Speed Limit Enforcement: Setting an Example for Adherence to Laws

[ehrenfest]

I think that the speed limit should be strictly enforced. It is horrible that we try to teach teenagers to obey important rules such as no drinking, no smoking, no harassment, no violence, etc but then when they start driving they are bombarded by examples of people blatantly breaking laws going 50 MPH in a 35 MPH zone or even worse with no consequences. Furthermore, sometimes it is even the norm to go over the speed limit. I would say people take the speed limit more as an average than an upper bound. People have even honked at me and flicked me off for driving at the speed limit.

The most obvious problem with this is that it is dangerous to go above the speed limit. I am sure that the people who made the speed limits first conducted studies to see what is safe and then made an intelligent decision about how fast drivers should go. The less obvious, but perhaps more important problem with this is that the disregard for the speed limit provides a bad precedent for adherence to other laws. It undermines the strength and the sanctity of all of the laws that allow society to operate.

 

[ekrim]

I drive 10 mph over the speed limit except in school zones and residentials. A lot of times the safest speed is the speed of surrounding traffic. Someone driving 55 on a highway may be abiding by the law, but they're putting themselves at risk if everyone else is going 70.

 

[Cyrus]

I think that the speed limit should be strictly enforced. It is horrible that we try to teach teenagers to obey important rules such as no drinking, no smoking, no harassment, no violence, etc but then when they start driving they are bombarded by examples of people blatantly breaking laws going 50 MPH in a 35 MPH zone or even worse with no consequences. Furthermore, sometimes it is even the norm to go over the speed limit. I would say people take the speed limit more as an average than an upper bound. People have even honked at me and flicked me off for driving at the speed limit.

The most obvious problem with this is that it is dangerous to go above the speed limit. I am sure that the people who made the speed limits first conducted studies to see what is safe and then made an intelligent decision about how fast drivers should go. The less obvious, but perhaps more important problem with this is that the disregard for the speed limit provides a bad precedent for adherence to other laws. It undermines the strength and the sanctity of all of the laws that allow society to operate.

This is so absurd its funny.

 

[rootX]

People have even honked at me and flicked me off for driving at the speed limit.

Sorry, but this part made me laugh too
Not only teenagers but everyone (except old people ) would hate you for that.

I think that the speed limit should be strictly enforced. It is horrible that we try to teach teenagers to obey important rules such as no drinking, no smoking, no harassment, no violence, etc but then when they start driving they are bombarded by examples of people blatantly breaking laws going 50 MPH in a ..

That doesn't make sense if you are thinking that we don't teach teenagers about driving safe

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am sure that the people who made the speed limits first conducted studies to see what is safe and then made an intelligent decision about how fast drivers should go.

Didn't they take into account the fact that many people go over the limit? If not, I admire their ability to get paid for what they do.

 

[Kurdt]

I'm afraid to say that drinking and smoking are quite legal for adults in most parts of the world. I don't think a strict adherence to the speed limit could be enforced, nor do I think it encourages people to break other laws.

 

[rootX]

Didn't they take into account the fact that many people go over the limit? If not, I admire their ability to get paid for what they do.

I think they make it "actual speed limit - 10 or 20"

so maybe that's why fines are up to 10,000$ if you go over 150 km/hr on 100 highway (most people go at 120).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Enforcing speed laws is expensive. You would need to hire a lot of police officers for that. Of course, the fines would help pay for the cops. But only if the project failed to work. If you hire all these cops and they start handing out tickets left and right, then before they cash their second paycheck, people start obeying the law. Then you have a bunch of cops with nothing to do except draw paychecks. So you fire them. Then people start speeding again.

 

[seycyrus]

the speed limit. I would say people take the speed limit more as an average than an upper bound. People have even honked at me and flicked me off for driving at the speed limit.

Slower traffic keep right.

Seriously.

 

[LowlyPion]

Enforcing speed laws is expensive. You would need to hire a lot of police officers for that. Of course, the fines would help pay for the cops. But only if the project failed to work. If you hire all these cops and they start handing out tickets left and right, then before they cash their second paycheck, people start obeying the law. Then you have a bunch of cops with nothing to do except draw paychecks. So you fire them. Then people start speeding again.

Given camera surveillance systems and computer generated summons the process and ubiquity of locations can be expanded to the point that compliance was virtually universally assured. Sending the operator a picture of themselves with the clocking and time and date, seems fairly sure-fire.

