Motorcycles patrolling US129

http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.d.../60616003/1119

"Doug Wilson" > wrote:

>http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.d.../60616003/1119
>

Quoting some from the article:

]The county had its first motorcycle fatality of the year near the famous ride
]in May.

Notice "near".

]Since 2002, nine people have died in car and motorcycle crashes on the
]North Carolina side of the road, according to the Highway Patrol. Not all
]of the deaths were causes by speed or involve thrill riders. Tens of
]thousands of people ride the Dragon every year.

The article fairly notes both of these. Good work.

]Western North Carolina has long been a must-drive destination but it also
]ranks as one of the most deadly areas in the state for bikers when crashes
]are adjusted for population.

Not so good work. The population is small. It is a vacation destination, and
many drivers who may have accidents, thrill riders or not, are probably from out
of the area. To see the error in logic, assume that a single traffic fender
bender occurs in a piece of deserted Arizona desert for the first time in 100
years. Since the number of accidents in this piece of desert per 100,000
population is now infinity, does that necessarily mean there is a big problem?

]Riders say they are glad to see the motorcycle cops.

This seems grossly misleading. One anecdotal Harley driver does not make
"riders". Maybe "Some riders", or "At least one rider", but not "Riders."

Not that I say that the NC cops are unjustified to try to slow down things
a bit. But actually, I am surprised how few serious accidents actually seem to
occur there, given how fast I have seen some people drive. I do remember
being swept past by motorcycles that raised the question "How come they
lived long enough to learn to drive that fast?"

Leon
--
Leon van Dommelen Bess, the Miata Bozo, the Miata
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas

Leon is exactly correct on each point. The best thing the cops can do is
just be visible which has a bit of a calming effect. If they try to 'chase
people down' they'll end up increasing the death toll which is POINTLESS!
Let's hope common sense prevails but you know how that goes.

Chris
99BBB


"Leon van Dommelen" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug Wilson" > wrote:
>
>>http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.d.../60616003/1119
>>
>
> Quoting some from the article:
>
> ]The county had its first motorcycle fatality of the year near the famous
> ride
> ]in May.
>
> Notice "near".
>
> ]Since 2002, nine people have died in car and motorcycle crashes on the
> ]North Carolina side of the road, according to the Highway Patrol. Not all
> ]of the deaths were causes by speed or involve thrill riders. Tens of
> ]thousands of people ride the Dragon every year.
>
> The article fairly notes both of these. Good work.
>
> ]Western North Carolina has long been a must-drive destination but it also
> ]ranks as one of the most deadly areas in the state for bikers when
> crashes
> ]are adjusted for population.
>
> Not so good work. The population is small. It is a vacation destination,
> and
> many drivers who may have accidents, thrill riders or not, are probably
> from out
> of the area. To see the error in logic, assume that a single traffic
> fender
> bender occurs in a piece of deserted Arizona desert for the first time in
> 100
> years. Since the number of accidents in this piece of desert per 100,000
> population is now infinity, does that necessarily mean there is a big
> problem?
>
> ]Riders say they are glad to see the motorcycle cops.
>
> This seems grossly misleading. One anecdotal Harley driver does not make
> "riders". Maybe "Some riders", or "At least one rider", but not "Riders."
>
> Not that I say that the NC cops are unjustified to try to slow down things
> a bit. But actually, I am surprised how few serious accidents actually
> seem to
> occur there, given how fast I have seen some people drive. I do remember
> being swept past by motorcycles that raised the question "How come they
> lived long enough to learn to drive that fast?"
>
> Leon
> --
> Leon van Dommelen Bess, the Miata Bozo, the Miata
> http://www.dommelen.net/miata
> The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas

"Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote in
:

> Leon is exactly correct on each point.

OK, who are you and why are you using Chris' name? ;-)

> The best thing the cops can do is just be visible which has a bit
> of a calming effect.

Yes, and that's the reason cameras aren't very effective, too many
people beat them and know they can but people WILL slow down for a
patrol car.

> If they try to 'chase people down' they'll end up increasing the
> death toll which is POINTLESS!

But if they don't chase people down the speeder may very well continue
until he/she/it causes a crash. It's a lose/lose situation and the
best way to handle the situation is for the police to follow SLOWLY
behind and get a helicopter up over the speeder. Unfortunately that
isn't always possible for a bunch of reasons.

> Yes, and that's the reason cameras aren't very effective, too many
> people beat them and know they can but people WILL slow down for a
> patrol car.

Here in the UK they've started using a system of "average" speed cameras
which is probably the best way of doing things if you want to slow people
down. When you enter the "averaging" area your license plate is snapped, and
then again when you leave the area, usually somewhere between 2 and 5 miles
later. Your average speed is then calculated and if it's over the allowed
speed limit, you get fined. This means that there's no point in going above
the speed limit since you'll only need to slow down later on in order to
lower your average speed again. As I say, this is the most effective
speed-control method I can think of.

Eric

"Eric Baber" > wrote in
:

>> Yes, and that's the reason cameras aren't very effective, too
>> many people beat them and know they can but people WILL slow down
>> for a patrol car.
>
> Here in the UK they've started using a system of "average" speed
> cameras which is probably the best way of doing things if you want
> to slow people down. When you enter the "averaging" area your
> license plate is snapped, and then again when you leave the area,
> usually somewhere between 2 and 5 miles later. Your average speed
> is then calculated and if it's over the allowed speed limit, you
> get fined. This means that there's no point in going above the
> speed limit since you'll only need to slow down later on in order
> to lower your average speed again. As I say, this is the most
> effective speed-control method I can think of.

