So no matter what limit you set, people will drive faster than the limit, unless you set the limit so high that it no longer limits people because they will drive slower for safety reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that the point of speed limit laws? It seems to me that with this one statement you have agreed with the OP.
What is implicit in all of these arguments for low speed limits is: The average person is a moron who, left unchecked, will visit death and destruction upon himself and others, therefore we must pass laws for the average citizen’s own good.
If this is true, then we should go back to a monarchy..
What is implicit in all of these arguments for low speed limits is: The average person is a moron who, left unchecked, will visit death and destruction upon himself and others, therefore we must pass laws for the average citizen’s own good.
If this is true, then we should go back to a monarchy..
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely wholeheartedly agree. The average person is a moron and we absolutely must pass laws to protect ourselves from morons. (I work in the criminal justice system so I may be jaded)
A monarchy would be the best form of government if we could somehow ensure a good monarch.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Regardles of congestion, weather, or road conditions, the judge simply isn’t going to convict an exceeding cite unless it’s a certain amount over the limit. The purpose of that is so the courts don’t get clogged up with radar trials. People tend to fight expensive tickets that were written for just a few miles over.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. ISTM, however, that this is just a result of the margin of error involved (where “margin of error” includes calibration issues and/or any other reason the reading may not be perfect). That is, if it were possible to guarantee the reported speed was incontestably accurate, there would be no “clogging of the courts”. 1 MPH over the limit? Guilty, pay fine, next case.
It also STM that, given the practical aspect of prosecution, calls for strict, no-quarter enforcement are pipe dreams (or simple hyperbole).
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Thanks. ISTM, however, that this is just a result of the margin of error involved (where “margin of error” includes calibration issues and/or any other reason the reading may not be perfect). That is, if it were possible to guarantee the reported speed was incontestably accurate, there would be no “clogging of the courts”. 1 MPH over the limit? Guilty, pay fine, next case.
[/QUOTE]
13 mph is more than a margin of error, though. The margin of error for any unit I’ve used has never been more than 4. Even simple “stop watch” techniques like Vascar get the 13mph rule.
In actuality the radar/vascar/laser unit reading is only supposed to back up the officers observation, but in reality that’s not the case. Many (not all) cops I know just zap every car as it goes by and make no effort to estimate the speed of any of them.
That is not they’re supposed to do though.
[QUOTE=John DiFool]
I disagree with the whole simplistic “speed=death” equation. Yes, speed often is the #1 aggravating factor in an accident, but it isn’t the main “cause” very often. The main causes in my view are inattentiveness/lack of situational awareness, use of distracting devices (cell phones, stereo), and outright reckless driving (weaving around cars like a maniac). Add high speed on top of one of these factors and injuries/damage are that much worse, but speed isn’t the main cause of wrecks.
Speed is dangerous when you have exceeded your comfort zone and your car’s ability to get out of danger (via braking, swerving suddenly, or yes even accelerating). People usually have no idea how to handle their car when a sudden emergency does come up, because they’ve never had to skillfully handle their car when it is at the limit. My niece and nephew will both be beneficiaries of a high-performance street driving course when they reach the legal age.
I mean look at the autobahn, where speeds are very high but the accident rate is no worse than it is here, precisely because drivers in Germany aren’t farting around with their cell phones at 120 MPH, chatting and laughing (turning around) at their bozo friend in the back seat, driving casually with one hand on top of the steering wheel, etc. Yeah when they do get in a wreck it often is very bad, but they don’t treat driving as casually as Americans do.
[/QUOTE]
You would do better to support your theories with some fact. Note I suggested you should have to PROVE your assertions.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Isn’t that the point of speed limit laws? It seems to me that with this one statement you have agreed with the OP.
What is implicit in all of these arguments for low speed limits is: The average person is a moron who, left unchecked, will visit death and destruction upon himself and others, therefore we must pass laws for the average citizen’s own good.
If this is true, then we should go back to a monarchy..
[/QUOTE]
No, we pass laws so that those who would do things that will harm OTHERS in society are provided with a reason not to do them. Some do them anyway, they are the criminals of our society. Others understand the social contract that says we have given up some personal liberty in order to obtain social security.
