Speed Limit Poll: Oregonians want speed

Taxpayer Association of Oregon member poll:

Would you approve of raising the speed limit to 75 mph in certain areas?
Yes: 62%
No: 38%
Responders: 832

Speed traffic notes: Even though the majority of the states and all the Western states have speed limits higher than Oregon, speeding remains the number one contributor to traffic deaths in Oregon. Speeding played a role in 49% of 426 fatalities in 2008; that compares to the national average of 32%. Almost as many fatalities occurred on County roads as state highways, and rural area’s accidents involved more fatalities than in the urban areas. (Speed kills, ODOT, 2008)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 78 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • ntvrzmec

    sAVo4q huqnvznhssqa, [url=https://wnqcafuouige.com/]wnqcafuouige[/url], [link=https://mkxbmcusykme.com/]mkxbmcusykme[/link], https://bhuxuuzvbuom.com/

  • Anonymous

    speeding is a factor in death because some people speed while others obey the speed limit. that means passing at high speed. that’s where the dangers come in.

    if speed limits were increased AND if there was sufficient incentive for people to actually OBEY that limit – that is, if virtually everyone on the freeway was traveling at the same 75 mph – it would be very, very, very safe.

    • Anonymous

      Oregon’s speed limit laws make no sense whatsoever, in particular, state route 199, and I-5. These highways often have speed limits posted ranging from 45 to 65mph. On many stretches of I-5 (my observations were noted as I was passing through California into Oregon back into California) the speed limit will be posted at 65mph then suddenly will change to 55mph then 1/4 mile up the freeway change back to 65mph. It is no wonder that Oregonians constantly drive horrible when in California because they are so used to driving by Oregon’s arbitrary speed limits.

  • Anonymous

    Hey, this is Oregon. If it makes sense the liberal Democrats who run everything will prevent it from happening. In preference for perpetuating the status quo of failure in order to preserve their power.

    All the while, casting any challenges to their grip as an attack on all things good.

  • Not a Nice Guy

    We moved to Nevada last year and the speed limits are higher here. Freeways in Reno and Las Vegas are posted at 65 MPH and most rural freeways and major highways are posted at 70 MPH. And unlike Oregon, most drivers here have figured out how to merge onto a freeway. The lower speed limits on Oregon roads show the retarded thinking of ODOT and nanny state LIB politicians. In most cases, these lower speed limits are nothing more than giving local law enforcement the opportunity to collect traffic fines. They serve no real purpose.
    Oh – and by the way the roads here in Nevada are in much better condition than if Oregon, despite the fact that much of the state gets snow and sub-freezing temperatures. You folks might have better roads in Oregon if you folks stopped allowing idiot LIB politicians to throw road money away on mass transit “solutions”.

    • eagle eye

      Yeah, Nevada is in great shape as a state. Hope you enjoy it there.

      • Not a Nice Guy

        Yes we do like it here. And we’re paying about $15,000.00 less in state taxes as well. And yes – Nevada does have it’s share of problems. But we won’t be going BANKRUPT like Oregon in another 4 or 5 years.

    • valley p

      Lets see…according tocensus bureau data, Nevada ranks #10 in highway deaths per mile traveled, while Oregon ranks 33rd. Good luck Not a Nice Guy.

    • David Appell

      Data does not support the claim that higher speed limits are safer. In 2008 (the latest year for which data is available), Nevada had a 14% higher rate of traffic fatalities per capita than Oregon. But what’s far worse is that they had many more freeway and expressway deaths than Oregon had, despite being a less-populated state. Speed, apparently, really does kill.

      • Scribbler

        Oh sure, there are more per capita highway deaths in Nevada than Orygun, but kindly remember that the death rate is amazingly low there when you consider the fact that they are all three sheets to the wind, have just picked up a part time hostess, and are trying to get back to LA in three hours.

      • Scribbler

        Oh sure, there are more highway deaths in Nevada than Oregon (adjusted for population), but kindly remember that the death rate is amazingly low there when you consider the fact that they are all three sheets to the wind, have just picked up a part time hostess, and are trying to get back to LA in three hours.

    • David Appell
  • JohnyB

    Do the statistics used take into account what type of car was involved
    With all the reduction in weight of the vehicles, mandated by our so wise legislative class, There was to be an expected rise in fatalities and injuries.
    Unfortunately to achieve better gas mileage you reduce the weight and also reduce the chance of surviving a crash. Metal not wishes absorbs the energy in a crash.

    • valley p

      “Do the statistics used take into account what type of car was involved ”

      No. But do Nevadans drive different cars than Oregonians? Car safety and fuel standards are federally regulated, not state regulated.

