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

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

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

4. Why do we refuse to ever use ANY traffic calming measures? Yes, than you flashing digital sign for telling me I'm going 10 miles above the limit on this incredibly wide and straight and flat road with high curbs and perfect visibility.

It's a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.

And, yes, I know there's some thing people did long ago to set the speed limit at some percentile of what people were already traveling at, but that's obviously a stupid way to do it and we did it anyway. So why?

Meanwhile Ireland:

The short answer to all your questions is that America specializes in stupid in all kinds of ways. This is one of them.

The UK is exactly the same, except they will write "SLOW" on the street, right next to the sign, to confuse you.

Because much of your country doesn't enforce speed limits, large portions of your country's population don't believe the Constitution allows speed limit enforcement without reckless driving

First off you are wrong. I for instance, drive the speed limit.

Secondly, because whatever limit you set, some people will speed, even if it kills them.

Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions. If they chose to ignore that and kill themselves, well then, I hope they enjoy their Darwin Award.

The best illustrations is the current usa situation were about 40% support trump even as he destroys their livelihood and bulldozers the White House.

You will always get a large percent of people who are self destructive, selfish, ignorant and abusive, had a toxic childhood and grew up to be toxic adults.

I had a friend once who rescued a lady who put her car in a ditch driving to fast for the icy conditions. The moment he got her out, she sped off down the road, going way too fast and weaving all over the place.

You can't cure stupid. Just obey the speed limit and try and stay out of the crazy people's way.

tbf in the UK they don't have a speed listed on those roads, the national speed limit sign basically just means "We couldn't be arsed to set a safe speed so use your brain."

Human beings are very bad at driving. I cannot wait until computers are driving our cars for us...

Because we are very weird about our collective/individual sense of entitlement.

You really wanna start digging into that? it’s fucking bananas.

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

Why don't we give guns to teenagers because it's fun? Oh, they do in the USA, it's still the stupidest idea ever.

What? The national speed limit is 60mph, not whatever you feel like. Speed limits are a maximum, and you will be prosecuted if you are not driving at a speed compatible with the conditions, even if its less than the speed limit.

Yes, but I think the point being made is that some roads are not suitable for that speed despite being national speed limit. There's green lanes around the place with national speed limit signs on when it feels like your vehicle will be demolished anything over 10mph.

1. Gotta go fast.
2. They technically shouldn’t be going that fast, probably for safety reasons not obvious at all times.
3. Cameras have flaws that are solved with an officer handling it. If someone is borrowing your car and speeding you get the camera ticket vs if an officer stopped them your friend would.
4. Gotta go fast.

Yeah, I hear you guys even stop at interesections even if there are no stop signs. Completely mad.

Because life is better when rules aren't draconian and cruel.

Naturally! The tassels on the flags in the court room clearly indicate maritime law, so they can get you for speeding on your boat, but not your car.

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

Because speed limits are not strictly enforced

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

Because if that happens that any per-textual stop the police want to do needs an another actual crime being committed before they can stop you.

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

I reject the premise. Traffic enforcement isn't very ineffective because the majority of people aren't driving 50+ MPH over the speed limit. Also, its not that expensive because your premise suggests that if we had cameras, we'd need fewer police. I don't think that's the case. When an emergency response is needed we need X number of police to respond. Therefore X number need to be employed and on shift at all times. If we have the expense of traffic cameras, its not going to reduce headcount below X, and we now have the additional expense of purchase, install, and maintenance of all those traffic cameras. The cameras have an headcount overhead of staff of their own.

Traffic cameras also introduce mistakes of their own including misreading plates, or thieves using stolen/copied plates, which would otherwise ensnare innocent citizens.

It’s a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.

I think you're looking at the rules and assuming the logical outcome is the desired result. Change your mindset. The desired result is what happens when human society is given a set of rules and reacts to them. The reaction is the actual desired result. The set of rules is simply one step to get there. In short, humans aren't 100% logical nor are they 100% rule following, knowing that, you establish a set of rules that you know will have some violation and you account for that in rules.

I also drive the speed limit as of about 2 years ago, which is why I bring this post up. But I'm basically the only one. People are constantly passing me, even on a double yellow line. In fact, it's gotten so obnoxious, that I'll sometimes drive just a touch below the speed limit when there's a safe pass (like a 4 lane road) to encourage people to pass me instead of them wondering, "Is this guy going to speed up?" for a few a minutes before finally passing.

Anyway, I didn't mention my law-abiding ways because I assumed the hatetrain would derail the conversation.

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

Also, coincidentally, Ireland is one of the top countries with the most fatal casulties (percentage by population) regarding car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists within the EU... Hmmm... I wonder why that may be the case... 🤔

Source: I used to live in Ireland for ages.

Ok, so this is the breakdown on logic I'm talking about.

IF speeding is a problem, why don't we do a fucking thing about it? Because it gives police something to do when they're not oppressing minorities, and, in fact, gives them a perfect avenue to do so?

Trains are better, but, yeah, humans really do suck at driving; whether or not computers would be better is a separate question (tip: LIDAR is better).

Many speed limits are set so that you can still drive the road in adverse conditions.

