Speeding Crackdown.

[SlateEd]

The New England Crackdown the OP mentioned was introduced with a press conference including cars bikes and a chopper in the background. They certainly put everyone on notice that it's coming, so the notion isn't a surprise or a trap.

Speed enforcement is such a frustrating topic when you really get into it. With higher speeds come a number of unsafe developments, but everything still relates back to the vehicle and the driver. You can't tell me that either one of my cars at 85mph has a longer stopping distance than a 15 year old dually F350 at 65mph. You can't tell me that my heads-up driving at 85mph is more of a hazard than the lane-wandering of a cell-phone-using livery driver at 65mph.

Ultimately I know it would be impossible to enforce for all of the relevant factors that make driving hazardous, but it does seem easier to catch speeders than cell-phone users. I'm not sure that's the best bang-for-the buck when it comes to safety.

[FrgMstr]

Escort 9500ix + Waze and you are set.

[schulmann]

Same here in Quebec.
Extensive Speeding ticketing in Quebec from May 11th to May 17th.
Troopers were all called in and holidays were cancelled for this week.


Troopers have large ticketing quota for this summer.
They even get training how to catch drivers with radar detector.


This Saturday a poor guy from Ottawa,On was towed out from the province because he had a modified car !
The Troopers even removed the bumper to verify if the car's frame was modified or not.
They tried to impound the car. Finally they forced the owner to have the car towed back to Ottawa.

http://www.montrealracing.com/wp/wp/...retched-tires/

The world on the fine says that the "owner modified the car such a way that it may reduce its stability".

[bkrone]

Escort 9500ix + Waze and you are set.

Problem with Waze is that it depends on others to a) remember to run the app and b) tag police as they see them!

9500ix would be nice, spendy but nice.

[GTS Dean]

Geeze - I was driving back from Corpus Christi yesterday afternoon on I-37. The troopers were out at about 5 minute intervals headed the other way for miles. The traffic I was rolling with was doing a steady 80-90 mph with no problems. I saw one trooper tap his brakes, but didn't turn around. Who was he going to tag - all 50+ of us?

[Viktimize]

Saying that speeding has never caused a crash is like saying no one has ever died by falling because, you see, it's the sudden stop, not the fall that killed them. Speeding is a major contributing factor in fatal crashes. Even as a mere contributor, not a direct cause, it invites danger and the police are charged with the responsibility of making it as safe as they reasonably can by curtailing dangerous driving behavior.

Speeding increases the amount of distance travelled during a given reaction time. Speeding, when a crash does occur, increases the amount of damage caused to persons and property. Speeding during inclement weather can lead to hydroplaning, over driving your sight ahead in dense fog etc. Speeding can create conditions where one overdrives ones own abilities as well as the tires, brakes and suspension. Furthermore, speeding on a bad road surface, like with loose material such as gravel, and crossing animals can potentially lead to a crash. Not to mention the fact that those who share the road are also placed in a situation of undue and increased danger. We aren't in controlled conditions here.

I'm a fan of school zones as well.

What you are referring to is driving too fast for conditions. Many times this has very little to do with the speed limit. As you can drive too fast for conditions below the "safe" speed limit depending on conditions.

A sudden stop still occurs due to an accident. Accidents themselves have causes. The causes of these accidents are never speeding. The cause of a fatality in an accident can be directly related to the amount of force generated due to the speeds travelled, but that has nothing to do with the cause of the accident in the first place. That is the issue. Speeding can certainly increase our risk of an accident should you be doing something else unsafe in the first place. But why would you try to stop something that is merely a "factor", when you can go right after the route cause? As mentioned earlier, all you do by enforcing speed is slow down safe and unsafe drivers alike. Now you still have just as many unsafe drivers on the road not learning anything, they're just less likely to die in the event of an accident. You go enforce the route cause, and now you hit 2 birds with one stone. Not only do you decrease fatalities by forcing people to be better drivers through enforcement of bad behaviors. But you also decrease accidents as well. I'm all for decreasing deaths of innocent people, but I don't feel like it is very fair to punish safe drivers and completely neglect injuries that occur in accidents to do so. Enforcing route cause addresses all these concerns.


And I don't know if I need to clarify? But obviously I am talking about the highway here. (Where 99% of speed traps are set up)

At the end of the day, the sats speak for themselves. And they clearly show that speeding does not cause accidents.

[Viktimize]

The New England Crackdown the OP mentioned was introduced with a press conference including cars bikes and a chopper in the background. They certainly put everyone on notice that it's coming, so the notion isn't a surprise or a trap.

Speed enforcement is such a frustrating topic when you really get into it. With higher speeds come a number of unsafe developments, but everything still relates back to the vehicle and the driver. You can't tell me that either one of my cars at 85mph has a longer stopping distance than a 15 year old dually F350 at 65mph. You can't tell me that my heads-up driving at 85mph is more of a hazard than the lane-wandering of a cell-phone-using livery driver at 65mph.

Ultimately I know it would be impossible to enforce for all of the relevant factors that make driving hazardous, but it does seem easier to catch speeders than cell-phone users. I'm not sure that's the best bang-for-the buck when it comes to safety.

Ease of enforcement is what it all comes back to. Which just goes to support the fact that it is a revenue based system not safety based. When over 60% of accidents are caused by distracted driving, and speed traps account for like 95% of police traffic enforcement, something is clearly out of whack.

And the proof is in the pudding. Revenue from speed enforcement goes up every year, meaning they enforce more often and tighter tolerances. Yet the accidents rate never seem to change.

[Vprbite]

Not that I am encouraging speeding, but I will agree that stopping distances are an issue in accidents. I drove to and from Phoenix yesterday and I even pointed that out to my girlfriend that people were driving fast in cars that really shouldn't be. I saw a crossover suv with a family in it and a movie playing on the tv's doing at least 90 and a then a 15 year old beat up pickup truck that was trying to weave in and out of traffic like a sportscar as well as doing well over 90. I remarked that the chances of a distracted driver were pretty high in the crossover and that the pickup truck would take well over a football field to stop. And that does make a difference. I'm not trying to justify that we should be allowed to speed in our cars or that speeding doesn't cause accidents, but sure there are other factors.

[DEADEYE]

What you are referring to is driving too fast for conditions. Many times this has very little to do with the speed limit. As you can drive too fast for conditions below the "safe" speed limit depending on conditions.

A sudden stop still occurs due to an accident. Accidents themselves have causes. The causes of these accidents are never speeding. The cause of a fatality in an accident can be directly related to the amount of force generated due to the speeds travelled, but that has nothing to do with the cause of the accident in the first place. That is the issue. Speeding can certainly increase our risk of an accident should you be doing something else unsafe in the first place. But why would you try to stop something that is merely a "factor", when you can go right after the route cause? As mentioned earlier, all you do by enforcing speed is slow down safe and unsafe drivers alike. Now you still have just as many unsafe drivers on the road not learning anything, they're just less likely to die in the event of an accident. You go enforce the route cause, and now you hit 2 birds with one stone. Not only do you decrease fatalities by forcing people to be better drivers through enforcement of bad behaviors. But you also decrease accidents as well. I'm all for decreasing deaths of innocent people, but I don't feel like it is very fair to punish safe drivers and completely neglect injuries that occur in accidents to do so. Enforcing route cause addresses all these concerns.


And I don't know if I need to clarify? But obviously I am talking about the highway here. (Where 99% of speed traps are set up)

At the end of the day, the sats speak for themselves. And they clearly show that speeding does not cause accidents.

