1. because they feel they can get away with it
2. because no matter what you raise it to people will drive a bit over it.
3. cameras are still a relatively new thing and people hate them due to privacy issues and lack of discretion.
4. because the us is stupid when it comes to limiting cars.

1. Because the ratio of drivers to law enforcement allows it.
2. How speed limits are decided is very complicated. What people "want" isn't the top priority.
3. Because automated cameras are owned by profit-seeking entities with zero incentive to handle this data appropriately. See: recent Flock abuses as examples.
4. Those exist but, once again, the ratio of signage to driver is poor.

Most of your questions also are rooted in what appears to be a lack of appreciation for just how huge the USA is. We can't possibly police all of it and there are very, very good reasons why we shouldn't even try. Especially with the current demented leadership.

I'm not from the USA, but I also hear this question often, so here it is:

Mainly because people behind the wheel have absolutely different driving experiences and reaction speeds. What is safe enough for you is not safe at all for a beginner driver or a senior citizen. Public roads are therefore public because they allow everyone, which means limits must be set according to the worst driver in the sample.

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

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

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

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

A lot to unpack here. Many reasons for all. Since I'm typing with my thumbs, and this will be a long one, I'll be glossing over some details.

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

There are many reasons, but the two biggest are:

1. The systemic issue road design often not reflecting the safe speed of that road.
2. The systemic issue of traffic enforcement also being a means of fundraising for police, thus making only the "big" tickets worth their time.

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

The better option is to design roads such that a lower speed feels more appropriate to the given conditions.

Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police

The systemic issue of US police being trained to believe they're warriors in battle, thus many of them seeing traffic enforcement as not worth their time. The better question is, why are law enforcement and traffic enforcement carried out by the same people?

instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?

The US Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face and question their accuser in a court of law. Rules of court procedure guarantee a witness cannot offer evidence to an event they didn't personally witness. This makes prosecution via camera problematic; the camera can't be called into court for questioning and no person personally witnessed the event occur.

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.

The systemic issue of widespread corruption, resulting in projects being completed as cheaply as possible, as opposed to as effectively as possible. Proper measures requires hiring engineers to determine what's needed and then installing them. Every dollar spent on that is a dollar their friend who was contracted for the project can't pocket and donate during their next campaign.

US Americans aren't stupid. Their government has been captured by corrupt officials and oligarchs who are making money off the status quo.

A lot of it is cultural. There hasnt been a mass shooting in my state in over 20 years and we are constitutional carry state. Recently they instated a minimum age to purchase firearms of 21 (previously 16 for long guns, 18 for handguns), but there's no minimum age to posses shotguns or long guns and the age for handgun position is 16 without parental consent. And u only need to be 21 for store purchases, private transfers u only need to be 16 so long as u have completed a hunter safety course.

cameras are still a relatively new thing and people hate them due to privacy issues and lack of discretion.

Meanwhile Germany:

(Speedtrap columm)

Clearly someone was around if the police were able to spot it.

Just press down on the damn brake pedal until all four wheels come to a complete stop. It's really not that hard.

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.

Meanwhile in Germany:

Last I was aware robotaxis drive extremely slowly compared to regular traffic in limited areas. Not sure how solid the comparison is yet.

Maybe for the opportunity to shoot a dog, sure.

Unless it's a large speed change (50 to 30 for example), why are you braking? A 5mph change you can usually just take your foot off the accelerator and coast down to speed. It saves fuel, wear on your brakes, and helps prevent traffic from getting backed up in a wave of braking.

That's potentially where the bewilderment comes from, they see brake lights and because people follow too close, they immediately brake much harder than you did because they can't tell how much you're slowing down or if you're stopping.

It's because the speed limit is set to the lowest common denominator. Same way a fleet of ships can only go fast as the slowest ship. Most people can drive faster safely.

It's also to make sure the law can always find sonething to use against you when they decide you need to be punished for standing up for yourself.

This makes prosecution via camera problematic; the camera can’t be called into court for questioning and no person personally witnessed the event occur.

By this logic you can't accuse someone in a situation where your only evidence is security camera footage. That may be the case? Either way it's just one of a plethora of examples of how wonky the US justice system is.

• We have security camera footage of the murder.
• Too bad the camera can't witness in court and the only other witness (the victim) is dead.

Interaction dreamed up by the utterly deranged.

Stop signs in the US are so damn common you guys invented the "rolling stop". Outside the US I think I've met like ten stop-signs total. You can bet your ass I'm coming to a complete stop when I see one, since they're so rare I know they're there for a good reason.

