-
Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?
-
Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?
-
Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?
-
Why do we refuse to ever use ANY traffic calming measures? Yes, than you flashing digital sign for telling me I’m going 10 miles above the limit on this incredibly wide and straight and flat road with high curbs and perfect visibility.
It’s a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.
And, yes, I know there’s some thing people did long ago to set the speed limit at some percentile of what people were already traveling at, but that’s obviously a stupid way to do it and we did it anyway. So why?
The short answer to all your questions is that America specializes in stupid in all kinds of ways. This is one of them.
deleted by creator
Honestly, at this scale, a resounding yes to your first question.
Cops want it that way.
In the USA, you can follow the average driver on a 10 minute drive and they’ll technically commit at least 1 infraction. My FIL got a $90 ticket last month for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
The rules of the road are so anally technical so that cops have a valid reason to pull you over whenever they desire. That’s it.
Not stopping at a stop sign is far from “anally technical.”
You’re coming to a 4 way stop. No one is around. You slow to approx 3 mph, then move through as no one is around. That’s pretty fucking anal
Clearly someone was around if the police were able to spot it.
Just press down on the damn brake pedal until all four wheels come to a complete stop. It’s really not that hard.
You come to a stop at a stop sign, how many seconds do you have to wait for it to be considered a full and complete stop?
Can you prove it? Does proving it even matter to the cop that pulls you over for running the stop sign?
I’ve had this happen and luckily the cop failed to show to court so the ticket was thrown out…but what if he had shown up? I have no idea.
I dunno about over there but in Australia it’s 3 seconds
I got “let off with a warning” once when I only came to a complete stop for 1 second on a dead quiet stretch of road with no other cars anywhere. Then out of spite I started doing the full stop for 3 seconds thing, which is really more like a 5–7 second stop if you account for the time you’re going extremely slowly
Other cars get really mad at me, obviously, because it’s ridiculous. Then another police officer gives me a warning for being an obstruction to traffic for following the rules the other police officer told me to follow. There’s actually no fucking winning
Seems anal given every other damn country would use a “yield” or “give way” sign which you can drive through if you see it’s clear. Like, on a very open junction at an oblique angle you may barely need to slow down. Or just slow down enough to make the turn.
Yep. America used to have a shitload more yield signs, but they’ve almost all been replaced with stop signs because some stupid idiots can’t be bothered to pay attention when driving. All these overdone rules exist to treat every driver as the lowest common denominator of intelligence and capacity, frustrating the fuck out of those of us who actually know how to drive well & don’t like coming to a complete stop when it’s unnecessary because it’s inefficient, and often just “safety theater.”
Why does this improve safety
Cops aren’t people though
Stop signs in the US are so damn common you guys invented the “rolling stop”. Outside the US I think I’ve met like ten stop-signs total. You can bet your ass I’m coming to a complete stop when I see one, since they’re so rare I know they’re there for a good reason.
For some reason the US decided to put stop signs all the places everyone else just has a “yield” sign (unsure of the proper English term, but it’s the upside down triangle indicating you have to yield to any other traffic), or just ordinary right-hand rule with no sign at all.
Come to France, they love useless stop signs. Then a random village has 9 intersections where you have to yield right and you can’t see shit.
But also don’t use French roads they’re covered in illegal speed bumps with inconsistent sizes not conformant with international standards for clearance of road vehicles, random illegal obstacles pretending to be “traffic calming” and no enforcement of actual rules that improve safety like speed limits in towns, safety distances and phone use.
deleted by creator
Yeah, a big part of the reason I don’t go over the limit anymore is to limit my interaction with cops. I don’t do well with social interactions and these motherfuckers are likely to find me suspiscious. So I drive the speed limit and just plan to invoke my right to remain silent.
Bad news, they can and will pull you over for going too slow in some places
Well, they can always make up some bullshit, the thing is not to let them go on fishing expeditions. Assert your right to remain silent to any questions, ask them what the purpose of the stop was, and ask them if you’re free to go.
Of course, they can always “smell marijuana” if they want. I’m very frustrated with how cars are automatic excuse to violate your rights, and I already fucking hated cars.
