Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>>>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
>>>>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.
>>
>>>>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
>>>>technique.
>>
>>>On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
>>>feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.
>>
>>Of course you do.
>>
>>I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
>>won't get out of your way fast enough.
>>
>>SMH
>
>
> Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
> do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
> a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
> thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
> that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
> passing lane.
>
> If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
> mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
> Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
> the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
> home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
> within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
> reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
> across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
> effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
> willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
> instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
> are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
> cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
> should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
> is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.

I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
over the past 20 years.

I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
I don't have traffic hassles. Overall, despite the high
18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
bikes and cars generally get along quite well.


SMH

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:59 am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
>>>higher speed limits, fatalities went down.
>>
>>>How incredibly strange.
>>
>>>"Speed kills" is a lie.
>>
>>Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars.
>
>
> And better medical care.
>
>
>>So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
>>the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
>>keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).
>>
>>So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.
>
>
> In reality, it's "collisions kill". And when you mine the data, what
> happens is that impaired driving is the biggest single factor.
> Whether through alcohol or sleepiness or some other impairment, the
> stats look a LOT different when you view them through that lens.

Well sure. The mechanism of the fatality is the collision.

The alcohol issue is the prime example of merged effects.
Alcohol or "judgment impairment" can manifest itself as
excessive speed for conditions.

Many of the studies I've looked over mention the difficulty
of categorizing crash responsibilities which can indeed
sometime blur responsibility scopes. I think alcohol related
crashes (or fatalities, I forget) are considered to be in the
40% range. A similar value was reported for a UK summary.


> The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
> in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
> approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
the equation.

I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").


SMH

On Mar 5, 6:43 am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >>>>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
> >>>>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.
>
> >>>>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
> >>>>technique.
>
> >>>On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
> >>>feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.
>
> >>Of course you do.
>
> >>I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
> >>won't get out of your way fast enough.
>
> >>SMH
>
> > Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
> > do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
> > a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
> > thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
> > that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
> > passing lane.
>
> > If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
> > mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
> > Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
> > the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
> > home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
> > within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
> > reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
> > across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
> > effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
> > willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
> > instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
> > are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
> > cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
> > should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
> > is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.
>
> I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
> out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
> bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
> for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
> over the past 20 years.

I don't spend a lot of time out that way. Glad to hear things are a
little better over there though.


> I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
> I don't have traffic hassles.

I envy you, and miss when I had the same luxury. Then again, that was
back when I lived at home, and I don't miss that. I also miss when I
could ride a mile or so and take the train the rest, which was the
case with my 2 previous residences. Where I live now I could ride 3-4
miles and take a bus the rest. However, the commute takes 2 hours
instead of 40 minutes and costs more than the gas, maintenance and
wear on my vehicle combined.


> Overall, despite the high
> 18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
> bikes and cars generally get along quite well.

I find that cars and bikes almost always coexist better in college
neighborhoods than in the suburbs. I figure the college kids all are
used to bikes, and have friends that ride if they don't themselves.
In the suburbs you get the yuppies who consider you a lower life form
and yell things like "Get off the road! Get a car loser!" Never mind
that I have a truck and a motorcycle...

On Mar 4, 6:12*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 4:02*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
> >> part:
> >> \
>
> >> >Nice post, Ed! *Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >> >of "straw man" *(you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> >> >real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
> >> >the data presented in a citation.
>
> >> \
> >> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
> >> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
> >> "profssl".
>
> >Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.
>
> >I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
> >participated in threads in which this other character posted. *The
> >headers are not anywhere near the same.
>
> Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.
>
> Your routine is boring.

So, that's a half-assed admission that I'm right. Nice of you to
admit it. Sort of.

And you completely trimmed the other part - the part where I spoil
your argument fun by actually holding you to a standard of *gulp*
reason.

If you find me boring, you can certainly pick up your ball and go play
in some other sandbox. Nobody is forcing you to be an idiot here,
after all.

E.P.

On Mar 5, 3:51*am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:

> > The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
> > in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
> > approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.
>
> I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
> correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Uh, that's the graph we're both looking at. We don't disagree at all.

> I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
> as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
> the equation.

All data points to the simple fact that if you reduce collisions, you
reduce fatalities. Velocity, while a contributing factor in the
fatality rate, is not in itself, a correlating factor.

> I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
> both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").

