Subject: NMA STUDY

From: [email-masked] (MR. TRAFFIC)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 12:24:46

As a the most visible traffic school teacher in California (via my TV and radio appearances both 
local and national), any assertion, or study that says that people WON'T go 10-15 above any 
speed limit sign, flies in the face of reality.

I've been teaching traffic violators for 8 years, and talking to them on the air for 5.  Humbly.....I'M 
the guy who hears what happens to the majority of people who get tickets, in one forum or another. 
 It is absolute human nature of this time and space in which we live to do this behavior.  Everyone 
speeds because they believe they have a RIGHT to do it if they feel it's personally safe to do it.  It's 
like the people who use the Carpool (HOV) lane illegally because they are late and it's the only lane 
moving.  THEIR need is the operative one...NOT the law.

I TOTALLY reject any study as flawed and self-interested that asserts that people will not speed 
with higher speed limits in place.  They do...they will.  I teach 300 people a week who confirm this.

Let me repeat ONCE AGAIN....I am FOR raising the speed limit to 65...and enforcing it as 65.

We will be discussing this issue on my WWW site (if I can ever get it finished!!!) I'll keep y'all 
posted.

Mr. Traffic

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 21:23:28 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>speed limit sign, flies in the face of reality.

Look, buddy, just because you're somewhat famous doesn't mean you're right.
Personally, I've never heard of you before I saw you on the net. What TV/radio
stations are you on in LA? 

>moving.  THEIR need is the operative one...NOT the law.

So what does that have to do with raising the limit to 75? NOTHING! Have 
any of the people you've seen been stopped for doing 90 in a 75 zone? No!
Because there are no 75 zones in the U.S. Your entire post is conjecture.
People don't speed for the sake of exceeding the speed limits; they speed
because they like to go at the speed they like to go, which in many cases
is above the speed limit.

>with higher speed limits in place.  They do...they will.  I teach 300 people a week who confirm this.

How do they confirm it? Have these people been caught doing 90 in a 75 zone?
No! Have you ever taken a class in logic, or done anything scientific? Have
you even taken a look at the study they've cited? Did you know that the
study was commissioned by the U.S. government, for Chrissakes? I didn't
think so! Just because you see 300 people a week doesn't mean a thing.
It doesn't mean you've looked at the situation in any sort of reasonable
manner.

Read the damn study and then come up with a good reason to refute it.
You're just blowing hot air. I work in the media; just because you say
it the loudest doesn't mean you're right.

-- 
Adam Villani
[email-masked]
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
"I was in this prematurely air-conditioned supermarket..."

---

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Atkinson)
Date: 22 Jul 1995 12:52:11 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
KENNY MORSE <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>Since there are no posted limits over 65...I can only tell you what drivers 
>do at THAT max!  They go 10-15 over.

Yes at that make try setting at at 75 or none and your find the 85th 
percentile speed will we 75-80.  It will not be 85-90.  A federal study 
done behore the band estamitites shows that 85th percentile speeds are 
around 77 on no speedlimit freeways.

>>
>>>Do you, Mr. Traffic, really know these roads better than
>>the engineers who designed them??
>>
>Nope.....only the drivers who use them.
>>You are entitled to your opinions.  I suspect, however, that your
>>well-publicized beliefs are equally based in self-interest... after all,
>>how can a traffic school make any money when drivers are no longer
>>ticketed for safe and reasonable speeds?
>
>Since I am not the owner of the school....I make the same $$$ 
>if I have ONE person in class or 100.  Also, it is NOT the main source 
>of my income....my work in the media is.  I am NOT interested in 
>people being ticketed at all.  Quite the opposite...I wish EVERYONE 
>would respect the law...and if they think the law should be changed
....DO IT!!!! 
>But since way too many people don't even vote, good luck!  Everybody
>bitches...but nobody does anything about it!
>>
May I point out that that study is done my the FEDERAL GOVERMENT and it 
took over 5 years to coplete.  This is a fully complete study that is 
unbiast in every way.  It was so unbiast the the Fedral giverment TRIED 
TO berry it.

-- 
* Kevin Atkinson, Clarknet I'net Serv., Maintainer of the Usenet Info Center *
*     Finger [email-masked] for more info on Usenet Info Center.         *
*    Or send mail to [email-masked]  with a subject line of HELP.        *
*  This is in its beginning stages and I could use any help I could get!     *

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 22:31:07

>it the loudest doesn't mean you're right.

I will ONLY respond to people who make their challanges with
courtesy/professionalism.

Flaming is an Internet excuse for being rude.  I don't talk
to rude people.....do you?

Loud enough?