I knew i wasn’t crazy when my friend who is a lawyer said he was starting to take the bus to work because driving cars opens one up to too much liability.
Yeah so true, ultimately we don’t have much control over our interactions with police, ugh
- Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?
Fuck. Off. With. Your. Surveillance. State. Bullshit.
We had a driver for a trip near London. The driver was driving quickly, but then slowed before getting to a speed-averaging camera checkpoint, saying how they weren’t going to catch him speeding.
I thought about it, I did. But I can’t justify that logic. If you can’t cross that line until a certain time (or else get a citation), then you’re not speeding unless you break that rule. If you speed up and then slow down to average-out your speed, you’re just driving bad, not saving time.
Anyways, I was just amused that they had a system that seemed more foolproof, and yet it wasn’t accomplishing its intended goal for this one driver. That was just one person, I know.
Exactly. And that why these average speed zones are more effective in enforcing speed limits. Most people get the point and grasp the idea of average speed.
By the way, I’ve been driving in England for several weeks over tge last moths. They drive like idiots over there. And I must admit we Belgians aren’t the best drivers either but damn…
I was amazed by the courtiousness I’ve encountered on Slovenian and Montenegrin roads. The contrast is huge.
There are still plenty of old fashioned speed cameras, no surveillance required.
I know what you’re trying to say but literally any camera is surveillance. It takes pictures/video of a given area. It provides overwatch in lieu of a human. It just surveils for a specific thing.
That data can be used for other, nefarious, purposes and Americans tend to hate that unless it’s a private company doing it.
Automated speed or red light camera’s aren’t the same as the invasive ANPR/ALPR crap.
We have red light camera’s for ages. They only register when someone runs a red light. That’s used to be a hoge problem when I was young. These days it’s non existent.
Same for speed enforcement camera’s. You don’t speed, you’re not under surveillance.
Either way they were absused, if not for servillaince then for revenue.
I haven’t payed any speeding tickets in years since I stick to the speed limit.
That’s what they claim, but you have no way to verify
Actually I do and I did. I’ve requested the DPIA and the technical specifications through freedom of information request.
Meanwhile Ireland:
The UK is exactly the same, except they will write “SLOW” on the street, right next to the sign, to confuse you.
tbf in the UK they don’t have a speed listed on those roads, the national speed limit sign basically just means “We couldn’t be arsed to set a safe speed so use your brain.”
What? The national speed limit is 60mph, not whatever you feel like. Speed limits are a maximum, and you will be prosecuted if you are not driving at a speed compatible with the conditions, even if its less than the speed limit.
Yes, but I think the point being made is that some roads are not suitable for that speed despite being national speed limit. There’s green lanes around the place with national speed limit signs on when it feels like your vehicle will be demolished anything over 10mph.
Yes legally the maximum speed is 60mph but you aren’t going to reach those speeds on those roads. My point was that even if the sign means that technically you can do 60mph you’re still going to be done for dangerous driving if you attempt to.
this is the same in NZ, although we are getting some roads posted as 80m/h for safety reasons (high crash, high cycle/horse/foot traffic)
In addition to the clarifications, I thought I’d point out that it’s definitely a case of extra effort to set a safe speed on those roads that the local authority doesn’t want to go to
It’s because “rookie numbers” doesn’t fit on the lane, so they have to egg you on with “slow”
Yeah, I hear you guys even stop at interesections even if there are no stop signs. Completely mad.
In Ireland, speed limits are more of a dare against all common sense.
Also, coincidentally, Ireland is one of the top countries with the most fatal casulties (percentage by population) regarding car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists within the EU… Hmmm… I wonder why that may be the case… 🤔
Source: I used to live in Ireland for ages.
According to https://liveaccidenttracker.com/statistics/road-deaths-in-europe
Italy is deadlier than the whole UK when it comes to road deaths and living here… I gotta say it checks out. I’ve never seen worse drivers than Italians in my life. To say that traffic laws here are an opinion is an understatement.
Uh yes, traffic calming.
