Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[Coolio]

Fuck it, there is no point arguing over something so mundane. The laws are not going to change.

Not with that kind of attitude.

 

[Heuristic]

This is rally frustrating. No one is disputing the exponential increase in reaction time with increased speed. I majored in mathematics. I am not disputing the math involved. I never said that braking distance or reaction time are in a linear relationship to speed.

What I don't understand is this need to brake from 80 MPH to 0 MPH on a highway. Why would that happen? To avoid a car or accident, it will usually suffice to slow down a little, or maneuver around the obstacle, or some combination of both.

Also, we're still waiting for some one to provide some estimate of how many crashes / deaths happen on the large multi-lane highways that were caused by speeding. My contention is that very few are but, we cannot really know because the data is distorted and skewed.

It matters because the same rate of change also applies to decreases of speed from 80 to 60, or 60 to 40. It dramatically changes the force with which you will impact the idiot who swerves in front of you because he didn't check his blind spot, the impact of a deer, or God forbid a moose, on your car, the piece of furniture that dropped off someone's pickup in the middle of the night and that you're currently hurtling towards at 90 mph, etc.

It matters because when things go wrong, as they likely will at some point for a very large number of people, the damage and injuries sustained will rise as we increase speed limits.

If you want to make a cost/benefit argument that limits of 85mph or 90mph are worth it, then do so. Thus far I haven't seen one.

But what is beyond debate at this point is that an increase in speed does result in an increase in danger. Our society currently considers that increase in danger not worth the costs.

 

[aanallein]

everyone is saying the same argument over and over

this applies to both sides.

 

[Fjones]

It matters because the same rate of change also applies to decreases of speed from 80 to 60, or 60 to 40. It dramatically changes the force with which you will impact the idiot who swerves in front of you because he didn't check his blind spot, the impact of a deer, or God forbid a moose, on your car, the piece of furniture that dropped off someone's pickup in the middle of the night and that you're currently hurtling towards at 90 mph, etc.

It matters because when things go wrong, as they likely will at some point for a very large number of people, the damage and injuries sustained will rise as we increase speed limits.

If you want to make a cost/benefit argument that limits of 85mph or 90mph are worth it, then do so. Thus far I haven't seen one.

But what is beyond debate at this point is that an increase in speed does result in an increase in danger. Our society currently considers that increase in danger not worth the costs.

I feel that I have addressed these points many times and that you counter by simply restating them. How many people drove into a moose last year? Can we get some data on that? A piece of furniture? Are you serious? How many times did that happen? Also, if there is a piece f furniture in the road, I will drive around it. It really isn't that difficult.

In fact it happened once. So I guess I cannot say it never happened. I was driving along at night going 85 MPH, and there was a couch in the road. Guess what I did? I drove around it! No one freaked out, and everything was fine. No one said a word until about 15 seconds later, my laid back friend says, "Bro... was that a couch??"

Since you have now ignored my point about tailgating at least 8 times, should I just assume you concede the point? Just in case your repeated ignoring of that point was an accidental oversight, I will restate --

Tailgating is more dangerous than speeding. Yet cops rarely or never give tickets for tailgating, and give dozens for speeding. Could you (or anyone else) please explain this puzzling fact?

 

[SHHMCJOOAPOYS]

I've gotten pulled over for tailgating

 

[Heuristic]

I feel that I have addressed these points many times and that you counter by simply restating them. How many people drove into a moose last year? Can we get some data on that? A piece of furniture? Are you serious? How many times did that happen? Also, if there is a piece f furniture in the road, I will drive around it. It really isn't that difficult.

Quite a few people hit a deer last year. Quite a few people had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of them. I myself have had to dodge various types of refuse on the roadways.

In fact it happened once. So I guess I cannot say it never happened. I was driving along at night going 85 MPH, and there was a couch in the road. Guess what I did? I drove around it! No one freaked out, and everything was fine. No one said a word until about 15 seconds later, my laid back friend says, "Bro... was that a couch??"