By logical conclusion of your view, there can only be contributing factors and no direct causes of crashes outside of intent. It seems that only a careless or reckless free willed decision could be the blame. Any link in the temporal chain of events between the careless or reckless decision and the crash wouldn't be causal as they themselves would be ultimately traced back to the careless or reckless decision which set the events off into motion. Like falling dominos, the mind controlling the finger that pushed the first domino is the root cause (agent causation), not the previous domino. I see no logical reason why exceeding the speed limit, (a domino), would enjoy sole immunity whereas other violations (other dominos) would not. It would be helpful to define what you mean by 'cause' here, as it seems you arbitrarily rule out speeding as a cause while holding to other factors as 'causes'. Similarly you seem to proclaim axiomotically that speeding alone is safe, which is problematic because there's simply no possible way to know all the things that could go wrong while speeding...until they go wrong.

If speed is determined to be a factor in any crash, then that person was evidently, by definition, driving too fast for some condition. The problem, Viktimize, is that we can't know that the speeding was unsafe until the crash has taken place! But police are supposed to prevent crashes from taking place!

But how do we attack the root cause decision that is the product of free will? The most logical method of crash prevention is to curtail dangerous unlawful behavior through law enforcement and education. This can only be accomplished after observing said behavior and necessarily points the finger right at the person displaying the bahavior, not the officer who's reacting to it.

Theoretically, one can 'safely' drive while intoxicated on the interstate and not crash, arriving safely at his destination. Therefore, had this person been stopped, the stop would have been unjustified by this logic. The same can be said for any other traffic law violation.

Speed limits are set up after studies by traffic engineers and are put in place so as to take into account the least experienced, least skilled, lowest capable drivers among us allowed by law, surrounded by the same, who can be unfamiliar to the roadway. They will drive in uncontrolled conditions on deteriorating roadways in poorly maintained vehicles during inclement weather. Factors such as entrance/ exit ramp proximity, curve radius and banking are dialed in as well. These conditions are ever present! Using the factors above, engineers determine the safest speeds at which a roadway can be travelled. They then reduce that number to dial in a margin of error. So nearly all speeding is driving too fast for some condition.

Further, when the police do make the stop, they too will give a margin of error before making the stop. The ticket, once received, isn't a final judgement. It can be contested before a judge and dismissed if the judge is convinced that it ought to be.

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

[Redx]

Problem with Waze is that it depends on others to a) remember to run the app and b) tag police as they see them!

9500ix would be nice, spendy but nice.

Escorts quality has seem to taken a shit, my passport max(about 1.5 year old)case has split, and now is held together by tie straps. Im suprised valentine hasnt stepped up with something new by now.

[SlateEd]

....

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

Well written post in general, but this part strikes me as more than an aside - I think you've hit the nail on the head. Enforcement shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator, but in many cases it does.

The public, in general, is comfortable with 5-15mph over the highway limit, but most people are not comfortable with much more than that.

The public, in general, is comfortable with "sneaking a quick text message at the red light" or "just reading that email but not trying to write back to it"

The public, in general, considers driving to be a necessary action that gets you around places but interrupts whatever else you're doing, which today includes living with at least 1 eye glued to the phone.

Take a quick poll among people you know who don't LOVE driving (probably most people...) How many of them would sympathize with someone who gets a ticket for using the cell phone, but would look condescendingly at someone who gets ticket for 80-in-a-55 zone?

[FrgMstr]

Escorts quality has seem to taken a shit, my passport max(about 1.5 year old)case has split, and now is held together by tie straps. Im suprised valentine hasnt stepped up with something new by now.

First time I have ever heard that. Got three 9500ix that are years old and never had issue with those. I would give them a call and have them warranty it.

[Viktimize]

By logical conclusion of your view, there can only be contributing factors and no direct causes of crashes outside of intent. It seems that only a careless or reckless free willed decision could be the blame. Any link in the temporal chain of events between the careless or reckless decision and the crash wouldn't be causal as they themselves would be ultimately traced back to the careless or reckless decision which set the events off into motion. Like falling dominos, the mind controlling the finger that pushed the first domino is the root cause (agent causation), not the previous domino. I see no logical reason why exceeding the speed limit, (a domino), would enjoy sole immunity whereas other violations (other dominos) would not. It would be helpful to define what you mean by 'cause' here, as it seems you arbitrarily rule out speeding as a cause while holding to other factors as 'causes'. Similarly you seem to proclaim axiomotically that speeding alone is safe, which is problematic because there's simply no possible way to know all the things that could go wrong while speeding...until they go wrong..

Any accident will have multiple factors, but there will always be a root cause. I think you might be mistakenly blurring the line between the two? If you're not mistaking them, then I would be interested to hear your theory on how speed enforcement is the best approach?

Speaking of logical conclusions. One should logically conclude from your go to physics lesson of increased stopping distances, that you would advocate for a speed limit of 1mph everywhere at all times. If going faster is more dangerous, than going slower should be less dangerous right? Obviously this is absurd, which is exactly my point. The fact we have 60mph speed limits is because we deem it an acceptable risk. So if 59mph above 1mph is an accpetable risk, then who is to say that 69mph above 1mph wouldn't also be an acceptable risk?

If speed is determined to be a factor in any crash, then that person was evidently, by definition, driving too fast for some condition..

This is incorrect. And I think this misunderstanding has a major role to play in why the public is so onboard with the speed enforcement brain washing epidemic. If speeding is a factor, then that means that one of the vehicles involved in the accident was travelling above the posted limit. That is all it means when it comes to accident investigation. And further more, the statistics are highly skewed in that regard. The factors are simply whatever the attending officer checks off on the list at the scene of the accident. Being that his list of available items is lacking many options, and that the officer is most likely not even trained in accident investigation, speed tends to be the go to factor that gets checked off. Even with this bias that exists, speeding is still only a factor in 25-30% of accidents. It is pretty easy to see that speed is not an issue with the actual statistics in mind.

The problem, Viktimize, is that we can't know that the speeding was unsafe until the crash has taken place! But police are supposed to prevent crashes from taking place!.

Really? You've never viewed someone driving erratically? Swerving in their lane? Tail gating? Not using signals? It is actually incredibly easy to see who is speeding safely and who is not.

But how do we attack the root cause decision that is the product of free will? The most logical method of crash prevention is to curtail dangerous unlawful behavior through law enforcement and education. This can only be accomplished after observing said behavior and necessarily points the finger right at the person displaying the bahavior, not the officer who's reacting to it.

Ummm, exactly. So we are on the same page now? We seem to have no problem identifying speeding and ticketing that, why should there be any issue to identify and ticket the numerous behaviors that have a statistically high risk of accident causation instead?

Theoretically, one can 'safely' drive while intoxicated on the interstate and not crash, arriving safely at his destination. Therefore, had this person been stopped, the stop would have been unjustified by this logic. The same can be said for any other traffic law violation.

For intoixication yes. For virtually every other traffic violation that exists, they can all be responsible for causing an accident all on their own. So no, the same connot be said for any other traffic law.

Speed limits are set up after studies by traffic engineers and are put in place so as to take into account the least experienced, least skilled, lowest capable drivers among us allowed by law, surrounded by the same, who can be unfamiliar to the roadway. They will drive in uncontrolled conditions on deteriorating roadways in poorly maintained vehicles during inclement weather. Factors such as entrance/ exit ramp proximity, curve radius and banking are dialed in as well. These conditions are ever present! Using the factors above, engineers determine the safest speeds at which a roadway can be travelled. They then reduce that number to dial in a margin of error. So nearly all speeding is driving too fast for some condition.

Engineers do recommend speed limits. And they are generally set with the 85th percentile rule in mind. But then governments take those recommendations and lower them to a point that makes speed enforcement lucrative.