I’m going 10 miles above the limit on this incredibly wide and straight and flat road with high curbs and perfect visibility
This is the reason why people speed. If you want people to drive more slowly, you have to design the road/street in a way that discourages higher speeds. Do this, and you won’t need any invasive speed cameras or pay traffic cops to enforce.
On highways I suspect no one gives a shit. If it feels natural to drive 10 mph above the speed limit, it’s probably safe. But raising the speed limit would probably lead some people to speeding even more, with fewer options for punishing them (in my country at least, the fine is dependent on how much above the limit you were going).
-
Because the average American believes speed limits aren’t meant for the especially skilled drivers like themselves.
-
If the speed limit is raised, then people will drive 10-15 MPH over the new limit. Natch.
-
Traffic enforcement cameras have been routinely abused by the government and so have to be regularly taken away from them like the naughty children they are.
-
People will assure you that civil planning has done their job and everything is already working like a well-oiled machine. I don’t know why people keep saying this when it’s obviously not true. It’s astounding.
Traffic enforcement cameras have been routinely abused by the government…
People focus on the nasty abuse like stalking etc. but in my experience traffic cameras (specifically stop sign cameras) are abusive in another way: the fines are low, the crime is classed as civil, and no points are added to the drivers license. Which means if a citation is issued, people just pay it because contesting a false positive case is impossible because you have to schedule a court date, take a day off work to go to court, and pay the court fees even if the judgement is in your favor (which are higher than the actual fine). This only gets worse as more of these cameras switch to AI flagging with “human review,” which we know translates to “no one fucking watched the video, they just isssued the fine.”
Even before AI was in the mix, local governments were pulling crap like shortening yellow light timers to less than their own laws require for safety. And fine citizens (or habitual yellow-light runners) did the leg work to catch this crap. We’ve always had to be on our guard. That isn’t a new phenomena.
👆
…as a licensed US driver who finds public transit much less stressful.
-
Because much of your country doesn’t enforce speed limits, large portions of your country’s population don’t believe the Constitution allows speed limit enforcement without reckless driving
Naturally! The tassels on the flags in the court room clearly indicate maritime law, so they can get you for speeding on your boat, but not your car.
Wow, you must be really smart to be able to tell that from the opposite side of the world.
Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?
This isn’t really unique to the US. In my country people also consider it their right to drive above the speed limit and hate the police for telling them they can’t do it…
Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?
Because then everyone would drive above that new limit instead. It’s a psychology thing. It’s not that everyone would rather go speed y than speed x, being above the speed limit is the very point to it. Otherwise you’d see different behaviors with different speed limits, but at least here, every speed limit sees the same behavior of people not respecting it by the same amount.
Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?
Because then everyone would drive above that new limit instead.
I’m not so sure about that. If the speed limit in my neighborhood was 80mph I don’t think I’d be going that fast much less above it. If the nearby interstate reduced the speed limit to 25mph I don’t think I’d naturally be driving it at 35-40mph as you state.
In my experience, it’s more a thing that I think many people disregard the speed limit for the most part and have a certain speed they feel is natural and comfortable for them to drive on a given road in a given situation.
Going through the neighborhood? Some people think 15mph, some think 25mph, some think 30mph. See some kids playing on the side of the road? Most people generally would slow down a bit. Roads are tight and narrow? Well now I have to be a bit more careful in this area so I need to slow down even further.
In my experience the psychology trick has everything to do with the road, what’s around it, the condition it’s in, etc, and less to do with the sign itself.
Well, I think both of you have a point. The problem with “most people would slow down” is that this means dead children because of those who don’t.
Speed limits to have a role to play, however much better than a sign is indeed to create roads that naturally make people drive slower. Countless streets in Europe have been redesigned according to that principle, the most systematically in the Netherlands. Why? Because it works and it saves lives.
The US requires roads to built in a way that the “natural speed” would be insanely high, even in purely residential areas.
I find it frustrating that in the US at least, people can’t do the simple math. Unless it’s a very long trip, speeding doesn’t save you very much time at all. A couple of minutes at the most for a typical commute.