This is not true. There may be some statutes in some jurisdictions with language that may suggest something like this is done, but the truth is, all speed limits were originally set by simply measuring how fast people drive, averaging all the number together, then reducing that number by 20%. From there, how it's changed over the years depends on where you are (with the exception of the nation-wide speed limit of 55 mph in response to the oil crisis in the 70s) but all of them started completely arbitrarily.

It's also worth mentioning, car technology is such that a modern cars only needs about 40% the stopping distance of a vehicle made when the speed limit was decided upon. So, not only are they arbitrary, but if they truly were based on vehicle performance, they would be a lot higher today (at least on rural roads. City streets are another story).

Cops want it that way.

In the USA, you can follow the average driver on a 10 minute drive and they'll technically commit at least 1 infraction. My FIL got a $90 ticket last month for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

The rules of the road are so anally technical so that cops have a valid reason to pull you over whenever they desire. That's it.

Or you are just repeating myths...

https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/setting-speed-limits/

As much as current robo-taxis are still far from perfect, their driving is overall much safer than that of human drivers

Yeah, a big part of the reason I don't go over the limit anymore is to limit my interaction with cops. I don't do well with social interactions and these motherfuckers are likely to find me suspiscious. So I drive the speed limit and just plan to invoke my right to remain silent.

Yes legally the maximum speed is 60mph but you aren't going to reach those speeds on those roads. My point was that even if the sign means that technically you can do 60mph you're still going to be done for dangerous driving if you attempt to.

Human beings are very bad at driving.

Yes, most of you are. The amount of training required before turning people loose in a two-ton death machine with 10 gallons of highly flammable fuel in the back is shockingly, pathetically minimal. The fact that you never need to re-take a driving test to demonstrate competency is a danger to others. The number of people driving around who don't even know how a four-way stop works is an unacceptable, systemic issue. The number of people who have dash cams is laughably low. The number of drivers who have never practiced safely losing and regaining traction under hazardous conditions is probably over 99%, which is absolutely bonkers when you stop and think about it.

Driving is unbelievably dangerous and the number of people who don't realize and respect that and thus, approach driving with a dangerously casual attitude is a systemic issue that should be addressed.

But, as a professional "computer person" the idea of a computer driving sounds more dangerous than a drunken eight-year-old behind the wheel.

I thought we were still waiting for the numbers on that. Do you have a study/article? Surely you can find a study funded by a self-driving car company that shows it's better, but the question is what actually shakes out in practice as evaluated by an unbiased researcher.

Not stopping at a stop sign is far from "anally technical."

Police staffing levels are absolutely not set by emergency response needs.

Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty, firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.

Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.

Are you saying traffic cameras are not cost effective?

1. Go fast

2. Go faster

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

4. Go fast but circle means slow

Thanks for attending my TED Talk.

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

1. Psychology — our minds are thinking about what we do next, so the present is regularly seen as an impediment to getting to the future — our destination. If we speed, we are able to do things we want to do next, sooner. After which we will rush to do the thing after that.

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

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

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

You’re coming to a 4 way stop. No one is around. You slow to approx 3 mph, then move through as no one is around. That’s pretty fucking anal

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

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

Not to go off topic but they gave a teenager a gun and he ended up shooting up an elementary school in Bend, OR.

The danger is the mixing of humans, environment, and computers. Mostly the first, as environment can be predicted and adapted to a lot easier than human actions.

Ever see the video of an automated warehouse? When it's just computers and no unknown variables, it's far more efficient and safe. But we started with humans driving first and computers are a newcomer, so short of a fully automated road system, it's not going to be perfect. Computers can see and react to things faster, so in some situations they are better than humans, and much of the newest safety equipment on cars required by regulations are because of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

I've always gone the speed limit or just a tad above (because of traffic flow) because going any faster is inefficient in so many ways and only increases risk. Even on a long trip that 10 mph over is only going to gain a few minutes, and you've used more fuel. Why bother? Plus there's the fact you mention elsewhere of not standing out as a target. Not that it matters, I feel enforcement is highly variable, and I've seen on highway trips people going 20 or more over in a construction zone, and I wonder where the cops are. Only when they feel like it, I suppose.

The one good thing about a toll road that I'd support is how it can measure an average speed, and someone speeding that much over has no way to easier balance out the math at the end, so instant ticket/justice. I mean, they could just limp the last mile or pull off, but that's waving red flags to anyone monitoring.

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

Oh, sure, fall for Big Transportation's story... /s

You expect an off duty cop to stop beating his wife for your emergency?

this is the same in NZ, although we are getting some roads posted as 80m/h for safety reasons (high crash, high cycle/horse/foot traffic)

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

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

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

I have worked for almost 10 years around road safety.

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

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

We're probably talking about slightly different aspects of the same thing.

Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty

There are different levels of emergencies, right? So there is likely Y number of officers that have to be on duty at all times, and an additional X officers that number officers need to be employed by the department yes to respond to the highest levels of emergency to be able to pull people in when they are off duty.

firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.

For this discussion, I was assuming we're only talking about police response needed. When I say "police needed to respond to emergencies" I'm only talking about the police component, not the other type of first responders. I don't see how its useful to expand the conversation to other first responders when we're only talking about employed police officers. If you have information about how the number of firefighters/EMTs can increase or decrease the number of police officers employed for policing, I'm open to consider that argument or something similar.

Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.

I agree with this.

Wow, you must be really smart to be able to tell that from the opposite side of the world.