Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

articles.sun-sentinel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#151

Post by sergiosgc »

RobAley wrote: post #108
sergiosgc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment was aiming at the fact that speed is rarely a cause of an accident, it is often a condition. The difference is small but relevant, as law enforcement focuses on speed as a cause, ignoring the real causes (e.g. Car parked before crosswalk preventing visibility of child that is crossing the road)

Speed - its not the cause of an accident. It's the cause of death.

That's dumb. As dumb as saying that the cause of death is the dashboard your head bumps onto. Or that the cause of death is being alive.

If you can't tell the difference between cause and condition, you may keep silent. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#152

Post by iconjack »

fyi80 wrote: post #62
uxp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, driving above the speed limit while on duty is required. Admittedly, it's not really physically possible to catch up to someone traveling at 90 mph when you're limited to 65, however they have lights and sirens that, according to law, they are required to use while responding to an emergency or incident, which broadly covers speeding. According to the original article, more than half of all incidents occurred…

You might be interested to learn that radio waves can travel well in excess in of 90mph. as can helicopters. In fact, many jurisdictions ban high-speed chases, specifically because they are more dangerous than they help.

"You can outrun his motor, but you can't outrun his motorola."

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#153

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pc86 wrote: post #125
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of problems with doing things like this. The first is that significant speed differentials are extremely dangerous. Uncalibrated speedometers are very common and very inaccurate. Anything that causes guaranteed enforcement is going to reduce safety because people will start religiously following their speedometer instead of the normal flow of traffic, so now you have people driving all different sp…

Do you have any citations for your claim that "people driving 15MPH under the limit (because ... their speedometer is inaccurate)" is "very common?"

I like how you piece together two different sentences to change the meaning. Speedometer inaccuracy is very common, e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/speedometer-scandal

Being off by 15MPH is near the edge of the plausible range. What you get when you start with a speedometer that was off by several percent from the factory and then you throw in bald tires, or armchair mechanics who put low profile tires on stock wheels, or replace the differential with one that has a different gear ratio, or damage from a previous collision, etc.

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#154

Post by AnthonyMouse »

lmm wrote: post #115
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would someone stop, just to get an excuse to speed later, at the same average? You do understand that there are service plazas on toll roads. People stop for gas because they need gas, not because they want to speed. But once someone has stopped, or intends to stop before the toll booth, they're no longer subject to the timer and end up creating a dangerous speed differential against the drivers who are.

On today's roads there are always some people driving over the speed limit. By your logic we should abolish speed limits to remove this "speed differential".

You mean like this?

http://www.motorists.org/press/safe-to-raise-freeway-speed-l...

Existing speed limits are pointless but mostly harmless because people just ignore them. Their primary purpose is to serve as a source of ticket revenue and an excuse for police to stop any vehicle they don't otherwise have cause to stop.

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#155

Post by AnthonyMouse »

eru wrote: post #93
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would someone stop, just to get an excuse to speed later, at the same average? You do understand that there are service plazas on toll roads. People stop for gas because they need gas, not because they want to speed. But once someone has stopped, or intends to stop before the toll booth, they're no longer subject to the timer and end up creating a dangerous speed differential against the drivers who are.

If you stopped, nobody forces you to speed up. (And they could still put some police people on the beat, just to check up on the stoppers.)

>If you stopped, nobody forces you to speed up.

Is that supposed to be an argument that people won't do it?

>And they could still put some police people on the beat, just to check up on the stoppers.

Or they could just do that to begin with and forget about the toll booths, no?

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#156

Post by RobAley »

sergiosgc wrote: post #151
RobAley wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed - its not the cause of an accident. It's the cause of death.

That's dumb. As dumb as saying that the cause of death is the dashboard your head bumps onto. Or that the cause of death is being alive. If you can't tell the difference between cause and condition, you may keep silent. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.

It wasn't dumb, perhaps I wasn't clear. As a former Police officer I've been to many car crashes and understand the difference between what causes the accident and what kills people.

My point was, that in a large proportion of the accidents where people are killed and where drivers are speeding, people state that that it was the drivers inattention that caused the accident, and not the speed they were going. They use this to suggest that we should not prosecute speeding.

While this is technically true, (one of) the reason that we impose speed limits is that an accident caused by, e.g., inattention or mistake is turned from a fender-bender into a fatal accident by high speed.

Even the best drivers make mistakes from time to time, we have a right not to have that mistake turn into a fatal accident by someone speeding.

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#157

Post by sergiosgc »

RobAley wrote: post #156
sergiosgc wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's dumb. As dumb as saying that the cause of death is the dashboard your head bumps onto. Or that the cause of death is being alive. If you can't tell the difference between cause and condition, you may keep silent. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.

It wasn't dumb, perhaps I wasn't clear. As a former Police officer I've been to many car crashes and understand the difference between what causes the accident and what kills people. My point was, that in a large proportion of the accidents where people are killed and where drivers are speeding, people state that that it was the drivers inattention that caused the accident, and not the speed they were going. They use…

Point taken, you are right. However, on the other hand, the ease with which speed becomes the culprit often precludes better solutions. Two examples:

A particular crosswalk in my city was a dark spot, accident wise. A common accident spot, resulting in deaths. Speed traps were, for years, commonly placed in the street, treating, I assume, the perceived cause of the accidents. Speed bumps followed. Years go by, accident rates don't go down. Then, finally specific street lighting is setup on the crosswalk: problem solved. The cause was not excess speed, but night visibility of the crosswalk.

One of the worst mountain roads in Portugal, IP4, was for years considered plagued by speeding. Lots of police cruisers, both marked and stealth, patrolled the road, enforcing limits. Static speed traps the ensued. Accident rates stubbornly wouldn't go down. Then, finally, a brilliant mind decided to place plastic lane barriers preventing overtaking in prohibited zones. Problem solved! Speed was not the cause, dangerous overtake maneuvers were.

Speed is an easy target. As such, it's a dangerous default as accident cause.

Re: Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer

#158

Post by reeses »

corwinstephen wrote: post #26
jere wrote: post #10

>The reporters found nearly 800 officers who reached speeds of 90-130 mph, many of them while off duty. The accidents caused by officers driving at high speeds had caused at least 320 crashes since 2004, killing or maiming 21 people. That's such a horrifying statistic if true. Even at their peak, homicide offending rates in the US were at around 20 per 100,000; assault rates about 10 times as high: http://bjs.gov/con…

Frustrating? Yes. Shocking? No. Did anyone really believe that taking a job as a police officer somehow suppressed these people's natural desire to drive fast? Hell, that's probably what make them join the force in the first place. Sure, it's irresponsible and illegal for off-duty officers to speed, but it's also irresponsible and illegal for regular citizens to speed, and yet that doesn't seem to stop them from doin…

I wouldn't go for "higher standard" but I would say they should be "better informed" about the consequences of driving recklessly.

I have talked to a lot of state patrolmen in CA and WA (USA) and they were cured of using their awesome driving schools for personal advantage after coming up on their first gruesome accident. Especially if said involved children.

People tend to think they're "exceptional" in some way, though, and will dismiss the risk by thinking that they are better trained and more aware of the factors that lead to accidents.

Post reply on HN