Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[L2R]

Ok, you are the smartest person in the world and have the sharpest road instincts and a reaction time to make superman seem sluggish. You are exceptional in this regard. The great majority of drivers out there do not have these attributes and skills and therefore require more stringent guidelines when it comes to roadrules and their enforcement.

Without having some kind of legally recognised marker to attach to your car indicating that you are the world's best driver, you cannot expect the law to treat you any differently from everyone else, despite your absolute certainty of safety on the road.

 

[Zzyzx]

This is going nowhere...

Fjone.. i'm sad to have to tell this to you but.. nobody seems to agree with you here. Perhaps you should call it a night ?

 

[Fjones]

What if the car in front of you has a mechanical problem and abruptly goes in your way?

That would stop you for good...

What do you mean? Seriously, what do you mean?

A "mechanical problem? One that would cause the laws of physics not to exist? When a car has a mechanical problem, it GRADUALLY ROLLS TO A STOP! It doesn't just disobey the laws of physics and cease moving on the spot!

 

[Fjones]

This is going nowhere...

Fjone.. i'm sad to have to tell this to you but.. nobody seems to agree with you here. Perhaps you should call it a night ?

Actually , on the first page, seveal people agreed with me. Did you not bother to read the first page? So why don't YOU give it a night? I'll continue debating as long as I feel like doing so. Obviously I like debating.

 

[Fjones]

^ Behavior is spelled with a 'u' in Australia. If you were joking my bad.

I was dead serious. I wasn't talking abotu that word. I know that many words have a "u" in them outside of the U.S. He had other errors that were not the result of international variants.

 

[Zzyzx]

So why don't YOU give it a night?

Thats the first thing you said in this thread that makes any sense

Its late and i'm just gonna go sleep now :D

Good night speed racer!

 

[Fjones]

Ok, you are the smartest person in the world and have the sharpest road instincts and a reaction time to make superman seem sluggish. You are exceptional in this regard. The great majority of drivers out there do not have these attributes and skills and therefore require more stringent guidelines when it comes to roadrules and their enforcement.

Without having some kind of legally recognised marker to attach to your car indicating that you are the world's best driver, you cannot expect the law to treat you any differently from everyone else, despite your absolute certainty of safety on the road.

Thank you for finally making some kind of actual argument. That is all I was asking for. Even though your post is dripping with sarcasm, there is a point mixed in there under the sarcasm.

Yes, other drivers lack my reflexes and vision. That is why I am not advocating a 140 MPH speed limit. But I don't think 80 MPH is reasonable.

You explained why you think going 80 MPH in a 60 Zone is unsafe. I disagree, but let's suppose I grant you that point.

Can you explain to me why going 80 MPH in an 80 MPH zone is a problem? And if it is not a problem, why don't we make the speed limits 80 MPH?

AND ENFORCE the 80 MPH, so that it doesn't become 95 by default, as is often the case with many roads.

 

[Fjones]

Mr. Impacto Profundo sir -- You seem big on "rules" and "law." Your primary objection to what I do seems to be that I am disobeying the law. I suspect that if the speed limit were 80 MPH, you would not mind if I go 80 MPH. Correct?

But society has decided that 55 MPH or 65 MPH is the limit, and you think I should obey that.

Well, might I ask why you think the rules do not apply to you? I am specifically referring to this one, posted as a sticky in the Second Opinion forum --

RESPECT OTHERS - We do not need or want posts that would be blatantly offensive, disrespectful, abusive, hateful, harassing, racist, threatening or otherwise annoying to the readers. It is okay to be forceful, but it is not necessary to be rude. There is no need for that in this forum ...

Do you think that rule does not apply to you since you are a senior moderator?

 

[toa$t]

Why are people driving around in unsafe vehicles? Why do we put unsafe cars on the road? Do people really need their Cadillac Escalade, with it's poor maneuverability, bad braking distance, and overall lack of emergency handling?

maybe they don't, and maybe we shouldn't put unsafe cars on the road. but I think it seems strange to say that we should legislate that everyone spend more money on their vehicles just so that people can drive faster, when these 'unsafe' vehicles are perfectly safe at lower speeds. don't you?

