Speed kills. 55...too slow.

[IJ Reilly]

Interestingly enough, this article (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1362.asp) says a UK DOT report claims less than 5% of road accidents are caused by speeding.

You can find statistics to back up just about any argument but one thing that can't be changed in this case are the basic physics involved. I will also point out that cause-effect statistics are highly dependent on the laws and how they are enforced. If speed limits were eliminated, the number of accidents "caused" by speeding could effectively be reduced to near zero because hardly anyone would be cited for speeding.

 

[Thanatoast]

The idea that 55 mph is too slow for any road is ridiculous. It's a perfectly reasonable highway speed that was established for several years in the US. I think it's also important to note that most vehicles operate at peak efficiency at about this speed.

I certainly wouldn't trust you to decide what is an appropriate speed limit for any given roadway. Especially when you consider 75 mph "a crawl".

I didn't say 55 was too slow for any road, I mentioned interstates in Texas, Wyoming and Kansas. 1-70 east of Denver through to I-35 is 75m mph, but on clear days careful drivers could easily get past 90 or 100 if given the chance. On a full day trip, that extra 10-20 miles an hour makes a noticeable difference.

And 75 is definitely a crawl when traveling through 13 hours worth of nothing. I recently took my fiancee to Missoula from Denver and believe me, there's no reason whatsoever not to travel as quickly as you can through Wyoming. There's nothing but a nice, four-lane split highway surrounded by jack. Why *shouldn't* the speed limit be raised?

 

[nbs2]

Have you ever driven 50 to Annapolis?

Insanity.

BW Parkway? Relatively harmless because the U.S. Park Police don't take any ****.

And just as importantly, neither do the Federal judges that appear before when you get nailed on either the BW or GW (even if you are only doing 126 in your new car to impress a girl and didn't mean to end up at the CIA entrance when you were trying to outrun him and aren't you lucky that most state Bars don't have the cahones to block your application for being so flagrant in your violations, but they think it appropriate to question my law school loans as excessive?)

I've learned that if I want to go to Annapolis, it is much better (and safer) for me to head over to 97 and take it down to 50 - but even those couple of miles put me on constant fear. Of course every single time, I've seen a multi cop speed trap set up, with the cops not pulling anybody over as people fly past me at who knows how fast....

 

[iGary]

And just as importantly, neither do the Federal judges that appear before when you get nailed on either the BW or GW (even if you are only doing 126 in your new car to impress a girl and didn't mean to end up at the CIA entrance when you were trying to outrun him and aren't you lucky that most state Bars don't have the cahones to block your application for being so flagrant in your violations, but they think it appropriate to question my law school loans as excessive?)

I've learned that if I want to go to Annapolis, it is much better (and safer) for me to head over to 97 and take it down to 50 - but even those couple of miles put me on constant fear. Of course every single time, I've seen a multi cop speed trap set up, with the cops not pulling anybody over as people fly past me at who knows how fast....

I loves me some BW Parkway. Just goes to show you if you enforce the law, people pay attention.

I-97 has almost an accident a day. It's scary, too.

But not as bad as 50 between I-97 and Rhode Island Avenue. Seriously scary ****.

 

[MarkCollette]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was bound to agree with the premise of the video.

Of course you're not bound to it. But it did clearly demonstrates the rediculousness of the law. Actually, I understand the point of the actual limit being lower than reality requires. It's because of the margin of error of measurement devices, both in the scanner and in your own spedometer, people's inability to actively monitor their own speed while having to concentrate on the road itself, climate conditions, etc. So the video only makes sense in the context it was filmed, an average day, good weather, etc. The problem that's actually illuminated, upon reflection, is that arbitrary enforcement causes a damned if you do, damned if you don't feeling. Plus, some people like following rules, so they'd like the situation setup so they can follow the rules, instead of this institutionalised grey area.

What do you mean by rectified -- raised so high that hardly anybody could violate them without the use of jato packs?

Probably they'd prefer that instead of the limit being arbitrarily set due to political considerations in the 1970s, that it be only set based on civil engineer's calculations. Or perhaps, similarly to how some highways have lanes only for buses and vehicles with multiple occupants, there could be a far left lane for people with a special sticker on their license plate who have undergone additional training and who can thus legally drive faster, which would move them away from others who could then relax and go the 55 mph speed limit without feeling pressured to speed along with everyone else. There are probably a dozen things that could be considered to rectify the situation, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt with your suggestion

In many places in the U.S., a person faces a mandatory life sentence for petty theft if the crime is the third committed. Hardly anybody seems to worry about the justice of that. But speeding, that's another matter -- risking other people's lives for your own pleasure and convenience should be not only tolerated but encouraged.

So, you've identified a situation elsewhere in your laws that sounds rediculously injust, and you'd like to emulate it elsewhere? Particularly because you are personally unaware of dissent for the situation... Am I supposed to seriously rebut that?

 

[MarkCollette]

A pack of gum is cheap so is it OK to take one from a retail store since no one is looking?

I've lost count on how many angles I disagree with your statement...

