Why are we so weird about speed limits (US)?
-
Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?
-
Why don't we raise the speed limit if that's how fast everyone wants to go?
-
Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?
-
Why do we refuse to ever use ANY traffic calming measures? Yes, than you flashing digital sign for telling me I'm going 10 miles above the limit on this incredibly wide and straight and flat road with high curbs and perfect visibility.
It's a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.
And, yes, I know there's some thing people did long ago to set the speed limit at some percentile of what people were already traveling at, but that's obviously a stupid way to do it and we did it anyway. So why?
169 replies
Fuck. Off. With. Your. Surveillance. State. Bullshit.
We had a driver for a trip near London. The driver was driving quickly, but then slowed before getting to a speed-averaging camera checkpoint, saying how they weren't going to catch him speeding.
I thought about it, I did. But I can't justify that logic. If you can't cross that line until a certain time (or else get a citation), then you're not speeding unless you break that rule. If you speed up and then slow down to average-out your speed, you're just driving bad, not saving time.
Anyways, I was just amused that they had a system that seemed more foolproof, and yet it wasn't accomplishing its intended goal for this one driver. That was just one person, I know.
Exactly. And that why these average speed zones are more effective in enforcing speed limits. Most people get the point and grasp the idea of average speed.
By the way, I've been driving in England for several weeks over tge last moths. They drive like idiots over there. And I must admit we Belgians aren't the best drivers either but damn...
I was amazed by the courtiousness I've encountered on Slovenian and Montenegrin roads. The contrast is huge.
There are still plenty of old fashioned speed cameras, no surveillance required.
I know what you're trying to say but literally any camera is surveillance. It takes pictures/video of a given area. It provides overwatch in lieu of a human. It just surveils for a specific thing.
That data can be used for other, nefarious, purposes and Americans tend to hate that unless it's a private company doing it.
Automated speed or red light camera's aren't the same as the invasive ANPR/ALPR crap.
We have red light camera's for ages. They only register when someone runs a red light. That's used to be a hoge problem when I was young. These days it's non existent.
Same for speed enforcement camera's. You don't speed, you're not under surveillance.
Either way they were absused, if not for servillaince then for revenue.
I haven't payed any speeding tickets in years since I stick to the speed limit.
That's what they claim, but you have no way to verify
Actually I do and I did. I've requested the DPIA and the technical specifications through freedom of information request.
This is the reason why people speed. If you want people to drive more slowly, you have to design the road/street in a way that discourages higher speeds. Do this, and you won’t need any invasive speed cameras or pay traffic cops to enforce.
On highways I suspect no one gives a shit. If it feels natural to drive 10 mph above the speed limit, it’s probably safe. But raising the speed limit would probably lead some people to speeding even more, with fewer options for punishing them (in my country at least, the fine is dependent on how much above the limit you were going).
This isn't really unique to the US. In my country people also consider it their right to drive above the speed limit and hate the police for telling them they can't do it...
Because then everyone would drive above that new limit instead. It's a psychology thing. It's not that everyone would rather go speed y than speed x, being above the speed limit is the very point to it. Otherwise you'd see different behaviors with different speed limits, but at least here, every speed limit sees the same behavior of people not respecting it by the same amount.
I'm not so sure about that. If the speed limit in my neighborhood was 80mph I don't think I'd be going that fast much less above it. If the nearby interstate reduced the speed limit to 25mph I don't think I'd naturally be driving it at 35-40mph as you state.
In my experience, it's more a thing that I think many people disregard the speed limit for the most part and have a certain speed they feel is natural and comfortable for them to drive on a given road in a given situation.
Going through the neighborhood? Some people think 15mph, some think 25mph, some think 30mph. See some kids playing on the side of the road? Most people generally would slow down a bit. Roads are tight and narrow? Well now I have to be a bit more careful in this area so I need to slow down even further.
In my experience the psychology trick has everything to do with the road, what's around it, the condition it's in, etc, and less to do with the sign itself.
Well, I think both of you have a point. The problem with "most people would slow down" is that this means dead children because of those who don't.
Speed limits to have a role to play, however much better than a sign is indeed to create roads that naturally make people drive slower. Countless streets in Europe have been redesigned according to that principle, the most systematically in the Netherlands. Why? Because it works and it saves lives.
The US requires roads to built in a way that the "natural speed" would be insanely high, even in purely residential areas.
Because the average American believes speed limits aren't meant for the especially skilled drivers like themselves.
If the speed limit is raised, then people will drive 10-15 MPH over the new limit. Natch.
Traffic enforcement cameras have been routinely abused by the government and so have to be regularly taken away from them like the naughty children they are.
People will assure you that civil planning has done their job and everything is already working like a well-oiled machine. I don't know why people keep saying this when it's obviously not true. It's astounding.
People focus on the nasty abuse like stalking etc. but in my experience traffic cameras (specifically stop sign cameras) are abusive in another way: the fines are low, the crime is classed as civil, and no points are added to the drivers license. Which means if a citation is issued, people just pay it because contesting a false positive case is impossible because you have to schedule a court date, take a day off work to go to court, and pay the court fees even if the judgement is in your favor (which are higher than the actual fine). This only gets worse as more of these cameras switch to AI flagging with “human review,” which we know translates to “no one fucking watched the video, they just isssued the fine.”
Even before AI was in the mix, local governments were pulling crap like shortening yellow light timers to less than their own laws require for safety. And fine citizens (or habitual yellow-light runners) did the leg work to catch this crap. We've always had to be on our guard. That isn't a new phenomena.
👆
...as a licensed US driver who finds public transit much less stressful.
People will always drive at the speed that feels safe and comfortable, which, because we made roads safe and comfortable for cars, is higher than the posted speed limits almost everywhere.
So say a road here is 35 because there are crosswalks, pedestrians on sidewalks, businesses with cars pulling out. Unless the city makes it feel like a 35 mph road, that's not gonna happen. Speed bumps, narrower lanes, things like that work better. Usually cops don't ticket for 5 over unless it's a school zone at school beginning or end time.
It's not just speed limits. Pay toilets never worked here because people who paid, would jam the lock so the next person didn't have to. We just aren't the most rule-following place in general.
I'll one up this.
In Australia we occasionally have signs: "40 (kh/h) when children as present"
Okay but doesn't that defeat the purpose? If I see the cunts then I'm not gonna hit them, no matter how fast I'm going.
The problem arises when i don't see the little shits.
You had me in the first half, NGL
More state-sponsored surveillance is never the answer.
If your raise the speed limit 10-15 people will go 10-15 mph above that
Wow, such wrong info and opinon here. I swear, Lemmy might be worse than Facebook to find out real info.
https://schwartzcohenlaw.com/how-often-do-radar-guns-need-to-be-calibrated/
Meaning that there's little assurance that your speedometer and a radar gun will agree exactly. They might be up to 5-7 mph off. So if someone is going up to 10mph above the limit, it's legally not guaranteed that a radar gun reading their speed accurately will result in a fine.
Also, 10-15 over is about how far you can go that if you see a cop far off, you can slow down in time.
https://fightyourspeedingticket.com/types-speed-measurement-devices/radar-and-laser-calibration-issues-in-the-state-of-florida/
On top of this, fines are usually proportional to speed above the limit. So the fine itself is usually not worth the time or hassle to a cop if it's just over the limit. They prefer easy, slam dunk cases, like someone doing 35 in a 15, or 65 in a 45.
In the US, speed limits are based on road engineering, sort of guessed tolerances for the shittiest cars on the road, and (way back when) fuel economy. So it's a patchwork of things unevenly applied over decades. Not all these standards change in every state regularly. Not every state is in a rush to check if 1970s standards for car tolerances for grade on a curve are still helpful. Often not until someone has a reason to lobby state government to change them.
