Although it's barely an article. (http://amestrib.com/sections/news/iowa/deaths-interstate-rose-speed-limit.html) Very short and pretty much a rehash of press releases probably.
I'm sure auto insurance rates rise whenever speed limits rise. The carriers see increase risk of claims/losses.
Mark
Quote from: pctech on September 05, 2012, 09:40:25 AM
I'm sure auto insurance rates rise whenever speed limits rise. The carriers see increase risk of claims/losses.
Mark
Nah, it's just an excuse. What's needed is for the "speed kills" lobby to shut up and stop telling their lies. It's driving faster than conditions warrant that kills, not speed itself.
Quote from: deanej on September 05, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: pctech on September 05, 2012, 09:40:25 AM
I'm sure auto insurance rates rise whenever speed limits rise. The carriers see increase risk of claims/losses.
Mark
Nah, it's just an excuse. What's needed is for the "speed kills" lobby to shut up and stop telling their lies. It's driving faster than conditions warrant that kills, not speed itself.
Amen! Bad, inattentive drivers cause accidents, not speed itself.
Quote from: deanej on September 05, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: pctech on September 05, 2012, 09:40:25 AM
I'm sure auto insurance rates rise whenever speed limits rise. The carriers see increase risk of claims/losses.
Mark
Nah, it's just an excuse. What's needed is for the "speed kills" lobby to shut up and stop telling their lies. It's driving faster than conditions warrant that kills, not speed itself.
So, it's not so much the speed as it is the speed?
BTW statistics clearly show a correlation between higher speeds and higher rates of fatality crashes.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2012, 04:53:16 PM
Correlation does not imply causation.
What else could it imply here? That some unknown factor is both raising the speed limits and causing more crashes? That speed limits are raised after crashes increase?
Quote from: Special K on September 05, 2012, 01:27:35 PM
BTW statistics clearly show a correlation between higher speeds and higher rates of fatality crashes.
And just how are those statistics broken out? Do they distinguish between single vehicle crashes and multiple vehicle crashes?
Quote from: NE2 on September 05, 2012, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2012, 04:53:16 PM
Correlation does not imply causation.
What else could it imply here? That some unknown factor is both raising the speed limits and causing more crashes? That speed limits are raised after crashes increase?
The rate went from 227 to 250. While that is a 10% change, it is only a difference of 23, over the course of six and a half years. A change that small could easily be related to something else. Perhaps the change in the speed limit caused routing through Iowa to become more attractive than it was previously and traffic volumes increased by 10%. Perhaps there is some other change in road conditions that caused 3½ more people to die per year.
It also doesn't mention what happened to the rate of overall crashes, or even the number of crashes resulting in fatalities, just the number of fatalities. The total number of crashes could have gone down while fatalities went up.
Point is, the article doesn't have enough information to establish that the increase is
caused by the raise in speed limit. Just that it happened at the same time. It is possible that it did cause it, and that seems to be what the writer wants to get across, but without more data that conclusion is specious.
So what you're saying is that there may actually not be correlation due to not enough data. Why didn't you say that in the first place, rather than repeating a cliche?
Because there is a correlation. Speed limits went up, at the same time, so did the number of fatalities. That's a correlation, is it not? What I am saying is that the article doesn't have enough data to show that the speed limits going up caused the fatalities, since it could be caused by higher traffic volumes, other changes in road conditions, a spike in DUIs, more people riding together in the same number of cars that are crashing, etc. Really the cause could be any manner of random noise since it equates to an average of only 3½ extra deaths per year–without breaking the data down, for all we know, highway fatalities stayed the same but for the fact that a bus crashed into a river one year and killed 23 people.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2012, 09:40:01 PM
Because there is a correlation.
A correlation is a relation between two variables. Unless I'm completely misremembering statistics, you can't get a correlation from a single data point. You need a number of data points, which gives you a certain probability of correlation vs. random noise.
The total number is really a worthless statistic. The number that matters is the one per vehicle miles traveled.