  • John Fairplay

    It would be interesting to know the actual rates of speed involved in the traffic deaths. It seems as though speed must be a factor in every traffic death, but the assumption is that all these deaths were caused by high speeds when that very well may not be the case. If one runs over a bicyclist at 10 mph, he is just as dead as if you hit him at 60 mph.

    • valley p

      I was not necessarily making that assumption, but long term data is pretty clear that there is a relationship between driving speeds and accidents and deaths. Its basically physics. People’s skills do not improve just because they drive faster, and Newton’s laws on motion do not diminish with speed. Its sort of the opposite.

      Fatalities do increase with speed. If you hit that cyclist and you are going 20MPH and she is wearing a helmet she will likely survive. If you are doing 60 she will likely be killed. However, at 65 or 75, not much difference.

      Public law is about finding a balance between safety and the efficiency of people and goods getting from point a to point b. We could be perfectly safe if we all drove 10 MPH (except for road rage).

  • David Appell

    Too, fuel consumption goes up as the square of a car’s speed. Thus, all else being equal, driving at 75 mph uses 90% more fuel, per mile, than driving at 55 mph. In a world where automobile exhaust is one of the largest contributers to the greenhouse gases that are already altering the climate, where air pollution is already a factor in personal health, and where Peak Oil is looming (if not already here), higher speed limits are an unwise idea.

    • jim karlock

      *David Appell:* Too, fuel consumption goes up as the square of a car’s speed. Thus, all else being equal, driving at 75 mph uses 90% more fuel, per mile, than driving at 55 mph.
      *JK:* Please learn some basic physics. A car’s fuel consumption per mile DOES NOT increase at the second power of speed (rational people look at real world data in addition to looking up something in a physics book.) You will find there is a moderate decrease in efficiency, but not that large. And it depends on may, car specific factors.

      *David Appell:* In a world where automobile exhaust is one of the largest contributers to the greenhouse gases that are already altering the climate,
      *JK:* What greenhouse effect? What altering climate – when will you quit feeding us lies created by multinational, multimillion dollar corporations looking to make even more money off of fools like you over the “global warming” fraud?

      When will you face reality and finally admit you were taken in hook line and sinker by the climate criminals? Have you learned nothing from IPCC lead author and former CRU boss Jones, admitting that the earth is now cooling and there has been no warming for over a decade and that the rate of warming in this most recent warming cycle was no different from earlier warnings that occurred before most of man’s CO2 release? How much longer are you going to keep your head in the sand?

      Or will it take even more proof that the temperature record has been fudged to create most of the warming since the 1950s as has been hinted at by Spencer?
      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/

      *David Appell:* where air pollution is already a factor in personal health, and
      *JK:* Again you ignore reality – most pollution has been getting less and less for decades.

      *David Appell:* where Peak Oil is looming (if not already here), higher speed limits are an unwise idea.
      *JK:* You are such a sucker for every crackpot idea that comes along! Even as we are discovering record amounts of oil (just a basic economics predicts.) you continue to believe complete crap without any evidence. Too bad you never learned anything in Econ 101 or Logic 101.

      Thanks
      JK

    • Hawk

      Obviously you have little education in the field of engineering and in particular the field of combustion engineering. Let me enlighten you. Fuel consumption does not go up as the square of a car’s speed (velocity). It is air resistance or drag and not fuel consumption which increases proportional to the square of the velocity. Fuel consumption is a function of numerous variables including combustion efficiency, gearing, tires and drag coefficients.

      Using your own numbers (55 MPH, 75 MPH) and the incorrect theory that fuel consumption is proportional to the square of the velocity, then fuel consumption would increase 86%, not 90 % (but I won’t comment on your poor math skills). Now, continuing to use your incorrect theory – a vehicle traveling at 75 MBH will use 86% more fuel that a vehicle traveling at 55 MPH. This means a vehicle that gets 30 miles per gallon (MPG) at 55 MPH will get 16 MPG at 75 MPH. This is just not true. What is true is the increase in drag is 86%. Your theory is provably wrong (and I just proved it).

      Speaking of provably wrong theories – why do you cling to the fraud know a manmade global warming?

      • David Appell

        “Hawk:” Yes, in my haste I wrote a “9” for a “6.” BFD.

        My post said “all else being equal,” and that’s still true. I obviously was not trying to account for every variable in existence.

        But yes, higher speeds require significantly higher rates of fuel consumption.

      • valley p

        “Valley p doesn’t understand physics or thermodynamics. Most likely a product of the public school system.”

        True on all accounts, which is why I asked for your interpretation of what I posted, which was from a physicist, not myself.

        “How do you define “move”?”

        Oh…I dunno…going from one place to another place?