Until only very recently, a human had to weild the radar gun. Physically and legally. Most States didn't allow automated tickets until they saw how easily fines could be collected with them. Those systems are expensive to buy and very unpopular, so not every local government wants to be the people that put up surveillance state infrastructure - and made taxpayers pay for the thing that now gives them tickets.
Those are both expensive as well, and the if you did that, people would get less tickets. Which means lower local government budgets.
You're really looking at this from a backwards perspective. People want to do whatever they want. Then one rule shows up. Then another. Then another. Each one is imperfect, and so each rule and method gets expensive to implement, but also makes people feel hemmed in a little more. And each rule pisses people off because they have habits that work into the gaps of the old system.
Do you have any insight on the monthly costs? I mean it's just unbelievable to me that a camera in 2026 would cost $5,000/mo to operate. That's an insane cost. I suspect some kind of legalized monopoly.
And you know, I've read breathalyzers also have to be calibrated, and that's terrifying to know, because they're probably not, and they generate more revenue when they're off.
Your explanation of why speed limits are there are is basically saying there's multiple overlapping systems, so everyone gets to be right, and everyone gets to be wrong.
I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don't really get what they're contributing to the legal validity of the case. The issue in question is whether you are speeding, and that is entirely dependent on the camera. If the cop is holding it or if the gun is on a pole is logically irrelevant.
One thing I don't think I've seen people say is: we don't control speeding because people want to speed. Case study: Toronto. Legendary asshat Doug Ford removed speed cameras because they were politically unpopular.
It's the ongoing maintenance, just like how calibrating cars to exact speeds is expensive, so too are radar and laser guns. So the burden is on the radar/laser guns because there are fewer of them. And the calibration cannot be performed on site, as the unit your testing against also has to be calibrated to a much higher degree and you're not going to throw it in the back of a truck and drive it around risking damage. And in the event of someone disputing, it's up to the state to produce proof of calibration rather than the individual proving it was not. It's an expensive process, as anyone who uses specialized tools (not limited to law enforcement) would tell you.
Now, it's possible that the calibrations aren't done, and people don't question them and get tickets. But you want the ones that don't constantly make mistakes. 20ish years ago DC put up cameras and it was sending tickets across the entire US because it wasn't reading plates correctly. They had to hire more people to cross reference any matches with the make and model of the car just to double check, and that was a lot of eyes that needed paying. Even though a lot of it is automated today, you're still paying a premium over putting a camera on a stick.
In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.
The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.
To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.
Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.
Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.
It's not about monthly costs. It's about up-front costs. These systems can be millions, maybe tens of millions to start, and are typically a huge, multi-year contract to a third party company that manages the system. Plus hiring human staff, maintenance and installation of a huge amout of it systems, training, tying in the car registration databases... On top of the fact that they're politically unpopular. Most people don't want to be tracked everywhere they go, even if the trade off is slower drivers on the road. There's a lot of headwinds before monthly costs are ever even a consideration.
Speed limits aren't an "everyone gets to be right/wrong" thing at all. It's numerous new things added as band-aid and one-item "fixes" to specific situations. It's also why the US tax code is such a mess. No one cares to overhaul it, and it's just a huge jumble of singular tweaks. It's like when you let a group of people take 10 years to write a story, and every week 5 people get to add or edit 1 sentence. Will you get a harmonized story with coherent plot? Likely not.
Radar guns don't report the speeding to anyone. A radar gun sitting on the side of a county road will write a ticket... how? Magic? It's a tool. A tape measure doesn't measure your height for you, you have to read the number and know the context. Before radar guns cops had to base speeding on a guess, or their own speedometer, and had to testify in court to a more subjective standard.
We don't control speeding because we mostly have passive systems that fine people for violations. And anyone determined enough will speed anyway, fines be damned. Many people speed as a flex and pay fines like a status symbol. You can't engineer 200km or 200 miles of highway to keep people at 65mph or below. Engineering solutions are limited to pedestrian areas or slow speed areas. The systems we use to fine people have the added societal costs in that they take taxes to set up, and are surveillance state tools.
Mostly politics and grafting. There is a piece of highway in Florida where there is a nonsensical low speed limit. The stretch is "owned" by a little village with a police force nearly as big as the population in total, and the police is basically generating a good income by speed trapping on the highway 24/7.
Is this Waldo on US 301?
Rings a bell, could be.
I think the dissonance about speed limits is why there are so many awful drivers, at least in my neck of the woods. You go through drivers ed and you're trained to go exactly the speed limit in all circumstances, and then you get let loose and find out on some highways, driving under the speed limit is so slow compared to the actual rate of traffic that doing so would be dangerous. People learn that and figure that all of the rules of the road are stupid and bad and you have a country of awful drivers
it doesn't help that, as another commenter mentioned, you can be ticketed for not moving with the flow of traffic. follow the law, and you're still breaking the law! plus all the asshole drivers who will get right up on your rear bumper if they decide you aren't going fast enough. damned if you do, damned if you don't! although ultimately, going slower is almost always the better choice from a safety standpoint because of that whole "physics" thing
I always drive at the speed limit, even if it gets me honked at. People are just impatient these days
The older I get the more I give up on speeding. After doing the math I realized a long time ago that it rarely saved me any actual time, and moreso just gave me the illusion of making up time by cutting ahead and being the line leader. At most it was a minute, usually less. The only time speeding has ever actually saved me time is over long distances, and it's a tradeoff with higher fuel consumption. Shit costs too much these days, I'll putt along at the limit and save a few dollars while just leaving on time (or accepting being a little late).
It's socially convention
Would be too quick
Oh boy, you're in luck!
Oh buddy, you'll love this!
https://thelegalguide.org/who-decides-speed-limits-federal-state-local-roads/
Yeah, I'm a believer in this. Inversely, I call it the 20% rule: You can go 20% above the posted speed limit safely. It works pretty much anywhere, although I tend to stick to 25 or below in residential areas, mainly because I don't like people buzzing by me when I'm walking or running on the sidewalk, so I won't do it back to them. But in a 35, 42 is reasonable. 78 in a 65? Not a problem.
I'm going to disagree about that being a stupid way to do it, for two reasons.
First, there was a time traffic engineering was not a well-developed field. There was no expert who could combine science and best practices to get a good answer about how fast it's safe to drive on a particular road because humanity had not yet learned that skill. Measuring what most drivers do, then reducing it if people crash a lot in a particular place is far from the worst approach.
Second, it's bad to make laws that most people will only obey with heavy enforcement. It's bad for a society to make lawbreakers out of most of its members, and to create pretexts for police to stop people without other evidence of wrongdoing. If there's a reason to make most people drive a particular road much slower than they actually do, any reduction in speed limit should also be accompanied by changes to the road design (traffic calming).
I don't speed.
I mean I do, but only if I'm not paying attention. I naturally want to go fast. If there were no cars on the road, I'd be going as fast as I want. During the pandemic, when no one else was on the road and cops weren't pulling people over, I was getting to work in 30 minutes. Normally it takes no less than 45, and usually more like an hour and a half.
However, I don't speed because there are other cars on the road.
I'll drive at the speed limit if I can. I used to drive about 5 mph above the speed limit, but the last time I was doing that, I stopped for a school bus dropping off kids, and the guy behind me didn't even stop looking at his phone (I assume). And it occurred to me that he was going 5mph faster than he would have been because I let him.
So now I try (again, fighting my nature) to never go above the speed limit. I also never drive closer than 4 seconds to the car in front of me. I also very slowly decrease my speed down to 10 mph below the speed limit if someone is tailgating me.