On countless occasions I’ve seen some some reckless moron nearly take other vehicles’ bumpers off to ‘get around’ traffic. And then you’re right behind that same moron at the next red light.
They are risking everything for little to no time savings.
It is pretty hilarious to me that no matter how much someone spends on a car, no matter how comfortable the seats or rich the sound system or smooth the ride, everyone wants to GET OUT OF THEIR CARS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. OH MY GOD WHY AM I NOT THERE YET?!?!?!??
I think even if you explained to them they were only saving 45 seconds over a 30 minute commute, they’d think it was worth it.
Human beings are notoriously awful at risk assessment.
First off you are wrong. I for instance, drive the speed limit.
Secondly, because whatever limit you set, some people will speed, even if it kills them.
Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions. If they chose to ignore that and kill themselves, well then, I hope they enjoy their Darwin Award.
The best illustrations is the current usa situation were about 40% support trump even as he destroys their livelihood and bulldozers the White House.
You will always get a large percent of people who are self destructive, selfish, ignorant and abusive, had a toxic childhood and grew up to be toxic adults.
I had a friend once who rescued a lady who put her car in a ditch driving to fast for the icy conditions. The moment he got her out, she sped off down the road, going way too fast and weaving all over the place.
You can’t cure stupid. Just obey the speed limit and try and stay out of the crazy people’s way.
I also drive the speed limit as of about 2 years ago, which is why I bring this post up. But I’m basically the only one. People are constantly passing me, even on a double yellow line. In fact, it’s gotten so obnoxious, that I’ll sometimes drive just a touch below the speed limit when there’s a safe pass (like a 4 lane road) to encourage people to pass me instead of them wondering, “Is this guy going to speed up?” for a few a minutes before finally passing.
Anyway, I didn’t mention my law-abiding ways because I assumed the hatetrain would derail the conversation.
I’ve always gone the speed limit or just a tad above (because of traffic flow) because going any faster is inefficient in so many ways and only increases risk. Even on a long trip that 10 mph over is only going to gain a few minutes, and you’ve used more fuel. Why bother? Plus there’s the fact you mention elsewhere of not standing out as a target. Not that it matters, I feel enforcement is highly variable, and I’ve seen on highway trips people going 20 or more over in a construction zone, and I wonder where the cops are. Only when they feel like it, I suppose.
The one good thing about a toll road that I’d support is how it can measure an average speed, and someone speeding that much over has no way to easier balance out the math at the end, so instant ticket/justice. I mean, they could just limp the last mile or pull off, but that’s waving red flags to anyone monitoring.
Even on a long trip that 10 mph over is only going to gain a few minutes, and you’ve used more fuel.
i’ve always ‘had more time than money’, and i’ve never had a car that was more fuel efficient at 70-80mph than at 50-60mph.
we actually take the ‘2 laner’ into the city over the interstate specifically because there isn’t a bunch of morons doing 20+ over, weaving all over the place.
Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions.
This is not true. There may be some statutes in some jurisdictions with language that may suggest something like this is done, but the truth is, all speed limits were originally set by simply measuring how fast people drive, averaging all the number together, then reducing that number by 20%. From there, how it’s changed over the years depends on where you are (with the exception of the nation-wide speed limit of 55 mph in response to the oil crisis in the 70s) but all of them started completely arbitrarily.
It’s also worth mentioning, car technology is such that a modern cars only needs about 40% the stopping distance of a vehicle made when the speed limit was decided upon. So, not only are they arbitrary, but if they truly were based on vehicle performance, they would be a lot higher today (at least on rural roads. City streets are another story).
Or you are just repeating myths…
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/setting-speed-limits/
Oh, sure, fall for Big Transportation’s story… /s
Human beings are very bad at driving. I cannot wait until computers are driving our cars for us…
Human beings are very bad at driving.