        “The fact is some vehicles require less energy to overcome friction and air resistance because those vehicles weight less, have better drag coefficients, efficient power plants and different gearing. ”

        Yes…which is why small, low profile, aerodynamic cars tend to be more fuel efficient than Hummers at any speed. I get that even as a poor publicly educated person who never took a physics class. But I think the point was, all things equal, increasing speed past a certain point results in decreasing fuel efficiency per mile traveled. Every vehicle has a “sweet spot,” where fuel efficiency is optimized, and for most vehicles on the street the optimal efficiency speed range is 40-60MPH. Therefore, to optimize overall fuel efficiency, a speed limit below 60 makes sense. Do you disagree? Does your superior private school education conclude something otherwise?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Too, fuel consumption goes up as the square of a car’s speed. Thus, all else being equal, driving at 75 mph uses 90% more fuel, per mile, than driving at 55 mph.

      Say what?

      Ok – this is getting ridiculous. Twice previously you had claimed burning a gallon of gasoline releases several times its weight in CO2. That was a minor slip for someone without a physics degree ( it doesn’t release it, it combines to form it ) but a major one for someone claiming a PhD in the subject.

      Now you are on to claim something entirely untrue? A cars kinetic energy would go as the square of the velocity, but not its fuel consumption.

      This is a mistake that is beyond a typo. The gasoline creating more than its own weight in CO2 might have been a typo once. After it being pointed out, it got real hard to believe it was a typo twice. Now you are confusing kinetic energy with fuel consumption. This is a mistake no one with a degree in physics, especially an advanced one, would make. It is simply impossible at this point to believe you have a PhD in physics.

      Frankly its hard to believe you even have driven a car. Even basic driving experience would tell one that going from 55mph to 75mph hardly results in a doubling of fuel consumption.

      • David Appell

        Rupert, you seem to have confused conservation of mass with conservation of energy. They are not the same thing.

        • Hawk

          A 9 for a 6? WTF are you talking about? Are you willing to admit that fuel consumption does not increase as a direct function of the square of a vehicles velocity? If you cannot understand the absurdity of your statements, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? In short, you cannot support a single statement you make.

          From the record, my analysis also takes into consideration “all else being equal”.

      • Hawk

        Rupert,
        Fuel consumption does not go up as a funtion of the square of a vehicle’s velocity. Appell is full of s***. Read post #7.2. Of course Appell won’t respond to someone who actually has a degree in engineering. The only thing Appell is correct about is conservation of energy and mass. But. that is the only thing he is right about. He’s dead wrong on everthing else.

        • valley p

          Hawk…is the following true or false?

          Energy = 0.5*mass * velocity * velocity. A car that weighs 1500 kilos needs 1.5 times more energy than one that weighs 1000 kilos in order to move. Driving at 141 km/h (88 mph) requires: (141/100)2, or twice the amount of energy than driving at 100 km/h (62,5 mph). Driving for 30 minutes at 141 km/h (88 mph) means to drive 70 km (44 miles) consumes as much energy as driving at 100 km (62,5 miles) at 100 km/h (62,5 mph).

          Therefore, if a car consumes 5 liters/hour at 100 km/h (62,5 mph), it will consume 10 liters/hour at 141km/h (88 mph). The burn rate is 100% greater (by time,) but the net efficiency loss is from 47 to 33 MPG.

          Is that about right?

          • jim karlock

            *Dean Apostle:* Energy = 0.5*mass velocity velocity.
            *JK:* Correct when you clarify that ALL the terms are multiplied: E = 0.5 * M * V * V

            *Dean Apostle:* A car that weighs 1500 kilos needs 1.5 times more energy than one that weighs 1000 kilos in order to move.
            *JK:* Nope.

            The energy required to move is ONLY the energy to overcome friction. You have given the energy of the inertia due to its motion. Inertia is constant with speed and therefore does not require additional energy to maintain speed. They are different concepts that apply to a moving object. For instance it takes NO energy to keep something moving in outer space where there is no friction.

            *Dean Apostle:* Driving at 141 km/h (88 mph) requires: (141/100)2, or twice the amount of energy
            than driving at 100 km/h (62,5 mph). Driving for 30 minutes at 141 km/h (88 mph) means to drive 70 km (44 miles) consumes as much energy as driving at 100 km (62,5 miles) at 100 km/h (62,5 mph).
            *JK:* Pure BS.
            Again. Changing speed required adding (or subtracting energy) according to mv^2/2, but maintaining speed requires overcoming friction ONLY.

            *Dean Apostle:* Therefore, if a car consumes 5 liters/hour at 100 km/h (62,5 mph), it will consume 10 liters/hour at 141km/h (88 mph). The burn rate is 100% greater (by time,) but the net efficiency loss is from 47 to 33 MPG.
            *JK:* Garbage – see above.