And no, I was not agreeing with the OP in any way with that statement. What I was saying is that, if you set a limit of, say, 150 mph, most people would not exceed that speed limit, because they would reach a point THEY thought was unsafe. But THEIR judgment is inherently poor; it’s not based upon actual understanding of the physics of how a car handles, for example (try explaining to someone the reason a race car is able to make a high speed turn!), nor is it based upon reasonable assumptions of actual driving ability. Indeed, one of the more unfortunate aspects of driving is that we often fail to take into account when deciding how to drive the actions of those around us, which may not meet our expectations (a lesson I learned only after the third major accident I had, two of which were not in any way my “fault”). So raising the limit to 150 would serve little purpose. But putting it at 70 mph has a purpose: it prevents most people from driving at an unsafe speed for the road in question, whereas without that limit, many if not most people would inaccurately estimate they could drive faster and still be safe doing so.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
It’s not clear if this is a particularly American or Euro-American thing. I do know that, when living in relatively rural California, if I found myself behind a driver going slower than the limit, that driver was often hispanic. This seems to have tied in with a somewhat more laid-back lifestyle, in which go go go was not so important. Similarly, in urban California, slower drivers on the freeways were often Asian appearing, which, again, seemed to tie in with a generally more “careful” approach to life in general, in which rules are more respected. So the whole break the speed limit thing may be a reflection at some level of our own, cultural tendencies, which are well known to be viewed by many in the world as fast-paced and self-thinking.
[/QUOTE]
You left out:
Blacks are lazy
Jews are Greedy
French are rude…
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
No, we pass laws so that those who would do things that will harm OTHERS in society are provided with a reason not to do them. Some do them anyway, they are the criminals of our society. Others understand the social contract that says we have given up some personal liberty in order to obtain social security.
And no, I was not agreeing with the OP in any way with that statement. What I was saying is that, if you set a limit of, say, 150 mph, most people would not exceed that speed limit, because they would reach a point THEY thought was unsafe. But THEIR judgment is inherently poor; it’s not based upon actual understanding of the physics of how a car handles, for example (try explaining to someone the reason a race car is able to make a high speed turn!), nor is it based upon reasonable assumptions of actual driving ability. Indeed, one of the more unfortunate aspects of driving is that we often fail to take into account when deciding how to drive the actions of those around us, which may not meet our expectations (a lesson I learned only after the third major accident I had, two of which were not in any way my “fault”). So raising the limit to 150 would serve little purpose. But putting it at 70 mph has a purpose: it prevents most people from driving at an unsafe speed for the road in question, whereas without that limit, many if not most people would inaccurately estimate they could drive faster and still be safe doing so.
[/QUOTE]
So, in our fair, representative democracy, we cannot trust the people. You seem to agree with askeptic.
That the average joe is a dumbass who will drive at a speed that is unsafe and reckless, so that he cannot be trusted with obeying speed limits.
As such, I would argue that if the average person cannot be trusted with something as minor as a speed limit law, how can he elect the leader of the free world with his finger on the nuclear button?
At least askeptic has agreed with my logic. Will you do the same?
[QUOTE=askeptic]
You left out:
Blacks are lazy
Jews are Greedy
French are rude…
Clearly you have never driven in Mexico City.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. If you can’t tell the difference between what I said and stereotyping every person of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, you shouldn’t engage in serious debate. :smack:
My statements are made on the basis of having driven countless hours between rural Watsonville and slightly less rural Salinas, California, during which years I learned to purposefully add extra time to the trip in order to avoid being late to court as a result of ending up behind someone driving 45 or slower on the 55 mph two lane road. More often than not (much more so), the person driving was Hispanic. In addition, I had several families with whom I was friends who were of Mexican-American culture, and they were uniformly more “laid back” about their lifestyle when it came to getting places. Which is not to say that all Hispanics are that way. It is to say that that is a common element of many who lived in that area.
Someday, people have to learn that there are cultural differences between groups of people. :dubious:
[QUOTE=jtgain]
So, in our fair, representative democracy, we cannot trust the people. You seem to agree with askeptic.
That the average joe is a dumbass who will drive at a speed that is unsafe and reckless, so that he cannot be trusted with obeying speed limits.
As such, I would argue that if the average person cannot be trusted with something as minor as a speed limit law, how can he elect the leader of the free world with his finger on the nuclear button?
At least askeptic has agreed with my logic. Will you do the same?
[/QUOTE]
OMG that is so funny it made me laugh. :smack:
Here is the logic. See if you can follow along:
People don’t know when they are driving unsafely; their perception does not match reality.
People who drive unsafely endanger not only themselves, but others.
Governments understand that allowing people to endanger others is not a good thing, so they limit speed in order to slow down drivers.
Now I hope that was sufficiently clear.
And please note that there are a significant number of people who don’t even worry about how safely they drive; they either consider themselves “unvulnerable” (prevalent among teens), or are so self-centered they don’t worry about their effect upon the rest of the driving populace. How often on a freeway have you seen some fool weaving in and out of the lanes, without considering what would happen if someone didn’t do exactly what he expected?
