Speed Limit
A nation of finger pointers…
In writing this blog, I learn things about people and life in general that I might not have had I sat blissfully ensconced in my own world behind this monitor. I find I think about things a lot more if I have to write about them.
Some of the conclusions I end up with sometimes catch me off guard. Like I realized today that we are, by and large, a nation of hypocritical finger pointers. Conflicted blame shifters. Flip-flopping fault finders. Myself included. Well I’m a conflicted finger pointer, dunno about the rest 
Let me explain. I came across an article today about Americas opinions about texting and driving:
Ninety-one percent of Americans believe sending text messages while driving is as dangerous as driving after having a couple of drinks, but 57 percent admit to doing it, a poll released Tuesday said. – [Reuters]
Now my math is not exactly known for it’s infallibility, but by my calculations, that would mean that at least 48 percent of the population are texting while driving, all the while advocating that it should be banned. 48 percent. Forty-Eight.
Now doesn’t that seem strange to you? That almost half the population of the United States of America is engaged in a practice they believe should be illegal? And this occurs while completely sober? Here’s another example. I recently came across a message board where some unfortunate sap got caught for speeding in the wee hours of the morning on an open stretch of deserted road.
He came to the board asking for legal advice. He got his advice, but not before enduring some scathing remarks about breaking the law by a few other folks on the board and, apparently, an active law enforcement officer. To his credit, he tried to explain that he attempted to pick the safest optimal conditions for his “speed run” however one particularly vigorous poster immediately flamed him to death for “breaking the law”.
Now I ask you: how many of those people do you think have never broken a law before? How many have gone just that little bit over the speed limit because they were late? Hogged the passing lane doing 5mph under the speed limit, while a line of increasingly irate drivers grew behind them? Had a cellphone conversation while driving? Took a pen home from work? Put on makeup/did their hair on the road? Ate lunch on the road? With a burger in one hand, a shake in the other, and a knee on the steering wheel?
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Nobody is perfect, but everyone insists they are better than everyone else. Everyone likes to be able to point a finger at another and say “He/She broke the law! That Idiot! That imbecile!”. The guy who decided to speed in the safest environment he could think of, (and actually consciously thought about it before doing so) gets flamed, while people are talking on cellphones and texting in the middle of traffic on a busy highway (without a second thought for safety) is somehow culturally more acceptable?
Whose actions are more irresponsible? Do you think the law adequately addresses the more dangerous action? My opinion: (like I have to actually say it) No! The law isn’t perfect. You should see some of the silly laws that have passed (some are still on the books!). And more to the point, people aren’t perfect. The fact that I can effortlessly find enough ludicrous stuff to talk about here, on a daily basis, is testament to that.
We all want compassion, mercy, and tolerance and yet we are so reluctant to show anyone else the same. We blame everything for our problems, TV, video games, guns, sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, frequently each other. But never ourselves. We are so quick to point a finger at everything/everyone else. But we always ignore the three pointing back at us. We suck. Big time. Epic Fail. I wish there was a reset button on this game…
Nine in 10 Americans say ban texting while driving – [Reuters]
EU Debates 101Mph Speed limit…
The European Union is considering imposing a 101Mph speed limit on all European manufactured cars in an attempt to reduce emissions and increase efficiency:
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat Member of European Parliament (MEP) has tabled a set of proposals to the EU Environment Committee that include harsh cuts to CO2 emissions, and a top speed limit of 162km/h for Euro-approved cars.
Mr Davies said: “Cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel efficient and produce too many emissions. At a time when Europe is worried about its energy security it is sheer lunacy to approve the sale of gas guzzling cars designed to travel at dangerous speeds that the law does not permit.” – [GizMag]
Notwithstanding my admitted love of high horsepower engines and breakneck speeds, legislation like these generally seem to me to be the knee-jerk reaction of ignorant and narrow minded thinkers. The relationship between an engines efficiency and a cars top speed is never that simple. The same is doubly so for emissions. It is possible to make highly efficient high speed vehicles, as it is to make low emission, high horsepower engines. It’s all about the technology. Better solutions are found by fostering an environment of innovation, not prohibition.
