1. Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?

  2. Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?

  3. Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?

  4. 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?

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 minutes ago

    Genuine answers from what I’ve heard regarding laws at least in CA:

    1. There is a precedent that you should be going with the flow of traffic, which is technically safer than going the speed limit when everyone else is faster-- but mostly only on freeways; I rarely the flow going that fast on streets, so the rule doesn’t apply to that one jackass going 60 in a 40 zone. And yes, you’ll just get to the red faster (good cities time popular traffic lights to the speed limit so it’s even stupider to speed).

    2. I’m pretty sure they also set the limit to what older vehicles can pull off safely (assuming you don’t tailgate, anyway). They have upped the limit in some areas, however, which I found upsetting. Like, 70mph up from 55mph over a few decades, which feels fast.

    3. Traffic cameras are used, but there’s an interesting issue on legality. If you don’t acknowledge them, they can’t actually say you got the ticket (they come in the mail). I forget the details, but something about seeing your accuser? LA itself more or less decriminalized them, but your mileage may vary based on local government.

    4. Places do, in the form of speed bumps, stop signs and curved roads. Not using those is probably more a mix of old roads and poverty-- new suburbs use windy, wide roads. Wealthy neighborhoods install speed bumps and add tons of stop signs. I don’t see it in my neighborhood because “it’ll hurt business” which feels like code for “you don’t matter enough for safety,” hence I think it’s a wealth inequality issue like most things in this country.

    Anyway, that’s the best of my knowledge as a CA resident. Honestly, the bigger danger to me are people who tailgate, road rage, drive on sidewalks, and do stupid things to get to an offramp. That last one? Just last Wednesday I saw a guy, car totaled, who tried to hit an offramp they missed by sharp turning into it, going up a 55 degree slope, and getting t-boned by another guy going up the normal way.

    Idiots, I swear…

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Ignoring largely empty stretches or highways where there’s practically no signs, have you seen how many signs are out there on heavily occupied highways?

    We’re just coming out of Gulfport Mississippi, Highway 49 (don’t worry I’m riding passenger, not driving), and it’s pure information overload. When you’re surrounded by like 500 signs, McDonald’s, Circle K, RaceTrac, Shell, Chevron, this and that doctor’s office, etc, and you’re only looking for the BIG signs to see what exit to take, well its all too easy to miss the random speed limit sign that they don’t even post but once every 3 miles or so.

    When surrounded by signage information overload, while you’re supposed to be keeping your eyes on the road, you simply cannot read every damn sign. You mostly keep your eyes on the road and follow whatever the pace of traffic is, only glancing up and around for the green signs with road names and highway/interstate directions.

    The rule of thumb I’ve learned, is that no matter the posted speed limit, as long as you’re driving safely about the pace of traffic, and aren’t the idiot darting through 20mph faster than everyone else, then the cops generally aren’t gonna mess with you.

    School zones are definitely an exception, you better be going 15mph along with everyone else, and of course following the directions of the traffic guards and bus stop signals when to stop.

    TL;DR - Too much information, cannot read all signs and keep eyes on the road simultaneously.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      My view is mostly uncluttered, and highway speeds are one of two speeds and they don’t change very frequently… but from this thread, the speed limits are designed to generate revenue, not control traffic.

      And I find the school zone exceptions especially egregious. Yes, if you are at a school where kids walk to school, absolutely, you are a fuckfaced bastard for speeding through a school zone. But in just about every school in my area, if your kid walked to school one morning, he’d be spending the night in foster care because it would be clear child endangerment; and usually those schools are generously set back from the road and there’s no way a kid would be interacting with the street without having some serious screws loose.

  • cobysev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago
    1. Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?

    Because speed limits are designed for the largest, clunkiest vehicles on the road (semi trucks, specifically). If they can’t handle the road at a certain speed, then the speed limit is dropped to a level that can be comfortably driven by them.

