• LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

There's a difference between speeding and reckless driving.

Nothing wrong with pulling the throttle on open highways/motorways or to get away from reckless drivers, but if you're speeding and weaving because you're revving it like you nicked it then that's when it gets dangerous.
 
Italicized portions in the quotes are my remarks; non-italicized portions in the quotes are by FJones.

Perhaps not. But, you said something to the effect of, "You don't seem to have any idea what the results will be of raising the speed limit to 80 MPH," when in fact, I have addressed that exact scenario many times throughout this thread. Hence, my remark asking if you have read the thread at all.

Fjones, you have stated your belief that, due to better equipment and roads, an increase in the speed limit will not result in what you think to be a significant increase in road fatalities, injuries, or damage resulting from accidents. But that's all you've stated. I don't see any studies on the matter being cited. You raised the autobahn, which I'll address below.

The autobahn in Germany does have unrestricted portions, or portions with a recommended speed of somewhere around 80mph. I'm not sure why you think that would translate into no greater number of fatalities/serious injuries/serious damage accidents, though.

I believe I have been rather clear in addressing this point as well.

You haven't. I have not seen any cites to any sources regarding, for example, rates of German auto insurance, fatality/accident rates on the autobahn, etc.

I have said that increases in speed result in an increased probability that, when an accident occurs, the resulting injury/damage will be greater.

It's possible, though I do not know, that Germany has instituted road-design, tire-requirements, driver training, and so forth, that mitigate an expected increase in fatalities and accident severity with increased speed. Given the demands on infrastructure dollars in the US as it is, though, I'm uncertain as to the wisdom of such a project here, simply to raise the speed limit 15mph in certain areas.


I disagree with your reasoning. I do not accept that we are stuck driving 65 MPH for all eternity in this country because we are not capable of implementing existing technology into our roads and cars.

I didn't say anything about eternity. Given current constraints on our budget, and the current needs of our infrastructure, I simply don't think it feasible to start spending sufficient funds to turn our roadways into autobahns.

That said, holding the current road conditions, tire requirements, and driver-training requirements of the US constant, simple physics tell us that increasing speed limits will result in higher average speeds and, therefore, even if accidents do not increase, though I think they would, a greater cost per accident.

By this logic, we should all remain in parked cars and never move them. We have gone around in circles with this point. My point, which I have made many times, is that the increase in accidents or injuries would be negligible, but the benefit would be great.

Please tell me i) what your predicted increase for accidents is, ii) what that prediction is based upon, and iii) why you think it is negligible.

And, incidentally, YES, driving at 65mph is certainly much more dangerous than sitting in a parked car. That doesn't mean we shouldn't drive 65mph sometimes. The QUESTION though is whether speeding is MORE DANGEROUS.

You repeatedly conflate that question (is speeding more dangerous) with a related but separate question (is the increased danger WORTH THE BENEFITS).

Again, we could save thousands and thousands of lives every year by just not allowing driving, period. Why don't we do that? I don't understand. Aren't we trying to save lives? Oh, wait, that's right, we weigh the costs (death and injury) against the benefits (transportation of people and goods) and determine that the costs are worth the benefits. And that is all I am doing. I am stating that the increased costs would be worth the increased benefits.

If you disagree with that assertion, so be it, but can't you disagree with it WITHOUT resorting to making obvious and meaningless statements such as "An accident at 80 MPH is more serious than an accident at 65 MPH?"

Then I take it: 1) WE AGREE that driving at 80mph is more dangerous than driving at 65 mph; 2) YOU CONTEND that the BENEFITS of raising the limit to 80mph ARE WORTH the additional accidents/injuries/deaths that will result. Is that fair?

And, again, this is why insurance companies almost always raise your rates when you receive a speeding ticket.

Oh, this makes sense. “Hey guys, this person is a danger to society and is putting lives at risk. Should we A) cancel his policy so that he can no longer endanger his fellow citizens, or B) raise his rates so he can endanger more people but we make more money?”

