Speed kills. 55...too slow.

[MarkCollette]

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.

No, it's two separate issues whether the law itself is arbitrary, and if its enforcement is arbitrary. But, there's a third issue where the line drawn for a law is sufficiently under what's acceptable, to make catching people all the easier. That's what clouds the issue. And that's what makes the law appear arbitrary, which is only ameliorated when there is selective enforcement, only of aggrievous offenders.

Like I said before, the video is trying to draw attention to this situation, but does not find a remedy. They naively assume that speed limits should simply be increased to the rates that people actually drive at. And a part of me agrees with that, except then we lose the ability to easily prosecute the real trouble makers. You guys propose the remedy of greater punishment, while I prefer a more targetted enforcement of people who are truly making conditions dangerous. And I don't think that exceeding a posted speed limit will necessarily constitute that. Basically, if I'm going to be arbitrarily enforced, then I'd like the greater limit, but if they can intelligently enforce, then the status quo is fine for me.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

My proposal is a least a little bit arch. I know that. But again, the idea here is to point out that laws exist to protect people from the behavior of others, and traffic laws are no exception. Nobody is entitled to decide that the law doesn't "feel" right to them and use that as a rationale for violating it at will, as though they are protesting some sort of infringement on their civil liberties. We don't accept this logic when applied to other law-breakers, not by any stretch of the imagination, and we go so far as to pass somewhat arbitrary three-strikes laws just to drive the message home that habitual violators will not be tolerated.

It's also worth pointing out that half of all drivers are below average in skills and knowledge. But I'm willing to bet that probably 90% of all drivers firmly believe they are average or better. Ego is such a huge factor in driving, and this is the problem not the solution. I think ego is the reason why many people think they are entitled to violate traffic safety laws whenever it "feels" right to them. Keep that in mind the next time somebody tailgates you for "only" doing 10 MPH over the speed limit, and makes you the problem, not him. It explains a lot, I think.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, it's two separate issues whether the law itself is arbitrary, and if its enforcement is arbitrary. But, there's a third issue where the line drawn for a law is sufficiently under what's acceptable, to make catching people all the easier. That's what clouds the issue. And that's what makes the law appear arbitrary, which is only ameliorated when there is selective enforcement, only of aggrievous offenders.

Like I said before, the video is trying to draw attention to this situation, but does not find a remedy. They naively assume that speed limits should simply be increased to the rates that people actually drive at. And a part of me agrees with that, except then we lose the ability to easily prosecute the real trouble makers. You guys propose the remedy of greater punishment, while I prefer a more targetted enforcement of people who are truly making conditions dangerous. And I don't think that exceeding a posted speed limit will necessarily constitute that. Basically, if I'm going to be arbitrarily enforced, then I'd like the greater limit, but if they can intelligently enforce, then the status quo is fine for me.

IOW, if an impossible standard can be met, you'll be satisfied.

As I've said, hardly anybody thinks of themselves as a substandard driver. It's always somebody else who's the problem, even people who acknowledge, as you have, that they violate the law whenever it suits their purposes, or moods, or schedule, or whatever criteria any given person applies at any given moment. The bottom line is, the only guideline that matters is their own feelings, because the laws are arbitrary, unjust, or whatever.

Ego. It's one the main reasons why 40,000 people die on U.S. roads every year. If a disease caused that many deaths, we'd all be demanding a cure. But since in this case, since it's all about our pleasure, convenience and self-image, an entirely unique metric is manufactured to rationalize why it has to stay that way.

 

[840quadra]

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

I go the speed limit every day, and prefer to be that way. Our states rural interstate speed limit is 70 MPH and suburb interstate speeds are 60. Those speeds are fast enough for me, especially when I can go as fast as I want during track events I attend during the year. However, I also end up speeding allot, and I haven't had a ticket in 11 years. ( I haven't even been alive for over 29 years so I cannot beat your record)

You may now be asking yourself "Wait, if the speed limit is fast enough for you, why do you also speed?"

Low traffic situations I am going the speed limit on my local highway (60mph), as well, I make time to go someplace and don't need to rush. However I will, and do speed when I am with medium to high traffic load that is going above the speed limit. It isn't safe going the limit when 80% of the traffic is going 65+. I don't care what the law says about speed limits in those situations as the legal speed isn't safe in those conditions.

I do respect the law and follow it, but I will not risk my life, the life of my passengers, others on the road, or my property by causing others to do excessive lane changes to get around me. I am aware that I am breaking the law, but my safety and the safety of others outweighs that issue in those situations.

