Just a theory, thought, what have you. I'm sure there are pitfalls.
Instead of fining people for speeding, why not sell a speeding pass? For whatever price, you purchase a sticker with an RFID chip and place it on your front windshield. This gives you the right to go faster on the highways (local regulations would have to be worked out. It would not be valid say in downtown areas, near schools and the like.) You could price a yearly one at double a regular speeding ticket, and it would give you the comfort of knowing that you won't get harassed by the police.
As for the RFID chip, it would have the vehicle's ID, so that speed cameras, or cops who are looking for speeders would pick up the signal, and either pull you over, or send you a bill for for the pass, with an additional "enforcement fee." This system would also do away with the points system. This would be "positive" enforcement, instead of the current system which is "negative" enforcement.
To look at it another way, this would be something that gives value to drivers.
I know the idea may not work, and there would be a lot more rules to it than what I outlined, but I think it should at least be studied.
Implementing this system would make it clear that speed limits are meant for revenue and not safety.
Virginia would charge you with Reckless Driving just for even suggesting the idea. :-D
Quote from: 1 on August 21, 2017, 09:43:15 AM
Implementing this system would make it clear that speed limits are meant for revenue and not safety.
Precisely. At least they wouldn't have to fake it anymore.
The purpose of the speed limit - and all traffic laws - is to accommodate all travelers of all types - cars, trucks, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. That includes on the local streets. If the speed limit is 40 mph in a light residential area, are you as a homeowner going to be happy some guy is speeding by at 60 mph...lawfully? You say it's only good for the highways, but go on to say it won't be valid in school zones (which aren't located on highways), so I'm trying to figure out where you really want them at.
You also have to figure out what tolerance they're going to provide. If they're going to give you, say, a 15 mph tolerance above the posted limit, and the cops are already giving you that tolerance on the highways, what's the incentive to pay $500?
You would also need the state's entire police force equipped with the speed-allowing equipment, which would be a very costly proposition.
- The purpose of traffic enforcement is revenue.
- The do sell "speeding passes". Your local FOP, etc. will be glad to sell you a sticker that, wink, wink, has no effect on their random taxation efforts. Right. My state's trooper sell this slick magazine, with full page ads from every trucking company, bus company, Teamster local, and such. Just because those outfits really care about a magazine that less than 300 people receive. Right. Imagine any other public servants (teachers for example) selling stickers that, wink, wink, won't affect your relationship with the government.
- In some places, many people are born with or easily acquire a form of "speeding pass". It can be as simple as being white, or refraining from puting a sticker the random (not so random) taxer disagrees with on your bumper.
This is all a part of the illigitimate and corrupting system of traffic enforcement. A fundamental evil that damages our society and should be eliminated in its entirety.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2017, 10:26:14 AM
The purpose of the speed limit - and all traffic laws - is to accommodate all travelers of all types - cars, trucks, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. That includes on the local streets. If the speed limit is 40 mph in a light residential area, are you as a homeowner going to be happy some guy is speeding by at 60 mph...lawfully? You say it's only good for the highways, but go on to say it won't be valid in school zones (which aren't located on highways), so I'm trying to figure out where you really want them at.
You also have to figure out what tolerance they're going to provide. If they're going to give you, say, a 15 mph tolerance above the posted limit, and the cops are already giving you that tolerance on the highways, what's the incentive to pay $500?
You would also need the state's entire police force equipped with the speed-allowing equipment, which would be a very costly proposition.
All controlled access highways.
As far as the equipment, not necessarily.
The current system of traffic enforcement justifies thousands of jobs...judges, clerks, attorneys, police officers and insurance company personnel. Blowing up this system costs all these people their jobs.
Boo-freakin'-hoo.
If anything, I would rather implement additional paid testing and training for those willing to get "speeder license". There are similar classes for police and emergency drivers anyway, nothing new here. That would end up both improving actual road safety - and create revenue and jobs. And yes, failure has to be an option for those periodic retrainings; you don't keep that rating till 90 once you pass at 25...
Quote from: kalvado on August 21, 2017, 01:54:46 PM
If anything, I would rather implement additional paid testing and training for those willing to get "speeder license". There are similar classes for police and emergency drivers anyway, nothing new here. That would end up both improving actual road safety - and create revenue and jobs. And yes, failure has to be an option for those periodic retrainings; you don't keep that rating till 90 once you pass at 25...
That's actually not a bad idea.
