Even further OT because I'm not even going to mentioon the cameras...
Bob W wrote:
> I heard on the radio today, as I was speeding home from work, that
> only about 7% of road accidents here are caused by the driver
> speeding. I can't find anything on the BBC website to back this up.
> But it's likely to cause a few more grumbles about the police
> (mis)directing their efforts towards the motorist instead of going
> after the real perps. Of course, the assumption there could be
> unfounded: the drivers could still be the cause of the accident - but
> not by speeding.
I don't have a forest of data to refer to, but I spend enough
time on the road that personal observation is not insignificant.
Counting up the accidents and close calls that I've observed or
been in, there have been very few in which speed was the only
meaningful factor. If you allow me to exclude the stupid things
I did before age 21, I think the number drops to zero or one.
If you count the ones where speed was a _contributing_ factor
to the accident or close call having occurred, you get a handful
more, but if you really want to see lots of speed-related ones,
you have to add in the ones where speed was not a factor in
_causing_ the problem, but did make the consequences or potential
_consequences_ _of_ the event worse.
Of the ones where speed was part of the cause, about a third
of those had all vehicles travelling below the posted speed
limit. ("Too fast for conditions", but not exceeding the
speed limit.) In my not-so-humble opinion, many of the rest
were really due to "too fast for conditions" and not the fact
that someone was over the posted limit.
What _does_ cause most of the near-misses and collisions that
I've seen?
Failure to signal lane changes, often coupled with...
Failure to check mirrors before lane changes
Tailgating
Inattention (it would've been a safe following distance
if you'd noticed the brake lights when they came on)
Failure to heed traffic control devices (stoplights,
stop signs, roadway markings)
Road rage (convenient that we have a name for it now),
showing off, and "neither rule of law nor rule of
ettiquette apply to me today because everybody should
be able to read my mind and tell how much of a hurry
I'm in right now".
If the police made no other change than to shift all the effort
they currently expend on catching speeders to catching tailgaters,
that alone would make our highways far safer. If they also go
after improper lane changes, intensely enough that people learn
to be afraid to make those mistakes, the change would be amazing.
Even if they dropped speed enforcement altogether on controlled-access
highways to do so. (Speeding in residential areas and business
districts might still need to be policed.)
But speeding is extremely easy to _quantify_. It's easy to
assign a number to, and it's easy to _measure_. So it's an
easy ticket. It's all scientifical and stuff: "Your honor,
the defendant was travelling at 86 MPH in a 65 MPH zone using
RADAR." "That's 21 MPH over the posted speed, so it's one
more point and a lot more money than it would've been at 84
MPH. Guilty. Next!" (I exaggerate slightly, but just try
to raise doubts about the measurement in traffic court and
see how much like that it winds up sounding.) A scientific
instrument generated a NUMBER which means it's _objective_
and _mathematical_, whether that number is _meaningful_ or
not (and without any question of the _precision_ of the
number a lot of the time).
Besides, the police (a majority of them in Maryland, not
quite so many in northern Virginia or Pennsylvania) tailgate.
If I get pulled over for 85 MPH on I-95 at 3:00 AM when there
is nobody within five miles but me and the state trooper,
it's the same mathematically assigned penalty -- the same
violation -- as if I get pulled over at 85 MPH at 3:00 PM when
that highway is starting to fill up for rush hour. Meanwhile,
the fellow who tailgates me at a three-quarter of a second
following distance at 75 MPH for four miles can do so right
next to a cop at either hour, and he won't get pulled over for
it. If he gets pulled over for something else, tailgating
_might_ get added on, but he won't be pulled over _for_tailgating_.
And the person who cuts me off without signalling, going 55 MPH
while I'm doing the limit at 65, forcing me onto the shoulder
because there's not enough room for me to avoid him with only
my brake pedal, will only be charged for that if we actually
collide.
Now if I'm going 85 MPH when the slowpoke pulls out in front
of me, speed is a factor. Not the only cause, but a factor.
But if I'm doing the speed limit, he's still put me at risk,
and excessive speed doesn't come into play. If you want
funding for speed cameras and an excuse for writing more
tickets, the number you cite is the number of accidents where
"speed was a factor", not the number "caused by speeding".
And most of the media, and most of the media's audience,
won't notice the subtlety of the phrasing.
They're "going after the low-hanging fruit". Speeding is an
easy catch. Ignore the fact that on a clear, dry night with
no other cars on the road, a driver in reasonable health
and alert, a car in good working order, and a stretch of
road where curves and hills don't obstruct the view ahead,
driving even 110 MPH puts nobody at risk. (Unobstructed
view a sufficient distance ahead for one's speed is, yes,
an important detail.) Catching the tailgater and the improper
lane changer requires a judgement call and then requires
arguing about that judgement call in court. Catching the
speeder, who may or may not be creating danger, is a matter
of reading a number off the RADAR readout or the cruiser's
speedometer. Instrument. Number. Bang.
Or even easier, an unmanned device.
And as long as I'm on the subject: two-seconds following
distance, folks. The fact that it's rush hour doesn't
change the laws of physics or the speed of biology (reaction
time and the time it takes to actually press the brake once
the motion has begun), so crowding a bit during rush hour
isn't any safer than doing so at other times. Your being in
a hurry doesn't change it either. Two seconds. If you're
old enough to have learned the "car length for each ten
miles per hour" rule, that works out to about the same
distance unless the car you're measuring with is especially
short or especially long.
And I clearly should have gone to bed before now, so goodnight.
-- Glenn