That's exactly the one I mean. Speed, in and of itself, is not the
problem. Reduce the collisions, and your reduce the carnage. That's
number one. Keep the drunks off the road, and the carnage goes down a
lot.

Which means, if you can get folks to all travel at about the 85th
percentile velocity, and keep drunk people out of cars, and you'll
have some success in reducing roadway carnage.

E.P.

On Mar 5, 12:33*am, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >>Your post calls for no real addressing. *The data, almost ALL of it,
> > >>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.
>
> > > False. *Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>
> > There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.
>
> For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
> what Stephen Harding found and posted. *I quote:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------------------
>
> Surely you won't dispute the relation of high speed with more fatal
> accidents when accidents occur? *Physics alone should be persuasive
> enough on that count.
>
> I've gone through a bunch of web sites for studies of the effects of
> speed limits on crashes (fatal or non-fatal) and I believe the results
> vindicate my position.
>
> However, it has been an education for me as well, as I have learned
> that there certainly are cases that raising or lowering have effects
> completely the opposite, or no effect, on crash rates. *That I found
> surprising.
>
> Nonetheless, only a dumb as dirt ideologue would argue the evidence
> for increased speed effecting accident rates was "BS" or without any
> evidence, or mere propaganda output from MADD.
>
> http://car-accidents-attorneys.blogs...-accident-fata...
> <quote>
> * * Speed is another factor when dealing with crash fatalities. More
> than
> * * half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed
> limits
> * * of over 55 mph. While only 20 percent of crashes that occurred on
> * * these * roads were "property-damage-only" crashes.
> </quote>
>

Link is truncated so doesn't work. but "blogspot?" come on.

the bit you quoted does not address the likelihood of crashes
occurring in the first place.

> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf
>
> A large report by the Transportation Research Board:
>
> <quote>
> * * *In 1987 Congress allowed states to raise
> * * *speed limits from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on qualifying
> * * *sections of rural Interstate highways. In the immediately
> following
> * * *years, most states that raised limits observed increases on the
> * * *order of 4 mph (6 km/h) in average speeds and 85th percentile
> * * *speeds, and increases in speed dispersion of about 1 mph (2 km/
> h).
> * * *These speed changes were generally associated with statistically
> * * *significant increases in fatalities and fatal crashes on the
> * * *affected highways--a plausible finding because of the strong link
> * * *between even modest increases in speed at higher speeds and
> * * *increased crash severity.
> </quote>

How about fatalities per vehicle mile traveled or passenger mile
traveled? If they're looking at raw fatality data and not per VMT,
that's called cooking the books.

>
> They do go on to say there have been mixed results in some studies
> of speed relationships to fatalities, due to overlooking of other
> "system wide effects". *Nonetheless, they claim a strong link between
> speed and crash severity.

Of course they do.

>
> One such contrary result was in CA where 65mph speed limit was
> credited for luring motorists to the faster, safer highways due to
> increased speed limit rather than more dangerous side roads
> (http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf).
>
> An interesting result, but the tide seems to support the "speed
> kills" argument in what I've been reading.

No, no it really doesn't. It's not apparently politically fashionable
to stand up to the Claybrookian propaganda, but "speed kills" is *not*
strongly supported by data, and some data actually contradicts it.

>
> <quote>
> * * *Studies have been conducted following repeal of federal maximum
> * * *speed limits in 1995; many of them focused on Interstate
> highways.
> * * *Most found results similar to the speed limit changes in 1987:
> * * *modest increases in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds
> and,
> * * *in some cases, speed dispersion on highways on which speed limits
> * * *were raised. Although not consistent across all states, most
> studies
> * * *indicated an increase in fatalities on highways on which speed
> * * *limits were raised. Most studies did not explore any possible
> system
> * * *effects, and the results should be considered preliminary because
> * * *they are generally based on 1 year of data or less.
> </quote>
>

Again, is this per VMT or raw? I suspect the latter.

> Basic Newtonian physics alone should make it rather obvious that
> increased speeds are going to increase the likelihood of serious
> injury if a crash occurs.
>

Key word, *IF.* There is no strong link between increased speed and
increased crash risk.

As you may well know, *most* crashes occur close to home and at low
speed. That may well be because that's where most of the driving
occurs, but generally, on a per VMT basis, a freeway will be the
safest road on which to travel.

