Speed kills, courts shrug

[fholt]

That's the title of a front page series started today in our local paper about how all the local roads are fine for racing and speeding and nobody seems to care. Most of it is unsurprising, but the talk with the Judge who lets a 16 year old off after being caught at 101mph down main street of a small local town defies belief. Lots of related stuff linked along the right side. In at least one of these articles (I read it in the print version) they point out that it's a misnomer to call it an accident when somebody being this reckless kills.

STORY
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/573762.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/573762.html)

[pj7]

Welcome to NASCAR country.

[dobber]

The states could make life much easier for themselves by levying automatic fines, points and suspensions. X=Y with no pleading or reductions. Do the speed, pay the price.

I drive the interstate twice a week and am still amazed at the rate some people are going, easily 80-90 mph. And the reality is they'll get to their destination maybe 10-20 minutes earlier, assuming they don't get pulled over.

[GreenGrasshoppr]

Sounds like justification for privately installed speedbumps

[tomg]

i drive 59 - 64 mph on 65 mph speed LIMIT hiways (weather permitting). this behavior, i hope plants seeds to responsive driving, not spir too many p/o drivers.

[Dogbait]

The states could make life much easier for themselves by levying automatic fines, points and suspensions. X=Y with no pleading or reductions. Do the speed, pay the price.
...........................

Oregon has a new law that automatically raises the fine to $1000.00 for speed over 100 mph. A woman was arrested for 101 mph last week. It was also in a construction zone, which doubles the fine. Ouch!

[bkrownd]

Consistent enforcement of realistic speed limits would be nice. However, the status quo is that the authorities like being able to post low-ball speed limits and use speeding tickets as an easy backdoor road tax through selective culling of the herd...uh, selective enforcement.

1) Cultivate habitual speeding by non-enforcement

2) Set up random speed trap 3rd wednesday of month to cherrypick from the crowd

3) $$$ PROFIT! $$$

[EnigManiac]

Children's toys are manufactured to meticulous specifications depending on the age of the children they're intended for. Why? Because of the danger those toys present to children. They are designed so that they don't choke or strangle small children. They are designed not to catch fire or electrocute. They are designed to feature surfaces that resist bacteria. Baby and toddler toys rarely have sharp corners or projectiles. In other words, if there is any liklihood of risk or hazard to children, toys are removed from the market, redesigned and altered to make them safer.

Most other products we enjoy and use every day undergo similar scrutiny. They are developed to operate within safe and reasonable limits with the specific intention of reducing the danger the product poses if it were to be unregulated.

Motor vehicles seem to have escaped such limitations, however. Every single car and truck on the road is designed to and capable of exceeding the maximum speed limit that exists on almost every single roadway in North America. There are few, if any, streets or highways that do not have a speed limit, after all. But whether the vehicle is the cheapest hunk of metal on the road or the most expensive, they can all do more than double the speed limit and sometimes much more.

Why?

There is no reasonable justification for motorists needing to exceed the maximum speed limit, no common or even prospective situation a driver is likely to encounter that would necesitate accelerating to 100 mph. Other than emergency vehicles which tend to be operated by trained personnel, educated in how to drive high-speed vehicles, the average Canadian or American never NEEDS to go faster than what is legally permissible. But every car is not only designed and developed to far exceed the limit, the power of those cars is prominently promoted in almost every advertisement on tv. Racing along deserted mountain highways or down long straight aways with plumes of dust (or is that smog?) trailing them as they zoom-zoom by, tearing through picturesque country-side, swerving through city streets, almost every ad we see is a demonstration of just how powerful the car is, how well they handle at high speed and how responsive the power plant is. There's only one small problem. Driving at those speeds is illegal in 99.9% of the continent.

It is akin to designing firearms that are sleek, attractive, functional and sexy...and very very powerful...and then offering them to every single person who learns the basics of how to use a gun. But then saying that in spite of the ease of firing the weapon, in spite of how good it feels to fire the weapon, in spite of how straight and true the gun fires, you're not allowed to fire it. It is so illogical and hypocritical and contradictory, it is borderline insane.

