Speed cameras in California

[Quillz]

It depends on what the arterial street is.  Jensen Avenue in Fresno right by house has a 60 MPH limit west of Fowler Avenue and 65 MPH limit east of it.  The roadway definitely is built to handle the posted limit.  I run the pedestrian path flanking the northern side of the road almost daily.

And that's my point. None of the major SF Valley streets have a speed limit above 45. Driving 15+ mph on those streets is reckless. There are a lot of cars, people on the sidewalks, businesses, side streets, and so on. Going 15+ greatly increases the amount of time it takes to slow down, and the impacts of a car crash are much worse. People are already distracted enough driving as it is.

 If someone wants the speed limit raised, fine. Go through the legal process it requires. There will be studies, recommendations, etc. Someone deciding that 60 is fine when the posted speed limit is 45 is effectively saying they know better than the law. And if they do, great. But that's not going to win a court case.

My default speed I go over the limit at is probably 7-8 MPH.  52-53 MPH isn't quite much of a leap from say 57-60 MPH.  Not that I'm recommending someone go that far over the limit on a surface arterial, I'm just guessing a lot of people do.

Yes, people do. And I've seen firsthand what happens when variables they can't control come into play. People suddenly darting across the street. Someone who was about to turn decides not to and weaves back into the lane. People trying to gun that yellow light. People already do all kinds of reckless and dumb things, purposely going 15+ above the speed limit on busy arterial streets is one of the simplest things that can be avoided. If someone needs to get somewhere on time, they should leave earlier and account for traffic.

And one time my mom got pulled over and pulled the "well, I was speeding, but so was everyone else, I was getting passed a lot!" The officer told her she was right, but she was also the one that got caught. So yeah, maybe you're speeding and getting passed by even faster people. It won't get you out of a ticket.

There are plenty of places where you can go 15-20 above the speed limit and not be reckless. I would say places like I-5 through the Central Valley where there aren't many exits, there are no at-grade junctions, no pedestrians, etc. Those are instances where yes, it's also breaking the law and you will still get pulled over, but doing even 80 there isn't particularly dangerous or reckless. (I don't know the speed limit offhand, I think it was 65 last time I was there). That's a world of difference compared to a busy arterial street (or perhaps stroad, I think the Valley has quite a few of these).

Even still, for me it still comes down to the roadway design. There a couple of 45 MPH zones on Herndon Avenue (mostly an expressway design) in Fresno.  That 45 MPH limit seems to be mostly posted in an area which has a hospital nearby.  The pedestrian pathways are protected, the hospital is grade separated and the roadway can clearly handle a higher speed.  If someone drove 60 MPH there I don't think I would blink an eye at it.

But I think that's the key: it's an expressway with clearly separated lanes for different purposes. None of the major SF Valley streets are like this, they're just streets with sidewalks and businesses. The closest thing you'll get to protection in some areas are little closed-off lanes (one way) that lead to the actual houses. But none of the businesses have this design. So the 45 mph speed limits make a lot more sense here, and doing 15-20 above is reckless.

It would be nice if some of the streets like Topanga Canyon, Ventura, Victory could be turned into expressways. But there's just too much development and businesses at this point for that to happen. Topanga/Victory is already crazy with two big shopping malls and a lot of small businesses all at one intersection. And it's going to get even crazier when the Rams get their training facility (and the businesses that are coming with it) up and running.

[FredAkbar]

There are plenty of places where you can go 15-20 above the speed limit and not be reckless. I would say places like I-5 through the Central Valley where there aren't many exits, there are no at-grade junctions, no pedestrians, etc. Those are instances where yes, it's also breaking the law and you will still get pulled over, but doing even 80 there isn't particularly dangerous or reckless. (I don't know the speed limit offhand, I think it was 65 last time I was there). That's a world of difference compared to a busy arterial street (or perhaps stroad, I think the Valley has quite a few of these).

