More speeding enforcement? - today's WSJ

[Decolliber]

U.S. Auto-Safety Regulators
Plan Crackdown on Speeding

By KAREN LUNDEGAARD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 15, 2005; Page D6

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The U.S.'s top auto-safety regulator said the government intends to crack down on speeding, by using high-visibility enforcement, targeting the worst speeders and expanding the use of technology such as camera systems that automatically send tickets to violators.

Until now, excessive speed hasn't been a priority for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which instead has focused its efforts on issues like combating drunken driving, increasing seat-belt use and decreasing the number of rollover fatalities.

But several studies since the government abolished the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit in 1995 have concluded that higher speed limits have led to increased fatalities. One study said fatalities jumped 38% when speed limits were raised to 75 miles per hour from 65 mph and climbed 35% when raised to 70 mph from 65 mph.

The federal government's decision to take aim at speeding comes as the auto industry is promoting high horsepower and 0-to-60 mph acceleration with a vigor that recalls the muscle-car era of the late 1960s. General Motors Corp., for example, is touting a new line of Cadillac cars that can accelerate from 0-to-60 mph in less than five seconds. DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group is racking up profit and market-share gains on its heavily promoted "Hemi" V-8 engines. Ford Motor Co. plans to unveil a pumped-up version of its Mustang sport coupe at next week's New York Auto Show.

NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge outlined the new antispeeding strategies at a Lifesavers conference here for about 1,800 traffic-safety officials and advocates from around the country.

In an interview, Dr. Runge said his agency has been working for two years to develop a comprehensive strategy to help states combat speeding. His office teamed up with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to identify all aspects of the issue, from where speeding fatalities are occurring to how speed limits are set.

"It's really not a state highway patrol interstate problem," Dr. Runge said. "The problem is on local roads." Indeed, the fatality rate on local roads is more than three times the rate on interstates.

Programs to curb speeding are a tougher sell because so many people do it, Dr. Runge said.

Often, high-visibility enforcement programs, such as NHTSA's Click It or Ticket seat-belt program, come with federal dollars to pay local law enforcement overtime and spend money on advertising. But Dr. Runge said there aren't any additional federal dollars now. "There is plenty of money [already] out there for this," he said, referring to federal dollars state highway safety offices receive for their top highway safety problems.

Some of the measures Dr. Runge mentioned could encounter resistance. Just four states and Washington, D.C., allow speed cameras, which can be used on interstates or local roads, although other states are experimenting with them. Jim Champagne, Lousiana's top highway safety official and current chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said highway safety offices will need to "start talking with their legislatures."

Mr. Champagne has focused his yearlong chairmanship on the speeding issue. The former highway patrol officer said the key is getting law-enforcement officers to write more tickets. "You have to change it one person at a time," he said.

NHTSA's antispeed rhetoric was welcomed by safety advocates, who have long complained about the auto industry's speed-oriented marketing. "It's about time" NHTSA addressed the speed issue, said Judie Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington-based lobbying organization funded by the insurance industry.

[304065]

Once again it's the old "Speed kills" argument. As fallacious now as it was 50 years ago.

Irresponsible speed kills.

NHTSA should lobby for a nationwide ban on cell phone use while driving, handsfree or otherwise. More than a few studies have shown that a driver operating a phone has the reaction time of a person intoxicated above the legal limit.

Then again, I just did a 600 mile trip and didn't even listen to the radio.

[928ram]

Am I wrong to think that this:

One study said fatalities jumped 38% when speed limits were raised to 75 miles per hour from 65 mph and climbed 35% when raised to 70 mph from 65 mph.

And this:

"It's really not a state highway patrol interstate problem," Dr. Runge said. "The problem is on local roads." Indeed, the fatality rate on local roads is more than three times the rate on interstates.

Contradict each other?

[legion]

No, I think you're dead on 928ram.

I have long thought that state troopers actually driving the highways and looking for reckless drivers would do more good than radar traps. Then again, its much easier to park in a turnabout and point your arm out the window than to actively look for dangerous drivers.

