Speed Limits

[Texsox]

Let's see, based on Filibuster debates, people driving 70, while stoned, are the safest drivers.

 

20% of the drivers, by your numbers, are following the law. Are they following the law because

 

A. They have the capacity to follow the law, the other 80% cannot help themselves.

B. They are more comfortable at those speeds.

 

What I wrote. In Texas we have wide shoulders and people move over to the shoulder to allow faster cars to pass. On four lane highways, we move over again to allow cars to pass. Driving "friendly" as the bumper stickers say. I've never seen that in Illinois.

 

In Illinois cars stop faster at 70 then 55 -- making it safer

In Illinois drivers react quicker at 70 then 55 -- making it safer

[santo=dorf]

Its not bulls*** b/c its exactly the same with an in-person ticket. I don't see the validity of an argument that says you don't like law enforcement because it may be flawed, so it shouldn't be enforced. These same issues come up with a real live cop too, so, the process has to exist, but the laws also have to be enforced.

So when a cop pulls someone over he writes the ticket to person who owns the plates on the car, not the driver? Really?

[StrangeSox]

Let's see, based on Filibuster debates, people driving 70, while stoned, are the safest drivers.

 

20% of the drivers, by your numbers, are following the law. Are they following the law because

 

A. They have the capacity to follow the law, the other 80% cannot help themselves.

B. They are more comfortable at those speeds.

 

What I wrote. In Texas we have wide shoulders and people move over to the shoulder to allow faster cars to pass. On four lane highways, we move over again to allow cars to pass. Driving "friendly" as the bumper stickers say. I've never seen that in Illinois.

 

In Illinois cars stop faster at 70 then 55 -- making it safer

In Illinois drivers react quicker at 70 then 55 -- making it safer

 

You are extraordinarily obtuse.

 

I've provided some information that increasing speed limits to reasonable levels does not lead to more accidents or more serious injuries. Do you have anything showing why 55 MPH on all interstates is a good idea? It doesn't save gas, it doesn't save lives, and it wastes monumental amounts of time.

Edited August 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

So when a cop pulls someone over he writes the ticket to person who owns the plates on the car, not the driver? Really?

Huh? I didn't say the event was the same - I said the appeal process was the same.

 

[Texsox]

You are extraordinarily obtuse.

 

I've provided some information that increasing speed limits to reasonable levels does not lead to more accidents or more serious injuries. Do you have anything showing why 55 MPH on all interstates is a good idea? It doesn't save gas, it doesn't save lives, and it wastes monumental amounts of time.

I have argued that following the speed limit is the best course of action. I agree with everyone here that having a large variance between the fastest and slowest drivers is a bad thing. Which seems to me means that speeders are a hazard. Others feel the better course os for everyone to speed. I have argued that it is much more arbitrary to pick the speed that lawbreakers are going as the limit. I have not argued that 55 is a good idea on all interstates. I love the stretch in west Texas that is 70 mph. Not much traffic, no homes, businesses, etc. Just lots of miles to cover.

 

I could research and get you some stats but it seems that if you can stop your car quicker and have more time to react, that would result in fewer accidents with less severe injuries. Advances in car design and construction have decreased injury rates. We'll never know if you took away all the newer cars and people wearing safety belts and just had them drive faster would achieve the same results.

 

But if you think getting cut off at 70 is safer then getting cut off at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind. If you believe that hitting a car doing 70 results in less injuries then hitting a car at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind.

[santo=dorf]

Huh? I didn't say the event was the same - I said the appeal process was the same.

Ok, and I was simply saying the same appeals process for these two different methods of giving out tickets is bulls*** and not easy. I can't find the post at the moment but someone mentioned that these don't count as moving violations. What sense does that make? If a cop catches you running through a yellow/near red light, he/she is going to write you up and its a moving violation. One driver's ed teacher told me going through a light like that should be considered racing because by definition you are driving up against a timed event. Not counting as a moving violation screams "cash cow" to me as people will be more inclined just to pay the fine instead of fighting it.

 

I recall reading a story where hundreds of people were assigned tickets because the cameras incorrectly read their plates while they were turning right on red but with a green arrow.

[StrangeSox]

I have argued that following the speed limit is the best course of action.

I know. You haven't made any argument for why the current speed limits are good ones, though, which is what this whole argument is about.

 

I agree with everyone here that having a large variance between the fastest and slowest drivers is a bad thing. Which seems to me means that speeders are a hazard.

 

Great. Setting low speed limits does nothing to change this.

 

Others feel the better course os for everyone to speed. I have argued that it is much more arbitrary to pick the speed that lawbreakers are going as the limit.

 

Well, its a good thing that I haven't (and nor has anyone else, I think) argued at adjusting speeds based solely on how fast everyone drives. That is brought up just to show that when you set an arbitarirly low speed limit (ie one that isn't based on traffic flow, density, site lines, road conditions, etc), people aren't going to follow it. It's a bad restriction in that case.

 

I have not argued that 55 is a good idea on all interstates. I love the stretch in west Texas that is 70 mph. Not much traffic, no homes, businesses, etc. Just lots of miles to cover.