Speeding is an action that has a certain chance of consequenses to others, and a variable degree of consequences. Theft is an action with guaranteed consequences to others, even in your case of the low degree of consequences. You can try to conjure up some sort of hypocrisy from your lack of understanding of these variables interacting, or I can simply clear it up for you. I don't ever steal. I don't ever do things that I think are even reasonably likely to hurt others. But, I do do things which have some hypothetical chance of harming others, for which I think that my skills will keep them from ever getting harmed. For example, I feel entirely guilt free when I carry my shopping basket around in the grocery store, knowing full well that there does exist some possibility of it slipping out of my hand and stubbing someone's toe. But I have faith in my ability to not drop it. Likewise, I'm reasonably confident that when I close the car door for a woman, that I won't close it on her leg, or her hand as she reaches for the seat belt. I don't feel the need to lobby for restrictions or regulations on closing the door for others because some people aren't quite so dextrous. I also don't feel the need to push the woman over and tie her hands and feet to the steering wheel with duct tape before closing the door. I have faith in her doing part, as she does with me.

Right, what was the point of my inane rambling? I don't do things guaranteed to harm others (like theft). And I don't have a problem doing slightly risky things, because I'm guaging my ability to do it, as I'm doing it, and adjusting accordingly. And I don't appreciate other freaking out about that, simply because they are less capable or know of others less capable. But, I will probably take that into consideration, to some degree, for myself. No hypocrisy.

Speeding is against the law regardless of how slow the limit is set. If a town decides that main street should be a 5 mph zone and you get caught doing 10 mph it's not the fault of the town. The speed limit was posted, you didn't obey, therefore it is your own fault for getting the ticket. You knew the risks.

You support following arbitrarily retarded laws? Well, thanks goodness, some people are braver than you, otherwise we'd all be slaves with subservient cowtowing to authority like that.

Sorry, but how normal people operate in everyday life decisions, is they look around and guage what other people are doing, and the consequences others are getting, and find their own comfort zone. Laws only really have a place in two circumstances:

A. The cost or time or effort requirements to judge what to do are too prohibitive, so society defers to some experts to figure it out.

B. If, knowing the facts or not, a person would do an action that will be reasonably likely to harm another.

People have to believe that laws are just for them to respect the system at all. They have to see that speed limits are reasonable, so that when they hit that 5 mph one, they'll think "****, there must be some crazy thing wrong with this road, I'll probably be pretty glad to follow this seemingly low limit". But if it turns out that no, instead the limit is arbitrary, then they won't follow it, or others like it, the next time. The speed limit sign is supposed to be an indicator of risk. If it's wrong, then that acts as a false positive. Insert reference to the boy who cried wolf. Also, people react to injust restrictions on their liberty with defiance. And that's probably a good thing. We in the West have had decent rule by law for only 50 - 300 years, depending on your race and sex. And we've had rule by the sword for tens of thousands of years. So, no, laws have to have real practical reason behind them, otherwise we're honour bound to not follow them.

The video tries to make the point that the speed limit is too slow, however it can just as easily be seen as, lots of people speed which is dangerous to everyone, maybe we should enforce speeding violations better or make them harsher. Speed limits are set and you are expected to follow them regardless of if you think they are too slow. If the penalty was losing your license I guarantee you would not see as many idiots zipping down the highway at 20-30 mph over the speed limit, you'd probably be hard pressed to find someone doing 10 mph over.

Actually, I don't think you've thought the unintended consequences out very well at all. With criminals, who are going to commit a crime anyway, if you raise the punishment to exhorbitant levels, than they're less likely to allow themselves to get caught, and more likely to try to kill the police officer to escape. So, if you take Joe Blow driver who needs his license to get to work to put food on the table for his family, and you say that speeding will make him simply lose his license, then you're entering into a very dangerous situation. Right now, the system has incremental punishment, so we have incremental infraction. But when you make it all or nothing, then you hit a situation where most will bend to the rules, but when the small number of people break the rules, there's no simple failure mode left to them. Think of emotionally charged situations, like where some guy's wife is divorcing him, and he's losing his kids, and likely to lose his job because he can't function. So he has to be on time for work. So he speeds, and gets caught. What's he going to do? Just let his license be taken away, or make a break for it, or try to kill the police? Who knows. With a 50% divorce rate, do we really want to play that game?

Incremental and reasonable punishment is a cornerstone of a functioning legal system and society. You can't just expect people to accept being punished more than they think is reasonable, because then they'll cease to see themselves as being punished, and start to see themselves as being victimised. And most people don't react nicely to that.

 

[yellow]

But not as bad as 50 between I-97 and Rhode Island Avenue. Seriously scary ****.

Awww yeah.. Lil Rhody! <cabbage patch>

 

[IJ Reilly]

So, you've identified a situation elsewhere in your laws that sounds rediculously injust, and you'd like to emulate it elsewhere? Particularly because you are personally unaware of dissent for the situation... Am I supposed to seriously rebut that?