Insurance companies aren't empowered to seize your license. They simply evaluate your risk, and offer you a rate. The point is that they view speeding as bringing with it risks that require them to raise your rate.

I've certainly had to come to sudden stops in the US, and I've ridden in various vehicles that have had to come to sudden stops.

Could you elaborate on this? What is “sudden?” You are basically stating that at 80 MPH, there will be instances that require a driver to decelerate instantly from 80 MPH to 0 MPH. I am disputing this. Why would that happen? Can you give an actual example? Cars have brake lights. When a car has to slow down, they come on. The cars behind him then slow down. It’s not that complicated. Unless a car drives into a brick wall sitting in the middle of a highway, a car is going to have to decelerate over a course of several hundred feet. Even if an 80 MPH car slams on the brakes full power and comes to a stop in the minimum distance possible, it will still take several hundred feet (This is the basis of YOUR argument I believe, right?), so why would the car behind HIM need to come to an instant stop? He would simply need to apply his brakes and decelerate just like the car in front of him did.
There is no reason for him to rear-end the guy in front of him unless he isn’t paying attention or has a shitty car with lousy brakes.

By sudden I mean an unexpected and complete application of the brakes to decelerate the vehicle to a stop.

In one of the more dramatic instances a driver in heavy but moving traffic had a heart attack, resulting in his car side swiping the car in the next lane, and both of them going into the concrete foundation of an overpass. One remained on the shoulder of the road; the other settled on the road. As you might imagine, the deceleration time resulting from the application of a concrete foundation was somewhat less than that provided by safe braking.

However, a tractor trailer going 65 MPH will have zero chance of slowing down in time. Yet we allow tractor trailers to drive 65 MPH. NO ONE HAS YET GIVEN AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS ASININE POLICY. This is a point I have made that has been conveniently ignored for the duration of this thread.

Is it relevant to the question of whether speeding in a passenger vehicle is dangerous, or to the question of whether the costs of speeding are worth the benefits? If so, how?

The situation I gave, in which the right-lane is foreclosed as an escape route, and a slower car you are overtaking swerves into your lane, isn't imaginary nonsense at all. There is a reason why we require those who will be engaged in high-speed driving to undergo additional training.

I see. So if a car makes a dangerous and illegal lane change carelessly without checking his mirrors or his blind spot, there will be an accident? Probably, yes. Why is this relevant? Are cars generally in the habit of doing this? How often does this actually happen? And why would this be an accident attributable to speeding? Could you actually cite some statistics on how often a multi-car accident happens on multi-lane highways? I just don’t think they are all that common. Airplanes crash sometimes, but we still allow air travel.

It is relevant because we design speed limits not with the optimal behavior of other drivers in mind, but with the expected behavior of all drivers as a population. That means we must include drivers that will be reckless, drunk, inexperienced, etc. We must ask, among other things, given that x-percentage of drivers will be reckless, inexperienced, etc., what will the result of having everyone drive 20mph faster be?

To fly a multi-engine passenger plane in the US requires very extensive and expensive training, and we include many redundant safety checks. In this way we can change the expected behavior of all such pilots as a population---and even so, yes, there are still accidents due to pilot error, though these are increasingly rare in this class.

By the way heuristic, notice how I responded to each and every point in your post? I would appreciate it if you would at least try to do that. Instead, when I make a point you seem unable to address, you just ignore it, as though pretending it isn’t there counts as some sort of rebuttal.

Done.
 
Whether anyone realizes it or not, this thread is filled with lulz.

Sad, pathetic lulz.
 
I didn't read all the posts except the first since this is a long thread, but I feel certain that the obvious have been stated, such as ability to stop in time, build up areas with pedestrians and schools, etc. or the opposite, of people falling asleep behind their weel, able to divert lanes with slower speed all around.

Adding:

Reduced freeway speed limit is done to soften the noise in the surrounding built up areas.

It decreases our carbon imprint in the build up areas.