Good for you. But a distraction at the wrong moment, an additional 10 or 20 mph, and you might not have had the opportunity. Suppose there was a car to the side of you.

The point is not that increased speed makes an accident CERTAIN; the point is that it RAISES THE PROBABILITIES of an accident, and of serious damage/injury resulting from that accident. While it may certainly be that in MOST cases an item of furniture can be avoided, or a driver that swerves into your blind spot can be avoided, if we're dealing with millions of vehicles even small increases in probability can have very large costs.

Since you have now ignored my point about tailgating at least 8 times, should I just assume you concede the point? Just in case your repeated ignoring of that point was an accidental oversight, I will restate --

Tailgating is very dangerous. That's completely irrelevant to the question of whether speeding is, however. So I ignore your points concerning it.

 

[Middleway]

Originally Posted by alasdairm  
i also do not understand this comment - can you explain how worrying about speed cameras endangers you?

Like another poster pointed out, if I am scanning the road for speed cameras and watching my speedo to make sure I don't go a lousy 3km over the speed limit (which they will book you for here in victoria), I am not not
(a) watching the road for potholes, corrigations, debree
(b) watching for other road users who often don't see me

I don't advocate that people should be permitted to drive at whatever speed they choose, only that there be a sensible limit and it be a guideline for the speed you drive at and that you don't need to be paranoid about enforcement.

Nothing scares me more than some idiot who is trying to cut through traffic in a car, switching from lane to lane and for what? There is no point.

My approach to being safe on the roads is to get to and keep at the front of traffic which involves accelerating away from the lights for example to put some distance between me and the traffic behind me and then dropping back to the limit. That way if someone pulls out on me I can hit the brakes without worrying about being rear ended. (potentially fatal)
I can swerve to dodge a pothole which could chuck me off into traffic (potentially fatal)
I can not worry about some dickhead tailgating me which again could potentially kill me if things go wrong.
The thing about riding a bike is that all these things that result in dents for car drivers could cost me my life. I always ride to the conditions and I ride tactically to keep myself safe.
Speed camera's are a risk to my safety and I hate them

 

[Coolio]

Quite a few people had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of them. I myself have had to dodge various types of refuse on the roadways.

Slamming on the brakes is not an acceptable way to dodge obstacles on a highway. You want to be have as much control and agility as possible, and you lose that if you brake. When an obstacle presents itself you must swerve to avoid it and coast or speed up past the obstacle. Stopping will just create a worse hazard. The same goes for deer, you want to steer past them sideways, not slam on the brakes and hope they get out of the way or you stop in time.

 

[Fjones]

Tailgating is very dangerous. That's completely irrelevant to the question of whether speeding is, however. So I ignore your points concerning it.

Then you misunderstood my point. Or you are intentionally ignoring it because you know it is relevant and you have no good way to counter it.

Is tailgating VERY dangerous, as you say? I think it is. We are in agreement.

Yet they allow it to happen. Tickets for tailgating are incredibly rare.

This is a rather clear indication that the enforcement of driving laws is NOT about safety but is all about money and collecting fines. I am sorry you refuse to see it that way or consider this to be an irrelevant point. To me, a blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in the APPLICATION of driving laws is VERY relevant to a discussion about the application of speeding laws.

It's all about consistency. The application and enforcement of speeding laws are just not consistent with an activity with the supposed danger level of speeding.

I have pointed out half a dozen blatant inconsistencies, and all anyone does in response is either

1) restate the fact of physics that increased speed means decreased reaction time and increased stopping distance, or

2) Ignore my point or say it is not relevant.

 

[Heuristic]

Then you misunderstood my point. Or you are intentionally ignoring it because you know it is relevant and you have no good way to counter it.

Is tailgating VERY dangerous, as you say? I think it is. We are in agreement.

Yet they allow it to happen. Tickets for tailgating are incredibly rare.

Not that rare at all, actually, though certainly much less frequent than speeding tickets.

This is a rather clear indication that the enforcement of driving laws is NOT about safety but is all about money and collecting fines. I am sorry you refuse to see it that way or consider this to be an irrelevant point. To me, a blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in the APPLICATION of driving laws is VERY relevant to a discussion about the application of speeding laws.

This is a separate issue.

Issue 1: Is speeding dangerous? That's what we've been discussing.

Issue 2: What is the "real purpose" of speeding laws? That's a different issue.

In any event, tailgating occurs for much shorter periods of time and is more difficult for a law enforcement officer to catch. Speeding however tends to take place over a period of time, and is quite easy to catch. So it is no wonder that there are more speeding tickets than tailgating tickets.

It's all about consistency. The application and enforcement of speeding laws are just not consistent with an activity with the supposed danger level of speeding.

And yet you seem to get speeding tickets fairly consistently.

 

[harley89]

Not with that kind of attitude.

Suppose not, but i cant see the government increasing the speed limit.

 

[SHHMCJOOAPOYS]

^^ you're missing the point. The point isn't that he gets speeding tickets fairly consistently

 

[Heuristic]

Slamming on the brakes is not an acceptable way to dodge obstacles on a highway. You want to be have as much control and agility as possible, and you lose that if you brake. When an obstacle presents itself you must swerve to avoid it and coast or speed up past the obstacle. Stopping will just create a worse hazard. The same goes for deer, you want to steer past them sideways, not slam on the brakes and hope they get out of the way or you stop in time.

I agree with this, however there are many instances in which an avoidance maneuver is not possible and one must rely on sheer braking power. And, further to the issue of speeding, of course, as we increase in speed we decrease our ability to engage in such maneuvers.

 

[Fjones]

Not that rare at all, actually, though certainly much less frequent than speeding tickets.



This is a separate issue.

Issue 1: Is speeding dangerous? That's what we've been discussing.

Issue 2: What is the "real purpose" of speeding laws? That's a different issue.

In any event, tailgating occurs for much shorter periods of time and is more difficult for a law enforcement officer to catch. Speeding however tends to take place over a period of time, and is quite easy to catch. So it is no wonder that there are more speeding tickets than tailgating tickets.



And yet you seem to get speeding tickets fairly consistently.

What do you mean "not that rare?"

Can you back that up somehow? I mean, I can counter with, "Yes, they are very rare." Can you support your statement?

Yes, I have gotten a lot of speeding tickets. Did you not understand my point? I suspect you didn't, so I'll explain it again. I never said they don't give out a lot of speeding tickets. I said they don't really discourage speeding.

I find that odd, since so many people here are on their high horse telling me how dangerous speeding is.

See, generally speaking, when an act is dangerous, society goes out of its way to discourage it.

There are higher fines for littering than there are for speeding. The penalties for speeding are just about the minimum possible penalty that can be given.


Answer one simple question for me please. just ONE TIME, give me a satisfactory answer without doing any of the following

1) Stating opinion as fact
2) Resorting to a logical fallacy


Here is my question --

If speeding is so dangerous, why don't they levy a $1500 fine against anyone who speeds? Again, the powers that be are trying to tell us that speeding greatly increases the chances of injury and DEATH!

Which one makes more sense as a punishment for something that is likely to cause the death of an innocent person?

A) $150 dollar fine
B) $1500 fine.

I await the answer though I am not holding my breath.

 

[Fjones]

heuristic, at one point you said something along the lines of "What if someone has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting something," and I pointed out, "He can just change lanes," and you said, "What if there is a car next to him?"

Well, if the roads are congested enough to have two cars side by side, then there is probably a group of cars ahead also, and this group will slow down to deal with the obstacle. The driver in question in this hypothetical scenario, who cannot change lanes because of s car next to him, will see the cars ahead slowing down and will do so himself.

I really don't understand how difficult this is. Frequently I am traveling at highway speeds (85 MPH) and cars are at a complete stop up ahead. I slow down and come to a stop. So does everyone else. People very rarely, if ever go flying into the pack rear ending people.

The ones that do were probably TAILGATING.

 

[Heuristic]

^nah, simple scenario:

You're cruising in the left lane at 85-90mph. Two cars in the right lane traveling at 65mph. You've passed the first car in the right lane, and are now in the second car's blind spot. He's been on the road for a while, and decides for whatever reason to suddenly change lanes--into your lane. You can't swing into the right lane, as doing so will result in a collision with car #1. You have to hit the brakes and hope that your speed isn't such that you will collide with car #2.

Now, car #2 certainly precipitated the accident by changing lanes without checking his blind spot. But should an accident occur here, your increased speed will result in greater damage and injury.

And of course, speeding frequently occurs on highways with lots of cars on them, so the idea that something would go wrong in front you of you, and a lane-change isn't an option as an avoidance maneuver, isn't far fetched at all.

Again, this is all about an increase in the probability of damage/injury multiplied over millions of cars. Your specific experience may vary. I'm GLAD you haven't gotten into an accident, but that's not good evidence here.

 

[blissfulthinking]

speeding isn't TOO dangerous.. Speedballing on the other hand..

 

[SHHMCJOOAPOYS]

^nah, simple scenario:

You're cruising in the left lane at 85-90mph. Two cars in the right lane traveling at 65mph. You've passed the first car in the right lane, and are now in the second car's blind spot. He's been on the road for a while, and decides for whatever reason to suddenly change lanes--into your lane. You can't swing into the right lane, as doing so will result in a collision with car #1. You have to hit the brakes and hope that your speed isn't such that you will collide with car #2.

Now, car #2 certainly precipitated the accident by changing lanes without checking his blind spot. But should an accident occur here, your increased speed will result in greater damage and injury.

And of course, speeding frequently occurs on highways with lots of cars on them, so the idea that something would go wrong in front you of you, and a lane-change isn't an option as an avoidance maneuver, isn't far fetched at all.

Again, this is all about an increase in the probability of damage/injury multiplied over millions of cars. Your specific experience may vary. I'm GLAD you haven't gotten into an accident, but that's not good evidence here.

um, what???? first of all, most highways that have high speed limits are MINIMUM three lane roads. So you can't be serious about the first part of your scenario

 

[Fjones]

^nah, simple scenario:

You're cruising in the left lane at 85-90mph. Two cars in the right lane traveling at 65mph. You've passed the first car in the right lane, and are now in the second car's blind spot. He's been on the road for a while, and decides for whatever reason to suddenly change lanes--into your lane. You can't swing into the right lane, as doing so will result in a collision with car #1. You have to hit the brakes and hope that your speed isn't such that you will collide with car #2.

Now, car #2 certainly precipitated the accident by changing lanes without checking his blind spot. But should an accident occur here, your increased speed will result in greater damage and injury.

And of course, speeding frequently occurs on highways with lots of cars on them, so the idea that something would go wrong in front you of you, and a lane-change isn't an option as an avoidance maneuver, isn't far fetched at all.

Again, this is all about an increase in the probability of damage/injury multiplied over millions of cars. Your specific experience may vary. I'm GLAD you haven't gotten into an accident, but that's not good evidence here.

You are completely ignoring the possibility of braking AND maneuvering. If there is a car in the right lane, brake and swerve behind him. Or, brake and move into the shoulder to the left.

Or, just Brake! the car in front of you that cut you off isn't going to cur you off AND slam on his brakes, so all you need to do to avoid hitting him is slow down a Little bit. If you are watching the road it should not be that difficult.

I appreciate that you addressed my question. I guess we just don't agree on the likelihood of these scenarios happening, or on how they will play out when they do.

Multi-car accidents on interstate highways are very rare, aren't they? Does anyone have any data?

 

[Fjones]

um, what???? first of all, most highways that have high speed limits are MINIMUM three lane roads. So you can't be serious about the first part of your scenario

This is a point worth addressing. If a highway has only two lanes (parts of the NJ turnpike for instance), I suppose I can understand a lower speed limit (Though I still disagree with it). But what about the 3 or 4 lane highways?