Noteworthy:
"The only likely beneficiaries are insurance companies (ticket surcharges), local governments that live off speed traps, P.R. firms (the genius creators of public service ads like “Save Gas Save Lives, Drive 55”) and perhaps the radar detector industry. In return, the driving public is treated to aggravation, maddening traffic flow, tickets, bloated insurance premiums, and billions of hours of lost time......
It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. The reasons are many."
"Did it save fuel? In 1984, in what started out to be a promotional 'study' of the 'Benefits of the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit' the Transportation Research Board (Part of the National Academy of Science) determined that keeping the 55 MPH speed limit, versus allowing the states to raise the limit to 65 MPH, would result in a 0.18 percent (less than two tenths of one percent) fuel savings (Source: TRB Report, 55: A Decade of Experience; page 176)
This is not an amount that will devastate the oil economy of the Middle East. The same study did determine that the 55 MPH national speed limit was wasting approximately one billion man hours a year (page 123). This did not include state trooper man hours being burned up enforcing an arbitrary speed limit on the safest highways in the nation."
And then we have this compelling evidence of the lie that "it will save lives!"
Source: NHTSA 2006 Traffic Facts (page 16)
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteThe link that your source posted from the National Academy of Science states "Recommendations of the committee are that the 55 mph speed limit should be retained on almost all of the nation's highways."
Where is the "lie" about the speed limit saving lives. The chart you post makes a very strong case for the safety aspects of the 55-mph speed limit. Deaths dropped dramatically and immediately after the speed limit was introduced in 1972. The next large drop corresponds with the change in minimum drinking age laws in the early 1980s, while the later drop corresponds with the regulation requiring air bags or passive restraints in all cars in the mid- and late-1980s.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteI just posted this on your source's web-site but will do so here for your convenience.
Mr. Baxter:
The gas savings figure that you quote from the NAS-TRB report is in error. The NAS-TRB estimated that raising the posted speed limit on all roads capable of handling those speeds from 55 to 65 MPH would increase fuel consumption by 167,000 barrels per day or roughly 1.1 percent. The figure that you cite is the TRB's estimated impact of raising the posted speed limit to 65 only on rural interstates but leaving the 55 MPH limit on other roads.
It is worth noting that the NAS-TRB recommended keeping the 55 MPH speed limit. It estimated that the speed limit saved 2,000-4,000 lives per year (on top of the other improvements in traffic safety), similar numbers of serious injuries, 34,000-61,000 minor injuries, and substantial taxpayer costs (mostly from decreased disability payments and death benefits).
Neither of your premises are supported by the actual observed facts.
ReplyDeleteUpon what factual and empirical basis do you rely upon to make the statements you did?
Absent that, your points are pure conjecture.
This information however is NOT conjecture.
"We now have 10 years of evidence proving that the only "assault" was on the sanctity of the truth. The nearby table shows that the death, injury and crash rates have fallen sharply since 1995. Per mile traveled, there were about 5,000 fewer deaths and almost one million fewer injuries in 2005 than in the mid-1990s. This is all the more remarkable given that a dozen years ago Americans lacked today's distraction of driving while also talking on their cell phones.
Of the 31 states that have raised their speed limits to more than 70 mph, 29 saw a decline in the death and injury rate and only two--the Dakotas--have seen fatalities increase. Two studies, by the National Motorists Association and by the Cato Institute, have compared crash data in states that raised their speed limits with those that didn't and found no increase in deaths in the higher speed states.
Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, says that by the early 1990s 'compliance with the 55 mph law was only about 5%--in other words, about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit.'
Now motorists can coast at these faster speeds without being on the constant lookout for radar guns, speed traps and state troopers. Americans have also arrived at their destinations sooner, worth an estimated $30 billion a year in time saved, according to the Cato study."
In regard to fuel mileage, 55 mph is often not the most efficient speed for optimum results. Many variables cause this to be the case.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteThe factual basis to make the statements was actually reading the NAS-TRB report that Mr. Baxter misquoted and misrepresented.
The NAS-TRB considered the compliance issues (at least as they existed in 1983-4), changes in car designs, changes in other laws, and other circumstances in making their estimates. You or Mr. Baxter are free to argue that the NAS-TRB analysis of these things was faulty, but you haven't done this. Incidentally, Mr. Baxter likes (and cites) the NAS-TRB time loss numbers, which rely on similar caveats.