 

BUT WHAT IF YOU GET CUTOFF?!?!?! ON NO'S!

 

That just makes my point. When there was a national 55 MPH limit, you'd be forced to go 70 MPH there. Why? It was completely arbitrary.

 

In some places, 55 is reasonable (you couldn't go faster on 90/94 in Chicago if you wanted, and I actually think its 45 MPH in the city itself). In other places (traffic density on the new I-355 extension is practically non-existant), it is ridiculous. If you do 65 or 70 in that stretch, you'll get cars blowing by you.

 

I could research and get you some stats but it seems that if you can stop your car quicker and have more time to react, that would result in fewer accidents with less severe injuries.

You're right. More time to react is better, as are shorter stopping distances. However, when the speed is more uniform, there's just less to react to, so you end up about evening out.

 

Advances in car design and construction have decreased injury rates. We'll never know if you took away all the newer cars and people wearing safety belts and just had them drive faster would achieve the same results.

 

Well, the only data we have shows that increasing speed limits does not increase accident and injury rates. These studies look at pretty short time lines, not the several decades it would take for brand-new technology to be a dominating factor.

 

But if you think getting cut off at 70 is safer then getting cut off at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind. If you believe that hitting a car doing 70 results in less injuries then hitting a car at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind.

 

I never said that! Great!

Edited August 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

I have argued that following the speed limit is the best course of action. I agree with everyone here that having a large variance between the fastest and slowest drivers is a bad thing. Which seems to me means that speeders are a hazard. Others feel the better course os for everyone to speed. I have argued that it is much more arbitrary to pick the speed that lawbreakers are going as the limit. I have not argued that 55 is a good idea on all interstates. I love the stretch in west Texas that is 70 mph. Not much traffic, no homes, businesses, etc. Just lots of miles to cover.

 

I could research and get you some stats but it seems that if you can stop your car quicker and have more time to react, that would result in fewer accidents with less severe injuries. Advances in car design and construction have decreased injury rates. We'll never know if you took away all the newer cars and people wearing safety belts and just had them drive faster would achieve the same results.

 

But if you think getting cut off at 70 is safer then getting cut off at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind. If you believe that hitting a car doing 70 results in less injuries then hitting a car at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind.

Try 80 now west on I-10 between Van Horn and El Paso County... and there's no reason for it to be any lower. You get west of Pecos on I-20 and Fort Stockton on I-10, there ain't a damn thing out there until El Paso.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, and I was simply saying the same appeals process for these two different methods of giving out tickets is bulls*** and not easy. I can't find the post at the moment but someone mentioned that these don't count as moving violations. What sense does that make? If a cop catches you running through a yellow/near red light, he/she is going to write you up and its a moving violation. One driver's ed teacher told me going through a light like that should be considered racing because by definition you are driving up against a timed event. Not counting as a moving violation screams "cash cow" to me as people will be more inclined just to pay the fine instead of fighting it.

 

I recall reading a story where hundreds of people were assigned tickets because the cameras incorrectly read their plates while they were turning right on red but with a green arrow.

If they aren't moving violations, that's B.S., and its a way to get around a more robust appeal system.

 

[Cknolls]

I laughed when I saw that. We drive friendly?

 

 

Not to mention that Texas is #2 behind California in Television covered car chases.

[Cknolls]

Try 80 now west on I-10 between Van Horn and El Paso County... and there's no reason for it to be any lower. You get west of Pecos on I-20 and Fort Stockton on I-10, there ain't a damn thing out there until El Paso.

 

 

Not even armadillos?

[kapkomet]

The funniest is listening to the semi drivers.

 

"I got that motha**cker... HA HA HA"

 

No, there aren't very many armadillos out that far west. It's pretty desolate.

 

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

That's bulls***. Why should I have to take the time out of MY hands to fight someone else's ticket becuase of a flawed ticket? What if this happens in another county? What if a parent down in Central or Southern Illinois loans a car to their kid for a trip to Chicago and they get one? You think it's "easy" for the parent to drive 6-8 hours just to come in and say, "that's not me in the picture?" Hiring a lawyer or burning the gas is still a big waste of money one way or another.

 

The sad thing is most people won't care and will just pay the fine, or go into court asking for supervision on it (more $$$ for the government) just becuase they don't want to deal with the hassle of the courts.

Thank you for bringing logic into my point instead of Tex's "Well dont speed"

[DrunkBomber]

Its not bulls*** b/c its exactly the same with an in-person ticket. I don't see the validity of an argument that says you don't like law enforcement because it may be flawed, so it shouldn't be enforced. These same issues come up with a real live cop too, so, the process has to exist, but the laws also have to be enforced.

No its not. If someone else is driving your car the ticket will be in their name if they are pulled over so you, the owner of the car, will have nothing to do with it. The new way, they send the ticket to the owner of the car, so even if you werent in it, youre responsible for it.

[NorthSideSox72]

No its not. If someone else is driving your car the ticket will be in their name if they are pulled over so you, the owner of the car, will have nothing to do with it. The new way, they send the ticket to the owner of the car, so even if you werent in it, youre responsible for it.

