• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

I think excessive speeding can be dangerous, but it really depends on the roadways. Generally speaking, it's pretty safe to go 5-15 mph over the posted speed limit in an area around where I live. Personally I'll either go the speed limit, or stay within the 5-15 mph range.

If you tailgate me, I will go even slower. That always gives me a good laugh. Especially when people behind me are beeping if I don't want to go as fast as they are going, even though I'm going at least the speed limit. Do people really think by beeping at me I am all of a sudden going to start speeding up just to please them? haha. The pleasures of driving.
 
1) Not all actions that increase risk pose the same level of danger. Dropping a brick from a tall building, when there are people below, vastly increases the risk of death or injury more than speeding 15mph over the limit in a single instance. We set punishments and deterrents appropriately.

2) Insurance companies are in the business of pricing risk. This is what they do. This is what they have enormous databases on. They raise the price of your collision insurance when you are caught speeding. Why? Because 1/3 of all accidents involve speeding.

If you doubt their model, I suggest coming up with a model that suggests otherwise, and starting your own insurance company. You'll soon be able to gain enormous market-share from those foolish insurance companies that raise your rates in response to a moving violation, and make vast sums of money.
 
aanallein said:
poor baby got a ticket

go cry about it more
Click to expand...

Listen a__hole, this is a thread dedicated to the serious dicsussion of the speed limits. Why don't you go be a piece of s__t somewhere else? If you have something to contribute, do it. If you want to be an a__hole, I am sure you know where the lounge is. Why would you decide to troll here in this thread in this forum?

Note -- Can I avoid an infraction if I edit my own harsh language as I have done?
 
Last edited:
Heuristic said:
1) Not all actions that increase risk pose the same level of danger. Dropping a brick from a tall building, when there are people below, vastly increases the risk of death or injury more than speeding 15mph over the limit in a single instance. We set punishments and deterrents appropriately.

2) Insurance companies are in the business of pricing risk. This is what they do. This is what they have enormous databases on. They raise the price of your collision insurance when you are caught speeding. Why? Because 1/3 of all accidents involve speeding.

If you doubt their model, I suggest coming up with a model that suggests otherwise, and starting your own insurance company. You'll soon be able to gain enormous market-share from those foolish insurance companies that raise your rates in response to a moving violation, and make vast sums of money.
Click to expand...

in response

1) So, are you agreeing with me then that speeding doesn't really endanger lives? It sounds like you are, but don't really want to phrase it that way.

2) I dispute your facts here. Any time there is an accident, thep owers that be can SAY speeding was a factor, whether it was or not. It's the same way the powers that be distort data and say that "_____ % of crimes are drug related."

Look, if two cars are going 80 MPH is a 65, and one of the cars makes a maniacal and dangerous lane change, hitting the other car and causing a serious accident, authorities will say that speeding was "a factor" in that accident. In reality, it wasn't.

Just because cars were speeding DOESN'T mean that speeding was a cause of an accident.
 
^ Or perhaps this is really a thread about your view that mainstream society as a whole is flawed and poorly designed, and that you are suffering because of it. We're discussing speeding, but the emotion behind your posts is quite strong.
 
1) I'm saying that a single instance of speeding endangers lives less than a single instance of brick-dropping from a tall building in a crowded area.

2) Sure, it can be difficult to separate out whether speeding was "the cause" or "a factor" in an accident. But the fact that 30% of accidents involve speeding is very telling. At the least, it should tell you that, multiplied over thousands of accidents, the presence of speeding increases the likely damage to the vehicles involved and to the persons involved.

Let me put it this way. Suppose that we're all equally likely to get into an accident. But you regularly travel at 85mph, and I regularly travel at 65mph. So even though our odds of getting into an accident are roughly equal, the expected damage resulting from our respective accidents will be different; yours will be significantly higher than mine.
 
Heuristic said:
^ Or perhaps this is really a thread about your view that mainstream society as a whole is flawed and poorly designed, and that you are suffering because of it. We're discussing speeding, but the emotion behind your posts is quite strong.
Click to expand...

I am passionate about what I believe in. And I work hard to try to stick to logic and facts when I discuss a matter. Some people don't like what I say, or don't like my arguments, so they attack me or my character.

I have posted numerous points and examples in this thread that no one has refuted, yet they just get ignored. I feel that people pick and choose which parts of my argument to reply to -- They ignore the parts that are difficult to refute, and then respond with some emotional or fallacious reasoning to the ones they feel like responding to.