This article from local media gives examples as to why I act the way I do in traffic situations. I am also happy that our local law enforcement is cracking down on speed! I personally don't mind 4 - 5 mile per hour law breakers as some of that can be casued by equipment issues, or other people like me that just chose to go with the slightly faster flow of traffic.

I have been pulled over once going 66 in a 55, however I wasn't ticketed as I was both honest, and polite to the officer. I also was open to him that I did deserve a ticket as I was knowingly breaking the law, but wanted to travel with the safe flow of traffic. It was at that moment when I realized that he pulled me over for having a burnt out tail light, not for speeding!

I am glad you go the speed limit IJ, however your strict mindset to do so would not be safe in my state. You would be indirectly risking your life, and the lives of others. Granted that is a chance we all take getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I am glad you go the speed limit IJ, however your strict mindset to do so would not be safe in my state. You would be indirectly risking your life, and the lives of others. Granted that is a chance we all take getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

I try, but I don't make an obsession out of it, nor do I make an obstruction out of myself. My rule of thumb is to make sure that at least as many people are passing me as I am passing. This is almost never an issue as generally more than half of the drivers on the freeways are are 15+ over the limit and I have no desire or reason to drive that fast. If you're not "pushing" the traffic flow, the chances of you getting ticketed for speeding are very small. I think if people who get a lot of tickets followed this rule they'd suddenly find themselves becoming far more "lucky."

 

[840quadra]

I try, but I don't make an obsession out of it, nor do I make an obstruction out of myself. My rule of thumb is to make sure that at least as many people are passing me as I am passing. This is almost never an issue as generally more than half of the drivers on the freeways are are 15+ over the limit and I have no desire or reason to drive that fast. If you're not "pushing" the traffic flow, the chances of you getting ticketed for speeding are very small. I think if people who get a lot of tickets followed this rule they'd suddenly find themselves becoming far more "lucky."

That is what I tell my fellow European car driving friends. Yes our cars are safe, fast, and fun to drive, but it gives us no more right to speed than others.

I am usually in the middle of the pack too, anything more is asking for attention, and if you go slower you are just a moving road block!

 

[atszyman]

...

I guess we're stuck in a disagreement here, although I suspect it's not quite as bad as it sounds due to the impersonal nature of the forums.

I guess my main concern is that this video attempts to make a case for the speed limit on a certain highway being set to low, but does so very poorly. They didn't bother to research why the limit is what it is they instead go and pull a fairly stupid and dangerous stunt to try to prove their point.

I see them making a better case for, lots of people speed so we need to try to do something to curb speeding since this is what can happen if a few people actually obey the law.

I should mention that not speeding, albeit a worthy goal, is not something I myself am extremely capable of. I do tend to go faster than posted and I have had 2 speeding tickets in my life 7 and 5 years ago. Stiffer penalties would definitely cause me to think twice. I am currently aided by the fact that my normal vehicles speedometer is 2.5 mph fast so when I go 5 over I'm really only 2.5 over which gives me some buffer room when doing 70 in a 65. My wife's car, unfortunately, is correct.

 

[AP_piano295]

I wouldnt say it is overly difficult to make a distinction between arbitrary traffic laws and those founded in logic. A law is arbitrary when it has no grounds in logic yes you can perfectly obey the speed limmit but if it safe (I define safe as-While observing the conditions of the road behavior of the vehicles around you and other possible origins of danger you are capable or reacting to any change in the road without causing damage.) Basically what I mean is that if I am driving over the speed limit and the car in front of me were to slam on his breaks for no reason I would be able to react to that without endangering myself or any other drivers.

I dont think that it is allright for me to break the speed limmit because i'm some sort of excellent driver. I think that it is ok to break the speed limmit if within the violation of that law you are capable of reacting to any forseeable problem. (thus distinguishing and arbitrary law)

As for the argument "what if a deaf child lives on that street" I would consider a child (or even an adult) doing something stupid as a forseeable problem and the way you a driving you should be prepared for it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I dont think that it is allright for me to break the speed limmit because i'm some sort of excellent driver. I think that it is ok to break the speed limmit if within the violation of that law you are capable of reacting to any forseeable problem. (thus distinguishing and arbitrary law)

But of course, you have no way of really knowing this. When it happens you have only one chance to get it right, and no practice beforehand. In fact, very few people have more than the remotest grasp of how speed influences their reaction and stopping distances, or the other basic rules of driving physics. How do you judge safe following distances, for example? It's a simple rule-of-thumb, but I'll bet not one driver in twenty knows the answer.

