Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
1. As I already mentioned, the German Autobahn, with no speed limits for much of its distance, has a lower fatality rate than the strictly speed-regulated US freeway system.
2. In 1970, cars had drum brakes all around, no seatbelts, no seatbelt laws, no airbags, and no crumple zones, and the speed limit was 70 mph. Today, cars are immensely safer, the speed limit is 55 mph (for the most part), and the fatality rate is higher.
Here is my logic, which I invite any of you to challenge: if a law does nothing to solve the problem that it was designed to solve, then its enforcement should not be strengthened, as it will still solve nothing.
Ok, so how do you explain Montana? They used to have no daytime speed limit. Studies done of the year before and the year after the speed limit was added show the fatality rate more than doubled after they put a speed limit into place.
only problem I'd have with this is that law enforcement is there to protect and serve, not rape the people they serve for minor trafic violations they may or may not deserve. If they use these in Oklahome I'll boycott, they still don't even have proper vehicle safety inspection laws in place.
What the hell? How does that have the same logic? You don't HAVE to break the law, and that is considered wrong in our society, while being Jewish is not a "wrong" thing to do. That has really got to be one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever seen.
Point 1) This is true, but is there enough evidence to support that it is directly related to speed? There is no technical reason why higher speed alone would result in less accidents.
Point 2) All your facts are right, and that is an interesting point, but why do you think this is? Less driving skill? Or something else?
I agree that ticketing isn't solving the problem of accidents, but going a speed that is higher than recommended for the road you are on certainly doesn't help alleviate accidents either.
Again, what is _your_ explanation? I certainly can't explain why faster travel results in less fatalities when in theory faster speeds result in a smaller chance of survival. (In crash tests.)
I'd be totally open to hearing about possible correlations that prove that higher speeds are safer.
If noone speeds, the speed limits will eventually be zero. Literally. Most states have a guideline, in many cases an actual law, for setting speed limits at a speed that at least 85% of drivers (or more) go above on a given road.
If everyone goes below 55 on your highways, the new speed limit will drop to 45 or whereever the new border for the 15% of slowest drivers is. After everyone slows down for fear of tickets it will drop to 35, then 25, etc. Eventually you will get tickets for going 1mph.
I can think of a few possible reasons:
1. With no speed limit, people are paying more attention to actual road/traffic conditions and how fast they actually feel safe at a given speed, rather than trying to maintain said limit.
2. Higher speed = less time spent traveling = less crowding on the roads.
3. (This one is especially true in NY state, haven't observed it to near the same extent in other areas). When you pass someone you are supposed to go at least 10mph faster than they are, so that you minimize the time next to the other vehicle, and they don't forget about you when you are in their blind spot. Fear of tickets causes people to for example pass someone driving at 64mph at only 64.02mph, and take forever to pass. In NY where the speed enforcement was recently cranked up to a ridiculous extent it is common to see even professional truck drivers doing this and take upwards of 20 minutes to pass each other. Not only does it cause that long time in the blind spot issue but it makes lane changes extremely difficult when you finally have to turn, all lanes in front of you are blocked by people going the same speed as each other, and if you slow down to change lanes instead (dangerous in and of itself) there is a long line of cars backed up behind them in adjacent lanes.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Point 1) They have higher standards for driver education and certification in Germany.
Point 2) Going a speed higher than what is posted does not automatically make you less safe than someone going the speed limit. In fact, going exactly the speed limit while those around you are going faster is detrimental to safety.
Try going exactly the speed limit in the left lane of a freeway and see how many cars will back up behind you, many of them aggravated and riding each others bumpers. The fact is that most research and even most police officers acknowledge that for certain places, going ~10MPH over the speed limit is the norm for most cars.
Studies show that *most* cars feel comfortable going about 70-75MPH on a freeway. This is regardless of whether we're talking about drivers in the 1970s when the speed limits were higher, or drivers nowadays when speed limits are lower. So why do we see the speed limits artificially lower than what most drivers feel comfortable driving? Revenue.