I'd like to see statistics as to who gets fined in relation to who gets
snapped. Here it's running less than 13% which is why the cameras are
totally ineffective in reducing speeding. Many times the picture
doesn't clearly identify the driver so no citation is issued, if a
citation is issued a very large percent beat the case in court so the
13% that do get fined learn not to speed and the 87% who don't get
fined continue speeding.

It really has little to do with traffic control, it seems to be a huge
gravy train for the folks who sell, install and maintain the cameras.

I remember years ago, one of the turnpikes (I'm thinking Oklahoma) had an 80
mph speed limit. When you got on and pulled your ticket, it had a time
stamped on it. When you got off, they compared the 'in' time and the 'out'
time, and if is showed that you had exceeded the limit, they simply made you
pull over and wait until the proper time had elapsed.
"XS11E" > wrote in message
...
> "Eric Baber" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Yes, and that's the reason cameras aren't very effective, too
>>> many people beat them and know they can but people WILL slow down
>>> for a patrol car.
>>
>> Here in the UK they've started using a system of "average" speed
>> cameras which is probably the best way of doing things if you want
>> to slow people down. When you enter the "averaging" area your
>> license plate is snapped, and then again when you leave the area,
>> usually somewhere between 2 and 5 miles later. Your average speed
>> is then calculated and if it's over the allowed speed limit, you
>> get fined. This means that there's no point in going above the
>> speed limit since you'll only need to slow down later on in order
>> to lower your average speed again. As I say, this is the most
>> effective speed-control method I can think of.
>
> I'd like to see statistics as to who gets fined in relation to who gets
> snapped. Here it's running less than 13% which is why the cameras are
> totally ineffective in reducing speeding. Many times the picture
> doesn't clearly identify the driver so no citation is issued, if a
> citation is issued a very large percent beat the case in court so the
> 13% that do get fined learn not to speed and the 87% who don't get
> fined continue speeding.
>
> It really has little to do with traffic control, it seems to be a huge
> gravy train for the folks who sell, install and maintain the cameras.
>

The Tail of the Dragon has an amazingly low crash rate vs the challenges
that exist there and the number of people who go there specifically to
'challenge' the road. It's the human desire for self preservation that does
it. Push your luck too far there and it might be your last 'push'. I still
feel that occasional police presence on the road helps to remind everyone
that it is a public road and that's probably the most effective thing they
can do to limit fatalities w/o completely screwing up the whole wonderful
situation. I still believe that if you take all the risks (fun?) out of life
you're very likely to live longer. You're just not as likely to actually
enjoy it!

Chris
99BBB




"XS11E" > wrote in message
...
> "Eric Baber" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Yes, and that's the reason cameras aren't very effective, too
>>> many people beat them and know they can but people WILL slow down
>>> for a patrol car.
>>
>> Here in the UK they've started using a system of "average" speed
>> cameras which is probably the best way of doing things if you want
>> to slow people down. When you enter the "averaging" area your
>> license plate is snapped, and then again when you leave the area,
>> usually somewhere between 2 and 5 miles later. Your average speed
>> is then calculated and if it's over the allowed speed limit, you
>> get fined. This means that there's no point in going above the
>> speed limit since you'll only need to slow down later on in order
>> to lower your average speed again. As I say, this is the most
>> effective speed-control method I can think of.
>
> I'd like to see statistics as to who gets fined in relation to who gets
> snapped. Here it's running less than 13% which is why the cameras are
> totally ineffective in reducing speeding. Many times the picture
> doesn't clearly identify the driver so no citation is issued, if a
> citation is issued a very large percent beat the case in court so the
> 13% that do get fined learn not to speed and the 87% who don't get
> fined continue speeding.
>
> It really has little to do with traffic control, it seems to be a huge
> gravy train for the folks who sell, install and maintain the cameras.
>

> I'd like to see statistics as to who gets fined in relation to who gets
> snapped. Here it's running less than 13% which is why the cameras are
> totally ineffective in reducing speeding. Many times the picture
> doesn't clearly identify the driver so no citation is issued, if a
> citation is issued a very large percent beat the case in court so the
> 13% that do get fined learn not to speed and the 87% who don't get
> fined continue speeding.

I don't have any statistics, but the whole notion of taking a speeding
ticket to court doesn't apply in the UK (at least not to my knowledge). On
this and other (motorcycle) newsgroups I've gathered the impression that, as
you say, it's a bit of a game in the US in which you can more often than not
talk your way out of a ticket. Not here in the UK; you get snapped, you get
fined, you pay. I suppose there might be a few instances where you could
argue your way out of a ticket in court - your wife giving birth in the
backseat, that sort of thing - but the notion for example of "keeping up
with the traffic, and going any slower would be dangerous" wouldn't wash
here, as far as I'm aware.

> It really has little to do with traffic control, it seems to be a huge
> gravy train for the folks who sell, install and maintain the cameras.

That's becoming a greater concern here too but at the moment cameras a) may
only be installed in spots that are known to be danger spots, and b) have to
be clearly visible - they're painted bright, reflective yellow and you can't
miss them (well, I have once, but that's because I was going so fast :-))
Fortunately that time the film in the camera was apparently empty since I
never got a ticket. That's changing too, though, what with everything going
high-tech - instead of film, the newer cameras now take the photos digitally
and relay them to the head office straight away, electronically. One less
chance of getting away with it...

Eric

> I still believe that if you take all the risks (fun?) out of life you're
> very likely to live longer. You're just not as likely to actually enjoy
> it!

I'd argue that if you don't smoke or drink you won't actually live longer,
it'll just feel that way, right? :-)

Eric