Quote from: 1 on August 21, 2017, 09:43:15 AM
Implementing this system would make it clear that speed limits are meant for revenue and not safety.
Which they would NEVER do!
That wouldn't be fair because more rich people could afford the speeding pass than the general population.
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.
As mentioned by SP Cook, "speed passes" do, sort of, exist. Here in Washington, vehicles with fire battalion logos/plates don't really get pulled over. As well, cars with LEM (Law Enforcement Memorial) plates might be stopped, but don't get hardly any tickets (from what I've been told). In relation to the second one, it is quite common to see modified vehicles with LEM plates.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 22, 2017, 12:51:51 AM
That wouldn't be fair because more rich people could afford the speeding pass than the general population.
Welcome to real world!
My former big boss loved sports cars (I remember him having Maserati, Ferrari and Lamborghini at different times), a good lawyer - and basically paid tickets at wholesale prices...
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2017, 01:25:54 AM
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.
As mentioned by SP Cook, "speed passes" do, sort of, exist. Here in Washington, vehicles with fire battalion logos/plates don't really get pulled over. As well, cars with LEM (Law Enforcement Memorial) plates might be stopped, but don't get hardly any tickets (from what I've been told). In relation to the second one, it is quite common to see modified vehicles with LEM plates.
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.
As for excused cars.. NY style:
There is a "thin blue line" - either sticker or license plate style, later mounted near or instead of front plate (NY requires 2 plates). Requires officer or immediate family member in a car. Its OK to drive drunk and almost OK to leave scene of bodily injury accident with those (felony charge can be plead down to $50 ticket in that case).
Stickers from "retired police officer association" and such can be purchased on an annual basis for nominal donation. Usually provide owner with a warning in case of being pulled over.
Some more department-specific things seem to be less consistent and less universal.
Quote from: inkyatari on August 21, 2017, 09:39:40 AM
Just a theory, thought, what have you. I'm sure there are pitfalls.
Instead of fining people for speeding, why not sell a speeding pass? For whatever price, you purchase a sticker with an RFID chip and place it on your front windshield. This gives you the right to go faster on the highways (local regulations would have to be worked out. It would not be valid say in downtown areas, near schools and the like.) You could price a yearly one at double a regular speeding ticket, and it would give you the comfort of knowing that you won't get harassed by the police.
As for the RFID chip, it would have the vehicle's ID, so that speed cameras, or cops who are looking for speeders would pick up the signal, and either pull you over, or send you a bill for for the pass, with an additional "enforcement fee." This system would also do away with the points system. This would be "positive" enforcement, instead of the current system which is "negative" enforcement.
To look at it another way, this would be something that gives value to drivers.
I know the idea may not work, and there would be a lot more rules to it than what I outlined, but I think it should at least be studied.
what about having roads with no speed limit like Germany and real speed limits on other ones. All of the IL tollway needs to be at least 70 (some parts can be posted at 75-80)
Of course. SLs are set too low for revenue purposes. This "random tax" is the main, I would say only, reason for traffic enforcement in the first place. As science teaches us, the dismantling of the NMSL was met, despite the idiocy from the special interests, with massive declines in traffic mortality and morbidity. As has every subsuquent increase.
The thing to do is really simple. Raise the speed limits, rip out the radar guns, and take and exit deal with murder, rape, theft, dope, asault, kidnapping and other actual crimes.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 10:59:55 AM
Of course. SLs are set too low for revenue purposes. This "random tax" is the main, I would say only, reason for traffic enforcement in the first place. As science teaches us, the dismantling of the NMSL was met, despite the idiocy from the special interests, with massive declines in traffic mortality and morbidity. As has every subsuquent increase.
The thing to do is really simple. Raise the speed limits, rip out the radar guns, and take and exit deal with murder, rape, theft, dope, asault, kidnapping and other actual crimes.
Thing is, there are clearly not very adequate drivers on the road. Everyone has their own definition of what "adequate" means - but I question anyone making more than 3 lane changes per minute. SO enforcement on a highway is still required. Besides, I saw more than a few situations when people got pulled over for unsecured load, or pax in trunk or things like that. Speeding tickets just allow that to be a self-supporting operation.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 10:59:55 AM
This "random tax" is the main, I would say only, reason for traffic enforcement in the first place.