            Since rolling friction is mostly independent of speed, the air resistance is the dominate factor at higher speeds.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > JK: Nope.
            > The energy required to move is ONLY the energy to overcome friction.

            Ha ha ha.

            Once again, Jim, you show that you haven’t mastered elementary freshman physics. You really didn’t go to college, did you?

            Even in a frictionless world, it requires energy to impart velocity to mass.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* Ha ha ha.

            Once again, Jim, you show that you haven’t mastered elementary freshman physics.
            *JK:* You need to learn to read. (Or quit lying). I plainly said:
            Changing speed required adding (or subtracting energy) according to mv^2/2, but maintaining speed requires overcoming friction ONLY.

            Once again you got caught distorting facts to make your point. The logical conclusion, after many such incidents is: you lied.

            *David Appell:* You really didn’t go to college, did you?
            *JK:* How come Chuck says you refused to show him your alleged PhD?

            *David Appell:* Even in a frictionless world, it requires energy to impart velocity to mass.
            *JK:* Yes David. That was the point of the mv^2/2. Did you miss that too?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > JK: I plainly said:
            > Changing speed required adding (or subtracting energy) according to mv^2/2, but
            > maintaining speed requires overcoming friction ONLY.

            False. You wrote:
            “The energy required to move is ONLY the energy to overcome friction.”

            “Moving” means going from |v|=0 to |v| >0.

            > David Appell: You really didn’t go to college, did you?
            > JK: How come Chuck says you refused to show him your alleged PhD?

            My degree is available for inspection, here or at my university, and my thesis is available at the US Library of Congress.

            Where can I see your degree, Jim? Even just a little BS degree. Or did you lack the ability to earn one?

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:*
            > JK: I plainly said:
            > Changing speed required adding (or subtracting energy) according to mv^2/2, but
            > maintaining speed requires overcoming friction ONLY.

            False. You wrote:
            “The energy required to move is ONLY the energy to overcome friction.”
            *JK:* Learn to read. Just look at
            *4th paragraph of #7.3.2.1.1 jim karlock on 2010-03-31 00:23 :*

            JK: Pure BS.
            Again. Changing speed required adding (or subtracting energy) according to mv^2/2, but maintaining speed requires overcoming friction ONLY.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Hawk

            “Once again, Jim, you show that you haven’t mastered elementary freshman physics. You really didn’t go to college, did you?

            Even in a frictionless world, it requires energy to impart velocity to mass.”

            David,

            Making statements like this clearly displays your complete ignorance of basic physics. Go read Newton’s First Law. The laws of motion are very provable (unlike the theory of global warming). An object moving at a constant straight line motion (as in a “frictionless” world) would remain in motion unless acted on by a force. This object would not require energy to maintain velocity.

    • Hiya Buttboy!

      Wow! Another “Peak Oil” MORON. Are you even remotely aware that MORONS like you have been spouting that CRAP since the 1970s? And guess what Buttboy? We’re nowhere near close to any of your DOOMTARD predictions! Go back into your subsidized apartment Buttbiy and come up with another DOOMTARD excuse.

      • jim karlock

        Correction:
        They have been spewing their running out of oil/gas crap since the late 1800’s. (Admittedly in the late 1800’s they didn’t know much about oil & gas.)

        Thanks
        JK

        • Hawk

          Thank you, Mr. Karlock,

          Valley p doesn’t understand physics or thermodynamics. Most likely a product of the public school system.

          Valley p: “A car that weighs 1500 kilos needs 1.5 times more energy than one that weighs 1000 kilos in order to move”

          Valley p, you are wrong. A vehicle weighing 1500 kilos moving at the same velocity as a 1000 kilo vehicle possesses 1.5 times the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of the vehicle is not the energy required to “move” the vehicle.

          How do you define “move”? An object in steady state motion (constant velocity) will remain in that state unless acted on by a force. A vehicle moving at a constant velocity has forces of friction, gravity and air resistance acting upon it. It is these forces that require energy for the vehicle to maintain a constant velocity. The fact is some vehicles require less energy to overcome friction and air resistance because those vehicles weight less, have better drag coefficients, efficient power plants and different gearing.

          • valley p

            “Valley p doesn’t understand physics or thermodynamics. Most likely a product of the public school system.”

            True on all accounts, which is why I asked for your interpretation of what I posted, which was from a physicist, not myself.

            “How do you define “move”?”

            Oh…I dunno…going from one place to another place?