Quote from: Special K on September 05, 2012, 01:27:35 PM
BTW statistics clearly show a correlation between higher speeds and higher rates of fatality crashes.
Incorrect.
Following the partial and then full abandonment of underposting under the NMSL, traffic mortality declined.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 06, 2012, 06:42:20 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 05, 2012, 01:27:35 PM
BTW statistics clearly show a correlation between higher speeds and higher rates of fatality crashes.
Incorrect.
Following the partial and then full abandonment of underposting under the NMSL, traffic mortality declined.
Correlation does not imply causation. :sombrero:
What about the increased fuel consumption that comes with increased speed?
How would that affect fatality rates?
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 06, 2012, 09:45:32 AM
How would that affect fatality rates?
Heart attack at the pump.
Typically, a higher speed accident causes more expensive crashes, and the said equipment to keep you safe in accident is getting more expensive.
Warning: Correlation does not imply I've worked at a body shop before.
Higher speeds obviously correlate to more fatalities. Braking distance is increased, force of impact is increased, that's commonsense. Hit a car at ten miles an hour, and you're a lot less likely to die than if you hit a car at eighty miles an hour. The huge gap in statistics is that most of the 'speed-related' accidents recorded are actually driving too fast for adverse conditions, in which case the posted speed limit is a moot point, yet there is no statistical breakdown between over the posted limit and too fast for adverse conditions: everything is just lumped together under 'speed-related', and then those numbers are used to talk about posted speed limits.
All that is to say that there is very likely a correlation between raising a speed limit and seeing more fatalities, but that the strength of that correlation is just as likely (or more) highly overblown, and I don't think there's a way to determine by how much.
Quote from: Special K on September 05, 2012, 01:27:35 PM
So, it's not so much the speed as it is the speed?
No. There is a VERY BIG difference between driving too fast for conditions and driving faster than a number some politician pulled out of his rear. Take the Thruway for example. On a day with good driving conditions, it's safe to drive 80 down it. In the middle of a snow storm, it's not even safe to do 30. The speed limit is 65 regardless. In fact, I can't think of any situation where 65 is the maximum safe speed for the Thruway.
Or take the New Jersey Turnpike. On any given day, traffic is moving at 80 if conditions allow for it. Is this legal? No. Is it safe? Yes.
Arbitrarily low speed limits actually make the roads less safe by making the people who actually pay attention speed limits drive slower while everybody else drives the same way they always do. Roads are safest if everyone drives the same speed, but arbitrarily low limits cause the difference between speeds to be greater.
Quote from: pctech on September 06, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
What about the increased fuel consumption that comes with increased speed?
Who cares? The way to solve the oil issue is to find an alternative way to power cars, not to make life worse for drivers. Sadly, people like to ignore things until they can't; otherwise, we'd all be driving electric cars by now.
Quote from: kphoger on September 06, 2012, 02:06:53 PM
All that is to say that there is very likely a correlation between raising a speed limit and seeing more fatalities, but that the strength of that correlation is just as likely (or more) highly overblown, and I don't think there's a way to determine by how much.
Actually, Detroit proved the opposite when they went from 55 to 70. The Ohio Turnpike did too when they went from 65 to 70.
Quote from: deanej on September 06, 2012, 02:16:37 PMRoads are safest if everyone drives the same speed
almost, but not quite. roads are safest when each lane is moving faster than the one to its left.
people driving in three-abreast formation, at precisely the posted speed limit, are absolutely not safe at all. (see: Oregon)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2012, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 06, 2012, 02:16:37 PMRoads are safest if everyone drives the same speed
almost, but not quite. roads are safest when each lane is moving faster than the one to its left right.
people driving in three-abreast formation, at precisely the posted speed limit, are absolutely not safe at all. (see: Oregon)
Unless you were talking about England.