All of these arguments are downstream from the fact that the government intentionally imposes speed limits below the maximum safe speed. We know this because in many cases the police don't pull people over unless they're going well above (10-15mph) the speed limit. Part of it is that we prefer for police to use their best judgment (if it's smoothly flowing traffic in good weather conditions, and everyone is going 10-15 over, they might not care), and part of it may be some leeway to avoid difficult court cases (66 in a 65 could have been a miscalibrated radar).

It doesn't have to be this way. The speed limit could be the actual limit, above which you get in trouble if caught. That's how every other law works.

You say yourself that in some cases, 80 in a 65 is not reckless. That's fine. But the moment you say that, in my opinion you give up your right to judge others. Why are you personally the arbiter of what's safe and what's not?

Regarding these particular proposed cameras, I don't live in the area so I don't have an opinion on whether it's overly strict. Do we know what the threshold (mph over the limit) would be set to? Is it always 11 for cameras?

[Quillz]

You say yourself that in some cases, 80 in a 65 is not reckless. That's fine. But the moment you say that, in my opinion you give up your right to judge others. Why are you personally the arbiter of what's safe and what's not?

Fair point. That's where everyone will differ. But I'd consider doing 15-20 over on an arterial street with a lot of cross traffic, people on sidewalks, and businesses to be a much more reckless endeavor than a rural interstate corridor where there is no cross traffic, pedestrians, and minimal lane shifts.

I am as much an arbitrator as you are. All the posts here are different viewpoints.

[Quillz]

It doesn't have to be this way. The speed limit could be the actual limit, above which you get in trouble if caught. That's how every other law works.

Sounds like instances of maximum speed signage. The 101 has one stretch of this, set to 65. 

Maybe we'll see more in the future. 

[Plutonic Panda]

There are plenty of places where you can go 15-20 above the speed limit and not be reckless. I would say places like I-5 through the Central Valley where there aren't many exits, there are no at-grade junctions, no pedestrians, etc. Those are instances where yes, it's also breaking the law and you will still get pulled over, but doing even 80 there isn't particularly dangerous or reckless. (I don't know the speed limit offhand, I think it was 65 last time I was there). That's a world of difference compared to a busy arterial street (or perhaps stroad, I think the Valley has quite a few of these).

All of these arguments are downstream from the fact that the government intentionally imposes speed limits below the maximum safe speed. We know this because in many cases the police don't pull people over unless they're going well above (10-15mph) the speed limit. Part of it is that we prefer for police to use their best judgment (if it's smoothly flowing traffic in good weather conditions, and everyone is going 10-15 over, they might not care), and part of it may be some leeway to avoid difficult court cases (66 in a 65 could have been a miscalibrated radar).

It doesn't have to be this way. The speed limit could be the actual limit, above which you get in trouble if caught. That's how every other law works.

You say yourself that in some cases, 80 in a 65 is not reckless. That's fine. But the moment you say that, in my opinion you give up your right to judge others. Why are you personally the arbiter of what's safe and what's not?

Regarding these particular proposed cameras, I don't live in the area so I don't have an opinion on whether it's overly strict. Do we know what the threshold (mph over the limit) would be set to? Is it always 11 for cameras?

I'll also add it seems like unless the police officer that's pulling you over isn't a bad mood or you're being a jerk sometimes they'll just cite you for doing nine over the post speed limit which I think carries a lesser fine and no court appearance so most people will just pay it rather than try and fight it. I also think it either comes with no points or less points on your license than doing 10 or more over.

[kphoger]

That's how every other law works.

Bullshit.

Does everyone parked within 20 feet of an unmarked crosswalk get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who comes to less than a 100% complete stop at a stop sign get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who parks on the left side of the street get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who stops beyond the painted stop line at a traffic light get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who makes a right turn into the left lane get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who fails to turn their headlights on in the rain get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who walks across the street in the left half of the crosswalk get a ticket?  No.

Cops give grace and wiggle room on all sorts of traffic laws.

And it isn't just traffic laws either.  By city law here in my city, all residential trash cans must be "behind the front yard set back", but nobody gets written up if they keep them up at the top of their driveway, or even in the front yard itself, instead.  At least, not in my neighborhood.

