSA findings are mirrored in accident statistics provided by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The agency's most recent report lists "speed too fast" as the driver error that caused 2.9 percent of crashes in 2007 (view chart, see page 19). More accidents -- 3.8 percent -- were caused in Virginia by drivers falling asleep or becoming ill behind the wheel. Another 14.6 percent were caused by bad weather such as fog, rain and snow. "Speed too fast" was a more significant factor -- 13.7 percent -- in fatal accidents, as compared to 18 percent of fatal accidents involving alcohol and 9.6 percent caused by sleepiness and fatigue ( view full Virginia report in 1.9mb PDF format). In the NHTSA and Virginia reports, "too fast for conditions" does not mean exceeding the posted speed limit. A vehicle driving 10 MPH on an iced-over road with a 45 MPH limit would be traveling too fast for the conditions if it lost control, but it would not have exceeded the speed limit. The UK Department for Transport isolated cases where only the posted limit was exceeded and found that, "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents" (view UK report). "Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction," the Road Casualties Great Britain 2007 report stated. "For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents." A full copy of the NHTSA report is available in a 400k PDF file at the source link below. Source: National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (U.S. Department of Transportation, 7/15/2008)
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 23, 2009 7:49 am) Let's not get into a "If you don't have a web page to PROVE what you are saying is true, then I refuse to believe you" game, OK? I have been following photo radar issues for a few years now. A lot of what I KNOW is learned from a lot of inputs over those years. I'm not going to spend all my time tracking down websites to prove anything to anyone here. I know what I know and I know it because I have learned it. I don't have to post a website to show what I know or that I know how to use Google. Google "posting battles" could consume a forum and end up proving nothing. My percentages reflect the reality of the opposition. Believe it or disbelieve it at your choice. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 8:02 am)  Please be very clear I do not regard any debate here at Edmund's as a game. I merely like to support my views with any information I can find so that any reader can think for themselves on the evidence upon which I am basing my opinion, that's all. If you chose not to provide any information that can support your view, that is your right not to do so. However, I can then safely and logically assume that such supporting data do not exist unless I can verify is suitably for myself. If I can accept your right to keep your views, as I always have, I hope that you can find it in yourself to accept my position as well.
|
|
|
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp Study: Higher Interstate Speed Limits are Safe Purdue University study concludes raising the interstate speed limit in Indiana had no negative safety consequence. Purdue University this week released results of a study showing that there was no change in the number of accidents after Indiana increased the maximum freeway speed limit to 70 MPH on July 1, 2005. Civil engineering Professor Fred Mannering led the team that looked at accident data from one year before this change -- when the top legal speed was 65 MPH in rural areas -- for comparison with accident rates a year later. "Everybody expects that when you increase the speed limit, injuries and the severity of injuries are going to increase, but that hasn't happened on the interstate highway system in Indiana," lead researcher Fred Mannering said in a statement. Mannering's study noted that expert opinion is divided on this controversial subject. For example, a 1999 report sponsored by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claimed increased limits resulted in higher accident rates. The insurance industry depends on speeding tickets to provide surcharge revenue. Other independent studies, including a 1994 review of the effect of the change from the national 55 limit to 65 on rural roads, have arrived at a contrary conclusion that the higher limit, in fact, saved lives. Mannering used a statistical model to calculate accident probabilities based on his own examination of data from 390,000 accidents recorded by the Indiana Vehicle Crash Record System. After applying the model, he concluded that the increased speed limit had no effect on the probability of suffering an accident nor did it increase the severity of accidents that did occur. In 2006, only 5.78 percent of the state's accidents were caused by unsafe speed, a decrease from 2004. The study also noted that a 15 MPH increase in the speed limit did not produce a 15 MPH increase in the actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds increased only 12 MPH. The report suggested that speed limit changes may have had a negative impact on some non-interstate rural roads and that future changes for secondary roads should be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis." An earlier version of the paper presented before the Transportation Research Board is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below. The report will also appear in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record. Source: Analysis of the Effect of Speed Limit Increases on Accident-Injury Severities (Purdue University, 6/23/2008)
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 23, 2009 8:06 am) Well, that assumption which you would make would be incorrect. Like I said : If I WANTED to turn this into a Google "posting battle" I could do so. And it would prove nothing except that Edmunds has a lot of storage space. You will learn the truth if you keep looking for it. The truth will align you with me. Opposition to photo radar is mostly about speeders wanting to speed unimpeded. That's the truth.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 23, 2009 8:17 am) No matter how fast they are set to, speeders are still going to oppose photo radar. If Obama came out today and set all USA highway speed limits to 85 MPH , you think any of the police organizations would say, "OH, OK, now that people can drive 85, we can remove our photo radar gear because we can stop doing speed enforcement!!" ?????????????????????? Nope. Higher speed lmits will not affect photo radar installations at all.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 8:31 am) |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 8:24 am) I would continue to debate about the issue and not personalities. The post about speed limits only serves to highlight the point that "safe and prudent" speed limits are what is important, not just blind adherence to one speed limit enforced by one mechanism that must be obeyed unquestioningly. I want a police officer to give a ticket to the dingbat driving at 65 mph in a snow storm just because the limit is 65, ABSOLUTELY. This is thus one more point that speed limits are part of police work, and should be done by the police. Your desire for "alignment" is respected, but not reciprocated unfortunately. It just reminds me of the old story about three blind men asked to feel an elephant and describe what the "truth" about what an elephant looks like. I regard myself as one of those blind men and not a know-it-all human being. I shall of course exercise my right to continue evaluating new evidence as it presents itself in this forum and elsewhere, so that any opinion I may form is updated based on evidence. |
|
|
vcheng says ,"not just blind adherence to one speed limit enforced by one mechanism that must be obeyed unquestioningly. " There is no such thing as "blind adherence" to speed limits. If you want them raised, then get politically active and get them changed. But until they are changed to YOUR PERSONAL LIKING, they MUST BE OBEYED regardless of whether or not YOU think they are too low.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