Further, when the police do make the stop, they too will give a margin of error before making the stop. The ticket, once received, isn't a final judgement. It can be contested before a judge and dismissed if the judge is convinced that it ought to be.

You would hope that an officer would be prudent in his/her job and try to focus on safety as that is what they are essentially paid to do. But reality is that police officers are no different than your average citizen. They are just as easily swayed by fear mongering propaganda as you are. They are also trained to take orders. Not to mention they are motivated to meet "performance criteria" which can lead to better pay or better jobs. Officers do not hand out speeding tickets based on any sort of excess knowledge of the system over the average citizen.

As an aside, there's pressure for police to produce. The public, in general, determines the value and effectiveness of their police by statistics.

Yup. Half the problem with the enforcement system is right there.

[DEADEYE]

Any accident will have multiple factors, but there will always be a root cause. I think you might be mistakenly blurring the line between the two? If you're not mistaking them, then I would be interested to hear your theory on how speed enforcement is the best approach?

Viktimize,

Rather than arbitrarily stopping at a place which is convenient for your claim to hold, that is, speeding is uniquely a traffic law violation which is unjustifiably targeted because it never caused a crash but other traffic law violations do. I've simply taken the bus to the end of the line...the logical conclusion. The conclusion is that, if your claim holds, traffic law violations which share the lack of causal power towards crashes don't begin and end soley with speeding but must necessarily include any other traffic law violation which can possibly take place without causing a crash (which is just about every traffic law violation save Hit and Run). Most, if not all traffic law violations, would enjoy the same status as being an impotent violation. If not, why not? Why be so biased towards speeding? To be sure, I'm not claiming that speeding directly causes crashes, I'm just claiming that under this criteria, neither do other traffic law violations. If every traffic law violation which could be committed without necessarily causing a crash would be treated equally, then under your own view, neither should they be enforced. Police would only react to crashes, not endeavour to prevent crashes through enforcement.

Speeding, like other traffic law violations, increase the risk of being involved in a crash. Stopping speeders from speeding by stopping those who speed is by definition the most direct way to curtail dangerous speeding behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of being involved in a crash.

Speaking of logical conclusions. One should logically conclude from your go to physics lesson of increased stopping distances, that you would advocate for a speed limit of 1mph everywhere at all times. If going faster is more dangerous, than going slower should be less dangerous right? Obviously this is absurd, which is exactly my point. The fact we have 60mph speed limits is because we deem it an acceptable risk. So if 59mph above 1mph is an accpetable risk, then who is to say that 69mph above 1mph wouldn't also be an acceptable risk?

Hahahaha, I wouldn't advocate a universal 1mph speed limit at all. The obsurdity lies in the impracticality of the proposal though, not in the notion that it would actually be safer. Indeed, it really would be safer! It would definately suck but it would be safer. Viktimize, you may have just pulled the rug from beneath your own feet here. By your own admission, speeding is a risk! As far as where we terminate the acceptability of that risk, engineers and our elected law makers determine that. I'll ask you the same question. Who's to say that 1mph + as fast as your vehicle can travel wouldn't be an acceptable risk? If you choose any speed lower than 'as fast as possible', then you too agree that speeding is a risk worth being kept in check. You may choose a different speed but then you'd have to justify why your speed as opposed to other's speeds should carry more weight.

This is incorrect. And I think this misunderstanding has a major role to play in why the public is so onboard with the speed enforcement brain washing epidemic. If speeding is a factor, then that means that one of the vehicles involved in the accident was travelling above the posted limit. That is all it means when it comes to accident investigation. And further more, the statistics are highly skewed in that regard. The factors are simply whatever the attending officer checks off on the list at the scene of the accident. Being that his list of available items is lacking many options, and that the officer is most likely not even trained in accident investigation, speed tends to be the go to factor that gets checked off. Even with this bias that exists, speeding is still only a factor in 25-30% of accidents. It is pretty easy to see that speed is not an issue with the actual statistics in mind.

The above presupposes speed limits to be arbitrary. If speed was determined to be a factor in a crash and that determined speed limit was grounded in an honest study of physics, then the charge of speed being a factor is true, not arbitrary. The truthfullness of the danger of a given speed doesn't become any less truthfull once its made law. As far as officers checking off a list, speed is indeed asked about on the report. But because the speed is inquired of, doesn't necessarily make it a causal factor, even in the report. In my experience, following too close and careless operation are by far the most common factors.

Really? You've never viewed someone driving erratically? Swerving in their lane? Tail gating? Not using signals? It is actually incredibly easy to see who is speeding safely and who is not.

Not only have I observed this behavior on display, I've seen drivers not get involved in crashes despite doing it, just like speeding. What we cannot know about a driver who is speeding is whether or not the unobservable and unpredictable risk factors are being magnified and invited by the speeding.

Ummm, exactly. So we are on the same page now? We seem to have no problem identifying speeding and ticketing that, why should there be any issue to identify and ticket the numerous behaviors that have a statistically high risk of accident causation instead?

Again, can you please define what you mean by causation here? A thought experiment which includes other violations while simultaneously and necessarily excluding speeding in a way that can't be true about the other violations might be helpful.

For intoixication yes. For virtually every other traffic violation that exists, they can all be responsible for causing an accident all on their own. So no, the same connot be said for any other traffic law.

Thought experiment:

If I travelled at 60 mph and the vehicle before me travelled at the speed limit of 50 mph, I will eventually hit the vehicle before mine. Excessive speed will be the only moving violation. This happens sometimes.

Engineers do recommend speed limits. And they are generally set with the 85th percentile rule in mind. But then governments take those recommendations and lower them to a point that makes speed enforcement lucrative.

Whatever the speed limit is, as long as it is known, the person who freely exceeds it is ultimately to blame.

You would hope that an officer would be prudent in his/her job and try to focus on safety as that is what they are essentially paid to do. But reality is that police officers are no different than your average citizen. They are just as easily swayed by fear mongering propaganda as you are. They are also trained to take orders. Not to mention they are motivated to meet "performance criteria" which can lead to better pay or better jobs. Officers do not hand out speeding tickets based on any sort of excess knowledge of the system over the average citizen.

In the intrest of full disclosure, I'm a Police Sgt. with 20 years experience. I can confirm that there is pressure to perform.
As far as succumbing to fear mongering, fear mongering need not take place. We see with our own eyes all too often the effects of dangerous driving. And I have seen and experienced more than the average person.

Yup. Half the problem with the enforcement system is right there.

Yup.

[Viktimize]

Viktimize,

Rather than arbitrarily stopping at a place which is convenient for your claim to hold, that is, speeding is a traffic law violation which is unjustifiably targeted because it never caused a crash but other traffic law violations do. I've simply taken the bus to the end of the line...the logical conclusion. The conclusion is that, if your claim holds, impotent traffic law violations don't begin and end soley with speeding but must necessarily include any other traffic law violation which can take place without causing a crash (which is just about every traffic law violation save Hit and Run). Most, if not all traffic law violations, would enjoy the same status as being an impotent violation. If not, why not? To be sure, I'm not claiming that speeding directly causes crashes, I'm just claiming that under this criteria, neither do other traffic law violations.

You have come to a incorrect conclusion because you do not understand root cause it appears.

Speeding, like other traffic law violations, increase the risk of being involved in a crash. Stopping speeders from speeding by stopping those who speed is by definition the most direct way to curtail dangerous speeding behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of being involved in a crash.

But is it really though? First of all, how do you determine at what speed it suddenly becomes "dangerous speeding behaviour"? And how do you define what dangerous speeding behaviour even is?

If you are trying to make an argument that speed itself is the dangerous behaviour(which would be incorrect anyway), you would have to be insane to think you could convince anyone that speeding at 10% above the limit is dangerous, but yet that is exactly where law enforcement generally starts to target speed enforcement. So how exactly does targeting a group of people that do not exhibit a dangerous behaviour, going to curtail any dangerous behaviour?