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 23:46:27

>So, since you have such vast resources available as a public figure, Ken, 
>why don't you publish your own study?  Or are you concerned that the 
>truth about speed limits would reduce the time you spend on vacation?  It 
>is my contention sir, that you are only in it for the money.  Publish 
>your own study and prove otherwise.
>
>>

Scott....

Thanks for the post.

I have no intention of doing my own study...I have 8 years of experience
with hundred of thousands of traffic violators in my class, and thousands
more on my live call-in shows.  But thanx anyway.

As for less vacation time.....I work when I want to, not because I have to.
I'm one of the lucky ones.  I work on a major TV series where I make my 
$$$...my traffic activities are a labor of love....but I Do get well paid for my
class, 'tis true.  I hope to stop teaching this season, so any changes of the laws 
will NOTaffect me the money belt  Anyway, your erroueous contention that I do "it"
for the money (since you know me not, seems a silly asserrtion....could I
make the same of YOU?), I have already proven to the people of 
Los Angeles that I DON'T do it for the money....I have provided FREE
services to them for years....free advice...free counsel, and free TV
shows where they can call me!  But thanks for sharing.

.

Kenny Morse
"Mr.Traffic"

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 00:04:09

>
>I'm sorry that you live in such a world; remind me not to go there. In my
>world people are self-interested, but not to such an extent that they go
>out of their way to cause harm to others. People speed because they like
>to go at the fastest speed at which they feel safe. There are a few bad apples
>who will speed at any limit, and these are the ones sensible speed laws
>would target. Remember that everyone you see in traffic school was caught
>for a traffic violation; while they're not all bad drivers, this situation
>would certainly select for more aggressive, less attentive, and generally
>worse drivers than the population as a whole.
>
>
>Once again, PLEASE READ THE STUDY before you criticize it further.

Adam...I WILL read the study.

As for YOUR world being different than mine....I think not.  I said NOTHING about
people going out of their way to harm each other.  I said "me first.....".  I SPEED.
I go 62. I break California VC 22349. WHY? Because I believe it to be the safest
speed I can go, since 55 will get ya killed.  Your assertion that people speed
because it is where THEY feel safe is that of a minimalist.  One of the questions
I ask EVERY class I teach is if their speeding ticket had anything to do with
the fact that they were "in a hurry".  Well over 75-80% of them raise their
hands.  This is "my needs" over yours.  As I say...if people were better
educated re: driving, and they would ALL do the same speed, I would not
see the problem.  I come from New York State where I used to do 75
on the New York State Thruway legally in my Vette.  BUT, since we have
a HUGE problem here in California with tailgaiters, and weavers, and illegal
people in the state with no license, no training, no insurance, etc,
we need the chicken to come before the horse in re-rating our speed limits.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 23 Jul 95 12:57:08 PDT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
(KENNY MORSE) writes:
> My "analysis" is NOT based on any other factor than EXACTLY what people
> have done to land in my classes over the years....not a "study" where figures
> inevitably get skewed towards the bias of the author, or people just plain
> lie when surveyed.

Ah.  The Tignor and Warren study is not based on surveys.  It is based 
on a multi-year program of *actually measuring* driver behavior.  In 
part, it took advantage of speed zoning changies already being done by 
various state and local agencies, to determine the affects of changed 
speed limits on driver behavior than accidents.  

I urge you to go READ THE PAPER before criticizing it further.  A 
preliminary report appeared in the Institute of Transportation 
Engineers (575 School St., S.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C.) _ITE 
1990 Compendium of Technical Papers_.  Tignor is the chief of the 
Traffic Safety Research Division of the Federal Highway 
Administration.  

> Since we have no higher speed limit in this country than 65, this is what I
> have found from the real people...not a study:  In 65 zones, people average
> from 70-85.  Since everybody agrees that 55 is not acceptable to them, one 
> would think that when they get into that 65 zone, they THEN would adhere to 
> it.  They don't.

1.  Isn't *your* sample just a tad bit biased toward speeders?  Those are 
the ones that are in your class, after all!  

2.  Yes, lots of people drive faster than 65.  This does not imply 
that, *if* the 85th percentile speed was used to set the limit on 
65-mph roads, that lots of people would drive faster on those roads.  

Personal experience: I've been driving the I-5 between here and San
Francisco for over twenty years.  I've driven it when it was
sign-posted at 70; when it was sign-posted at 55; and now when it's 
sign-posted at 65.  The typical speed on that road has been 75-80 for 
the entire twenty years.  NOT because it's n mph over the speed limit, 
but because that's what feels comfortable and safe to most drivers.  