Be glad that every single law out there isn't enforced with 100% Nazism.

[FredAkbar]

It doesn't have to be this way. The speed limit could be the actual limit, above which you get in trouble if caught. That's how every other law works.

Sounds like instances of maximum speed signage. The 101 has one stretch of this, set to 65.

Maybe we'll see more in the future.

Is that the "maximum speed" vs "speed limit" distinction? I've always treated them as synonymous. Are there really stretches of freeway where the speed limit is enforced to within say 5mph?

Anecdotally someone once told me he got a ticket for 72 in a 65 on 101 in Goleta.

[FredAkbar]

That's how every other law works.

Bullshit.

Does everyone parked within 20 feet of an unmarked crosswalk get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who comes to less than a 100% complete stop at a stop sign get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who parks on the left side of the street get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who stops beyond the painted stop line at a traffic light get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who makes a right turn into the left lane get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who fails to turn their headlights on in the rain get a ticket?  No.
Does everyone who walks across the street in the left half of the crosswalk get a ticket?  No.

Cops give grace and wiggle room on all sorts of traffic laws.

And it isn't just traffic laws either.  By city law here in my city, all residential trash cans must be "behind the front yard set back", but nobody gets written up if they keep them up at the top of their driveway, or even in the front yard itself, instead.  At least, not in my neighborhood.

Be glad that every single law out there isn't enforced with 100% Nazism.

Sure, there are other very minor traffic laws that aren't enforced. At that point why even have them as laws instead of just "recommendations"? Some of those examples are enforced, we just tend to get away with it because police only have the resources to focus on so much.

But the speed limit is the only one where a cop will be intentionally staked out waiting to ticket people for breaking the law, and then.....not ticket the people breaking the law!

If the speed limit is 65mph, and a cop sitting right there lets everyone going ≤80mph go by, then the speed limit is effectively 80mph. So why is it signed as 65??

[kphoger]

Sounds like instances of maximum speed signage. The 101 has one stretch of this, set to 65.

Maybe we'll see more in the future.

Is that the "maximum speed" vs "speed limit" distinction? I've always treated them as synonymous.

I believe the distinction is whether or not it's considered a prima facie limit.

Are there really stretches of freeway where the speed limit is enforced to within say 5mph?

I imagine the answer to that will have nothing to do with what wording is used on the sign.

[FredAkbar]

If the speed limit is 65mph, and a cop sitting right there lets everyone going ≤80mph go by, then the speed limit is effectively 80mph. So why is it signed as 65??

And don't get me started on speed bumps...

[kphoger]

But the speed limit is the only one where a cop will be intentionally staked out waiting to ticket people for breaking the law, and then.....not ticket the people breaking the law!

By and large, it's the only one where a cop will be intentionally staked out waiting to ticket people at all.  (I'm sure some weird random counterexamples apply.)

If the speed limit is 65mph, and a cop sitting right there lets everyone going ≤80mph go by, then the speed limit is effectively 80mph. So why is it signed as 65??

Because there hasn't been the political/legal desire or ability to post a higher speed limit than that.  But the cop in the car doesn't care about the politics of the speed limit.  He just cares whether someone is driving reasonably fast or dangerously fast.  If he (or his boss) thinks 80 is the dividing line between reasonable and dangerous, then of course he'll only target people going over 80—no matter what the number on the sign says.  They're making a judgment call, and they're not the ones who decided what number is on the signs.

[FredAkbar]

By and large, it's the only one where a cop will be intentionally staked out waiting to ticket people at all.  (I'm sure some weird random counterexamples apply.)

Sometimes they'll stake out for other traffic infractions like stop signs or crosswalks. I got a ticket for slightly rolling a stop sign with no opposing traffic. (Under the speed limit analogy, the cop should only have ticketed me if I recklessly blew through it.)

Because there hasn't been the political/legal desire or ability to post a higher speed limit than that.  But the cop in the car doesn't care about the politics of the speed limit.  He just cares whether someone is driving reasonably fast or dangerously fast.  If he (or his boss) thinks 80 is the dividing line between reasonable and dangerous, then of course he'll only target people going over 80—no matter what the number on the sign says.  They're making a judgment call, and they're not the ones who decided what number is on the signs.