As I said at the outset, it's only a semi-serious proposal. The main purpose of this little exercise is to illustrate the point that many if not most people believe in the strict and unforgiving enforcement of laws that other people violate, but at the same time they are able to manufacture any number of rationalizations for the elimination or lax enforcement of laws that they find personally inconvenient.

Your assumption that speed limit laws are arbitrary only goes towards illustrating my point. While they might be arbitrary in some jurisdictions, by-in-large they are set according to engineering standards and are governed (in the U.S. at least) by state laws. No matter how they are set, though, a large proportion of the population will choose to violate them, secure in the knowledge that they are the safe driver and that their disregard of the law is justified.

If only people behaved as they expect others to behave. What a different sort of world that would be.

 

[atszyman]

I've lost count on how many angles I disagree with your statement...

Speeding is an action that has a certain chance of consequenses to others, and a variable degree of consequences. Theft is an action with guaranteed consequences to others, even in your case of the low degree of consequences. You can try to conjure up some sort of hypocrisy from your lack of understanding of these variables interacting, or I can simply clear it up for you. I don't ever steal. I don't ever do things that I think are even reasonably likely to hurt others. But, I do do things which have some hypothetical chance of harming others, for which I think that my skills will keep them from ever getting harmed. For example, I feel entirely guilt free when I carry my shopping basket around in the grocery store, knowing full well that there does exist some possibility of it slipping out of my hand and stubbing someone's toe. But I have faith in my ability to not drop it. Likewise, I'm reasonably confident that when I close the car door for a woman, that I won't close it on her leg, or her hand as she reaches for the seat belt. I don't feel the need to lobby for restrictions or regulations on closing the door for others because some people aren't quite so dextrous. I also don't feel the need to push the woman over and tie her hands and feet to the steering wheel with duct tape before closing the door. I have faith in her doing part, as she does with me.

Right, what was the point of my inane rambling? I don't do things guaranteed to harm others (like theft). And I don't have a problem doing slightly risky things, because I'm guaging my ability to do it, as I'm doing it, and adjusting accordingly. And I don't appreciate other freaking out about that, simply because they are less capable or know of others less capable. But, I will probably take that into consideration, to some degree, for myself. No hypocrisy.

But average the chance of consequences with the amount of the consequences. The pack of gum cost the retailer $0.12. A car accident can cost thousands of dollars even if no one is hurt. You'd have to steal at least 1000 packs of gum to account for the one time you are unlucky while speeding.

You support following arbitrarily retarded laws? Well, thanks goodness, some people are braver than you, otherwise we'd all be slaves with subservient cowtowing to authority like that.

Sorry, but how normal people operate in everyday life decisions, is they look around and guage what other people are doing, and the consequences others are getting, and find their own comfort zone. Laws only really have a place in two circumstances:

A. The cost or time or effort requirements to judge what to do are too prohibitive, so society defers to some experts to figure it out.

B. If, knowing the facts or not, a person would do an action that will be reasonably likely to harm another.

People have to believe that laws are just for them to respect the system at all. They have to see that speed limits are reasonable, so that when they hit that 5 mph one, they'll think "****, there must be some crazy thing wrong with this road, I'll probably be pretty glad to follow this seemingly low limit". But if it turns out that no, instead the limit is arbitrary, then they won't follow it, or others like it, the next time. The speed limit sign is supposed to be an indicator of risk. If it's wrong, then that acts as a false positive. Insert reference to the boy who cried wolf. Also, people react to injust restrictions on their liberty with defiance. And that's probably a good thing. We in the West have had decent rule by law for only 50 - 300 years, depending on your race and sex. And we've had rule by the sword for tens of thousands of years. So, no, laws have to have real practical reason behind them, otherwise we're honour bound to not follow them.

I don't support arbitrarily stupid laws but I don't go out and break them to get them changed. There are methods to change laws other than breaking them.

You also don't know why the limit was set the way it was. How do you know that the 5 mph zone isn't because a deaf child lives in the vicinity? You could drive through that stretch 100 times and never see anything, decide, damn it, I'm gonna go 25, and find out the hard way there was a kid who couldn't hear the car coming. If you're going to arbitrarily decide to break laws it's probably a good idea to research why the law was set the way it is.

Actually, I don't think you've thought the unintended consequences out very well at all. With criminals, who are going to commit a crime anyway, if you raise the punishment to exhorbitant levels, than they're less likely to allow themselves to get caught, and more likely to try to kill the police officer to escape. So, if you take Joe Blow driver who needs his license to get to work to put food on the table for his family, and you say that speeding will make him simply lose his license, then you're entering into a very dangerous situation. Right now, the system has incremental punishment, so we have incremental infraction. But when you make it all or nothing, then you hit a situation where most will bend to the rules, but when the small number of people break the rules, there's no simple failure mode left to them. Think of emotionally charged situations, like where some guy's wife is divorcing him, and he's losing his kids, and likely to lose his job because he can't function. So he has to be on time for work. So he speeds, and gets caught. What's he going to do? Just let his license be taken away, or make a break for it, or try to kill the police? Who knows. With a 50% divorce rate, do we really want to play that game?

