Update: It appears that at least one mainstream media outlet, the Columbus Dispatch did mention at least one gunshot victim in this article however failed to account for how the individual was shot or ask authorities how it happened.

In what is becoming a bizarre turn of events, it appears that the cop hailed as the hero who saved lives at Ohio State, is actually is responsible for shooting several of the students while trying to shoot the attacker. Officer Alan Horujko, hailed as a hero by mainstream media, appears to be responsible for causing several gunshot wounds, one of which appears to be serious.

Around 10:30 AM on November 28, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somali immigrant attending Ohio State drove his car into a crowd of students who were gathered outside a building due to a research lab fluoride leak causing an evacuation.  After this, Artan exited the car holding a knife and began stabbing several bystanders with the large kitchen knife.

As police was already present there, Abdul Razak Ali Artan was almost immediately shot by OSU police officer Alan Horujko who was immediately hailed as a hero by the mainstream media.  While perhaps Horujko is a hero for ending a threat, it appear that the mainstream media is not telling the entire story, namely that several of the students injured during the attack were injured by Horujko’s poor marksmanship, not by Artan’s knife.

Almost immediately after the attack, eye witnesses started calling out mainstream media for falsely reporting that a shooter was loose on campus and for covering up the fact that some of the most serious injuries were caused by the police, not the attacker.  One eyewitness wrote in a post titled I’m Here, This is what happened,

A Muslim jumped the curb and used his car to hit people. Then he got out with a machete and tried to whack a few folks with that. He didn’t have much success. The police were called. A campus cop showed up, emptied his clip killing the Muslim and ALSO SHOT A STUDENT. The cop gets on the radio and says ‘shots fired’ – suddenly its a ‘mass shooting’.

Now they’re on TV not saying a word about the student the cop shot who is in critical condition. In fact, the worst injury in all this came from the police. They’re also completely ignoring motive, race or religion of the attacker. They’re not giving his name or even asking the question.

This whole thing has been escalated times a thousand by a bored media and an overzealous cop….a reporter just asked if anyone other than the attacker was shot and THEY IGNORED THE QUESTION. Ridiculous.

So far no media reports have mentioned the fact that the most serious injuries appear to have been caused by police rather than the terrorist armed with a knife.

Another source working for the Ohio State University public safety department who does not wish to be identified publicly, told TruthVoice that one victim with a fairly serious gunshot leg injury was treated at Ohio State Medical Center and at least one other victim with gunshot wounds was treated at another hospital. The extent of the injuries appears to be unclear right now.

No other media outlets appear to report on the fact that several students were shot by police and continue to ignore the question of how victims of this attack ended up with gun shots while the attacker was only armed with a knife.

The narrative of “cops as heroes no matter what” continues to be played as the main thread in all media reports, putting the media in questionable light as they should be the ones asking the difficult questions in order to provide a full and complete story to the public at large.

We will continue to keep you updated as new details about the Ohio State University attack emerge.

A New York Police Department (NYPD) officer keeps guard during New Year’s Eve celebrations in Times Square December 31, 2014. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith (UNITED STATES – Tags: SOCIETY CRIME LAW) – RTR4JS50

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”

“You have the following options,” the letter explains.

“1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.

New York state, meanwhile, passed the NY SAFE Act in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The law, which bans “high-capacity magazines” and puts in place other stringent controls, was signed by governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo.

Patrick Howley, Political Reporter

The head of Cleveland’s largest police union is calling on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to temporarily restrict the state’s open carry gun laws during this week’s Republican National Convention following Sunday’s shooting in Louisiana that killed three officers and wounded at least three others.

“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN. “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”

State law in Ohio allows for licensed firearm owners to wear their weapons in public. With the exception of a small “secure zone” inside and around the Quicken Loans Arena, residents, delegates and protesters are legally permitted to walk around the city — including within its 1.7 square mile regulated “event zone” — with any firearm not explicitly banned by the state.

Kasich, responding to the request, said: “Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested.”

“The bonds between our communities and police must be reset and rebuilt — as we’re doing in Ohio — so our communities and officers can both be safe. Everyone has an important role to play in that renewal,” he said.

Earlier, he released a video offering his condolences in the wake of the Baton Rouge attack.

In what can only be described as a blatant attempt to shut down speech critical of police abuse, a self-identified Ohio LEO from the village of Yellow Springs, Ohio has recently attempted to convince a prosecutor in Greene County to file charges against a Facebook user over a seemingly frustrated comment posted during an online debate.