That's why we have traffic regulations, including speed limits. We can't have everyone deciding for themselves what is safe, if only because for the most part, people have very little idea what's safe, and their lack of knowledge endangers everyone else. The laws are not arbitrary simply because you don't know why they exist.

 

[true777]

This same thing was done in Austria (my home country) more than 10 years ago. Members of Greenpeace (I think) drove the whole stretch of Autobahn between Vienna and Salzburg (150 miles) at EXACTLY the legal speed limit (in Austria 80mph) in all lanes, forcing everyone on the freeway to drive the legal speed limit.

They did this to remind people that driving at higher speeds causes much greater emissions than driving at lower speeds.

I do think it made sense, because the Austrian highway speed limit of 80mph seems fairly sensible, and we have lots of people who annoy and endanger everyone else by going 120+ mph, and yes, cause much greater emissions than they'd cause at 80mph.

Austria is considering raising the speed limit to 100mph on particularly safe, straight stretches of highway, though, because few people obey the 80mhp limit on those stretches.

I have to add though that in Austria, in order to renew your car registration, your car has to pass a rigorous annual safety inspection that checks the engine, brakes, tire condition, etc. If your car fails, you can't renew your registration. This means that we don't have dangerous junk cars from the 80s with bad brakes and bad tires on our roads, so the 80mph limit seems pretty safe. In the US, such rigorous annual inspections wouldn't work since there's no good public transit, and so many low-income people depend on cheap cars that may not be in prime condition. In Austria, lower income people who can't afford a car typically just take public transit and it's no big deal.

 

[KingYaba]

The police have been very visable the past two weeks. Gives me a warm feeling that despite being 200 officers short, our po-po's are out gettin' speeders. Such a valuable use of their time.

 

[DMPDX]

You really need to give me back 5 minutes of my life. At least put a warning in your post saying how you will be angry with you after you waist your time watching that. it would be nice

 

[jdechko]

How do you judge safe following distances, for example? It's a simple rule-of-thumb, but I'll bet not one driver in twenty knows the answer.

On the interstates, I usually try to leave about 3 or so car lengths minimum between myself and the car in front of me. Any more and you get people cutting you off which is probably even more dangerous than the situation you'd be in otherwise.

I don't know if it's the "rule-of-thumb" that you're referring to, but for speeds ~45mph (surface streets), I usually try to follow the "two-second rule" staying 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Is this what you were talking about?

 

[IJ Reilly]

On the interstates, I usually try to leave about 3 or so car lengths minimum between myself and the car in front of me. Any more and you get people cutting you off which is probably even more dangerous than the situation you'd be in otherwise.

I don't know if it's the "rule-of-thumb" that you're referring to, but for speeds ~45mph (surface streets), I usually try to follow the "two-second rule" staying 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Is this what you were talking about?

The two-second rule, right. That should be the minimum. Three seconds is even better. This is even more important at higher speeds, btw. Those two or three car-lengths at 70 MPH probably amount to less than a second separation, not nearly enough to save your skin if the driver in front of you slams on his brakes. I recognize the cut-off problem, but the solution to that is to slow down a bit and rebuild that separation if possible.

 

[mrbrown]

Yup.

It was, in some areas. Others kept to 55.

70 in most of the South and midwest, 55-65 on the east and west coasts, 75 in Montana, up to 80 in rural Texas.e

 

[840quadra]

How do you judge safe following distances, for example? It's a simple rule-of-thumb, but I'll bet not one driver in twenty knows the answer..

Not sure if this is your key answer however this is what I learned on the track with instructors help and supervision. (Combo race school, and real life defensive driving exam)

1. Know your reaction time when paying attention. (This is total time it takes for you to react to a situation, and act accordingly by steering, or touching the brake pedal).

2. Know your reaction time when distracted. In my case the instructor distracted me with conversation, and or other topics to get my attention away from the road. With a high speed camera and microphone in the car, he found the exact time it took for my foot to depress the brake pedal, after he yelled stop.

3. Add the average number of those two tests with 3 seconds or more ( I usually go 4). That is your baseline for the minimum gap you can have between your car and someone else's in ideal situations. So, depending on your reaction time, and the layout of your pedals in your car or truck, your number should be 4 - 6 second gap between cars.