> I agree with the assertion that setting a speed where everybody is encouraged to 
> do the same speed most CERTAINLY lower accidents.  BUT....and this is
> a BIG but......that assumes that people will behave in OTHER manners that
> won't contribute to a crash.  Here in California, the #1 cause of crashes is
> tailgaiting.....EVEN IN 65 ZONES!!!!!!  If everybody wouldn't tailgate (because
> they're in such a hurry), if people wouldn't run red lights (#1 cause of city street
> death in cars), and if people wouldn't drink & drive, or weave lanes, then a
> sanely set speed that ALL people whould respect and follow would work.

First, let's agree to strike the ALL from that last sentence -- you'll 
never find one limit that ALL people will respect.  Can we agree on 
the 85th percentile speed, as advocated by the T&W study? 

Ok, given that, I'll stipulate for sake of argument that raising the
speed limit to the 85th percentile speed would not reduce accidents. 
That does not imply that it isn't worthwhile to so raise the speed
limit.  Raising the speed limit on most roads to the 85th percentile
speed would have several very large benefits: 

1.  Speed enforcement could be targeted at drivers who arec clearly at 
risk.  (In the T&W study, "the accident involvement rates on streets 
and highways in urban areas was highest for *the slowest 5%* of the 
traffic [emphasis mine], lowest for traffic in the 30-95%tile range, 
and increased for the fastest 5% of the traffic.)  The posted limits 
currently make violators out of motorists driving at reasonable and 
safe speeds.  

2.  Where it is necessary to post a lower speed due to special 
conditions, drivers might actually comply with it... if they weren't 
used to most speed limits being set too low.  

By the way, "Mr. Traffic", I'll happily fax you a copy of the
preliminary findings (just one page, though of very fine print) of the
Tignor and Warren study.  It sounds like something you really ought to
read, considering your line of work and claimed area of expertise, if
only so you can refute it knowledgeably.  (Your claim about "people
lie when surveyed" is wildly off-point, for example, since no drivers
were actually interviewed for the study.)  Just e-mail me your fax
number.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: [email-masked] (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 25 Jul 1995 08:00:16 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
KENNY MORSE <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Well folk........
>
>Jaime was kind enough to send me the TIGNOR/WARREN study, and,
>as I thought, their assertion that "If speed limits were raised to more
>realistic levels, would drivers automatically drive 5-10 mph over the
>new speed limit as is commonly believed? The answer is no.  Raising
>the speed by various amounts up to 15 mph has little or no effect
>on speeds over a broad range of road types and speed levels".
>
>This is misleading BULLSHIT.
>
>This is nonsense..... and conclusions WERE drawn in the study that
>standing on a highway over 24 hours at 102 sites in 23 states before and
>one year after a speed change took place, concluded that "Driver 
>compliance with speed limits was poor".
>
>THAT tells you that no matter where and what the speed limit set,
>people STILL did NOT comply.  THAT is EXACTLY my experience
>for the past 8 years.  The study as written, contradicts it's own conclusions.

At this point I wonder if you are misreading the data, misinterpreting the
data, or are intentionally misleading the rest of us. Yes, Driver compliance
with speed limits was poor. Just because when you raise or lower the speed
limit a little bit, does not mean that people will adhere to it. The Tignor/
Warren study showed that the average driver's speed is very much independent
of the posted speed limit. Let me quote the study:

   "The primary conclusion of this research is that the majority of
   motorist on the nonlimited access rural and urban highways examined in
   this study did not decrease or increase their speed as a result of
   either lowering or raising the posted speed limit by 4, 10, or 15 mi/h
   (8, 16, or 24 km/h). In other words, this nationwide study confirms
   the results of numerous other observational studies which found that
   the majority or motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed
   limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.

   The data clearly show that lowering posted speed limits did not reduce
   vehicle speeds or accidents. Also, lowering speed limits well below
   the 86th percentile speed did not increase speeds and accidents.
   Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds
   and accidents. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 to 10 mi/h (8
   to 16 km/h) above the posted speed limit when speed limits were
   raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h)
   when speed limits were lowered."

At this point, we have the facts. The facts are that people will drive a
certain speed on a road regardless of the posted speed limit. It follows
that if the posted limit were at or above the 85th percentile speed, drivers
would continue to drive at the speed they drove before, therefore driving
at or below the speed limit.

At this point the "Why"s of people speeding becomes largely irrelevant. Because
the study CLEARLY shows that raising the limit 5-10 mph does not increase
the average speed of traffic by 5-10 mph. Yet you continue to assert that
raising the limit 5-10 mph *would* increase traffic speeds by 5-10 mph. Why
do you continue to say this?