> Mentioned in this report are many other studies such as Treat, et al,
> 1977:
>
> <quote>
> * * *The role of speeding as a crash cause was probably first analyzed
> in
> * * *a detailed and comprehensive manner in Indiana University's Tri-
> * * *Level Study (Treat et al. 1977). Speed was defined as causal if
> it
> * * *met two conditions: (a) it deviated from the "normal" or
> "expected"
> * * *speed of the average driver for the site conditions, and (b) it
> * * *"caused" the crash, that is, the crash would not have occurred
> had
> * * *the speed been as expected. On the basis of this definition, the
> * * *study estimated "excessive speed" to be a definite cause in 7 to
> 8
> * * *percent of the crashes and a probable cause in an additional 13
> to
> * * *16 percent of the crashes.37 Speed was identified as the second
> most
> * * *common factor contributing to crash occurrence, second only to
> * * *"improper lookout" (i.e., inattention) (Treat et al. 1977 in
> Bowie
> * * *and Walz 1994, 32).
> </quote>

OK, that sounds reasonable. However, they're using two different
terms - "speeding" is usually defined as "exceeding the speed limit"
and "excessive speed" is "too fast for conditions" - they are rarely
the same thing. Can't say which viewpoint that cite supports without
more detail.

>
> <quote>
> * * *The clinical studies are unanimous in their finding that
> "excessive
> * * *speed," that is, driving too fast for conditions, contributes to
> a
> * * *significant share of all crashes and a higher share of severe
> * * *crashes. As the following section shows, the evidence for the
> effect
> * * *of speed on crash severity is far more conclusive.
> </quote>

Too fast for conditions is quite often >20MPH over the speed limit.

>
> This report is quite comprehensive and does seem to present a balanced
> picture of the relationship of speed and crash effects. *It's hardly
> something put out by MADD propagandists!
>
> <quote>
> * * *Despite different data files, different definitions of speeding
> and
> * * *excessive speed,

Indeed, that is the problem.

> and different and often subjective techniques
> for
> * * *making judgments about crash causation, the studies consistently
> * * *found that speeding or excessive speed contributes to a
> relatively
> * * *small but significant percentage of all crashes and a higher
> * * *percentage of more severe crashes.
> </quote>

So which is it?

>
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
>
> <quote>
> * * *Table 3. Summary of the effects of raising or lowering speed
> limits.
>
> * *Reference * *Country * * * * Change *Results
>
> Speed Limit DECREASES
>
> Nilsson (1990) *Sweden * * * 68 mi/h to 56 mi/h
> * * * Speeds declined by 14 km/h * *Fatal crashes declined by 21%
>
> Engel (1990) * *Denmark * * *37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
> * * * Fatal crashes declined by 24%. Injury crashes declined by 9%
>
> Peltola (1991) *UK * * *62 mi/h to 50 mi/h
> * * * Speeds declined by 4 km/h. *Crashes declined by 14%
>
> Sliogeris (1992) *Australia *68 mi/h to 62 mi/h
> * * * Injury crashes declined by 19%
>
> Finch et al. (1994) Switzerland *81 mi/h to 75 mi/h
> * * * Speeds declined by 5 km/h. *Fatal crashes declined by 12%.
>
> Scharping (1994) Germany * * 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
> * * * Crashes declined by 20%
>
> Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia *3-12 mi/h decreases
> * * * No significant change (4% increase relative to sites not
> changed)
>

Not applicable to the US. I'm not callously dismissing those results,
but the US is somewhat unique as drivers have had close to 35 years of
consistently unreasonable speed limits, so they've been conditioned to
disregard them. There's several generations that don't remember the
pre-NMSL era (myself among them.) And again, how are fatalities
counted for purposes of these reports, raw or per VMT?

> Parker (1997) *USA 22 states * *5-20 mi/h decreases
> * * * No significant changes

that's what I expected.

>
> Speed Limit INCREASES
>
> NHTSA (1989) * *USA * * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
> * * * Fatal crashes increased by 21%

again, raw or per VMT? NHTSA has a nasty habit of using raw data to
support their preconceived conclusions.

>
> McKnight, Kleinand Tippetts (1990), *US * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
> * * * Fatal crashes increased by 22%; Speeding increased by 48%

I'd be really interested to see this one, how can speeding increase by
48%? I can't remember the last time I drove on a highway where less
than 53% of the drivers weren't already speeding.