Really? You think traffic laws should not be enforced? It's one thing to say speed limits are artificially low, but no reason to enforce any traffic laws except revenue? No problem with driving down a residential road at 80 MPH? Driving wrong way? Blocking busy intersections? Ignoring traffic lights? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 21, 2017, 01:43:06 PM
The current system of traffic enforcement justifies thousands of jobs...judges, clerks, attorneys, police officers and insurance company personnel. Blowing up this system costs all these people their jobs.
Boo-freakin'-hoo.
As someone who worked in insurance for years, explain how insurance company personnel are employed due to speeding tickets?
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 22, 2017, 12:51:51 AM
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?
Quote from: tribar on August 22, 2017, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 22, 2017, 12:51:51 AM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on August 22, 2017, 07:09:21 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 22, 2017, 12:51:51 AM
That wouldn't be fair because more rich people could afford the speeding pass than the general population.
Welcome to real world!
The point is that the punishment should be more or less equal; dependent on actual circumstances, not financial ones. Whether someone gets away with these so-called "crimes" on other circumstances in court is a matter for the courts and legal record. That's the whole reason a point system was devised, so a rich person could pay their way out of the same consequences for the same "crime".
If you're really into driving fast, you buy some time at a race track or participate in a local autocross. Problem solved, though local tracks aren't in everyone's backyard.
(I do think that most toll roads and rural highways should afford one some security from a
5-over-the-limit speeding ticket, so as long as you're following other rules of the road.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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.
Nobody called me a hero for the 15-16 speeding tickets I've racked up over the years, and I'm not expecting the monument to stupidity anytime soon.
So as long as the racket has supporters on all sides (public safety officials, insurance companies, non-profit groups), there's always going to be enforcement.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 22, 2017, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 22, 2017, 12:51:51 AM
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.
Quote from: formulanone on August 22, 2017, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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...
Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 22, 2017, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on August 22, 2017, 01:10:51 PM
I think it's the "Jews in the ovens" part of the comment.
Ah. That's what happens when you read too fast.
Quote from: SectorZ on August 22, 2017, 12:05:52 PMAs 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PMBecause "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/
Quote from: kalvado on August 22, 2017, 07:25:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2017, 01:25:54 AM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 02:22:04 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: formulanone on August 22, 2017, 12:37:51 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on August 22, 2017, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 02:22:04 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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?
All this over a silly idea I had.
Quote from: inkyatari on August 22, 2017, 03:43:12 PM
All this over a silly idea I had.
You'd be surprised how often this happens online.
Quote from: inkyatari on August 22, 2017, 03:43:12 PM
All this over a silly idea I had.
Not your fault someone played the Godwin card.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 22, 2017, 03:52:06 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on August 22, 2017, 03:43:12 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 22, 2017, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
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...
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".
Quote from: inkyatari on August 22, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
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.
Quote from: formulanone on August 23, 2017, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on August 22, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
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.
You missed the point of speed limits.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 23, 2017, 03:42:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 23, 2017, 03:42:58 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 23, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 23, 2017, 03:42:58 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2017, 09:20:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 23, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 23, 2017, 03:42:58 PM
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.
We, as the general public, only know one thing for sure: speed limits (at least outside of cities) are supposed to reflect the general speed of traffic. Perhaps from our point of view, that may not be the case. But we don't know any better. We're not the ones with the data.
It's hard to ask this question without sounding like a douche, because it's more curiosity since I seem to have different attitudes toward the physical act of driving than most people in this community.
I've seen in this thread the word "unjust" used by more than one person in this thread to describe speed limits. To me, a speed limit is just a number on a white sign and it doesn't bother me. So I guess I struggle to see the mindset that someone sees that same sign and sees some kind of shady forces hard at work. I am not denying that a number of places abuse it and they should be dealt with accordingly, but my reality is that where I'm going generally just isn't important enough to me.
When I drive the 150 miles between Duluth and my house as I often do, I spend exactly 75 miles of it on I-35, which is a 70 zone for virtually that entire section. If I drive 70, I get to the Duluth city limits in an hour. If I go 75, I get there in 55 minutes. Whoopdedoo, five minutes saved on a 2 1/2 hour drive. The reality is I probably set the cruise at about 72-73, but the point is that I really just don't give a fuck what the speed limit is. It's just what it is and I live with it.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 23, 2017, 11:14:50 PM
It's hard to ask this question without sounding like a douche, because it's more curiosity since I seem to have different attitudes toward the physical act of driving than most people in this community.