The cop named Todd J Turner who resides at 661 North Enon Rd. in Yellow Springs, Ohio posted a retaliatory rant about a Facebook comment made by a user named Chuck Montgomery.  Montgomery shared a news article about another local cop who was placed on paid leave after posting a happy Facebook comment regarding the suicide of a local activist on the steps of the Ohio State House.

In his comment, Chuck Montgomery said, “If anyone in the area murders this cop, I will gladly throw a celebration in their honor and put money on their commissary books.”

As a result, Turner contacted the Greene County Prosecutor’s office claiming the comment is a threat against the life of a police officer and asking for charges to be filed against Montgomery. He also contacted Montgomery’s employer calling for his firing.

As a result of Turner’s efforts, local media outlets are now reporting that the Fairborn Police Department is investigating the comment as a threat against the racist cop who is actually on leave.

The original posts made by Turner are included below. While Turner condemns the racist comments made by Lee Cyr, he also calls for the prosecution of Montgomery, calling for his firing and even possible incarceration. Furthermore, the original comment left by Montgomery was edited and no longer exists.

While the defense attorneys at the heart of Steven Avery’s 2006 trial continue to receive the adoration and infatuation of internet users around the world, prosecutors and police involved in the Making A Murderer case are faring less well.

Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz is now constantly bombarded with emails saying, “Ken, you’re a piece of sh*t.” A recent article by The Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter revealed the name of the town where Manitowoc County Sheriff’s detective James Lenk retired Lenk, Green Valley, Arizona, and now he’s getting harassed, as well.

The perceived doxing of Lenk didn’t sit well with his buddy, Manitowoc County sergeant Andrew Colborn, who wrote the Herald Times Reporter an angry letter (without a return address attached, I assume):

I hope you are proud of the fact that you felt it was necessary to publish private information about Mr. Lenk’s residence, as he is now a citizen in poor health trying to live a quiet life away from this media circus. You should be ashamed of yourself. You know all these allegations against Mr. Lenk, myself and our agency are totally false, yet you continue to support these lies and exacerbate the problems they cause.

Try and imagine if something serious happens to one of us or to a member of our families because of all the completely distorted and slanted information that is being published by subjects like yourself. Your lack of responsibility and your bias is appalling. I know the truth doesn’t sell newspapers as much as lies and controversy, but for once try thinking about the consequences of the slander and defamation that you are authoring and participating in.

A word of caution, be careful what you wish for. If Steven Avery is ever freed, he may just become your neighbor, and he may want to bring his nephew with him.

First, there’s small chance Avery would become anyone’s neighbor unless that person already lives next to the Avery Salvage Yard. Second, the people who are arguing loudly for Steven’s release wouldn’t have an issue with him living next door because they obviously don’t think he’s guilty of anything … although they might change their mind once he starts burning trash on a weekly basis.

Colborn does have a point, though, about singling out where controversial people from the documentary now live. There are undoubtedly hundreds of James Lenks spread out all across America, and that lowered the chances that any of them would have to deal with any serious harassment on account of misdeeds real or implied that were featured in Making A Murderer. But after this Manitowoc Herald Times article, the singular James Lenk from the documentary is a mere google away.

As guilty as the documentary made Lenk seem of planting evidence against Steven Avery (specifically the RAV4 key found in his house and the bullet with Teresa Halbach’s DNA in his garage), internet mob justice isn’t the solution. And the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter didn’t just list which state Lenk lived in, they mentioned the name of the town and the specific type of neighborhood.

From there, all it takes is one crazy person with a vigilante streak to turn our hopes of justice for Steven Avery into a f*cked up revenge story with an even darker ending. So, in short, let’s concentrate our efforts on getting appeals for Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey instead. And hope the worst thing James Lenk gets out of this is a giant pile of sex toys and lube mailed to his house.

Sensitive documents and internal communications from within the largest police organization in the country are starting to leak onto the open internet. The hacker behind the leak goes by the alias “the Cthulhu,” and is also responsible for a number of high-profile breaches, including a massive hack of the crowdfunding site Patreon.

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which has thousands of local chapters representing over 325,000 police officers, has confirmed the documents are real and that the FBI has been notified.

The leaked documents include forum postings, names and addresses of police officers and contracts made with city authorities. The first release is only 259 MB, but the Cthulhu claims to have an additional 18 terabytes worth of data that he will comb through and potentially begin releasing over time.

“A society cannot be at peace when the citizens and the enforcers of the law are at war.”

What the hackers found: According to the Guardian, the leaked forum threads are unflattering. They expose police officers speaking ill of President Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and “illegals.”

