I driven in Kentucky and you’re not alone DoctorJ! I-64 between Louisville and Lexington is dangerous.
Posted by DoctorJ regarding speeds above 65 mph:
It seems like the idiot always survives the accident. The innocent victim may feel differently.
My OT was really about seemingly corrupt city policies more than high-speed situations. I don’t believe 45 mph in a 30 mph zone deserves so much alarm.
Duck–I was referring to situations where the only victim would be me. I certainly don’t drive very fast on I-64–that’s a busy highway, by my standards. I spend a great deal of time on the Mountain and Bluegrass Parkways, and most of the time on those roads you won’t find another car within two or three miles either way.
I’ll give you that. There’s one stretch here in Lexington that is four lanes divided, straight as an arrow, and has very few entrances and exits–and a 35 mph speed limit. The cops could sit there all day and pick them off at 45 or 50.
Dr. J
DoctorJ:
You really think it makes sense to say you like limits posted on everyone because they save you from yourself?
btw, I haven’t been implying that we should necessarily eliminate speed limits, but I think they could be a little less arbitrary. We’ve got the best highway system in the world, and can’t fucking take advantage of it.
-VM
Satan, what the FUCK are you thinking? Speed limits are normally set at an arbitrary limit, often a speed which keeps the populace from actively moving for it to be raised, yet still low enough to generate revenue. Very rarely does a city actually take an 85th percentile study, and determine the TRUE safe and functional limit for the road. Seriously, man. You’re siding with the commies on this one.
I would say that the NUMBER ONE factor in accidents is an incompotent driver. I have friends who rave about how TERRIBLE of a driver they are, how many accidents they’ve been in, yet still tool around, not paying attention, flaunting the laws and regulations. Yes, I speed. Alot. But dammit, I’m a GOOD driver, and safe, also. Just because I choose to largely ignore a completely arbitrary limit does not mean I’m more dangerous than anyone else. I would LOVE to take offensive driving courses to make myself even safer, but, alas, I lack the funds.
Who is it hurting when I’m tooling up 69 hwy, on a clear day, two lanes divided, no traffic anywhere, well built and maintained car, and me, a compotent driver, doing 95 mph? NO ONE. Is there any reason I should get a speeding ticket? No. Except, wait, we have an arbitrary set limitation. Ooops, looks like I’m out $250 for a lawyer and plea bargain to non-moving violation.
I am a paying member of the National Motorists Association, a major lobbyist for the raising of the speed limits a few years back. They are also involved in, and have been from the beginning, limiting or removing airbags from cars, (gasp! They knew in the BEGINNING that they were dangerous! They used COMMON SENSE!) getting rid of DRLs, and other invasions into your constitutional rights, such as roadblocks and random searches, helping the common man get justice and avoid revenue machines, and making the street safer (yes, odd, isn’t it? These speed freaks want to see LESS people die!).
The NHSTA is NOT what I would consider a reputable source for cites, their information is highly skewed anti driver. It has an agenda in keeping limits low, and fines high. You also want to disallow information and studies collected by insurance companies. They attach themselves to the same agenda.
Did you know that Geico direct funnels a large portion of it’s income into buying new radars for cops? Hmmm… wonder why?
To quote verbatim from the NMA newsletter I just got today:
Shit, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that if the limit is 55, and most traffic is doing 65, the person clinging to the speed limit is in danger, and a danger to others. This person (often the elderly) stoically refuse to disobey the speed limits to follow prevailing traffic. But, if the limit were raised to what others were already doing, normally the 85th percentile speed, this one-time danger would suddenly become just like every other driver.
A person who does the limit when the prevailing speeds are higher is a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I say we take Mexico’s cue, and if you have more than 3 people behind you, you are obliged to pull over to allow them to pass before resuming driving.
I don’t know about you more ‘level headed’ and ‘law abiding’ folk, but it seems to me that following the law isn’t always the safe, or intelligent, thing to do. Especially when the law itself isn’t necessarily safe or intelligent. Yeah, I used to be a hellion, but I’ve learned my lesson, for the most part.
Again, I don’t know about you more ‘level headed’ and ‘law abiding’ folk, but I also don’t believe in unnecessarly and arbitrary government legislation and regulation.
Of course, I may very well be insane.
–Timmy, the one armed psycho driver man
For the love of God, will you all PLEASE tell the person who is making you drive faster than the posted limits within city limits to stop holding the gun to your heads?
You’re all a bunch of fucking whiners. You see a posted sign, yet feel so “trapped” when you get a ticket for disobeying that very sign. Well, boo fucking hoo!
Psst… If you didn’t feel the need to drive 45 in a 30 MPH limit, you - get this, because it’s so subtle, I’m not surprised you missed it - you won’t get a speeding ticket!!! Imagine that!
Oh, and as for the nitpickers above, I said that speed was the leading cause of accidents. I cited that it was involved in 30% of accidents. Now please find me something that is involved in more than 30%. I can’t think of any… And if you do, I will simply change my statement to “one of the leading causes of accidents,” okay? :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
http://homepages.go.com/~cmcinternationalrecords/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, six days, 14 hours, 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
1463 cigarettes not smoked, saving $182.92.
Life saved: 5 days, 1 hour, 55 minutes.
Speeding, DWI and other forms of bad driving are very dangerous. You risk not only your own life, but the lives of those around you. Even if you’re Jeff Gordon, you should not drive too fast, talk on your cell phone, change lange without signalling, etc. In fact, I would venture to guess that Mr. Gordon and his colleagues are quite moderate drivers on the road. Skill and judgement will do that to you.
I am a skilled driver with years of experience, I’m intelligent and I have excellent eyesight and reflexes. I’m also human: I’ve made some severe mistakes, and have had others make severe mistakes around me. I have avoided certain death only by chance. I have learned to moderate my driving to prepare for those inevitable errors. There are many ways to push your limits and test your abilities without your human fallibility endangering others.
We are also a nation uniquely dependent on the automobile. Outside of a few urban areas, we lack even a basic short and medium run mass transit system. Because of the lack of an alternative, to deny a person a drivers license is to in effect deny them of their basic rights to participate in society.
The enforcement of traffic standards is hypocritical and corrupt on its face. Traffic enforcement is designed to garner revenue, not maintain reasonable compliance. The laws are specifically designed to be unreasonable, and the penalties sufficiently low so as not to generate serious opposition.
We pay the price of a transportation system dependent on individual skill and judgement with our blood. Fifty thousand people a year die in automobile accidents and many more are crippled or seriously injured each year. I am not objecting per se to this price, but it deserves mention.
We have chosen the automobile as our primary mode of transportation for both emotional and logical reasons. The blood toll and official hypocrisy of traffic enforcement are the price that we pay for our decision. Nothing less than a change of the underlying architecture of our transporation system can possibly change the nature of that price.
I don’t often post in the pit. I usually get a chuckle out of reading the heated exchanges.
This topic has hit a bit of a personal note, if you will.
Perhaps I can sum up my feelings on the matter very simply.
Speeding Tickets are a necessary deterrent. Here’s why, in my humble opinion.
If you are going 95 up the freeway, and you hit a patch of slippery goop that you wouldn’t have hit if you were cruising at 55 like the signs say, and you lose control of your vehicle and crash into the car that is carrying my wife and child, and if you survive although they don’t…
Well, I’d pretty much have to end you. Your excuses would matter not in the slightest to the person whose world you just destroyed.
Please drive safer, there’s dangerous people out there. You may quote me on that, becuase you’ve never read anything more true.