For some reason the US decided to put stop signs all the places everyone else just has a "yield" sign (unsure of the proper English term, but it's the upside down triangle indicating you have to yield to any other traffic), or just ordinary right-hand rule with no sign at all.

Tell me where you live is flat without telling me where you live is flat.

And actually flashing lights--at least briefly--is probably a good indicator of intent.

Bad news, they can and will pull you over for going too slow in some places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to https://liveaccidenttracker.com/statistics/road-deaths-in-europe

Italy is deadlier than the whole UK when it comes to road deaths and living here... I gotta say it checks out. I've never seen worse drivers than Italians in my life. To say that traffic laws here are an opinion is an understatement.

Even on a long trip that 10 mph over is only going to gain a few minutes, and you've used more fuel.

i've always 'had more time than money', and i've never had a car that was more fuel efficient at 70-80mph than at 50-60mph.

we actually take the '2 laner' into the city over the interstate specifically because there isn't a bunch of morons doing 20+ over, weaving all over the place.

You come to a stop at a stop sign, how many seconds do you have to wait for it to be considered a full and complete stop?

Can you prove it? Does proving it even matter to the cop that pulls you over for running the stop sign?

I've had this happen and luckily the cop failed to show to court so the ticket was thrown out...but what if he had shown up? I have no idea.

In Canada, its kph, but theres a sign when entering Ontario from Manitoba, where the speed limit is 90 kph, "fines starting at 100 kph" and it lists how much the fine is for doing 100, how much for 110. So the Ontario gov basically sanctions doing 99 in the 90 zone, just dont do 100.

Depending on where you are in the US, there are similar signs here too. Usually just posting a minimum speed limit, not a truck-specific one though. But they're not standard across the entire US, so the rule of the lowest common denominator applies.

And the reason most places in the US don't standardize is because we have too much traffic in populated areas. Despite forcing semi trucks to stick to the slower lanes, some will move to the fast lanes either to pass other slow trucks, or just to make up some lost time on their route. Which keeps all traffic at safe truck-driving speeds anyway.

In a capitalist society, time is money and truck drivers can't afford to be late. A lot of delivery services won't pay the drivers if they show up late, which encourages a lot of poor practices on the public roads.

Yes, it's a system that needs to be changed as well, but without standard unions across the country, businesses can pull shady practices and you can either suck it up and deal with it, or quit and find a new profession. The latter being next to impossible to do with the economy the way it is right now.

Also, another reason the US doesn't standardize is because our country is so extremely massive. Most people don't realize just how huge the US is. Some of our individual states are as big as many European countries. And states have their own rights and laws separate from the federal government. So getting everyone to agree to update public road laws across the entire United States is difficult. A lot of our laws were agreed upon a long time ago and there just haven't been much updates since. So modernizing road laws is a challenge, even with a good administration in charge of the federal government. And we don't have one of those right now.

I see people outside the US asking why Americans don't just protest for better laws, rights, regulations, etc. I mean, we do, but getting us to protest in any meaningful way is like convincing citizens across the entire EU to organize and protest for a single cause. It's next to impossible to organize a protest of that scale, but we'd need that because of how large our country is. There could be a protest in Oregon, but people in California next door might say it's an Oregon issue and not directly affecting them. Getting everyone on board for a singular issue is extremely difficult when we're spaced so far apart. A problem on one side of the country might as well be happening on the other side of the planet as far as most Americans are concerned.

And the more our lives are tied to our pithy income, the harder it is to break away long enough for a meaningful protest. A majority of American's lives would fall apart if they spent a week without working, but the rich 1%ers could go months without breaking a sweat. Outlasting those in power is next to impossible with the way our society is right now.

Couple that with that the fact that we're isolated from the rest of the world and most Americans grow up in that echo chamber about how we're the "greatest country in the world" and you get a lot of passive citizens who don't address issues until they are directly affecting them. Which is too late by that point. America is just in a bad place geographically and politically to organize its citizens for better reform.

Sorry that this devolved into political discourse, but that's kind of the root behind a lot of our unchanging and ineffective laws right now.

I find it frustrating that in the US at least, people can't do the simple math. Unless it's a very long trip, speeding doesn't save you very much time at all. A couple of minutes at the most for a typical commute.

On countless occasions I've seen some some reckless moron nearly take other vehicles' bumpers off to 'get around' traffic. And then you're right behind that same moron at the next red light.

They are risking everything for little to no time savings.