Reduce driver concentration, because at 100kmh the driver is alert, constantly and needs some rest

They also, reduce the speed, so that the drivers learn to reduce speed from their continuous speeding which they ignore the limits and built it up again further down the road, to make them pick up again their speed.

Also, it is done off course if there are traffic traps here and there, to avoid collision.
 
Good points raised heuristic. I will reply when I have a chance to give a thorough response. I am in the middle of a hectic move, so it might be a few days.
 
Human reaction times cannot easily be altered through non-pharmacological means (and most pharmacological means increase reaction-times, clearly).

Therefore, speeding will always increase your risk of having an accident.

ebola
 
Therefore, speeding will always increase your risk of having an accident.

ebola

I am not sure if this was addressed to anyone in particular. But this point has been conceded long ago. I don't think it was ever a point of contention.

Also, flying in an airplane is probably more dangerous than sitting my my living room chair watching TV. In fact, there are probably a few dozen legal activities that definitely increase my risk of death. So what?

The point of this discussion is about the degree of danger relative to the gains. It's also about consistency in the laws themselves (which there currently isn't) and in the application of said laws (likewise non-existent currently).

Ebola, I do have respect for you and your opinions and I generally like reading your posts. So, please do not take this the wrong way, but, I am not really sure what your post added to the discussion. This is a complex issue with many variables. I think it is unproductive to the discussion to issue a simple and obvious statement that is not really central to the actual debate.

If I could change the title of this thread, I would. I did not realize people would take it so literally. Next time I guess I'll put my entire thesis in the title.

Heuristic, I still need more time to respond to your post.
 
^What would you like the title changed to?

A discussion and debate about Speeding laws and enforcement.

Or something to that effect.

That way, we won't have people saying things like,

"Duh! the faster you go the more likely an accident! duh! Case closed!"

Max Powers, however, will likely remain a troll regardless of title. But we love him anyway. And by "we" I mean I have no idea who.
 
Heuristic, I have not forgotten about your post 362. I will reply when I have some more time.
 
The above post still remains true.

However, I MUST post this now.

Many people have made the point many times that society DOES punish speeding (in response to my statements that punishment for speeding is insignificant compared to the supposed dangers of speeding).

They have said, "But FJones, the insurance companies come down hard on speeders, charging fees and surcharges that most people cannot afford, blah blah blah blah ........

Well, today I got my renewal in the mail, along with their point scoring system. They have their own system that assigns points to violations, and then they adjust your rates accordingly.

Well folks, the joke is on you. Take a close look -- EVEN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES KNOW THIS IS BULLSHIT.

insuarancepoints.jpg


Speeding is the LEAST PUNISHED OFFENSE on the entire page. In fact, DRIVING TOO SLOWLY IS worth TWICE as many violation points as speeding.

Accept the facts people. IT'S ALL BULLSHIT. 95% of tickets written are for speeding, and yet Progressive insurance company DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SPEEDING! That’s right, the company with the 6 figure salaried actuaries working for them recognize bullshit when they see it.

Game over. Check MATE.

(Okay, just kidding, sort of. Let’s open the floor for debate. Please follow the rules of logic and refrain from committing logical fallacies).
 
Well folks, the joke is on you.
aside, you get upset when others talk down to you like this - why do you do it?

there are a number of conclusions that could be drawn from the information you've given here. one (the one you have chosen to draw) is that you and right and this information proves it and that makes you the winner.

another is that both you and the insurance company are, for want of a better word, 'wrong'.

there are other conclusions.

another aside, did anybody else notice that the numbers in both columns are the same - why not just have one column? :)

alasdair
 
aside, you get upset when others talk down to you like this - why do you do it?

there are a number of conclusions that could be drawn from the information you've given here. one (the one you have chosen to draw) is that you and right and this information proves it and that makes you the winner.

another is that both you and the insurance company are, for want of a better word, 'wrong'.

there are other conclusions.

another aside, did anybody else notice that the numbers in both columns are the same - why not just have one column? :)

alasdair


Come on, lighten up, I was being intentionally over dramatic. I guess it did not come across as such, which is of course always a hazard when writing on the internet.

