Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[Fjones]

Speeding is dangerous. Driving without attention is even worse. Being distracted, drunk, talking on the phone, not staying in your lane , wieving in and out of traffic, racing trains at crossings. All dumb.

BUT. . . A lot of speed cameras are revenue raising to be honest. They are positioned a lot in places where there is no history of a lot of accidents and on straight stretches of road. Driving 5 kilometres over costs about $100 and while you should not speed, the calibration of cameras and speedometres are sometimes out.

A lot of money comes from fines. Its not put back into safe driving or roads either.

Everyone speeds every now and then but to make a habit of it is stupid. Whats the hurry ? Just leave earlier. If you think its okay as you are a safe driver, not everyone is and if you speed someone can turn in front of you assuming they will make it if you are going the allowed speed but you will smash as you are not.

There are idiots on the roads everywhere. You need to allow for other peoples mistakes. Speeding wont give you time to avoid an idiot changing lanes in front of you, a hidden stop sign , a drunk pedestrian
Wandering on the street, but if getting to point B 5 minutes earlier is so important, go right ahead and be an idiot driver others have to watch out for.

Zephyr, I was talking about highway speeding. The examples you gave relate to rural roads. I am not advocating speeding on those roads. I think the speed limits on those roads are acceptable as they are.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I wish to initiate a discussion about speeding. And by discussion, I mean argument where I put forth my own ideas and mock and ridicule those of anyone who disagrees with me.

Just kidding. Sort of.

And I do not appreciate being ganged up on by people, some of whom are moderators. I do not appreciate a direct violation of the forum rules from a SENIOR MODERATOR, who seems to be entitled to do whateve he wants just becasue he doesn't like me.

It seems like you invited everyone to play king of the mountain but then your upset when people try to push you off your perch.

On speeding, at a higher speed there is more damage. Drivers have less time to react. The damage happens to often to people who weren't in a rush or enjoying the high speeds. I do think if the majority of people decide they want no speed limits it will happen. I wouldn't sign your petition but respect your right to start a movement and won't begrudge you success if it comes.

 

[Fjones]

It seems like you invited everyone to play king of the mountain but then your upset when people try to push you off your perch.

On speeding, at a higher speed there is more damage. Drivers have less time to react. The damage happens to often to people who weren't in a rush or enjoying the high speeds. I do think if the majority of people decide they want no speed limits it will happen. I wouldn't sign your petition but respect your right to start a movement and won't begrudge you success if it comes.

This is not a fair assessment. I don't mind being pushed off the mountain as long as I am being pushed off with a respectful and reasonable argument. WHat I get upset with is the emotionally charged, illogical arguments that are made, as well as the ad hominum attacks that have nothing to do with my argument.

You write,

"On speeding, at a higher speed there is more damage. Drivers have less time to react."

No one is disputing that. Drivers have less time to react at 80 MPH than 65MPH. What is your point? Drivers have kless time to react at 65 MPH than they do at 40 MPH. Should we make all speed limits 40 MPH?

The problem with your argument is that it begs the question. The question being, "should we automatically enact policy to reduce damage on impact and increase driver response time?

I say the answer is no, in fact, it MUST be no, otherwise we would have a speed limit of zero (or close to it).

 

[Jabberwocky]

^My main argument is that in a democracy if the line is drawn unfairly or shouldn't be drawn at all you can take it to the voters or their representatives. I personally agree with drawing a line somewhere on speed, in Germany they have places without speed limits because that is what the German people have agreed on through democratic process.

 

[Fjones]

^^^

I agree.

Maybe my point is being lost here. I seem to be debating with people with whom I actually agree sometimes. When that happens, I try to rephrase my points, that way if I phrased them poorly to begin with, they will be better understood.

I believe that humans are smart enough, and that technology is advanced enough, to allow people to drive 80 to 85 MPH on the highway.

being that some states have allowed this, and other countries have also allowed it, why are so many people labeling me a terrible person for having these beliefs?

Many Blers oppose the drug war. They think the war is unjust. They don't like it when people say, "Well, you are endangering others with your drug use, therefore we need to war on drugs," or, "yeah, but we cannot trust people to behave safely on drugs and not hurt others."

Drug war opponents reject those arguments, yet they make those very same arguments against my suggestion of higher speed limits.

 

[rickolasnice]

Yes. I have reiterated that point dozens of times.

I am talking about speeding, within reason, on multilane highways with adequate tires in dry conditions.

Apparently I am a horrible and dangerous person because I think 80 - 85 MPH is a safe speed for those conditions.