>I do NOT measure THAT they speed....I measure WHY they speed in
>my classes.  Jaime says that my "sample" is biased and doesn't reflect
>anything significant.  That TOO is nonesence (respectfully, Jaime).
>The reasons people go to Traffic School is twofold: 1)To keep the
>driving privledge from being lost and 2)To keep the insurance company
>from finding out about it.

But nobody goes to traffic school because one day they woke up and decided
to keep their driving privilege from being lost. They must first receive
a ticket. This is the primary form of selecting that your group entails.
You do not deal with a cross section of all drivers; you deal with a 
cross-section of drivers who have received a ticket. Using this sample
to represent all drivers is misleading.

>I TOTALLY reject any notion that "most" people WILL comply with a speed limit that
>is set "reasonably" set, as based on fantasy, and selfish self-interest. Until there is
>a change in the education and atitudes of driver in this country to a mode of COURTESY,
>CONSIDERATION, SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS, KNOWLEDGE OF THE
>RULES OF THE ROAD (which I might add, is SORELY lacking) AND RESPECT 
>FOR THEM (other than speeding)...then respect for speed laws will loom miniscule.

I'm sorry, Kenny, but totally rejecting a notion that flies in the face of fact
is not the action of a reasonable person. I have no argument with you that
there is much more to automobile safety than reasonable speed limits, but
I do not understand why you are so vehemently opposed to setting reasonable
speed limits? Why are you so much in favor of penalizing drivers who drive
above 65 mph? Why 65 mph, as opposed to 70, 75, or whatever is appropriate
for the particular road?

Also, please keep your line length under 80 characters. It makes it much 
easier to read.

>$$$ instead of safety.
Well, here we agree.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 14:33:26 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Adam Neil Villani <[email-masked]> wrote:
>KENNY MORSE (the opportunist) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>Well folk........

>>FOR THEM (other than speeding)...then respect for speed laws will loom miniscule.

About them rules of the road...I think people would have more respect for 
the system if they knew just a little bit about the rules of court, the 
evidence code, etc.  Right now what we have is a "cat and mouse" game 
where guys like KENNY MORSE profit.  Of course, KENNY will tell you what 
the law says, but not what it means.

I believe that if people knew how to read well enough to fight traffic 
tickets that police officers would have to go after REAL CRIMINALS with 
guns and knives.  You know, the kind that hurt people.  Most people think 
of the court as an adversary rather than a utility.  If 2% of the 
population getting tickets took the DA to task for the ticket, the courts 
would experience a significant slowdown.  Why, they might have to 
consider alternate forms of flee...I mean revenue.

>Well, here we agree.

Ditto.  Have a nice time on your next taxpayer funded vacation, KENNY.

-- 
Scott Dunn : [email-masked] : FOIA/PA researcher, tutor 
"When there is crime in government, there is no justice." --Potato

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Geary)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:58:23 LOCAL

>This is misleading BULLSHIT.

Why do you swear at and insult those who you disagree with?

>for the past 8 years.  The study as written, contradicts it's own conclusions.

Let me put this simply:

1. Speed may or may not be a factor in highway safety.  For purposes of 
discussion, let's grant it is.

2. The Tignor/Warren study found that speed limits have little effect on the 
speeds people actually drive at.

3. If speed limits do not affect actual driving speeds, they cannot have a 
significant effect on highway safety.

4. If the purpose of speed limits is highway safety, they are a failure.  
However, speed limits are a success in other ways.  You have only to follow 
the money to see what these ways are.  Governments, insurance companies, and 
traffic schools all profit from traffic laws that create lawbreakers.  Is it 
any wonder that these three groups are among the loudest proponents of low 
speed limits?

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 17:50:06

In article <1995Jul24.135035.5852@cmkrnl> Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
>(KENNY MORSE) writes:
>> One of the questions
>> hands.  
>This is a very biased sample!  It seems to me that drivers "in a
>hurry" are more likely to take obvious risks that get the attention of
>the cops (and hence land in your classes).  
>
>Also note that choosing to go to traffic school is a form of 
>self-selection.  I don't know the motivations for going to traffic 
>school, so I don't know how this self-selection process would further 
>bias your sample (it already having been biased toward "those who get 
>tickets"), but it seems to me that some additional bias is inevitable 
>here.  
>
>I would be very damned careful about drawing conclusions about the 
>general driving public from an informal polling of such a biased 
>sample.  
>

Well folk........