Hahahaha, I wouldn't advocate a universal 1mph speed limit at all. The obsurdity lies in the impracticality of the proposal though, not in the notion that it would actually be safer. Indeed, it really would be safer! It would definately suck but it would be safer. Viktimize, you may have just pulled the rug from beneath your own feet here. By your own admission, speeding is a risk! As far as where we terminate the acceptability of that risk, engineers and our elected law makers determine that. I'll ask you the same question. Who's to say that 1mph + as fast as your vehicle can travel wouldn't be an acceptable risk? If you choose any speed lower than 'as fast as possible', then you too agree that speeding is a risk worth being kept in check. You may choose a different speed but then you'd have to justify why your speed as opposed to other's speeds should carry more weight.

Actually law makers do NOT determine that acceptable risk. Engineers do. Law makers simply use an uneducated opinion to do whatever they feel like. And law makers care more about revenue for their municipality than they do about safety, hence the limits being set to a point so low that you physically have to watch your speedo to drive the limit, instead of just driving at a comfortable speed for the conditions.

Who's to say that my cars top speed wouldn't be an acceptable risk? Are you being serious right now? First of all the laws of physics would be the first one to say that is not an acceptable risk, because you have now travelled too fast for any conditions there are, and your vehicle would most likely leave the road regardless of your undue attention to your task. But I understand what you are trying to get at, and all you are doing is making my point for me. Who determines what speed is safe for each individual? Seems like a tough one, who could ever come up with an acceptable speed for every single different person and vehicle to travel? The simple answer is, nobody can! Which points out the complete absurdity of blanketly enforcing speed against everyone, when some are being dangerous and some are not.

People have different skills and reaction times. Elderly drivers have been shown in studies to have worse reaction times than that of drunk drivers. Yet it is perfectly legal for that elderly driver to operate their vehicle at the speed limit which is too high for them to safely operate the vehicle. One thing these elderly drivers CAN do though, is follow every other rule on the books. Like stopping at red lights and stop signs, staying in the right lane except to pass, not tailgating, not driving distracted, etc, etc. Speed enforcement allows that unsafe driver to continue on their merry way endangering everyone else on the road. But if the true causes of accidents like just mentioned were enforced instead, you would see that unsafe driver eventually correct their behaviour or removed from the road.

The above presupposes speed limits to be arbitrary. If speed was determined to be a factor in a crash and that determined speed limit was grounded in an honest study of physics, then the charge of speed being a factor is true, not arbitrary. The truthfullness of the danger of a given speed doesn't become any less truthfull once its made law. As far as officers checking off a list, speed is indeed asked about on the report. But because the speed is inquired of, doesn't necessarily make it a causal factor, even in the report. In my experience, following too close and careless operation are by far the most common factors.

Except that speed limits ARE arbitrary. They are set by politicians with no education on the subject matter, and not by the engineers who make the recommendations for them.

And you're right, following too close is one of the number one causes of accidents. Locally it is 60% of the accidents in my area. If one wanted to speculate as to why following too close is such a major problem, it would be a pretty fair statement to say that the speed limit is too low. If the limit was set where people felt comfortable, then they wouldn't automatically be speeding up every time they took their eyes off the speedo. So once again, how does officers spending 95% of their time doing speed enforcement, help to prevent accidents from following too close? If 60% of accidents are caused by following too close, then don't you think from a safety standpoint that law enforcements time would be better served to spend 60% of their time writing tickets for tail gating?

Not only have I observed this behavior on display, I've seen drivers not get involved in crashes despite doing it, just like speeding. What we cannot know about a driver who is speeding is whether or not the unobservable and unpredictable risk factors are being magnified and invited by the speeding.

Whether the risk factors are amplified is irrelevant. Stop the root cause and then the speed someone is travelling is also irrelevant(assuming they are not driving too fast for conditions). The things that make speeding dangerous are easy to see and target and ticket for. If you change those behaviours, you prevent accidents at below AND above the speed limit. Far better strategy. As mentioned earlier, slowing down dangerous drivers still leaves dangerous drivers on the road.

Again, can you please define what you mean by causation here? A thought experiment which includes other violations while simultaneously and necessarily excluding speeding in a way that can't be true about the other violations might be helpful.

It is referring to root cause. In majority of accidents there is virtually always one major contributing factor that is responsible for the accident. You're trying to argue semantics here and play dumb.

If you pull out from an intersection that you do not have right of way at, and someone with right of way t-bones you. Speed would be listed as a factor if the driver with right of way was speeding. But speeding is as much of a factor as both drivers waking up and getting in their car that day. The root cause of the accident is a driver pulling in front of a vehicle without adequate time to clear the path. That is the one major contributing factor that would cause that accident regardless of whether either driver was speeding or not.

If I travelled at 60 mph and the vehicle before me travelled at the speed limit of 50 mph, I will eventually hit the vehicle before mine. Speed will be the only factor. This happens very often.

Except that speed would not even be a factor if the limit was posted at 70mph. The major contributing factor is that you consciously ran into the rear end of somebody without any care to correct. What you are saying is the same as saying that if you consciously drove your car into a brick wall, then speed would be the only factor, since you were moving and the wall was stationary.

Whatever the speed limit is, as long as it is known, the person who freely exceeds it is ultimately to blame.

So if I'm doing 10mph above the limit, and somebody cuts me off and slams the brakes to make me rear end them, I am ultimately to blame? You are obtuse to say the least. If you can't understand that this is possible at below or above the limit, and that the fault in the matter would not change regardless, then you are not worth the breath to discuss this.

In the intrest of full disclosure, I'm a Police Sgt. with 20 years experience. I can confirm that there is pressure to perform.
As far as succumbing to fear mongering, fear mongering need not take place. We see with our own eyes all too often the effects of dangerous driving. And I have seen and experienced more than the average person.

As someone who sees the results of dangerous driving so often, you would think you would be more apt to use your position of power to change things for the better, instead of follow commands from the top to meet silly performance targets. Is there any reason you could not meet your ticket quota by going out and targeting actual dangerous behaviours? I realize it means less coffee breaks, since you have to actively work to enforce like this. But wouldn't a little extra work be worth it to see less of the results you speak of?

[DEADEYE]

But is it really though? First of all, how do you determine at what speed it suddenly becomes "dangerous speeding behaviour"? And how do you define what dangerous speeding behaviour even is?

That's the precisely the point Viktimize! It will be different from person to person, vehicle to vehicle, location to location and day to day. The best we can do is study the matter and apply it so as to take into consideration the lowest common denominator. It isn't that speeding alone is dangerous. You are correct that the speeding itself isn't dangerous but it is at best an act of faith on display because we cannot possibly be aware of all the possible conditions. It's that speeding in the conditions that have been repeated ad nauseam is dangerous. Those conditions are always possible and unpredictable if not ever present.

If you are trying to make an argument that speed itself is the dangerous behaviour(which would be incorrect anyway), you would have to be insane to think you could convince anyone that speeding at 10% above the limit is dangerous, but yet that is exactly where law enforcement generally starts to target speed enforcement. So how exactly does targeting a group of people that do not exhibit a dangerous behaviour, going to curtail any dangerous behaviour?

Speeding can never be known to take place by itself though! Perhaps blind faith is adequate for you when you drive but you don't live in a vacuum.

Actually law makers do NOT determine that acceptable risk. Engineers do. Law makers simply use an uneducated opinion to do whatever they feel like. And law makers care more about revenue for their municipality than they do about safety, hence the limits being set to a point so low that you physically have to watch your speedo to drive the limit, instead of just driving at a comfortable speed for the conditions.