No one has really given any proof that it isn't, though they have had no problem attacking me and insulting me.

Oh right sorry i didn't bother reading the whole thread.. In that case, although I don't have any data / statistics to support either side of the argument.. i would have to say.. I dunno! I guess it's not too dangerous.. seein as Germany has no speed limit on their motorways.. (sorry; highways).

 

[atri]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KH269CbX4
theres a perfect example

 

[Fjones]

Allow me to make another point --

I am going to compare two scenarios.

Scenario 1 --

Speed limits are 65 MPH. Fines are minimal, enforcement is random and low-key, and people can easily get several tickets without and noticeable consequences. Thus, people tend to drive between 65 and 80 MPH. Some people are occasionally ticketed for going 80 MPH, whereas other times cops will ignore people going 80 MPH. tremendous revenue is generated by the collection of fines from those tickets given to the people who are pulled over for going 80 MPH.

Scenario 2 --

Speed limits are 80 MPH, but, they are STRICTLY ENFORCED by a combination of VISIBLE (not hidden) police cars, and draconian punishments for those caught. These punishments are so severe that speeding is all but eliminated. Some drives still feel comfortable going 65 MPH, so once again, drivers are going between 65 and 80 MPH. But, there is no ticket revenue, because no one is speeding.


Note that scenario 1 is actually the case, and scenario 2 is never going to happen. The only difference is money.

So when people say the speed limits are about safety and not money, I respectfully disagree. I think a speed range of 65 to 80 MPH is safe, and the current system simply applies a tax to those who like to drive toward the higher end of that range.

If the speed limits were truly about safety, they would actually enforce the speed limits rigidly. They don't. Most COP CARS are speeding at any given time. More than half the drivers on I-95 are speeding at any given time.

 

[rickolasnice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KH269CbX4
theres a perfect example

Shiiiiit

 

[Fjones]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KH269CbX4
theres a perfect example

I'm sorry, but what was that supposed to be an example of? I thought we were talking about SPEEDING. That guy committed numerous traffic violations. I have already stated that I think tailgating and unsafe lane changes are very dangerous.

By posting that link, you seem to be arguing my point for me. That guy simultaneously tailgated and cut someone off. I don't understand what that has to do with speeding.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^ It was an example of more speed more damage.

 

[rickolasnice]

Yeah i was gonna say.. that crash seemed to have been caused by unsafe driving rather than speeding.. but I don't drive so was unsure

 

[atri]

your original question was "is speeding dangerous?"
people have stated multiple times that the faster you go, the greater the damage on impact. so yes, speeding is dangerous.

 

[Fjones]

your original question was "is speeding dangerous?"
people have stated multiple times that the faster you go, the greater the damage on impact. so yes, speeding is dangerous.

You are being repetitive.

Again, by your logic, airplanes should be grounded, because if one crashes, everyone Will die. Skydiving is a no-no, what the the skydiver attaining a speed well in excess of 100 MPH.

Furthermore, we should lower the speed limits from 65 to 35, because damage is more severe at 65 than 35. But no one is advocating that. Why not? I thought everyone cared about safety?

I have made these points many times Atri. You continue to ignore them, so I assume you have no good counterargument.

 

[Fjones]

your original question was "is speeding dangerous?"
people have stated multiple times that the faster you go, the greater the damage on impact. so yes, speeding is dangerous.

And there is the example of the Autobahn.

You do not address any of my points. You write "clever" one liners and proclaim the argument over. Is that how you debate a point at work? How does your boss feel about that?

Why are you unwilling to have a discussion where we hear and respond to each other's ideas?

 

[atri]

way to put words in my mouth
ground airplanes huh? ive ridden in planes many times and have never seen a floating speed limit sign, so technically they arent speeding, they are just going fast. pilots also undergo exponentially more training in order to fly planes, coupled with the fact that there are far less planes in the air than cars on the highway.
but we arent talking about planes, were talking about cars on a highway that are "speeding", which means going faster than the posted speed limit.
no one here is arguing that we should lower speed limits, i think speed limits are fine for the most part.

 

[Fjones]

Oh OK then, but only 'cos I'm so stoned I almost drooling on myself here.


1) Why is it inherently dangerous to drive 80 MPH? Please explain. You have yet to do so.
It's dangerous to get into an SUV and back out of your own driveway. Heaps of toddlers are killed this way each year and that's why they have introduced sensors and cameras to the back of these cars now. Getting into a car to drive it at all carries alot of risk, we just don't think about it all the time.