My classes are based in honesty and forthrightness.  My teaching methods
allow the students to feel comfortable enough with me to tell me EXACTLY
why they did what they did.  They tell me about their DUI's....their
accidents....whether they believe they were deserving of the ticket or not.
(The majority say "They deserved it!)
When I say that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of my hundred's of 
thousands of students, and people I have talked to
on my radio and TV live call in shows (and I am being modest with THAT figure),
have told me that they got their tickets because of a basic "I have to do what I have to
do" attitude, which has LITTLE to do with their beliefs that speed laws are
artifically and poorly set, which I believe that, at this point in time....THEY ARE...
I say I believe them.

You all are arguing with me about facts and figures, and I am trying to hip
y'all to human behavior.  You just don't want to believe it because YOU
WANT TO SPEED!  You rationalize your desire to go faster with the "well,
62 is "sleepy" and I don't enjoy going that speed, or other such arguments.
Well.....since my first 5 cars were Vettes, I can say, hey I like going fast too. Feels
great.  But, unfortunately, since the "bad apples" spoil it for the "good drivers" who
possible could handle higher speeds with no consequence, we will have to consider
what is good for the most, instead of the some.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish we had the German model of training and respect for the rules
and each other.  But since any fool with $12 can get a drivers licence here in California,
and all the illegals are driving around WITHOUT any license, and the failure rate of people
who are taking the NEW DMV test here is 75% first time out.....and they have CUT 
drivers ed due to budget problems....I fear the answers that you, Jaime, and the others
who post here seek, are far away.  I do my best to send safer drivers back onto your
streets after 8 hours....it ain't enough.  People ask me why a class like mine isn't
mandatory BEFORE you get a license?  $$$$ is the answer.  Stupidity is the answer.
$$$ is the MOST important value in American society, and too many citizens
(and non-citizens for that matter) who get into trouble in their vehicles, were pursuing
$$$ instead of safety.

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic"

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 24 Jul 95 13:50:35 PDT

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 27 Jul 95 11:38:50 PDT

> This is misleading BULLSHIT.

No, it's the result of actual measurements.  Just how can such a 
statement be misleading?  

> people STILL did NOT comply.  

It doesn't say that at all.  And the reason for this is just a few 
sentences further down:  

  "On many streets and highways the speed limit is set 8 to 12 mph below 
  the prevailing 85th-percentile speed."

and a bit later:

  "Many current speed limits coincide with the 30th-percentile speed."

Yes, measurements were made "after a speed change".  But those speed 
changes were not dictated by the folks writing the study.  They were, 
as stated in the preliminary report, the result of "routine speed 
zoning changes".  Some of these changes were to decrease the posted 
limits!  There is absolutely nothing in the report that implies 
that "Driver compliance with speed limits was poor" *on roads where 
the speed limit is near the measured 85th-percentile speed*.  

You have managed to take a report that conclusively argues that speed 
limits are set too low, and which shows *through actual measurements 
of driver behavior* that raising speed limits to realistic 
(85th-percentile) levels would NOT automatically induce drivers to 
drive 10-15 mph above the new limit... and find a SINGLE sentence to 
interpret out of context to bolster your preconceived notions.  

> from finding out about it.

In other words, people go to Traffic School because they've gotten a
speeding ticket... likely more than one.  When I say "your sample is
biased" I mean it isn't representative of the driving public at large
... since the majority of them haven't gotten any tickets recently.  

You know, NOTHING in anything you've written suggests that you've 
asked any of these folks the key question:

  If the speed limit were set to a little above your comfortable speed for
  the road in question, would you still drive at 10 or 15 mph above the 
  new limit?

Why don't you try asking some of your callers that question?  Indeed,
why don't you ask YOURSELF?  If you were to imagine yourself driving
down a lightly-used stretch of freeway, where you were very
comfortable driving, say, 72, and the sign-posted limit was 75... would
you automatically increase your speed to 85 or 90?  As you think of
yourself in that frame of mind, being COMFORTABLE at the speed you're
going... that speed being neither too fast for conditions nor
obviously slower than necessary for conditions...  doesn't it seem as
though there would be no reason to drive much faster?  Why do you
assume that everybody would suddenly be comfortable driving at 80 or
85 if the signs were posted for 70 in areas where the 85th percentile
speed is near 70?  

Why don't you try asking your callers about that, in that way?  ... if 
you aren't afraid to challenge your beliefs, that is.

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:31:45

>... since the majority of them haven't gotten any tickets recently.  

Was the key word there RECENTLY???  The majority of the
California driving public HAS gotten traffic tickets.  My students
are absolutely, positively a cross sections of ALL OF US.
>  the road in question, would you still drive at 10 or 15 mph above the 

Here's the answer to THAT question.  In the areas where they raised it
up to 65....they go faster than the speed of light.  They had the relativity
of going from 55 to now a percieved BETTER speed, and STILL speed.