I've seen in this thread the word "unjust" used by more than one person in this thread to describe speed limits. To me, a speed limit is just a number on a white sign and it doesn't bother me. So I guess I struggle to see the mindset that someone sees that same sign and sees some kind of shady forces hard at work. I am not denying that a number of places abuse it and they should be dealt with accordingly, but my reality is that where I'm going generally just isn't important enough to me.
When I drive the 150 miles between Duluth and my house as I often do, I spend exactly 75 miles of it on I-35, which is a 70 zone for virtually that entire section. If I drive 70, I get to the Duluth city limits in an hour. If I go 75, I get there in 55 minutes. Whoopdedoo, five minutes saved on a 2 1/2 hour drive. The reality is I probably set the cruise at about 72-73, but the point is that I really just don't give a fuck what the speed limit is. It's just what it is and I live with it.
Few things.
One, you say you make that trip often so that 5 minutes quickly adds up.
Two, 70 mph is a fair speed limit for that stretch of road. That is often not the case on other roads. I live in Chicagoland and for the most part speed limits are 55 on urban and suburban freeways when 70-75 is sufficient. Same thing with Milwaukee and dozens of other metropolitan areas.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2017, 09:20:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 23, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 23, 2017, 03:42:58 PM
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.
Since when are speed limits in cities actually set at 85th percentile?
Maybe if you got a ticket on an artificially low limit, you could argue in court that the speed limit was too low. Sort of like the red light tickets in Chicago that got thrown out because the yellow lights were shorter than 3 seconds.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 24, 2017, 12:14:40 AM
Since when are speed limits in cities actually set at 85th percentile?
At least I was speaking of freeways, not city streets. City streets are a completely different ballgame (although artificially low limits still prove ineffective, much like they might on a freeway).
Urban freeways often have lower limits than rural areas due to congestion, although I suppose the merits of those limits are debatable.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 23, 2017, 11:14:50 PM
It's hard to ask this question without sounding like a douche, because it's more curiosity since I seem to have different attitudes toward the physical act of driving than most people in this community.
I've seen in this thread the word "unjust" used by more than one person in this thread to describe speed limits. To me, a speed limit is just a number on a white sign and it doesn't bother me. So I guess I struggle to see the mindset that someone sees that same sign and sees some kind of shady forces hard at work. I am not denying that a number of places abuse it and they should be dealt with accordingly, but my reality is that where I'm going generally just isn't important enough to me.
When I drive the 150 miles between Duluth and my house as I often do, I spend exactly 75 miles of it on I-35, which is a 70 zone for virtually that entire section. If I drive 70, I get to the Duluth city limits in an hour. If I go 75, I get there in 55 minutes. Whoopdedoo, five minutes saved on a 2 1/2 hour drive. The reality is I probably set the cruise at about 72-73, but the point is that I really just don't give a fuck what the speed limit is. It's just what it is and I live with it.
Driving an artificially low speed limit also
feels very slow, which I find to be unpleasant and stressful. I'd much rather have a road where the speed limit feels comfortable or even a little high than one where it takes willpower to keep from speeding. I know of a couple spots where it's so bad that I HAVE to use cruise control, because I just can't hold my speed down otherwise (Avenue of the Pines in Saratoga Springs is one; I-70 east of Breezewood is another).
Quote from: vdeane on August 24, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
I know of a couple spots where it's so bad that I HAVE to use cruise control, because I just can't hold my speed down otherwise (Avenue of the Pines in Saratoga Springs is one; I-70 east of Breezewood is another).
Legacy Parkway in UT is like that. The limit on that road is 55 for environmental reasons (long story, but Wikipedia's got a good article on it) which is stupid because every other freeway in the Wasatch Front is 70 or 65. And there's always police on it. For me, even setting cruise at 55 is too slow, and I find myself moving the cruise speed up gradually (as I am getting passed by every other car on the road...)
Quote from: vdeane on August 24, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
I know of a couple spots where it's so bad that I HAVE to use cruise control, because I just can't hold my speed down otherwise (Avenue of the Pines in Saratoga Springs is one; I-70 east of Breezewood is another).
Heh. I often use my cruise control on the street that leads in and out of our neighborhood. Speed limit is 25 mph, occasionally enforced by radar (but not often), and there are loads of deer in the woods. I set the cruise control at just under 30 mph. It's easy to go 35 to 40 on there and a lot of people do. They also seem to have the mistaken idea that tailgating is an acceptable way to try to get other people to drive faster.