Why This topic specifically? Good question. I am equally passionate about drug policy, gun control, the death penalty, abortion, gay rights (and equal rights for all, for that matter), and other political topics.

I have debated those other topics on various forums, but, most people here agree about drug policy, for the most part, (yet, in a frustrating bit of contradiction, in my mind, the same arguments that are rejected for drug policy are championed here in support of the current policy with speed limits and enforcement).

Abortion? No sense debating that, once someone uses the "G" word, the debate is over. (god).

The death penalty? There is room for debate, but not really. People either think it is right to kill criminals or they don't. Trying to persuade either side to change is pointless.

Gay rights, or the rights of any other group discriminated upon? What is there to discuss? This one seems pretty clear to me, I don't even understand how there is a debate.

But with regard to the debate on speeding, I feel this is an issue where people just don't have the facts or information, and don't really understand the issue. People make obvious logical contradictions and logical fallacies when supporting their case while overlooking some rather obvious facts and truths.

Do I think mainstream society as a whole is flawed and poorly designed? You're damn right I do. It frustrates me to no end and leaves me angry most of the time. The world is so full of contradictions, inconsistencies, gross injustices, persecution, racism, prejudice, intolerance, and just plain old stupidity. I can hardly go an hour in the outside world without being irritated by the mindlessly stupid actions of some moron whose stupidity encroaches on my happiness in some way.

I understand that not everyone is blessed with intelligence. I just wish these people didn't gain positions of power and authority, because it is very frustrating when trying to discuss something logically with someone who is unwilling or unable to learn the basics of logic, argument formation, or debate.
 
Fjones said:
Do I think mainstream society as a whole is flawed and poorly designed? You're damn right I do. It frustrates me to no end and leaves me angry most of the time. The world is so full of contradictions, inconsistencies, gross injustices, persecution, racism, prejudice, intolerance, and just plain old stupidity. I can hardly go an hour in the outside world without being irritated by the mindlessly stupid actions of some moron whose stupidity encroaches on my happiness in some way.

I understand that not everyone is blessed with intelligence. I just wish these people didn't gain positions of power and authority, because it is very frustrating when trying to discuss something logically with someone who is unwilling or unable to learn the basics of logic, argument formation, or debate.
Click to expand...

I understand. Let me make two points.

First, you're certainly right that a lot of people in this world do a lot of stupid things. But if we go through life so sensitive to those things that we cannot go an hour without getting irritated (hyperbole understood, but still indicative), we're going to have a lot of trouble enjoying all the good things that are out there. This sensitivity is something we can control. Since we cannot make the world into a perfectly rational place, it makes sense to adapt to the imperfect aspects the world, and live our lives.

Second, because you seem so sensitive to the flaws in the world, you're likely overweighting them. Taking your hyperbole again, if for 55 minutes things go right, and then for 5 minutes someone does something irritating, you later recall those 5 minutes much more strongly than you recall the 55 previous minutes. This skews your view of the world.

Third, I think you've made some good points in the posts above, but so have others. I also think you've made some bad points the posts above, as have others.

Finally, you engage others in discussion because you enjoy it, even when it annoys you. That should tell you something.
 
Heuristic said:
1) I'm saying that a single instance of speeding endangers lives less than a single instance of brick-dropping from a tall building in a crowded area.

2) Sure, it can be difficult to separate out whether speeding was "the cause" or "a factor" in an accident. But the fact that 30% of accidents involve speeding is very telling. At the least, it should tell you that, multiplied over thousands of accidents, the presence of speeding increases the likely damage to the vehicles involved and to the persons involved.

Let me put it this way. Suppose that we're all equally likely to get into an accident. But you regularly travel at 85mph, and I regularly travel at 65mph. So even though our odds of getting into an accident are roughly equal, the expected damage resulting from our respective accidents will be different; yours will be significantly higher than mine.
Click to expand...

in response

1) So what? If it endangers lives, it should be severely punished. Otherwise, It's all just a bunch of bullshit propoganda. How many lives are we really saying are lost becasue of speeding each year? Let's say that number is 10,000, just to pick a random and arbitrary number (the actual number is likely FAR less). Well, in that case, the government is responsibile for selling thel ives of those $10,000 people in return for the fines they collect for speeding. Why? Because the governemnt doesn't really treat speeding like a serious offense. They claim it is dangerous and endangers lives, yet they barely prosecute it relative to other dangerous acts.