On the city streets, the relativity is STILL the same for the reasons I
have stated.....Jaime....it has LITTLE do do with percieved unfairness
(Maybe it is for YOU), but more to do with basic human nature and attitude
when it comes to driving...get away with as much as I can for as long
as I can.  My students have admitted as much in class, and they are
just people like you and I who just got caught.  They are no different
from all the others who went zooming by THEM who didn't.

Jaime.....understand.....I WANT the speed limits raised to something
both safe and comfortable.  I do NOT want people unfairly cited for
ANYTHING.  There are plenty of peope who will break the law
fairly and get caught and my classes will STILL be filled (for those
who believe that my motivation is $$$, which it isn't, but believe
what you will....I care?)  I am only saying that THIS study, as FACTUAL
as it is, only addresses a symptom, and NOT the disease.

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic"

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 22 Jul 1995 08:16:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>to rude people.....do you?

That's a good one, Kenny.

OK, here goes:

Re: NMA Study

Mr. Morse: It has come to my attention that you are a professional working
in the media and also in traffic schools. We seem to be in a disagreement
re: the behavior of drivers on highways with speed limits higher than
65 mph (cf. CVC 22348). Your assertion is that at arbitrarily high
speed limits, a number of drivers will exceed the posted limit by 10
to 15 miles per hour comparable to the number of drivers who today
exceed the posted (slower) speed limits. You have stated that you 
base this assertion on an analysis of your current and past students'
behavior. I assert that your analysis of the situation is in error and
that further examination of an existing traffic study (i.e. I refer you
to the URL given previously in this thread) may lead you to correct
your error. This study was commissioned by an unbiased federal agency.
This study supports the hypothesis that the majority of American drivers
travel at a safe speed which is independent of the posted limit. A raising
of speed limits in certain locations may help to lessen the deviance in
travel speeds and thus counterintuitively decrease accidents.

I am also distressed by your refusal to examine the document in
response to my previous request. I apologize for the tone of my 
previous request; it seems to have been misinterpreted as a "flame,"
or personal attack. My intention was not to attack you personally,
it was to refute your arguments in a conversational, though somewhat
rough tone which was in my opinion consistent with (though not identical
to) the tone of your article to which I was replying, and a
reflection of my feeling toward your dismissal of the traffic
study without first reading it.

I hope that you will read the study and consider its findings, and
look forward to your reaction to having read it.

---

From: [email-masked] (Artyom)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 06:28:00 GMT

>From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)

KM>Was the key word there RECENTLY???  The majority of the
  >are absolutely, positively a cross sections of ALL OF US.

You forgetting that your students realize that they are talking to the
person who will eventually decide whether they passed the grade (and
completed traffic school).

Now, when I attended Traffic School, 90% of the students agreed that
driving is truly a right, not a privilege, and the state Govt robs us of
this constitutional right. Does this make it a *fact*? No more than your
chat with students who only want to get out and forget about you and the
whole ridiculous NTSI institution.

   _Art.
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * A+iens are Ea+ing mY brain -- +i+m at E+even.

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:34:49

>completed traffic school).

They could say the moon was made of green cheese and they STILL
pass. What traffic school did YOU attend????
>whole ridiculous NTSI institution.

Well....in the 8 years that I've been teaching and taking calls on the air,
90% wish it was a right, but KNOW it is a priviledge.  There is not
ONE country on this Earth where driving is a right.  Boy, you
guys are hardheaded. If YOU want driving to be a right....I 
encourage you and others to GET THE LAW CHANGED. 
In the meantime.....keep it up and pay for my vacations.

Kenny Morse
"mr. Traffic"

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 29 Jul 95 18:37:38 PDT

> are absolutely, positively a cross sections of ALL OF US.

Your last statement here is utter rubbish.  

Off the top of my head I can identify several groups who will be, as 
the statisticians say, under-represented in your classes:

1.  Those who don't get speeding tickets often enough to affect their 
insurance rates.  (This includes lots of drivers who speed, btw.  Such 
as myself.)  

2.  Those with enough money to simply pay the tickets, pay the 
increased insurance if any, and forget about it.  They'll come in only 
when they've gotten so many tickets that their license is up for 
suspension.  

3.  Those without enough money to pay for traffic school.

4.  Those who can't take the time to attend traffic school. 

5.  Those who just ignore the ticket in one way or another; those who 
are driving without a license and/or without insurance; etc.