I’d just like to respond to Homer’s comment:
I say we take Mexico’s cue, and if you have more than 3 people behind you, you are obliged to pull over to allow them to pass before resuming driving.
with this quote:
Section 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=438252926+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
So in California it is illegal to not yield to 5 or more cars who are behind you. Granted that this is on a two lane highway, where two lanes means one lane in each direction. If a highway has four or more lanes then this rule does not apply but then again I have never been in a situation where it has mattered. And in California it is NOT illegal to pass on the right. A lot of people are probably going to not beleive me on this so I will be searching the California Codes for a cite for this. If someone can find a cite against my claim, in California, then I would like to see it. I mention this only because many people believe that passing on the right is illegal. Then again, I may have read the Section incorrectly. I will be back…
-N
Few argue that speeding should be deterred. What the OP complains against is the demontrable case that speeding tickets do not deter speeding in most applications; the enforcement policy is designed to garner revenue, not maintain compliance.
The only place where I ever saw speed limits effectively enforced was in Ohio in the 70’s and early 80’s. Punitive fines and zero-tolerance enforcement maintained almost perfect compliance with the speed limits. I would also venture to guess that Ohio had a rather low income from speeding tickets; the strictness of their enforcement was known nationwide. From Cannonball Run, “Nobody ever got the death penalty for speeding; at least outside of Ohio.”
Satan, an engine limiter need not affect performance under a certain speed. I could place a limiter on your vehicle (many governmental & rental vehicles already have these) which would enable you plenty of torque to zip ahead of grandma’s huge Buick wandering into your lane at 50mph, but still prevent you from flying down I-95 at 80mph. The technology is tested and cheap. And if we REALLY wanted to reduce road fatalities, we’d all drive bumper cars.
Speed limiting road design has a LONG way to go. It is largely used in some of the newer, upper-income housing developments, around some schools and seldom elsewhere. Most new roads are built with complete disregard for slowing traffic down, in fact, the roads are usually built and THEN the speed determined, observed, and then changed again. It is an inefficient process.
No need to be confused about my ‘warnings’ point. I was simply pointing out that if society and the government really wanted to STOP speeding, we would NOT let speeders off with a warning. Some drivers get pulled over and warned to slow down time and time again without ever getting a single ticket. And they’re still out there speeding. Sure, they drive really slow for the rest of their trip home, but the next day, they’re flying down the road again.
Repeat offenders will only lose their license if they amass a prodigious number of points or repeatedly plow into pedestrians. Even then, many of them are out there driving. Of course the rich are at an unholy advantage. Take a look at David Letterman. Chronic speeder with enough money to pay a lawyer to sit in his trunk and pop out whenever he’s pulled over by John Q Law and get him off the hook. He still drives. He still speeds.
So, the answer to the OP is: Ticketing speeders is NOT an effective way to stop speeders. This is highly provable. So, if it doesn’t stop drivers from speeding, what does it actually do then?
Let’s call a spade a spade.
What about the option to “buy” out a ticket? Is that common around the country? In my area, you can plea to a non-moving violation (without the assistance of legal counsel, I might add) and pay DOUBLE the fine to keep points off your record. Does this seem detrimental to the cause yet beneficial to the local government to anyone besides me? It’s too easy!
I know what your thinking! This guy is bitching about getting a speeding ticket and then he turns around and complains that the system is not strict enough. As previously stated, I typically obey posted limits. I just can’t stand it when someone rides my ass when I’m doing what I’m supposed to. So, it’s easier and less stressful to move along with traffic.
The gun to my head, Satan, is peer pressure. It would be better all around if drivers comformed to posted limits, but that’s not reality. The system is doing nothing to control it.
Sitting at speed traps keeps the pigs off the streets, where they would only participate in such activities as harassing skateboarders and pumping lead into hapless blacks. It is also a low-aerobic activity which caters to their innate need to sit around and feel tough. So the benefits of speed trapsare there (however dubious they might be).
But if I had the ability to shape such policies, I would terminate the spiteful persecution of obviously able drivers and go after the REAL scourges of our highways and byways:
(… And sorry, but if elected I will not run etc.)