To be sure, ALL of these estimates are speculation. A particular road is either posted as one thing or posted as another. Estimating the impact of a posting change requires us to speculate what would happen on the same roads if we could replicate the exact set of conditions that exist right now. As many things affecting highway safety change, making comparisons over time is difficult. Disentangling the effect of this particular policy from those other changes requires an analyst to speculate.
The NAS-TRB conducted such an analysis and laid out all of its assumptions and numbers; it also laid out caveats to its analyses.
According to their estimates, the change in speed limit policies costs us the equivalent of one 9/11 catastrophe per year in lost lives.
Heck, Mr. Ribar, why don't we just lower it some more...maybe a universal 45mph limit. Just look at how many more lives *might* be saved. And if that works, we can lower it to 35mph and save EVEN more lives. Yeah, that'll work...
ReplyDeleteJaycee:
ReplyDeleteLower speed limits have been looked at. Once speeds fall below 55 MPH, there isn't that much of a drop in fuel savings or improvements in safety. On the other hand, you would get the same marginal increase in time costs.
BTW, I would not advocate a universal return to 55 MPH. As the NAS-TRB pointed out, the savings of this policy on rural interstates are pretty minimal. I do advocate driving the posted speed limit. We should also look at dropping the maximum speeds to 70 or maybe even 65 MPH.
"The NAS-TRB conducted such an analysis and laid out all of its assumptions and numbers; it also laid out caveats to its analyses."
ReplyDeleteStrictly anecdotal, with no reason to assume their validity.
Any statement that says the 55 MPH speed limit saves lives is a lie not supported by facts and direct real world observation, as indicated in the NTSB graph.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteSo the NAS-TRB study was worth citing when it suited your purposes (i.e., when you didn't know what it really contained) but "strictly anecdotal, with no reason to assume (its) validity" when it's conclusions became inconvenient.
In any case, you don't have any independent basis for either praising or criticizing the source.
I think this fits under the pitfalls of relying on second-hand sources.
"So the NAS-TRB study was worth citing when it suited your purposes (i.e., when you didn't know what it really contained) but "strictly anecdotal, with no reason to assume (its) validity" when it's conclusions became inconvenient."
ReplyDeleteNo, Dave.
The link cited by Baxter is in support of MPG numbers, which proven by empirical observation.
The death numbers of 2000-4000 deaths provided in the TRB is pure conjecture, not supported by any empirical evidence.
The NHSTA graph posted in my main piece, and the one listed my WSJ link is evidence of exactly the opposite effect: the higher the speed limit, the lower the death rate. It is observable and empirical.
You cannot change those facts.
One more thing:
ReplyDelete"Speed" does not cause motor vehicle fatalities.
There are many factors that could cause vehicle fatalities, but "speed" is not one of them.
bubba said:
ReplyDelete""Speed" does not cause motor vehicle fatalities."
Damn right. It's that sudden stop! :)
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteThe link to the NAS-TRB is on your page as well.
As mentioned, the fuel savings number that Mr. Baxter mentioned was the wrong one (it was the savings associated with a partial lifting of the speed limit not a full one); the correct fuel savings was several times larger than he (mis)reported. In any case, those savings numbers were computed using the same methodology and assumptions as the mortality figures.
Saying that speed doesn't cause auto fatalities is plain silly. It's a simple matter of physics (the damage and injury associated with collisions increases with speed). Also, reaction times decrease with speed.
The point that you may have been trying to get across is that variations in speed are bigger contributors to accidents than speed itself. This point was addressed by the NAS-TRB. They showed that the 55 MPH led to more uniform speeds (less variation), which in turn contributed to fewer accidents, fewer fatalities, and fewer injuries. To quote the NAS-TRB (p. 3), "the distribution of highway speeds continues to be narrower than before the 55 mph speed limit became effective, and this reduced variance enhances highway safety."
Anyway, you've amply demonstrated that you will gainsay anything, even your own sources, that doesn't fit with your pre-arrived-at conclusions.
"Anyway, you've amply demonstrated that you will gainsay anything, even your own sources, that doesn't fit with your pre-arrived-at conclusions."
ReplyDeleteThen why do you bother commenting?
Speed doesn't kill. That's already been established, whether you like it or not.
The conclusions that 55 mph saves lives cannot be supported by the information provided. There are FAR too many variables involved that determine that in an accident.
For you to say otherwise indicates that you really do not understand the actual dynamics that takes place in an accident situation.
Saying "it's simply a matter of physics" shows your naivete on this subject. Accidents kill people, and the causes of accidents are never "speed" by itself.
In addition, you can die at 30 MPH under certain conditions just as easily as 75MPH.