I think you are missing my point. The appeal PROCESS should be the same. The cameras will result in mistakes, and so do cops. Just different ones.

 

[DrunkBomber]

I think you are missing my point. The appeal PROCESS should be the same. The cameras will result in mistakes, and so do cops. Just different ones.

Your point is on such a different level of what anyone is saying though. Assume youre not fighting the actual speed you were traveling but who was driving the car. If you get stopped by a cop, you wont have to go to court because they accused you of speeding when you werent even in your car, that is the difference. Sure, if you want to fight the speed youre traveling the appeal process would be the same, but not if you werent driving the car.

[NorthSideSox72]

Your point is on such a different level of what anyone is saying though. Assume youre not fighting the actual speed you were traveling but who was driving the car. If you get stopped by a cop, you wont have to go to court because they accused you of speeding when you werent even in your car, that is the difference. Sure, if you want to fight the speed youre traveling the appeal process would be the same, but not if you werent driving the car.

The process is the same. The mistakes might be different. If the system itself is flawed because it generates more erroneous tickets than cops do, then change the camera system.

 

[DrunkBomber]

The process is the same. The mistakes might be different. If the system itself is flawed because it generates more erroneous tickets than cops do, then change the camera system.

Congratulations, youve circled the debate back to my original point

[NorthSideSox72]

Congratulations, youve circled the debate back to my original point

I never disagreed with your original point. If you look at my highlight points post, I think I made it clear. Maybe not though.

 

[DrunkBomber]

I never disagreed with your original point. If you look at my highlight points post, I think I made it clear. Maybe not though.

My bad, I got my posts for you and Texsox mixed up.

[Texsox]

StrangeSox My entire basis for saying slower is safer is based on this:

 

For an accident to occur, there must be two objects that occupy the same space at the same time. That could be vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-object. To avoid that situation, one of the vehicles needs to either stop in time, or alter the vehicles path to avoid the same space and time. Based on Texas physics, a vehicle traveling at a slower rate of speed, arrives at that space slower than a vehicle traveling faster. That gives the driver of the vehicle more time to avoid the accident.

 

Now it has been brought up and we agree, that the variation in speeds caused by 20% of the drivers obeying the speed limit and 80% breaking the law by speeding, causes the opportunity for more accidents. The more uniform speed, the less there is to react to. It would seem then that the argument would be to raise the speed limit based on how fast people are currently driving. But you say that has not been proposed by anyone in this thread. So try and complete this sentence without mentioning the current speed of the drivers:

Changing the speed limit from 55 to 70 on this stretch of highway will make this road safer by . . .

 

How else to achieve this more uniform speed? I believe there are only three options, either raise the speed limit to match the people who are currently speeding, stop the speeders by enforcement, or both. (enforcement efforts that are being attacked by many people in this thread) Since you claim no one has proposed raising the limit to match the speeders, I must be missing an option and look forward to reading it.

 

My basis for injuries is equally simple.

 

You walk into a wall, you may get a bruise. You ride your bike into the wall, you may receive a greater injury, you hit it at 25 mph in your car, perhaps a different, 70 even greater, and finally at 200 mph in an airplane, even greater.

 

It would seem that accident, injury, and death rates would vary based on speed. Set the speed limit at 20 MPH, and perhaps there would be zero. At 100 mph, perhaps there would be more, I imagine there would be a curve. At some point there would be a sharp spike. It would be impossible to run such an experiment in the real world, so highway builders and lawmakers must use computer models and experience to determine fastest speeds with an acceptable accident and injury rate for that specific road. In some areas that may be 25 and others may be 80. But the reasons I have read here, it wastes time, the government is corrupt and just wants speeding fines, people are speeding already, it's inconvenient, etc are not valid reasons.

 

I also understand that certain stretches of road have speed limits that are set too low, but there are also some that are set too high. Areas that were once rural highways now go through areas with higher densities of traffic. It is very difficult to lower speed limits once they are set. In Texas they monitor data including accident rates, traffic patterns, and volume to determine speed limits and I do see them adjusted. Both increasing and decreasing. Perhaps Illinois could learn a little bit from Texas.

[NorthSideSox72]

My bad, I got my posts for you and Texsox mixed up.

All us Admins look alike on the internets.

 

[Texsox]

All us Admins look alike on the internets.

 

If he knew it was you, he would not have disagreed

[Texsox]

Your point is on such a different level of what anyone is saying though. Assume youre not fighting the actual speed you were traveling but who was driving the car. If you get stopped by a cop, you wont have to go to court because they accused you of speeding when you werent even in your car, that is the difference. Sure, if you want to fight the speed youre traveling the appeal process would be the same, but not if you werent driving the car.

 

Same with a parking ticket. How would you handle it if someone you loaned your car to parked it illegally and received a ticket? Wouldn't the same thing work for camera tickets? How is this different?

[southsider2k5]

All us Admins look alike on the internets.

 

I resent that remark, I am MUCH better looking on the internet!