Driving over the speed limit

Great Debates
81

I wouldnt credit no speed limits for Germanys over all road safety. its more likely a combination of German society’s views on driving responsibly and the difficulty of getting a German drivers license.

keep in mind that here in America, if you are over 18 all you need to get a license is to pass a 25 question written test (all the answers are found in a little booklet of around 100 pages) and pass a 10 minute drive test where you do 1 parallel park, 1 hill park, 1 lane change, and one 3 point turn) (side note in three states you replace the 3 point turn with the mind bogglingly stupid Back around a corner where you litteraly do just that, back around a coner from one street to another)

thats it, we are talking about a test where anyone with a reading lvl of 4th grade or higher could probably pass the written portion, and anyone with a couple hours practice could manage a passing score on the drive portion.
To the study I posted earlier,
A: I dont have the source, that comes from a study that was most likely done in the 80’s or early 90’s and has no relevant info on the route taken. so arguing that the German freeways are a place that could never happen is a big Assumption on 2 levels.
B: you guys dont understand heavy traffic flow very well if you think thats an unrealistic result, one thing speeders virtually never understand is that every single time you have to slow for traffic you are losing tons of ground to the people who are simply rolling along. have you never been passed by some aggresive driver on the freeway, then 5 miles later you get off the freeway, drive through a few lights and pull up alongside the guy?
[q]Sam Stone
Likewise, if I’m at an intersection in a deserted area and there’s a stop light, I’ll stop, but if the light doesn’t change immediately I’ll proceed though the intersection if all lanes are completely visible and I’m sure there’s no traffic. Traffic lights are meant to control the flow of traffic. If there’s no traffic but me, I don’t see much point to just sitting there for three minutes because ‘that’s the law’. By the same token, a ‘Stop’ sign means come to a full stop, with brakes locked up. However, if I’m at an intersection behind another car, and I’ve come to a full stop, when he goes and I can clearly see there is no other traffic, I’m following him right through the intersection. I see no need to creep forward another 15 feet and come to another dead stop. It’s hard on the brakes, it’s annoying, and serves no purpose whatsoever. It’s also technically a violation of the law. I don’t care. It’s all about using sound judgement and knowing your capabilities and those of your vehicle.[/q]

I hear this argument alot, and to an extent I understand it. Keep in mind a couple of things. first if you get a ticket for this its going to cost you a crap load of time, and you are doing this to save time. trust me here the math does not come out in your favor. second as I point out to students Pedestrians don’t get hit by people that cant see them, they get hit by people that dont see them. every idiot out there who pulls up to an intersection looking to turn right but staring left to see if they really do need to stop for that sign or light is just one more reason people are getting run over, hospitalised and even killed and its all because of a driver who couldnt be bothered to stop and act like a responsible human being instead of just another random dumbass with a license.

82

Nowhere did I advocate blowing through Stop signs. What I said is that if I’m already stopped, AND I can clearly see in all directions that I’m the only human in the area, I’ll proceed through the intersection after satisfying myself that it is safe. The light in this case serves no purpose whatsoever - in fact, many red lights around here change to flashing red during low traffic periods, indicating that it’s permissable to proceed through after coming to a complete stop.

What’s the difference between a traffic light and a stop sign? There’s nothing ‘extra safe’ about sitting for some interval of time after you’ve come to a complete stop. If traffic were guaranteed to be sporadic at that intersection there would not be a light, because Stop signs serve the same safety function.

The lights replace stop signs when the flow of traffic must be controlled. The light is there because during busy times it’s necessary to make traffic flow smoothly. If you’re the only one at the intersection, and it’s absolutely clear that there is no oncoming traffic, you are not in any way reducing safety by proceeding through the intersection. The law says not to do it because to maintain traffic flow the law needs everyone to behave the same.

Here’s maybe a better example: If I’m on a single-lane highway behind a slower moving vehicle and need to pass him, I will accelerate as fast as safely possible once I’m in the oncoming lane, even if it means breaking the speed limit. People who pull out into oncoming traffic and hang in that lane for an exceedingly long time because they refuse to speed and therefore overtake the other vehicle at 2-5 mph are not enhancing anyone’s safety - they’re making the roads less safe. If I’m in an oncoming traffic lane, the thing I care about most is getting out of that lane as quickly as possible. However, to do so I’m breaking the law. C’est la vie.

