Instead of speeding tickets, a thought I had...

[tribar]

That wouldn't be fair because more rich people could afford the speeding pass than the general population.

But being pulled over for going with the flow of traffic or driving fast but safely when speed limits are far too low is?

Because "speed limits are far too low" is opinion.  Driving fast but safely is also opinion based.

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit.  Going with the flow of traffic is someone's own doing.  Likewise, if a store is being ransacked and you're the one getting caught, "Everyone else was stealing" isn't a very good defense.

Stealing is a crime. Speeding is not, except in severe circumstances.

Driving with the flow of traffic is what is safer for both myself and others on the roadway with me. Slow drivers cause more accidents than fast ones.

[vdeane]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

Jeebus, let's not summon Godwin's Law to get out of a speeding ticket.

Hitler?  In East Germany?  History is certainly different than I remember...

[Brandon]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

Jeebus, let's not summon Godwin's Law to get out of a speeding ticket.

Hitler?  In East Germany?  History is certainly different than I remember...

I think it's the "Jews in the ovens" part of the comment.

[vdeane]

I think it's the "Jews in the ovens" part of the comment.

Ah.  That's what happens when you read too fast.

[SidS1045]

As someone who worked in insurance for years, explain how insurance company personnel are employed due to speeding tickets?

Insurance companies regularly subsidize the purchase of speed-measuring equipment for law enforcement agencies, with continual encouragement from such vested interests as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (a name which fools no one with a brain) and NHTSA (whose own statistics bear out the fact that exceeding a posted speed limit is rarely the primary cause of accidents and death on the highways).

Besides, someone has to mail out those notices which tell motorists that their insurance premiums are going up because they had one cite for 5MPH over the speed limit.

formulaone said it best:  It's a racket.

[SidS1045]

Because "speed limits are far too low" is opinion.

There are a plethora of traffic engineering studies that disagree with your conclusion.  The reason for this thread, in part, has to do with the fact that speed limits ARE, all too often, set too low.  If every jurisdiction applied sound traffic engineering principles instead of letting every two-bit politician stick his/her hand in the process, if we could have a system of enforcement whose primary object wasn't raising revenue but rather enforcing safe driving practices and if driver training (at least in the US) wasn't the joke we all know it is, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion.

Fortunately, not all jurisdictions are stuck in this endless cycle of "keep the speed limits down" or, worse, the Vision Zero fraud.  This article from Time from four years ago details steps being proposed in Michigan to end speed traps and set realistic speed limits:  http://business.time.com/2013/09/02/end-of-the-road-for-speed-traps/

[jakeroot]

Exurban and rural speed limits are set to encourage balanced traffic speeds. This idea would be contrary to that goal, ergo, I don't think it would ever see the light of day.

Apparently speed limits often set too low for balanced speeds (we have 65 max over here, though). My impression is that speed limit has to be such that there are different tiers of traffic using different lanes. It is known that trucks don't really exceed 70-75 on level road no matter what limit is - and that would be a good speed for right lane. Left lane can be ~10 MPH faster. Yes, that eliminates beloved "keep right" and makes life more difficult for very high speeds. And yes, that is for ideal highways, real ones are more complicated.

I'm not going to suggest that speed limits are actually set in that manner. I know for sure it isn't the case on freeways in the Northeast -- I have never seen such flagrant disregard for speed limits in my life -- but it seems to be more true out west, where limits are slightly closer to actual traffic speeds.

Handing out "speed passes", allowing drivers to exceed the limit, while simultaneously touting your [DOT's] adherence to the 85th percentile theory is, in the best use of the word, contradictory. One would have to give.

[jeffandnicole]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

You also need to protest and fight to have those laws overturned.  No one is fighting to do away with speed limits.

But we always need a leader.  Go out...rally around a speed limit sign, tie some rope to it, and pull it down!

[hotdogPi]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

You also need to protest and fight to have those laws overturned.  No one is fighting to do away with speed limits.

But we always need a leader.  Go out...rally around a speed limit sign, tie some rope to it, and pull it down!

Don't pull it down. Instead, make a huge "45", "70", or whatever number is needed, and cover it over the previous number.

[SP Cook]

I'm not expecting the monument ...anytime soon.

There is a monument on most highways to the heroes who fought the two plus decade battle to kill the idiotic NMSL.  A SL sign with a better number than 55.  A monument to decent people, ordinary people, good people who were branded as criminals by and unjust and thus void law.  A victory of the courthouse gangs, traffic cops, insurance companies, and most of all, people who lack the basic understanding that the first duty of a citizen of a democracy is to question authority. 

More victories to come.  Higher and higher SLs, less power to traffic cops and courthouse gangs, less $$ in insurance companies.  More freedom.  And, BTW, less accidents. 

[Brandon]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

You also need to protest and fight to have those laws overturned.  No one is fighting to do away with speed limits.

But we always need a leader.  Go out...rally around a speed limit sign, tie some rope to it, and pull it down!