    This means that the average car can drive comfortably 10-15 MPH faster than the posted limit. And a lot of drivers feel that desire to drive faster.

    Also, I don’t know if it’s still a thing, but in my childhood (roughly the '90s), cops wouldn’t pull you over for speeding unless you were going at least 10 MPH over the limit. The reason being, the speed detector equipment they used had about a 10 MPH margin of error. If they pulled you over for driving 7 MPH over the limit, you could argue in court that their equipment was faulty and you were being unfairly assessed. You could sew seeds of doubt and get the traffic ticket stricken down. So cops just didn’t bother unless you could be positively identified, without a doubt, as speeding.

    I don’t know if the accuracy of their equipment has improved since then, but the mentality back in the day was that you had some leeway with how fast you were driving, leading to people driving faster than the limit in most places.

    1. Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?

    Because it risks all vehicles - including semis, RVs, delivery trucks, etc. - driving too fast for their large, heavy, awkward bodies to handle. Then they become a hazard on the road. You ever see a semi tip over because it took a corner too fast? If you’re in a car next to it, you’re pretty much toast.

    It’s like queueing in line. Sure, it would be faster to crowd toward the front, but you’re pushing people out of the way; people who may have been there first and deserve a turn before you. And depending on how aggressively they’re crowded out, it may become hazardous for some people.

    In the interest of fairness, everyone queues and respects the line, so the system stays safe and orderly. Same with speed limits. Everyone is expected to stick to the limit so ALL traffic on roads are safe and orderly. But sometimes, people are people and will do whatever they want, even at the expense of their fellow human beings.

    1. Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?

    This is a discussion that’s been going on for decades now. I know traffic cams are set up in some European countries and work pretty well, but here in America, historically, we’ve had a thing against being recorded publicly. Traffic cams haven’t taken off here because the idea of a small camera recording data about our cars without our knowledge freaks us out.

    Heck, we had to create entrapment laws to prevent cops from hiding while checking speed limits. If you watch old cop movies, they’ll sit behind billboards and catch speeders who fly by. That’s illegal in the US nowadays; cops have to be out in the open and visible if they’re going to watch traffic for speeding. It gives a fair chance for drivers to check their speed and adjust before the cop records them speeding and gives them a ticket.

    But most people will miss a camera in the wild. There’s no chance to argue a speeding incident in the moment. You get a ticket in the mail a few days later, then need to think back to that day and try to remember where you were and what speed you were going. You can fight it in court, but good luck having any evidence to counter a camera, unless you were recording the interior of your vehicle that day.

    With all that said, Flock cameras sprouted practically overnight here in the US and have set off distopian levels of surveillance paranoia. Especially since their setup was so fast that no laws or safety measures have been respected in their usage and the system is already being abused to watch and track people in unprofessional capacities. We kind of skipped the whole traffic cam issue and went straight to 1984 levels of public surveillance. So we’ll see how that plays out over the next few years.

    1. Why do we refuse to ever use ANY traffic calming measures?

    What kind of traffic calming measures do you have in mind? You mentioned the flashing speed limit signs, but that’s not going to stop some people. Speeders are gonna speed. It’s just human nature. The system we have is ineffective in a grand scale, but it works as a mental deterrent for most people. The fear of being pulled over by a cop for speeding keeps a lot of drivers in line.

    I once drove in the small African country of Djibouti, where the government had to post signs every mile to remind drivers which side of the road they should be driving on. Driving education was available, but most people just hopped in a car and took off; no license or training. There were accidents every couple miles. Trucks flipped over and abandoned on almost every sharp corner. Potholes so big you might lose a car in them.

    The system in America isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than it could be. You’re never going to stop people from speeding, even if we did set up cameras everywhere.