Now this is not to say that you'll never see ANY members of these
groups in your classes (well, maybe of group 5!) but they'll be rare. 
"Cross-section"?  Well, sure.  But a REPRESENTATIVE cross-section?  I
don't think so. 

You might as well send a pollster around to a single-family-home
neighborhood at 2 PM on a weekday afternoon and then claim that you've
got a "representative cross-section" of the general public.  (Missing 
apartment dwellers, everybody who has to work on weekday afternoons, 
etc., but the point should be obvious.)

> up to 65....they go faster than the speed of light.  

In other words, you haven't asked them...?    

I've been driving some of those roads for twenty years, and the fact
is that people didn't slow down when the limit was lowered (from 70,
in some cases!) to 55... so why would they have sped up when it was
raised to 65?  

> They had the relativity

That's a different question.  Your answer assumes that 65 is a little 
above most folks' comfortable limit.  I didn't ask about "65".  I 
asked, "what if the speed limit was at or above your comfortable speed 
for the conditions?"  

The T&W study *demonstrated* that when speed limits are changed there
is very little affect on actual speed.  It did this by *measuring*
what drivers actually do when speed limits are changed.  Note that the
conclusion was not "compliance does not change much", but rather
"speeds do not change much".  You have yet to offer anything to refute
this point, other than your misinterpretation of their blanket
statement, ~"compliance with posted speed limits is poor". 

(Just to forestall future harping on that point, I'll point out again
that the limits referred to in that statement included a majority of
posted limits that were well under the 85th percentile speed; in fact,
"many" were at the 30th percentile.) 

I will also point out, again, that the T&W study measured what drivers
actually *do*.  You're simply *asking* folks why they were speeding. 
Guess which conclusions I believe? 

> (Maybe it is for YOU), 

Not at all.  I don't pick my speed as a protest against the law.  I 
drive at the maximum comfortable speed for the situation.  I think 
most people do.  

The REALLY interesting point of the T&W study is that the measured
85th percentile speed... that is, the speed at or below which 85% of
the drivers are travelling... really is a safe speed; the lowest
accident rate was for vehicles in the 30-to-95%ile range.   In other
words drivers are generally quite competent to pick safe speeds. 

> what you will....I care?)  

No, I don't believe that your self-interest is involved here.  I do 
believe that you're asking the wrong questions of your classes to 
derive the conclusions you're espousing above.  Why don't you TRY 
asking my question and see what answer you get? 

I also believe that you are so firmly wedded to your beliefs in this
area that even if an 85 MPH limit on I-5 through Central CA was tried,
and it was found that most people continued to drive 75-80 as they do
today (and as they did when it was 55, and as they did when it was 70)
you'd claim that the statistics were collected wrong, or something...
anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 

> I am only saying that THIS study, as FACTUAL

Gee, that's odd.  A little while ago you were claiming that the study 
was "Bullshit" and that it included evidence that contradicted its own 
conclusions.  

YES, better driver education is needed; I'm not arguing that point.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jul 1995 23:14:35 GMT

>are absolutely, positively a cross sections of ALL OF US.

I have a hypothesis that I would like to see investigated.  My driving
experience in California is in the SF Bay Area only.  The hypothesis
is:

     Speeding tickets on highways are given for these behaviors:
     tailgating, rapid lane changing, and going much faster than the
     flow of traffic.

Note that speed of motorist relative to speed limit doesn't occur in
the list above.  As a very alert motorist, I always watch police cars
and see whom they stop -- and I have never seen anybody being stopped
for merely driving at a high speed.  I occasionally ride as a passenger
with people who complain about having received a speeding tickets when
'everybody else was going just as fast', and invariably their driving
style includes the behaviors I listed above.  (Note:  On city streets
school zone speed limits tend to be strictly enforced, so I will limit
my hypothesis to highways, i.e., either limited-access highways or
roads with reasonably high speed limits and no school zones.)

In other words, speeding tickets here in given primarily for reckless
or unsafe driving, *not* for speeding.

If this is true, then I am very happy with the unwritten rules followed
by the traffic police on the highways.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Geary)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 17:35:21 LOCAL

>     tailgating, rapid lane changing, and going much faster than the

I think that's accurate.  For the last few years, I have been trying very hard 
to get a speeding ticket.  But I just can't seem to do it.  I routinely exceed 
posted speed limits on highways (and *not* on residential streets), but I 
don't do the other things you mentioned.  So far, no tickets.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jul 1995 23:22:46 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE) writes:

>ONE country on this Earth where driving is a right.

Clarification please.  By 'right' were you thinking of 'legal right' or
'moral right'?