But should cops be the ones to determine that? You're basically saying the cop doesn't care what the actual law is and forms his own opinion about what should be legal.

There's precedent for that: I remember CHP overly weighing in on the legality of lane-splitting. But it's still a bit strange. It also reminds me of when MLB umpires didn't want to call the new strike zone when changes were made to it. It's nonsensical. Legislation of the rules and enforcement of the rules are governed by two different entities.

[kphoger]

Sometimes they'll stake out for other traffic infractions like stop signs or crosswalks. I got a ticket for slightly rolling a stop sign with no opposing traffic. (Under the speed limit analogy, the cop should only have ticketed me if I recklessly blew through it.)

There was a cop "staked out" waiting for you to roll that stop sign?  If so, then I'll chalk that one up to "weird random counterexample".

But should cops be the ones to determine that? You're basically saying the cop doesn't care what the actual law is and forms his own opinion about what should be legal. it. It's nonsensical. Legislation of the rules and enforcement of the rules are governed by two different entities.

No.  What I'm saying is that "what the actual law is" is only one of many factors that a cop should take into consideration.  And you should be very glad that's the case, that cops don't enforce every law with unwavering severity no matter how unreasonable it is, that they make judgment calls based on real-world experience.

[FredAkbar]

There was a cop "staked out" waiting for you to roll that stop sign?  If so, then I'll chalk that one up to "weird random counterexample".

Yes, there were a couple of motorcycle cops waiting under the overpass to the left of this intersection. (San Francisco LOVES four-way stops, so I guess they may as well enforce them.)

No.  What I'm saying is that "what the actual law is" is only one of many factors that a cop should take into consideration.  And you should be very glad that's the case, that cops don't enforce every law with unwavering severity no matter how unreasonable it is, that they make judgment calls based on real-world experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that they are lenient, as I'd prefer to drive over 65mph. But it creates a sort of circular logic where the speed limit is set to some percentile knowing that drivers drive faster than that, and then the cops don't enforce it because it's set too low, and so on.

[kphoger]

the speed limit is set to some percentile knowing that drivers drive faster than that

cops don't enforce it because it's set too low, and so on.

I don't think those two things are incongruent.  It's unlikely that 15% of drivers are driving dangerously fast.  And I'd rather cops not ticket people for driving speeds that aren't dangerous.

[Quillz]

It doesn't have to be this way. The speed limit could be the actual limit, above which you get in trouble if caught. That's how every other law works.

Sounds like instances of maximum speed signage. The 101 has one stretch of this, set to 65.

Maybe we'll see more in the future.

Is that the "maximum speed" vs "speed limit" distinction? I've always treated them as synonymous. Are there really stretches of freeway where the speed limit is enforced to within say 5mph?

Anecdotally someone once told me he got a ticket for 72 in a 65 on 101 in Goleta.

I can't speak to enforcement, but a segment of the 101 through the SF Valley has a maximum speed of 65. That means if you are going even 66, in theory you can be pulled over and ticketed. Everywhere else it's just a speed limit of 65. Why that one segment has it, I don't know.

[Quillz]

But should cops be the ones to determine that? You're basically saying the cop doesn't care what the actual law is and forms his own opinion about what should be legal.

Let's be realistic and remember that much of American history is based on what people think should be legal or not. We've had centuries and countless examples of how laws that are written down are not enforced, heavily interpreted one way or another, or selectively applied to various groups of people.

Why is there always so much drama about which party gets to nominate SCOTUS justices if laws were always going to be enforced and interpreted how they are written? All that drama tells me that laws are very much subject to bias, both emotionally and ideologically.

Point being, yes, in the moment, I fully would expect a cop who pulls me over to enforce a law how they see fit. That's why you say nothing, take the ticket, and fight it in court.

[Quillz]

I imagine the answer to that will have nothing to do with what wording is used on the sign.