You can judge the time by either watching a line or crack on the road being passed over by the car in front of you, and count until that line or crack is passed by the front of your car. This method should also give you enough room to stop, if your car or truck has lesser brakes than the vehicle in front of you.

This is basically a version of the 3 second rule, that takes your reaction time, and car setup into consideration. And like the normal 3 second rule the distance between cars should grow the faster you go.

 

[EMKoper]

3. Add the average number of those two tests with 3 seconds or more ( I usually go 4). That is your baseline for the minimum gap you can have between your car and someone else's in ideal situations. So, depending on your reaction time, and the layout of your pedals in your car or truck, your number should be 4 - 6 second gap between cars.

You can judge the time by either watching a line or crack on the road being passed over by the car in front of you, and count until that line or crack is passed by the front of your car.

Wouldn't watching lines and dedicating brain cycles to estimating the "time" you are following count as a distraction? Most shutter at basic math even while not driving... if you weren't doing all this math in your head, you could follow a second or two closer and be just as safe by just concentrating on the car in front of you...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Wouldn't watching lines and dedicating brain cycles to estimating the "time" you are following count as a distraction? Most shutter at basic math even while not driving... if you weren't doing all this math in your head, you could follow a second or two closer and be just as safe by just concentrating on the car in front of you...

Not really, no. This isn't an exercise you have to do continuously. You can quickly become a good judge of the three seconds following distance at different speeds without counting, and only do an actual count once in a while as a reality check. (It's not math, it's counting to three.) If ever you have the question in your own mind "am I too close?" the answer is almost instantaneous. The idea is to incorporate good judgement into your driving habits. Besides, you should not be concentrating on the car in front of you. Your eyes should be scanning constantly from mirrors to windshield with an occasional check of the blind spot.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I would like to point out to everyone that 45-55 mph is still about the speed where you get the base mpg (depending on the car). Yes even on modern cars made today. It is 4 times harder on your car to go 70mph than it is to go 55mph (wind repentance).

There is a noticeable difference reduction in gas mileage on my car when I go from 70 mph to 75mph and at the same token a noticeable increase when I drop down to 65mph. About 1-2mpg difference. This is based on the 600 mile trip from home to school I make several times a year and yes it has been repeated a few times. I get 31-32mpg when I average 70 but up that to 75 and I get 28mph. Also might like to add that my car is a 2004 Sentra SE-R Spec V.

With that being said I don’t like 55mph speed limits in a lot of area and do think it is 2 slow. Also might like to add it is more dangerous at times to go the speed limit than it is to speed. Driving though downtown Houston on my way home I do not look at my speedo from the north part of beltway 8 to the south side of it. Reason is because there is 2 much traffic to take my eyes off the road. I am keep track of all the cars around me. 2-3 car lengths between cars. And yes you have to make lane changes with that type of room and deal with cars moving in front of you with that much room and not be fazed. I have seen the speed go as high as 80mph and other times are as low as 50mph. (Speed limit 60mph). The safest speed is the speed of traffic going slower than the speed of traffic is what cause wrecks. In Houston when the speed limit was drop to 55mph wrecks increase on Houston roads during that time.

Also the laws are worded to allow for going over the limit if traffic is going that speed. It is the safest speed.

 

[AP_piano295]

But of course, you have no way of really knowing this. When it happens you have only one chance to get it right, and no practice beforehand. In fact, very few people have more than the remotest grasp of how speed influences their reaction and stopping distances, or the other basic rules of driving physics. How do you judge safe following distances, for example? It's a simple rule-of-thumb, but I'll bet not one driver in twenty knows the answer.

That's why we have traffic regulations, including speed limits. We can't have everyone deciding for themselves what is safe, if only because for the most part, people have very little idea what's safe, and their lack of knowledge endangers everyone else. The laws are not arbitrary simply because you don't know why they exist.

Well its happened once so far I was driving to school going 45 (ten mph over the speed limmit as that's the general speed driven on this particular road) someone ahead of me slammed on the breaks for a squirel (yes bad decision on his part) but at the distance I was following (at 10 mph over the speed limmit) I did not have to slam on my breaks and had time to check my rear view mirror and control my breaking to make sure i didnt get rear ended.

 

[MarkCollette]

IOW, if an impossible standard can be met, you'll be satisfied.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attempt to distill my arguments into some incorrect single sentence.