I've noticed that here in Illinois, the turnabouts are placed in places where you can't see them until the last minute--like at the bottom of a hill or on a curve--not where it is most convienient for salt trucks to turn around.

[MikeWinDC]

Originally posted by john_cramer
Irresponsible speed kills.

NHTSA should lobby for a nationwide ban on cell phone use while driving, handsfree or otherwise. More than a few studies have shown that a driver operating a phone has the reaction time of a person intoxicated above the legal limit.

I agree on the irresponsible speed kills.

However, the same study showed that children contributed to as many accidents. So I am not sure one can blame the use of cellphones exclusively.

Anyone remember the Powell Motors Homer? Where the front and rear passengers are enclosed in seperate bubbles. Now there's an idea!

Seriously, I think we need to take a lesson from our European friends where diciplined, safe, responsible and polite driving allows safe speed.

[legion]

Originally posted by MikeWinDC
Seriously, I think we need to take a lesson from our European friends where diciplined, safe, responsible and polite driving allows safe speed.

I agree 100%.

I think we should remove speed limits on rural stretches of interstates (like between Bloomington and Joliet on I-55), create stricter licensing requirements (including real driver training), and take peoples' licences away if they break the rules.

I drive in the right lane and pass in the left. I don't tailgate. In my pickup truck I try to maintain at least six car-lengths between me and the car in front and don't pass anyone going any faster than 85. (I'm not comfortable with the feeling of the recirculating ball steering above that.) I usually cruise at 70-75. Inevitably every trip, I will be passing a semi and someone will come up on me going 95+, and ride my tail until I'm past the semi.

[MikeWinDC]

I do the same in the Jeep. The V-8 can power it down the road much faster than the handling allows, so unlike many, I allow myself the extra space a 5Klb car requires. After driving a 911 for a while, one starts to realize how absolutely unstable even regular cars (let alone Trucks/Utes) are at high speeds. Especially when compared to a car that is designed for high speed travel.

[legion]

Originally posted by MikeWinDC
After driving a 911 for a while, one starts to realize how absolutely unstable even regular cars (let alone Trucks/Utes) are at high speeds.

I couldn't agree more!

When I was 17 I used to think my Plymouth Turismo had sports-car-like handling...until I actually drove a sports car. I think a lot of people suffer from the same delusion.

[84porsche]

I know you guys are all right and I agree with most of your statements especially irresponsible speed kills. If it were me I would first make the roads easier for stick-shift drivers (allow them access to the car-pool lane) - why should we have to sit in traffic behind some ***** that can't keep at least one hand on the wheel if not both. Cell phones in cars are the problem and they should be targeted through new integration systems or headsets. The federal government/state government if they want to reduce fatalties and cleaning up expenses so to put it should offer headsets to the public for free to encourage talking safely and put up cell signal killers on freeway interchanges and merging so people concentrate on the road instead of talking on the phone. Back to speeding, target the weavers but don't target the guy in the Porsche going 80 mph because he is going 80 mph and driving a Porsche. Just my .02.

[Superman]

Studies have shown that headsets do little to make cellphones safer. Apparently, the problem is not with our hands. It is with our CPU's.

Unfortunately, most motor vehicle operators in my country are grossly underqualified. So we have a special system of rules. Most are okay to ignore. It's okay to cruise in the passing lane and it's okay to pass on the right. No need to use mirrors, or even have them pointed in a useful direction. Just keep your speed at 60, that's the rule.

Whereas in countries where proficiency is a requirement to operate a motor vehicle, speed limits are not the major consideration and in some places just do not exist. But traffic must keep right except to pass, no passing on the right, use turn signals, etc.

[cegerer]

The problem is that there is no difference to these people between the idiots I described in my post yesterday doing +100MPH weaving thru traffic in clapped out cars and me - driving at 90MPH in light traffic with strict lane discipline in an M3 that can brake, handle and accelerate better than most other cars doing 50MPH. We both get the same ticket.

[350HP930]

Increased enforcement = cha ching for the states and insurance industry.