Prior to the pandemic, people would be annoyed, and they'd aggressively pass me when it was safe to do so. Since the pandemic people just cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to pass.
They've made it much harder than it used to be to get your license in PA, but it's still too easy to get and keep your driver's license. Every driver should have to repeat a driving test every five years.
My wife has health problems, and voluntarily stopped driving about 15 years ago when she noticed she was developing muscle weakness. The only time she's driven a car since was an early Sunday morning when I took her to the empty high school parking lot and had her drive our civic around so she could just see what it felt like.
My dad drove him and my mom to church on the day he died. He had been having increasing number of car accidents, but no one could stop him from driving. My wife and I refused to ride in a car with him driving. I think the last accident he had was with a light pole in a parking lot because "the sun was in his eyes."
If his heart had given out on the highway on the way instead of in church, my siblings and I would have had to bury both parents.
It's not your place to police other drivers and their behavior. Nor is it mine. Slowing down if someone is tailgating pisses everyone off, and going under the speed limit can be just as dangerous as going over. It's a really easy way to cause a crash.
Drive predictably. If that means going the exact speed limit, fine. But far too often I am on the road with people who think going 25mph in a 45mph on a two lane road is safer.
Yeah, you're wrong. If someone is tailgating me, I'm going to reduce my speed to minimize the impact.
I've been hit. I've been hit by people who were tailgating me. When that's happened it didn't matter what I did. If I speed up, they speed up. If I slow down, they stay right there. I've literally turned on my hazard lights and had people continue to tailgate.
It's not about policing other drivers. It's about minimizing the damage they will eventually cause.
Bro you sound like a bad driver.
That's what a bad driver would say.
Elaborate.
Because people want to get places faster, and everyone knows law enforcement can't reliably say if you were going 30mph or 40mph without a radar. So everyone collectively agrees that up to 10mph over the limit is fine since you probably won't get pulled over unless you go more than that.
If you raise the limit from 30 to 40, people will just end up driving 50.
where I grew up, we didn't. I also grew up in a state that was always in the top 3 for speeding fines given.
Because, at least in theory, speed limits in the area should be set for safety, not desires. The US is generally really bad at safe road design (e.g. less wide and straight in residential and similar areas) which enables those speeding
fees based on things like net worth and/or salary would theoretically help. That will never happen though. Some places use cameras to offer civil penalties, but I'm not sure where camera enforcement is otherwise legal. I haven't lived in the US in over a decade, though.
ah, yeah, I wrote my point 2 before this. The US is way too car-brained and me-centric for that in many areas.
That said, where I live in rural Japan, people customarily go 10-15 kph over the limit and pass like idiots even in 30kph residential areas. The police seem to mostly only give a shit during specific enforcement campaigns that happen a couple of times a year. I try to walk, cycle, motorbike, and drive in that order depending upon what I need to do and where. Even on my motorbike, it can be scary on our roads.
Speed limits are designed for suboptimal road conditions. Since dynamic speed limits weren't even possible until relatively recently, they figured out how quick you could safely travel on a road when it is nice, and again when it's crappy, and set it somewhere between those values.
Wait, they are like that in the US? In many European countries (I know it's the case in France), the speed limit is explicitly for good weather, and there's a lower limit when it's raining for example (highway is 130/110 km/h, but in rain conditions the limits are 110/100 km/h)
No they’re not designed for some average they are for “good conditions”. I live in the US in the Pacific Northwest where it rains a lot and a big part of learning to drive here is that yes, you do need to slow down when it rains the speed limit is often not safe when your stopping distance gets extended by wet roads.
Bad conditions would still because allowing down from the average... That's how math works.
That sounds like something drivers tell themselves to justify speeding. Any source on that?
All engineering is built around tolerances. You don't build something that just barely handles the expected use case, you as a significant buffer.
It’s one of those areas where we want to regulate something we don’t really want to, so we’re stuck at a compromise that nobody says they are happy with but also nobody wants to change.
We set speed limits (so we did something about traffic deaths), but we don’t enforce them, because drivers would hate that. The upside of the existence of speed limits is that reckless drivers can be charged with speeding if they cause an accident. The downside is that police departments make a revenue stream of ticketing citizens driving at completely safe and reasonable speeds.
Some parts of Europe have automated average speed cameras. That’s way more draconian than a speed camera: they take a pic at each checkpoint, they know the distances between them, if your time is better than what you could do by driving at speed limit, you get a ticket. I would go nuts if I had to drive like that. It would work for autonomous vehicles, so I expect that systematic speed limit enforcement will coincide with the rollout of autonomous cars, which will be the time to stop driving on public roads anyway.
Another similar area is immigration, sorry for the off topic tangent, but I think it’s a similar dynamic. Anti immigration politicians say they want to make tough laws that keep immigrants out, but the laws are not enforced, because without immigrants entire sectors of the economy would stop working. Progressive politicians say they want lax laws so everyone is welcome to enter, but that would be a shitty law because you can’t run a country without borders. So the likelihood that we end up with regulations that allow the right amount of migrant workers and respect refugee rights, and then are actually enforced, is about zero.
In Australia we have automated ticket cameras and it's really not as bad as you seem to think. You literally just do the speed limit and then you have no problems. And doing the speed limit is as simple as looking at your speedometer and doing what it says. You'd be doing that anyway to make sure you weren't more than 10-15mph over, right?
Most cars have slightly different speedometers so the cameras aren't so sensitive, you can go a couple of km over with no issues.
Sure, but I would like more agency than that. That’s the crux of OP’s question: is the speed limit treated as a hard rule, or a soft rule. I am on the opinion that it should be treated as a soft rule; and drivers should be able to judge the safe speed for driving that is appropriate for the road conditions, traffic, vehicle characteristics, tires, weather, driver’s experience, and so on. I don’t think that on a given road with a 65 sign, the ideal speed is 65 mph for everyone in all weather situations, in a 4wd with performance tires or a fwd with worn chinese 4 seasons tires, for a teenager who just got a permit or a commercial driver who’s been on the road at least 40 hours a week for 20 years, day or night. Maybe someone should slow down to 55 in the rain in curves, and the other guy is safe to do 70.
Why is that that folks aren’t routinely getting tickets for tailgating, for holding a phone while driving, or for drifting in and out of the lane. While you can always expect to get a ticket for speeding. It is used as a proxy of safe driving because it is easy to determine whether speed was greater than limit. But it is nowhere near being the most relevant measurement.
And the fucked up thing is: society does treat it as a soft rule in the places where I lived (many, if not most drivers go over the limit), but police occasionally set up shop and pretend we treat it as a hard rule. If you ever see that everyone is slowing down from the normal cruising speed when there’s a police car in sight, that’s a sure sign of this. The speed limit is only a hard rule when it comes to writing tickets, not when it’s about choosing the speed.
If you want people to go 120, you set it at 110 because you're always going to give 10% for inattention/speedo malfunction/radar inaccuracy.
Speed cameras do shit all about someone speeding now instead of 2 weeks from now when you mail the vehicle a fine and the driver never sees a demerit. Especially if they have lots of money.
Or I guess we could just stroke ourselves over how we go the speed limit all the time, really truly.
Give most humans an inch and they'll take a mile.
We don't. Some of yall do. And then you ride my ass when i don't.
They do. Speed limits are determined by how fast people go on the roads.
Because cameras can't beat people with batons for no reason. Also some areas do have camera enforcement.
Your mad it's telling you you're speeding? Then go slower.
Stop resisting!
The short answer to all your questions is that America specializes in stupid in all kinds of ways. This is one of them.
Honestly, at this scale, a resounding yes to your first question.
Cops want it that way.
