Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, Universityof Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use"Back" to return here.
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to take issuewith any position expressed here, you first have to answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutabilityis one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover,I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determinewhether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games.Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all youhave to do is commit to a criterion for testing.It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-mindedenough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
Ever heard something like this?
"As a police officer with 20 years' experience at hundreds of accident scenes, I can tell you that speed kills."
Wow. Drive into an abutment or off the road at 60 miles an hour and you might get killed. Did they teach you that at police academy or did you figure it out your very own self? Tell you what, Barney, put the bullet back in your shirt pocket and get another cup of coffee. I'll gladly pay tax dollars to keep you in the donut shop rather than have someone like you out on the road. That's some police work, Lou.
I have to wonder if police ever actually travel on the highway, as opposed to merely patrolling. I can't believe anyone who actually travels with a specific destination in mind could make remarks as oblivious as many police officers make about speed. I typically have several long road trips in a year involving hundreds of miles of driving and often over 1000 miles. The only dangers I ever see from speeders are those who weave in and out of heavy traffic. But before I get 100 miles from home, I lose count of the number of hazards I see created by slow drivers.
Slow drivers like to rationalize that they're safe. They're not. They are usually inattentive or confused. What other words can you use for someone who can back up a dozen cars behind him and not notice? Well, there's also inconsiderate, rude, and selfish. Often slowpokes have poor reflexes, poor driving skills and unsafe vehicles as well.
On two lane roads, the dangers posed by slow drivers are obvious. Read a collection of anecdotes about fatal accidents caused by excessive speed and there's a very high chance there will be a slow driver at the root of many of them. But slow drivers are menaces on freeways as well. Since they're clueless, they are often in the fast lanes and since they're inconsiderate as well, they see no reason to move over merely because other drivers have to practice evasive maneuvers around them. But even if they're in the right lane, in heavy traffic they make driving far more dangerous. If it's a four lane highway, they force everyone overtaking them to move into the left lane, increasing congestion and the risk of accidents. On six lane highways, slow drivers effectively eliminate at least one lane. I once encountered a thick snarl on the New York State Thruway that took me a good half hour to thread through. When I finally broke through it, I found that it was caused by two RV's traveling together about 5 miles an hour under the speed limit. Behind them were literally thousands of cars creating a rolling traffic jam miles in length with the potential for hundreds of accidents.
But what if I'm not comfortable driving at high speed? Such a deal we have for you. There are lots of secondary roads featuring frequent stop lights and stop signs. Better yet, help increase the market for mass transit.
A New Hampshire driver sued the state to try to force the state to conduct a study to see whether speed limits should be raised. The assistant attorney general handling the case said:
"Common sense will tell you that going too slow is only a hazard when other people are going much faster."
We've all seen the freeway signs: "Speed Limit 65, Minimum Speed 40." If we're going to allow someone to drive at 40 miles an hour on a high speed highway, we might as well allow them to park in the middle of the lane and spread out a picnic lunch and pitch a tent. A minimum speed limit of 40 is no minimum at all.
If there's no justification for exceeding the speed limit, there's equally none for traveling more slowly unless weather or road conditions require it. Traveling 5 miles an hour under the speed limit should carry exactly the same penalties as 5 miles an hour over it. These days, with cruise control, there's no excuse for not traveling at the speed limit.
As both a driver and occasional cyclist, I have to place this near the top of stupid driving ideas - the notion that bicycles are equal to motor vehicles. They simply are not. In terms of mass, operator protection, speed and stability they are simply no match for a car. In terms of maneuverability and field of vision, cyclists have clear advantages over drivers and should be allowed to make use of those advantages. Why should a cyclist have to stop at an intersection if there are no cars coming?
In heavy traffic areas, bicycles should be allowed to use sidewalks, not required to thread a narrow strip between the cars and the curbs. Pedestrians?
Get hit at a railroad crossing and you won't get much sympathy. First, you're supposed to watch for trains and second. a car is a lot more maneuverable than a train. The train can't stop anywhere as quickly as a car and it has the right of way.
So try operating your car around pedestrians and cyclists on the premise that, since they're more maneuverable than you are, you should have the right of way, and watch what happens. In most places, regardless of how stupid their actions, pedestrians and cyclists have the right of way.
Many freeways have traffic lights at on-ramps for peak hours. Far more sensible would be simply to change the rules. Traffic entering at on ramps has the right of way in the right lane. Don't want to slow down or moderate your speed? Stay in the left lanes.
Similarly, vehicles changing lanes to make an on-ramp or avoid an obstacle should have the right of way. Make it simple: any vehicle signaling a lane change has the right of way.
Another idea: if you get hit while in another driver's blind spot, you should be at fault. You can see the potential hazard - he can't.
On-ramps followed quickly by off ramps. Especially if they don't have a continuous lane from ramp to ramp. I'd like to see the Department of Transportation mandate that off-ramps cannot be located less than half a mile downstream from on-ramps. If you need both at a particular location, put the off-ramp first.
Here in Wisconsin, traffic circles are becoming popular (with municipalities, not drivers), except they are far too small in diameter. Traffic circles in Europe and the East Coast are often over 100 feet in diameter.
Exit only lanes should be banned. Build a proper turn lane. If you want to reduce the number of lanes, do it well away from ramps where it can be done safely.
Lots of municipalities are resorting to cameras to catch stop sign and red light violators. Is it perhaps possible that there would be fewer violations if we only had signals and stop signs where they were absolutely necessary? If we replaced three quarters of our stop signs with yield signs?
Bottom of the barrel Department: in Rockland, Maine, in 2000, I ran into a flashing red light on U.S. 1. Not a traffic light, which would have been reasonable, but a flashing red light. That meant that every single car on U.S. 1 had to stop. Probably had an alderman who didn't want to wait for traffic to clear.
Ever merge at a construction zone, only to be passed by selfish louts who drive as far as they can and then expect other drivers to let them in?
Here's a plan. At the end of the merge zone, have concrete barriers along the lane divider, and a cop waiting to issue tickets. (I've seen people abusing merge lanes while a cop sits in his patrol car, oblivious) Then the morons that failed to merge can be allowed back into traffic when there's an opening. Say an hour or two later.
In fact, I bet we could reduce violations enormously by giving traffic cops the power to boot speeders and red light runners for a couple of hours. Give them the choice between a ticket with a big fine and a couple of hours' detention.
Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 12 March 2007; Last Update 24 May, 2020
Not an official UW Green Bay site