Is it dangerous to drive 80mph on a highway? Of course it is. It's also dangerous to drive 70mph or 60mph on the same highway, but if you do need to stop suddenly or you are in accident, your chances are much better at the lower speeds. Different places calculate this risk, determine a speed limit for their area and then enforce it as they see fit for the safety of everyone.

2) If speed traps are about safety, why do they HIDE, such that people DO speed, when they could sit out in the open, this stopping people from speeding?
Because they are ALSO about revenue raising. That's really no big secret. That money goes to the government and in most places the government springs for things like education, roads and transport and ambulance services.

3) If speeding is so dangerous, why do they give such low fines for it? Why do they allow you to do it so many times without losing your license? Why don't they stop speeding altogether by enforcing draconian penalties that no one would risk receiving?
Maybe in your area. I've known people who have lost their licenses due to speeding.

4) Why do different states have different speed limits? If the governments cannot even agree with each other about what a safe speed is, why should I assume any of them are correct?
Perhaps it's not actually about a correct answer as such, but an answer that everyone in your particular area can live with? You can't have some people doing 60 and others doing 90 because you need people to be going at roughly the same speed for maximum safety. The speed limits in different areas would indicate limits the the whole community can live with for that area, not just you.

5) If speeding is dangerous, why is the autobahn as safe, if not safer, than American highways?
People understand the risk they undertake when getting onto something like the autobahn and modify their driving accordingly. However someone driving on a regular highway as if it were the autobahn when other drivers might not necessarily account for that is being a menace.

I will now reply. I have been busy with errands, appointments, and other replies.

1) Most people's vision exceeds their car' stopping distance. This means if they are paying attention, they have enough time to slow down or stop safely.

2) So, you agree with me that it is about the money. Essentially, you just said that they allow a certain amount of speeding (which is dangerous and causes loss of life) because they need the money that speeding brings in. If I said that going 80 MPH instead of 65 MPH will increase productivity and save millions of man hours at the cost of a few more deaths, people would label me a monster. Yet people don't seem to mind that the state is willing to sacrifice lives because it needs the money that results from that loss of life? I don't get it. Why don't they strictly enforce the speed limits and find another way to make money that doesn't put people at risk? (Note -- I am NOT advocating that. I am simply asking why my opponents do not advocate that, if safety is their primary concern).

3) In my state, you can get speeding tickets without losing your license. is there ANYTHING in society that is considered "dangerous" and "life threatening" that you can do THREE TIMES without suffering any real penalty?

4) With number 4, you seem to be agreeing that high speed itself is not objectionable, but that is is objectionable only when there are highly disparate speeds. I agree. That is why I advocate 80 MPH zones.

5) Again, it sounds like we agree. You just said that without speed limits, people alter their driving accordingly to make it safe. That is what I am suggesting would happen here if we raised the speed limits.

 

[rickolasnice]

To back Fjones up:

In your argument, atri, where does one draw the line between safe speed and unsafe speed. You say the faster you go the more damage.. so shall we all stop moving? (No offence, mate )

I guess the only way to solve this argument is to bring up some statistics of survival rates of crashes at certain speeds.. to see if there is a reliable cut off point of worth safety.

 

[Fjones]

way to put words in my mouth
ground airplanes huh? ive ridden in planes many times and have never seen a floating speed limit sign, so technically they arent speeding, they are just going fast. pilots also undergo exponentially more training in order to fly planes, coupled with the fact that there are far less planes in the air than cars on the highway.
but we arent talking about planes, were talking about cars on a highway that are "speeding", which means going faster than the posted speed limit.
no one here is arguing that we should lower speed limits, i think speed limits are fine for the most part.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You said that 80 MPH is INHERENTLY more dangerous thasn 70 MPH.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you basically say,

80 MPH is more dangerous than 65 MPH, therefore people should drive 65 MPH?

I thought that is what you said.

If you think the speed limits are fine, then you are ignoring your own argument. You have stated that the faster the speed, the more likely and more sever the accident. The same arguement applies to having the limit be 65 instead of 40.

 

[Fjones]

To back Fjones up:

In your argument, atri, where does one draw the line between safe speed and unsafe speed. You say the faster you go the more damage.. so shall we all stop moving? (No offence, mate )

I guess the only way to solve this argument is to bring up some statistics of survival rates of crashes at certain speeds.. to see if there is a reliable cut off point of worth safety.

People will respond to this by saying, "they have those cut-off points, it's called the SPEED LIMIT."


I will respond pre-emptively to that by saying that different states have different cut-off points, so I don't buy into that argument. Do the actuaries in Michigan know something that we in Maryland or pennsylvania do not?