Not that I advocate letting Big Brother reach into such detail.

 

[Andre]

I fully agree with the OP. The most dangerous situations occur when speeds are underestimated. Who would expected somebody to do 140 in a 80 zone (fill in miles or km, whatever). So you're in for a heck of a surprise if you'd expect everybody else to adhere to the limits. Also the 140 guy needs three times the braking distance as the 80 guy and for the environmentalists, three times as much gas as well.

 

[Hurkyl]

I drive 10 mph over the speed limit except in school zones and residentials. A lot of times the safest speed is the speed of surrounding traffic.

Much of the surrounding traffic will go the speed limit if you do.

That aside, the cruising traffic is only one of the dangers on the roadway. And while that one might be mitigated by speeding, many others are made much worse by speeding, such as:
. Slowed/stopped traffic just past a hill or bend
. Cross streets and driveways, particularly with low visibility
. Merging traffic, particularly when tailgating is involved

And even if we just consider the surrounding traffic just cruising by you... if some sort of irregularity does occur, you have a much better chance of avoiding it if you are going the speed limit rather than 15 over (and even if you can't, the damage will be much less severe)

 

[edward]

To cut costs and to raise revenue a lot of cities have started using photo radar vans. The ones operating in Tucson allow 11 mph over the speed limit. They determined most people drive at least 5 to 10 over.

Oddly enough traffic cops here usually only allow 5 over...depending on what mood they are in.

The photo radar vans are operated by a private company. A policeman does have to see the photo before a citation can be mailed.

 

[Chi Meson]

Oddly enough traffic cops here usually only allow 5 over...depending on what mood they are in.

The generally accepted speed in eastern Connecticut is "posted limit+10 mph." I don't know of anyone who has been pulled over for less than that.

If you drive at the speed limit on one of our country roads, a cop will tailgate you mercilessly, leading to a conundrum: do I speed up?

 

[Gokul43201]

I am sure that the people who made the speed limits first conducted studies to see what is safe and then made an intelligent decision about how fast drivers should go.

Not exactly. In the US, Federal speed limit laws were imposed by Nixon, entirely to reduce gasoline consumption during the 70s oil crisis. Individual states have since (particularly in the 90s) been raising their limits. Before the 70s, speed limits in most states were higher than they are now. And one would expect that road quality and vehicle safety standards have only improved since the 60s.

 

[sketchtrack]

The GPS and computer systems can monitor your driving, they could just have a machine built into your dash that prints you out a ticket when your car senses you have broken the law.

The thing that bothers me around here is that everyone goes 5 to 10 miles an hour over, and the cops have still managed to get me for a 7 and a 10 over. I dislike the way they hide on the side of the road behind something on downhill stretches.

The last time I was pulled over, it was night and the cop was on the side of the road around a blind corner with his lights off, and he got me for 7 over. I thought it was kind of lame because he was being more of a danger to peoples safety than me.

 

[Cyrus]

The GPS and computer systems can monitor your driving, they could just have a machine built into your dash that prints you out a ticket when your car senses you have broken the law.

The thing that bothers me around here is that everyone goes 5 to 10 miles an hour over, and the cops have still managed to get me for a 7 and a 10 over. I dislike the way they hide on the side of the road behind something on downhill stretches.

The last time I was pulled over, it was night and the cop was on the side of the road around a blind corner with his lights off, and he got me for 7 over. I thought it was kind of lame because he was being more of a danger to peoples safety than me.

No, they shouldn't.

 

[sketchtrack]

I didn't mean they should, I just meant it is possible. Maybe for a quick budget fix they could read everyones vehicles computers and issue tickets for all the recored speed limit breaks.

I would probably be owing over a million at least.

 

[tribdog]

The speed limit in some parts of the west used to be "drive at safe speed" You never got speeding tickets, but if you got in a wreck you got hammered.
I'm a bit waffleish on this subject. On the one hand, there is a huge difference in the quality of roads and cars nowadays as compared to 20-25 years ago. It is possible to drive much faster today and still be safe.
On the other hand, I saw a study once that showed a 95-99% decrease in the amount of children killed by being hit by a car with the addition of speed bumps in neighborhoods.

 

[Moonbear]

Not exactly. In the US, Federal speed limit laws were imposed by Nixon, entirely to reduce gasoline consumption during the 70s oil crisis. Individual states have since (particularly in the 90s) been raising their limits. Before the 70s, speed limits in most states were higher than they are now. And one would expect that road quality and vehicle safety standards have only improved since the 60s.