You and I are making the SAME ARGUMENT, I just don't think you realize it.
You are basically saying what I am saying, that thee is a tacit acceptance of driving 80 - 85 MPH, because A) It isn't really that dangerous, and B) The states need the money that speeding tickets generate.

The state doesn't really get serious about speeding until you go 90 MPH or faster, and even then, the punichments are rather tame.

2) I cannot disagree more,. Have you thougth about them athematics involved here?

A) Generally speaking, 30% of the cars on the road at any given time are speeding. (Sometimes that number of more like 80%, depending on the highway). So, even if speeders and non speeders got into accidents AT THE SAME RAT AS EACH OTHER, you coudl still say "30% of accidents were speed related." This does not make sense. If 100 cars are speeding, and 100 cars are not speeding, and 10 of each group get into an accident, that means the accident rate for each group was IDENTICAL, yet, "STATISTICS" would say that 50% of accidents involved speeding (20 accidents total, and 10 were speeding). Do you see the problem there?

B) any time a speeding car has an accident, they will say that speed wes a factor, whether it actually was or not.

C) As a result of A and B, you can have statistics show that speed was a factor in "X percent" of accidents, whether it was or not.
 
Heuristic said:
Finally, you engage others in discussion because you enjoy it, even when it annoys you. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

It tells me that I like discussion and debate? That I should have been a lawyer or politician?

Hell, I might as well get PAID to do this if I am going to do it!

By the way, I have a philosophy. "Show, don't tell."

Show me why some of my points were bad. All you've done is tell me.
 
Fjones said:
in response

1) So what? If it endangers lives, it should be severely punished. Otherwise, It's all just a bunch of bullshit propoganda. How many lives are we really saying are lost becasue of speeding each year? Let's say that number is 10,000, just to pick a random and arbitrary number (the actual number is likely FAR less). Well, in that case, the government is responsibile for selling thel ives of those $10,000 people in return for the fines they collect for speeding. Why? Because the governemnt doesn't really treat speeding like a serious offense. They claim it is dangerous and endangers lives, yet they barely prosecute it relative to other dangerous acts.
Click to expand...

You seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy, where either a behavior is 1) life-endangering, and should be stopped and severely sanctioned or 2) not life-endangering. There are many degrees between. As I said, we increase fines and punishments for repeat offenders, and we increase them depending on the severity of the offense.

If we simply wanted to raise money with speeding tickets, we wouldn't suspend licenses, and we'd pull a lot more people over. You wouldn't see a cop on the side of the road letting cars go by at 70-75mph, but pulling over those going 80mph or over. He'd be pulling them ALL over, since they all would bring in revenue.

The fact is that we allow for a reasonable room for error--about 10mph--and after that enforcement kicks in. 80-85mph is NOT generally tolerated in 65mph zones. But you know that.

Fjones said:
2) I cannot disagree more,. Have you thougth about them athematics involved here?

A) Generally speaking, 30% of the cars on the road at any given time are speeding. (Sometimes that number of more like 80%, depending on the highway). So, even if speeders and non speeders got into accidents AT THE SAME RAT AS EACH OTHER, you coudl still say "30% of accidents were speed related." This does not make sense. If 100 cars are speeding, and 100 cars are not speeding, and 10 of each group get into an accident, that means the accident rate for each group was IDENTICAL, yet, "STATISTICS" would say that 50% of accidents involved speeding (20 accidents total, and 10 were speeding). Do you see the problem there?

B) any time a speeding car has an accident, they will say that speed wes a factor, whether it actually was or not.

C) As a result of A and B, you can have statistics show that speed was a factor in "X percent" of accidents, whether it was or not.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the argument. I'll say it again:

Suppose we are all equally likely to get into an accident. The expected damage resulting from someone who habitually drives 85mph will be greater than the expected damage resulting from someone who habitually drives 65mph.

So EVEN IF speeding doesn't make it any MORE likely for you to get into an accident, it still renders your driving more dangerous, and the cost of covering you, correspondingly, increases.
 
Heuristic said:
You seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy, where either a behavior is 1) life-endangering, and should be stopped and severely sanctioned or 2) not life-endangering. There are many degrees between. As I said, we increase fines and punishments for repeat offenders, and we increase them depending on the severity of the offense.

If we simply wanted to raise money with speeding tickets, we wouldn't suspend licenses, and we'd pull a lot more people over. You wouldn't see a cop on the side of the road letting cars go by at 70-75mph, but pulling over those going 80mph or over. He'd be pulling them ALL over, since they all would bring in revenue.