[84porsche]

Originally posted by cegerer
The problem is that there is no difference to these people between the idiots I described in my post yesterday doing +100MPH weaving thru traffic in clapped out cars and me - driving at 90MPH in light traffic with strict lane discipline in an M3 that can brake, handle and accelerate better than most other cars doing 50MPH. We both get the same ticket.

While their is no difference in the law, the major difference is reckless driving and driving safe for road conditions. My brother got pulled over doing 90+ in his BMW merging over but was let go because he was moving over into traffic going 85 mph. I am sure he knew was going that fast but he did what was necessary in order to avoid an accident. While I have not driven or driven in an M3, I have seen the BMW safety videos and intorductory videos and that is one safe and sweet car (crash tests also incredible).

[MikeWinDC]

Originally posted by legion
When I was 17 I used to think my Plymouth Turismo had sports-car-like handling...until I actually drove a sports car.

Too funny, I used to think my 83 Accord handled like it was on rails. I think it has to do with being young and stupid.

Agreed on the further points, the crux of the problem is with the drivers skill (or lack thereof) and not with specific distractions, although they don't help the case.

I whole heartedly agree that the police should stick to cutting down on bad/agressive driving and not pay attention to speed just b/c it is speed. As was already pointed out it is easier to do and prove in court, just sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun. And tickets = $$$, but (not meant to be offensive to anyone in law enforcement) last I checked the Police are paid by the people to protect and serve them, not the state as second tier tax collectors. Which brings up a whole other discussion, and well, I won't go there.

[Adam]

You guys had better fight it - or you'll end up like my end of the world: a camera on every streetlight and a ticket generated automatically for as little as 1.5mph over the limit.

Our government also uses the term "Speed Kills", when really it's a smokescreen for outrageous revenue-raising. My state has a population of around 6.5 million, so the govt. budgets for almost $400m/year in speed camera revenue... yet not one cent seems to be spent on better quality roads or even driver education! Our road safety campaigns for children have completely stopped and speed limits in school zones are enforced without mercy. I have no issue with school zones, but if they were still teaching kids how to cross the road (like when I was at school), half the problem wouldn't exist.

So, the government runs a series of unecessarily graphic (and patronizing) "reality" TV ads, in an effort to justify their Gestapo tactics.

Fight it, guys. It's a friggin' police-state.

[kaisen]

....and I thought Mad Max was indicative of law enforcement in Australia.

[rotorhead]

If the states actually believed the rhetoric "Speed Kills" then they would rate vehicles maximum speeds based on their stopping distances and handling ability, then enforce it by category SUV, Bus, Truck, Passenger vehicle or sports car.

Here are some quotes from the National Motorist Association:

"In the early 1920's, our highway accident fatality rate was estimated at 25 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. If that rate prevailed today, we would experience 700,000 motor vehicle fatalities a year! Tell me we haven't made dramatic improvements on the highway safety front! Nevertheless, the self-appointed safety establishment persists in using fluctuations in annual fatalities to support their contentions. If the fatalities go up, it's because motorists aren't heeding their advice. If the fatalities go down, it's because their latest campaign was such a great success. In reality, most "safety campaigns" have little material impact on the rise or fall in fatalities."

another quote

"Speed limits have virtually no influence on regulating general traffic speeds. The only legitimate function of speed limits is to delineate at what point reasonably competent drivers exceed the safe speed for a given roadway."

and that safe speed is as dependant on the type and class of vehicle as the conditions of the road.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

What a crock of schite. Translation: "the Administration needs to throw a bone to local governments which are hurting badly right now, so we're going to help them bleed more money from the middle class". Typical of this administration. No suprise at all. They'll claim to "lower taxes" but increase fees, surcharges and crap like this so that the average person ends up paying twice as much in the long run.

[cstreit]

Statistical baloney.

This particular stat has been thrown around for years. However one advocacy group actually dug into these numbers.

Turns out the majority of these "increased" fatalities were on roads that had speed limits of LESS THAN 45MPH! In other words, yeah, the deaths got higher, but NOT ON THE HIGHWAYS!

[john70t]

Notice there's no mention of the types of vehicles involved and traffic/zoning areas. good eye 928