Furthermore, the argument that people who drive 75MPH in a 65MPH zone will drive 85MPH in a 75MPH zone has been disproved. People go the speed they are comfortable at, and for most drivers/cars on the road, that is around 70-75MPH.
For residential areas, I agree that speeding should be better controlled. But residential areas carry low car volume and are high in frequency...is it worth tens of thousands of dollars to equip a residential area with a camera that might hand out a dozen tickets a week? And how would they successfully enforce the thousands of residential streets in any given city? Having these cameras in high car volume arteries makes more financial sense. For residential areas, cheap concrete speed bumps are still a better way to go.
A camera _would_ take a long time to pay for itself in a low traffic residential area, but I'm not sure what qualifies as a "sidestreet" in this case, and I'm not sure what maintenance costs are.
Also a good point on the speed difference between drivers. If everyone is going more-or-less the same speed, then it's definitely safer as the "relative" speed is closer to 0.
But even on a road without a speed limit you'd have people going even more varied speeds. Novice drivers might be intimidated by not having a set speed to go, and may travel at a "Safe" (read: hella slow) speed. While experienced drivers will be driving at the speed they know they can handle. (Which for example, on I-5 around here, is virtually unlimited due to low traffic, big lanes, and gentle curves)
lol they have this in Taipei, Taiwan...you can't speed w/o getting your ass handed to you. There are radar guns/traffic cams all over the place on busier roads. You can't speed on the not busy roads b/c of all the peds/bikes around.
While what you are saying is noble in theory, in reality governments tend to abuse their powers.
for instance, let's say they set up a system where they get 100% of speeders (Maybe GPS in cars or something). They're catching every single person who breaks the law, but they still are not getting enough revenue. What do you think they'll do?
I'll tell you what they'll do. They'll lower the speed limit to a point where enough people break the (new) speed limit and pay fines to cover the budget. When they don't get enough money for fines, they'll make the laws even more restrictive.
Take a look at taxation- they tax you more, and they become used to the newfound revenue. Once they find a way to spend all of that money, they'll raise taxes even more.
Remember, income tax was never supposed to be permanent.
Just remove your front plate if you're in California, they can't send you an automated ticket without one.
My friend works for the township police department here in NJ. The township has a budget that the police must meet. They have it calculated how much money they must bring in each day from tickets. If they are falling behind in revenue collection, the police station will assign more officers to traffic detail. If they're ahead, they'll assign more to patrols.
So it is about revenue. It's not the police that want the revenue, it's the municipality which controls the police. Keep in mind that most of the municipality's income comes from traffic tickets.
california vehical codes 5200 to 5202 state you need a front license plate. yeah... i got pulled over for it.
i refer to these lights as piggy banks. also in england, there is a disturbing pattern. areas with piggy banks have had an increase in auto deaths whereas areas without them have had fewer, the same, or lower increases than the other areas.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No. It is dangerous, but not as dangerous as driving slower than those around you. Differentials in speed are more severe negative than positive. This goes back to the fact that it is congestion that causes most accidents. Slow drivers, particularly those who do not obey the laws regarding proper lane discipline, increase congestion, which leads to more accidents. The reality is that that left lane rolling roadblock is as dangerous a drunk driver. There are laws on the books in most states forbidding what that rolling roadblock does, but almost never enforced. Why? Answer: revenue. The simple fact of the matter is that collecting revenue is more important to our "authorities" than protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones. This is why they have brainwashed you and almost everyone in America into believing that being a poorly skilled driver makes you a "safe" driver.
I remember reading a study about this and it said that while speed does contribute to accidents, inattentiveness is the main contributor. When a person is limited to a speed that is too low (ie boring), they tend to get on the phone, read a book, play with the radio, etc. However, when you allow people to drive at their own pace, they will be much more alert.
In other words, it's not the higher speed in itself which makes the accident rate go down, it's the raised attention level that comes with the higher speed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter