Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[Coolio]

And if someone steps out in front of your car? They're dead.

Slow down 10mph.

And if someone steps out in front of your car? They live.

Still worth it?

This is a bullshit argument.

In no case will the difference in braking distance between a car going 50mph and a car going 60mph make up for the fact that human reaction times are very slow. If someone steps in FRONT OF MY CAR, they're dead no matter what. It'll take me a few seconds to even notice that they're there.

If someone steps in front of your car without warning, the last thing you should do is brake. That's incredibly dangerous, you're likely to lose control of your vehicle. The safe thing to do is to maintain speed or speed up, and steer the car aside from the path of the pedestrian.. even when that means going off the road or into the other lane. If you slam on your brakes then no matter what speed you're going you're going to hit the pedestrian or lose control and risk an accident with other vehicles or something off road.

I've almost hit pedestrians twice going 5-10mph because they stepped out in front of me between cars without sticking their head out and pausing first. If I was going 65mph, they would have heard my car coming and not stepped in front of me. I also would have passed them by the time they stepped out in front of me, whereas at 5mph I had time to creep up to the exact spot they wanted to cross.

The average reaction time for a driver is a few seconds, and no difference in vehicle speed is going to make up for that.

 

[Fjones]

Imagine a tire blowing on your regular car at 55mph. Now imagine it blowing at 65mph. Imagine all the possible outcomes of each scenario.

I'm pretty sure the possible outcomes from both are nearly identical.

I agree, though admittedly I dno't know the exact physics involved.

Also, what is up with cars that just completely lose control when a tire blows out? I have had three blowouts (faulty tires, the manufacturer was sued and found to be at fault), and the car did not lose control.

If people keep tires properly inflated, they will not blowout.

Think about a gun. The bullet travels fast. Do people say, "Think about a bullet hitting a person going 700 feet per second. The damage would be significant."

Yes, it would be significant, which is why gun owners are responsibile for the safety of their guns, so that addicents do not happen.

Similarly, a person is responsible for the upkeep of his car. Properly rotated andi nflated tires, with the proper speed warning, that are not too work in the treads, will not blow out.

 

[Fjones]

This is a bullshit argument.

In no case will the difference in braking distance between a car going 50mph and a car going 60mph make up for the fact that human reaction times are very slow. If someone steps in FRONT OF MY CAR, they're dead no matter what. It'll take me a few seconds to even notice that they're there.

If someone steps in front of your car without warning, the last thing you should do is brake. That's incredibly dangerous, you're likely to lose control of your vehicle. The safe thing to do is to maintain speed or speed up, and steer the car aside from the path of the pedestrian.. even when that means going off the road or into the other lane. If you slam on your brakes then no matter what speed you're going you're going to hit the pedestrian or lose control and risk an accident with other vehicles or something off road.

I've almost hit pedestrians twice going 5-10mph because they stepped out in front of me between cars without sticking their head out and pausing first. If I was going 65mph, they would have heard my car coming and not stepped in front of me. I also would have passed them by the time they stepped out in front of me, whereas at 5mph I crept up to the spot they wanted to cross and it took a few seconds to notice that they were moving in front of my moving vehicle.

The average reaction time for a driver is a few seconds, and no difference in vehicle speed is going to make up for that.

Just to add more to coolio's response -- Why the hell are people WALKING OUT IN FRONT OF MOVING CARS?

Also, when would this EVER happen on the highway?

Also, why would you blame the speeder if a person walks in front of his moving car?

If someone strolls onto a SHOOTING range, and gets shot, would we blame the shooter?

 

[Coolio]

Keep in mind that the rules and laws of our society arent perfect, but most of them, specially concerning driving cars, are made for the greater good.

HAH. Hah hah. Hah.

Wait, were you serious?

The rules and laws of our society are there to protect the owners of capital, their lobbyists, and the politicians they purchase access to. Many of our laws are there to provide institutionalized racism. Many more to oppress unions and other labor movements. More to oppress young people, others to persecute homosexuals, and many many more to persecute harmless deviants of one persuasion or another.