In fact, The Canada Safety Council recently reported: High performance is the mantra of today's automotive manufacturers. From 1980 to 2000 the average horsepower-to-weight ratio, a key measure of performance, increased by over 50 per cent. In the 2000 model year, six per cent of vehicles had turbocharged engines, the highest percentage ever.

The argument that always comes back is that the onus is on the driver to respect and obey the speed limit as well as every other traffic regulation that is designed to keep everyone safe. But pretty much every driver speeds at least at some point every time they take they car out, whether it's doing 20mph in a 15mph area or 65 in a 55 zone. For 100 years, we have relied upon drivers to voluntarily control how they drive. And that 100 year experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Millions of innocent people have been needlessly killed and seriously injured in that time, millions of speeders have died as well. Millions.

Yet, others are pushing for limits to be increased and have even succeeded in getting governments to temporarily or permanently agree to higher speed limits in spite of the overwhelming evidence that speed kills.

A recent study examined the impact of higher travel speeds on US rural interstates after the repeal in November 1995 of the national speed limit. Researchers found states that had increased their speed limits to 75 mph (120 km/h) experienced a shocking 38 per cent increase in deaths per million vehicle miles than expected, compared to deaths in those states that did not change their speed limits. States that increased speed limits to 70 mph (112 km/h) showed a 35 per cent increase in fatalities. - Canada Safety Council (http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/speed.html)

Government bodies, charged with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of citizens, demand auto manufacturers install technology that makes their products safer, so they create air-bags, traction control and ABS as well as crumple zones and collapsible steering columns and impact-absorbing head-rests. Those are all well and good, but they are all designed to reduce injury or prevent death in the event of a crash. They do not prevent or reduce the liklihood of the crash itself. They are band-aids and reactionary, not cures and preventions.

If cars were mandated to and effectively controlled to be incapable of speeding, deaths and injuries would decrease dramatically. The chances of being killed drop expotentially as speed is reduced. Countless studies confirm that logic and physics fact. So, why don't car manufacturers voluntarily make their cars incapable of excessive speeds? Why don't governments make it law that cars be incapable of travelling at a higher speed than is legally allowed?

Because they make a lot of money from speed.

Speeding tickets are an important revenue stream for municipal, state and provincial governments. Accidents keep garages, tow-truck services, ambulances, hospitals and funeral homes busy as well as new and used car show-rooms, among countless other peripheral businesses. As a result, it could be concluded with some validity that car manufacturers and governments are merchants of death. They profit from tragedy and if they truly had respect for huuman life over the value of a dollar, they would do everything in their power to reduce the number one killer of young people in North America, but they don't.

I am not a big supporter of more government interference in our daily lives, but there is a time when that is not a bad thing. Yes, the government needs to keep its nose out of my business in most respects, but if they can save people from one of the top three dangers we face every single day, they have the moral responsibility to act. If they don't they are negligent.

The technology exists that could save millions of lives. There is no reason for it not to be imposed and installed. There is no cirumstance that motorists encounter regularly that would justify the need to race up to 150 mph, after all. But both auto manufacturers and governments remain complicit in the deaths of every victim of speeding. They could do something about it, but they choose not to. Every victim or every estate should be suing the manufacturer of the product that injured or killed them. Maybe after they start losing billions, they'll start respecting human life.

[DogBoy]

EnigManiac, are you saying that if you change the governors on cars from 140 mph to 75 mph life would be better? Blasphemy! ;)

Actually I don't think it would help that much, since the max hwy speed is always going to be MUCH faster than is safe in any kind of city/town local roads.

[trackhub]

Sometimes, the Massachusetts legislature does something right. Doesn't happen often, but sometimes, there is a glimmer of brain matter up there on Beacon Hill.

The new laws and penalties on Junior Operators' Licenses went into effect on January 3rd. Have a link. (http://www.mass.gov/rmv/jol/jol_penalties_chart.htm) Personally, I don't think these penalties are strict enough, but in MA, we'll take it.