But the real meat of the hack could be the leaked contracts. The ability of unions to defend officers from punitive action is, some argue, one reason for the ongoing police brutality issues in the U.S.

“No one really knows what is going on inside police unions,” Alex Vitale, associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, told the Guardian. “The most troubling thing is that they have been able to work out disciplinary procedures that shield them from oversight, as in what steps that the employer has to go to discipline or terminate someone.”

But the hacker behind the leak insists he’s not anti-police — he’s just trying to “help” the police correct their behavior and foster better relations between police and citizens.

“A society cannot be at peace when the citizens and the enforcers of the law are at war,” the hacker wrote on his personal site. “Instead, it is the duty of every citizen to support their democratic society, even if in the short term it may seem like you are attacking them.”

Protesters blocked the entrance to the mayor’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast Friday morning as they encouraged people to boycott the gathering.

Surely this was not what the late Mayor Harold Washington envisioned when he hosted the first MLK breakfast in 1985. The event was a target for protest groups calling for the resignation of Chicago’s current Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Shouting “shame on you, shame on you,” demonstrators locked arms and taunted invited guests as they entered the hotel. At least one group of women needed a police escort.

About a dozen intruders pushed their way inside past security to board the escalator to the second floor lobby. Chaos followed as protesters trying to enter the breakfast alongside invited guests were threatened with arrest.

“How dare you say you’ve had enough. We’ve had enough!” one protester said.

“Mayor Emanuel caters to the elite class. He will only invite people who support what he does which is closing 54 schools, police misconduct, suppressing evidence, covering up murders,” said Rev. Gregory Livingston, Coalition for a New Chicago.

“I don’t have a problem with Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel made a mistake, he’s trying to work it out and we’re working with him to work it out,” said Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th Ward.

Inside the ballroom, undercover protesters interrupted the program twice, shouting “”Sixteen shots! Sixteen shots and a cover-up!”

The advertised guest speaker, author Isabela Wilkerson who boycotters asked not to speak, did not appear. The crowded ballroom included many seniors, some who say they were invited within the past 24 hours.

“I did mine yesterday. Got your invitation yesterday? Yeah,” said Richard Lackey, a breakfast guest.

“This was not about me. It’s about Dr. King, his life and his life’s work,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The mayor – whose speech was not interrupted – said the event rededicated the city to Dr. King’s vision for social and economic justice.

He would not answer ABC7’s question about the keynote speaker’s no-show and did not stick around for questions about the boycotters or various protest groups.

“All of these groups are utilizing King tools, they’re utilizing King methods, to get the message out that we want justice,” said Tavis Grant, a boycott organizer.

Despite the pushing and shoving outside as well as inside the hotel, there were no arrests reported.

Some of the protesters outside the MLK breakfast also protested outside the Chicago Board of Trade Friday morning.

These demonstrators, led by the Coalition for a New Chicago, are part of the same group that disrupted holiday traffic on Black Friday and Christmas Day. They call the protest “Black Wall Street” and chose to march on Friday because it’s Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday.

Less than a dozen people took part in the demonstration outside the Chicago Board of Trade, but their message was loud. They aimed to prevent employees from entering and prevent money from trade profits from flowing in the city.

“What we want to do is to bring the pain from the inner city to downtown. Many of the folk here at the Board of Trade – where billions of dollars are transacted every day – many of them are not aware that there are people in neighborhoods outside of downtown who don’t have schools, who don’t have hospitals, who don’t have clinics, who don’t have adequate infrastructure to live humane lives,” said Rev. Gregory Livingston, Coalition for a New Chicago.

If you’re white, middle-class, and are a legal gun owner, The Baltimore Sun is afraid of you. More so even then they are of the illegal gun touting murderers currently overtaking their city’s streets. Just read the recent article published in the publication, written by Tricia Bishop:

It’s inevitable when my husband and I visit family these days that the subject of violence in Baltimore comes up. Often, I’m the one who raises it. But when it came up last week on a trip to see my parents in Georgia, I got my back up. I thought of the 11-hour drive south and the billboards we passed along I-81 boasting guns for sale (“A Glock for Christmas”!), and of the story my brother-in-law, who lives in Florida, told of a neighbor stopping by to shoot the breeze in his suburban driveway, a handgun holstered at the man’s waist as their kids played nearby.

I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners. I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore’s illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by “the game.” The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away. But I don’t know where the legal gun owners are or how to ensure that their children, no matter how well versed in respecting firearms, won’t one day introduce that weapon to my daughter.