In the USA, you can follow the average driver on a 10 minute drive and they'll technically commit at least 1 infraction. My FIL got a $90 ticket last month for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
The rules of the road are so anally technical so that cops have a valid reason to pull you over whenever they desire. That's it.
Not stopping at a stop sign is far from "anally technical."
You’re coming to a 4 way stop. No one is around. You slow to approx 3 mph, then move through as no one is around. That’s pretty fucking anal
Clearly someone was around if the police were able to spot it.
Just press down on the damn brake pedal until all four wheels come to a complete stop. It's really not that hard.
Why does this improve safety
Cops aren't people though
You come to a stop at a stop sign, how many seconds do you have to wait for it to be considered a full and complete stop?
Can you prove it? Does proving it even matter to the cop that pulls you over for running the stop sign?
I've had this happen and luckily the cop failed to show to court so the ticket was thrown out...but what if he had shown up? I have no idea.
I dunno about over there but in Australia it's 3 seconds
I got "let off with a warning" once when I only came to a complete stop for 1 second on a dead quiet stretch of road with no other cars anywhere. Then out of spite I started doing the full stop for 3 seconds thing, which is really more like a 5–7 second stop if you account for the time you're going extremely slowly
Other cars get really mad at me, obviously, because it's ridiculous. Then another police officer gives me a warning for being an obstruction to traffic for following the rules the other police officer told me to follow. There's actually no fucking winning
Seems anal given every other damn country would use a "yield" or "give way" sign which you can drive through if you see it's clear. Like, on a very open junction at an oblique angle you may barely need to slow down. Or just slow down enough to make the turn.
Yep. America used to have a shitload more yield signs, but they've almost all been replaced with stop signs because some stupid idiots can't be bothered to pay attention when driving. All these overdone rules exist to treat every driver as the lowest common denominator of intelligence and capacity, frustrating the fuck out of those of us who actually know how to drive well & don't like coming to a complete stop when it's unnecessary because it's inefficient, and often just "safety theater."
Stop signs in the US are so damn common you guys invented the "rolling stop". Outside the US I think I've met like ten stop-signs total. You can bet your ass I'm coming to a complete stop when I see one, since they're so rare I know they're there for a good reason.
For some reason the US decided to put stop signs all the places everyone else just has a "yield" sign (unsure of the proper English term, but it's the upside down triangle indicating you have to yield to any other traffic), or just ordinary right-hand rule with no sign at all.
Come to France, they love useless stop signs. Then a random village has 9 intersections where you have to yield right and you can't see shit.
But also don't use French roads they're covered in illegal speed bumps with inconsistent sizes not conformant with international standards for clearance of road vehicles, random illegal obstacles pretending to be “traffic calming” and no enforcement of actual rules that improve safety like speed limits in towns, safety distances and phone use.
Yeah, a big part of the reason I don't go over the limit anymore is to limit my interaction with cops. I don't do well with social interactions and these motherfuckers are likely to find me suspiscious. So I drive the speed limit and just plan to invoke my right to remain silent.
Bad news, they can and will pull you over for going too slow in some places
Well, they can always make up some bullshit, the thing is not to let them go on fishing expeditions. Assert your right to remain silent to any questions, ask them what the purpose of the stop was, and ask them if you're free to go.
Of course, they can always "smell marijuana" if they want. I'm very frustrated with how cars are automatic excuse to violate your rights, and I already fucking hated cars.
I knew i wasn’t crazy when my friend who is a lawyer said he was starting to take the bus to work because driving cars opens one up to too much liability.
Yeah so true, ultimately we don't have much control over our interactions with police, ugh
Meanwhile Ireland:
Uh yes, traffic calming.
The UK is exactly the same, except they will write "SLOW" on the street, right next to the sign, to confuse you.
tbf in the UK they don't have a speed listed on those roads, the national speed limit sign basically just means "We couldn't be arsed to set a safe speed so use your brain."
What? The national speed limit is 60mph, not whatever you feel like. Speed limits are a maximum, and you will be prosecuted if you are not driving at a speed compatible with the conditions, even if its less than the speed limit.
Yes, but I think the point being made is that some roads are not suitable for that speed despite being national speed limit. There's green lanes around the place with national speed limit signs on when it feels like your vehicle will be demolished anything over 10mph.
Yes legally the maximum speed is 60mph but you aren't going to reach those speeds on those roads. My point was that even if the sign means that technically you can do 60mph you're still going to be done for dangerous driving if you attempt to.
this is the same in NZ, although we are getting some roads posted as 80m/h for safety reasons (high crash, high cycle/horse/foot traffic)
In addition to the clarifications, I thought I'd point out that it's definitely a case of extra effort to set a safe speed on those roads that the local authority doesn't want to go to
It's because "rookie numbers" doesn't fit on the lane, so they have to egg you on with "slow"
Yeah, I hear you guys even stop at interesections even if there are no stop signs. Completely mad.
In Ireland, speed limits are more of a dare against all common sense.
Also, coincidentally, Ireland is one of the top countries with the most fatal casulties (percentage by population) regarding car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists within the EU... Hmmm... I wonder why that may be the case... 🤔
Source: I used to live in Ireland for ages.
According to https://liveaccidenttracker.com/statistics/road-deaths-in-europe
Italy is deadlier than the whole UK when it comes to road deaths and living here... I gotta say it checks out. I've never seen worse drivers than Italians in my life. To say that traffic laws here are an opinion is an understatement.
Because much of your country doesn't enforce speed limits, large portions of your country's population don't believe the Constitution allows speed limit enforcement without reckless driving
Naturally! The tassels on the flags in the court room clearly indicate maritime law, so they can get you for speeding on your boat, but not your car.
Wow, you must be really smart to be able to tell that from the opposite side of the world.
I find it frustrating that in the US at least, people can't do the simple math. Unless it's a very long trip, speeding doesn't save you very much time at all. A couple of minutes at the most for a typical commute.
On countless occasions I've seen some some reckless moron nearly take other vehicles' bumpers off to 'get around' traffic. And then you're right behind that same moron at the next red light.
They are risking everything for little to no time savings.
It is pretty hilarious to me that no matter how much someone spends on a car, no matter how comfortable the seats or rich the sound system or smooth the ride, everyone wants to GET OUT OF THEIR CARS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. OH MY GOD WHY AM I NOT THERE YET?!?!?!??
I think even if you explained to them they were only saving 45 seconds over a 30 minute commute, they'd think it was worth it.
Human beings are notoriously awful at risk assessment.
First off you are wrong. I for instance, drive the speed limit.
Secondly, because whatever limit you set, some people will speed, even if it kills them.
Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions. If they chose to ignore that and kill themselves, well then, I hope they enjoy their Darwin Award.
The best illustrations is the current usa situation were about 40% support trump even as he destroys their livelihood and bulldozers the White House.
You will always get a large percent of people who are self destructive, selfish, ignorant and abusive, had a toxic childhood and grew up to be toxic adults.
I had a friend once who rescued a lady who put her car in a ditch driving to fast for the icy conditions. The moment he got her out, she sped off down the road, going way too fast and weaving all over the place.
You can't cure stupid. Just obey the speed limit and try and stay out of the crazy people's way.
I also drive the speed limit as of about 2 years ago, which is why I bring this post up. But I'm basically the only one. People are constantly passing me, even on a double yellow line. In fact, it's gotten so obnoxious, that I'll sometimes drive just a touch below the speed limit when there's a safe pass (like a 4 lane road) to encourage people to pass me instead of them wondering, "Is this guy going to speed up?" for a few a minutes before finally passing.
Anyway, I didn't mention my law-abiding ways because I assumed the hatetrain would derail the conversation.