Yup, this is very much a case of external factors. If it's heavy snow or rain, or even something like tule fog, I have seen people only going a little faster than me getting pulled over, and I'm usually about 5 over. So in cases like that, even 5-10 could warrant being pulled over.

I also mentioned in another thread I was pulled over in an Indian reservation for being about 5 mph over (doing 30 in a 25 zone). That was very clear more a case of them needed traffic ticket revenue, knowing the typical visitor is not going to come all the way back to fight it. (Although the guy ended up only giving me a warning). There was a notorious speed trap on 395 on the way to Mammoth, basically between Lone Pine and Bishop, for the same reasons. They'd pull over SoCal motorists that were not going to drive all the way back to Indepedence to fight it, so even being 5 over they'd get you. It hasn't happened as much anymore, though.

[cahwyguy]

Sometimes, I'm surprised at the folks on this forum. Facts are easily discovered, but folks would rather talk out of various orifices.

Caltrans has a page on the setting of speed limits at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-limits . There is also a manual on setting speed limits: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/202503-ca-manual-setting-speed-limits-a11y.pdf . It isn't arbitrary or capricious. Although there have been some recent changes, according to the webpage:

Per California Vehicle code (CVC) Section 22349, the maximum speed limit on a multilane highway and two-lane undivided roadway is 65 mph and 55 mph respectively.  Agencies conduct Engineering and Traffic surveys (E&TS) to post speed limits that are lower than these speed limits. Engineering and traffic surveys are also referred to as speed zones.

Speed limits are established by an E&TS, by considering the following:

Prevailing speeds (or 85th percentile speeds).
Collision History
Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
Other factors that may be considered while developing E&TS are, business or residential density, pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the "85th percentile speed", which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. It is the single most influential indicator of what is safe and reasonable, and it is used to determine the speed limit by rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment and posting the speed limit at that speed.  If there are sufficient conditions not readily apparent to the driver, as determined by a registered engineer, the posted speed limit can be lowered by 5 mph, and such a decision must be clearly documented in the E&TS.

Where they are monitoring speeds (with things like speed guns), there's a simple reason they don't pull everyone over. One cruiser, many cars. They can't pull everyone over, so they tend to aim for the worst offenders. Yes, there are the occasional rural speed traps, but that's the exception rather than the rule. In general, the folks pulled over for speeding are the folks being aggressively stupid: the constant lane changing, the racing, the unsafe driving.

I've generally found that if you keep it to no more than 9-10 above the limit, pace other traffic, and let the aggressive drivers pass you, you're generally safe. To put it simply: Don't stand out. If you're the only one on a particular roadway, I'd keep it no more than 10 above. Unless you are in an area where there has been a lot of racing and accidents, or a safety enforcement zone, you should be OK.

Lastly, if you go back to the original post that started this:

This pilot program will install 125 speed safety systems across the City of Los Angeles to help reduce excessive speeding, save lives, and improve street safety by encouraging safer driving behavior. Utilizing data and community stakeholder input from racial equity, civil liberties, and economic justice organizations – systems will be installed across the city where speeding and crashes happen most often and where children, seniors, and other vulnerable people are concentrated.

First, 125 systems is not that much over all of Los Angeles. Secondly, note what I have emboldened. This isn't a proposal for general streets: it is where there are specific problems.

Learn about the program behind this:

The California legislature passed a bill allowing for the use of automated speeding cameras as a pilot program in 6 California counties: Los Angeles, Glendale, Long Beach, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. In response to rising traffic fatalities attributed to speed, the bill imposes a fine of $100 for going 16 to 25 miles per hour over, $200 for going 26 miles per hour over, and $500 for going 100 miles per hour or more. Drivers traveling between 11 and 15 mph will receive a warning notice for the first offenses and a $50 fine for a second offense. Individuals who make less than 250 percent of the poverty level will have their fines reduced by 50 percent or 80 percent if they are indigent. The bill also stipulates that the revenue from the camera systems must first be used to recover program costs, with excess revenue used for local traffic-calming measures.