Yes, most of you are. The amount of training required before turning people loose in a two-ton death machine with 10 gallons of highly flammable fuel in the back is shockingly, pathetically minimal. The fact that you never need to re-take a driving test to demonstrate competency is a danger to others. The number of people driving around who don’t even know how a four-way stop works is an unacceptable, systemic issue. The number of people who have dash cams is laughably low. The number of drivers who have never practiced safely losing and regaining traction under hazardous conditions is probably over 99%, which is absolutely bonkers when you stop and think about it.
Driving is unbelievably dangerous and the number of people who don’t realize and respect that and thus, approach driving with a dangerously casual attitude is a systemic issue that should be addressed.
But, as a professional “computer person” the idea of a computer driving sounds more dangerous than a drunken eight-year-old behind the wheel.
The danger is the mixing of humans, environment, and computers. Mostly the first, as environment can be predicted and adapted to a lot easier than human actions.
Ever see the video of an automated warehouse? When it’s just computers and no unknown variables, it’s far more efficient and safe. But we started with humans driving first and computers are a newcomer, so short of a fully automated road system, it’s not going to be perfect. Computers can see and react to things faster, so in some situations they are better than humans, and much of the newest safety equipment on cars required by regulations are because of that.
Trains are better, but, yeah, humans really do suck at driving; whether or not computers would be better is a separate question (tip: LIDAR is better).
As much as current robo-taxis are still far from perfect, their driving is overall much safer than that of human drivers
I thought we were still waiting for the numbers on that. Do you have a study/article? Surely you can find a study funded by a self-driving car company that shows it’s better, but the question is what actually shakes out in practice as evaluated by an unbiased researcher.
Last I was aware robotaxis drive extremely slowly compared to regular traffic in limited areas. Not sure how solid the comparison is yet.
Mostly politics and grafting. There is a piece of highway in Florida where there is a nonsensical low speed limit. The stretch is “owned” by a little village with a police force nearly as big as the population in total, and the police is basically generating a good income by speed trapping on the highway 24/7.
Is this Waldo on US 301?
Rings a bell, could be.
I think the dissonance about speed limits is why there are so many awful drivers, at least in my neck of the woods. You go through drivers ed and you’re trained to go exactly the speed limit in all circumstances, and then you get let loose and find out on some highways, driving under the speed limit is so slow compared to the actual rate of traffic that doing so would be dangerous. People learn that and figure that all of the rules of the road are stupid and bad and you have a country of awful drivers
it doesn’t help that, as another commenter mentioned, you can be ticketed for not moving with the flow of traffic. follow the law, and you’re still breaking the law! plus all the asshole drivers who will get right up on your rear bumper if they decide you aren’t going fast enough. damned if you do, damned if you don’t! although ultimately, going slower is almost always the better choice from a safety standpoint because of that whole “physics” thing
You had me in the first half, NGL
More state-sponsored surveillance is never the answer.
Wow, such wrong info and opinon here. I swear, Lemmy might be worse than Facebook to find out real info.
- Because most devices that measure the speed of cars on a road have an error rate. They need to be calibrated regularly or they might be off by a few miles an hour. Calibration takes time, which means it’s expensive.
https://schwartzcohenlaw.com/how-often-do-radar-guns-need-to-be-calibrated/
Meaning that there’s little assurance that your speedometer and a radar gun will agree exactly. They might be up to 5-7 mph off. So if someone is going up to 10mph above the limit, it’s legally not guaranteed that a radar gun reading their speed accurately will result in a fine.
Also, 10-15 over is about how far you can go that if you see a cop far off, you can slow down in time.
On top of this, fines are usually proportional to speed above the limit. So the fine itself is usually not worth the time or hassle to a cop if it’s just over the limit. They prefer easy, slam dunk cases, like someone doing 35 in a 15, or 65 in a 45.
-
In the US, speed limits are based on road engineering, sort of guessed tolerances for the shittiest cars on the road, and (way back when) fuel economy. So it’s a patchwork of things unevenly applied over decades. Not all these standards change in every state regularly. Not every state is in a rush to check if 1970s standards for car tolerances for grade on a curve are still helpful. Often not until someone has a reason to lobby state government to change them.