It’s probably good that op-eds like this get published. The more the anti-gun lobby talks, the more ridiculous they reveal themselves to be. Keep talking, Tricia Bishop. All you’re doing is strengthening America’s adherence to the Second Amendment.

Source: Baltimore Sun

This is an obvious call to action. Something must be done. We need more laws, more money for enforcement and more citations written – Speed Kills!

Not so fast says a follow up study just completed by National Motorists Association. The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.

Yes we all want safer highways, but who are the players and whom can we believe? How can fatal accidents double after we put in place our government’s (NHTSA) most revered highway safety strategy? What is going on here? Something doesn’t add up. Is this an anomaly or is it expected?

The NMA has long held that true highway safety can only be achieved by following sound engineering practices, not conjecture, and we wanted to find out what really happened in Montana. In this study we examined the 2 classifications of highway where the effects of no limits and full enforcement could be definitively compared. These Montana findings add weight to 70 plus years of consistent engineering findings to the same effect.

From an engineering perspective the evidence strongly suggests that some of these lives lost were a direct result of Montana’s politicians succumbing to unfounded conjecture. They passed a politically correct law at a time when the state’s fatal accidents were at a modern low and its roads were never safer. Why are they responsible, they simply ignored (US title 23, federal law) federal safety requirements that sound engineering standards and practices be followed – resulting in non–complying signs being posted, adoption of unsafe practices that are known to increase accident rates, which most certainly includes hazards remaining unmarked or with insufficient warning.

There are four primary contributors to this confusion: In the last 30 years we have institutionalized a billion dollar enforcement industry… a press that transitioned from investigative into a business… the ever ominous politicians looking to get reelected or establishing a legacy… and the ignored traffic safety engineering community who has relentlessly documented cause and effect safety strategies, requires peer review and verification before a standard is adopted as the most effective solution, a group which knows the best policy is one that always encompasses observed human nature.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personifies the traffic enforcement industry, because this industry is its primary constituent. In its role, it first created “Speed Kills”, next was “Road Rage” and then the “Aggressive Driving” slogans and supporting propaganda campaigns to scare the public into growing the enforcement industry (revenues, equipment, staffing). Its press releases as a matter of practice grossly misrepresent data (invent a crisis, then the need to intervene) – engineering findings never support its conclusions. At what cost? Fatality rates in 2000 increased again, sound engineering practices have been undermined, road blocks for checking your papers are now legal and common, vehicle confiscation for minor infractions now accepted practice, mothers are thrown into jail for not wearing seat belts – and a public gladly sacrificing its liberty to false safety idols.

The press (a business hungry for content) regurgitated every piece of propaganda that NHTSA could produce. Nobody can be against traffic safety and here is an agency whose very name says they are our protectors. Consequently the press became a conduit of unverified claims supporting this agency’s self interest. Marketing 101, tell someone for their entire life something is true – it becomes their truth. Except for a small group of traffic engineers and researchers, these manufactured urban myths became the nation’s truth, encompassing its politicians, reporters and citizens.

As for politicians, just ask which way is the wind blowing – sounds good to them. In Montana there was law and order Governor Mark Racicot, standing by the Attorneys General, the Chief of the Highway Patrol and the wishes of the law enforcement community. The state agencies followed the governor’s wishes and testified in support of the new law (when their data didn’t support it) – the norm in today’s world of agency testimony in front of legislative committees.

Now to the silenced engineers and researchers. Federal law (Title 23) says fact–based sound engineering practices are to take precedence over conjecture. The problem, no one is willing to enforce it – including the FHWA. These professionals work for political entities, and at the end of the day they are silenced from practicing their profession because they have families to feed and they need a job.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.

All the important observations made in original research paper remain very germane in regards to this doubling of fatal accidents on Montana’s highways. (February 2000, Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox) The following excerpts tell the story.

“Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatal accidents rates is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community. “

For years, motorists’ advocates have used engineering-based facts against artificially low speed limits. They have claimed that by raising speed limits to reasonable levels, accident and fatality rates will actually be reduced. This seemingly wild assertion has been documented by the traffic engineering profession for 50 plus years. This fact–based position has again been proven to be true by the repeal of the National Speed Limit. The nation has recorded the lowest highway fatality rate since such records have been kept.

What about the extreme of No Speed Limits on 4 lane Interstate and rural federal–aid primary two lane highways? These same fact–based engineers point to the German Autobahn, where with no speed limits, authorities are consistently reporting lower fatality rates than comparable US highways.

For the last 5 months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional, reported fatal accident rate declined to a record low. Fixed speed limits were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents have begun to rise again.