>
> Garber and Graham (1990) * *USA (40 States) * * 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
> * * * Fatalities increased by 15%; Decrease or no effect in 12 States

raw or per VMT?

>
> Streff and Schultz (1991) * * * USA (Michigan) *55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
> * * * Fatal and injury crashes increased significantly on rural
> freeways

raw or per VMT?

<snip because I'm going to ask the same question of any study that
indicated an increase in fatalities>


> You'll note that he was honest enough to say that some studies
> indicated otherwise, but that the bulk of studies show positive
> correlation between speed and fatality rates.

No, they show an increase in FATALITIES. Not fatality rates. If more
people drive more cars more miles, there will be more crashes and more
fatalities, even if the rate goes down.

>
> That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
> reliable studies." *Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
> on whether you like its outcome?

It depends on whether or not the study uses a valid metric to come to
its conclusions.

>
> I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
> been: *Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
> faster. * Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
> faster. *

No, all of the above are because what a safe speed is to drive depends
on two factors - one, the maximum safe speed of a road (on a freeway,
with no traffic and a good car, that could be well over 100 MPH) and
the speed of other traffic. If all other traffic is going 70 MPH, but
the speed limit is 55, and the maximum safe speed of the road is
higher than either, you will be safest "going with the flow."

> There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
> faster. *

No, because we don't want to have to stop unnecessarily, wasting time
and fuel.

> Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
> because we want to drive faster.

Speed humps should not be used because they are almost universally
poorly implemented and not compliant with recommendations (and
therefore potentially damaging to vehicles) and also almost never
accomplish the desired goals.

> We'll refuse to shop in your area -
> because we want to drive faster.

If I have a choice between driving in an area that is pleasant to
drive in, and one that is a speed bump infested hellhole, and they are
otherwise equivalent, that's a no brainer.

>
> If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
> where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
> _little_ less bias. *But in the several years we've had these repeated
> discussions, that's never happened.

Because I am not aware of anywhere that speed limits are too high.

I've repeatedly said that I agree with many school zone and
residential area speed limits, however.

> Slow down, boys. *You're just making yourself agitated by always
> trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
> with the time you save, if any.

Really. Who are you to judge how productive I am? I can use the time
I'd otherwise be mindlessly droning down a freeway in the right lane
dodging impaired mergers to respond to marginally interesting topics
on Usenet. Some people may consider that productive

Hey, you might even learn something

nate

On Mar 5, 12:33 am, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >>Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
> > >>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.
>
> > > False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>
> > There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.
>
> For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
> what Stephen Harding found and posted. I quote: <>
>
> That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
> reliable studies." Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
> on whether you like its outcome?
>
> I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
> been: Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
> faster. Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
> faster. There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
> faster. Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
> because we want to drive faster. We'll refuse to shop in your area -
> because we want to drive faster.
>
> If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
> where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
> _little_ less bias. But in the several years we've had these repeated
> discussions, that's never happened.
>
> Slow down, boys. You're just making yourself agitated by always
> trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
> with the time you save, if any.

Lol. Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 5, 6:38*am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 1:04 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >>I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!
>
> > Drive 45 with your tailgate down.
>
> Hey what's the r.a.d. position on tailgates down?
>
> Don't do it! *It doesn't help and may hurt mpg.
>
> Putting a tonneau cover is about the best you can
> do or leave it stock and hope the air bubble in
> the bed helps keep air flow laminar as much as some
> automotive engineers claim.
>
> SMH

That squares with what I've heard as well; apparently the air in the
bed is "dead air" anyway so whether you have a tonneau or not makes
little difference. The tailgate apparently gives something of a Kamm
effect so it is actually beneficial.

I have a camper shell on my pickup so that I can carry car parts,
machine tools, etc. without worry about weather or sticky fingers, so
the decision has already been made for me in my case.

nate

On Mar 5, 9:52*am, " > wrote:

> In the suburbs you get the yuppies who consider you a lower life form

Heh. I love yuppies, I really do.

nate

On Mar 5, 12:51*pm, N8N > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:52*am, " > wrote:
>
> > In the suburbs you get the yuppies who consider you a lower life form
>
> Heh. *I love yuppies, I really do.
>
> nate

I love lots of yuppies. Some of them are my family. What can ya do...