What's the Hurry?

Posted By mrhawk on 11/20/2007 6:01 AM
- Are there intersections in which traffic needs to enter the road from a stand-still?

- Are there pedestrians on or immediately adjacent to the road?

- Condition of the road/type of road (visibility, width, curves, divided w/ median, etc)

- Other special requirements? For example, many large/slow trucks entering and leaving?

They say things like "speed limits are overly conservative" but don't consider all of the factors above.

They ignore the fact the road is mixed-use. They ignore the fact that intersections must be de-queued safely, and entering drivers need to understand the behavior/speed of oncoming traffic.

They may say "Auto performance has generally improved, but speed limits haven't changed", ignoring the fact that cement trucks, flat-beds, semis, and other vehicles share the road.

They like to divert attention away from the main point with comment like: "What? You drive 1 mph over the speed limit? Then you have no room to talk! And OMG! - you have never calibrated your speedometer? How do you know you aren't actually driving 145 mph every day?" Please.

One of the most often used excuses is "speed's not the problem - it's traffic lights!"

As I said, self-centered, forgetting the road is shared and people in intersections have a right to enter.

True, intersections are dangerous since you have cross-traffic and people getting up to speed, all the more reason to not speed.

All of this doesn't even consider the most basic reason not to speed - it reduces your time to react to other drivers or unforeseen circumstances.

My wife has been hit twice on 347 (rear-ended and a sort-of read-end/side-swipe). In both cases, speed was a contributing factor. I guarantee in both cases the drivers thought they were in control, and likely were merely going the speed they were used to.

As you can see I have come up with intelligent rebuttals to all of those criticisms.

Once again I'll ask: Why 65? Why not 55 or 45?

You missed the point. Sinbad suggested that 66 MPH was speeding and that he absolutely does not speed. I countered his self-righteousness with the entirely likely case that his speedometer is not perfectly calibrated. Beyond that, I had one car that was 5 MPH off, so you're telling me that it is OK for everyone to lambaste people "speeding" while they themselves may be speeding too?

Posted By Jason on 11/15/2007 1:06 PM



347 probably won't be high on the list.

Do they expect to catch many people? They're putting up signs and we're talking about wide open stretches, so you're going to have plenty of warning to slow down. They'll probably catch the most dangerous: those on cell phones, reading, texting and otherwise too distracted to even be going 65. And that's the concern: they're not doing anything but catching speeders. Heck, they're not even going to go after those going excessively fast, so there is no immediate effect.

We need real cops that can go after those going too fast, or are too distracted or driving aggressively, etc.

Once again I'll ask: Why 65? Why not 55 or 45?

You missed the point. Sinbad suggested that 66 MPH was speeding and that he absolutely does not speed. I countered his self-righteousness with the entirely likely case that his speedometer is not perfectly calibrated. Beyond that, I had one car that was 5 MPH off, so you're telling me that it is OK for everyone to lambaste people "speeding" while they themselves may be speeding too?

Posted By Jason on 11/15/2007 1:06 PM



347 probably won't be high on the list.

Do they expect to catch many people? They're putting up signs and we're talking about wide open stretches, so you're going to have plenty of warning to slow down. They'll probably catch the most dangerous: those on cell phones, reading, texting and otherwise too distracted to even be going 65. And that's the concern: they're not doing anything but catching speeders. Heck, they're not even going to go after those going excessively fast, so there is no immediate effect.

We need real cops that can go after those going too fast, or are too distracted or driving aggressively, etc.

347 probably won't be high on the list.

And that's the concern: they're not doing anything but catching speeders. Heck, they're not even going to go after those going excessively fast, so there is no immediate effect.

Posted By mrhawk on 11/20/2007 12:14 PM
1) 347 is not designed like I-10. I-10 has wider shoulders, slightly wider lanes, on-ramps and off-ramps, no intersections, no traffic lights.

2) I see you are putting words in my mouth in asserting that I'd like all of 347 to be the same speed because of a few intersections. Another diversion technique...next.

3) Requiring trucks to stay in the right lane is an excellent idea - for a freeway. 347 is not a freeway. Thus, you have trucks needing to get in the left lane to make turns.

Given the volume of traffic, they may have to do this a mile or more in advance. Again, we must be considerate of these requirements.

4) I'm tired of references to "statistics show". What statistics are you referring to? Can you supply a link?

By 'highway speed' are you refering to typical highway speeds, or the speed limit of the road where that particular accident occurred? How are these statistics skewed?

What about statistics relating to fatalities? Now *that* would be an interesting statistic.

5) You ask why not 55? or 45? I'm not disputing that speed limit is an arbitrary limit, but it's based on the factors I previously outlined. A speed limit is necessary to insure predictability and improve safety. You design to a goal, and an unfortunate fact of life is there will be accidents. So that goal must be pragmatic, considering all factors. For example, perhaps a 75 mph speed limit is modeled to have a 99.95% safety record, while 65 is 99.99%, and 55 is 99.999%. While I'm making those numbers up, this is the consideration that is made.

6) Finally, you ask about whether I'd want my wife hit at the speed limit. This reminds me of tactics seen in high school debate.

So, as you can see, the 'intelligent rebuttals' have a few holes in them.

Anyway, after 2000 posts, and based on other threads, it's obvious there is no changing the responder's mind, and no chance of a thread ever ending so long as valid points are brought up.