            “The fact is some vehicles require less energy to overcome friction and air resistance because those vehicles weight less, have better drag coefficients, efficient power plants and different gearing. ”

            Yes…which is why small, low profile, aerodynamic cars tend to be more fuel efficient than Hummers at any speed. I get that even as a poor publicly educated person who never took a physics class. But I think the point was, all things equal, increasing speed past a certain point results in decreasing fuel efficiency per mile traveled. Every vehicle has a “sweet spot,” where fuel efficiency is optimized, and for most vehicles on the street the optimal efficiency speed range is 40-60MPH. Therefore, to optimize overall fuel efficiency, a speed limit below 60 makes sense. Do you disagree? Does your superior private school education conclude something otherwise?

          • jim karlock

            Again, Dean forgets a very important consideration:

            Life is a balance and some people might wish to save many dollars worth of their time by spending a few dollars more on fuel!

            Of course smart growth zealots never consider other people’s time. Probably because they tend to work for the government or at minimum wage.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > Life is a balance and some people might wish to save many dollars worth
            > of their time by spending a few dollars more on fuel!

            Yes, life is a balance, and so is society. Thus, people do not get to do just whatever they want, and even if it saves you time you will no be permitted to drive as fast as you want. Because your actions affect other people as well, sometimes in negative ways. Hence, laws designed for the common good.

          • valley p

            JK: “Again, Dean forgets a very important consideration:

            Life is a balance and some people might wish to save many dollars worth of their time by spending a few dollars more on fuel!”

            No, I didn’t forget. In fact I posted almost the same words up above yesterday:

            “Public law is about finding a balance between safety and the efficiency of people and goods getting from point a to point b. We could be perfectly safe if we all drove 10 MPH (except for road rage)”

            The same applies to saving fuel. Its a balance. We could save 100% if we never drove anywhere.

  • Randall

    A higher speed limit would be fine IF there were someone out there to enforce it, because if you raise the speed limit to 75, idiots will be going 85 or 90. That is what scares me.

  • Steve Plunk

    Speed limits have always been a compromise of personal freedom, public safety, and designed capabilities of the roads. The present speed limits are sufficient high enough to satisfy all three to a degree and should stay where they are at.

    The fact is we all want to go as fast as we like yet we curse the guy who speeds by us. We have bigger and better things to worry about.

    • Mary’s Opinion

      It’s a little scary driving I-5 between Salem and Portland when people are driving 70-75 miles per hour with only 2-3 car lengths between vehicles. It’s a multiple rear end crash continuously waiting to happen. Now add some rain and a driver who zig zags in and out of lanes and the situation becomes significantly more dangerous. There are geographic areas of low population and little traffic where legal higher speeds may be acceptable.

  • jim karlock

    Anyone want to compare highway death rates to horseback or horse drawn carriage death rates before the automobile?

    How about pedestrian death rates in NYC before the auto to after the auto?

    Thanks
    JK

    • Anonymous

      I’d love to compare those things, Jim. Why is that relevant?

    • Steve Plunk

      I always appreciate Jim’s expertise. The automobile is under appreciated and even demonized by many these days yet Jim knows the automobile is an invaluable asset to us. Safety is always improving and other modes of transport can be dangerous as well. That’s the relevance.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not so sure that was Jim’s implication. And by the way, my intention was not to attack his “expertise”/opinions. I appreciate his presence here as well, though I fail to see the relevance of comparing “highway death rates to horseback or horse drawn carriage death rates before the automobile” (however interesting and/or curiosity satisfying it may be) when the question at issue is needlessly raising highway speed limits. I say this as a lover of cars and after having been the “victim” of a reckless driver on I-5 just three short months ago. I was very lucky and was not seriously injured (or killed!), but my vehicle was totaled (and then some).

        “For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.” ~Arthur C. Clarke’s Fourth Law

        • jim karlock

          My guess is that travel by horse & horse drawn wagons was far more dangerous than driving, even if we removed speed limits. That would be an interesting background to any discussion of speed limits and road safety in general.

          I have seen some sparse data about pedestrian deaths before the automobile — they appear to have been much higher!

          Thanks
          JK

          • valley p

            Why not just use the data that we do have? And physics? Higher speeds result in more fatal accidents. The data is clear.

            Pedestrian deaths were probably higher in olden days because there were a lot more pedestrians. You can drive through Gresham or Beaverton today and you will have a hard time finding a pedestrian to run over.

          • jim karlock

            If the data is so clear, you must be able to cite something credible.

            I hear the German high speed freeways have no higher death rates than some USA freeways.