The fact is that we allow for a reasonable room for error--about 10mph--and after that enforcement kicks in. 80-85mph is NOT generally tolerated in 65mph zones. But you know that.



You didn't read the argument. I'll say it again:

Suppose we are all equally likely to get into an accident. The expected damage resulting from someone who habitually drives 85mph will be greater than the expected damage resulting from someone who habitually drives 65mph.

So EVEN IF speeding doesn't make it any MORE likely for you to get into an accident, it still renders your driving more dangerous, and the cost of covering you, correspondingly, increases.
Click to expand...



Perhaps I am in a dichotomy, though I am not sure I agree it is a false one.

Do people die each year because of speeding or not? I think it is a rather black and white issue. Where is the grey area? If people die because of speeding, then they should stop it. If not, then they should turn it into a money generating racket, which is what they have done.

Are you really trying to tell me that the state doesn't make money on speeding tickets? That is what your post indicated.

As for the insurance companies -- I don't mean to point out the obvious here, but you are aware that insurance companies are COMPANIES, right? And that the primary goal of a company is to make money? They jack up the rates of people who speed, increasing their revenue. So the state and the insurance companies all get a piece of the pie, all while tacitly allowing an activity they claim is endangering lives.

I think you have now made 6 posts that have completely ignore several of my main points. is there a reason you continue to ignore the point I made regarding tailgating? Or my point about the ways statistics can be used to distort things?

They DO pull a lot of people over. Have you ever been to traffic court? They run through one speeding case after another. "$135 dollar fine, next! $135 dollar fine. Next!" for hours. They write enough speeding tickets to fill the courtroom and fill the docket each day.

I will disagree that 80 MPH is generally not tolerated. I think it generally is, but that 85 MPH is not. And I disagree with that policy. No one has explained why 85 MPH is an unsafe highway speed. The best they can give is, "an accident at that speed is more serious." No shit, and an accident at 75 is more serious than 65, and an accident at 65 is more serious than 55, and an accident at 55 is more serious than 45, etc.

I am not denying that the laws of physics mean that a higher speed crash is more serious than a lower speed one. I think we all know that. But that isn't a good explanation of why cars are required to drive slower than they are obviously capable. If we should always drive at a speed that guarantees less damage in an accident, we would all be sitting around in parked cars. So, we have to pick a speed somewhere that is safe to drive, and I disagree with the chosen speed.

I have offered a half a dozen reasons for why I feel this way, most of which have been ignored or barely addressed.

How many people do you think died each year because of someone else's speeding, on dry roads, on multilane highways, not involving alcohol or substances, and NOT involving any other traffic violation?

I would bet the number is almost zero. I wish I had time to examine them case by case, because I would wager that almost all of them involve

A) alcohol or substances
B) Weather
C) Some other traffic violation, most of which are actually inherently dangerous, unlike speeding.
D) A one car accident

I am not concerned with one car accidents, because they are not really relevant to the issue of endangering OTHER people’s lives. If someone drinks too much and kills himself, that is very sad, but it doesn't mean we should ban alcohol. So we focus on damage to others, not to the self.

When you drive along on the highway, what accidents do you typically see? Usually one car accidents or minor rear endings (which would not happen if people would not TAILGATE). Everyone is going the same direction, so we don’t have head on crashes, or T-bone collisions.

My overall points are valid. We can disagree on them, but I have given ample evidence it support my point. Just to make a few things clear –

I am only discussing multi lane highways in dry weather.
I am only discussing cases where no one is drunk.

I think people should obey the other traffic rules regarding tailgating, lane changes, proper merging, yielding, etc.

I think people should drive safe vehicles and use safe tires.
I think tractor trailers should have a maximum speed of 50 MPH and be required to use the right lane only.
Now, if all of the above requirements are met, there is no reason why people cannot safely drive faster than we do now. The roads and automotive technology allow it.

You may disagree, but I am entitled to that opinion, and in fact, different states seem to agree with me, as some have done away with the silly 65 limit and increased it to 70 or 75 MPH. So, why is that if I make this point, I get flak from people about it? There are some countries where the speed limits are even higher. Do they know something we don’t? I don’t get it.
 
So we agree that as speed increases, the severity of an accident will increase. You think that the benefits of going over 80mph are worth the costs. You'd prefer to set the speed limit at... ?

But you also think the insurance companies are only increasing your rates in response to speeding tickets because it merely gives them a pretext; you don't think coverage of people who habitually speed is any more expensive than that of people who don't speed.