For those reasons, any blanket statement that "reducing the speed limit to 55 will save 200-4000 lives per year is patently absurd.
The only empirical proof is offered through the numbers as provided by the NHSTA which, by the way is part of the DOT, and not part of the NSA/TRB
I refer you here for more information.
Key point:
"Taken as a whole, these different analyses lead to the conclusion that overall statewide fatality rates fell by 3.4 to 5.1 percent in the states that adopted the 65 mph limit.
Why did the new speed limit lower the fatality rate? 1) Drivers may have switched to safer roads; 2) highway patrols may have shifted resources to activities with more safety payoff; and 3) the speed variance among cars may have declined -- it might decline on the interstates as law abiding drivers caught up with the speeders, and it might have declined on other highways as their speeders switched to the interstates.
The evidence indicates that events 1 and 2 did occur; we have no evidence for event 3. Future research ought to be directed toward disentangling the relative contribution of these factors.
Dr Charles Lave was a member of the Transportation Research Board Committee for the Study of the Benefits and Costs of the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit which produced in 1984 TRB's Special Report 204, '55: A Decade of Experience.'"
All the empirical evidence is clear........reducing the speed limit to 55 mph will NOT save lives.
Care to make another foolish knee jerk remark about "pre-conceived' conclusions, Professor Corey?
Bubba:
ReplyDelete"All the evidence is clear"?
How can that be when the researcher (Lave) that you have effectively referenced twice (once on his own and earlier as part of the NAS-TRB) has taken both sides of the issue.
Lave, who unfortunately passed away two months ago, had a well-known reputation as a transportation contrarian (among his other controversial findings were that Californians don't drive a lot). The study that you cite is in the minority with respect to the mortality effects of speed limits (though it has some company there). It is also VERY problematic. The scaling by VMT undercuts the premise of the article (that we should fully account for the system of behavior). If you look at fatalities in the aggregate (as Michael Griffith of the Federal Highway Administration has), the analysis falls apart. Similarly, Lave's hypothesis should lead to symmetric effects--that is, the imposition of the 55 mph limit should have led to an increase in deaths in the states that he analyzes, but it didn't (he fudges the numbers in his analysis by talking about the change in 1974 but only looking at data after 1976).
Lave's analysis only holds if you believe that deaths on low-speed roads decreased more than deaths on high speed roads increased. Lave does not dispute that deaths on high speed roads (the findings of Garber and Graham) increased.
"Lave does not dispute that deaths on high speed roads (the findings of Garber and Graham) increased."
ReplyDeleteThe FACTS dispute that, just as the facts dispute the fear factor supporters of the 55 mph limit like to grandstand about, primarily by use of misleading "statistics", particularly by NAS/TRB.
Here's some analysis:
"A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication reports 'no significant relationship between average speed and the fatality rate.' And, 'states with high average speeds do not have higher fatality rates than states with low average speeds.'"
"Only 4% of serious or fatal accidents occur on rural interstates nationwide. These are the safest highways in the nation. (US DOT)
[For example:] Oregon fastest interstates have a fatality rate about half that of all other roads. (ODOT)
The Oregon Traffic Safety Commission's list of eight "very dangerous" highway stretches includes no interstates or divided highways. (The Oregonian)"
"Comparing the years before and after the increase in the Federal limit to 65 mph in 1987, the fatality rate dropped by 3.5% lower on all roads in the 40 states that raised freeway limits than in the 10 that didn't. Some of the benefits came from drivers switching to faster, safer interstates from dangerous country roads. Thus, analysts who ignored the non-interstates and who used total fatalities instead of rates reached the opposite conclusion. Since limits were raised from 55 to 65, the national fatality rate has declined by 34%. (US DOT)"
There's more regarding "increased fatalities":
{8.In 1989, there were 600 more fatalities, an increase of 32%, on rural interstates in states that raised the speed limit to 65 compared to the mean rate in the five years (1982-86) before the speed limit increase. Two-thirds of the deaths (almost 400), a 19% increase in fatalities, were directly attributed to increased speed limits. The Fatality Rate Consequences of The 65 MPH Speed Limit, 1989, Baum, Wells & Lund, IIHS (Apr., 1991).}
"In 1982, there were 1.6 trillion vehicle miles traveled in the US, in 1989, it increased 31% to 2.1 trillion. Coincidence? When they talk of fatalities, not fatality rates, be suspicious!"
And finally, the definitive rationale behind the drumbeating for 55:
"So what is the case for 55 mph? Like so many nanny state initiatives, it is rooted not so much in safety (impact: minimal) or efficiency (net global impact: minimal), but in a puritanical desire to control."
