|
How many fatalities are caused by oivercrowded roads as a result of bureaucrats choking highway funding in favor of public transportation swindles? |
Posted on 11/24/2003 1:11:14 PM PST by SLB
WASHINGTON (AP) — States that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more saw a dramatic increase in the number of people killed in traffic accidents, according to a report released Monday by an auto safety group funded by insurers.
The study, compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and based on data collected by the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, determined 1,880 more people died between 1996 and 1999 in the 22 states with higher speed limits.
A separate review of six states by the institute found drivers traveling the fastest they have since long before Congress repealed the 55 mph national speed limit in November 1995. In Colorado, which has a speed limit of 75 mph, researchers observed one in four drivers going above 80 mph. In California, where the speed limit is 70 mph, one in five drivers was clocked at 80 mph.
The New Zealand government agency estimated the death rate for the 22 states that raised their speed limits on rural interstates in 1995 and 1996.
The 10 states that raised limits to 75 mph — all in the Midwest and West — experienced 38% more deaths per million miles driven than states with 65-mph limits, or approximately 780 more deaths.
The 12 states that raised their limits to 70 mph — including California, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri — saw a 35% increase, or 1,100 additional deaths.
Geographical differences in states may have contributed to the numbers. For example, the report said, drivers may go faster in Western states where cities are farther apart. The report didn't examine the effects of other trends, such as the increasing number of sport utility vehicles on the road then.
The Insurance Institute said there is no doubt, however, that when speed limits increase so do deaths. When the national speed limit of 55 mph was adopted 1974, fatality rates dropped, the Insurance Institute's chief scientist Allan Williams said.
The Insurance Institute's separate study of speeds in Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado and California also found that when rates are raised on rural interstates, speeding increased on urban interstates.
Average travel speeds on urban interstates in Atlanta, Boston and Washington were the same as or higher than on rural interstates near those cities, even though the speed limits on those urban interstates were 55 mph. In Atlanta, 78% of drivers on one urban interstate exceeded 70 mph, the report found.
That's one of the things that I vehemently hate. I do 85mph on I-85 and I-285 and still keep out of your way. You and your buddies are speeding past me and around me doing in excess of 90-100. It always pleases me to see you pulled over getting your due when a cop is in the mood.
I have lived many places and have never seen worse drivers than I have seen in Atlanta. I hate the I have to pay through the nose for insurance even though my record is squeaky clean because I have the misfortune of living here. In fact, there's not a whole lot I love about living here, period. I keep waiting for an employment opportunity to come up elsewhere so I can get out of here before I'm killed by some speeding idiot.
(BTW - I have that very issue of National Review somewhere. I don't think they're huge Liddy Dole fans to say the least)
They have the right to arrest you at 20 over. They will lock you up for 30 over.
Yours truly,
Leadfooted Georgian
I agree.
It didn't used to be that way.
|
How many fatalities are caused by oivercrowded roads as a result of bureaucrats choking highway funding in favor of public transportation swindles? |
I do about 80 mph, self-righteous jackass. I hope you leave my town soon.
It was fine before the Yankees started their 2nd invasion!
Thank you. Your prayers would be greatly appreciated.
I do about 80 mph, self-righteous jackass. I hope you leave my town soon.
Sheesh - some folks can't take a little criticism. It's because of people like him that I can't wait to get my self-righteous a$$ out of here.
Thank you - but I could work a bit on my temper. *And* I need to be grateful that I have a job and a roof, no matter *where* it is.
I do about 75-80 in town, would prefer to be able to do 90-100 on inter-city Interstates, but that's not possible (without a big ticket budget), so I'm the same out of town.
Shame on you! :-)
... This message brought to you by your surrogate mommy - like it or not - the Nanny state.
Thank you. If only I could control myself better I know I could be a model FReeper and a good netizen. I'm supposed to be living by the Golden Rule, ya' know? :)
I do about 75-80 in town, would prefer to be able to do 90-100 on inter-city Interstates, but that's not possible (without a big ticket budget), so I'm the same out of town.
Living in Northern Gwinnett, and working in Southern Gwinnett, means that I rarely get to see the needle touch the space above 80 (unless I am angrily passing a <70mph "left lane loafer", which I am wont to do at around 95 mph, oops). But, when I'm going to LaGrange, I'd love to be able to drive above 85 mph south of the airport.
If you're travelling 80mph in a SUV, emergency maneuvers are far more risky than in a sedan. Braking distances are typically longer as well. Not to mention the "invincibility" factor people feel when driving SUV's.
I drive over 40,000 miles per year, often in crappy weather. More times than not, when you see vehicles off the road as the result of an accident, they are SUVs. Especially when the roads are snowy/icy.
I'd guess that the majority of the increases in death rates is due to the switch to SUV's.
SUV drivers think they are safer, but statistics disprove that. In 2002, there were 59 driver deaths per million miles for SUVs where a single vehicle was involved. Compare that to 37 for cars. When the accident type was a single vehicle rollover, it's 47 to 18, when comparing SUVs to cars. When multiple cars are involved in an accident, it's more advantageous to be in a SUV (duh). There, the SUV occupant dies at a rate of 31/ddmm compared to 46/ddmm for cars. When you average it all out, all crash types, cars are statistically safer. 83/ddmm compared to 88/ddmm for SUVs.
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passveh.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.