If driving is all about safety, why are so many cars designed with comfort and size in mind instead of the two most important aspects of safety -- handling and braking distance?

because car companies are not all about driving. they are all about making the most money possible (if you can believe that in this day and age). and the safest cars aren't the ones that generate the most income. just because car companies do something a certain way doesn't mean they ought to do it that way.

What you just said is just another way of saying what I said, that a certain amount of death is acceptable as long as people get where they are going in a reasonable amount of time and products get where they are going.

this is correct. what exactly is the problem here?

Regarding the different states, Yes, that is my point, that one or both states have set the wrong speed limit. In other words, they don't know what they are doing. With all the data they have, the states cannot even agree on what is a safe speed limit? Some 3 lane highways have 55 MPH zones and some are 75 or 80.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't see how a 55 MPH speed limit on a 3 lane highway makes any sense.

Also, why do they suddenly DROP from 65 to 55 in some places despite no obvious change in the road conditions? It seems like a good way to catch people who are now suddenly speeding despite maintaining their speed.

I agree, that's bullshit. but that isn't the thrust of your argument. you were apparently shitting on low speed limits in general. and I thought I responded to that fairly effectively and concisely.

edit: in response to the post above. you seem not to have a problem with speed limits in general, but seem to feel that they are too low. I imagine this is because you believe that they could be raised without having a significant impact on traffic accidents. you might ebright about that-- I simply don't know. but I suspect that the government has probably done a fair amount of research on this, factoring in things like average driver skill, average car quality etc. perhaps differnt states have done different individual studies and come up with different results, explaining the different speed limits. perhaps people make less money in states with lower speed limits and therefore have less disposable income with which they can maintain their vehicles. whatever the reason, I suspect they have one. if speed limits are arbitrarily assigned, I doubt that anyone would argue with you that they are ridiculous. but I have a feeling (and admittedly that is all it is) that a fair amount of research has gone into the cost benefit analysis of setting speed limits where they are.

 

[L2R]

Can you explain to me why going 80 MPH in an 80 MPH zone is a problem?

It isn't.

And if it is not a problem, why don't we make the speed limits 80 MPH?

Well, i am not too fussed by the speed limits in place here, so i am taking no steps to change them. Why don't you follow amorroark's suggestions to have yours changes?

AND ENFORCE the 80 MPH, so that it doesn't become 95 by default, as is often the case with many roads.

Only with drivers like you around.

Mr. Impacto Profundo sir -- You seem big on "rules" and "law." Your primary objection to what I do seems to be that I am disobeying the law. I suspect that if the speed limit were 80 MPH, you would not mind if I go 80 MPH. Correct?

Yes but my concern is primarily about safety.

But society has decided that 55 MPH or 65 MPH is the limit, and you think I should obey that.

Yes i think you should. There are means with which you can object to the limits, or move someplace else, but until they are changed, you have no right to just assume the right to break them without attention from the local law.

Well, might I ask why you think the rules do not apply to you? I am specifically referring to this one, posted as a sticky in the Second Opinion forum --

RESPECT OTHERS - We do not need or want posts that would be blatantly offensive, disrespectful, abusive, hateful, harassing, racist, threatening or otherwise annoying to the readers. It is okay to be forceful, but it is not necessary to be rude. There is no need for that in this forum ...

Do you think that rule does not apply to you since you are a senior moderator?

cry me a river, buddy. calling you stupid is not going to kill anyone.

 

[L2R]

in terms of your whine about differing states with differing laws:

the laws in each state are the responsibility of those who reside in it. should you drive in their home state, you are essentially visiting their home, and as such you need to respect their rules.


sorry, but if you come to my place, you'll be taking off your shoes at the entrance. everyone does.

 

[Fjones]

maybe they don't, and maybe we shouldn't put unsafe cars on the road. but I think it seems strange to say that we should legislate that everyone spend more money on their vehicles just so that people can drive faster, when these 'unsafe' vehicles are perfectly safe at lower speeds. don't you?