Next, if you like, we will begin to talk about the non do-gooder motivations of certain NMSL 55 supporters, and the financial machinations behind such support.
Bubba:
ReplyDelete"In 1989, there were 600 more fatalities, an increase of 32%, on rural interstates in states that raised the speed limit to 65 compared to the mean rate in the five years (1982-86) before the speed limit increase. Two-thirds of the deaths (almost 400), a 19% increase in fatalities, were directly attributed to increased speed limits."
Wow, 600 more fatalities from a partial lifting of the 55 mph speed limit is exactly in line with the NAS-TRB predictions. Thanks!
Game, set, match.
"Game, set, match."
ReplyDelete(sigh)
No, Dave.
Read the link again, this time for comprehension, and see how the quote you so delighted about is actually used.
For a man with an academic pedigree who is supposed to know what statistics tell, and also what they DON'T tell, you show a poor understanding of the actual real world circumstances behind the accumulation of said statistics.
The only valid comparison of traffic fatality statistics is based on miles traveled. Any "increase" in deaths is misleading, and has no relationship to the issue at hand.
You cannot make the premise you are trying to make.
How many more drivers were on the roads?
How many more miles were driven?
These two categories tell us the rate of deaths on highways was much lower, perhaps by a factor of ten over non-rural roads with speed limits 55 or under.
Finally, we have this: Under what circumstances did the accidents that resulted in death occur?
Without knowing all these things (or ignoring them, as you do), you cannot assign blame to an increased speed limit. You cannot arbitrarily say a reduction to 55 mph would show any improvement in rate or numbers.
There is NO empirical evidence that says increased speed limits caused the deaths to rise.
There is NO empirical evidence that suggests that 55 mph would be any safer.
Evidently the genius Dave has never lived in the Southwest or in the Dakotas, Montana and other such desolate places where the speed limits of 70 are actually slow and as safe as the 65 he advocates. Truth be known the average driver in those states drive about 75-80mph . I often do and find no real gas savings by driving the low 65 and certainly not by driving 55. Driving under 75 in most of those state will get you passed by every State Patrolman on the highway. LOL
ReplyDeleteOn a recent trip to the Dakota's I was driving about 90 when I suddenly realized that the car I was fast approaching in front of me was a SD State Trooper. As I began to slow down, he waved me on. I passed him at 95, waved to him and never looked back. He was the last car I saw for over 20 minutes and that vehicle was traveling east on the other side of the widely divided four lane highway.
Dave needs to get out more and stop reading so many of the myths spread by the enviro-nuts.
"Dave needs to get out more and stop reading so many of the myths spread by the enviro-nuts."
ReplyDeleteDave may well be one of those drivers who doesn't "think" about his driving while performing the task. He probably does it mechanically,in much the same way as human beings breathe, without processing the dynamics of the driving situation. Many people do that.
When I worked in motorsports, my primary employer was a retired legendary open-wheel race driver. After retirement, he and his partner operated several racing teams, owned and operated a road racing track, and conducted a number of racing and safety driving schools. In the 1970s,he conceived and operated the first counter-terrorist driving school.
He was(is) a brilliant man, with a PhD in a scientific discipline, earned before he became one of the greats. He was also one of the worst street drivers I ever knew.
On the street, his mind always seemed to be wandering, often thinking of concepts, philosophies, and applications. Perhaps he was bored driving 45 mp, after some many years of running wheel to wheel at speeds of 160 mph and up.
However, on the race track, he epitomized the mental discipline and the closed loop responsiveness of the unconscious competence that all great race car drivers possess.
The moral of the story?
The so-called "safety experts" we always hear from in the media, almost to a man/woman don't understand the fact that human input, NOT speed, is the greatest single factor in determining safety behind the wheel.
Always has been.....always will be.
Dave may well be one of those drivers who doesn't "think" about his driving while performing the task.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Bubba. dave is probably one of those guys with loads of head knowledge, book larnin and not a lick of common sense to go with it. I have known many like that. They can't even pick out matching clothes in the morning before they go out for the day. Checks and stripes, plaids and checks and colors that would drive even the most abstract artist crazy. It seems their entire lives are in disarray from the word go with the exception of academics where they excel. They retain words like a sponge but yet do not have a clue as to the real purpose of what they have retained when it comes to using such for everyday common use.
What a pity to have a brain like that and yet can not actually function in the real world. Makes ya glad to be below genius level , doesn't it.