-
Until only very recently, a human had to weild the radar gun. Physically and legally. Most States didn’t allow automated tickets until they saw how easily fines could be collected with them. Those systems are expensive to buy and very unpopular, so not every local government wants to be the people that put up surveillance state infrastructure - and made taxpayers pay for the thing that now gives them tickets.
-
Those are both expensive as well, and the if you did that, people would get less tickets. Which means lower local government budgets.
You’re really looking at this from a backwards perspective. People want to do whatever they want. Then one rule shows up. Then another. Then another. Each one is imperfect, and so each rule and method gets expensive to implement, but also makes people feel hemmed in a little more. And each rule pisses people off because they have habits that work into the gaps of the old system.
Do you have any insight on the monthly costs? I mean it’s just unbelievable to me that a camera in 2026 would cost $5,000/mo to operate. That’s an insane cost. I suspect some kind of legalized monopoly.
And you know, I’ve read breathalyzers also have to be calibrated, and that’s terrifying to know, because they’re probably not, and they generate more revenue when they’re off.
Your explanation of why speed limits are there are is basically saying there’s multiple overlapping systems, so everyone gets to be right, and everyone gets to be wrong.
I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don’t really get what they’re contributing to the legal validity of the case. The issue in question is whether you are speeding, and that is entirely dependent on the camera. If the cop is holding it or if the gun is on a pole is logically irrelevant.
One thing I don’t think I’ve seen people say is: we don’t control speeding because people want to speed. Case study: Toronto. Legendary asshat Doug Ford removed speed cameras because they were politically unpopular.
It’s the ongoing maintenance, just like how calibrating cars to exact speeds is expensive, so too are radar and laser guns. So the burden is on the radar/laser guns because there are fewer of them. And the calibration cannot be performed on site, as the unit your testing against also has to be calibrated to a much higher degree and you’re not going to throw it in the back of a truck and drive it around risking damage. And in the event of someone disputing, it’s up to the state to produce proof of calibration rather than the individual proving it was not. It’s an expensive process, as anyone who uses specialized tools (not limited to law enforcement) would tell you.
Now, it’s possible that the calibrations aren’t done, and people don’t question them and get tickets. But you want the ones that don’t constantly make mistakes. 20ish years ago DC put up cameras and it was sending tickets across the entire US because it wasn’t reading plates correctly. They had to hire more people to cross reference any matches with the make and model of the car just to double check, and that was a lot of eyes that needed paying. Even though a lot of it is automated today, you’re still paying a premium over putting a camera on a stick.
In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.
I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don’t really get what they’re contributing to the legal validity of the case.
The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.
To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.
Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.
Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.
It’s not about monthly costs. It’s about up-front costs. These systems can be millions, maybe tens of millions to start, and are typically a huge, multi-year contract to a third party company that manages the system. Plus hiring human staff, maintenance and installation of a huge amout of it systems, training, tying in the car registration databases… On top of the fact that they’re politically unpopular. Most people don’t want to be tracked everywhere they go, even if the trade off is slower drivers on the road. There’s a lot of headwinds before monthly costs are ever even a consideration.
Speed limits aren’t an “everyone gets to be right/wrong” thing at all. It’s numerous new things added as band-aid and one-item “fixes” to specific situations. It’s also why the US tax code is such a mess. No one cares to overhaul it, and it’s just a huge jumble of singular tweaks. It’s like when you let a group of people take 10 years to write a story, and every week 5 people get to add or edit 1 sentence. Will you get a harmonized story with coherent plot? Likely not.
Radar guns don’t report the speeding to anyone. A radar gun sitting on the side of a county road will write a ticket… how? Magic? It’s a tool. A tape measure doesn’t measure your height for you, you have to read the number and know the context. Before radar guns cops had to base speeding on a guess, or their own speedometer, and had to testify in court to a more subjective standard.
We don’t control speeding because we mostly have passive systems that fine people for violations. And anyone determined enough will speed anyway, fines be damned. Many people speed as a flex and pay fines like a status symbol. You can’t engineer 200km or 200 miles of highway to keep people at 65mph or below. Engineering solutions are limited to pedestrian areas or slow speed areas. The systems we use to fine people have the added societal costs in that they take taxes to set up, and are surveillance state tools.
Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?
Because speed limits are not strictly enforced
Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?
Because if that happens that any per-textual stop the police want to do needs an another actual crime being committed before they can stop you.
Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?
I reject the premise. Traffic enforcement isn’t very ineffective because the majority of people aren’t driving 50+ MPH over the speed limit. Also, its not that expensive because your premise suggests that if we had cameras, we’d need fewer police. I don’t think that’s the case. When an emergency response is needed we need X number of police to respond. Therefore X number need to be employed and on shift at all times. If we have the expense of traffic cameras, its not going to reduce headcount below X, and we now have the additional expense of purchase, install, and maintenance of all those traffic cameras. The cameras have an headcount overhead of staff of their own.
Traffic cameras also introduce mistakes of their own including misreading plates, or thieves using stolen/copied plates, which would otherwise ensnare innocent citizens.
It’s a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.
I think you’re looking at the rules and assuming the logical outcome is the desired result. Change your mindset. The desired result is what happens when human society is given a set of rules and reacts to them. The reaction is the actual desired result. The set of rules is simply one step to get there. In short, humans aren’t 100% logical nor are they 100% rule following, knowing that, you establish a set of rules that you know will have some violation and you account for that in rules.
Police staffing levels are absolutely not set by emergency response needs.
Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty, firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.
Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.
You expect an off duty cop to stop beating his wife for your emergency?
Maybe for the opportunity to shoot a dog, sure.
deleted by creator
We’re probably talking about slightly different aspects of the same thing.
Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty
There are different levels of emergencies, right? So there is likely Y number of officers that have to be on duty at all times, and an additional X officers that number officers need to be employed by the department yes to respond to the highest levels of emergency to be able to pull people in when they are off duty.
firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.
For this discussion, I was assuming we’re only talking about police response needed. When I say “police needed to respond to emergencies” I’m only talking about the police component, not the other type of first responders. I don’t see how its useful to expand the conversation to other first responders when we’re only talking about employed police officers. If you have information about how the number of firefighters/EMTs can increase or decrease the number of police officers employed for policing, I’m open to consider that argument or something similar.
Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.
I agree with this.
That thesis is idiotic. Intentions exist, and are not the same as outcomes. If you want to make the point that intentions don’t matter then say that.
There’s a very short expiration date on intentions. After that, they’re just PR for the system’s true purpose.
Usually the people involved in the system continue to have intentions.
This whole thing is so idiotically, purposefully failing to understand real people. Like AS IF you have never supported anything imperfect and wanted it to work in a way different than how it actually works. Nobody applies this consistently.
We use automated speed cameras here in Australia, and mostly everyone adheres exactly to the speed limit. Just knowing that there could be a speed camera keeps certain people law abiding.
If you do get a fine erroneously you can contest it in traffic court.
We use automated speed cameras here in Australia, and mostly everyone adheres exactly to the speed limit
I don’t live in Oz, but a recent news report would suggest it contradicts your statement. Camera revenue in NSW alone explodes as fines reach $308 million, which is than $39 million increase over last year. If your statement matched the current situation, fines would be reducing, but instead they’re increasing.
Total annual revenue from speed and road safety cameras across Australia exceeds $1 billion.
Speed and red light cameras don’t appear to be a traffic safety system, but instead a revenue generation channel for the state.
Mm, I meant the experience of being a driver on the road is that people tend to be driving about the speed limit. I remember when I was in Canada most everyone would instead drive 10-15 over. Which I guess isn’t really a problem if they set the limits lower to account for it… I’m just a fan of clear instructions so this is my preference.
It is true that it is a revenue generation system. I honestly don’t feel bad about it though. Speeding is dangerous.
I honestly don’t feel bad about it though. Speeding is dangerous.
But the system isn’t stopping the speeding. If you concern is that speeding is dangerous, Australia currently has a system in place the costs residents huge amounts of money but does nothing to stop the speeding. The data is showing its increasing even! The system in place seems to be making speeding worse and more prevalent.