I don't know what the deal is with the two columns. Maybe a long time ago there were some differences, and once they became all the same they just did not bother to change the format.

Anyway, yes, maybe I and the Insurance companies are wrong. I am not sure i see any evidence to support that possibility though.
 
"Going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH Zone puts other lives at risk because you are going a considerably higher speed, if that driver or yourself lacks agility, something as simple as switching lanes or avoiding something up ahead can be severely compromised. "

the other week i was on the highway going about 5 over when the person in front of me slammed on the brakes because of a stupid move an 18-wheeler made. i was able to react in time and skid to a halt on the shoulder lane next to the car that was in front of me. had i been going much faster i would have either totaled that car in front of me or fucked up my car on the skidding halt.

yeah speeding is not necessarily the only factor in wrecks, as slow and less attentive drivers are likely to cause just as many. however, saying that speeding is not dangerous at all would be a slightly ignorant statement.
 
why do you troll and attack FJones in every thread? Speeding.. Pet peeves, etc...???

Hai thar, Fjones alter account!

Could you please tell me what that 'etc' is? As in, what thread you are referring to?
,
Thanks in advance! :D
 
"Going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH Zone puts other lives at risk because you are going a considerably higher speed, if that driver or yourself lacks agility, something as simple as switching lanes or avoiding something up ahead can be severely compromised. "

the other week i was on the highway going about 5 over when the person in front of me slammed on the brakes because of a stupid move an 18-wheeler made. i was able to react in time and skid to a halt on the shoulder lane next to the car that was in front of me. had i been going much faster i would have either totaled that car in front of me or fucked up my car on the skidding halt.

yeah speeding is not necessarily the only factor in wrecks, as slow and less attentive drivers are likely to cause just as many. however, saying that speeding is not dangerous at all would be a slightly ignorant statement.

were you tailgating? I don't understand this scenario. Why did you have to skid to a halt on the shoulder if you were only going 5 MPH over the limit?

But yeah, those tractor trailers do are so quick and agile, it does require great effort to avoid them sometimes.

Okay, all sarcasm aside -- Aside from materializing in a lane suddenly out of thin air, What exactly could a tractor trailer do that would cause the driver in front of you to floor his break pedal and come to the most abrubt possible stop from highway speed?
 
were you tailgating? I don't understand this scenario. Why did you have to skid to a halt on the shoulder if you were only going 5 MPH over the limit?

But yeah, those tractor trailers do are so quick and agile, it does require great effort to avoid them sometimes.

Okay, all sarcasm aside -- Aside from materializing in a lane suddenly out of thin air, What exactly could a tractor trailer do that would cause the driver in front of you to floor his break pedal and come to the most abrubt possible stop from highway speed?

well... you may find it hard to believe but he switched three lanes, and hit the brakes quite hard i may add, trying to exit at a last-second opportunity. this cut off a number of vehicles, one of them switching lanes a car in front of me, causing the car in front of me to panic and hit their brakes considerably hard, while we were going about 60-65. lol, unlikely scenario i know, but not being high and not speeding helped my liable-insured only vehicle stay alive. :o

and although i wasnt tailgating, i was not following the whole one car length per 10mph thing i'll admit
 
well... you may find it hard to believe but he switched three lanes, and hit the brakes quite hard i may add, trying to exit at a last-second opportunity. this cut off a number of vehicles, one of them switching lanes a car in front of me, causing the car in front of me to panic and hit their brakes considerably hard, while we were going about 60-65. lol, unlikely scenario i know, but not being high and not speeding helped my liable-insured only vehicle stay alive. :o

and although i wasnt tailgating, i was not following the whole one car length per 10mph thing i'll admit

I hear you on thiso ne, but I must say, it sounds to me liek a lot of drivers did al ot of stupid things that wre not necessary. Ifp eople knew how to drive in the first place, that wouldn't happen.

Why do so many drives SLAM on their brakes when it isn't necessary? It causes chain reactions of stupidity like the one you described.
 
Top