The laws on the books are designed to keep citizens as ignorant, poor, and oppressed as possible. They've also slowly been built up in a way that nearly every single one of us is technically a criminal, and many oft forgotten laws can be selectively enforced when there is an undesirable person that needs to be locked up or to lose their public position due to scandal.

 

[Coolio]

Every time you think a law is there to protect us, think back to the stupid bullshit your parents expected you to do as a child out of propriety or for your own safety that as you grew up you realized was just mindlessly passed on to you by the culture you are both a part of with no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary!) that it was beneficial.

 

[Raving Loony]

This is a topic that it is of considerable interest to me. I do not take the view that someone should be able to go faster because of better reaction times as that is only one factor in what is a very complex issue when it comes to breaking down the cause of a crash. Almost all of the young people I grew up with whom were involved in servere car crashes were all very capable people who let either ego or distractions get in their way of safe driving.

However, what I am very much against is the heavy handed approach by Australia's police in using speeding as a revenue stream and they are very blantant about it. Dishing out speeding tickets via speed cameras for going 2kph over the limit is just robbery of the highest order, how on earth changing the kinetic energy of the car by 3% justifies the heavy fines received by millions every year is disgusting.

To justify this, there are studies done of the risk increase in relation to legal speed limit in urban areas and if you read them, they are damning. Every 5kph increase in urban driving equated to double the risk of collision. However, what is misleading is they use this same rule to tarnish those out on the open road where the number of risks are substatially reduced and there is evidence that travelling modest speeds over a long distance increases the risk of a collision. The Northern Territory has seen an increase in the annual road toll of 80% since the unrestricted speed limits were dropped to 130kph on January 1, 2007. Their response, the lmits were not dropped far enough!

 

[Fjones]

"Every 5kph increase in urban driving equated to double the risk of collision."

I find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. 5 Kilometers = 3 miles right?

So they are saying that if you go 33 MPH instead of 30 MPH, your risk of collision doubles? I do not believe that. That would mean if you go 42 instead of 30, your risk of collision increases by a factor of 16? I don't buy that.

I also do nto understand your bolded comment either. Does "Road Toll" mean something other than what I think it means?

 

[Coolio]

The data clearly show that lowering posted speed limits did not reduce vehicle speeds or accidents. Also, lowering speed limits well below the 86th percentile speed did not increase speeds and accidents. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds and accidents. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 to 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) above the posted speed limit when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) when speed limits were lowered.

Because there were few changes in the speed distribution, it is not surprising that the overall effects of speed limit changes on accidents were minor. It is interesting to note that compliance decreased when speed limits were lowered and accidents tended to increase. Conversely, when compliance improved after speed limits are raised, accidents tended to decrease.

Based on the sites examined in 22 States, it is apparent that the majority of highway agencies set speed limits below the average speed of traffic as opposed to setting limits in the upper region of the minimum accident risk band or about 85th percentile speed. This practice means that more than one-half of the motorists are in technical violation of the speed limits laws.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Speeding laws have nothing to do with public safety. They're simply a tool of oppression.

 

[Fjones]

"This practice means that more than one-half of the motorists are in technical violation of the speed limits laws."

I was criticized for saying this earlier. But I believe it is rather o true if you look around on any major highway.

 

[Raving Loony]

"Every 5kph increase in urban driving equated to double the risk of collision."

I find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. 5 Kilometers = 3 miles right?

So they are saying that if you go 33 MPH instead of 30 MPH, your risk of collision doubles? I do not believe that. That would mean if you go 42 instead of 30, your risk of collision increases by a factor of 16? I don't buy that.

I also do nto understand your bolded comment either. Does "Road Toll" mean something other than what I think it means?

There is plenty of research done it, like this one http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000039.pdf.

The "road toll" refers to the entire road related fatality. Even if someone had a heart attack, crashed and subsequently died in hospital.

 

[Fjones]

I like math and numbers, but man, that was a tough read. On which page of that study does it say the risk doubles with every 5 KM ? I am not saying you are lying, I just couldn't find it while glancing through it. Such a startling conclusion should be in bold with a large font.

ALso, for this to be true, 35 MPH Zones would have almsot four tiems as many collisions as 30 mPH Zones. I do not believe that is the case.

I wonder if this study used proper sampling techniques. I'll have to examine it further.

 

[rickolasnice]

This is a bullshit argument.

In no case will the difference in braking distance between a car going 50mph and a car going 60mph make up for the fact that human reaction times are very slow. If someone steps in FRONT OF MY CAR, they're dead no matter what. It'll take me a few seconds to even notice that they're there.

If someone steps in front of your car without warning, the last thing you should do is brake. That's incredibly dangerous, you're likely to lose control of your vehicle. The safe thing to do is to maintain speed or speed up, and steer the car aside from the path of the pedestrian.. even when that means going off the road or into the other lane. If you slam on your brakes then no matter what speed you're going you're going to hit the pedestrian or lose control and risk an accident with other vehicles or something off road.

I've almost hit pedestrians twice going 5-10mph because they stepped out in front of me between cars without sticking their head out and pausing first. If I was going 65mph, they would have heard my car coming and not stepped in front of me. I also would have passed them by the time they stepped out in front of me, whereas at 5mph I had time to creep up to the exact spot they wanted to cross.

The average reaction time for a driver is a few seconds, and no difference in vehicle speed is going to make up for that.

When did i say anything about braking?

 

[cheah]

i haven't read the whole thread but i don't think speeding alone is dangerous. as for speed limits, most of the highways in my area are 65 mph speed limit. doing 75 or 80 on them is safe. i think that's why they make the speed limit 65, because they know people will go 10-15 mph faster than the speed limit. if they raised the speed limit to 80, people would start going over 90 on them. most speed limits are below what's actually safe because they know people are going to speed..

 

[Fjones]

i haven't read the whole thread but i don't think speeding alone is dangerous. as for speed limits, most of the highways in my area are 65 mph speed limit. doing 75 or 80 on them is safe. i think that's why they make the speed limit 65, because they know people will go 10-15 mph faster than the speed limit. if they raised the speed limit to 80, people would start going over 90 on them. most speed limits are below what's actually safe because they know people are going to speed..

Exactly. And, they also get a lot of money this wayfrom speeding tickets.

I get upset when poeple call me a hazard and a threat to others and say I don't care about people's safety. FIrst opf all, that isn't true. And second of all, my own driving record is not relevant to the points I am making.

 

[Busty St Clare]

I see speeding fines as an "Idiots Tax", not unlike a tax on gambling. If you don't want to pay it, it is easy enough not to go over the limit. I occasionally exceed the limit, but that is always the risk I run. It would be nice if they built roads that allowed everyone to travel at a faster speed so we could all arrive a little earlier, but personally I would prefer free public transport.

I don't see a problem of it being Revenue raising, otherwise they will find another way to fleece me. Thank you Fjones for paying extra for hospitals, schools etc.

 

[Fjones]

I see speeding fines as an "Idiots Tax", not unlike a tax on gambling. If you don't want to pay it, it is easy enough not to go over the limit. I occasionally exceed the limit, but that is always the risk I run. It would be nice if they built roads that allowed everyone to travel at a faster speed so we could all arrive a little earlier, but personally I would prefer free public transport.

I don't see a problem of it being Revenue raising, otherwise they will find another way to fleece me. Thank you Fjones for paying extra for hospitals, schools etc.

Finally someone who gets it!

Instead of calling me names and talking about how dangerous I am, you acknowledged that I am actually making the world a better place with the thousands of dollars I have contributed in return for getting where I want to go faster.

I am not sure why you call it an idiot tax though. There is nothing idiotic or unintelligent about what I do. It's a conscious decision to pay extra to get where I am going faster.

Do you consider taxes on beer and cigarettes idiot taxes?

 

[alasdairm]

Finally someone who gets it!

it's quite possible to get it and yet disagree with you...

alasdair

 

[up all night]

Finally someone who gets it!

Instead of calling me names and talking about how dangerous I am, you acknowledged that I am actually making the world a better place with the thousands of dollars I have contributed in return for getting where I want to go faster.

I am not sure why you call it an idiot tax though. There is nothing idiotic or unintelligent about what I do. It's a conscious decision to pay extra to get where I am going faster.

Do you consider taxes on beer and cigarettes idiot taxes?

Maybe he's calling it an idiot tax because you've had 26 infringements and are now whinging about it, despite knowing what the rules are before you hit the road? Just a guess.

In Australia if you'd had that many speeding fines you'd have lost your licence for a long, long time. It's really not that hard to keep to the speed limit. If you believe you're an awesome driver, and can flaunt the rules, then good for you. I don't really care because you won't be driving anywhere near me. It's the whining bit that just seems silly.

Posting on Bluelight about how unfair life is isn't going to help make the authorities 'see the light.'

 

[Zzyzx]

I get upset when poeple call me a hazard and a threat to others and say I don't care about people's safety. FIrst opf all, that isn't true. And second of all, my own driving record is not relevant to the points I am making.

1) thats because its obvious you dont care about anybody but yourself bro

2) Its very revelant. You're obviously frustrated because you feel the rules do not apply to you. The way you're thinking, i'm sure that its not just the speed limits that make your life a living hell. You must feel opressed about the stop signs too, and the birds flying too low.

You can't convince me of the contrary because when I was 17 years old I used to think that way too, and whine to whoever will listen that the law is bullshit and just another tool of opression. I know the way you feel and what frustration you're going trough. But I can assure you that it will pass. Just grow a little bit older and you'll see Fjones

 

[Fjones]

Maybe he's calling it an idiot tax because you've had 26 infringements and are now whinging about it, despite knowing what the rules are before you hit the road? Just a guess.

In Australia if you'd had that many speeding fines you'd have lost your licence for a long, long time. It's really not that hard to keep to the speed limit. If you believe you're an awesome driver, and can flaunt the rules, then good for you. I don't really care because you won't be driving anywhere near me. It's the whining bit that just seems silly.

Posting on Bluelight about how unfair life is isn't going to help make the authorities 'see the light.'

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. did you read my post a few posts back where I clarified my statements (at the request of one of the other people posting here)?


I don't see why I need to repeat myself but I guess I will. I am "whinging" about the laws and policies in place. I am advocating a policy change. And I am objecting to the people who said nasty things about me because I speed.

Most people seem to agree here that the speed limits and speed traps are about the money and not about safety. My gripe is that the people in charge get all high and mighty about it saying they are protecting the children and blah blah blah when in fact that is a load of crap.

Posting on BL isn't going to make authorities see the light? No shit, who said it would? I am simply engaging in a policy discussion and exchange of ideas, just like many other people here at BL about many other topics.

So i have had 26 infringements? Big deal. I pay more to drive faster. Some people spend their money on expensive food they do not need, or any number of other things they don't need, but they do want. Does that mean they are all paying "idiot" taxes?

"It's really not that hard to keep to the speed limit. If you believe you're an awesome driver, and can flaunt the rules, then good for you."


The majority of cars on the road are exceeding the speed limit. I find it more difficult to drive the speed limit than I do 10 - 15 MPH over. When I drive the speed limit, people constantly cut me off, run up behind me very fast, tailgate, etc.

Also, spare me your high horse bullshit about "flaunting" the rules. Most people disregard the rules they think are stupid or unjust. Should we just blindly adhere to laws no matter how stupid, pointless or unjust they are?


Edit -- In case you were wondering -- I put "whinging" in quotes becasue I am not really sure what that word means. Is it just one of these lounge misspellings that have become popular, in which case it just means whining? And I put "flaunting" in quotes because I am assuming you meant "flouting," not "flaunting."