Incremental and reasonable punishment is a cornerstone of a functioning legal system and society. You can't just expect people to accept being punished more than they think is reasonable, because then they'll cease to see themselves as being punished, and start to see themselves as being victimised. And most people don't react nicely to that.

So you start out by saying speeders are criminals and turn them into victims by being punished harshly? If you don't like the speed limit on the road petition the government to have it changed don't just go take the law into your own hands and speed.

Please show me where I said all or nothing. I actually proposed a compromise where you would not lose your license unless you were caught x number of times in so many years.

 

[MacsRgr8]

MarkCollette has got it absolutely right.

You can't compare speeding to theft.
For people to accept the rules, they should at least appear logical.

Take a modern day big safe luxury-car. 55 mph probabaly won't even get it into Top Gear (just had to use the capitals... sorry ).
When that 55 mph limit was introduced, there were very good reasons for it. Oil crisis, and cars weren't as safe as they are now.

Nowadays cars are so much more safer, and can handle more speed far better, that the 55 mph limit really is dated. You feel ridiculous doing 55 in a big Merc orso, especially if the road is almost empty.

Here in Holland the police has to try to finance themselves, and the quickest way to raise money is to enforce the speed limits fanatically. They grab you at the places you feel "most ridiculous" in having to stay under the limit, like a big dual carriageway at the end of the motorway, which seems to be inside the "urban area", and therefore has a limit of 30 mph.
On a normal day, the average speed would be around 40 mph. Psychologically you "think" you are on a road where the limit should be 50 mph.... It doesn't "feel" right, and get annoyed that the limit is so low. And you can't help thinking that the limit is only there because someone drew a line on the map, and simply put the limit there.

 

[QuarterSwede]

One night I was driving home to DC and evidently did something to piss a big semi driver off. This guy was 12" from my bumper pushing me to speeds of 90 mph, and everytime I tried to pull off to the shoulder, he'd just follow me. All the time standing on his horn with his high beams in my face.

It was truly scary. I called #77 and got the local State Police barracks and ten minutes later this guy was still harrassing me. He eventually exited at I-95.

That reminds me of a story my father told me when he was carpooling to D.C. two decades ago. He was in a carpool when a semi literally ran the car off the road. The driver had had it (many years of commuting) and snapped. He got back on the road, passed the semi then got in front of him. He then proceeded to slam on the breaks and ran the semi off the road. My dad said he truly thought he was going to die.

I absolutely abhor driving up 95 because of the amount of absolute careless drivers. I still go the speed limit while people literally fly passed me because thats the only way I don't get stressed out. People can get as mad as they want to that I am going the speed limit in the right lane. Guess what? They're the idiots that are trying to break the law not me. In fact, they are sucking the joy out of driving because people are here are impatient and selfish.

 

[MarkCollette]

As I said at the outset, it's only a semi-serious proposal. The main purpose of this little exercise is to illustrate the point that many if not most people believe in the strict and unforgiving enforcement of laws that other people violate, but at the same time they are able to manufacture any number of rationalizations for the elimination or lax enforcement of laws that they find personally inconvenient.

Ahh, then we have no disagreement, because I don't support that either

Your assumption that speed limit laws are arbitrary only goes towards illustrating my point. While they might be arbitrary in some jurisdictions, by-in-large they are set according to engineering standards and are governed (in the U.S. at least) by state laws. No matter how they are set, though, a large proportion of the population will choose to violate them, secure in the knowledge that they are the safe driver and that their disregard of the law is justified.

If only people behaved as they expect others to behave. What a different sort of world that would be.

My assumption is that enforcement is arbitrary. And I think that some highways' limits are a little low, which most people seem to agree with, since they're all speeding on those particular highways too. That is all.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The whole point that they were proving is that the overall speed limit on I285 (the road they filmed on), which is 55mph, is pretty dangerous; more so than speeding. There are a ton of 18 wheelers due to the way that Atlanta roads are set up. Anyway, the average (actual) speeds are closer to 75-80, but I've had to do around 85-90 to avoid being run over.

55mph is not dangerous, it is the law. What is dangerous is idiots that feel that they above the law.

Best question yet: Where are the police and what are they doing?

Adults acting like preschoolers. I don't even like to drive anymore. It's insanity out there.

I have had conversations with many elected officials here in Virginia about the lack of traffic enforcement on our highways. They all sing the same song that when they travel around the state, they see no speeding. Why would they? They generally have a police escort! So far none have taken me up on my offer to spend a few hours riding with me (without a police escort) to see the real problem.

When the police are there, IMO the fines are too low in an area like ours. What does a $200-300 ticket mean to someone that can afford a $70K car and to close a million dollar home?

Once again, I will offer my "three strikes" proposal for speeders: Three speeding tickets, and you lose your license to drive, for life.

From your lips to God's ears.