            He Dean, try something new: look at the data! You lack of looking at data is why you have so many crackpot beliefs like peak oil and global warming.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Anonymous

            From what I’ve read the historical death rates on German autobahns are roughly twice as high as U.S. highways. In the last two decades both countries have seen significant reductions in fatalities and are now for all intents and purposes roughly equal in terms of safety, presumably due to a combination of heightened awareness of driving safety and the implementation of differential speed limits (one limit for passenger vehicles and another for commercial vehicles). Most people seem unaware that the German highway system does in fact employ speed limits (on about 1/3 of its network).

          • valley p

            Sure. How about this from the US department of Transportation Synthesis Report on Safety Research:

            https://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

            A summary paragraph:

            *The relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity is unequivocal and based on the laws of physics* . The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is a function of its mass and velocity squared. Kinetic energy is dissipated in a collision by friction, heat, and the deformation of mass. Generally, the more kinetic energy to be dissipated in a collision, the greater the potential for injury to vehicle occupants. Because kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicle’s speed, rather than by speed alone, *the probability of injury, and the severity of injuries that occur in a crash, increase exponentially with vehicle speed* . For example, a 30-percent increase in speed (e.g., from 50 to 65 mi/h [80 to 105 km/h]) results in a 69-percent increase in the kinetic energy of a vehicle.

            Does this mean Jim, that I’m right on global warming as well?

          • jim karlock

            Non Responsive.
            This is not a physis question – it is a real world question.
            Lets see some real world data.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > Lets see some real world data.

            Perhaps you could, just this once, look up some data yourself, instead of expecting to be spoon fed every little thing.

            Do you not know how to use Google?

            Have you heard of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration?

          • valley p

            You asked for a credible citation Jim, and I gave it to you. There is plenty in that paper that links speed to increased highway deaths. Read the darn thing yourself. Or live in reality denial and muse on about horses or whatever it is you have “heard” about highway deaths in Germany.

            This episode illustrates your pattern. You take an oppositional viewpoint to a discomforting reality. You ignore science and data even when it is placed in front of your nose if it contradicts your bias. You discredit the sources of data when you can’t ignore it (every scientist lies!). And then you ask for more data so you can ignore or discredit that. Round and round you go, like a puppy dog chasing its tail. Is there some point to this behavior? Have you even once in your life accepted data that contradicted what you believed despite your discomfort?

            Don’t bother answering. These are rhetorical questions.

          • jim karlock

            *Dean:* There is plenty in that paper that links speed to increased highway deaths.
            *JK:* Then why didn’t you quote one of those passages.

            That leaves us still waiting for YOU to back up YOUR claim. It is not our duty to look up your evidence for you.

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            Jim…you beat Rupert for the deliberately obtuse award. That is quite an accomplishment.

            The document I sent you the link for has a table and graph that summarize the relationship between increasing highway speed limits and increases in severe injury and deaths. It is as plain as can be. The summary statement below says it all:

            “Based on the effects of speed limits reported in various international studies, Finch et al. (1994) developed a model of the relationship between the change in mean speed and the change in crashes. *The results suggest that for every 1 mi/h change in speed, the number of injury crashes increases 5 percent* or a 3-percent increase in injury crashes for every 1-km/h increase in speed.”

            Got that? Want to have more severe injuries and deaths? Then raise highway speeds. Unless you have counter data, your already weak argument is toast. Just like your weak argument on global warming (“The scientists are all liars….boo hoo”.)

          • David Appell

            >> Dean: There is plenty in that paper that links speed to increased highway deaths.
            > JK: Then why didn’t you quote one of those passages.
            > That leaves us still waiting for YOU to back up YOUR claim. It is not our duty to look
            > up your evidence for you.

            It _is_ your duty to educate yourself at a basic level with respect to a claim that is in accord with basic common sense and everyday experience.

            Playing dumb convinces no one. You of all people should have realized that by now, JK.

          • jim karlock

            He it the one who made the claim and provided bullshit quotes. I have a right to assume that those he chose the best quotes to represent his case, otherwise what was the point of the quotes?

            He presented no case and when I called him on it starting, he just accused me, instead of providing evidence! – Typical progressive with no evidence.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            JK, what data shows that GW is not happening? From all the data I’ve seen (NASA GISS, HadCRUT3, UAH, RSS, Arctic sea ice extent, glacier melting, treeline shifts) there is almost no doubt that world is getting warmer.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* JK, what data shows that GW is not happening? From all the data I’ve seen (NASA GISS, HadCRUT3, UAH, RSS,
            *JK:* All that data is suspect because the climate criminals at CRU have had their mitts on it (except RSS & UAH which don’t go back far enoough to say anything indepenpendent.)

            *David Appell:* Arctic sea ice extent,
            *JK:* Perhaps you haven’t noticed is ti within a day or two of exceeding the average.