The topic here is excessive speed as it relates to causing crashes. Corruption is a different topic. As for comfortable driving speeds, your comfortable driving speed might make Granny uncomfortable. Responsible drivers drive not only themselves but must take into consideration what other drivers are doing. She may not be able to react to your driving habits.

Who's to say that my cars top speed wouldn't be an acceptable risk? Are you being serious right now? First of all the laws of physics would be the first one to say that is not an acceptable risk, because you have now travelled too fast for any conditions there are, and your vehicle would most likely leave the road regardless of your undue attention to your task. But I understand what you are trying to get at, and all you are doing is making my point for me. Who determines what speed is safe for each individual? Seems like a tough one, who could ever come up with an acceptable speed for every single different person and vehicle to travel? The simple answer is, nobody can! Which points out the complete absurdity of blanketly enforcing speed against everyone, when some are being dangerous and some are not.

If you are the only person on the road and are inerrant while driving a vehicle which is maintained in peak condition on a roadway which could never succumb to entropy during ever perfect weather conditions, I would agree. However, precisely the opposite is true, therefore, out of the intrest of safety, a one size fits all approach is the most sensible option. On the one hand you claim that speeding is safe yet on the other you admit that one can go too fast for the conditions. Conditions, Viktimize, are unpredictable! Hope for the best plan for the worst.

People have different skills and reaction times. Elderly drivers have been shown in studies to have worse reaction times than that of drunk drivers. Yet it is perfectly legal for that elderly driver to operate their vehicle at the speed limit which is too high for them to safely operate the vehicle. One thing these elderly drivers CAN do though, is follow every other rule on the books. Like stopping at red lights and stop signs, staying in the right lane except to pass, not tailgating, not driving distracted, etc, etc. Speed enforcement allows that unsafe driver to continue on their merry way endangering everyone else on the road. But if the true causes of accidents like just mentioned were enforced instead, you would see that unsafe driver eventually correct their behaviour or removed from the road.

This is a false dichotomy. These traffic law violations are all comprehensively enforced.

Except that speed limits ARE arbitrary. They are set by politicians with no education on the subject matter, and not by the engineers who make the recommendations for them.

They are set by politicians who have passed laws which are informed by engineers who study the data. If there is a breakdown in the system, then the speed limit could be arbitrary but not necessarily so. This accusation seems to be too sweeping though. If a speed limit is proven to be a synister tool set up for collecting money then that is unjust but it must first be proven before we proclaim it true.

And you're right, following too close is one of the number one causes of accidents. Locally it is 60% of the accidents in my area. If one wanted to speculate as to why following too close is such a major problem, it would be a pretty fair statement to say that the speed limit is too low. If the limit was set where people felt comfortable, then they wouldn't automatically be speeding up every time they took their eyes off the speedo. So once again, how does officers spending 95% of their time doing speed enforcement, help to prevent accidents from following too close? If 60% of accidents are caused by following too close, then don't you think from a safety standpoint that law enforcements time would be better served to spend 60% of their time writing tickets for tail gating?

A driver's own comfort level is just that, his own. Even in an environment with no speed limits, the comfort levels of drivers would differ and tailgating would still take place.

Whether the risk factors are amplified is irrelevant. Stop the root cause and then the speed someone is travelling is also irrelevant(assuming they are not driving too fast for conditions). The things that make speeding dangerous are easy to see and target and ticket for. If you change those behaviours, you prevent accidents at below AND above the speed limit. Far better strategy. As mentioned earlier, slowing down dangerous drivers still leaves dangerous drivers on the road.

When speed is at least one of two factors, one could possibly remove either one of the factors and prevent the crash. A person who is speeding and swerving might crash. Removing the swerve from the equation might prevent the crash AND removing the speed, instead, from the equation might prevent the crash as well. Again, Conditions are unpredictable and inescapable for both and the root cause of both is volition.

It is referring to root cause. In majority of accidents there is virtually always one major contributing factor that is responsible for the accident. You're trying to argue semantics here and play dumb.

Not playing dumb at all. I'm trying to figure out why you don't think speed could be just as real a cause as another.

If you pull out from an intersection that you do not have right of way at, and someone with right of way t-bones you. Speed would be listed as a factor if the driver with right of way was speeding. But speeding is as much of a factor as both drivers waking up and getting in their car that day. The root cause of the accident is a driver pulling in front of a vehicle without adequate time to clear the path. That is the one major contributing factor that would cause that accident regardless of whether either driver was speeding or not.

Speed would be listed as a factor relating to the amount of damage caused (especially in a fatal crash) and if it was determined that the speed traveled did not allow for adequate driver reaction time and stopping distance where a vehicle travelling at the speed limit or below would have otherwise, it would be a secondary factor but not the blame for the crash. The driver of the vehicle that illegally entered the intersection (there goes that unpredictable condition again) will ultimately be found to be at fault.

Let us continue with this thought experiment you've proposed though. Now imagine the same scenario, only that the speeding vehicle wasn't speeding at all. Now the driver, with adequate reaction time and shorter stopping distance avoided impact by stopping despite having the right of way...viola, the lack of excessive speed has now made a positive difference. Now here you might object that the person who was speeding could have slowed to a speed that was above the speed limit still and avoided the crash anyway, and that would be true. The point still stands though that the slower speed proved to be safer than the faster.

Except that speed would not even be a factor if the limit was posted at 70mph. The major contributing factor is that you consciously ran into the rear end of somebody without any care to correct. What you are saying is the same as saying that if you consciously drove your car into a brick wall, then speed would be the only factor, since you were moving and the wall was stationary.

The speed limit, obviously, could be what ever you wanted it to be. As long as a vehicle travelling behind a slower moving vehicle continues to advance on average, without altering course, they will make contact. I finally got it out of you...Your pointing to my conciously rear ending the other vehicle as the major contributing factor can be said about any other act. The root cause of every traffic law violation is a careless or reckless decision. Therefore, under fair and equal application of your view, we should attack the root cause of the following too close, not the actual following too close. We should become the thought police because those other violations too, like your beloved speed, can take place without causing a crash and aren't by themselves dangerous. They are all simply incidental to the root cause of volition. To simply hand wave speeding alone is arbitrary. All or none.

So if I'm doing 10mph above the limit, and somebody cuts me off and slams the brakes to make me rear end them, I am ultimately to blame? You are obtuse to say the least. If you can't understand that this is possible at below or above the limit, and that the fault in the matter would not change regardless, then you are not worth the breath to discuss this.

My claim here was about the consequence of breaking a known speed limit and being cited for it, not the consequence of a crash.

As someone who sees the results of dangerous driving so often, you would think you would be more apt to use your position of power to change things for the better, instead of follow commands from the top to meet silly performance targets. Is there any reason you could not meet your ticket quota by going out and targeting actual dangerous behaviours? I realize it means less coffee breaks, since you have to actively work to enforce like this. But wouldn't a little extra work be worth it to see less of the results you speak of?

These laws are comprehensively enforced and more often than not, we are opportunists. Officers are free to target which ever violations they so choose in addition to any targeted enforcement. Sometimes, there are federal grants for targeting specific violations too. I, as a supervisor, can suggest my officers target specific violations as well but I'll never rob them of their discretion. I don't and have never set a quota for my officers. Neither have I ever been given a quota. There's some of pressure with vague expectations from the top but that is because, as I've said, the public demands it....and apparently, you agree. Except, they want more speed enforcement and you don't but you aren't the arbiter of reality.