 

[jdechko]

MarkCollette, I agree that there ought to be more to establishing a "safe" speed limit than just what some congressman thinks. Engineering calculations and traffic density (as well as the weather/time of day) have a lot to do with what's considered "safe". I used to live off of some country roads and the limit there was 55mph... heck, the road I actually did live off of had a limit of 55, as did many of the other roads in the area... I had to re-learn to slow down when I moved into the city. But it was all right then because the roads were designed for it: more gentle inclines/declines and larger curve radii. Heck, that's one of the reasons that parts of the Autobahn are without a speed limit... the Germans take care of that road like a baby (I'm not sure about their other roads). There aren't any potholes on the Autobahn and people know to stay the h*** out of the left lane.

I also agree that enforcement, or a lack thereof, tends to be a problem, and when it does exist, it's grossly inadequate. I think that these two problems are the biggest ones when it comes to speeding at an unsafe level: improperly defined speed limits, and lack of proper enforcement.

55mph is not dangerous, it is the law. What is dangerous is idiots that feel that they above the law.

Oh I agree with you, Chip. They are dangerous and a real problem. I almost got creamed a little over a week ago by a guy going about 90-100. We were in a 70 zone and I was probably doing around 78-80 coming up along side a semi, when this guy decided to cut between me and the truck. But it also doesn't help when the limits are set arbitrarily lower than what they safely could be set at. (See above).

 

[MacsRgr8]

That's another problem.

Irritation and impatience on the road.
We all have to get to work at the same times, in the same places... and want to get there asap.
Congestion and an early morning depression leads to aggression. And once the road is free again, the pedal gets to the metal, and there we go....

In today's world it is so hard to stay relaxed. A couple of years ago, your car was a safe haven. A sanctuary from the stresses of work, because you were all alone sitting comfortably listening to the radio. Today, thanks to mobile communication, you are hardly ever left alone.
You are making decisions, planning your day before you even start working officially. Bad "mobile meetings" gets you worked up and stressed, and then you hit congestion....
Then, finally... finally... a piece of open road... the battery of your cell phone is dead... the sun starts to shine... a great song on the radio... you forget to watch the speedo.............. you get caught!!

 

[QuarterSwede]

I think that these two problems are the biggest ones when it comes to speeding at an unsafe level: improperly defined speed limits, and lack of proper enforcement.

Don't forget congestion. That is the main reason people in Northern VA speed. No one wants to feel like they are trapped and that is the feeling you get when you drive on a highway that is full of cars and trucks. People simply want to get off the roads as fast as they can.

 

[jdechko]

Don't forget congestion. That is the main reason people in Northern VA speed. No one wants to feel like they are trapped and that is the feeling you get when you drive on a highway that is full of cars and trucks. People simply want to get off the roads as fast as they can.

Yeah, I kinda had that included in the "improperly defined speed limits" category under the sub-point of traffic density.

Anyway, I found this yesterday, and I thought it was pretty interesting.

This chart shows areawide
congestion and reliability
patterns. The difference
between the solid line
(travel time index) and the
dashed line (planning time
index) is the additional
“buffer” or “time cushion”
that travelers must add to
average trip times to ensure
95% on-time arrival.
• The evening congestion
level is much higher than in
the morning.
• Travelers must add 30-40%
additional buffer time
during peak times to
account for traffic
unreliability.

[PDF]

 

[MarkCollette]

But average the chance of consequences with the amount of the consequences. The pack of gum cost the retailer $0.12. A car accident can cost thousands of dollars even if no one is hurt. You'd have to steal at least 1000 packs of gum to account for the one time you are unlucky while speeding.

Look, it's your decision to simplify your risk assessments down to simple multiplication. But please stop trying to grasp at straws of everyone else being hypocritical when we don't share your flawed formula.

Heck, I'll throw you a bone, and say that a car collision is more likely to cause bodily harm to a person, while an infinite number of packs of gum won't. And many legal jurisdictions take bodily harm as a much more serious offense than loss of property.

Regardless, your linear multiplication model is simply not relevant.

I don't support arbitrarily stupid laws but I don't go out and break them to get them changed. There are methods to change laws other than breaking them.

Actually, when looking at what a law should be, the actions of what people are currently doing tends to be highly relevant. That's why it's more effective, when trying to change a law, to have people already breaking it.

You also don't know why the limit was set the way it was. How do you know that the 5 mph zone isn't because a deaf child lives in the vicinity? You could drive through that stretch 100 times and never see anything, decide, damn it, I'm gonna go 25, and find out the hard way there was a kid who couldn't hear the car coming. If you're going to arbitrarily decide to break laws it's probably a good idea to research why the law was set the way it is.

You specifically described a situation where a town had just decided to set whatever speed limit and said that we'd just have to suck it up and follow them. I was the one who showed that it has to follow an actual rationale for people to follow it, so that when it's seemingly too low they'll trust its necessity. I'm glad you agree with me

So you start out by saying speeders are criminals and turn them into victims by being punished harshly? If you don't like the speed limit on the road petition the government to have it changed don't just go take the law into your own hands and speed.