(Of course, never mind the pages error: Glendale and Long Beach are part of LA County, so what they likely meant was "cities")

ETA: It looks like the City of LA is looking for input on the locations of the street cameras that started this discussion:
https://la.streetsblog.org/2026/02/11/l-a-seeks-input-on-proposed-speed-camera-locations

[FredAkbar]

Where they are monitoring speeds (with things like speed guns), there's a simple reason they don't pull everyone over. One cruiser, many cars. They can't pull everyone over, so they tend to aim for the worst offenders.

How long does the average CHP cruiser sit there waiting to get someone? (That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.)

If it's more than a few minutes, then they could go for volume instead of severity if they wanted. Just constantly pull over the next person going 3+ over the limit, return to the original spot, rinse and repeat. It would lead to either a ton of revenue, or get people to actually stop speeding.

The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the "85th percentile speed", which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. It is the single most influential indicator of what is safe and reasonable

I still don't buy it. You're telling me 15% of the traffic (probably much higher; surely most people go at or above the speed limit?) is driving at an unsafe speed and no one's doing anything about it? That 71mph here is not safe and reasonable?

[Max Rockatansky]

If I recall correctly that whole lowering on US 101 between San Miguel and King City from 70 MPH to 65 MPH more had to do with CHP complaining about wrecks in the corridor.  Most people were wrecking at speeds way the hell higher than the then posted limit of 70 MPH. 

[cahwyguy]

Where they are monitoring speeds (with things like speed guns), there's a simple reason they don't pull everyone over. One cruiser, many cars. They can't pull everyone over, so they tend to aim for the worst offenders.

How long does the average CHP cruiser sit there waiting to get someone? (That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.)

If it's more than a few minutes, then they could go for volume instead of severity if they wanted. Just constantly pull over the next person going 3+ over the limit, return to the original spot, rinse and repeat. It would lead to either a ton of revenue, or get people to actually stop speeding.

Often, just having the patrol car by the side of the road is enough to get folks to slow down. Despite what people seem to believe, there is no real revenue quota for tickets, especially at the CHP level (it might be true in really small towns). The real goal of CHP professionals is safety.

The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the "85th percentile speed", which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. It is the single most influential indicator of what is safe and reasonable

I still don't buy it. You're telling me 15% of the traffic (probably much higher; surely most people go at or above the speed limit?) is driving at an unsafe speed and no one's doing anything about it? That 71mph here is not safe and reasonable?

I can't speak to a specific location. *Generally*, the 85th percentile would be based on whenever they did their speed survey. I believe that if you get a ticket, you can ask when the most recent speed survey was.

[Rothman]

The real goal of CHP professionals is safety.

Meh:  A quaint sentiment.

Agencies certainly can have stated goals as such.  How they achieve such can certainly be up for debate and certainly opens up not-so-overtly stated motivations behind such approaches.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sometimes, I'm surprised at the folks on this forum. Facts are easily discovered, but folks would rather talk out of various orifices.

Caltrans has a page on the setting of speed limits at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-limits . There is also a manual on setting speed limits: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/202503-ca-manual-setting-speed-limits-a11y.pdf . It isn't arbitrary or capricious. Although there have been some recent changes, according to the webpage:

Per California Vehicle code (CVC) Section 22349, the maximum speed limit on a multilane highway and two-lane undivided roadway is 65 mph and 55 mph respectively.  Agencies conduct Engineering and Traffic surveys (E&TS) to post speed limits that are lower than these speed limits. Engineering and traffic surveys are also referred to as speed zones.

Speed limits are established by an E&TS, by considering the following:

Prevailing speeds (or 85th percentile speeds).
Collision History
Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
Other factors that may be considered while developing E&TS are, business or residential density, pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the "85th percentile speed", which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. It is the single most influential indicator of what is safe and reasonable, and it is used to determine the speed limit by rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment and posting the speed limit at that speed.  If there are sufficient conditions not readily apparent to the driver, as determined by a registered engineer, the posted speed limit can be lowered by 5 mph, and such a decision must be clearly documented in the E&TS.