BTW, current law in the US is that driving is a legal right for those
who stay within the law.  Allow jury nullification and jury trials for
all traffic violators, and driving would be a legal right for all good
drivers, regardless of any technical infractions of silly traffic
regulations.

Your declarations are too broad, not sufficiently unambiguous, and
poorly thought-out.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Kimberlin)
Date: 30 Jul 1995 18:26:22 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>,
>In the meantime.....keep it up and pay for my vacations.

When was driving changed from a right to a privledge in the first place?  
So far as I know driving has always been a right.  Cite your references, 
please!  Be sure to give the court citations, the law paragraphs in the 
Federal Register, etc.  I would like to see your justification for the 
above comments about driving being a privledge.  What other countries do 
is not a consideration of what goes on in California, or the USA.

>Kenny Morse

JerryK

---

From: [email-masked] (Artyom)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 06:01:00 GMT

On 07/27/95, KENNY MORSE wrote:

>  Well....in the 8 years that I've been teaching and taking calls on
>  the air, 90% wish it was a right, but KNOW it is a priviledge.  There
                                       ~~~~~~~
I suppose they knew that too.

>  Boy, you guys are hardheaded.

That goes for everyone who has opinion different from yours? It's not 
attitude developed by 8 years of "teaching", is it?

>  If YOU want driving to be a right....I encourage
>  you and others to GET THE LAW CHANGED.

I'm working on it. Small but annoying things first, like helmet law 
(and yes, I wear helmet every time, since my head is worth a lot :)

> In the meantime.....keep it up and pay for my vacations.

Fat chance. So far, I cost The System around 20 hours of court time 
and paid them, oh, $670 total. I wonder if judges and staff feels 
underpaid, since only 25% goes to court, the rest taken by the state.

ObSpeed: I've been paying close attention to my speedometer in last 2 
weeks. It turns out, median speed on most BA freeways is around 70-75 
mph. If I go slower, majority of cars pass me, if I go 85mph, I pass 
most of the cars. My estimate that 95% of all cars in non-congested 
traffic is moving slower that 80mph. It is probably dangerous to go much 
faster than 110mph, because speed differential and stopping distances 
are too high for an average driver and worse than excellent condition 
car, as well as lack of lane discipline.

   _Art.
                                                        ______
 [DoD#1610]      [[email-masked]]                      /      \  /
'81 XV-750       "splitter"                           < DARWIN ><
'93 CBR900RR     'gone with the Taurus"                \______/  \
'89 CBR600F      "red leaner"                           _|  _|

---
 * RM 1.3  * Eval Day 130 * Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient v
ltage.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Geary)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 17:35:21 LOCAL

---

From: [email-masked] (mckay_michael)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 02:37:40 GMT

>>     tailgating, rapid lane changing, and going much faster than the

Squares with my experience, except for one addition: "having a shabby looking
car".  I and the friends I was with have had some pretty poor looking cars
over the years, and these get pulled over much, much more often (though they
rarely give any tickets, occasionally a fix-it ticket).  Worst case I had
(which I've mentioned here before), was 5 sheriffs in 4 cars, hassling 3
of us for an hour before letting us off with 1 fix-it item and a speeding
ticket (this included 3-4 body searches per person; and crawling up under
the dash to get the serial number of our $50 cheap tape deck to "check if
it was stolen").  The speed limit had just changed, and people were passing
us when they pulled us over.   -mjm-

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Geary)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 20:23:19 LOCAL

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani) writes:

>Excellent point. A caveat, though, that a cop may also give you a ticket
>for speeding on a highway if you're exceeding the speed limit in the 
>absence of any other traffic to compare you to. Personally, I speed
>frequently but am always careful not to tailgate or do anything else
>that would be dangerous. I've only been driving for 5 years, but I've
>never received a ticket. I've been stopped by cops twice, but both
>times it was for things I was doing at 30 mph or less. I've also
>been passed by cops while I was doing 80. I think California cops
>do a pretty good job, with notable exceptions, of not targeting people
>merely for exceeding the speed limit.

Very true about the empty-road problem.  The one speeding ticket I've gotten 
in the last ten years was when there were no other cars anywhere close by.

The interesting thing here is that when a road is empty, that is of course the 
safest time to drive fast.  Yet it's exactly the time when you just might get 
a ticket for doing nothing other than driving fast.

The *very* interesting thing is that no matter how fast I drive on this empty 
road, I endanger no one but myself.  But someone in government has decided 
that I am not allowed to choose my own level of risk.  They know better, and 
they will save me from myself.

This is evil.

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 2 Aug 1995 00:49:03 GMT