    My final thought on the whole matter is that speeding tickets should be based on a percentage of annual income. Say, 5% or so. Because a flat rate for speeding is just a punishment for poor people. Rich folks can afford to pay a fine with what amounts to pocket change for them, so there’s no incentive for them to correct the behavior. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it was Steve Jobs who refused to get a driver’s license or plates for his car or something? Every time he got pulled over, he just paid the fine and continued on with what he was doing. Meanwhile, someone living paycheck to paycheck is going to have their life ruined by a fine. If you ask me, making fines a flat percentage rate is the first step to curbing bad driving practices. Punish people fairly across the board.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because speed limits are designed for the largest, clunkiest vehicles on the road (semi trucks, specifically). If they can’t handle the road at a certain speed, then the speed limit is dropped to a level that can be comfortably driven by them.

      Don’t you guys have any generic laws about driving “carefully and considerately”? It’s completely common in my country for the speed limit to be higher than what many vehicles can safely handle. That just means those drivers have to judge for themselves how fast they can safely drive while remaining “careful and considerate”.

      • cobysev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Americans are too literal, irresponsible, and frankly narcissistic to follow something like that. We see a posted speed limit, that’s the speed we’re going to drive. Or we’ll go faster if we think we can handle it (and get away with it). We try to use the literal law to prove our position in court, so “careful and considerate” is too generic of a phrase to uphold legally.

        I lived in Germany for a couple years and I was surprised at how responsible drivers were there. Everyone stuck to the slow lane unless they wanted to drive super fast. The autobahns had no posted speed limit, but it was understood that if you got into an accident over 130 KPH, you were 100% responsible and insurance wouldn’t cover anything. So people just… drove more responsibility! Americans are too self-centered to behave that way.

        I especially liked how Germans would flash their brights if they were going much faster in the fast lane and everyone would just automatically pull over to the slow lane. No fuss, no drama. I do that in America and it just causes road rage. Americans don’t like brights being flashed at them. As a matter of fact, in my home state of Minnesota, it’s illegal to flash your brights at another car for any reason.

      • TotallyNotSpez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        In Ireland, speed limits are more of a dare against all common sense.

        Also, coincidentally, most car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists die on Irish roads compared to anywhere else in the EU… Hmmm… I wonder why that may be the case… 🤔

        Source: I used to live in Ireland for ages.

      • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        It’s because “rookie numbers” doesn’t fit on the lane, so they have to egg you on with “slow”

  • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago
    1. Go fast

    2. Go faster

    3. Allows for invasive searching that cannot be performed by a static object

    4. Go fast but circle means slow

    Thanks for attending my TED Talk.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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.

  • breezeblock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago
    1. Psychology — our minds are thinking about what we do next, so the present is regularly seen as an impediment to getting to the future — our destination. If we speed, we are able to do things we want to do next, sooner. After which we will rush to do the thing after that.

    2. Physics — the roads are built according to how curvy the land underneath them is, and according to how much reaction time you need to respond to changes on the road — for example due to weather. Most people speeding are decreasing their calculated and often legislated margin of safety.

    3. Economics — automatic enforcement is not necessarily cheaper — and when it is deployed, people just learn where it’s deployed and stop breaking the law in that one place. In many places traffic fines pay for public services, so you don’t actually want to stop the behavior outright, you just want to catch the people in the act.

    4. Economics — safety isn’t the only constraint on speed — travel time is important. People tend to do more ecologically important things when they arrive compared to when they travel. Significantly slowing everyone down would have a measurable impact.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m not exactly sure how speed limits are set, but from driving on roads that vary from 40 and 20 MPH, I honestly don’t think it’s based on an analysis of the road itself. Sometimes I think, “Oh, shit, a kid got hit here, so let’s lower the speed limit.”

      As for economics, yes, thank you, that does explain it–traffic enforcement is not there to control the flow of traffic, it is there to raise revenue for the state.

      • breezeblock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yes and no — there are basic rules with basic margins of error — but as you point out, there’s also political forces that have nothing to do with safety.