It has nothing to do with me turning anyone into anything. I'm saying that people need to feel that consequences fit actions, otherwise they have no incentive to act properly once they've broken a rule. Think of it like this: Say your child took your iPod without asking. Upon confrontation, they know they were wrong, even though when they took it they might have used whatever rationale to excuse it. If you reasonably punish them, like ground them for a week, then they'll know they deserve to be grounded, and will stay in their room. But if you tell them that they're grounded for a year and will only get one meal a day, then they'll probably run away from home, and not even stay for that first week. The excessiveness of the punishment has worsened the situation for both of you. They will perceive themselves as being victimised, and will then react against you harshly. Can you see how a person who is in the wrong may be victimised, or at least see themselves that way?

Please show me where I said all or nothing. I actually proposed a compromise where you would not lose your license unless you were caught x number of times in so many years.

Right, but we have that already, or at least any place with demerits has that already. For examply, in Alberta if you get 15 demerits within 3 years your license will be suspended. Which is probably equivalent to getting caught speeding 5-7 times. But even then, that suspension will only last for some limited amount of time, probably less than a year. And then you can drive again.

But that's greatly different than getting caught speeding 3 times in 3 years (half as much, approximately), and then losing your license for life.

You could conceivable be going through one of many temporary problems in your life, never have hurt anyone at all, and have life-long consequences. How would you accept that if it happenned to you? What about 5 years from now? 10 years? What about when you're an old man, wanting to see your grand children, and you can't, because of a silly time you went through when you were 22 years old, where you didn't even get in an accident?

 

[SkyBell]

First of all, no, not kidding. Not entirely at least. If the three-strikes logic works for other violations of the law, surely it could work for this one.

That being said, I'd go for the compromise of three tickets within a ten year period. Anyone who's caught speeding more than once every three-four years is a danger to everybody on the road and has demonstrated a disregard for the law. People like that should lose their driving privileges.

Just because people get lot of tickets, doesn't mean they are bad drivers; it just means they got caught. Most people can't say they've never gotten a ticket. (Yes, I do realize I'm about to be proved wrong by a lot of people saying they've never had a ticket. ) My mom? she's gotten about 3. My dad? 2. My best friends mom? 8.

Doesn't mean they are bad drivers, just becasue they have gotten tickets. It means they got a little impatiant.

3 tickets in 10 YEARS? When many people drive to work 300 days a year? C'mon! People are going to be impaitint. They are going to speed. The unlucky ones get caught. give 'em a break.

 

[atszyman]

Look, it's your decision to simplify your risk assessments down to simple multiplication. But please stop trying to grasp at straws of everyone else being hypocritical when we don't share your flawed formula.

Heck, I'll throw you a bone, and say that a car collision is more likely to cause bodily harm to a person, while an infinite number of packs of gum won't. And many legal jurisdictions take bodily harm as a much more serious offense than loss of property.

Regardless, your linear multiplication model is simply not relevant.

I'll throw out the theft analogy. I realize it is flawed but aren't all analogies flawed by definition? I realize that every time I steal a pack of gum I'm hurting the store owner but I don't necessarily hurt anyone when I speed on an empty road. But the potential for greater harm if someone cuts you off obeying the law and going the speed limit is much greater than what is incurred even over thousands of tiny thefts.

You specifically described a situation where a town had just decided to set whatever speed limit and said that we'd just have to suck it up and follow them. I was the one who showed that it has to follow an actual rationale for people to follow it, so that when it's seemingly too low they'll trust its necessity. I'm glad you agree with me

Does that mean you have researched exactly how the speed limit on the roads you disagree with was established? Do you know for a fact that they are set due to the oil shortages in the 70s or are you assuming that's the reason? If you found out that these were the result of the engineering calculations would you then obey the speed limit on that road regardless of if it "felt wrong?"

It has nothing to do with me turning anyone into anything. I'm saying that people need to feel that consequences fit actions, otherwise they have no incentive to act properly once they've broken a rule. Think of it like this: Say your child took your iPod without asking. Upon confrontation, they know they were wrong, even though when they took it they might have used whatever rationale to excuse it. If you reasonably punish them, like ground them for a week, then they'll know they deserve to be grounded, and will stay in their room. But if you tell them that they're grounded for a year and will only get one meal a day, then they'll probably run away from home, and not even stay for that first week. The excessiveness of the punishment has worsened the situation for both of you. They will perceive themselves as being victimised, and will then react against you harshly. Can you see how a person who is in the wrong may be victimised, or at least see themselves that way?

Right, but we have that already, or at least any place with demerits has that already. For examply, in Alberta if you get 15 demerits within 3 years your license will be suspended. Which is probably equivalent to getting caught speeding 5-7 times. But even then, that suspension will only last for some limited amount of time, probably less than a year. And then you can drive again.

But that's greatly different than getting caught speeding 3 times in 3 years (half as much, approximately), and then losing your license for life.

You could conceivable be going through one of many temporary problems in your life, never have hurt anyone at all, and have life-long consequences. How would you accept that if it happenned to you? What about 5 years from now? 10 years? What about when you're an old man, wanting to see your grand children, and you can't, because of a silly time you went through when you were 22 years old, where you didn't even get in an accident?