[schulmann]

The new ACR 2016 is not even selling but our local DMV is already targeting it ...
ALL of the 8 ACRs were sold outside the province


It is not a matter of safety but cities, counties need money.
The easiest way to make money for cities is to consider speed traps. The speed limit is 65mph and people now driving 63mph so they want get ticketed.
The new target is car modification cars that don't look safe.

[DEADEYE]

Yeah, if any government does it for the money it generates, that is immoral, unethical and downright criminal and unconstitutional. I happen to think that most laws ought to be abolished. Some laws however make perfect sense.

[Viktimize]

That's the precisely the point Viktimize! It will be different from person to person, vehicle to vehicle, location to location and day to day. The best we can do is study the matter and apply it so as to take into consideration the lowest common denominator. It isn't that speeding alone is dangerous. You are correct that the speeding itself isn't dangerous but it is at best an act of faith on display because we cannot possibly be aware of all the possible conditions. It's that speeding in the conditions that have been repeated ad nauseam is dangerous. Those conditions are always possible and unpredictable if not ever present.

There you go, so you have just pointed out the the pointlessness of the speed limit. Conditions change, and conditions can cause the maximum safe speed to be below the posted limit. In these situations drivers adjust their actions to suit the conditions.

You figure catering to the lowest common denominator is the best course of action? You realize this simply pulls the other 95% of people down to the lower level of the unskilled. Switching enforcement strategies like I mentioned has an exact opposite effect. It teaches ignorant drivers correct behaviours and brings them up to the level of better drivers.

Speeding can never be known to take place by itself though! Perhaps blind faith is adequate for you when you drive but you don't live in a vacuum.

I am an Atheist. I have no use for faith. I go by what I can observe and calculate. Speeding can absolutely take place on it's own without any other traffic laws being violated. I do it every single day.

The topic here is excessive speed as it relates to causing crashes. Corruption is a different topic. As for comfortable driving speeds, your comfortable driving speed might make Granny uncomfortable. Responsible drivers drive not only themselves but must take into consideration what other drivers are doing. She may not be able to react to your driving habits.

Um, no. That isn't the topic. The topic is whether speed enforcement increase safety or not. Comfortable driving speeds are actually not that different at all. It has been studied, and it is how the speed limits of roads are actually to be set. On a road with no posted limit, 85% of people will for the most part drive the same speed. That is the speed where the limit is supposed to be set. It doesn't take a genius to look around you while driving and see that 85% of people are driving above the limit virtually anywhere you go.

As for Granny being uncomfortable. Well that is too bad. If she no longer holds the skills to drive with due care and attention, then she should be removed from the roadway. The law clearly states that you should be driving in the right hand lane except to pass, if you can't do that without losing your mind every time someone else passes you in the left lane, then you don't have a right to a license anymore.

If you are the only person on the road and are inerrant while driving a vehicle which is maintained in peak condition on a roadway which could never succumb to entropy during ever perfect weather conditions, I would agree. However, precisely the opposite is true, therefore, out of the intrest of safety, a one size fits all approach is the most sensible option. On the one hand you claim that speeding is safe yet on the other you admit that one can go too fast for the conditions. Conditions, Viktimize, are unpredictable! Hope for the best plan for the worst.

Ok, so we are back to advocating for a speed limit of 1mph now. Do you really understand what road conditions are? We are talking about changing weather, changing traffic patterns, debris in roadway, etc. Yes these things are unpredictable. They are also OBSERVABLE. Which means that drivers can adjust their behaviours to suit the conditions as far as speed is concerned. If you want to bring human conditions into this, then you just prove my point further. If people drive with undue attention because they are reading the paper, texting, etc. Then these conditions can be controlled through enforcement, much the same as speeding. Except that in my scenario you actually modify the behaviours that CAUSE accidents. Instead of just slowing down everybody and maintaining our current accident rates, just at slower speeds now.

This is a false dichotomy. These traffic law violations are all comprehensively enforced.

Not only are you being rather thickheaded, but now you're lying too. Speeding tickets massively outnumber all other traffic fines combined. You already admitted that your focus is on speed enforcement based on your "performance ratings". There is nothing else to say about your statement other than it is a lie. A BIG one.

They are set by politicians who have passed laws which are informed by engineers who study the data. If there is a breakdown in the system, then the speed limit could be arbitrary but not necessarily so. This accusation seems to be too sweeping though. If a speed limit is proven to be a synister tool set up for collecting money then that is unjust but it must first be proven before we proclaim it true.

As long as politicians lie, then it will never be proven to be a revenue collection tool. But when outside studies are done by people educated in the matter, and politicians publicly choose to forego those recommendations and use their own guess as to what they think the limit should be, that demonstrates right there that there is an obvious breakdown in this system you believe in. And guess what? This is exactly what happens all the time.

A driver's own comfort level is just that, his own. Even in an environment with no speed limits, the comfort levels of drivers would differ and tailgating would still take place.

If police were doing their job of enforcing the law of not impeding traffic. Then tail gating would be massively decreased. Any tail gating that continues should be dealt with from an enforcement perspective. The overwhelming majority of tailgating takes place in the left lane because drivers are irate that some self centred ignorant driver refuses to follow the rules of the road and common courtesy, and just move right when his/her pass is completed. So it would seem to reason that if you enforced left laning, that over time people would start to drive in their correct lanes and you would reduce tailgating due to that.

When speed is at least one of two factors, one could possibly remove either one of the factors and prevent the crash. A person who is speeding and swerving might crash. Removing the swerve from the equation might prevent the crash AND removing the speed, instead, from the equation might prevent the crash as well. Again, Conditions are unpredictable and inescapable for both and the root cause of both is volition.

Now go another step to find your root cause. Why did the driver swerve?

Not playing dumb at all. I'm trying to figure out why you don't think speed could be just as real a cause as another.

Because I am able to look at all the variables involved and understand them, instead of looking at things through blinders.

Speed would be listed as a factor relating to the amount of damage caused (especially in a fatal crash) and if it was determined that the speed traveled did not allow for adequate driver reaction time and stopping distance where a vehicle travelling at the speed limit or below would have otherwise, it would be a secondary factor but not the blame for the crash. The driver of the vehicle that illegally entered the intersection (there goes that unpredictable condition again) will ultimately be found to be at fault.

So we agree now.

Let us continue with this thought experiment you've proposed though. Now imagine the same scenario, only that the speeding vehicle wasn't speeding at all. Now the driver, with adequate reaction time and shorter stopping distance avoided impact by stopping despite having the right of way...viola, the lack of excessive speed has now made a positive difference. Now here you might object that the person who was speeding could have slowed to a speed that was above the speed limit still and avoided the crash anyway, and that would be true. The point still stands though that the slower speed proved to be safer than the faster.

You have tried to create a sneaky straw man argument here. You didn't carry the root cause to the next scenario, therefore your example is irrelevant. So in your new scenario, if the driver with right of way was doing the speed limit, and the driver entering the intersection did not do so until the driver with right of way was so close that there was no adequate time to react, then you still have an accident on your hands.

The speed limit, obviously, could be what ever you wanted it to be. As long as a vehicle travelling behind a slower moving vehicle continues to advance on average, without altering course, they will make contact. I finally got it out of you...Your pointing to my conciously rear ending the other vehicle as the major contributing factor can be said about any other act. The root cause of every traffic law violation is a careless or reckless decision. Therefore, under fair and equal application of your view, we should attack the root cause of the following too close, not the actual following too close. We should become the thought police because those other violations too, like your beloved speed, can take place without causing a crash and aren't by themselves dangerous. They are all simply incidental to the root cause of volition. To simply hand wave speeding alone is arbitrary. All or none.

Finally got it out of me? I've been saying that all along. Don't try and make this sound like I am the one hiding behind anything here. I am simply pointing out facts and using common sense here.