        In a straight flat road with no other vulnerable road users, the safety margin between 40 and 60 in a modern car is negligible. But on that same road the margin between 60 and 80 is not.

        And places change — what was once an isolated country road can easily become a suburban junction. Your example of a child getting hit can either be political reaction, or a lagging indicator that children have become more common in that place.

        Edit: the counter point to “oh the state just wants money” is that the state has to pay for roads, and people hate paying taxes. Maybe instead of playing games with fines, voters should just pay for the public services they want? That is part of the reason enforcement is not more serious in many places — it’s not be because voters care about safety — they just don’t like paying fines for rules they chose to break.

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          My complaint is a road the goes from 25 to 30 to 35 to 30 all in a few miles despite their being no appreciable differences in any of the spans. Like, what the fuck? Just make it thirty. Nobody but me is paying any attention to that shit.

          • breezeblock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Those cases are almost certainly because someone set a standard for roll, visibility, and reaction times relative to weather — because an objective reason is better than no reason. You have to account for cars that aren’t yours, people who don’t see as well as you, weather that isn’t today, and visibility that isn’t now.

            The speed limit changes didn’t make sense to you at that time, and they were maybe was set to an older standard for vehicular performance, but it was set for a reason.

            For example do those roads allow bicyclists? If so you need to add margin for error that the vehicle in front of you behind a blind corner is going a lot slower than you anticipate. Vulnerable road users are still road users.

            I have worked for almost 10 years around road safety.

            • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yes, you sound like an engineer that is frustrated their work isn’t being properly appreciated.

              My point is when I hit the brakes at a lower speed change, I am always met with bewilderment from the cars behind me. So I think frequent speed limit changes probably don’t do anything but drive revenue.

  • PwnTra1n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago
    1. Gotta go fast.
    2. They technically shouldn’t be going that fast, probably for safety reasons not obvious at all times.
    3. Cameras have flaws that are solved with an officer handling it. If someone is borrowing your car and speeding you get the camera ticket vs if an officer stopped them your friend would.
    4. Gotta go fast.
      • Blaster M@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        They’re cost effective when you set an arbitrarily low speed limit on a historically fast stretch of road. In order to support the $5000+/mo cost of each speed camera, you need to be handing put speeding tickets lile they’re going out of style, which incentivizes doing the first part.

        It’s the speed trap town, automated. Also an American problem. Build a town that uses the highway as a main street so you can enforce an arbitrarily low speed limit in city limits and catch people that miss the first speed limit change sign. Because 99 percent of traffic is passing thru, they are less likely to fight it in court. Easy money for the people running the town.

        Also they used to use all sorts of tricks, like posting multiple speed limit change signs in short sequence (65->55->45->35 in the same 1/4 mile (400m for you metric people)), then making sure at least one of those signs is partially obscured by an overgrown tree or in the middle of a bend or camo’ed between city info signs, where you’re less likely to see it while concentrating on everything else.

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          42 minutes ago

          So New York Pays out around $110 million fuckijng dollarydoos for police brutality cases every year, that’s the maintenance cost of 1,666 cameras. The money is there if we want to spend it.

          I’m also curious about why these cameras are so damn expensive. Something absolutely does not seem right there.

          Yeah, you’re the first to mention “invisible” speed limit signs, but someone else followed up … we do live in a creepy police state, don’t we.

      • innermachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        In my state it’s illegal to receive infractions from traffic cameras because you have a right to face your accuser. Traffic tickets from cameras are basically guilty until proven innocent and go to the vehicle owner, not necessarily the operator. They also contribute to mass surveillance. My state is also banning all ALPR’s very soon thank God, and we do not have any flock cameras around (there is only a couple in the state, in our largest city and only on private/commercial property)

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          You can have cameras that only record when they detect speeding and that information can be localized and not accessible on the internet.

          The problem is with the fascist police state, it’s like trying to have sex with a guy who promises just the tip. You can’t give them a camera and not expect them to abuse the fuck out of it.