I'm not really sure how to square these assertions. Going by your first point, you'd seem to agree that insurance companies should charge more for people who are driving faster; after all, when they into an accident, there's probably going to be more damage. Going by your second point, though, you think otherwise. Which is it?

While insurance companies are in it to profit, they're also competing against each other. If one of them can offer you lower rates, and still turn a profit, they're going to do that.

As far as handing out tickets, as I said, MANY MORE could be given out. You seem to think that the law tolerates a deviation up to the speed of 80mph on highways. Why would they tolerate any at all if the goal is just to make money?

I think what we do agree on is that there should be a speed limit set, and that greater speed does mean greater severity of accident. So, will speeding increase the number of fatalities, all else being equal? The answer is yes.

You've been getting some flak, I think, because you sometimes sound as though you're simply annoyed that you received a speeding ticket. Even if you believe the limit should be set higher than it is, we do currently have a law, and we're all subject to it.
 
i didn't read the whole thread but i want to do the Q&A anyway...


1) Why is it inherently dangerous to drive 80 MPH? Please explain. You have yet to do so.

- A driver who moves at a greater speed towards a hazard has a shorter reaction time than a driver who moves at a slower speed towards that hazard. As reaction time decreases, the likelihood that an accident will occur increases.​

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?

- Randomly assigned reinforcement is more effective at modifying behavior than reinforcement given at a fixed point.​

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?

- For some people, the cost of speeding is high. There are citation costs, higher car insurance rates, and accident costs. This might be a drop in the bucket for wealthier people. Some countries have made traffic fines proportionate to personal income, so maybe this is what you ought to propose to make the penalties fairer. But safe speeding and speeding fines are two separate issues. A higher speeding limit with greater enforcement is still a higher speeding limit -- and it does not eliminate the danger of driving faster.​

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?

- Drive I-80 across the Nebraska prairie and then drive I-15 through the Virgin Narrows in Arizona. Report back on the difference between the two.​

5) If speeding is dangerous, why is the autobahn as safe, if not safer, than American highways?

- Germany has better roads, stricter car regulations, stricter license requirements, and better overall driver behavior. So it may follow that driving faster than the U.S. speed limit in other countries, like Germany, is safe. But much like (3) this doesn't really support your argument that speeding in the U.S. is safe.​
 
ugh! I disagree with and/or object to everything in your list, but after typing a long reply, I lost the post when I accidentally hit the backspace button (or something, not sure what exactly).

I'll recreate it later.
 
Heuristic said:
You've been getting some flak, I think, because you sometimes sound as though you're simply annoyed that you received a speeding ticket. Even if you believe the limit should be set higher than it is, we do currently have a law, and we're all subject to it.
Click to expand...

Ehh. I don't think you meant offense with this statement, so I'll go with that assumption. But I will say, this is kind of a silly thing to say, isn't it?

I have never been busted for drugs and probably never will, but I have spent countless hours arguing in support of the abolishment of the war on drugs.

I am not a woman and will never have an abortion nor need a female partner to have an abortion, yet I have spent countless hours arguing in favor of a woman's right to have one.

I am not gay, yet I have spent countless hours arguing in favor of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

I do not own a gun and never will, yet I have spent countless hours arguing in favor of people's right to bear arms.

I am not on death row and do not know anyone who is, and probably never will, yet I have spent countless hours arguing against the death penalty.

There are two issues where I actually benefit from legislation but still argue against it because I am philosophically opposed (the smoking bans in bars and the law in NY requiring restaurants to display nutritional information).

I could go on but I think my point has been made.

So, I strongly object to your suggestion that I am arguing my point because I got a speeding ticket. I argue what I think is right, just, fair, and logical, not what benefits me.
 
The simple act of going fast isn't dangerous, what's dangerous is when you get people behind the wheel who don't know any better than to go 70 around a sharp curve with all weather tires and a comfort-tuned suspension. Cars don't kill people, putting a retard in charge of one kills people. Just like guns.
 
Fjones said:
I agree. This is why I don't go 75 in a 35.
My gripe is that most of my tickets were for going between 75 and 85 on a highway. No one has explained to me why this is unsafe.
Click to expand...

By "flak" I meant some of the comments telling you to stop complaining. Personally I think much of the discussion has been perfectly substantive, and I was not trying to be offensive.

But anyway, comments like the one I quoted above are probably the reason you've gotten some flak. :) That and your sometimes irritated tone in responding to people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top