I specifically mentioned that most places I've lived allow you to get out of one ticket every year by taking defensive driving. That ups the tally to 6 tickets in 3 years identical to your demerit system. Maybe it should be a longer suspension than a year, maybe the suspensions should start earlier, like at the second ticket.

Sometimes many people breaking the law is a sign that the punishment is not harsh enough. Lot's of people litter, I've seen fines that get up to as high as $500 for littering. That seems excessive to me but does that mean we should lower the fine? Should I start throwing trash out my car window in protest? I know it's another flawed analogy.

Your speeding does not only affect you, the way you drive affects everyone else on the road. You can argue that the limit should be higher in some places and you may be right but if you don't research why it is set as low as it is you don't have any grounds to stand on saying that your speeding is justified or that the punishments are too harsh.

As for the transgressions of your youth or rough patches in life these could be applied to any other "three strikes" laws are they too harsh? I would argue that if my license were going to be suspended after 6 tickets I would be making damn sure after the third ticket that I was on my best driving behavior for the next three years at least to avoid even coming close. If people are getting hit with tickets that often and still speeding then it's probably good evidence that they have a problem or the punishment is not much of a deterrent.

 

[jdechko]

If people are getting hit with tickets that often and still speeding then it's probably good evidence that they have a problem or the punishment is not much of a deterrent.

It's a really good point, and I believe that it applies to greater crimes with greater punishments as well, but for risk of turning this into a political debate and getting it moved, or locked, I'll just leave it at that and say that it seems like a lot of potential punishments don't prevent people from breaking the law. Crime still happens every day, just watch the news... and these are more severe crimes with more severe punishments, yet they happen.

Even though I think the "3 strikes" at 15+ law is far, I'm sure that there would still be a good percentage of the population that would lose their license.

 

[IJ Reilly]

My assumption is that enforcement is arbitrary. And I think that some highways' limits are a little low, which most people seem to agree with, since they're all speeding on those particular highways too. That is all.

No laws are enforced with perfect uniformity. Does this mean they are arbitrary? A lot of laws are broken frequently. Does this mean they should be changed or not enforced? I think your argument hit the logical speed limit. It throws right/wrong safe/unsafe right out the window as rationales for what should or should not be allowed.

I've gone nearly 35 years with only one speeding ticket. It is not difficult to drive lawfully. All it takes is the desire.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Just because people get lot of tickets, doesn't mean they are bad drivers; it just means they got caught. Most people can't say they've never gotten a ticket. (Yes, I do realize I'm about to be proved wrong by a lot of people saying they've never had a ticket. ) My mom? she's gotten about 3. My dad? 2. My best friends mom? 8.

Doesn't mean they are bad drivers, just becasue they have gotten tickets. It means they got a little impatiant.

3 tickets in 10 YEARS? When many people drive to work 300 days a year? C'mon! People are going to be impaitint. They are going to speed. The unlucky ones get caught. give 'em a break.

Sorry, but if a person gets a lot of tickets, then they are a problem driver. They may (only may) have a good grasp on handling the vehicle, but they are demonstrating a poor grasp of the rules of the road, which is at least half of the battle. If you don't believe me, ask your insurance company.

Impatience is not a virtue on the road. A large part of being a good driver is developing patience. Hardly anyone doesn't make mistakes, but speeding is hardly ever a mistake. It's done deliberately by people who think the law does not apply to them. To get caught a lot means violating the law a lot. Luck has very little to do with it.

 

[Thanatoast]

No laws are enforced with perfect uniformity. Does this mean they are arbitrary? A lot of laws are broken frequently. Does this mean they should be changed or not enforced? I think your argument hit the logical speed limit. It throws right/wrong safe/unsafe right out the window as rationales for what should or should not be allowed.

I've gone nearly 35 years with only one speeding ticket. It is not difficult to drive lawfully. All it takes is the desire.

Three strikes laws are arbitrary by definition. On the third offense, whether knocking over a bank or stealing a packet of Twinkies from the 7-11, the criminal gets a minimum of what, 15 years? Now, does it make sense to lock up a hardened Twinkie-thief for 15 years? The benefit/cost ratio of that propostion is a wee bit off.

With speeding, at least on I-25 southbound through the tech center, the left lane regularly passes 75 mph. That's not just me, it's everyone in the lane during the morning rush. The lanes to our right are often no slouches, either. This means that that stretch of highway is regularly traveling 10, even 20 mph over the limit in places. Contrary to stated theory, there is little carnage on I-25. Does this mean that all the drivers on the road are reckless drivers who are inches away from death, or that the speed limit doesn't take into account all the factors it should?

Speeding tickets are a terrible way to enforce speed limits. What happens when there are flashing lights ahead? The entire highway, which was moving ahead just fine before, slows down, sometimes quite suddenly. Everything gets jammed up. Rubber-neckers (the true criminals in this story) cause lost time, money, gasoline and brake pads.

I've got no problem giving tickets to reckless drivers, like the gentlemen mentioned above who cut between the car and the semi, but speed alone is not a problem, as the drivers on I-25 every weekday morning have shown through experience. Give people tickets for driving stupid, not for driving fast.

