My top 10 enforcement & countermeasure pet peeves

Geez... I make one of my best posts ever... and it degenerates into this?

Let me reclarify my "speed kills" rant. Yes, there are instances when speed can be a factor. Doing 75 in a 30 comes to mind. Someone pulls out into traffic and you hit them at 75 and someone dies, well, speed is a factor in that accident because the person pulling out isn't expecting someone to come barreling down at 75.

Speed can also kill if you drive into a bridge abutment or tree, and the faster you're going when that sudden stop happens, the more likely that you'll be killed from it. However, millions of people drive at 70+ MPH speeds everyday and not running into bridge abutments or trees, so I wouldn't consider this a particularly relevant argument.

The problem I have with "speed kills" is when it's used as justification for additional revenue enhancement, er, enforcement. News articles always say "we're going to crack down on drunk driving, seatbelt violations, unsafe driving, and speeding". Every single time. No matter where or for what reasons the crackdown is taking place, "speeding" is always brought up as something heinous that kills millions of people a year. When this simply isn't true on an open highway. On an open highway, engineered for safe travel at 70, 75, or even 80, but posted at 65 or even 55, guess what, almost everyone "speeds" through those stretches but you don't see the bodies piling up on the roadway.

What about roadways that were once posted at 65 or 70 but with no other changes (e.g. construction, road conditions) have been reposted at 55? Is doing 70 on that stretch suddenly more deadly than before? So why are there more speed traps in underposted 55 mph stretches than other places? Because there are more accidents in those areas? Most likely, it's a money making scheme.

When the NMSL was passed in the early 70s, making the maximum speed limit 55 nationwide, did all the highways suddenly become unsafe to drive at 70?

Speed in and of itself doesn't kill. Speed differential is what is dangerous. Doing 75 in a 30 puts drivers at risk. So does doing 30 in a 75. If everyone is going the same speed and direction, guess what, no one hits one another. Whether they're going 30 or 130.

I'll leave it at this. Let's not let it degenerate further, I'd hate to have a mod have to close one of my best threads. ;)

^^^^ :thumb2:

I think there's confusion over what "speed" actually means. It seems like the "speed kills" crowd contends that venturing above the appropriately posted speed limit is inherently dangerous. The message is that as long as you're under the speed limit, you're safe, and it's often presented as a justification for strict enforcement.

We have a self selected group here that doesn't buy into that. We've done our research and are more than a bit annoyed at the motivations behind the message and consider it an insult to our intelligence that we're expected to believe it. Many of us have personal experiences with the speeding ticket "industry", and it doesn't look like an accident that it was engineered to efficiently collect thousands of dollars for insurance companies and local governments for the relatively minimal effort of pointing a magic gun at a car and making a number pop up.

Now, what makes it confusing it that speed does kill. It absolutely does make it harder to react and it makes crashes worse when they do happen. That's an undeniable fact. However, the speed at which risk becomes unacceptable is not necessarily the speed limit (for innumerable reasons), so "speed kills" is a statement that's both theoretically true but often practically (and maliciously) false at the same time.

Then again, maybe I just haven't seen the light because I don't have a job that allows me to see bloody guts all over the road.

You're absolutely right, supercowpowers, and I forgot to mention that fact.

Speed *can* kill. That doesn't mean it always *does* kill. But in reality, it's speed *differential* that kills. Whether that means doing 130 on a motorcycle running into a truck doing 60, or hitting a bridge abutment at 70.

If I'm driving 10-15 over PSL on the highway and crash into a bridge abutment, there is a measurable (and good) chance that I would end up dead. If I'm driving at the PSL and crash into the abutment, there is still a chance (albeit SLIGHTLY lower) that I will still end up dead. On a motorcycle, I *will* be dead, even if I'm going 10 under PSL. You see, speed isn't necessarily a major factor in risk of dying in a crash. At the rates I speed at (10-15 over at most), it's a minor factor at most.

It's all a matter of balancing risks against the benefits. I'll take the minuscule greater chance that I'll die driving to work in order to shave a few minutes off my commute, by doing 10-15 over. Chances are, if I die in a car crash, I would have died even if I was going at/below PSL anyway.

You are a million times more likely to get a ticket for speeding than of getting into a speeding-related accident.

Also, what really is the safest speed on the highway? The PSL? No way. It's the speed everyone else is driving. If you're doing the PSL while everyone around you is doing 15 over, who's being the dangerous driver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

If you're doing the PSL while everyone around you is doing 15 over, who's being the dangerous driver?

---

Sorry, but the old, "but everyone else is doing it" argument just doesn't really work on any logical level. And claiming the speed limits are too low is a dishonest cop-out. If they raised the speed limit by 20 mph today, most of the speeders here would still drive at 10 to 15 over PSL. They're speeders. They want to speed. And raising the PSL isn't going to satisfy or stop them.

But yeah... it was a great post! :D

Just to chime in here.. :)

Police almost everywhere have a certain amount of "Speeding" they allow on any given stretch of road... There are very few places in North America that strictly enforce highway limits. In my opinion, this leads to speed limits far below what is actually intended just to allow for this... I'm saying this because I beleive it falls into the 55mph on a highway designed for 70mph argument.

For example, I've been pulled over before doing 20KM over the limit (15 mph) and been told it was just to let me know my light was out.. then when I made the comment "Oh, I thought it was for speed" i was told "Nah, you were only 20 over, not speeding." Yes, that was the actual words from the cop.