Don't pull it down. Instead, make a huge "45", "70", or whatever number is needed, and cover it over the previous number.

During the NMSL era, one could find quite a few 55 mph speed limit signs altered by black spray paint.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

I'm about to take this thread straight to hell, but this comment should have gotten it shut down right then and there. This is one of the most absurd things I've ever read, and I know you from more than one board online.

You're comparing a minor inconvenience (one which you can easily abide by but you openly refuse to do so) to systemic racism and genocide. WTF is wrong with you?

[inkyatari]

All this over a silly idea I had.

[ColossalBlocks]

All this over a silly idea I had.

You'd be surprised how often this happens online.

[Brandon]

All this over a silly idea I had.

Not your fault someone played the Godwin card.

[inkyatari]

All this over a silly idea I had.

You'd be surprised how often this happens online.

I'm no stranger to this, as I'm involved in anti-conspiracy fantasy groups on facebook.  Just didn't expect it on this topic.

[SectorZ]

The law is: Drive at or under the speed limit. 

The law also used to be blacks in the back of the bus, Jews in the ovens, women were property, and people leaving East Germany were to be shot on sight.

So what.  Unjust laws should be disrespected.  People who do so are heroes.

Yup, civil disobedience over a low speed limit definitely falls into the same category of ensuring people aren't murdered by their government for whatever whim said government believes in at that moment...

[vdeane]

I would say that there's a difference between what category it falls under and the degree of unjustness of the law.  Artificially low speed limits aren't anywhere on the same level as segregation and genocide, but they are still unjust.  Saying "these laws aren't anywhere as bad as those other laws, so therefore they're not unjust" is the same as a broke person with no income buying Starbucks every day because "the amount of money it costs is much less than the amount to buy a house, therefore I can afford it".

[formulanone]

anti-conspiracy fantasy groups.

Please define what this means: Is this where you privately think of ways to tell birthers, truthers, and anti-vaxxers they're complete tools? Because it's okay to do that in reality.

A law can be unjust regardless of whether it's just parking tickets, building codes, state-enforced racism, or leads mass genocide, but it's a bit reckless to mix the conversations together. Speeding can be dangerous when performed in improper conditions, or it can serve no greater consequences than a few more squashed insects. Laws typically aren't made to exacting permutations, because individuals can't always comprehend everything at every given moment, let alone masses.

However, there's obviously a lot more going on than just speeding fines, and that's the underlying issue. Are people busybodies that want safety and order, or are they genuinely thinking a giant fine will reduce the chances of other speeders in the first place? Do people want to enforce social order on roadways, where it's easier to create a sort of equality, or is it just good-old-fashioned moral relativism (i.e. so-called "common sense").

There's also things like allowing other to pull out from from one road to another; it's quite difficult to accelerate from a stop sign to 70 miles an hour in every vehicle, especially one laden with cargo. Not all conditions are equal, not all drivers' reaction times are equal, not all vehicles are equal.

As any speeder will tell you, it's not the speed that dangerous, it's hitting large and slow/non-moving objects that really hurts.

[inkyatari]

anti-conspiracy fantasy groups.

Please define what this means.

Is this where you think of ways to tell birthers, truthers, and anti-vaxxers they're complete tools? Because it's okay to do that in reality.

I call them "conspiracy fantasies" because there's not enough evidence to call their BS a theory.

[Roadgeekteen]

You missed the point of speed limits.

[inkyatari]

You missed the point of speed limits.

No, I didn't.

[Brandon]

You missed the point of speed limits.

Being 14, you've never been subject to them, nor have had to deal with them.  Please wait until you've gotten at least a learner's permit before passing judgement.

[jakeroot]

You missed the point of speed limits.

Being 14, you've never been subject to them, nor have had to deal with them.  Please wait until you've gotten at least a learner's permit before passing judgement.

That's as may be, but he has a point (although it's a point that I've been trying to make for some time). Speed limits are supposed to encourage balanced traffic speeds (85th percentile theory). An idea like what inkyatari has proposed competes head to head with that theory.

Remember, it's the difference in speed that makes a situation dangerous, not the speed itself. Everyone doing 90 isn't dangerous, but one guy doing 90 while everyone else is doing 50 would be.

[kalvado]

You missed the point of speed limits.

Being 14, you've never been subject to them, nor have had to deal with them.  Please wait until you've gotten at least a learner's permit before passing judgement.

That's as may be, but he has a point (although it's a point that I've been trying to make for some time). Speed limits are supposed to encourage balanced traffic speeds (85th percentile theory). An idea like what inkyatari has proposed competes head to head with that theory.

Remember, it's the difference in speed that makes a situation dangerous, not the speed itself. Everyone doing 90 isn't dangerous, but one guy doing 90 while everyone else is doing 50 would be.

Question of speed limit purpose is a difficult one. One thing for sure - in US it is no longer a traffic control tool it could be.