They also made the minimum age for those blasted little ninja motor bikes (pocket bikes, I think they were called) 16 1/2 years. Since then they have all but disappeared from the scene, thank you.

As for your 16 year old future thug of america, his father probably gave him a pat on the back and said "Now that's my boy!".

Boy, I really am a cynical SOB.

[thebankman]

EnigManiac, some cars are driven over normal speed limits when on a closed track. This is the only reason I can think of why auto manufacturers aren't forced to regulate top speed.

Motorcycles in the late 90's were approaching a potential 200mph top speed, and Honda & Suzuki had to scale down the sheer horsepower/torque of their fastest two bikes to fall well under 200mph top speed, as European countries were planning a ban on open-class sportbikes unless steps were taken to ensure they couldn't reach such speeds. The Suzuki Hayabusa and Honda Blackbird reach at least 170mph (um yeah that is too fast) and haven't been banned, still in production today.

So yes, governments do regulate bikes, but automobiles just don't get scrutiny as "everyone" uses them, including politicians, and bikes are a far more easy target. Blame the small minority of road users for society's ills when the majority of road users have access to fast heavy vehicles that are far more dangerous as a whole to the populace.

[bkrownd]

Rrrright, as if we need more government meddling in our lives. Isn't the strong arm of the law fun when you can use it against your enemies?

[thebankman]

Another valid argument is, if cars were regulated electronically to only reach a certain speed, drivers who wished to remove such restrictions would find ways to do it, whether mechanically or electronically.

[DogBoy]

Another valid argument is, if cars were regulated electronically to only reach a certain speed, drivers who wished to remove such restrictions would find ways to do it, whether mechanically or electronically.

But it would be fairly obvious who was doing it, and the violation would likely be much more severe than a speeding ticket. Plus, you couldn't just say: "everybody's doing it, why pick on me?"

[Carusoswi]

The states could make life much easier for themselves by levying automatic fines, points and suspensions. X=Y with no pleading or reductions. Do the speed, pay the price.

I drive the interstate twice a week and am still amazed at the rate some people are going, easily 80-90 mph. And the reality is they'll get to their destination maybe 10-20 minutes earlier, assuming they don't get pulled over.

Interstates were built to handle 80-90 mph speed. I disagree that the speed, in and of itself is dangerous. What's dangerous is mixing fast speed and slow. I cannot defend anyone driving that fast on a residential street, however.

If we all drove faster on the interstates, they would be safer at faster speeds.

55 IMO is dead alive. 55 has probably killed more drivers by lulling them to sleep than it has saved by reducing the impact forces from what is assumed to be more frequent and violent crashes at higher speeds.

I'm talking interstate, limited access highways here. Not residential streets.

Caruso

[Six jours]

i drive 59 - 64 mph on 65 mph speed LIMIT hiways (weather permitting).
I'll bet you do it in the fast lane, too, and then get all self-righteous when other drivers flip you the bird. :lol:

"Good drivers will select a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions. Bad drivers are not safe at any speed." ~ Phil Hill

[mlh122]

I don't think fines are working. I could afford a $1000 fine without too much of a big deal. I'd be strapped for a little but no major inconvenience. I think they should just start handing out jail time. perhaps 1 night in jail per 1 mph over the speed limit might help. so 100 in a 60mph zone is 40 days in jail. that would make many people think twice. most speeders aren't really hard core criminals, so a few days in jail would scare the bejeezus out of them.

Add: ok i realize the state's got bills to pay, so perhaps 1 to 1 jail time AND a hefty fine

[indygreg]

i drive 59 - 64 mph on 65 mph speed LIMIT hiways (weather permitting). this behavior, i hope plants seeds to responsive driving, not spir too many p/o drivers.


Cite the law or ethics or whatever, but this behavior in the realm of actual reality is much more dangerous to you and others than going 75 or 80 on a 65 speed limit.

I agree that highways are designed to handle much more speed than 55 or 60. Many states have gone to a realistic 65 or 70 or more speed limit. These should be combined with reasonable minimums as well.

I 100% agree with the above that mixing slow with fast = danger.

and I 100% agree that I do not have any tolerance for speeding on residential streets. People drive so fast in my subdivision it makes me very happy to live at the end of a remote court.

[AlmostTrick]

Cite the law or ethics or whatever, but this behavior in the realm of actual reality is much more dangerous to you and others than going 75 or 80 on a 65 speed limit.

I agree that highways are designed to handle much more speed than 55 or 60. Many states have gone to a realistic 65 or 70 or more speed limit. These should be combined with reasonable minimums as well.

I 100% agree with the above that mixing slow with fast = danger.

and I 100% agree that I do not have any tolerance for speeding on residential streets. People drive so fast in my subdivision it makes me very happy to live at the end of a remote court.

A driver who is not exceeding the speed limit is not putting anyone in danger by that fact alone. Either the law breakers can handle their vehicles safely around others or they can't. Any additional danger is clearly caused by the speeders, not the people obeying the law. If mixing slow with fast is dangerous, how do you ride your bicycle in traffic with motor vehicles?

[Six jours]

And often, a driver who is exceeding the speed limit is not putting anyone in danger by that fact either. When everyone is doing 80, there's no problem, at least as long as that speed is safe and appropriate for the conditions. On wide, smooth, straight Southern California freeways, at least, 75 is often safe and prudent and the fellow doing 59 is an active danger, at least if he's in the left lane or HOV.

Extra-legal speeds are the norm on SoCal freeways. I consider it a de-facto act of civil disobedience. When the huge majority of a population ignores a law, that law is probably not appropriate.

My post to tomg was tongue-in-cheek, for the most part. If he wants to drive more slowly than the flow of traffic he is welcome to, in my book. I just hope that he tries to stay out of the way of the majority of traffic users, rather than being one of the fist-shaking codgers who's intentionally in the way, thinking that he's "setting an example" for us law-breakers.

<edit> And for all I know, tomg has selected a safe and appropriate speed for the highways in his area, and people going faster than he is really are presenting a danger to reasonable people. As a general rule, I stay as far from New Jersey as I possibly can, so am not really familiar with his particular situation :)

[slowandsteady]

A driver who is not exceeding the speed limit is not putting anyone in danger by that fact alone. Either the law breakers can handle their vehicles safely around others or they can't. Any additional danger is clearly caused by the speeders, not the people obeying the law. If mixing slow with fast is dangerous, how do you ride your bicycle in traffic with motor vehicles?


They are public highways. There will always be people doing different speeds. Just this weekend I was hauling my horse across the state. I was doing the speed limit or below. I had to accelerate very, very slowly as to avoid injuring the horse. I had to take turns very, very slowly as to avoid a tip over. Horses are very top heavy and they move....It is very easy to flip over while hauling a horse. Also, I cannot hit a massive pothole or other road mess without possibly injuring my horse, so I need to travel a bit slower than I would with an empty trailer.

People were cutting me off, passing me with almost no clearance, and tailgating me. This is what was dangerous. I was always in the right most lane and traveling very predictably, yet some people get so frustrated at the slightly slower speed that they are fully prepared to kill someone(and my horse) than to be a little patient. These are the people who are dangerous, not those of us who on occasion need to travel a little slower.

The keeping up with traffic argument is weak. So, what if traffic is traveling at 100 mph...should I keep up with that....then what if 100mph becomes the norm and everyone needs to travel at 120 mph to feel like they are getting somewhere. Do I need to travel at 120 mph to keep up with traffic? It is some bizarre psychology that whatever the speed limit...people feel the need to go 10 -15 mph faster.

Let's face it if everyone followed the law and limits to the letter there would be no accidents. Accidents happen when someone does something they shouldn't have done(like not pay attention.) Humans have a limited ability to respond. The faster you go, the less time you have to react and the greater the chance for error or collision should things not go exactly as planned(like a deer runs in front of you).