            *David Appell:* glacier melting,
            *JK:* That was a fraudulent IPCC report based on propaganda from extremist green multinational corporations.

            *David Appell:* there is almost no doubt that world is getting warmer.
            *JK:* Now tell us why it is man caused. Here is Jones’ best case: “ The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing” (BBC interview)

            When are you going to admit your have fallen hook-lien & sinker for the climate fraud perpetrated by a small group of criminals with alleged PhDs

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            >> David Appell: JK, what data shows that GW is not happening? From all the data I’ve
            >> seen (NASA GISS, HadCRUT3, UAH, RSS,
            > JK: All that data is suspect because the climate criminals at CRU have had their mitts
            > on it (except RSS & UAH which don’t go back far enoough to say anything indepenpendent.)

            Bullshit. Go ahead and produce _one_ instance of any data manipulation by any scientist in any database. Just one. Go ahead.

            The satellite records have been available since 1979. That’s 31 yrs. How long do you want before you consider them significant? The authors *certainly* think it’s long enough to be significant — every month Christie and Spencer send a press release out to journalists with their data and calculations. The latest release claimed a warming trend of +0.13 C/decade.

            Do you know something Christie and Spencer don’t know? If so, what?

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* Bullshit. Go ahead and produce one instance of any data manipulation by any scientist in any database. Just one. Go ahead.
            *JK:* To do that we need the original data which they either lost or refuse to produce, depending on who you listen to. But we do have a chart of their admitted “adjustments”. You will note that without the “adjustments” there is no significant warming: https://www.sustainableoregon.com/data_adjustments.html

            *And we have this admission by Tom Wigley, Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, of data tampering:*
            27 Sep 2009: * So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip* .

            *I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip* (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. (1254108338.txt)

            *and his admission that the IPCC lies:*
            Oct 14, 2009: … *there have been a number of dishonest presentations* of model results by individual authors and *by IPCC* .(1255553034.txt)

            How soon you forget, David. Please quit ignoring the facts and face the reality that Gore, Jones, Man et al are a pack of liars.

            *David Appell:* The satellite records have been available since 1979. That’s 31 yrs. How long do you want before you consider them significant?
            *JK:* Long enough to show a complete cycle or two. As you know the last warming was nothing unusual compared to earlier ones (Jones BBC interview)

            *David Appell:* The authors certainly think it’s long enough to be significant — every month Christie and Spencer send a press release out to journalists with their data and calculations. The latest release claimed a warming trend of +0.13 C/decade.
            Do you know something Christie and Spencer don’t know? If so, what?
            *JK:* Glad you mentioned Spencer. He is now saying that its possible we have had little/no warming.
            From: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/

            Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious
            March 16th, 2010

            INTRODUCTION
            My last few posts have described a new method for quantifying the average Urban Heat Island (UHI) warming effect as a function of population density, using thousands of pairs of temperature measuring stations within 150 km of each other. The results supported previous work which had shown that UHI warming increases logarithmically with population, with the greatest rate of warming occurring at the lowest population densities as population density increases.

            But how does this help us determine whether global warming trends have been spuriously inflated by such effects remaining in the leading surface temperature datasets, like those produced by Phil Jones (CRU) and Jim Hansen (NASA/GISS)?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > JK: To do that we need the original data which they either lost or refuse to produce,
            > depending on who you listen to.

            So then you DON’T have any data about so-called “manipulations.”

            > But we do have a chart of their admitted “adjustments”.

            Such adjustments are, in fact, as sign of _good_ science, not bad. Scientists adjust data as better data becomes available. So do economists, traffic engineers, sociologists, actuaries, and anyone else who works with numbers. You have hit on the _strength_ of science, not its weakness.

          • David Appell

            > And we have this admission by Tom Wigley, Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the
            > 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, of data tampering:
            > 27 Sep 2009: So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this
            > would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip .

            How desperate are you, Jim?

            Do you know what the word “if” means?

            Which data did Wigley tamper with, and exactly how? Which set of data? What was the original data point, and what was the final data point?

            Jim, these kind of deliberate bullshit misinterpretations prove to me once again that it’s not worth my valuable time responding to you. And no intelligent, college-educated person is going to take you at all seriously when you try to pull stupidity like this. You’d think you’d realize that by now.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* Which data did Wigley tamper with, and exactly how? Which set of data? What was the original data point, and what was the final data point?
            *JK:* We don’t know the extent of the tampering because they have been *committing criminal acts* to hide the real data and refuse to fulfil their duty to supply it.

            Are you condoning their criminal acts?

            Thanks
            JK

          • jim karlock

            Here is another world class climate expert questioning whether we have even warmed recently:

            Singer on Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry
            3 04 2010

            Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

            ClimateGate Whitewash

            There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

            The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

            * It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
            * It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
            * Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC

            None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?

            Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.

            So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.

            Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

            from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/singer-on-climategate-parliamentary-inquiry/#more-18147

          • David Appell

            > David Appell: JK, what data shows that GW is not happening? From all the data I’ve
            > seen (NASA GISS, HadCRUT3, UAH, RSS,
            >> JK: All that data is suspect because the climate criminals at CRU have had their mitts
            >> on it (except RSS & UAH which don’t go back far enoough to say anything indepenpendent.)

            Of course I’ve noticed. So what? The relevant parameter is ice _volume_, not ice _extent_.

            Volume is very low. You’ll surely want to read the comments of the NSIDC’s Julienne Strove (PhD), which I posted on my blog today. Also, please see the NSIDC’s own interpretation, to be published this coming Tuesday.

          • jim karlock

            What about TOTAL ice – the sum of N & S polar regions?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            >> David Appell: glacier melting,
            > JK: That was a fraudulent IPCC report based on propaganda from extremist
            > green multinational corporations.

            You’re wrong once again. You’re referring to a few Himalyan glaciers, and the mistake wasn’t that they weren’t melting, but that their projected end date was wrong. A treatise of about 2000 dense pages with about 10,000 footnotes can have a few of them wrong.

            You might talk to Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, who has spend more time studying glaciers in-person than any other human alive. Ask him if glaciers are melting worldwide.

            Of course, I realize that your perspective, sitting on your ass in front of your computer day-in and day-out without even a basic college degree, afraid to call up an actual scientist and ask about their findings, is surely far superior to Dr Thompson’s decades of travel and data collection.

          • David Appell

            >> David Appell: there is almost no doubt that world is getting warmer.
            > JK: Now tell us why it is man caused.

            Because it can’t be explained any other way. Models — which DO back-predict the 20th century — duplicate the last 2 decades of climate change if anthropogenic factors are included. If not, they do not duplicate them.

            This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs)
            https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

            What does your model say, Jim? When you run your model with and without anthropogenic factors, how do the results differ?

            Where are your models, anyway? Of even one — just one — of any skeptic?

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:*
            >> David Appell: there is almost no doubt that world is getting warmer.
            > JK: Now tell us why it is man caused.
            Because it can’t be explained any other way.
            *JK:* That only proves that they can’s figure it out, so it must be man caused. That is the same primitive logic that assigned gods to the job of carrying the planets across the sky. Strictly flat earth stuff, David.

            *David Appell:* Models — which DO back-predict the 20th century –
            *JK:* Proves NOTHING except they were carefully “curve fitted.”

            *David Appell:* duplicate the last 2 decades of climate change if anthropogenic factors are included. If not, they do not duplicate them.
            *JK:* Flat earth logic – see above.

            *Lets say this again:* The best your side has is that they can’t figure out a cause for the apparent recent warming, so it must be man’s CO2. Illogical David, laughable even. I say apparent because most of the warming is due to adjustments and thus we cannot even be certain it really has warmed. The case for warming in NOT helped by finding several cases of fraud by the criminals at the CRU & Penn State. (Hide the decline, left out Urals data, Wigley’s adjustments.)

            *David Appell:* What does your model say, Jim? When you run your model with and without anthropogenic factors, how do the results differ?
            *JK:* You don’t even understand elementary science: it is not the skeptics job to prove anything. *It is you side’s job to prove their case. They have not done this.*

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > with alleged PhDs

            So now even their degrees are fraudulent? You have evidence of this? Let’s see it.

            Just because you lack the ability to earn a college degree doesn’t mean that’s true of others.

          • jim karlock

            *Were still waiting for you to show your PhD to Chuck* Why does say you refused to show it to him?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > Why does say you refused to show it to him?

            I have no idea — why don’t you ask him?

            I don’t recall him ever appearing on my doorstep to ask.

          • Anonymous

            That might be, but there is still no correlation with highway safety.

    • David Appell

      > Anyone want to compare highway death rates to horseback or horse drawn
      > carriage death rates before the automobile?

      No. What would be the point? We’re all smart enough to recognize the positive and negative benefits of change. Do you want to compare cancer rates today versus 50,000 years ago? Or even to 100 years ago? There are so many complexifying factors that such comparisons are meaningless.

  • dartagnan

    65 mph might be okay in rural areas, but a 75 mph limit is too damn high — because if the limit is 75, you know people are going to be doing 85 or 90 or 95. That’s simply an unsafe speed for most drivers and most vehicles, especially poor-handling, rollover-prone SUVs and pickups, which make up a large share of the traffic on Oregon’s rural roads.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)