Safe and Legal aren’t necessarily the same thing; that’s what these posts are pointing out and the need to strike a balance between the two. Trouble is there are so many variables and the “proper” speed or other manners of driving aren’t as cut and dry as many like to imagine. You can very well be given a ticket despite driving safely.
There’s a Herman cartoon of the cop writing a ticket for a fellow with a cross country race number on his back and the sign says “speed limit 15mph”; he’s saying to the guy “Oh, quit complaining. You’ll be bragging about this for the rest of your life.”
When I was in New Zealand, a politician was proposing lowering the speed camera latitude from 10kph (6mph) to 5kph (3mph) for the very logical reason that the speed cameras were not generating enough revenue. That’s what it’s all about.
Generally, road work has “speed fines doubled” signs as often as “strictly enforced”. It’s all about protecting the workers, especially at 7PM on Sundays.
I suppose to there’s a modicum of self-correction in some posted limits. We know everyone is going 5mph or so over, so post a 35 to limit traffic to 40 or 45… an so on. *Some *judges might allow some latitude unless the city expects everyone to drive 3 to 5mph BELOW the limit just to be sure they don’t get a fine. The point is not everyone has the complete control to drive EXACTLY at the speed limit. (In fact, the same time in New Zealand someone was suing Toyota because their semi-mechanical cruise control on an uphill actually varied the speed of the vehicle by over 10kph, resulting in a ticket.)
A recent study of 36,000 speeding tickets showed that more than 99% of them were for exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph or more. It is a fact that (99% of the time) cops will not pull you over if you exceed the speed limit by less than 10 mph. Either that, or the cops are lying about how fast you’re going. Anyway, when you see a “strictly enforced” sign, they are warning you that this zone is one of those 1% cases where they fully intend to pull you over for going just 1 mph over the speed limit.
A good way to judge whether a strategy is viable is to ask yourself #1 what would happen if everyone followed this strategy, and #2 what would happen if some people followed this strategy and others didn’t. Consider these options:
When the traffic is flowing faster than the speed limit, drive…
A. below the speed limit.
B. exactly at the speed limit.
C. slightly above the speed limit.
D. eight or ten miles above the speed limit.
E. a little slower than the surrounding traffic.
F. at exactly the same speed as the surrounding traffic.
G. slightly faster than the surrounding traffic.
H. as fast as I damned well please.
First, imagine what the highway would look like if every single car on the road chose A. Everything would be fine. Ditto for B and C. D might be stable and predictable but it should be clear that it’s not as safe as A or B or C. If everyone chose E, the traffic would gradually slow down to the actual speed limit, and again everything would be fine. Let’s skip F for a moment. If everyone chose G, the traffic would go faster and faster and faster, which is obviously unsafe, hence G is not a viable strategy. Now consider F. It’s an unstable erratic point. The speed could fluctuate wildly. I propose that F is not a viable strategy either. I hope it’s obvious that H is not a viable strategy.
Second, imagine what the highway would look like if some cars follow A while others follow a different strategy. People here have argued that would be dangerous. The same goes for B, and probably D as well. But I have yet to hear any logical explanation for why C or F are bad strategies (compared to G). It seems clear to me that, in a mixed situation, either C or F would be at least as safe as G, possibly safer. They also have the added advantage that people who follow C or F are MUCH less likely to get a speeding ticket.
Don’t drive the same speed as traffic, driver a little slower than that.