 

[MarkCollette]

I'll throw out the theft analogy. I realize it is flawed but aren't all analogies flawed by definition? I realize that every time I steal a pack of gum I'm hurting the store owner but I don't necessarily hurt anyone when I speed on an empty road. But the potential for greater harm if someone cuts you off obeying the law and going the speed limit is much greater than what is incurred even over thousands of tiny thefts.

I agree that the potential for greater harm exists. But if people truly don't believe that that harm will occur, then they won't change their behavior. So I guess there a solution is that if people are out of sync with the true danger, to educate people them about that. But personally, I respond better to hearing statistics, rather than fear mongering, which I reject out of hand. But, probably most people respond otherwise.

Does that mean you have researched exactly how the speed limit on the roads you disagree with was established? Do you know for a fact that they are set due to the oil shortages in the 70s or are you assuming that's the reason? If you found out that these were the result of the engineering calculations would you then obey the speed limit on that road regardless of if it "felt wrong?"

I was talking in regards to the American situation, since that's what the video was about. For my personal life, I have lived and driven in the same area for over six years. I don't randomly cruise around new places breaking all the rules. But I'm pretty sure that for the places that I go, with the experience that I have, that yes, my feelings are an accurate guage. I trust my instincts because empirically they have proven themselves.

I specifically mentioned that most places I've lived allow you to get out of one ticket every year by taking defensive driving. That ups the tally to 6 tickets in 3 years identical to your demerit system. Maybe it should be a longer suspension than a year, maybe the suspensions should start earlier, like at the second ticket.

Personally, I don't see that the situation needs to change much. And if it did, I'd rather do something else than punish people more. I think that creatively redirecting a flow of activity is better than forcefully smashing into it. Also, personally, I don't want to live in a climate of fear. Fear that some little mistake will screw me over horribly. So, I simply will not agree with you about this approach of harsher punishment. But I do like your encouragement of people to take defensive driving courses.

Sometimes many people breaking the law is a sign that the punishment is not harsh enough. Lot's of people litter, I've seen fines that get up to as high as $500 for littering. That seems excessive to me but does that mean we should lower the fine? Should I start throwing trash out my car window in protest? I know it's another flawed analogy.

I don't like litter either. I never litter. I've carried little peices of garbage for kilometers. I feel bad if even my pocket lint falls on the ground when I'm trying to get change out of my pockets. And it freaking annoys the hell out of me how smokers always litter. In fact, thinking about that is really pissing me off right now. And I hope to hell that one day some police officer will walk around and fine those bastards so they'll clue in.

But, do I want anyone to get a $500 ticket? No. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. Do I want someone utterly screwed just because they totally piss me off? No, not really.

I guess I should actually answer your question though I think this falls back in to the theft analogy though. If I speed, the only thing I'm sure of is that I'm travelling faster. Everything else is a risk assessment. But with litter, I'm guaranteed to have polluted, and made things worse for everyone. Plus it's persistant. If Joe Blow drives fast, he's risking people for that time period, and then it's over. If he hits someone the consequences persist, but if he doesn't then there's no lasting physical effect. Whereas the litter will always have that persisting degrading effect.

Your speeding does not only affect you, the way you drive affects everyone else on the road. You can argue that the limit should be higher in some places and you may be right but if you don't research why it is set as low as it is you don't have any grounds to stand on saying that your speeding is justified or that the punishments are too harsh.

I trust my judgement enough that I don't think I need a bunch of experts telling me things that I can figure out for myself just fine. I mean, I simply don't drive on some little rural road that twists and curves. I really only drive under the following conditions:

Playground zone:
Always drive the limit, with foot on brake, carefully watching

Residential road:
I go the limit plus maybe ten, depending mostly on pedestrian traffic, but also obviously on car traffic

In city highways:
I go as fast as feels right, which tends to put me at or above every one else's speed. If I see a large stretch of open road, I'll go fast in it. If it's congested traffic, I don't bother trying to go fast, pass or weave, because it just doesn't get you ahead, and just risks collisions. Actually, I think that my faster driving here is safer, because I tend to pull ahead of the pack, and then just stay in front, so I don't have to worry about others hitting me or vice versa.

Out of city highways:
Mostly like the in city driving, but somehow out of the city people know to stay right and let you pass on the left, which allows me to go a bit faster. But I'm usually watching the whole next kilometer of road, so I can react to whatever's going on. Like for example, if I see two cars ahead, I know that one of them will probably randomly go into my passing lane to pass the other, so I can't just buzz by them both.

As for the transgressions of your youth or rough patches in life these could be applied to any other "three strikes" laws are they too harsh? I would argue that if my license were going to be suspended after 6 tickets I would be making damn sure after the third ticket that I was on my best driving behavior for the next three years at least to avoid even coming close. If people are getting hit with tickets that often and still speeding then it's probably good evidence that they have a problem or the punishment is not much of a deterrent.

Maybe. But the question is, do you want every single day for three years, to be stressed out, worrying that some little infraction will totally screw you over? Personally, I like being relaxed and not stressed out.