Why in the heck would we go after the mental reasonings of why someone purposely breaks a law that causes a collision? The solution is to enforce the root cause ACTION. Obviously you now understand this, and that is why you've tried to twist up my argument to support your archaic opinion.

My claim here was about the consequence of breaking a known speed limit and being cited for it, not the consequence of a crash.

Ok? Of course. What is the point you're making?

These laws are comprehensively enforced and more often than not, we are opportunists. Officers are free to target which ever violations they so choose in addition to any targeted enforcement. Sometimes, there are federal grants for targeting specific violations too. I, as a supervisor, can suggest my officers target specific violations as well but I'll never rob them of their discretion. I don't and have never set a quota for my officers. Neither have I ever been given a quota. There's some of pressure with vague expectations from the top but that is because, as I've said, the public demands it.

The laws are on the books comprehensively. And they all have the ability to be comprehensively enforced. But you have just described exactly how they are NOT comprehensively enforced.

I see you avoided the actual point being made though. If only 25% of accidents even involve speed as a factor, then why is it enforced overwhelmingly more than other laws that have direct relation to much higher percentage of accidents?

Simple answer. Police officers have free will to target what they want. The system rewards them for targeting speed since it is easier to get a better performance review that way, in a much shorter time frame too. Couple that with the incentives from the top to target speeding, and how does any other much more dangerous traffic violations stand a chance at being comprehensively enforced?

[Vprbite]

Lots of long answers here and many of it very well written. Might I try to make a point more concisely?

Let's day someone is (you your point, Viktimize) texting while driving and is therefor a driver. Due to this distraction he veers off the road. The zone is 45 and he is doing 45. He veers slightly and hits rumble strips or oven dirt, drones his phone to put them on the wheel and recorders himself. Boneheaded, but crisis averted.

Now, same person on the same road except everyone in the area says "oh you can do 90 through there, cops never patrols it and it's totally straight I have never heard of a ticket there." So our driver is doing 90 this time. Now, when he crosses over into the dirt, he either fails to regain control or since he is covering twice as much ground as before, before he can regain control he hits a tree at 90.

Speed is not one of causes or factors if you wish in that accident? And if you don't like the texting, how about a deer runs out 100 feet in front of him, now 90 vs 45, what would the results be?

[DEADEYE]

There you go, so you have just pointed out the the pointlessness of the speed limit. Conditions change, and conditions can cause the maximum safe speed to be below the posted limit. In these situations drivers adjust their actions to suit the conditions.

You figure catering to the lowest common denominator is the best course of action? You realize this simply pulls the other 95% of people down to the lower level of the unskilled. Switching enforcement strategies like I mentioned has an exact opposite effect. It teaches ignorant drivers correct behaviours and brings them up to the level of better drivers.

That is a logical consequence of your worldview but I think that caring for the weakest among us is greater than not caring for them. Be happy that you enjoy a world where everyone doesn't live out the logical conclusion of your worldview as you do. Followed logically, Under your view there are no objective moral oughts and ought nots, it baffles me how you can proclaim speed law enforcement to be wrong.

I am an Atheist. I have no use for faith. I go by what I can observe and calculate. Speeding can absolutely take place on it's own without any other traffic laws being violated. I do it every single day.

The problem is that you can only observe an calculate which is observable and can be calculated. Further, a person who travels at greater speeds has less time to react to those observations and calculations. You cannot accurately predict at all times what another free willed driver will do. You cannot react perfectly as your knowledge is finite and you, like all of us, are prone to mistakes.

You do have faith Viktimize and it's not a bad thing, just accept it. All faith means is trust. Besides, not all valid knowledge comes from the scientific method. Some beliefs are self evident, some are properly basic and there are just some things that are simply out of the jurisdiction of science.

Science cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat being stimulated to believe that you are having this conversation, or that you are not in the Matrix.

Science cannot prove moral truths. It can tell us how to build the bomb but it cannot tell us if we should use it.

Like morality, science cannot prove aesthetics. It cannot say that a tropical sunset is more beautiful that a moon lit night.

Science cannot prove math because it presupposes math to be true.

Science cannot prove itself with the scientific method because it presupposes the reliability of logic, observation and the principles of repeatability.

Science cannot prove the speed of light constant.

Furthermore. Some beliefs are so properly basic that science isn't needed to determine their truth. We are all justified in believing that other minds exist outside our own without relying on science to prove it. The belief that I exist is another as well.

But I've digressed far too much.

Of course you can speed without violating other traffic laws. The laws of physics however, will violate the speeder who pushes its limits.

Now go another step to find your root cause. Why did the driver swerve?

Perhaps he simply likes to swerve (volition)? Maybe he's dodging some debris (out of necessity)? Maybe he missed his exit (carelessness)? Vehicle malfunction (neglect)?

that works for speeders to:

Perhaps he likes to speed (volition)? Maybe he's speeding due to an emergency (necessity)? Maybe he's running late (carelessness)? Vehicle malfunction (neglect)?

Finally got it out of me? I've been saying that all along. Don't try and make this sound like I am the one hiding behind anything here. I am simply pointing out facts and using common sense here.

Why in the heck would we go after the mental reasonings of why someone purposely breaks a law that causes a collision? The solution is to enforce the root cause ACTION. Obviously you now understand this, and that is why you've tried to twist up my argument to support your archaic opinion.

You have been guilty of the Taxi Cab fallacy. You've been stopping at a point which is convenient for your argument to work and you won't follow your own views to their logical conclusions. Stop wading in the shallow end of the pool and dive into the deep end that is the logical conclusion of your view. Swerving is no less and action than speeding is. They don't self originate as they both have root causes that can ultimately be traced back to volition and they both can be done without crashing. Therfore, a fair, equal and honest application of your view would suggest that we don't enforce any moving violations.

Edit: I originally typed out a long response, addressing all your points but this discussion is beginning to unravel. I deleted a huge swath of my reply. I will no longer frisk your frisks. Neither will I respond to ad hominem arguments.

[DEADEYE]

Lots of long answers here and many of it very well written. Might I try to make a point more concisely?

Let's day someone is (you your point, Viktimize) texting while driving and is therefor a driver. Due to this distraction he veers off the road. The zone is 45 and he is doing 45. He veers slightly and hits rumble strips or oven dirt, drones his phone to put them on the wheel and recorders himself. Boneheaded, but crisis averted.

Now, same person on the same road except everyone in the area says "oh you can do 90 through there, cops never patrols it and it's totally straight I have never heard of a ticket there." So our driver is doing 90 this time. Now, when he crosses over into the dirt, he either fails to regain control or since he is covering twice as much ground as before, before he can regain control he hits a tree at 90.

Speed is not one of causes or factors if you wish in that accident? And if you don't like the texting, how about a deer runs out 100 feet in front of him, now 90 vs 45, what would the results be?

He will simply balme the crash on the texting or the crossing deer and point out that they can be calculated for. So a reasonable calculation will take into account that one shouldn't text and that deer crossing are possible. Taking those calculations into consideration, one will adjust his speed accordingly. That adjustment though is self evident that speed is a safety issue.

I say that the failure to calculate the incalculable (the deer or the child running across the street) is a good enough reason to enforce speed limits because, as we often see, people often ignore those calculations even when accurate.

His claim is that we shouldn't enforce speed laws becuase the speed itself doesn't cause the crash, which would be true in a world where speeding could only take place by itself. Even if it could, I don't think we can be confident even in our confidence that it can take place by itself, outside of a controlled environment. He doesn't seem concerned about the aftermath of crashes involving greater speeds vs. those involving slower speeds.

[Vprbite]

But in my scenario...lack of speed allows our sample driver to avoid the crash where highly violating the speed limit does not.

