by "Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
Published 05/16/2017 at 17:22
by "Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
Published 05/16/2017 at 17:22
Tags: things I think about instead of working
STARS: 1
Things I find odd:
Speed limits in general.
and
I just think if you really have an ulterior motive for making people go slower, DESIGN THE ROAD TO BE USED SLOWER. Don’t just turn it into a cash grab.
This got me thinking. Why not eliminate speed limits and instead just police people for dangerous driving? Would that work? Sounds like common sense, right?
There are three main reasons I can see that local governments would want speed limits:
First is safety. Ostensibly, providing guidelines for what is a safe speed based on some systematic rationale helps remove the need for every single user to use his unique judgement of what is safe. I think the effectiveness of this strategy is arguable, depending on the specific road.
Second is for government income. Although most local governments will deny it, I think we all know that speeding citations are a lucrative source of income, especially for smaller municipalities.
Third, and this is the most interesting to me, is to give the legal structure for policing. If you just police and cite people when they drive recklessly or dangerously, then the citation rests 100% on the judgement of the police officer. We in the US like objective measures for things. A speed limit sign gives the cop something to write down, a codified standard of behavior that when violated, specifies a punishment that doesn’t rely solely on the officer. It’s a way of reassuring the community that things are governed by laws and not the will of the sheriff. I think this is a big reason why we as a society will continue to feel the need for speed limits.
What do you think?
"RacingShark" (racingshark)
05/16/2017 at 17:29, STARS: 2
Limits are important because they serve as a target speed. 2 cars on a road going 100 isn’t a big deal. One car going 100 and another car going 50 is dangerous.
Speeding tickets should be for going a significantly different speed than the rest of traffic.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
05/16/2017 at 17:43, STARS: 0
I think #2 and #3. #3 is interesting, and it stands to reason. The easy stuff gets bagged. The hard stuff... meh the low-hanging fruit is plentiful enough. Why bother?
For example why the law (Georgia? can’t remember) that it’s not illegal to sit in the left lane or to pass on the right, but rather ILLEGAL TO BE PASSED ON THE RIGHT, makes so much sense. It’s hard to make any charge for left-lane camping stick because there are so many legally good excuses. “I was passing” even though you were just barely creeping by a stream of traffic while cars piled up behind you. “I was doing the limit, the guys behind wanting to go faster should be the ones ticketed”. I was going to turn” even though your turn was 10km ahead. But illegal to be passed on the right? That’s a black and while call, much like a speed limit.
See also: drunk driving or distracted driving. Far more dangerous than speeding, unless you’re going ludicrously fast and weaving through traffic. Also much harder to police. Guess which one gets targeted? Oh yeah...
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
05/16/2017 at 18:06, STARS: 2
The objective measure thing is why Montana’s “reasonable and prudent” speed limit was struck down.
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
05/16/2017 at 18:12, STARS: 2
In the same way, I sometimes wish that we didn’t have to come to full stops at stop signs. Speed limits, like stop signs, were originally invented in the interest of safety . I would like to live in a world where it was sufficient to follow the SPIRIT of the law. Ideally, if there’s no one else around, you should be allowed to drive fast on highways and (perhaps slowly) roll through intersections without stopping. Just so long as you’re taking the proper precautions, of course.
Sure would be nice...
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 18:27, STARS: 2
But illegal to be passed on the right? That’s a black and while call, much like a speed limit.
Problem with that law is that you can’t control the other guy. What if you’re in the left lane and going faster than the lane to the right of you, i.e: passing them, and some bozo weaving through traffic zips by you on the right at some ridiculous speed? Oops, you just broke the law.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 18:29, STARS: 0
And I’ve been told that speed limits are set on new roads at 80% of the average speeds observed before the limit is posted. But, everyone I see always blows by that limit. So, I remain skeptical.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 18:30, STARS: 2
Yeah, I think the problem is that everyone’s quota of common sense and good judgement is variable. So, we reduce to the lowest common denominator and set a rule for those without it.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 18:31, STARS: 0
Couldn’t you just imagine Sheriff Roscoe going to town with that one? Probably every voter could.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
05/16/2017 at 18:37, STARS: 1
True enough, but like speed limit laws the officer should be able to make a judgement call. Just like how if you’re moderately speeding on an open road, 99% of cops will let you go, being passed on the right by a retard without being given any chance to move over is obviously not your fault and that same 99% of cops should see it tat way.
All this does is give them a tool to use to get a charge to stick and therefore crack down on a behaviour that was previously immune to penalties.
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
05/16/2017 at 18:52, STARS: 1
Yeah. It’s too bad, really.
Michigan actually has some pretty reasonable “basic” rules to fall back on. If there’s no posted speed limit (a very rare occurrence indeed), then it defaults to a Basic Speed Limit, which calls for whatever’s “careful and prudent”. And in the event of a storm that knocks down road signs or interrupts signal power, there’s a basic right-of-way to keep “uncontrolled” intersections moving.
But 99% of driving is regulated by the as-posted letter of the law, and we don’t get an opportunity to exercise our ability to make “careful and prudent” decisions.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 19:01, STARS: 1
Exactly. There is a framework in place that lets people know the boundaries and be assured the cops can’t run wild, but also give the police something to hang their hat on.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
05/16/2017 at 19:06, STARS: 0
I see care and prudence on the part of drivers every time I go out on my bike. Almost all bicyclists run stop signs here. So, you see motorists habitually stop at the signs and yield to cyclists even if they have right of way. They expect to cyclists to blow through. What the law is supposed to do is make everyone stop, even if they’re not cautious and prudent. Stupid of cyclists to rely on the good judgement of unknown drivers to safeguard their lives. All it takes is one...