[littlewaywelt]

There is no reasonable justification for motorists needing to exceed the maximum speed limit, no common or even prospective situation a driver is likely to encounter that would necesitate accelerating to 100 mph. Other than emergency vehicles which tend to be operated by trained personnel, educated in how to drive high-speed vehicles, the average Canadian or American never NEEDS to go faster than what is legally permissible.
Never is a strong word and there are plenty of justifiable circumstances/emergencies. I can tell you that when I had to cover 500 miles when one of my kids had a grave brain injury I went above 100 all the way there. I was careful. When the same thing happened to my brother my dad did the same thing. When I'm late for an important appnt I speed (probably 85-65). Have I sped unneccessarilly in the past? Sure. I'd be willing to bet 95% of the public has. Spend some time on the DC beltway or the Garden State Parkway and you'll find this is the case. Also, while it may be contrary to logic, there are plenty of studies to show that higher fatality rates do not correlate with higher speed limits.

[Six jours]

As a fellow that used to drive ambulances for a living, I absolutely agree that there are times and situations where slower-than-the-flow is appropriate. There will always be dumbasses that will honk at you in those situations -- you haven't really lived until you've been honked at IN AN AMBULANCE -- but c'est la vie.

None of that invalidates the flow of traffic argument, and I don't agree that people feel a psychological need to exceed the speed limit by 10-15 MPH. IMO, skilled drivers select a speed that is safe and prudent. That speed is often 10-15 MPH faster than the posted limit, which points to unrealistically low limits, again IMO. The point is/was somewhat clouded by the galactically unreasonable 55 MPH limit. In those days, folks traveled 10-15 MPH faster because they were afraid of getting whopping tickets for grossly exceeding the limit. Now that the limits, in most places, have edged up, that same 10-15 increase gets most of us into "safe and prudent" territory. In my experience in states with even higher limits, most folks still end up at about 75-80 MPH.

I guess it's my libertarian streak, but I really do think the best approach is to train the hell out of drivers and then let them make decisions on speed according to their own abilities and experiences. I'd feel perfectly safe sharing the road with Phil Hill, even if he's doing 100 MPH where I think 65 is comfortable. At the same time, I don't want to share the road with a 16 year old "faster and angrier" fan at ANY speed.

[slowandsteady]

Never is a strong word and there are plenty of justifiable circumstances/emergencies. I can tell you that when I had to cover 500 miles when one of my kids had a grave brain injury I went above 100 all the way there. I was careful. When the same thing happened to my brother my dad did the same thing. When I'm late for an important appnt I speed (probably 85-65). Have I sped unneccessarilly in the past? Sure. I'd be willing to bet 95% of the public has. Spend some time on the DC beltway or the Garden State Parkway and you'll find this is the case. Also, while it may be contrary to logic, there are plenty of studies to show that higher fatality rates do not correlate with higher speed limits.


Not sure why you chose to drive 500 miles with a child with a grave brain injury. Was there really nothing closer than that?

But regardless, having worked in a hospital, one of my pet peeves is when people don't call an ambulance. The rationale is that you can drive the person to the hospital by leaving now instead of waiting for an ambulance. But, don't you realize that there are people in an ambulance equipped with the knowledge, drugs, and equippment to save lives while enroute to the hospital? They are a hospital on wheels.

When you drive someone in your own car, you not only risk the lives of others on the street as you go 100mph in a complete panic, but you risk the life of the "patient" in your car that is getting ZERO medical attention while you speed towards the hospital for FIVE hours.

What if this child with a brain injury stops breathing while you are traveling at 100 mph? Can you intubate him? Are you monitoring his vital signs? Are you giving him drugs to reduce the pressure in his brain? If his heart stops do you have a defibrillator and know how to use it? Can you do chest compressions? Can you do all of this while you drive at 100 mph?

An ambulance is not just a big colorful van that is allowed to speed through red lights. They are not just for speedy transport. Plenty of lives have been saved IN the ambulance well before they got to the hospital.

[yes]

There is no wisdom in the collective speed of traffic. The human brain is not made to judge risk in statistically improbably events. There is no correlation between actual risk and what feels comfortable to a car driver.

Every month more people die in car accidents than died in 9/11. It sure says a lot about us that we go fight wars to prevent a possible future 9/11, but are too selfish to give up 10-15mph to save that many people each month.