Yes, I firmly beleive speed tickets are purely revenue generation. If they were strictly for safety, all these tickets would be demerit points only - and actually points that matter! You know what I have to do in order to loose my license in Ontario?! I have to get caught 3 times in 2 years doing 35 MPH over the limit JUST TO GET A WARNING LETTER!!! Do you know what the fine is for those three tickets? upto $30,000.. No ****!

Safety my ass.... Yes that's an extreme example but even 15mph over is $150.. and I would need 8 of these in 2 years just to get a warning letter.

Speed doesn't kill, Speed bankrupts.

Safety is the excuse, revenue is the intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Sorry, but the old, "but everyone else is doing it" argument just doesn't really work on any logical level. And claiming the speed limits are too low is a dishonest cop-out. If they raised the speed limit by 20 mph today, most of the speeders here would still drive at 10 to 15 over PSL. They're speeders. They want to speed. And raising the PSL isn't going to satisfy or stop them.

But yeah... it was a great post! :D

---

Maybe *some* speeders (a definite minority) want to speed, but I bet the majority (including me) do it because the limits are far lower than speeds that I (and the majority of other drivers) feel safe and comfortable driving at. If 80% of people break the speed limit, does that mean 80% of drivers are reckless speed demons? I highly doubt it. Most so-called "speeders" are "created" by artificially low limits, not by some ingrained need to skirt the law. Of course, there are some who have the "need for speed", and those are the reason you have a job, to stop and ticket those who really do endanger the public.

When going from a 65 to a 55 mph zone, does everyone immediately drop their speed 10 mph? Not in my experience. Everyone just keeps cruising at whatever speed they were going. Same when going from a 55 to a 65. They're just going from 15 over to 5 over, doing the same speed, a speed that is perfectly safe for the highway they are driving on.

I typically do 75-80 on the highway in my Audi A4. If the PSL were raised to 75 (a far more reasonable PSL for most highways than the typical 55-65 around here), would I start doing 85-90? Probably not, because my car's sweet spot is around 75-80 and that's my comfort zone. I might average slightly higher due to less ticket risk, but not 10mph higher.

Studies have shown that changing speed limits (either lowering OR raising them) have little effect on prevailing speed of traffic.

BTW, question for you Stealth Stalker. When you do speed enforcement, on an open highway, what percentage of drivers do you see that are exceeding the PSL? How many do you find are going fast enough to warrant a pull-over or a ticket (based on safety, not revenue goals)? I bet the first answer is a much larger number than the second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

If you're doing the PSL while everyone around you is doing 15 over, who's being the dangerous driver?

---

Sorry, but the old, "but everyone else is doing it" argument just doesn't really work on any logical level. And claiming the speed limits are too low is a dishonest cop-out. If they raised the speed limit by 20 mph today, most of the speeders here would still drive at 10 to 15 over PSL. They're speeders. They want to speed. And raising the PSL isn't going to satisfy or stop them.

But yeah... it was a great post! :D

---

It doesn't work on a legal level which, at the end of the day, is all I think the police really care about.

If the speed limits here were all raised by 20 MPH, I would immediately throw my radar detectors in my 'museum of technology' (the attic) and sell my CB at the truck stop because I could drive like I already do without a cabin full of beeps from false alerts and bullcrap from truck drivers. I already go 85 on the highway (65 MPH PSL) and 50 MPH on back roads (35 MPH PSL), and I don't have much desire to go faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by An0nym0us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

Well, a recent government agency study...Other government studies show...

---

Can you show me a link regarding this? I would appreciate it.

Great thread Kpatz. Fantastic.

---

I will dig up the links (gotta find them in my huge list of bookmarks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

If law enforcement really wanted to make the roads safer, they would set up random road blocks for license and insurance checks, rather than simply going after casual speeders simply to generate revenue.

---

They would, but people complained about that too. Then the ACLU took it to the courts and got it tossed. Consequently, they're left with speeding.

---

Yeah, amazing since road blocks on back roads were very effective at catching drunks and and other drivers with suspended licenses or no insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

Geez... I make one of my best posts ever... and it degenerates into this?

Let me reclarify my "speed kills" rant. Yes, there are instances when speed can be a factor...

---

Your original post definitely is one of your best posts ever. As I mentioned, speeding in and of itself rarely is the single and only cause of accidents or fatalities. Yet the majority of the time speeding is a contributing factor when other factors were also determined to have caused an accident or fatality. Speeding on a rural road rarely results in an accident. Yet being drunk and speeding on a rural road is the number one cause of rural highway fatalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Therefore, it is the speed that kills.

---

Now that's the most acerebral, ultracrepidarian, vecordious piece of yirning reasoning I have ever seen... And it makes no sense.

---

You use your tongue purdier'n a twenty dollar whore. Can't you refute SS's point without resorting to a thesaurus? :rolleyes:

Watch, it's real easy:

If speed is what kills, then how come I don't instantly drop dead the moment I hit 66 MPH?

I have personally driven over 170 MPH and survived. Therefore, it's not speed that kills, it's collisions. I can be killed while traveling 0 MPH, such as when I'm stopped at a red light and a crane drops a grand piano on my head.

There, you see? Point completely refuted while still plain-speakin'. :D