83

I’ll agree that if traffic were guaranteed to be sporadic at that intersection, then perhaps there ought not be a light, but rather a stop sign or flashing red light. But if the actual situation is that there is a regular traffic light at that intersection, then while you have the red light, cars on the other street have a green light and will proceed through, while paying only minimal attention to the cars on your street. Now, I understand your claim that you can continue through the red light because you’re sure that there aren’t any cars on the other street. But that is a risky situation. I know that you are a careful driver, but the Traffic Department of that jurisdiction has determined that the traffic in that area is too unpredictable for people to be deciding these things for themselves. If they felt they could allow the public to make these judgment calls, they would have installed a stop sign or flashing light. But experience and/or statistics have shown that this intersection requires a stronger warning, so they installed a regular light.

Yes, my point exactly. “The law needs everyone to behave the same.” So it seems to me, based on your desire to exempt yourself from this law, that you prefer anarchy to law. Did I miss something?

84

Ever seen a moose? They weigh between 900 and 1600 pounds and are built in such a way that if you hit them with your car, you break their legs and their massive body will land on your windshield, most likely killing you and any front seat passengers (assuming, of course, that you survived the initial collision). Believe me, when two of these things trotted across the highway while I was going 65 mph, my panicked breaking was not the result of failure as a driver.

85

In the real world, the reason why the light doesn’t turn to flashing red after midnight may be as simple as cost - there’s no budget to upgrade the light, and the intersection is in a remote area where very few cars use it at all, so it was low on the priority list for getting an upgrade.

Seriously, the intersection I’m thinking about is in an industrial district I had to travel through at night. All the businesses are closed. There is almost never any traffic at all after midnight. The intersection is on a large, wide road, with clear visibility for blocks in every direction. There was exactly zero chance of some car surprising me. It was a very long light (probably because during the day a lot of heavy trucks use the intersection). After you sit at it for what seems like an eternity for a night or two, you suddenly realize that you are letting the law substitute for good judgement.

The law needs everyone to behave the same for the purpose of controlling the flow of traffic. If the need to control traffic flow is gone because there is no traffic, then the only remaining purpose for the light is safety. If you’ve come to a full stop and satisfied yourself that no traffic is approaching, you’ve met the safety requirement too.

I prefer to have people use their heads rather than blindly follow the law. I did not delegate my good judgement to the government.

The 55 MPH speed limit in the states was widely violated, and for good reason. Having a national speed limit was an idiotic idea. The needs of people driving on congested roads in New York are not the same as those of people who routinely drive across the midwest on straight flat roads for hundreds of miles. After the law went away, the very same roads had their speed limits raised to 65 or even 75 mph. Did those roads magically become safer, allowing the greater speed?

If you were tooling along one of those roads at 55 when the law was in force, and everyone else was going 75, would you be behaving in a safe manner? You’re maybe causing cars to back up behind you, you’re forcing people into the passing lane, and cars are constantly closing on you at 20mph, which can be a problem if they don’t see you right away, such as if they’re coming over a hill or around a corner. In this case, maintaining the flow of traffic is safer for everyone, even if it causes you to break the law. This is why some jurisdictions have exceptions to the law that say you can speed if you are in the flow of traffic. But not all do. That doesn’t make mixing your slow-assed driving in with the faster flow of traffic any smarter, safer, or more moral.

86

Thanks. But I see it’s just a straight comparison of death rate, which doesn’t say much about the effects of speed limit per se. The difference in death rate can have many other causes, such as:
[ul]
[li]Availability of alternative transport (esp. high-speed trains), resulting in different demography of car drivers.[/li][li]Ease of obtaining driver’s license in respective countries.[/li][li]Car safety standards, and average age of cars.[/li][li]Strictness of vehicle inspections.[/li][li]Differences in other driving laws, and the way they are enforced. (e.g. passing on right)[/li][/ul]

Why do people insist that it’s the legal driver who is “forcing” the speeders to pass them? It’s like Bush saying Congress is forcing him to veto a bill. Nobody is forcing you to exceed the speed limit and pass me.

87

Well that’s it then. It’s citizen arrest time!
:wink:

88

I did say almost certainly, can hardly hold it against someone for hitting a kangaroo in the australian outback at night either, nor when an oncoming driver falls asleep and drifts in to your lane, a lorry has a tire blowout in lane 1 and swerves into lane 4, or many other vanishingly rare situations that do occassionaly happen.

89

When you are at a red light, the cross traffic presumably has a green light, and has no duty to yield whatsoever. The cross traffic have a reasonable expectation that no car will enter the intersection from the other direction. This is not true with a stop sign. A stop sign is equivalent to a flashing red light, but not to a solid red light.

