No more speeding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/opinion/08sepkowitz.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Kent A. Sepkowitz of NY Times said:Op-Ed Contributor No Need for Speed Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink By KENT A. SEPKOWITZ Published: September 7, 2008 SPEEDING is the cause of 30 percent of all traffic deaths in the United States — about 13,000 people a year. By comparison, alcohol is blamed 39 percent of the time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But unlike drinking, which requires the police, breathalyzers and coercion to improve drivers’ behavior, there’s a simple way to prevent speeding: quit building cars that can exceed the speed limit. Most cars can travel over 100 miles an hour — an illegal speed in every state. Our continued, deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices has no real precedent. We regulate all sorts of items to decrease danger to the public, from baby cribs to bicycle helmets. Yet we continue to produce fast cars despite the lives lost, the tens of billions spent treating accident victims, and a good deal of gasoline wasted. (Speeding, after all, substantially reduces fuel efficiency due to the sheering force of wind.) Worse, throughout the various federal documents examining traffic fatalities, the role of speeding is de-emphasized. Speeding is not even an “agency priority” of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its annual assessment of crashes — only alcohol, seat belts, rollovers and vehicle compatibility make the cut. Rather it is in the second-tier “other focus” category, along with large trucks and “intersection-related and roadway departure.” And unlike the statistical attention afforded alcohol (20 pages of a 150-page document), the section devoted to speeding comes in at a measly three pages. A deeper look at the safety administration’s report on traffic fatalities in 2005 also reveals a strange fact about how speeding-related traffic fatalities are tallied up. Consider this: in Texas, in 2005, 3,504 people died in a traffic accident; 1,426 (about 41 percent) were considered speeding-related. In sharp contrast, for Florida, 3,543 died yet only 239 were considered speeding-related — about 7 percent. Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana and New Jersey, among other states, also report rates well below 20 percent. This variation is not just shoddy government work. With alcohol, for example, the 39 percent national rate varies only by a whisker when examined state to state (except for Utah’s admirable rate of 13 percent). Is it possible that drivers in some states speed more often than their counterparts across the border? Not likely. Different states, for various reasons, analyze their automotive fatalities in different ways, but the result is that the safety agency’s official speeding-related fatality rate of 28 percent is almost certainly a low-ball estimate. Then there is the relationship between speeding and alcohol. According to the agency, in 2006, 41 percent of alcohol-related fatalities were also associated with speeding; and between midnight and 3 a.m., 76 percent of speeding drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents had been drinking. Despite all this, we Americans insist on the inalienable right to speed. Imagine, for a moment, if E-ZPass kept track of exactly when each car entered one toll booth and exited another, which would allow local governments to do some basic math, dividing distance traveled by time spent. If this calculation showed you to be a speeder, the authorities would send you a traffic ticket. Lives, money and oil would be saved and proof of wrongdoing would be undeniable, but the public outcry would be deafening. Because the ticket-them-till-they-stop approach simply would not work, we might consider my initial recommendation: build cars that can’t exceed the speed limit. The technology to limit car speed has existed for more than 50 years — it’s called cruise control. In its common application, cruise control maintains a steady speed, but a minor adjustment would assure that vehicles, no matter the horsepower, never go past 75 miles per hour. This safety measure should be required of every new automobile, the same as seat belts, turning signals, brake lights and air bags. Sure, it would take us longer to get from here to there. But thousands of deaths a year are too great a cost for so adolescent a thrill as speeding. Kent A. Sepkowitz is vice-chairman of medicine at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Meant to put a ? in the title so as not to imply that this was in fact a soon to happen law.

My take on it:

Speeding does not cause accidents, (usually), but rather amplifies the likelihood of injury or death if one should occur. To say speed kills is misleading. I could drive 150 mph down a straight road with high visibility, and gasp, live to tell about it. It's not speed that kills, but rather bad driving. Someone who drives 65 mph in a 70 mph zone, but decides he's going to change lanes when there is someone else in the lane he wants going at 70 mph is dangerous. This will result in the person already in the lane to swerve or slam on his brakes, creating potential for an accident to occur. Often times speed is 'blamed' for an accident caused by something else. It's ok to admit that speed was a factor, but if it's inappropriate lane change, or following too closely, or inability to maintain control than that's what it should be called.

