97 MPH in a 70 MPH...

[acassara]

OK Sorry for my lack of knowledge about 22356 not being the basic speed law but the maximum speed law. I just found something somewhat interesting on my court notification in the mail. It's telling me to attend a different court than the one written on my ticket. The two courts are 60 miles apart. The court in the notification (Monterey County) is 60 miles from my school while the one written on the ticket (King City) is over 100 miles from my school. Can I use this to help me? Say, mail my declaration to the King City court and when contacted by the Monterey County Court tell them that I was instructed on the ticket and by the officer to attend the other one? Any inconsistency should be used against these guys...

 

[Zigner]

OK Sorry for my lack of knowledge about 22356 not being the basic speed law but the maximum speed law. I just found something somewhat interesting on my court notification in the mail. It's telling me to attend a different court than the one written on my ticket. The two courts are 60 miles apart. The court in the notification (Monterey County) is 60 miles from my school while the one written on the ticket (King City) is over 100 miles from my school. Can I use this to help me? Say, mail my declaration to the King City court and when contacted by the Monterey County Court tell them that I was instructed on the ticket and by the officer to attend the other one? Any inconsistency should be used against these guys...

Nope - you had better show up/respond to where the notice tells you.

 

[cepe10]

Oh my, you're kidding, right? The posted limit is the limit FOR IDEAL CONDITIONS. You don't get to go faster because conditions are better, you must go slower when conditions are worse. You've got things a little backwards there.

Actually the posted speed is most likely way below the 85% speed and even the design speed of the roadway (and even that is based on 1960's vehicle - remember the 75 mph limits back then) (that is why every speed survey I do shows 97% of the vehicles exceeding the posted limit) (The 3% who are below are among the worst and most unsafe drivers on the road. It has been proven repeatedly that it is safer to be going 70 mph than 60 mph in a area posted as 65 mph. It is not about the highway saftey and traffic engineering but about politics and revenue generation for the state and insurance companies by using these "frivilous lawsuit" type of attacks.

 

[justalayman]

It has been proven repeatedly that it is safer to be going 70 mph than 60 mph in a area posted as 65 mph. .

why don't you show us those stats cepe?

While you are at it, I was still waiting for the citation of the law of any state that requires another to yield to a driver that had their turn signal on for...what was that....Oh ya, ONE SECOND.


There is no problem with tossing out such info but you need to be able to defend such claims.

 

[cepe10]

So, Pepe, now you are a traffic engineer who does study after study of traffic speeds?
Show us your published studies. (Or do you mean that every time you speed you count how many other people are speeding?)

Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.

I am an engineer. Now show your sources that is is safer to drive less than the prevailing flow of traffic. How much experience do YOU have in traffic studies, ITE methodology and highway capacity anlysis. Some how I doubt you did too well in engineering classes

 

[cepe10]

why don't you show us those stats cepe?

While you are at it, I was still waiting for the citation of the law of any state that requires another to yield to a driver that had their turn signal on for...what was that....Oh ya, ONE SECOND.


There is no problem with tossing out such info but you need to be able to defend such claims.

Sure just learn ot read the "rules of the road" in your state..

"the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible or other signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."

 

[CdwJava]

In CA "impeding" (i.e. traveling too slow) is a cause of approximately .06% (yes, that's LESS than 1%) of all injury and fatality traffic collisions between 2001 and 2005.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Sure just learn ot read the "rules of the road" in your state..

"the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible or other signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."

Ok, and that is what code section?

 

[The Occultist]

Um, Cepe, telling us that you're an engineer and then spouting off "information" is NOT providing us with a source for your statistics. What we want is some sort of code that states as much.

 

[justalayman]

Sure just learn ot read the "rules of the road" in your state..

"the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible or other signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."

that is not statutory support and it does not even come close to your claim of "if the turn signal was on for at least 1 second, the other drive must give right of way. Your claims are worthless. If you cannot support your claims, we will all understand but we will still laugh at you for making the claim in the first place. Failure to support the claim makes it look like you cannot support the claim.

Still waiting.

I stand corrected, to a very limited extent. That verbiage is a qote of MCL (don;t remember the number) BUT read it again.

Here is the complete section you edited: (which is MCL 257.636(1)(b))

(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

what that is meant to control is, when there are more than one lane in each direction, if you are in the left most lane, you must yield to a driver that is behind you and signals for you to yield. To yield that driver must pull to the right hand lane and allow the pass while not accelerating.

but here is the section just prior to that one:

(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left of that vehicle, and when safely clear of the overtaken vehicle shall take up a position as near the right-hand edge of the main traveled portion of the highway as is practicable.

Do you see where it states WHEN SAFELY CLEAR? That does not mean tossing on the turn signal allows you to demand right of way, now does it.

btw; Michigan accepted and utilizes the Uniform Traffic Code which many states accept in their entirety so many laws across the country will be identical.

So cepe, I'm still waiting. Still waiting for the traffic studies to support your claims in this thread as well.

 

[Zigner]

In CA "impeding" (i.e. traveling too slow) is a cause of approximately .06% (yes, that's LESS than 1%) of all injury and fatality traffic collisions between 2001 and 2005.

- Carl

While I was out and about, I realized that I forgot to ask: How many accidents were related to excessive speed?

 

[CdwJava]

While I was out and about, I realized that I forgot to ask: How many accidents were related to excessive speed?

From 2001 to 2005 - about 27%.

On a related note, in 2005 some 22% of ALL traffic fatalities involved one or more DUI (drugs and/or alcohol) drivers, and about 8% of all injury collisions. Unsafe speed was the highest cause for injury collisions at 27%.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

From 2001 to 2005 - about 27%.

On a related note, in 2005 some 22% of ALL traffic fatalities involved one or more DUI (drugs and/or alcohol) drivers, and about 8% of all injury collisions. Unsafe speed was the highest cause for injury collisions at 27%.

- Carl

Thanks Carl - nice to get some trustworthy facts

 

[CdwJava]

The source was the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Since some people think that NHTSA skews their ratings in favor of DUI driving, I usually use SWITRS stats as they represent the findings of actual collision investigations.

- Carl

 

[cepe10]

In CA "impeding" (i.e. traveling too slow) is a cause of approximately .06% (yes, that's LESS than 1%) of all injury and fatality traffic collisions between 2001 and 2005.

- Carl

Your highway capacity and level of service analysis is a little lacking... I don't know how you can say that decreased spacing caused by impeders (AKA left lane lurkers) does not cause higher risks... it is really pretty fundamental less spacing = less space for traffic moves = less room for all cars in the line following impeder to have for potential evasive moves and to see vertical and horizontal changes to the roadway ahead. The impeder causes more cars per lane per mile packed into a denser area.

Also obvious is the source of the data LEO agencies have at this time no means of determining the root cause of accidents especially with slow distracted impeders who rarely volunteer info related as such to an accident (i.e. admit they were distracted) LOL

If you provide data based on real studies (i.e. peer reviewed journal article) the story is quit different.


In any regard you certainly have your academy indocrination intact and do not have an open mind to reality - if your "analysis" was true (impeders do not casue any traffci problems) the autobahn would have a higher risk factor than the slowest US highway which is does not.