So why does Mr Walker advocate allowing speeds that are equally as likely to cause a crash as the speeds he claims are so unsafe that we must raise the limit up and away from to post at the 85th percentile speed. Mr Walker and I agree that setting the speed limits in the area of the lowest point along the crash incidence curve would generate safety benefits. where we disagree is that I recognize that as speed above that point increases the safety benefits decrease and I conclude that the closer we can keep traffic to that lowest point on the risk curve the greater the safety benefits we will experience. Mr Walker believes in perverting the science and quoting this a way to increase safety so that he can then demand an enforcement grace above that and get an even higher allowable speed to drive. Think about what Mr Walker has told you that he wants to allow. He wants to allow speeds upto and beyond the 95th percentile speed even though he admits that the safest point on the risk curve is at the 85th percentile. WHY?
Why should any other driver take responsibility for his choice of lane? You refuse to take responsibility for your choice of speed and often ignore the law with respect to how fast you are allowed to proceed on any given roadway. Why should other drivers be held to a higher standard than you are? If you can ignore the law with respect to your choice of speed others acn equally ignore the law with respect to which lane they choose.
The problem isn't with the concept of automated enforcement in either example. The problem exists because of the manner in which the vendor for the cameras gets paid. Therefore the GREED that is supposedly witnessed by the implimentation of these automated enforcement techniques is NOT a product of the government but instead a product of the outside contractor trying to maximize his profits. If the ridiculous behavior that Mr Walker asserts(or has witnessed) of drivers slowing down as they pass the camera and then returning to a higher speed afterwards does take place it is NOT evidence, as Mr Walker suggests, that the camera is a poor counter measure but instead proof of consciousness of guilt. Every driver who slows for a speed camera and the returns to a higher speed after he has passed the camera recognizes that his behavior of speeding is unlawful and inappropriate and wishes to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.
Which brings us to the Speed cameras. The speed cameras are only your financial enemy if you are proceeding unlawfully with respect to the speed limit. Ironically the TRB recognizes speed cameras as a countermeasure, to the behavior of speeding, that works. They go so far as to say it is cost effective to impliment and an effective counter measure to speeding.
The so called "GRACE" is the yellow light. there are 3 colors on the traffic light for specific reasons RED means someone else has the active RIGHT OF WAY. GREEN means you have the active RIGHT OF WAY. and yellow means that the active RIGHT OF WAY is about to change and that manuevers should be completed so that you are not in violation of the RIGHT OF WAY when it does change. A very common misconception is that the intersection is OK to enter under the yellow light when in fact the yellow light signifies that if you are not within the intersection you should NOT enter and if you are within the intersection you should clear the intersection. Mr Walker likes to say he follows the guidelines of the ITE, TRB and 17 states. The ITE has published within their guidelines that posting a yellow light timed to the speed limit is an acceptable practice since the vehicles that would be adversely effected by this would only be those who are proceeding unlawfully with regards to the speed limit.
The Red light camera is only financially your enemy if you make it a practice to proceed unlawfully either with respect to the speed limit or the lights themselves. Once the light has turned red the "GRACE" is over.
One wouldn't need to worry about predatory enforcement if one simply followed the guidelines of the law. I have been through Maryland and found that speed limits will change frequently and/or unexpectedly catching drivers off guard. However if your mind is on the task at hand and pay a reasonable amount of attention to the speed limit and other traffic laws ones trip is uneventful with regards to recieving citations. It is the driver's responsibility to drive in a manner compliant with the law. it is ot the laws responsibility to define the driver as compliant.. Funny thing about the lights, If you drive the speed limit, which will prevent speeding tickets as well, the yellow lights are no longer undertimed. If you proceed through an intersection as you are supposed to by using the following rules you won't need to worry about predatory enforcement practices: 1)when the yellow light illuminates you refrain from entering the intersection if you are not already in the intersection or 2)you clear the intersection if you have already entered it. Predatory enforcement practices ONLY target the unlawful and the unattentive. Which means if you proceed lawfully and are alert you will not fall victim to those practices.
You imply here that because a driver can safely, on occassion, drive at 100mph on portions of a roadway that officers should ignore speed violations in that area. even if the 100mph twice what the 85th percentile is?
Again you mis attributed my position. Big surprise that a member of the NMA would twist something that I offered to advance their agenda.
The Question still remains unanswered on why the NMA would have a DRAFT version of a document that existed in 1996 portraying what the ITE's recomendations are. If those recomendations were put into an actual document why then isn't that document part of the NMA website? The answer is that those recomendations did not make it into an official document exactly the way the draft portrays them and the NMA can't rationalize the actual documents contents to support their agenda.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Brainchild