This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted – comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?

The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana’s experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural by product of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.

The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don’t automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”

The study on the effects of no daytime speed limits in Montana is clear. Traffic safety, if anything, actually improved without posted limits or massive enforcement efforts. Highway safety wasn’t compromised nor can the lowest fatality rates recorded in modern times be ignored. Something happened, it was positive, and it needs further research to analyze what worked and why.

This doubling of the fatal accidents in Montana is a real life example to the potential catastrophic consequences of passing politically correct laws. Safety can only be achieved when sound engineering practices are allowed to overrule unfounded political conjecture. The sooner we as nation follow these precepts as adopted in the Highway Safety Act of 1966, our roads will be as safe as they reasonably can be while protecting your rights too.

The Findings

This study covered 7 years, 4 of which had no daytime limits. The chart covers the period after motorists adjusted to no limits through the last 19 months when the new full time speed enforcement and safety campaign was in place. The actual numbers provided by the Montana DOT tell the story.

Fatal accident data charted for the 7 years of the study. No daytime limits were in place from the end of ’95 through mid ’99. 1994 is representative of a low point for the previous decade.

Note: The last 12 month period of no daytime speed limits ended in May of 1999 with the lowest number of fatal accidents despite an estimated 12–18% increase in traffic volumes during this 6 year period. In 2000, the USDOT recorded the first modern reduction in miles traveled and Montana with its first true speed limits recorded its highest number of fatal accidents in modern time on its interstates.

Taking a different approach to examining the effects of no posted limits, the author decided to take a look at multiple vehicle accidents to see if there were any changes or trends.

On these classifications of highway, the no daytime speed limit appears to have reduced the multiple vehicle accident rate on Montana’s 2 lane Primary Highways.

This information was requested because the author’s personal observations indicated that a culture had developed of slower traffic yielding the left lane by keeping right and/or moving closer to the shoulder to allow safe overtaking. Instead of increasing accidents, with the expectation of higher speeds, there should be fewer multiple vehicle accident because of better lane courtesy. It appears to be the case, as indicated by the reduction in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on the rural primary 2 lane highways. As the chart shows for 2000, with the new speed limits the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents have increased again.

Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits:

1. Fatal accident rates on these highways reached an all time low in modern times.

2. On 2 lane highways with no posted limits the frequency of multiple vehicle accidents dropped 5 percent.

3. Seat belt usage is up to 91% percent, with only a secondary enforcement law.

4. Posted limits and their enforcement, had either no or a negative effect on traffic safety.

5. As predicted by the engineering models, traffic speeds did not significantly change and remained consistent with other western states with like conditions.

6. The people of Montana and its visitors continued to drive at speeds they were comfortable with, which were often speeds lower than their counter parts on high density urban freeways* with low posted limits.

7. The theory behind posting speed limits on these classifications of highway is to reduce conflicts in traffic flow (caused by speed differential), thereby reducing accidents. On the two lane highways flow conflict accidents (multiple vehicle) decreased when the limits were removed. When added to the Autobahn results and the no change found on Montana’s Interstates, this thesis needs to be rethought because the field data on highways without posted limits doesn’t support it. With the expectation of higher speed differentials, multiple vehicle accident rates declined even when the actual speeds did not change significantly. This suggests the changes are the result of positive motorists behavior (courtesy and due caution).

8. In traffic engineering findings the vehicles traveling faster than average have the lowest accident rates, yet they are the primary targets of speed enforcement. To this we can now add, with speed limits there was no positive correlation between speed enforcement and accident rates on rural free flowing highways, if anything, the highways became less safe.

MONTANA PARADOX: Is that the desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them.

Followup Footnote: At the end of 2001, a year after Montana implemented its new NHTSA backed and sponsored enforcement program, fatalities increased significantly. Now another year of data is in (2002), Montana just recorded a 20 year high in fatal accidents.

We have two choices, we can follow those policies that result in a net reduction in fatalities, or those that have been documented for over 70 years to actually increase fatalities. After decades of NHTSA propagated myths, we as a nation have chosen the later.

Supporting an industry, according to the FHWA, that issues over 90 percent of its speed citations for “speed limits which are set artificially low… misallocate resources, apprehending and prosecuting motorists driving at safe speeds”.

Credits: Special thanks to Jack Williams, Research & Evaluation Bureau Chief, Traffic Safety Bureau, Montana Department of Transportation, for his assistance in collecting the highway accident data.

Contact Information,
Chad Dornsife
[email protected]
775.721.2423 cell
800.708.5723 voice mail/fax