Quote from: kphoger on September 06, 2012, 02:06:53 PM
Higher speeds obviously correlate to more fatalities. Braking distance is increased, force of impact is increased, that's commonsense. Hit a car at ten miles an hour, and you're a lot less likely to die than if you hit a car at eighty miles an hour. The huge gap in statistics is that most of the 'speed-related' accidents recorded are actually driving too fast for adverse conditions, in which case the posted speed limit is a moot point, yet there is no statistical breakdown between over the posted limit and too fast for adverse conditions: everything is just lumped together under 'speed-related', and then those numbers are used to talk about posted speed limits.
All that is to say that there is very likely a correlation between raising a speed limit and seeing more fatalities, but that the strength of that correlation is just as likely (or more) highly overblown, and I don't think there's a way to determine by how much.
Actually, there is. Total fatalities is a meaningless statistic. You need to look at and compare fatalities per mile driven. That rate has been falling fairly steadily since the 1960s with and without the NMSL.
Plus, the goal of zero fatalities is idiotic. To have a rate of zero is to wish for a risk-less society, and there is no such thing.
It's a shame people can't see that. The only way to get zero fatalities is to ban driving, and nobody's seriously proposing that. Plus, if somehow we did somehow get there, people would become a lot less careful as a result, and minor accidents would skyrocket (like how the amount of people with allergies has skyrocketed because the cleaner environment with fewer diseases we live is results in an overactive immune system).
I don't think anyone actually believes in a zero-fatality goal. It's a feel-good marketing point and nothing more.
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Very true. In fact, even that one person
will eventually die. The death rate is 100%, after all. :ded:
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Never said it was, but enacting something with the idea that "it will have been worth it if we save even just one life" implies that zero-fatality is the end goal (collectively of all the measures), even if it's not stated as such.
Quote from: deanej on September 08, 2012, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Never said it was, but enacting something with the idea that "it will have been worth it if we save even just one life" implies that zero-fatality is the end goal (collectively of all the measures), even if it's not stated as such.
I think you're thinking of "One Fatality is One Too Many".
Quote from: kphoger on September 06, 2012, 02:06:53 PM
Higher speeds obviously correlate to more fatalities. Braking distance is increased, force of impact is increased, that's commonsense. (snippage) Hit a car at ten miles an hour, and you're a lot less likely to die than if you hit a car at eighty miles an hour.
First, no incorrect. As has been stated, every SL increase as we moved away from the failed NMSL resulted in a DECREASE in traffic mortality.
Second, not relevant. Unless you are advocating a SL of 10, contrasting 10 to 80 is totally irrelevant. In a serious discussion, the amount of damage to a car that is in a serious accident at 55 (totaled) or 85 (totaled) is EXACTLY the same.
The FACT is that underposted SLs never saved one life, and are designed to empower govenment employees to randomly (or worse yet, not randomly) enfore and to enrich insurance companies.
Quote from: Special K on September 08, 2012, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 08, 2012, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Never said it was, but enacting something with the idea that "it will have been worth it if we save even just one life" implies that zero-fatality is the end goal (collectively of all the measures), even if it's not stated as such.
I think you're thinking of "One Fatality is One Too Many".
How is that not the same thing as wanting zero fatalities?
Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 08, 2012, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 08, 2012, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They talk like they do, and in many ways they act like they do ("if it saves just one life, we should do X, even if X would inconvenience thousands of drivers every day").
Saving one life is not zero-fatality.
Never said it was, but enacting something with the idea that "it will have been worth it if we save even just one life" implies that zero-fatality is the end goal (collectively of all the measures), even if it's not stated as such.
I think you're thinking of "One Fatality is One Too Many".
How is that not the same thing as wanting zero fatalities?
Syntax is a challenge, isn't it?
1 fatality is 1 too many
1 fatality — 1 too many = 0
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2012, 05:30:21 PM
1 fatality is 1 too many
1 fatality — 1 too many = 0
...which is quite different from "if just one life is saved".
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between Speed Limit & Fatalities, but I don't believe it a simple black & white issue.