I thought speed limits currently are set by the speed that 85% of the drivers drive less than, at least on major highways. If everyone speeds, the speed limit can be raised.

If you want to drive the speed limit, fine, just stay to the far right and allow people to pass you.

 

[Gokul43201]

On the other hand, I saw a study once that showed a 95-99% decrease in the amount of children killed by being hit by a car with the addition of speed bumps in neighborhoods.

Arguments for higher speed limits on highways do not conflict with arguments for lower speed limits in residential areas.

 

[sketchtrack]

If we go with electric cars to replace oil burning cars, then we won't need a speed limit.

 

[Moonbear]

On the other hand, I saw a study once that showed a 95-99% decrease in the amount of children killed by being hit by a car with the addition of speed bumps in neighborhoods.

Which argues that one should be cautious when driving in neighborhoods.

I sort of use a 10% rule...you can drive about 10% over the speed limit without getting stopped by cops and without being unsafe. So, on a 70 mph interstate, you can go 77 mph and it's fine. If you're in a 25 mph school zone, you better not go more than 27 mph, and then only because you're keeping an eye on the road for children rather than watching your speedometer.

 

[LowlyPion]

The GPS and computer systems can monitor your driving, they could just have a machine built into your dash that prints you out a ticket when your car senses you have broken the law.

The thing that bothers me around here is that everyone goes 5 to 10 miles an hour over, and the cops have still managed to get me for a 7 and a 10 over. I dislike the way they hide on the side of the road behind something on downhill stretches.

The last time I was pulled over, it was night and the cop was on the side of the road around a blind corner with his lights off, and he got me for 7 over. I thought it was kind of lame because he was being more of a danger to peoples safety than me.

It's my experience that they cite you for less than they clock you for to eliminate argument and the possibility of calibration errors, etc. Hence then to eliminate the need for them to make a court appearance if you contest. Your 10 mph over may have been clocked at 15 over and written for 10.

 

[turbo]

When I got my license, I-95 had a speed limit (generally exceeded) of 75mph. This was in a time of heavy cars, often with no seat belts, often with steel dashboards, and the cars were running on bias-ply tires. Now, we are expected to pretend that I-95 is only safe at 65 mph or under with superior radial tires, advances in suspension and handling, etc? Even worse was during the ignorant national 55 mph speed limit days.

The most infuriating statements came from supporters of the lower speed limits, who harped on "if it only saves one life..."

 

[sketchtrack]

It's my experience that they cite you for less than they clock you for to eliminate argument and the possibility of calibration errors, etc. Hence then to eliminate the need for them to make a court appearance if you contest. Your 10 mph over may have been clocked at 15 over and written for 10.

Yeah that has happened to me before, but they usually tell you what they clocked you for and what they are going to ticket you for. I think the actual clock speed they get is written on the ticket when they do that too.

 

[Ouabache]

Furthermore, sometimes it is even the norm to go over the speed limit. I would say people take the speed limit more as an average than an upper bound. People have even honked at me and flicked me off for driving at the speed limit.

I used the drive the speed limit or slightly over until I researched about speed and gas milage efficiency about three years ago. So on an interstate with maximum of 65mph, I'll drive 55 out of choice. I can drive the same distance (as those driving 65 and over) and reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per mile, while at the same time, save money at the pump. So I am lowering my 'carbon footprint' and pay less per mile for gasoline. Now that I have been driving this way for 3 years, my gas-pedal foot has been conditioned to go no faster than 55. I do stay in the slow lane to allow passing traffic to go by.

(footnote: In general, I find it safer to drive in one of the edge rather than center lanes, due to the fact that you have one less lane along side you to be aware of).

 

[JasonRox]

Note: The highways in Canada have generally a limit of 100km/h.

n Quebec City, I once passed a cop on the highway going almost 140. He was in the slow lane and I didn't see him at all. Then I just let the gas down, and then the police just flew by me at like 150 and so I tried my best to keep up.

Also, once I passed a police officer with a gun doing 140, but then I took the exit that was directly after him. By the time he got onto the highway and towards me I was already turning right downtown into the city, and basically he lost me. That was probably the closest call with regards to speeding.

I'm really really really trying to drive better though. It's just so hard. Plus my car overheats if I stop too often, so I do my best to get around quick. I'm considering buying a new car so I don't have to worry about the heat so much.