Capping off arbitrary characteristics like top speed is meaningless, because you can have low speed vehicles that are still inefficient and produce high emissions. They might as well outlaw SUVs in Europe. I’m all about saving the environment, but lets hope people don’t cross the line into prohibition while they’re at it. Just a little bit of objective, scientific thought would go a long way here…
If they are worried about emissions and efficiency, they should just specify what they consider to be an acceptable emissions goal and efficiency rating, and let the manufacturers worry about it. That’s their job. They want to sell cars people like and they are pretty good at it. And I guarantee you they will come up with the technology to deliver that, and high horsepower, all at the same time. That’s how they make their money. And that, my friends, is how innovation works.
Got a lead foot? Make them raise the speed limit!!
I ran into another interesting speeding related article. A New Hampshire man has apparently decided that the best way to beat his speeding tickets is to have the state raise all the speed limits:
Rather than slow down, Lemay is suing the state Department of Transportation to study traffic and speed limits across New Hampshire, to see whether limits could be raised. Lemay’s lawsuit, filed in Strafford County Superior Court, also asks a judge to order the Transportation Department to pay for his legal fees and the cost of the study, an estimated $1,853. – [Yahoo/AP]
Well one thing you can’t say about this guy is he hasn’t got cohones of adamantium. His argument is that many states tend to implement lower speed limits than necessary in order to pad their revenue from speeding tickets. The article also stated that he also believes that higher speed limits would lead to safer driving.
Dave Hilts, the states assistant attorney general made this general rebuttal:
“Common sense will tell you that going too slow is only a hazard when other people are going much faster,” said Hilts. – [Yahoo/AP]
Hilts is mostly correct, though it does not necessarily follow that a person driving slowly on a highway is incapable of getting into an accident. However I do think that Lemays assertion about safer driving automatically resulting from higher limits is somewhat flawed. Ironically many legislators use the same flawed logic to promote lower speed limits, which is equally wrong. The biggest problem, as Hilts statement subtly suggests, lies in differences in speed, not overall faster or slower speed. It is sudden changes in speed that are dangerous. It is true that accidents that occur at higher speed are more devastating, and harder to avoid, but these are generally the result of driver error, equipment or environmental factors out of the control of the driver, and not necessarily a direct result of speeding.
Lemay, however, does make a lot of other good points. The most salient of which is that many speed limits in the US are generally too low. And I would tend to agree. As I understand it, the speed limit on any given road is determined via a “survey”. In other words, a survey is done to see how fast everyday drivers travel over a given stretch of road, and then the 85th percentile rule is applied. I.E. the limit is set to the speed at which at least 85% of those surveyed on that road drive.
This should in theory, provide a publicly safe, acceptable and enforceable speed limit, as it is generally accepted that the majority of drivers are smart enough to take into account road condition and environmental factors and will not drive beyond what they consider safe for those conditions. However in practice there is a pretty major flaw in the logic of this survey. If you follow this methodology, your results will have an inherent bias because of one, rather compelling, environmental factor. The existing speed limit.
Because all of these surveys are done on public roads where the drivers are required to obey the existing speed limit, many will not be traveling at the maximum speed that they feel safe driving for fear of being ticketed. As a result your 85th percentile speed will be artificially lowered by the existing limit, when it should actually be much higher.
The truth is that there are many, many people who drive significantly above the speed limit, and have even encountered and overcome adverse conditions and environmental factors like black ice and hydroplaning, at high speed, and have never been in or caused an accident. I also know people who have crashed into their garage doors doing 5mph. My honest opinion? Speeding is not the biggest issue. Training and experience is. Speed limits will never solve the problems as effectively as a comprehensive and rigorous driver training program, and thorough testing.
Frequent N.H. speeder wants limit raised – [Yahoo/AP]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…