The larger and less safe vehicles are MORE expensive. The compacts that handle well and brake well tend to be inexpensive. If one wants a huge powerful engine also, then yes, they are expensive. But one can get a mazda3or something with great handling and braking for a relatively low price.



because car companies are not all about driving. they are all about making the most money possible (if you can believe that in this day and age). and the safest cars aren't the ones that generate the most income. just because car companies do something a certain way doesn't mean they ought to do it that way.

Exactly. So it is more about money than safety. I think we agree on that point



this is correct. what exactly is the problem here? None (See above)



I agree, that's bullshit. but that isn't the thrust of your argument. you were apparently shitting on low speed limits in general. and I thought I responded to that fairly effectively and concisely.

edit: in response to the post above. you seem not to have a problem with speed limits in general, but seem to feel that they are too low. I imagine this is because you believe that they could be raised without having a significant impact on traffic accidents. you might ebright about that-- I simply don't know. but I suspect that the government has probably done a fair amount of research on this, factoring in things like average driver skill, average car quality etc. perhaps differnt states have done different individual studies and come up with different results, explaining the different speed limits. perhaps people make less money in states with lower speed limits and therefore have less disposable income with which they can maintain their vehicles. whatever the reason, I suspect they have one. if speed limits are arbitrarily assigned, I doubt that anyone would argue with you that they are ridiculous. but I have a feeling (and admittedly that is all it is) that a fair amount of research has gone into the cost benefit analysis of setting speed limits where they are.

You bascially hit the nail on the head. I do think the hazards of driving 80 in a 65 are exaggerated, and no one in my car has ever felt unsafe when I am going 80 in a 65. But, I think it would be even safer to go 80 in an 80, which is why I think the speed limit should be 80.

But then they lose all the revenue hey get from my going 80 in a 65.

By the way, I apologize for the weird way of responding to individual points. I do not know how to multi-quote a message.

 

[Fjones]

in terms of your whine about differing states with differing laws:

the laws in each state are the responsibility of those who reside in it. should you drive in their home state, you are essentially visiting their home, and as such you need to respect their rules.


sorry, but if you come to my place, you'll be taking off your shoes at the entrance. everyone does.

Well, we agree on something. Shoes are absolutely forbidden in my home as well.

Look, I understand that I have a responsibility to obey the laws of each state. That is beside the point though. I am raising the question of WHY each state has different laws and whether that makes sense (It doesn't).

 

[Fjones]

It isn't.



Well, i am not too fussed by the speed limits in place here, so i am taking no steps to change them. Why don't you follow amorroark's suggestions to have yours changes?




Only with drivers like you around.




Yes but my concern is primarily about safety.



Yes i think you should. There are means with which you can object to the limits, or move someplace else, but until they are changed, you have no right to just assume the right to break them without attention from the local law.




cry me a river, buddy. calling you stupid is not going to kill anyone.

Wow, are you ever a hypocrite! you are all "rules rules rules" when it suits your argument, then you just disregard them whenever you want, which you can because you are a senior moderator. How pathetic.

I am curious as to how consistent you are Mr. Profundo. Do you think drug users should be put in jail too? After all, they are violating the laws that you hold so precious.

"Only with drivers like me?" On most highways, more than half the cars are driving above the speed limit.

 

[AmorRoark]

I think there is some logic in the differences between speed limits on highways. A highway with a lot of curves/turns/an amazing number of mergers and/or on/off ramps in one small area (see Lake Shore Drive which is along the shore all the way from north to south and directly next to the city of Chicago) should have a lower speed limit than say a really isolated highway in Western Kansas. The speed limit on that th Chicago highway ranged from 45 to 55. This was totally reasonable as there were drastice and hard to expect slow downs due to off/on ramp back-ups during rush hour. You never knew how far back you would be at any one time. It all mattered how many people could get through the light at any off-ramp (which depends on many factors which cannot be helped... how many busses are turning, how if there is a baseball game at Wrigley, etc etc etc. all of which may be impossible to guess before getting on the highway)

I agree that many highways change speeds because of speed traps (or at least seem to) but many others I've noticed actually make sense.