My brother, who races cars, considers the freeways filled with idiots. He also drives the speed limit when on the roads, highways and freeways of the land, and he’s far more competent a driver than most drivers.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Oh, please. If you can’t tell the difference between what I said and stereotyping every person of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, you shouldn’t engage in serious debate. :smack:
My statements are made on the basis of having driven countless hours between rural Watsonville and slightly less rural Salinas, California, during which years I learned to purposefully add extra time to the trip in order to avoid being late to court as a result of ending up behind someone driving 45 or slower on the 55 mph two lane road. More often than not (much more so), the person driving was Hispanic. In addition, I had several families with whom I was friends who were of Mexican-American culture, and they were uniformly more “laid back” about their lifestyle when it came to getting places. Which is not to say that all Hispanics are that way. It is to say that that is a common element of many who lived in that area.
Someday, people have to learn that there are cultural differences between groups of people. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Confirmation bais. Look it up. Also note that many many many people driving in the area you describe are not here legally therefore they probably have more reasons for not speeding than a laid back lifestyle. Cultural differences do exist but it’s funny how the ones you describe are so much like discredited stereotypes. Spend a day in Mexico City then talk to me about "laid back "lifestyle.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
OMG that is so funny it made me laugh. :smack:
Here is the logic. See if you can follow along:
People don’t know when they are driving unsafely; their perception does not match reality.
People who drive unsafely endanger not only themselves, but others.
Governments understand that allowing people to endanger others is not a good thing, so they limit speed in order to slow down drivers.
Now I hope that was sufficiently clear.
And please note that there are a significant number of people who don’t even worry about how safely they drive; they either consider themselves “unvulnerable” (prevalent among teens), or are so self-centered they don’t worry about their effect upon the rest of the driving populace. How often on a freeway have you seen some fool weaving in and out of the lanes, without considering what would happen if someone didn’t do exactly what he expected?
My brother, who races cars, considers the freeways filled with idiots. He also drives the speed limit when on the roads, highways and freeways of the land, and he’s far more competent a driver than most drivers.
[/QUOTE]
Again, Mr. Joe Six Pack “doesn’t know” that he is driving unsafely. He is blissfully ignorant of that fact of his motor vehicle operation. The speed limit says 70, but he is crusing at 80 on a deserted stretch of Kansas interstate. The fool.
YET, every four years Mr. Joe Six Pack is a FREE AMERICAN who has a voice in who will lead this country which has the potential of destroying the entire world with our nuclear arsenal. Every two years he can have a voice in who represents him in Congress.
But the damn gas and brake pedals are too much for his small mind and he needs to be overruled here..
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Again, Mr. Joe Six Pack “doesn’t know” that he is driving unsafely. He is blissfully ignorant of that fact of his motor vehicle operation. The speed limit says 70, but he is crusing at 80 on a deserted stretch of Kansas interstate. The fool.
YET, every four years Mr. Joe Six Pack is a FREE AMERICAN who has a voice in who will lead this country which has the potential of destroying the entire world with our nuclear arsenal. Every two years he can have a voice in who represents him in Congress.
But the damn gas and brake pedals are too much for his small mind and he needs to be overruled here..
[/QUOTE]
Raising speed limits just to accommodate lead-foot drivers makes no sense. People will aways test speed limits, whatever they may be.
However, what has not entered the discussion is safety. Vehicle safety devices and road construction are designed with a certain safety threshold. Raise the speed limit above the threshold and vehicles will need to be redesigned to accommodate additional safety requirement within vehicles. Since existing roads cannot be retrofitted for higher speeds, any and all additional safety will have to be engineered into the vehicles. In addition, the laws of physics will really take hold at higher speeds. So do we engineer vehicles with roll cages, require all occupants to wear five-point seat belts, helmets with the HANS safety device, etc.? Won’t that just make some people want to test the limits even more? And what about innocent drivers and others injured and/or killed by these idiot drivers?
I’ve had similar discussions with friends and I support paying higher taxes for traffic police. No, not more police, but traffic police whose sole job is to enforce all traffic laws, and nothing else during their shift. At the same time, include traffic fines not just based on the nature of the offense, but the number of offenses a driver incurs within a defined time period. For example, someone who incurs say, $100 fine from xx mph over the limit the first time, is subject to double that amount on the second offense (at the same speed), double again the third offense, and so on. Behavior will not change until the penalties for such behavior inflict commensurate pain.
[QUOTE=Duckster]
No, not more police, but traffic police whose sole job is to enforce all traffic laws, and nothing else during their shift.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, they could call it “the Highway Patrol” :smack:
As for city streets, are you aware that most medium to large departments have traffic units in which the officers on that unit take no other calls (except extreme emergencies) and do nothing but traffic enforcement?