I think that speeding citations shouldn't be eliminated, but they should be tacked on to something else. I.E. Failure to signal while changing lanes should be handled differently depending on the speed it occured at. But simply speeding by itself, on a sunny day, with good visibility and low traffic, should not be treated as harshly as it would be in a more congested, challenging situation.

The shortened equation for kinetic energy is KE = 0.5mV^2. V plays a huge part in the outcome of an accident, yes, it's true. But to say that it is the 'cause' is often just a way to scapegoat the problem onto people that are more easily prosecuted, (because speed can be measured, while stupidity behind the wheel is more difficult).

Let's go back to the lane change thing, someone who's going 10 over the limit while performing an illegal lane change should get a different ticket than going 20 over. Also, someone going 10 under the limit should get a similar ticket as 10 over, assuming traffic flow is the speed limit, as it's people that break traffic flow that cause accidents.

This leads to my suggestion that states create speed limits that realistically reflect traffic flow. I just started noticing something Michigan has been quietly doing:

Construction zones on typical 65-70 mph highways for the longest time had 45 mph limits. Then eventually I started seeing signs that read something along the lines of 'Speed Limit 60 mph, 45 mph where workers present'

Now I'm seeing 'Speed Limit 45 where workers present' with no indications of when there aren't any, leaving one to assume that the original posted limit of 65 to 70 is ok. Thank you, people finally trust motorists to navigate stationary orange and white cones when there are no construction workers around. Hell, there aren't even any hairpins set up.

We need more common sense road rules put into place across the nation. Let's start with drive in the right lane, pass on the left. This already exists everywhere that I know of, and is only slowly getting more and more enforcement.

Feel free to disagree and argue with me. I wanna hear more opinions on this.

Register for NYTimes.com. • Breaking news and award winning multimedia • New York Times newspaper articles • Arts & Dining reviews • Online Classifieds

Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop.

Fixed in original post.

I have 2 comments. 1, for the amount it is enforced, the speedlimit is far too slow in most places. On the freeway when the limit is 65, even driving 75 is too slow sometimes. Also, unless the freeway is maintained better, Id prefer the left lane to be the slow lane, and the right lane for passing, becasue the right lane is in such bad shape from trucks its really unpleasant to drive in.

It all comes back to personal responsibility on the part of the driver to be the best driver they can within their skills and to realize when they are beyond that skill level. This is why laws banning cell phone use and other things while driving boggles my mind since it would seem to be common sense to not do or at least to do it as little as possible.

I will say that the driving tests have gotten much too easy (at least in my neck of the woods) but that shouldn't preclude drivers from learning on their own to be better. Much like other things, you should have to be recertified in order to keep driving and continuing education (driving schools, etc) add to your recertification. I believe CDL drivers have to follow some rigorous standards, correct? Pilots do as well. Why not the average driver?

Think of it like someone going to public school, coming out with a high school diploma and deciding they are going to be a doctor. Instead of going back to school and learning the basics on their own, they instead grab a stethoscope and start giving people physicals.

As to the arbitrary speed limits. You've got people who are not traffic engineers setting the limits for their own needs. Mostly greedy politicians who want the extra ticket revenue for their pockets or to quiet the overly active people who complain that people are driving too fast in their neighborhood. Well if you'd not move into a neighborhood that is built next to an active highway you wouldn't have that problem, would you? And now we're back to the personal responsibility thing again.

In the end, it is much easier to ticket speeders (they are quantifiable) than it is bad drivers. Bad drivers typically really need to screw up to get caught, usually after the accident has already happened at which point the cop will write a ticket for reckless driving, etc.