[Viktimize]

That is a logical consequence of your worldview but I think that caring for the weakest among us is greater than not caring for them. Be happy that you enjoy a world where everyone doesn't live out the logical conclusion of your worldview as you do. Followed logically, Under your view there are no objective moral oughts and ought nots, it baffles me how you can proclaim speed law enforcement to be wrong.



The problem is that you can only observe an calculate which is observable and can be calculated. Further, a person who travels at greater speeds has less time to react to those observations and calculations. You cannot accurately predict at all times what another free willed driver will do. You cannot react perfectly as your knowledge is finite and you, like all of us, are prone to mistakes.

You do have faith Viktimize and it's not a bad thing, just accept it. All faith means is trust. Besides, not all valid knowledge comes from the scientific method. some beliefs are self evident, properly basic and there are just some things that are out of the jurisdiction of science.

Science cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat being stimulated to believe that you are having this conversation.

Science cannot prove moral truths. It can tell us how to build the bomb but it cannot tell us if we should use it.

Like morality, science cannot prove aesthetics. It cannot say that a tropical sunset is more beautiful that a moon lit night.

Science cannot prove math because it presupposes math to be true.

Science cannot prove itself with the scientific method because it presupposes the reliability of logic, observation and the principles of repeatability.

Furthermore. Some beliefs are so properly basic that science isn't needed to determine their truth. We are all justified in believing that other minds exist outside our own without relying on science to prove it. The belief that I exist is one as well.

But I've digressed far too much.

Of course you can speed without violating other traffic laws. The laws of physics however, will violate the speeder who pushes its limits.



Perhaps he simply likes to swerve (volition)? Maybe he's dodging some debris (out of necessity)? Maybe he missed his exit (carelessness)? Vehicle malfunction (neglect)?

that works for speeders to:

Perhaps he likes to speed (volition)? Maybe he's speeding due to an emergency (necessity)? Maybe he's running late (carelessness)? Vehicle malfunction (neglect)?



You have been guilty of the Taxi Cab fallacy. You've been stopping at a point which is convenient for your argument to work and you won't follow your own views to their logical conclusions. Stop wading in the shallow end of the pool and dive into the deep end that is the logical conclusion of your view. Swerving is no less and action than speeding is. They don't self originate as they both have root causes that can ultimately be traced back to volition and they both can be done without crashing. Therfore, a fair, equal and honest application of your view would suggest that we don't enforce any moving violations.

Edit: I originally typed out a long response, addressing all your points but this discussion is beginning to unravel. I deleted a huge swath of my reply. I will no longer frisk your frisks. Neither will I respond to ad hominem arguments.

So obviously you like to argue just for the sake of it. No sense arguing with a brick wall that ignores logic and observable data. You can ramble on about all the what ifs, and maybes you can think of. At the end of the day, the statistics clearly prove exactly what I'm talking about. I don't have an opinion purely to have an opinion. I formed an opinion based on clearly observable and calculated data combined with logic and rational thought process. You have had to ignore all of those things for your side of the argument have any leg to stand on.

If speed limits were set in a reasonable manner as they are suppsoed to be, and were enforced comprehensively according to percentages of traffic collision causes, then I would be fully agreeing with you.

It is quite apparent that speed enforcement does not work. Enforcement is ramped up more and more every year, but traffic collisions do not have any correlating decreases to increased speed enforcement. So whether you agree with my theory or not, it would be wise to try a different approach with a logical and statistical backing.

A good part of me has a feeling that you disagree so much because you have ignored key points I made. I am not in any way advocating that traffic should just be a free for all. But I think people seem to be ignorantly unaware of just how effective enforcement really is. It can be well observed that heavy speed enforcement will result in overall lower average speeds observed. So the same should be true about other traffic infractions, in fact even more so possibly. People are reluctant to slow down because speed saves them time. When people see that they can change other behaviors and still make good time they would be more likely to comply.

But in my scenario...lack of speed allows our sample driver to avoid the crash where highly violating the speed limit does not.

Actually your scenario is based on being in an exact area at an exact time. Increased speed would lead to avoiding the animal being on the road way at all. And decreased speed would mean having increased reaction time to possibly avoid an issue. What if an animal ran out right in front of you at the speed limit with too little distance to react? (which is actually the most likely scenario with deer and a 60mph speed limit). The point is that can happen at any speed, and that's why this issue shouldn't be viewed with blinders on. The only argument for your opinion is that in the rare event it happens, the damage could possibly be decreased. Which is a fair argument, but where do you draw the line? This is why that train of logic leads to only one conclusion, a speed limit of 1mph. Meanwhile we could try a different enforcement approach which directly addresses 75% of collisions, and significantly improves traffic flow and congestion.

[DEADEYE]

In any debate, it is uncommon to have both parties ultimately agree. That being said, it seems we both have our lines drawn in the sand. In situations such as these, all I can do is raise the intellectual price tag as high as I can for you to maintain your position.

What I've gathered from this conversation, Viktimize, and I could be mistaken...not lying, is that you simultaneously hold conflicting views in that because speeding doesn't directly cause crashes (~C) and isn't enforced proportionately according to the percentages of traffic collision causes and due to possible unreasonable speed limits, it therefor shouldn't be enforced (~E) or maybe even be limited at all. You would however agree with me, ipso facto the enforcement (~~E) thereof, if only it was enforced in a manner consistent with your view (R), that is unmolested engineer suggestion which is still speed enforcement but this is despite your reasoning that speeding doesn't cause crashes, which is why, according to you, we shouldn't enforce it in the first place!...on the highway that is, leaving one to wonder why non highways are exempt from your reasoning. Also, what if the engineer still suggested a speed lower than what you are comfortable traveling at?

1. ~C>~E
2. ~C
3. ~E
4. ~C>R
5. ~C
6. R
7. R=E
8. E (simp, 7)
9. ~C>E^~E
10. E=/=~E

Reductio ad Absurdem

...I could be mistaken though.

It could be that we've been arguing past each other as I'm not arguing that speeding directly causes crashes and therefor should be enforced. Why does that need to be a factor anyways?

The reasons for enforcing the speed limits need not be because speeding cause crashes at all . Rather they are enforced based soley upon what the violation thereof contributes, exponentially I might add, to the problems of reduced reaction times and/ or increased braking distances and/ or the damages caused. Which is a public safety concern because it leads to crashes. That is all that is needed to justify the speed laws and their enforcement and nothing else.


As you've rightly pointed out, the relationship of the speed limit and any unsafe condition related speed traveled are purely incidental. Sometimes the safest speeds are lower than the actual speed limit and that law exists. Enforcing safe speeds is a judgement call which includes many factors. The capabilities of the driver which are unkown to the officer and sometimes even the overly confident driver, the vehicle's condition which is unknown to the officer (I don't know what it's like to drive a Porsche 911 or a Ducati) or perhaps even its driver, the weather which is ever changing, general traffic congestion and speed which is fluid by the minute, roadway surface and conditions which change and deteriorate and are then repaired, wildlife which is utterly unpredictable, the officer's personal judgement, the comfort level of the driver which can be effected by mood, roadway familiararity etc. I'd say that enforcing this type of speeding would indeed be more meaningful but the only sure fire empiracle evidence of an unsafe speed traveled is the crash which it lead to, but that is exactly what we're trying to prevent in the first place. I guess the speed limit really is for those who are too dumb.

I'll just go ahead and point out where we do agree that speed limits should be reasonable (to be reasonable though, it must first be allowed) and enforced responsibly, which means it must be enforceable.

...And just so you know, not a single officer that I've met in my 20 years, supervisors included, could care less about the revenue generated from a ticket he wrote.

Be safe out here!