Where they are monitoring speeds (with things like speed guns), there's a simple reason they don't pull everyone over. One cruiser, many cars. They can't pull everyone over, so they tend to aim for the worst offenders. Yes, there are the occasional rural speed traps, but that's the exception rather than the rule. In general, the folks pulled over for speeding are the folks being aggressively stupid: the constant lane changing, the racing, the unsafe driving.

I've generally found that if you keep it to no more than 9-10 above the limit, pace other traffic, and let the aggressive drivers pass you, you're generally safe. To put it simply: Don't stand out. If you're the only one on a particular roadway, I'd keep it no more than 10 above. Unless you are in an area where there has been a lot of racing and accidents, or a safety enforcement zone, you should be OK.

Lastly, if you go back to the original post that started this:

This pilot program will install 125 speed safety systems across the City of Los Angeles to help reduce excessive speeding, save lives, and improve street safety by encouraging safer driving behavior. Utilizing data and community stakeholder input from racial equity, civil liberties, and economic justice organizations – systems will be installed across the city where speeding and crashes happen most often and where children, seniors, and other vulnerable people are concentrated.

First, 125 systems is not that much over all of Los Angeles. Secondly, note what I have emboldened. This isn't a proposal for general streets: it is where there are specific problems.

Learn about the program behind this:

The California legislature passed a bill allowing for the use of automated speeding cameras as a pilot program in 6 California counties: Los Angeles, Glendale, Long Beach, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. In response to rising traffic fatalities attributed to speed, the bill imposes a fine of $100 for going 16 to 25 miles per hour over, $200 for going 26 miles per hour over, and $500 for going 100 miles per hour or more. Drivers traveling between 11 and 15 mph will receive a warning notice for the first offenses and a $50 fine for a second offense. Individuals who make less than 250 percent of the poverty level will have their fines reduced by 50 percent or 80 percent if they are indigent. The bill also stipulates that the revenue from the camera systems must first be used to recover program costs, with excess revenue used for local traffic-calming measures.

(Of course, never mind the pages error: Glendale and Long Beach are part of LA County, so what they likely meant was "cities")

ETA: It looks like the City of LA is looking for input on the locations of the street cameras that started this discussion:
https://la.streetsblog.org/2026/02/11/l-a-seeks-input-on-proposed-speed-camera-locations

I'm pretty sure if Caltrans followed their 85th percentile rule on setting speed limits that most speed limit limits around the state would be 75 to 80 MPH. My average speed on I-15 when I drive to Vegas is about 100 to 110 mph. Knock on wood, but I've yet to be pulled over on that stretch. I do dial it back a little bit once I enter Nevada because from my experience I've seen more enforcement although the Nevada highway patrol seems to be a bit more lenient on excessive speeding than California does as I've been given basically a parking ticket in lieu of a speeding ticket going over 100 miles an hour don't ask me how or why I have no clue about that. I didn't ask any questions. I just paid it.

But even when I'm driving on I 15 which I've gotten to know section between Barstow and Primm very well, I won't be recklessly weaving in and out of traffic generally, I know when there's gonna be a lot of traffic or not, and I pick the right times. With that said there's been several times where people have flown past me at unbelievable speeds or I've pretty much gone with the flow of traffic.

[cahwyguy]

I'm pretty sure if Caltrans followed their 85th percentile rule on setting speed limits that most speed limit limits around the state would be 75 to 80 MPH. My average speed on I-15 when I drive to Vegas is about 100 to 110 mph. Knock on wood, but I've yet to be pulled over on that stretch. I do dial it back a little bit once I enter Nevada because from my experience I've seen more enforcement although the Nevada highway patrol seems to be a bit more lenient on excessive speeding than California does as I've been given basically a parking ticket in lieu of a speeding ticket going over 100 miles an hour don't ask me how or why I have no clue about that. I didn't ask any questions. I just paid it.

I believe California has an overall maximum of 75mph, regardless of speed studies. Further, there can be other factors as noted, such as safety considerations. So it isn't ONLY the 85th percentile.