 

[toa$t]

so fjones: admittedly, I have not read the entire thread. what I gather about your position (and correct me if I am wrong) is this:

you think it is stupid that they set the speed limit at 65, but for the most part tolerate people driving 80. however, they sometimes just arbitrarily pull people over from driving 80 just to generate some income. and you think this is bullshit.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't think that was clear from your first few points. I feel like yu were simply arguing that speed limits are too low based on your driving ability without taking into account the fact that there are many, many far less competent drivers driving inferior vehicles on the road. regardless, none of us really have an understanding of the actuarial data and calculations that go into setting speed limits, and therefore arguing about how high or low they should be is pretty pointless. I am sure they do their homework though.

If, on the other hand, your point is about the 65/80 thing, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

 

[delta_9]

Driving by itself is dangerous.

 

[Fjones]

^^^ That is a fair point (What amorroark said. Every time I try to use ^^^ instead of quoting, someone jumps in between with a post and then my ^^^ is confusing ) . In cases where there is a legitimate reason for the decrease, I can go along with that.

I also agree with many that said "Speeding isn't dangerous, driving too fast for conditions is."

I get most of my tickets when there are FEW cars on the road. Without other cars for context, it is easy for my speed to creep up toward 85 MPH without really realizing it.

And, on an empty highway, I don't think that is dangerous! But that's when I get most of my tickets.

Meanwhile, ten cars can go by a cop on a busy highway, all tailgating each other, and the cop does nothing.

 

[Fjones]

so fjones: admittedly, I have not read the entire thread. what I gather about your position (and correct me if I am wrong) is this:

you think it is stupid that they set the speed limit at 65, but for the most part tolerate people driving 80. however, they sometimes just arbitrarily pull people over from driving 80 just to generate some income. and you think this is bullshit.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't think that was clear from your first few points. I feel like yu were simply arguing that speed limits are too low based on your driving ability without taking into account the fact that there are many, many far less competent drivers driving inferior vehicles on the road. regardless, none of us really have an understanding of the actuarial data and calculations that go into setting speed limits, and therefore arguing about how high or low they should be is pretty pointless. I am sure they do their homework though.

If, on the other hand, your point is about the 65/80 thing, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

I was JUST about to write a post saying, "Allow me to rephrase" and then I was going to write what you just wrote.

Yes. I think it is bullshit that they set the limit at 65 and tolerate 80 but randomly hassle people about it just to make money.

If they made it 80 instead and ENFORCED it with Draconian fines, people would STILL be driving between 65 and 80, just like now, but they wouldn't be randomly taxing people for it.

Yes, I was also objecting to the low speed limits in general. I also think cops should take CONTEXT into account. Why do they need to pull over a car doing 90 MPH on an empty three lane well lit straightaway highway?

I agree that 90 MPH on a busy road weaving in and out is dangerous. But on an empty highway?



Really, my biggest objection is the people who were saying I am dangerous, irresponsible, selfish, etc. I am a safe and careful driver. I focus on driving. I have no other choice but to focus on driving, the way I drive.

I don't mind if people say, "FJones, sure, you are skilled enough to drive 85 MPH, but others aren't, so we have the lower limits of 55 and 65." Instead though, people said, "FJones, you are a selfish dangerous hazard and are worse than a pedophile." Fuck that shit.

 

[toa$t]

Yes, I was also objecting to the low speed limits in general. I also think cops should take CONTEXT into account. Why do they need to pull over a car doing 90 MPH on an empty three lane well lit straightaway highway?

I agree that 90 MPH on a busy road weaving in and out is dangerous. But on an empty highway?

i think this is a fine idea on paper, but is totally impractical. this would put irresponsible people into the position to make a judgment call about when the road is empty enough to drive faster, and it would simply be a nightmare to enforce.