[Six jours]

You assume that a 10-15 MPH reduction in speed will save those thousands of lives per month. This is an unsupported and, I believe, unsupportable belief.

[Six jours]

But regardless, having worked in a hospital, one of my pet peeves is when people don't call an ambulance. The rationale is that you can drive the person to the hospital by leaving now instead of waiting for an ambulance. But, don't you realize that there are people in an ambulance equipped with the knowledge, drugs, and equippment to save lives while enroute to the hospital? They are a hospital on wheels.

Again speaking as a retired paramedic, this isn't absolutely true. My very close friend suffered a cardiac injury and only an immediate trip to the ER -- made at extra-legal speeds -- saved his life. It was an extremely close thing as it was. Had he called 911 he certainly would have died in the ambulance, as there was very little that could have been done for him pre-hospital.

I do not know what circumstance would require a 500 mile, 100 MPH trip to the ER. My first thought would have been a helicopter, but I assume that the poster in question did what he felt was best at the time.

As a side note, my high performance driving training consisted entirely of passing the DMV written ambulance driver's license test, which did absolutely nothing to increase my skill as a driver.

[yes]

You assume that a 10-15 MPH reduction in speed will save those thousands of lives per month. This is an unsupported and, I believe, unsupportable belief.
Of course it's unsupported. Nobody can get people to slow down 10-15 mph. I don't know if you noticed, but people do not obey the speed limit.

[slowandsteady]

Again speaking as a retired paramedic, this isn't absolutely true. My very close friend suffered a cardiac injury and only an immediate trip to the ER -- made at extra-legal speeds -- saved his life. It was an extremely close thing as it was. Had he called 911 he certainly would have died in the ambulance, as there was very little that could have been done for him pre-hospital.

I do not know what circumstance would require a 500 mile, 100 MPH trip to the ER. My first thought would have been a helicopter, but I assume that the poster in question did what he felt was best at the time.

As a side note, my high performance driving training consisted entirely of passing the DMV written ambulance driver's license test, which did absolutely nothing to increase my skill as a driver.


Of course there are exceptions...just like sometimes it is better to not have your seatbelt on...but for the vast majority of situations you are better off in an ambulance than in a car with an uneducated, panicked driver, with no medical equipment.

Even if you only had to pass a written test...you still do not have an emotional attachment to the patient. You are not panicked. You are not trying to tend to him. You have lights, sirens, and in some jurisdictions the ability to actually change the traffic lights to green. People(for the most part) hear you coming and get out of your way.

[trackhub]

Here's a tale on the New law on teen drivers in Massachusetts (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1002693). Apparently, the state's Registry of Motor Vehicles and police deparements are taking this very seriously.

Now if we could only get something like this for adult drivers,,

A note about that link: It's to the Boston Herald, and I don't think they leave stuff posted for long.

[Bikepacker67]

Here's a tale on the New law on teen drivers in Massachusetts (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1002693). Apparently, the state's Registry of Motor Vehicles and police deparements are taking this very seriously.

Now if we could only get something like this for adult drivers,,



No kidding! I don't think an adult should loose their license for 90 days for 12mph over, but if you have more than 3 speed tix in 3 years, you should lose it for a while.

[trackhub]

I agree with a different system for adults. The state's Registrar has even said that the purpose of these laws is to make good drivers as young as possible. (or something like that. )

At the moment, the law on driving without a license is very lax. It's a $100.00 fine. That fine stays the same, whether it's the first offense, the tenth, or the 100th. No jail time, the individual is released on his/her own recognisance.

A legislator from Barnstable has introduced legislation to fix this. If it becomes law, starting with the third offense for operating without a license, the fine goes way up, and judges will have discretion to order jail time.

[curbtender]

Of course it's unsupported. Nobody can get people to slow down 10-15 mph. I don't know if you noticed, but people do not obey the speed limit.
Our city recently up'd the speed limit on a main road from 35 to 40mph after doing a traffic flow test that showed over 50% of the drivers exceeded the limit. They put in left turn only lanes, D'oh... there goes the bike lane!