[1] - https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...
Such as?
Keep in mind that eliminating low level crime is often very low priority for law enforcement: they only do this under pressure or when expecting some bonus for it. There's a lot of crime that they could fight but virtually don't. Also, most endemic low-level crime is best fought with policies and eliminating poverty, not by pinning petty criminals after the damage is already done.
Such as?
How would that work? Compare the times between shots a large distance apart, like on toll roads?
Goldmine for the government though, just about anybody that drives there the first time thinks they must be the only ones who don't realize that 100 Km/h is a bit slow for a road like that.
http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-gou...
13 million Euros in the first couple of months. For sure common sense had nothing to do with this.
The situation would be different if, for instance, those limits would be obscured or appeared suddenly, and you'd have police forces enforcing them there on purpose. I've heard of cases like that.
Did anyone actually ask the people who put the limits about their reasoning though? Maybe this is the value that came out of simulations. Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions). But maybe the simulations were wrong. I'm sure that there are proper channels one could use to dispute the limits. But just disregarding them because they 'look wrong' is pure hubris.
That they change them frequently doesn't help either.
I mean, you implicitly acknowledged that speeding happens all the time. Yet we don't have a huge death rate from it. It's not a safety problem except in fairly rare situations, it seems to me. It's an administrative problem.
I'd go so far as to say that speed limits themselves are the problem. They're set too low to allow easy money from fines.
People are irresponsible. Many drivers in particular think they're above-average and smarter than the people who designed the traffic signs. Treating speed limits as "just a suggestion" makes it more difficult for people with actual understanding of traffic patterns to design them to ensure optimal flow of cars. Most of the drivers I personally know are textbook cases of https://xkcd.com/277/ (though I do know a few responsible ones, and I respect them deeply for that).
Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me, the citizen.
Hell if I where inclined I could feed the GPS unit false data showing I was doing 30 in a 30 to deliver food to a nursing home.
None of this stuff is workable or desirable.
What about using your phone as a key? To turn on your car you have to put your phone into a deactivated mode (like a drive dashboard) that has significantly decreased functionality. I'd bet parents would be rather interested in this (and perhaps car companies).
>Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me...
Not always. The stopping distance from 35 mph to 40 mph is a good bit. I haven't found any numbers on 35 mph, but it seems that 30 mph has a stopping distance of ~75 ft, while 40 mph is ~120 ft. If you're going 5 over in a 35 mph zone (which is normally a city) there is an increase in brake time that could potentially put someone at risk of being hit. Is it victimless if you put someone elses well being at risk by being hit by you? Because you wanted to get somewhere slightly faster?
Edit: readability