I've always gone the speed limit or just a tad above (because of traffic flow) because going any faster is inefficient in so many ways and only increases risk. Even on a long trip that 10 mph over is only going to gain a few minutes, and you've used more fuel. Why bother? Plus there's the fact you mention elsewhere of not standing out as a target. Not that it matters, I feel enforcement is highly variable, and I've seen on highway trips people going 20 or more over in a construction zone, and I wonder where the cops are. Only when they feel like it, I suppose.
The one good thing about a toll road that I'd support is how it can measure an average speed, and someone speeding that much over has no way to easier balance out the math at the end, so instant ticket/justice. I mean, they could just limp the last mile or pull off, but that's waving red flags to anyone monitoring.
i've always 'had more time than money', and i've never had a car that was more fuel efficient at 70-80mph than at 50-60mph.
we actually take the '2 laner' into the city over the interstate specifically because there isn't a bunch of morons doing 20+ over, weaving all over the place.
Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions.
This is not true. There may be some statutes in some jurisdictions with language that may suggest something like this is done, but the truth is, all speed limits were originally set by simply measuring how fast people drive, averaging all the number together, then reducing that number by 20%. From there, how it's changed over the years depends on where you are (with the exception of the nation-wide speed limit of 55 mph in response to the oil crisis in the 70s) but all of them started completely arbitrarily.
It's also worth mentioning, car technology is such that a modern cars only needs about 40% the stopping distance of a vehicle made when the speed limit was decided upon. So, not only are they arbitrary, but if they truly were based on vehicle performance, they would be a lot higher today (at least on rural roads. City streets are another story).
Or you are just repeating myths...
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/setting-speed-limits/
Oh, sure, fall for Big Transportation's story... /s
Human beings are very bad at driving. I cannot wait until computers are driving our cars for us...
Yes, most of you are. The amount of training required before turning people loose in a two-ton death machine with 10 gallons of highly flammable fuel in the back is shockingly, pathetically minimal. The fact that you never need to re-take a driving test to demonstrate competency is a danger to others. The number of people driving around who don't even know how a four-way stop works is an unacceptable, systemic issue. The number of people who have dash cams is laughably low. The number of drivers who have never practiced safely losing and regaining traction under hazardous conditions is probably over 99%, which is absolutely bonkers when you stop and think about it.
Driving is unbelievably dangerous and the number of people who don't realize and respect that and thus, approach driving with a dangerously casual attitude is a systemic issue that should be addressed.
But, as a professional "computer person" the idea of a computer driving sounds more dangerous than a drunken eight-year-old behind the wheel.
The danger is the mixing of humans, environment, and computers. Mostly the first, as environment can be predicted and adapted to a lot easier than human actions.
Ever see the video of an automated warehouse? When it's just computers and no unknown variables, it's far more efficient and safe. But we started with humans driving first and computers are a newcomer, so short of a fully automated road system, it's not going to be perfect. Computers can see and react to things faster, so in some situations they are better than humans, and much of the newest safety equipment on cars required by regulations are because of that.
Trains are better, but, yeah, humans really do suck at driving; whether or not computers would be better is a separate question (tip: LIDAR is better).
As much as current robo-taxis are still far from perfect, their driving is overall much safer than that of human drivers
I thought we were still waiting for the numbers on that. Do you have a study/article? Surely you can find a study funded by a self-driving car company that shows it's better, but the question is what actually shakes out in practice as evaluated by an unbiased researcher.
Last I was aware robotaxis drive extremely slowly compared to regular traffic in limited areas. Not sure how solid the comparison is yet.
Because speed limits are not strictly enforced
Because if that happens that any per-textual stop the police want to do needs an another actual crime being committed before they can stop you.
I reject the premise. Traffic enforcement isn't very ineffective because the majority of people aren't driving 50+ MPH over the speed limit. Also, its not that expensive because your premise suggests that if we had cameras, we'd need fewer police. I don't think that's the case. When an emergency response is needed we need X number of police to respond. Therefore X number need to be employed and on shift at all times. If we have the expense of traffic cameras, its not going to reduce headcount below X, and we now have the additional expense of purchase, install, and maintenance of all those traffic cameras. The cameras have an headcount overhead of staff of their own.
Traffic cameras also introduce mistakes of their own including misreading plates, or thieves using stolen/copied plates, which would otherwise ensnare innocent citizens.
I think you're looking at the rules and assuming the logical outcome is the desired result. Change your mindset. The desired result is what happens when human society is given a set of rules and reacts to them. The reaction is the actual desired result. The set of rules is simply one step to get there. In short, humans aren't 100% logical nor are they 100% rule following, knowing that, you establish a set of rules that you know will have some violation and you account for that in rules.
We use automated speed cameras here in Australia, and mostly everyone adheres exactly to the speed limit. Just knowing that there could be a speed camera keeps certain people law abiding.
If you do get a fine erroneously you can contest it in traffic court.
I don't live in Oz, but a recent news report would suggest it contradicts your statement. Camera revenue in NSW alone explodes as fines reach $308 million, which is than $39 million increase over last year. If your statement matched the current situation, fines would be reducing, but instead they're increasing.
Total annual revenue from speed and road safety cameras across Australia exceeds $1 billion.
Speed and red light cameras don't appear to be a traffic safety system, but instead a revenue generation channel for the state.
Mm, I meant the experience of being a driver on the road is that people tend to be driving about the speed limit. I remember when I was in Canada most everyone would instead drive 10-15 over. Which I guess isn't really a problem if they set the limits lower to account for it... I'm just a fan of clear instructions so this is my preference.
It is true that it is a revenue generation system. I honestly don't feel bad about it though. Speeding is dangerous.
But the system isn't stopping the speeding. If you concern is that speeding is dangerous, Australia currently has a system in place the costs residents huge amounts of money but does nothing to stop the speeding. The data is showing its increasing even! The system in place seems to be making speeding worse and more prevalent.
Police staffing levels are absolutely not set by emergency response needs.
Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty, firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.
Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.
You expect an off duty cop to stop beating his wife for your emergency?
Maybe for the opportunity to shoot a dog, sure.
We're probably talking about slightly different aspects of the same thing.
There are different levels of emergencies, right? So there is likely Y number of officers that have to be on duty at all times, and an additional X officers that number officers need to be employed by the department yes to respond to the highest levels of emergency to be able to pull people in when they are off duty.
For this discussion, I was assuming we're only talking about police response needed. When I say "police needed to respond to emergencies" I'm only talking about the police component, not the other type of first responders. I don't see how its useful to expand the conversation to other first responders when we're only talking about employed police officers. If you have information about how the number of firefighters/EMTs can increase or decrease the number of police officers employed for policing, I'm open to consider that argument or something similar.
I agree with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
That thesis is idiotic. Intentions exist, and are not the same as outcomes. If you want to make the point that intentions don't matter then say that.
There's a very short expiration date on intentions. After that, they're just PR for the system's true purpose.
Usually the people involved in the system continue to have intentions.
This whole thing is so idiotically, purposefully failing to understand real people. Like AS IF you have never supported anything imperfect and wanted it to work in a way different than how it actually works. Nobody applies this consistently.
Because speed limits are designed for the largest, clunkiest vehicles on the road (semi trucks, specifically). If they can't handle the road at a certain speed, then the speed limit is dropped to a level that can be comfortably driven by them.
This means that the average car can drive comfortably 10-15 MPH faster than the posted limit. And a lot of drivers feel that desire to drive faster.
Also, I don't know if it's still a thing, but in my childhood (roughly the '90s), cops wouldn't pull you over for speeding unless you were going at least 10 MPH over the limit. The reason being, the speed detector equipment they used had about a 10 MPH margin of error. If they pulled you over for driving 7 MPH over the limit, you could argue in court that their equipment was faulty and you were being unfairly assessed. You could sew seeds of doubt and get the traffic ticket stricken down. So cops just didn't bother unless you could be positively identified, without a doubt, as speeding.
I don't know if the accuracy of their equipment has improved since then, but the mentality back in the day was that you had some leeway with how fast you were driving, leading to people driving faster than the limit in most places.
Because it risks all vehicles - including semis, RVs, delivery trucks, etc. - driving too fast for their large, heavy, awkward bodies to handle. Then they become a hazard on the road. You ever see a semi tip over because it took a corner too fast? If you're in a car next to it, you're pretty much toast.
It's like queueing in line. Sure, it would be faster to crowd toward the front, but you're pushing people out of the way; people who may have been there first and deserve a turn before you. And depending on how aggressively they're crowded out, it may become hazardous for some people.
In the interest of fairness, everyone queues and respects the line, so the system stays safe and orderly. Same with speed limits. Everyone is expected to stick to the limit so ALL traffic on roads are safe and orderly. But sometimes, people are people and will do whatever they want, even at the expense of their fellow human beings.
This is a discussion that's been going on for decades now. I know traffic cams are set up in some European countries and work pretty well, but here in America, historically, we've had a thing against being recorded publicly. Traffic cams haven't taken off here because the idea of a small camera recording data about our cars without our knowledge freaks us out.
Heck, we had to create entrapment laws to prevent cops from hiding while checking speed limits. If you watch old cop movies, they'll sit behind billboards and catch speeders who fly by. That's illegal in the US nowadays; cops have to be out in the open and visible if they're going to watch traffic for speeding. It gives a fair chance for drivers to check their speed and adjust before the cop records them speeding and gives them a ticket.
But most people will miss a camera in the wild. There's no chance to argue a speeding incident in the moment. You get a ticket in the mail a few days later, then need to think back to that day and try to remember where you were and what speed you were going. You can fight it in court, but good luck having any evidence to counter a camera, unless you were recording the interior of your vehicle that day.
With all that said, Flock cameras sprouted practically overnight here in the US and have set off distopian levels of surveillance paranoia. Especially since their setup was so fast that no laws or safety measures have been respected in their usage and the system is already being abused to watch and track people in unprofessional capacities. We kind of skipped the whole traffic cam issue and went straight to 1984 levels of public surveillance. So we'll see how that plays out over the next few years.
What kind of traffic calming measures do you have in mind? You mentioned the flashing speed limit signs, but that's not going to stop some people. Speeders are gonna speed. It's just human nature. The system we have is ineffective in a grand scale, but it works as a mental deterrent for most people. The fear of being pulled over by a cop for speeding keeps a lot of drivers in line.
I once drove in the small African country of Djibouti, where the government had to post signs every mile to remind drivers which side of the road they should be driving on. Driving education was available, but most people just hopped in a car and took off; no license or training. There were accidents every couple miles. Trucks flipped over and abandoned on almost every sharp corner. Potholes so big you might lose a car in them.
The system in America isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than it could be. You're never going to stop people from speeding, even if we did set up cameras everywhere.
My final thought on the whole matter is that speeding tickets should be based on a percentage of annual income. Say, 5% or so. Because a flat rate for speeding is just a punishment for poor people. Rich folks can afford to pay a fine with what amounts to pocket change for them, so there's no incentive for them to correct the behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Steve Jobs who refused to get a driver's license or plates for his car or something? Every time he got pulled over, he just paid the fine and continued on with what he was doing. Meanwhile, someone living paycheck to paycheck is going to have their life ruined by a fine. If you ask me, making fines a flat percentage rate is the first step to curbing bad driving practices. Punish people fairly across the board.
Meanwhile in Germany:
Depending on where you are in the US, there are similar signs here too. Usually just posting a minimum speed limit, not a truck-specific one though. But they're not standard across the entire US, so the rule of the lowest common denominator applies.
And the reason most places in the US don't standardize is because we have too much traffic in populated areas. Despite forcing semi trucks to stick to the slower lanes, some will move to the fast lanes either to pass other slow trucks, or just to make up some lost time on their route. Which keeps all traffic at safe truck-driving speeds anyway.
In a capitalist society, time is money and truck drivers can't afford to be late. A lot of delivery services won't pay the drivers if they show up late, which encourages a lot of poor practices on the public roads.
Yes, it's a system that needs to be changed as well, but without standard unions across the country, businesses can pull shady practices and you can either suck it up and deal with it, or quit and find a new profession. The latter being next to impossible to do with the economy the way it is right now.
Also, another reason the US doesn't standardize is because our country is so extremely massive. Most people don't realize just how huge the US is. Some of our individual states are as big as many European countries. And states have their own rights and laws separate from the federal government. So getting everyone to agree to update public road laws across the entire United States is difficult. A lot of our laws were agreed upon a long time ago and there just haven't been much updates since. So modernizing road laws is a challenge, even with a good administration in charge of the federal government. And we don't have one of those right now.
I see people outside the US asking why Americans don't just protest for better laws, rights, regulations, etc. I mean, we do, but getting us to protest in any meaningful way is like convincing citizens across the entire EU to organize and protest for a single cause. It's next to impossible to organize a protest of that scale, but we'd need that because of how large our country is. There could be a protest in Oregon, but people in California next door might say it's an Oregon issue and not directly affecting them. Getting everyone on board for a singular issue is extremely difficult when we're spaced so far apart. A problem on one side of the country might as well be happening on the other side of the planet as far as most Americans are concerned.
And the more our lives are tied to our pithy income, the harder it is to break away long enough for a meaningful protest. A majority of American's lives would fall apart if they spent a week without working, but the rich 1%ers could go months without breaking a sweat. Outlasting those in power is next to impossible with the way our society is right now.
Couple that with that the fact that we're isolated from the rest of the world and most Americans grow up in that echo chamber about how we're the "greatest country in the world" and you get a lot of passive citizens who don't address issues until they are directly affecting them. Which is too late by that point. America is just in a bad place geographically and politically to organize its citizens for better reform.
Sorry that this devolved into political discourse, but that's kind of the root behind a lot of our unchanging and ineffective laws right now.
Also an issue in Germany. We call that practice "Elephant race" because those massive semi trucks will hinder any other traffic at passing each other until the 5 km/h faster truck passed the other.
And that does take a while.
Don't you guys have any generic laws about driving "carefully and considerately"? It's completely common in my country for the speed limit to be higher than what many vehicles can safely handle. That just means those drivers have to judge for themselves how fast they can safely drive while remaining "careful and considerate".
Americans are too literal, irresponsible, and frankly narcissistic to follow something like that. We see a posted speed limit, that's the speed we're going to drive. Or we'll go faster if we think we can handle it (and get away with it). We try to use the literal law to prove our position in court, so "careful and considerate" is too generic of a phrase to uphold legally.
I lived in Germany for a couple years and I was surprised at how responsible drivers were there. Everyone stuck to the slow lane unless they wanted to drive super fast. The autobahns had no posted speed limit, but it was understood that if you got into an accident over 130 KPH, you were 100% responsible and insurance wouldn't cover anything. So people just... drove more responsibly! Americans are too self-centered to behave that way.
I especially liked how Germans would flash their brights if they were going much faster in the fast lane and everyone would just automatically pull over to the slow lane. No fuss, no drama. I do that in America and it just causes road rage. Americans don't like brights being flashed at them. As a matter of fact, in my home state of Minnesota, it's illegal to flash your brights at another car for any reason.
Because we are very weird about our collective/individual sense of entitlement.
You really wanna start digging into that? it’s fucking bananas.
Wealth inequality is so outrageous. I sometimes have to cross a 4 lane road to get to an official bus stop. I mean, they built a fucking bus stop, and the fucking bus stops there multiple times a day, they have to assume people are crossing the street at least once. Signage? None. If I get hit, it's my fault. I sometimes have to wait a few minutes at rush hour for a safe time, and thank god there's a generous median or I'd be just standing in traffic doing hailmary's just to get home.
But I live right near a lake and when those rich fucks want to cross the lakeside road to go from their mansions to their private beach there is a fuckton of signage:
WARNING: CROSSWALK AHEAD
SLOW
CROSSWALK AHEAD
STOP SIGN
BLINKING RED LIGHT
CROSSWALK
And that's when they actually WALK to the beach because most of the time they're taking their little private golf carts.
And all this to cross a lightly travelled 2 lane road with a speed limit of 25MPH.
I understand why the French Revolution went the way it did.
In Canada, its kph, but theres a sign when entering Ontario from Manitoba, where the speed limit is 90 kph, "fines starting at 100 kph" and it lists how much the fine is for doing 100, how much for 110. So the Ontario gov basically sanctions doing 99 in the 90 zone, just dont do 100.
Yeah, the expectation here is speed limit +10 for highway speeds, maybe +5 for backroads, but basically speed limit +0 is never an option so cops can pretty much pull over anyone at will.
Genuine answers from what I've heard regarding laws at least in CA:
There is a precedent that you should be going with the flow of traffic, which is technically safer than going the speed limit when everyone else is faster-- but mostly only on freeways; I rarely the flow going that fast on streets, so the rule doesn't apply to that one jackass going 60 in a 40 zone. And yes, you'll just get to the red faster (good cities time popular traffic lights to the speed limit so it's even stupider to speed).
I'm pretty sure they also set the limit to what older vehicles can pull off safely (assuming you don't tailgate, anyway). They have upped the limit in some areas, however, which I found upsetting. Like, 70mph up from 55mph over a few decades, which feels fast.
Traffic cameras are used, but there's an interesting issue on legality. If you don't acknowledge them, they can't actually say you got the ticket (they come in the mail). I forget the details, but something about seeing your accuser? LA itself more or less decriminalized them, but your mileage may vary based on local government.
Places do, in the form of speed bumps, stop signs and curved roads. Not using those is probably more a mix of old roads and poverty-- new suburbs use windy, wide roads. Wealthy neighborhoods install speed bumps and add tons of stop signs. I don't see it in my neighborhood because "it'll hurt business" which feels like code for "you don't matter enough for safety," hence I think it's a wealth inequality issue like most things in this country.
Anyway, that's the best of my knowledge as a CA resident. Honestly, the bigger danger to me are people who tailgate, road rage, drive on sidewalks, and do stupid things to get to an offramp. That last one? Just last Wednesday I saw a guy, car totaled, who tried to hit an offramp they missed by sharp turning into it, going up a 55 degree slope, and getting t-boned by another guy going up the normal way.
Idiots, I swear...
Ignoring largely empty stretches or highways where there's practically no signs, have you seen how many signs are out there on heavily occupied highways?
We're just coming out of Gulfport Mississippi, Highway 49 (don't worry I'm riding passenger, not driving), and it's pure information overload. When you're surrounded by like 500 signs, McDonald's, Circle K, RaceTrac, Shell, Chevron, this and that doctor's office, etc, and you're only looking for the BIG signs to see what exit to take, well its all too easy to miss the random speed limit sign that they don't even post but once every 3 miles or so.
When surrounded by signage information overload, while you're supposed to be keeping your eyes on the road, you simply cannot read every damn sign. You mostly keep your eyes on the road and follow whatever the pace of traffic is, only glancing up and around for the green signs with road names and highway/interstate directions.
The rule of thumb I've learned, is that no matter the posted speed limit, as long as you're driving safely about the pace of traffic, and aren't the idiot darting through 20mph faster than everyone else, then the cops generally aren't gonna mess with you.
School zones are definitely an exception, you better be going 15mph along with everyone else, and of course following the directions of the traffic guards and bus stop signals when to stop.
TL;DR - Too much information, cannot read all signs and keep eyes on the road simultaneously.
You should be able to pick road signs out of the clutter though - clutter makes it harder for sure but signs have specific shapes and colours to make them identifiable
Why yes, I totally agree. But when the roads are black/gray/white, most of the cars are black/gray/white, and the speed limit signs are black/white, well grayscale blends altogether, while your only practical color focuses are on red/yellow/green.
Tell ya what, if they made speed limit signs with a hot pink background, and only exclusively speed limit signs, then I bet people would notice and pay attention much more rapidly.
US 49 & Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Gulfport, MS 39501
^ Go ahead and look that intersection up on Google Maps/Earth and follow that intersection North on Street View, and tell me that shit ain't ridiculously cluttered with information overload...
Edit: Follow that route on Google Street View, tell me how many speed limit signs there are from that intersection to Interstate 10..
Only one, like ~2-3 miles after said intersection, just before the I10 onramp heading east. So the whole time for miles, you don't even know the speed limit.
My view is mostly uncluttered, and highway speeds are one of two speeds and they don't change very frequently... but from this thread, the speed limits are designed to generate revenue, not control traffic.
And I find the school zone exceptions especially egregious. Yes, if you are at a school where kids walk to school, absolutely, you are a fuckfaced bastard for speeding through a school zone. But in just about every school in my area, if your kid walked to school one morning, he'd be spending the night in foster care because it would be clear child endangerment; and usually those schools are generously set back from the road and there's no way a kid would be interacting with the street without having some serious screws loose.
Oh my, well awesome for you and your area that the roads aren't terribly cluttered with signs, that's cool 👍
But hey, try going anywhere near school zones in Louisiana, they got special signs with basically microprint that's impossible to read, that basically says something like (I forget their exact schedule, I don't live in Louisiana)...
Again disclaimer, I forget their exact schedule, but still that's too many microprint numbers to even read while driving.
That Road Closed part is in such microprint, that as a driver you can't even read the fucking signs unless you're on foot or bicycle, or using binoculars to read in advance...
Because life is better when rules aren't draconian and cruel.
A lot to unpack here. Many reasons for all. Since I'm typing with my thumbs, and this will be a long one, I'll be glossing over some details.
There are many reasons, but the two biggest are:
The better option is to design roads such that a lower speed feels more appropriate to the given conditions.
The systemic issue of US police being trained to believe they're warriors in battle, thus many of them seeing traffic enforcement as not worth their time. The better question is, why are law enforcement and traffic enforcement carried out by the same people?
The US Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face and question their accuser in a court of law. Rules of court procedure guarantee a witness cannot offer evidence to an event they didn't personally witness. This makes prosecution via camera problematic; the camera can't be called into court for questioning and no person personally witnessed the event occur.
The systemic issue of widespread corruption, resulting in projects being completed as cheaply as possible, as opposed to as effectively as possible. Proper measures requires hiring engineers to determine what's needed and then installing them. Every dollar spent on that is a dollar their friend who was contracted for the project can't pocket and donate during their next campaign.
US Americans aren't stupid. Their government has been captured by corrupt officials and oligarchs who are making money off the status quo.
By this logic you can't accuse someone in a situation where your only evidence is security camera footage. That may be the case? Either way it's just one of a plethora of examples of how wonky the US justice system is.
Interaction dreamed up by the utterly deranged.
Good question about why we don't have officers just to enforce traffic. My guess is that the right to detain people is a constitutional weighty and perhaps dangerous anyway. Are there specialized traffic cops with less authority to cause mayhem somewhere in the world?