90

Probably doesn’t help that the governer wrecked at about 91 MPH on the Garden State.

91

Fair enough; I just don’t think these things are as vanishingly rare as you do. Moose collisions are common enough in New Hampshire that there are signs all over the northern part of the state warning “Brake for moose; it could save your life.”

If you’re talking city streets, you’ve got people unexpectedly pulling out, running lights, or, god forbid, kids running out from between parked cars.

Make it “if you brake hard to avoid stopped or slowed traffic or some other foreseeable hazard” and I’ll agree with you.

92

All of those hazards are forseeable, and I wouldn’t be braking hard for them.

93

Well, no, as was pointed out just breaking a law doesn’t mean being a criminal. :stuck_out_tongue:
But pointing at the law breaker and heaping abuse and ridicule upon them, well, now, THAT’s another thing. :wink:

94

Dr. Deth, sorry for taking so long to respond. Given that the OP was describing freeway traffic, I did not think it necessary to discuss the situation of a two-lane road with only one lane in each direction. Yes, in such a case, you are forced to turn out and let traffic pass. But that’s not what the OP was discussing, and not what we were talking about previously.

So, to sum up, if you are on a road with at least two lanes travelling in your direction, and you are in the rightmost lane, and you are travelling at the speed limit, you cannot be correctly charded with impeding traffic. Which was my point right from the get-go. :slight_smile:

95

If people wish to heap abuse and ridicule on me for speeding, I would find it very difficult not to burst out laughing!

As a point of fact, today I did compare speeding V non speeding times, as I had to drive at breakneck speed from Ayr* to Motherwell to pick up a car part, and then cruised back in perfect IAM style for fuel economy reasons. This was in a falling apart, 120hp when new, 20 year old, poorly maintained volvo 740 estate. Top speed reached would have been about 110mph indicated / 100 mph true. On the way back, didn’t exceed 70mph or indeed any limit, even the unreasonable ones through Glasgow (Was stuck on the M8 for about the same time either way). A saving of half an hour on an hour and a half journey…

*Actually, it wasn’t from Ayr, but I’m not telling you where I live more specifically than that and times are from/to Ayr…

96

Sam Stone, with respect, we are simply going to have to disagree. While your analysis is not faulty as to the topic of safety, etc., your willingness to break the law for no other reason than your own personal convenience (avoiding waiting at lights that don’t change, not braking one more time, etc.) is morally no different than someone who, for example, takes money from others because he doesn’t believe that society properly distributes wealth. Such a person can make a compelling argument that there is no true harm from what he is doing, depending upon his parameters for stealing (only from wealthy people, let’s say), so why should he be compelled to follow a law that exists solely to protect wealthy people?

I am no paragon. I have broken the law from time to time, even intentionally. But I dislike doing so because of the fundamentally slippery slope it puts me on. If everyone in society played pick and choose with the laws they want to follow, where would we be? Should everyone get to decide not to pay federal income tax based upon their own view of the tax laws? What about refusing to report certain incomes (this is WIDELY done, even condoned among a large section of society)? What about failing to report out of state purchases to your state for the purpose of use tax established in lieu of sales tax? Where do you draw the line?

The laws we live under may at times be annoying. Picking and choosing which ones we do or don’t want to follow is not a good idea for any society. In my humble opinion. :slight_smile:

97

Are you saying it’s OK to break the law if you can prove it saves you time?

98

Interesting question, which I suppose comes down to personal morality.

If one has the position that it is never OK to break a law, then of course not.

If, like me, one tries to abide by the spirit of a law, then it is reasonable to break a speed limit when safe to do so. The reason is that speed limits are set to ensure road safety. If it is safe to exceed the speed limit, then there is no moral reason to abide by it.

You might be interested to know that speed limits in the United Kingdom were brought in by a transport minister that didn’t even have a driving licence!

Edited to add: There is no point in exceeding a speed limit if it doesn’t save any time, or if one doesn’t need to save any time - which is why I brought this up…

As another example, I used to regularly drive from Durham to Cambridge. I could manage this in under 3 hours (an average of 80mph) if I were applying discretion to speed limits. If I wasn’t, for whatever reason, then it would take about 4h:30.

99

Don’t know what that poster is saying, but there are plenty of people who Do say that you shouldn’t break the law, because it doesn’t save you time. Which that poster, and myself, have found evidence disproving.

100

Well, but that’s silly. Of course it saves you time. The only issue is how much time? Over a three hour drive, potentially a lot. Over the 15 min. to the store? No so much. :wink: