Apart from the occasional overtaking which you might need the extra speed, the odds you get a ticket from a hidden camera are very low if you just respect the speed limits. Or am I missing some point?
> the odds you get a ticket from a hidden camera are very low if you just respect the speed limits
And the comment I was responding to was about how speed limits are unreasonable. So I maintain that the comment did not refute OP's point. The reasonableness of the speed limits is irrelevant to whether or not you get fewer tickets when you drive below the posted speed limit.
I could get a ticket for jaywalking a red light even though it's 4am, dead silent and can't see a car for a mile. "The law is the law", if some traffic cop came from around the corner he could ticket me. Now is that right? I think it isn't. Now what are my options? Spend an inordinate amount of time trying to change the way society works or figure out ways to go about my life without having to obey some over-bearing public official's rules.
Many speed limits are set lower than they need to be. On many roads, including freeways, the average speed of traffic is higher than the speed limit. Driving the speed limit on these freeways is dangerous.
Additionally, many speedometers read slightly higher than the actual speed. Driving the exact speed limit on many roads as shown by your speedometer means you are actually driving quite slow.
Repecting the speed limit as a strict rule is dangerous.
...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system that the US, at least, aspires to.
> need to be
...oh, and vehicle inefficiency increases superlinearly with speed[1]. Until the majority of the vehicles on the road are electric, lower speed limits help fight climate change. Speed limits don't "need to be" anything, and picking lower limits when there's a good reason is good.
> On many roads, including freeways, the average speed of traffic is higher than the speed limit.
Because drivers follow this flawed line of thought en masse - which doesn't excuse it.
> Driving the speed limit on these freeways is dangerous.
I guess we need more enforcement, then. Plus, I've never encountered a dangerous situation while driving in the right lane. I suspect that there's an implicit "...in the left lane" on your claim.
> Driving the exact speed limit on many roads as shown by your speedometer means you are actually driving quite slow.
Citation needed for the claim that you're "driving quite slow". I've never seen a speedometer that was off by more than 4 MPH (measured as the difference between that and GPS), and a difference of 4 MPH when you're going 55 is not "quite slow".
> Repecting the speed limit as a strict rule is dangerous.
It's called a "limit" for a reason, and the only reason it's non-trivially dangerous is because of other drivers significantly breaking the speed limit, too.
This has inspired me to contact my local state's transportation department and request that they step up enforcement of speed limits.
that is, btw, the history of why we have a 55 speed limit. In 1973 there was a gas crisis, so in 1974 President Nixon drafted the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), ostensibly to conserve gasoline.
They're most rare at 0 mph. In fact, they're so rare to be impossible.
Once you've accepted non-zero speeds (including walking), you've also accepted some level of risk. We're just arguing about what level of risk is acceptable.
The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation.
People seem to have a distorted view on what freedom means.
If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. History is filled with people who "knew better" for the populace.
We have the technology to measure in realtime what the mass consensus for things like speed limits are. This type of voting is implicit, automated, and accurately captures the will of the people without friction. Right now, this technology has been hijacked by creepy advertising vermin to sell us things we don't need. I think that a time is coming soon when it is reclaimed and put to proper use.
Correct, and there's a way to do that: by contacting your local transportation department and/or representatives.
> The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation.
I don't know where you live, but in the US we have these things called "elections" where you can vote for who you want and the policies that they implement, and after the election they'll usually even listen to their constituents if they're contact on large enough scales. There's no tyranny.
> If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit.
You're intentionally conflating terms. The "speed limit" by definition is something that the state sets - it cannot be set by drivers.
> Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them.
This is absolutely crazy. One of the primary functions of a democratic government is to determine and then implement consensus, such as how fast cars should travel on roads. The speed limits around my area literally reflect my preferences. Taking the public's desire and implementing it is the exact opposite of tyranny.
Maybe you should come to the US, where we actually have elections and you can email your governor if you don't like the speed limit - it sounds like you live in a non-democratic country. In the meantime, you've inspired me to contact my governor and ask them to step up speed limit enforcement.
No, this would take more hours than there are in a decade.
At least here in Australia, you'll be completely ignored. Been there and tried it. Doesn't work, at least not as individuals. ;)
You've presented a false dichotomy here. Advocating for a change of the law while respecting the law, and breaking the law silently are not the only option.
You can also break the law while advocating for its change. This is called civil disobedience and is a very American thing, going back to at least Thoreau.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
> Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.
> Martin Luther King Jr.
The speed limit conversation seems a distraction. Why drive at all? It's annoying.
I hate dealing with the other humans on the road and the stupid things they do. I hate the constant uncertainty, not being able to assume anything because people don't even signal turns properly. I hate the roads, poorly maintained, full of speed bumps, full of potholes, full of people walking around without a care in the world. I hate having to maintain my car.
I hate being forced to drive. I only do it because I hate other forms of transport even more.
Electric vehicles are not actually better than gas for continuous use, they're better in the city when the traffic is stop and go.
Losing minutes (and hours) of your life for a minor improvement on the climate seems odd. Spending that energy on reducing corporate offenders (like shipping with bunker oil) would be more effective in achieving closer the maximum 20% reduction. Lobbying for better public transportation is better than slowing everyone down. (though it's unfortunate how often those lobbying want to replace instead of augment cars.)
If the majority of drivers feel the limits are too low, and the limits stay low, can you argue democracy is working? It's more likely you favor the status quo and know that contacting a politician is rather unlikely to get it changed.
Electric cars are more efficient in general, the relative efficiency is what I am comparing. Keep in mind, that the best path is to drive your current car until it's irreparable before buying any new car electric or not.
I have done this. It resulted in the gov asking me to prove it. I ran a study and responded that something like 80% of drivers (I don't have numbers with me any more) go above the posted 25 mph speed limit.
The results? Nothing. The gov said thanks for the data and ignored it.
To this day, that stretch of road continues to see daily speeding tickets given. It is not a speed limit for safety, but for revenue generation.
Sounds like you are a qualified expert and know more about road design, traffic flow and pedestrian safety than those doing the job now.
Clearly you need to apply for a position so you can right these so obvious wrongs.
Please, don’t pretend you can do the job better than qualified experts
In France, some *départements* adopted the 80km/h limitation while some other kept the 90km/h one, this has to deal with a compromise between safety, co2 emissions and current road behavior and population requirements. So maybe for each country, before experts gave roads their current speed limitations, the way the population drove was taken into account by those experts or was taken into account *in place* of experts analysis, in order for the limitations to be a negotiation/compromise between current habits and experts analysis, in the best cases, and only an affirmation of the population *sentiment* in the worst cases.
The problem is not the road experts analysis in EU, but the political decision to apply or not the analysis, and the population refus to follow the limitations.
Majority of speed limits are in residential areas set up by the neighbour who complains, as the poster above just proudly did [1]. So the speed starts at 50kph set up by experts when the suburb is created, and 20 years later a random subset of streets is down to 20kph, because somebody somewhere lived there and was bored enough with their life to pester the city hall.
And while that may sound cynical and hostile, it is literally what happened in my last 2 neighbourhoods. There was no expertise, no statistics, no evaluation. Just complaints and no political will to ever refuse or re-examine.
On hwys in my area, experts and studies have repeatedly over years suggested increases are feasible. But it keeps getting delayed. Here's the reality - those who want to go faster will silently go faster. Those who want to go slower will very loudly insist that everybody goes slower. And bureaucratd will be bureaucrats and take the low risk route.
I hate it so much.
We will never have meaningful discussion if we pretend that the only safe speed is 0kph and we all need to stay home and anybody driving is a dangerous maniac. Because if you take the categorical stance that e.g. 40kph is reasonable and all people who want to do 50kph are dangerous drivers who must be stopped, be aware that somebody else thinks 30kph is reasonable and you are a ridiculously dangerous stunt driver for suggesting 40.
It's the old "everybody who drivers slower than me is a moron, everybody who drives faster is a maniac". Have the self awareness that your preferred speed is not the only way to be.
There are many dangerous driving aspects other than going 105kph on a 6 lane straight modern hwy.
I absolutely think 50 kph is a bit high for small inner city streets. There could be children, animals, old people. Shit happens. Driving slowly lowers the risk. Also, fuck car sound. I hate it. I hate pointless driving, which happens to be most of it anyway.
Based on your handle, I'd say you are from Serbia or Hrvatska. Or something like that. It's been almost 20 years since my last visit. Here in Bulgaria there is a massive contingent of extremely dangerous fucks with 20+ year old cars. The type with "blood type audi" and such. Fuck these people. They shouldn't be breathing, let alone driving and breeding
Washington refers to modifying speed limits with the goal of noise abatement: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/ENV-ANE-Noi... page 20
Delaware includes modifying speed limits (classed as traffic management) for noise abatement: https://deldot.gov/Programs/highway_noise/index.shtml
as a counterexample, https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and... various pages: Wisconsin forbids using speed limit reductions as noise abatement.
It's unmarked cop cars while I'm over taking that bother me the most.