Your constitutional issues with traffic cameras don't make sense because I know for a fact that they exist and I doubt every ticket is a supreme court case. I find when it comes to policing, lots of things that are unconstitutional on its face, but the state's need to police people--especially black people--overrrides all sense and logic.
Re:traffic calming. It's such a weird feeling NOT being the most cynical person in the room. I like your take, but I think the reason is that drivers want to feel safe, and traffic calming is based entirely around making drivers feel unsafe. That and the fire department wants to be able to take every turn going 65 miles an hour with guys hanging off the side, so our roads are MUCH wider which leads to speeding.
It's because the speed limit is set to the lowest common denominator. Same way a fleet of ships can only go fast as the slowest ship. Most people can drive faster safely.
It's also to make sure the law can always find sonething to use against you when they decide you need to be punished for standing up for yourself.
I'm not sure where you're from but around my neck of the woods, this is NOT the case.
Go fast
Go faster
Allows for invasive searching that cannot be performed by a static object
Go fast but circle means slow
Thanks for attending my TED Talk.
I'm not from the USA, but I also hear this question often, so here it is:
Mainly because people behind the wheel have absolutely different driving experiences and reaction speeds. What is safe enough for you is not safe at all for a beginner driver or a senior citizen. Public roads are therefore public because they allow everyone, which means limits must be set according to the worst driver in the sample.
Meanwhile Germany:
(Speedtrap columm)
Are you saying traffic cameras are not cost effective?
In my state it's illegal to receive infractions from traffic cameras because you have a right to face your accuser. Traffic tickets from cameras are basically guilty until proven innocent and go to the vehicle owner, not necessarily the operator. They also contribute to mass surveillance. My state is also banning all ALPR's very soon thank God, and we do not have any flock cameras around (there is only a couple in the state, in our largest city and only on private/commercial property)
You can have cameras that only record when they detect speeding and that information can be localized and not accessible on the internet.
The problem is with the fascist police state, it's like trying to have sex with a guy who promises just the tip. You can't give them a camera and not expect them to abuse the fuck out of it.
They're cost effective when you set an arbitrarily low speed limit on a historically fast stretch of road. In order to support the $5000+/mo cost of each speed camera, you need to be handing put speeding tickets lile they're going out of style, which incentivizes doing the first part.
It's the speed trap town, automated. Also an American problem. Build a town that uses the highway as a main street so you can enforce an arbitrarily low speed limit in city limits and catch people that miss the first speed limit change sign. Because 99 percent of traffic is passing thru, they are less likely to fight it in court. Easy money for the people running the town.
Also they used to use all sorts of tricks, like posting multiple speed limit change signs in short sequence (65->55->45->35 in the same 1/4 mile (400m for you metric people)), then making sure at least one of those signs is partially obscured by an overgrown tree or in the middle of a bend or camo'ed between city info signs, where you're less likely to see it while concentrating on everything else.
So New York Pays out around $110 million fuckijng dollarydoos for police brutality cases every year, that's the maintenance cost of 1,666 cameras. The money is there if we want to spend it.
I'm also curious about why these cameras are so damn expensive. Something absolutely does not seem right there.
Yeah, you're the first to mention "invisible" speed limit signs, but someone else followed up ... we do live in a creepy police state, don't we.
Psychology — our minds are thinking about what we do next, so the present is regularly seen as an impediment to getting to the future — our destination. If we speed, we are able to do things we want to do next, sooner. After which we will rush to do the thing after that.
Physics — the roads are built according to how curvy the land underneath them is, and according to how much reaction time you need to respond to changes on the road — for example due to weather. Most people speeding are decreasing their calculated and often legislated margin of safety.
Economics — automatic enforcement is not necessarily cheaper — and when it is deployed, people just learn where it’s deployed and stop breaking the law in that one place. In many places traffic fines pay for public services, so you don’t actually want to stop the behavior outright, you just want to catch the people in the act.
Economics — safety isn’t the only constraint on speed — travel time is important. People tend to do more ecologically important things when they arrive compared to when they travel. Significantly slowing everyone down would have a measurable impact.
I'm not exactly sure how speed limits are set, but from driving on roads that vary from 40 and 20 MPH, I honestly don't think it's based on an analysis of the road itself. Sometimes I think, "Oh, shit, a kid got hit here, so let's lower the speed limit."
As for economics, yes, thank you, that does explain it--traffic enforcement is not there to control the flow of traffic, it is there to raise revenue for the state.
Yes and no — there are basic rules with basic margins of error — but as you point out, there’s also political forces that have nothing to do with safety.
In a straight flat road with no other vulnerable road users, the safety margin between 40 and 60 in a modern car is negligible. But on that same road the margin between 60 and 80 is not.
And places change — what was once an isolated country road can easily become a suburban junction. Your example of a child getting hit can either be political reaction, or a lagging indicator that children have become more common in that place.
Edit: the counter point to “oh the state just wants money” is that the state has to pay for roads, and people hate paying taxes. Maybe instead of playing games with fines, voters should just pay for the public services they want? That is part of the reason enforcement is not more serious in many places — it’s not be because voters care about safety — they just don’t like paying fines for rules they chose to break.
My complaint is a road the goes from 25 to 30 to 35 to 30 all in a few miles despite their being no appreciable differences in any of the spans. Like, what the fuck? Just make it thirty. Nobody but me is paying any attention to that shit.
Those cases are almost certainly because someone set a standard for roll, visibility, and reaction times relative to weather — because an objective reason is better than no reason. You have to account for cars that aren’t yours, people who don’t see as well as you, weather that isn’t today, and visibility that isn’t now.
The speed limit changes didn’t make sense to you at that time, and they were maybe was set to an older standard for vehicular performance, but it was set for a reason.
For example do those roads allow bicyclists? If so you need to add margin for error that the vehicle in front of you behind a blind corner is going a lot slower than you anticipate. Vulnerable road users are still road users.
I have worked for almost 10 years around road safety.
Yes, you sound like an engineer that is frustrated their work isn't being properly appreciated.
My point is when I hit the brakes at a lower speed change, I am always met with bewilderment from the cars behind me. So I think frequent speed limit changes probably don't do anything but drive revenue.
Unless it's a large speed change (50 to 30 for example), why are you braking? A 5mph change you can usually just take your foot off the accelerator and coast down to speed. It saves fuel, wear on your brakes, and helps prevent traffic from getting backed up in a wave of braking.
That's potentially where the bewilderment comes from, they see brake lights and because people follow too close, they immediately brake much harder than you did because they can't tell how much you're slowing down or if you're stopping.
Tell me where you live is flat without telling me where you live is flat.
And actually flashing lights--at least briefly--is probably a good indicator of intent.
Most of your questions also are rooted in what appears to be a lack of appreciation for just how huge the USA is. We can't possibly police all of it and there are very, very good reasons why we shouldn't even try. Especially with the current demented leadership.
Why don't we give guns to teenagers because it's fun? Oh, they do in the USA, it's still the stupidest idea ever.
Not to go off topic but they gave a teenager a gun and he ended up shooting up an elementary school in Bend, OR.
A lot of it is cultural. There hasnt been a mass shooting in my state in over 20 years and we are constitutional carry state. Recently they instated a minimum age to purchase firearms of 21 (previously 16 for long guns, 18 for handguns), but there's no minimum age to posses shotguns or long guns and the age for handgun position is 16 without parental consent. And u only need to be 21 for store purchases, private transfers u only need to be 16 so long as u have completed a hunter safety course.
Ok, so this is the breakdown on logic I'm talking about.
IF speeding is a problem, why don't we do a fucking thing about it? Because it gives police something to do when they're not oppressing minorities, and, in fact, gives them a perfect avenue to do so?