E-Z pass and Sunpass already do everything but send out the ticket. Florida is just waiting to see if other states get away with it before sending them out. Once the elections are over and there is the reduced possibility of immediate voter backlash, they may go ahead with it anyway. Once out of the congested areas, 85-90 seems a reasonable speed on the turnpike. At 80 I may pass two Winnebagos on the whole run. In the good old days on the Florida Autobahn err....Alligator Alley, 90 was seriously the slow lane speed on many a day. My Sis got clocked at 92 in my GLI and got a warning. I suspect I might have suffered a different fate...

Travis_K wrote: I have 2 comments. 1, for the amount it is enforced, the speedlimit is far too slow in most places. On the freeway when the limit is 65, even driving 75 is too slow sometimes. Also, unless the freeway is maintained better, Id prefer the left lane to be the slow lane, and the right lane for passing, becasue the right lane is in such bad shape from trucks its really unpleasant to drive in.

The problem with the left lane being the slow lane is that the vast majority of on/off ramps are on the right. To have people enter the highway in the fast lane is a pain, and to have people in the slow lane cutting through the fast lane to exit is also a pain. This can be seen if you have to deal with a left-hand on/off ramp in your daily commute.

To add to driving no-no's that need to be punished (more often), is shiny happy persons that know the lane is about to end, but wait to the last possible millisecond to do something about it, often creating an accordian with the traffic flow.

We're starting to get into E36 M3 that just boils my blood and I can feel myself getting physically angry as I type. Man I wish I wasn't at work so I could go do what I do to relax.

Some years ago, a maverick researcher claimed that speed in and of itself wasn't the real culprit but rather a large disparity in speeds between the different cars on a given highway was more to blame (think Grandma doing 45 in a 70, for instance). Of course, the insurance compaines shouted him down. I think this is the same guy, but I could be wrong: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11387&page=221

They need to do a better job of teaching the pass/travel/slow lane concept to new drivers. It seems as though 95% of drivers on the road have no clue that the right (slow) lane is not for passing. Anyone who passes on the right when the left (passing) lane is empty should be publically humiliated medieval style .

I remember learning in drivers ed that when passing on the freeway, you should not move back over until you can see the car you're passing's grill in your rearview mirror. I've always done this out of common courtesy and I appreciate when others do the same for me. Nothing pisses me off more than someone who passes me and moves back over 3 feet in front of bumper. I think most drivers forget that the majority of their vehicle is behind them.

I pass the majority of vehicles every day on my way to work, and I'm in the right lane more or less the entire time. Occasionally I swing over to the left lane, but it's fairly rare.

And I bet it's not because you enjoy passing on the right, but because it's often the only open lane. I can tell you right now that I have seen with my own two eyes, on multiple accounts, some old lady driving by herself, entering an EMPTY highway other than myself and maybe 2 other cars, and promptly moving to occupy the left lane for no apparant reason. It's amazing.

Yea, passing on the right when some old lady is doing 52 in the left lane is one thing; choosing to pass on the right when nobody is in the left lane is an abomination.

captainzib wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/opinion/08sepkowitz.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Kent A. Sepkowitz of NY Times said:Op-Ed Contributor No Need for Speed Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink By KENT A. SEPKOWITZ but a minor adjustment would assure that vehicles, no matter the horsepower, never go past 75 miles per hour. This safety measure should be required of every new automobile, the same as seat belts, turning signals, brake lights and air bags.

Then a Loaded suburban towing a horse trailer going 60 traveling through a residential neighborhood supposedly "limited" to 25 could not possibly do any damage. I also like the correlation to alcohol related accidents involving speed. So if we slow the drunks down more people will live.

I like the road signs in PA that read "slow down, save a life." I want to jack the brakes when I see the sign.

I think the article was written to shock, nothing else.

omg omg omg, guns have the potential to kill people! We should take them away! ( similar logic!? )

captainzib wrote: And I bet it's not because you enjoy passing on the right, but because it's often the only open lane. I can tell you right now that I have seen with my own two eyes, on multiple accounts, some old lady driving by herself, entering an EMPTY highway other than myself and maybe 2 other cars, and promptly moving to occupy the left lane for no apparant reason. It's amazing.

Many times the left lane is a smoother ride. I hope to have the luxury of a chauffeur when I'm old, but will probably be stuck driving myself. Some of those pesky old people feel like they have the right to do whatever, like they earned something.

So 30% of accidents are caused by speeding and 39% by alcohol. Why aren't we doing anything about the vast majority of accidents which are caused by people being terrible inattentive drivers who have no idea what to do in an emergency situation behind the wheel? You'd think there'd be more of an uproar about everyone being a crappy driver than singling out the few of us that like to go fast. I know how we can fix this problem; more traction control, more stability control, MORE AIRBAGS!!!1

I also have a rant about how killing someone in an auto accident while drunk is punishable with jail time and all sorts of life altering stuff but killing someone sober because you suck at driving is somehow ok. You know, if you want to read that one too.

My sister recently rear ended the crap out of a G35. She's 16, it was totally her fault (following way to closely, text messaging, generally not paying attention at all). Her punishment was a $30 fine and my dad providing her with a new car. Had she been drunk she'd probably still be in jail.

Sooooooo, you want your sister to be in jail or for us to be more leniant on drunks? Which angle are you playing here?

I am guessing that he means that people (in general) dont understand the attention that driving requires, he is equating that inattentiveness is JUST as dangerous as being drunk.

Jensenman wrote: Some years ago, a maverick researcher claimed that speed in and of itself wasn't the real culprit but rather a large disparity in speeds between the different cars on a given highway was more to blame (think Grandma doing 45 in a 70, for instance).

I think that this could be a reason that manytimes cops will not stop traffic if its going in excess. I have seen groups going well over 10mph, but everyone was. Cops never flinched.

I agree with what was said earlier, many of the problems are the lack of driver training. Many people can get a drivers license and do not need to know much. A written test can get you a license. You do not even need to be a legal resident in a few states. I know people that cannot read signs mainly because they cannot understand english. They are driving with a CDL.

There is some problems with the system, much more than with the vehicles. I already pay a premium CDL, M to keep my license and if you needed to go through more to get a license I would have no problem and would pay it to keep roads safer.

Speeding tickets may soon be a thing of the past. Your penalties will come directly from your insurance company based on the data they collect from the GPS systems they will require in your car.

Require may be the wrong word. They will call it optional. The first option will be outrageous rates without the recorder. The second option will be discounts down from outrageous if you accept the recorder. You will have the option to prove your innocence. Guilt will be presummed.

jrw1621 wrote: Require may be the wrong word. They will call it optional. The first option will be outrageous rates without the recorder. The second option will be discounts down from outrageous if you accept the recorder. You will have the option to prove your innocence. Guilt will be presummed.

Exactly. You get just as much justice and freedom as you can afford or influence.

Let's be honest...tickets are only a deterrent if you can't pay for them (i.e. are rich) or you cannot have them taken care of in some way (i.e. are police or a politician).

Travis_K wrote: I have 2 comments. 1, for the amount it is enforced, the speedlimit is far too slow in most places. On the freeway when the limit is 65, even driving 75 is too slow sometimes.

I was just thinking about this, how people say the average speed on freeways where they live is 75 or 80 or more. For whatever reason, people in Minnesota tend to drive at the limit or even slower. Yesterday, I had to drive from Minneapolis to Duluth and back for a meeting (300 mile round trip, straight up and down Interstate 35.) It's a straight road, with no hills to speak of, light traffic and the weather was good; the speed limit is 70mph, but I would say the average speed of traffic was only 65. I had my cruise set at about 72, and only two or three cars passed me on the entire trip up and back.

didn't they try a car so under powered tat it couldn't speed, IIRC, it was the chavette

as is said in gumball rally, 55 isn't safe, it's fast enough to kill you, but slow enough to make you think your safe

captainzib wrote: Sooooooo, you want your sister to be in jail or for us to be more leniant on drunks? Which angle are you playing here?

Not really playing an angle. I just think it's funny that if alcohol or speed is involved an auto accident suddenly becomes such a huge deal rather than just being a slap on the wrist for drivers that just suck at driving.

I do, however, think the penalties for "drunk" driving are pretty unreasonable as is the .08 BAC limit we have now.