Iowa speed limit article

[vdeane]

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).

[Special K]

I don't think anyone actually believes in a zero-fatality goal.  It's a feel-good marketing point and nothing more.

[vdeane]

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").

[Special K]

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.

[kphoger]

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. 

[vdeane]

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.

[Special K]

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".

[SP Cook]

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.

[vdeane]

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?

[Special K]

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?

[Scott5114]

1 fatality is 1 too many

1 fatality — 1 too many = 0

[Special K]

1 fatality is 1 too many

1 fatality — 1 too many = 0

...which is quite different from "if just one life is saved".

[bugo]

Correlation does not imply causation.

+1

[US71]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[rte66man]

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

[vdeane]

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).

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.

[kphoger]

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 .

[vdeane]

That's a lot of effort just to save one person, though.

[Special K]

How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?

[kphoger]

How many saved lives do you think is reasonable?

Personally, I think 1 fatality is 1 too many.
ducks for cover

[Special K]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[Alps]

Pedestrian discussion has been moved to General Highway Talk.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7657.0