More accidents happen on wet roadways than dry. Would raising the Speed Limit affect the number of fatal accidents on wet roads? What about inattentive driving (texting, talking on the phone, etc)? Does a higher Speed Limit affect the number of fatal accidents by inattentive drivers?
Does a higher Speed Limit affect the number of fatal accidents by drivers in poorly maintained vehicles?
Just some passing thoughts.
Quote from: US71 on September 09, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between Speed Limit & Fatalities, but I don't believe it a simple black & white issue.
More accidents happen on wet roadways than dry.
I don't know off the top of my head how it works for all roadways, but if one looks at crash data for particular section of roadway, there are usually more daytime crashes on dry pavement, unless there is actually a defect with the drainage or pavement. If one factors in all the roadways in a given state, given how worn the pavement is in some states there may be more crashes on wet roads.
But I think the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" by Mark Twain best deals with the wet road and higher speed limit topics.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2012, 11:15:35 PM
But I think the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" by Mark Twain best deals with the wet road and higher speed limit topics.
You do know Twain didn't originate that saying. He attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli, but Disraeli didn't originate it nor did he even say it. The plot thickens......
rte66man
Quote from: Special K on September 09, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2012, 05:30:21 PM
1 fatality is 1 too many
1 fatality — 1 too many = 0
...which is quite different from "if just one life is saved".
Huh? Last I checked, 1 = 1 no matter how you phrase it, there's not integer between 0 and 1, and fatalities can't be measured using any set of numbers other than the integers and natural numbers (which are a subset of the integers). Basic math (mostly set theory).
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2012, 11:15:35 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 09, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between Speed Limit & Fatalities, but I don't believe it a simple black & white issue.
More accidents happen on wet roadways than dry.
I don't know off the top of my head how it works for all roadways, but if one looks at crash data for particular section of roadway, there are usually more daytime crashes on dry pavement, unless there is actually a defect with the drainage or pavement. If one factors in all the roadways in a given state, given how worn the pavement is in some states there may be more crashes on wet roads.
But I think the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" by Mark Twain best deals with the wet road and higher speed limit topics.
That's because people get overconfident.
Quote from: deanej on September 10, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 09, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2012, 05:30:21 PM
1 fatality is 1 too many
1 fatality — 1 too many = 0
...which is quite different from "if just one life is saved".
Huh? Last I checked, 1 = 1 no matter how you phrase it, there's not integer between 0 and 1, and fatalities can't be measured using any set of numbers other than the integers and natural numbers (which are a subset of the integers). Basic math (mostly set theory).
"One fatality is too many" implies 1 fatality — 1 fatality too many = 0 fatalities .
"If just one life is saved" implies n fatalities — 1 fatality = n—1 fatalities .
So, for example, if there are 1106 fatalities in a given year, then "if just one life is saved" implies:
1106 fatalities — 1 fatality = 1105 fatalities .
That's a lot of effort just to save one person, though.
How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?
Quote from: Special K on September 12, 2012, 08:00:11 AM
How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?
Personally, I think 1 fatality is 1 too many.
ducks for cover
Quote from: kphoger on September 12, 2012, 10:12:11 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 12, 2012, 08:00:11 AM
How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?
Personally, I think 1 fatality is 1 too many.
ducks for cover
Might as well try to save everyone.
Quote from: Special K on September 12, 2012, 08:00:11 AM
How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?
Depends on how much effort/inconvenience you have to expend. As far as I'm concerned, getting the idiots off the road is far more productive than punishing those of us that can actually operate a motor vehicle in the form of lower speed limits.
You could save pedestrian lives too by banning jaywalking and rigorously enforcing it, but people scream bloody murder whenever that's suggested. So much for "one fatality is one too many". I guess it's just one too many when the cost is not something you care about.
The only way to have zero fatalities is to have zero drivers. In the real world, accidents are always going to happen.
However, it is important to never forget that the idea that underposted SL save lives is a disproven one.
Pedestrian discussion has been moved to General Highway Talk (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=12.0).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7657.0