 

[Hurkyl]

Some other things I forgot to mention... speed limits aren't always about immediate safety. Three other reasons for a particular speed limit are:

. The traffic lights are arranged so you can't effectively go any faster than the posted speed limit
. There is a need to limit the rate at which this road feeds into other roads
. There is a need to discourage thru traffic, thus diverting it to safer, higher capacity roads

 

[chayced]

Speed limits today are not about safety. Although accidents go down when the speed limit is lowered and go up when it is raised, this is a temporary effect in most cases due to driver psychology and the actual effect is much more subtle.

Now things the driver doesn't know about on the road are often reasons for lower speed limits and good ones at that, but there are other ways to go about this.

I have seen so many roads that have become community income providers I am pretty close to saying no to all speed limits. It's bad up east, it's getting bad down south. If speeding, non-recklessly of course, was a horrible thing to do then they would throw people in jail for it. As it stands now, it is not a measure of the safety of the driver, but rather a measure of the coffers of the state.

Left to themselves people do pretty well as a group. Those that drive recklessly still can face the criminal consequences for it. Those that continuously drive recklessly will serve as an example to others and natural selection at its best. Really, without speed limits not much changes.

 

[Andre]

Which argues that one should be cautious when driving in neighborhoods.

I sort of use a 10% rule...you can drive about 10% over the speed limit without getting stopped by cops and without being unsafe. So, on a 70 mph interstate, you can go 77 mph and it's fine. If you're in a 25 mph school zone, you better not go more than 27 mph, and then only because you're keeping an eye on the road for children rather than watching your speedometer.

Many cars have speed limiters, just set your desired overspeed and no more need to watch the speedometer at all.

Anyway, when you drive an extra 1000 miles per month between residences, you're likely to think out the best driving policy in those long hours, especially if there is no speed limit like much of the German "Autobahn". For instance, go 120mph, get the 500mi trip done in 5-6 hrs, including the extra refuel stop required for the high fuel consumption; and be a bit exhausted at the end because those speeds require high agility of the driver with lots of tense potentially dangerous traffic situations on the busy roads. Alternately drive 65 -75 mph for a 7-8 hrs trip but no refuel stop required since fuel consumption is roughly 40% less. Driving is much more relaxed and one can still enjoy the CD while the noise level in the car is substantially less. Also cruise control is very comfortable.

 

[Hurkyl]

Left to themselves people do pretty well as a group.

No, they really don't. People generally drive like idiots now. Relax the laws and it will only get worse.

 

[Chi Meson]

No, they really don't. People generally drive like idiots now. Relax the laws and it will only get worse.

I concur with Hurkyl. Left to themselves, SOME people in the group will consider themselves special (they already do) and tailgate, pass in the breakdown lanes, drive obscenely fast through a pack, etc. etc.

98% of any group is fine. They follow generally accepted rules of the road (official and unofficial). We absolutely need the laws that hold back the self-appointed "special people" among us.

 

[chayced]

98% of any group is fine. They follow generally accepted rules of the road (official and unofficial). We absolutely need the laws that hold back the self-appointed "special people" among us.

That's why I recommend using reckless driving laws instead of speed limits. The biggest problem with this is it requires the courts and the lawmen to use common sense.

Speed limits do not go down when road conditions are bad, such as congestion, rain, ice, or pedestrians.

Speed limits also do not go up when road conditions are good.

Speed limits themselves do not solve people who tailgate, pass in breakdown lanes, or people who drive obscenely fast through a pack. Each of these things can happen easily without the offending driver breaking the speed limit as is seen every day in major traffic.

I agree that 2% of the drivers ruin it for all of us, but they can do it just as well below 55 as they can above 55.

 

[JasonRox]

I concur with Hurkyl. Left to themselves, SOME people in the group will consider themselves special (they already do) and tailgate, pass in the breakdown lanes, drive obscenely fast through a pack, etc. etc.

98% of any group is fine. They follow generally accepted rules of the road (official and unofficial). We absolutely need the laws that hold back the self-appointed "special people" among us.

No offense, but those who hold the attitude as you two, I find are also very bad drivers. The kind of drivers who don't merge onto the highway properly, scared to turn left, etc...

I'm sorry, but everyone type of driver can be a bad driver. We all do stupid things. The only reason accidents don't happen when we do stupid things is because other drivers act and react accordingly. Of course there are crazily insane drivers, but old slow drivers are just as dangerous (because they don't see anything or are VERY slow or scared).