I simply said that if the law can be more intelligently enforced, then that would be great, otherwise if the police are going to ticket willy nilly (maybe because they have a quota), then it's be nice if the limits went up a bit to compensate. I have no idea what is impossible about that situation.

As I've said, hardly anybody thinks of themselves as a substandard driver. It's always somebody else who's the problem, even people who acknowledge, as you have, that they violate the law whenever it suits their purposes, or moods, or schedule, or whatever criteria any given person applies at any given moment. The bottom line is, the only guideline that matters is their own feelings, because the laws are arbitrary, unjust, or whatever.

Ego. It's one the main reasons why 40,000 people die on U.S. roads every year. If a disease caused that many deaths, we'd all be demanding a cure. But since in this case, since it's all about our pleasure, convenience and self-image, an entirely unique metric is manufactured to rationalize why it has to stay that way.

Right, and that's why, when I gave examples of solutions, one involved people getting special licenses that require more rigorous training. I don't think that everyone should speed either, and I agree that ego is a poor determiner of performance. Some certification that emperically measures ability would be preferable. And I also agreed with others about taking defensive driving courses, which I have taken myself.

But the problem is that, if we come from the perspective that we should accept the status quo laws, and just enforce them better, then we remove from the debate potential solutions that involve changing the laws to be less restrictive, and finding ways to make that actually work.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attempt to distill my arguments into some incorrect single sentence.

I simply said that if the law can be more intelligently enforced, then that would be great, otherwise if the police are going to ticket willy nilly (maybe because they have a quota), then it's be nice if the limits went up a bit to compensate. I have no idea what is impossible about that situation.

Because that's the way I interpret your argument, and frankly, still do based on what you've just said. You use terms like "more intelligently enforced" as though that's a standard with an actual definition and "willy-nilly" as though people are being cited for not actually speeding. Limits have already been raised, and speeds continue to increase above and beyond, because enforcement is virtually nil. Raise them even more, speeds go up accordingly. I don't know what's so intelligent about that situation.

Incidentally, in all of this discussion, I still don't understand why some people find it so impossible to obey the speed limit laws. It's not like you are being asked to do something morally reprehensible, is it?

 

[MarkCollette]

Because that's the way I interpret your argument, and frankly, still do based on what you've just said. You use terms like "more intelligently enforced" as though that's a standard with an actual definition and "willy-nilly" as though people are being cited for not actually speeding. Limits have already been raised, and speeds continue to increase above and beyond, because enforcement is virtually nil. Raise them even more, speeds go up accordingly. I don't know what's so intelligent about that situation.

Incidentally, in all of this discussion, I still don't understand why some people find it so impossible to obey the speed limit laws. It's not like you are being asked to do something morally reprehensible, is it?

If my comments are beyond your comprehension, then don't distill them, simply let them be, or state that you require clarification, which I am always happy to give.

"more intelligently enforced" describes a situation where a law enforcement officer uses their judgement to decide if an individual's driving pattern actually constitutes a risk to others, given the existing road conditions. This would be in opposition to simply following a rule for a rule's sake.

"willy-nilly" describes a situation where a law enforcement officer is handing out tickets to everyone, even though their actions are not dangerous. Technically, "willy-nilly" is an inappropriate term, as that suggests a random pattern, whereas I was refering to a situation where they are targetting the populace for revenue generation.

When I was taking driving lessons, the instructor made me go to a four way stop, to sit and watch the cars stop. I was asked if the cars were stopping, so I looked and said yes, they are all stopping. He then asked me to look at the tires. I saw that the tires were in fact still rotating slowly. This is called a rolling stop, and is illegal. The real risk is from the cars that are noticeably still moving, since they can hit people in the cross walk. But that's more like driving at 5 km/h, whereas people can still be moving at 0.5 km/h and get a ticket. My mother got a ticket for this, willy nilly.

Another example was when my father was in a left turn lane, for which the light never let him go. He watched the lights go back and forth several times, skipping him over. Eventually he went, when there was no traffic, but a police officer saw him and gave him a ticket. It was due to a faulty ground sensor. He had to get an engineer from the city to write a letter for him. Simply because the police man went by the rules instead of intelligently assessing the situation.

There is a road near where I live, which is a main feeder road into our downtown. The road is sloped downward and cars naturally accelerate. The sidewalk is quite raised, so it would be impossible to hit pedestrians. Several times a week the police have a person with a camera hiding behind a bus stop shelter to give out tickets. Our city has publically asked the police department to give out more tickets to help them with their financing. It was in the newspapers a couple of months ago.