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

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

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

Most people can drive faster safely

I'm not sure where you're from but around my neck of the woods, this is NOT the case.

It is pretty hilarious to me that no matter how much someone spends on a car, no matter how comfortable the seats or rich the sound system or smooth the ride, everyone wants to GET OUT OF THEIR CARS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. OH MY GOD WHY AM I NOT THERE YET?!?!?!??

I think even if you explained to them they were only saving 45 seconds over a 30 minute commute, they'd think it was worth it.

Yeah, the expectation here is speed limit +10 for highway speeds, maybe +5 for backroads, but basically speed limit +0 is never an option so cops can pretty much pull over anyone at will.

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

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

Well, they can always make up some bullshit, the thing is not to let them go on fishing expeditions. Assert your right to remain silent to any questions, ask them what the purpose of the stop was, and ask them if you're free to go.

Of course, they can always "smell marijuana" if they want. I'm very frustrated with how cars are automatic excuse to violate your rights, and I already fucking hated cars.

Good question about why we don't have officers just to enforce traffic. My guess is that the right to detain people is a constitutional weighty and perhaps dangerous anyway. Are there specialized traffic cops with less authority to cause mayhem somewhere in the world?

Your constitutional issues with traffic cameras don't make sense because I know for a fact that they exist and I doubt every ticket is a supreme court case. I find when it comes to policing, lots of things that are unconstitutional on its face, but the state's need to police people--especially black people--overrrides all sense and logic.

Re:traffic calming. It's such a weird feeling NOT being the most cynical person in the room. I like your take, but I think the reason is that drivers want to feel safe, and traffic calming is based entirely around making drivers feel unsafe. That and the fire department wants to be able to take every turn going 65 miles an hour with guys hanging off the side, so our roads are MUCH wider which leads to speeding.

In addition to the clarifications, I thought I'd point out that it's definitely a case of extra effort to set a safe speed on those roads that the local authority doesn't want to go to

That thesis is idiotic. Intentions exist, and are not the same as outcomes. If you want to make the point that intentions don't matter then say that.

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

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

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

Seems anal given every other damn country would use a "yield" or "give way" sign which you can drive through if you see it's clear. Like, on a very open junction at an oblique angle you may barely need to slow down. Or just slow down enough to make the turn.

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

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

You should be able to pick road signs out of the clutter though - clutter makes it harder for sure but signs have specific shapes and colours to make them identifiable

Yep. America used to have a shitload more yield signs, but they've almost all been replaced with stop signs because some stupid idiots can't be bothered to pay attention when driving. All these overdone rules exist to treat every driver as the lowest common denominator of intelligence and capacity, frustrating the fuck out of those of us who actually know how to drive well & don't like coming to a complete stop when it's unnecessary because it's inefficient, and often just "safety theater."

Come to France, they love useless stop signs. Then a random village has 9 intersections where you have to yield right and you can't see shit.

But also don't use French roads they're covered in illegal speed bumps with inconsistent sizes not conformant with international standards for clearance of road vehicles, random illegal obstacles pretending to be “traffic calming” and no enforcement of actual rules that improve safety like speed limits in towns, safety distances and phone use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots, I swear...

Human beings are notoriously awful at risk assessment.

Wealth inequality is so outrageous. I sometimes have to cross a 4 lane road to get to an official bus stop. I mean, they built a fucking bus stop, and the fucking bus stops there multiple times a day, they have to assume people are crossing the street at least once. Signage? None. If I get hit, it's my fault. I sometimes have to wait a few minutes at rush hour for a safe time, and thank god there's a generous median or I'd be just standing in traffic doing hailmary's just to get home.

But I live right near a lake and when those rich fucks want to cross the lakeside road to go from their mansions to their private beach there is a fuckton of signage:

WARNING: CROSSWALK AHEAD

SLOW

CROSSWALK AHEAD

STOP SIGN

BLINKING RED LIGHT

CROSSWALK

And that's when they actually WALK to the beach because most of the time they're taking their little private golf carts.

And all this to cross a lightly travelled 2 lane road with a speed limit of 25MPH.

I understand why the French Revolution went the way it did.

Why yes, I totally agree. But when the roads are black/gray/white, most of the cars are black/gray/white, and the speed limit signs are black/white, well grayscale blends altogether, while your only practical color focuses are on red/yellow/green.

Tell ya what, if they made speed limit signs with a hot pink background, and only exclusively speed limit signs, then I bet people would notice and pay attention much more rapidly.

US 49 & Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Gulfport, MS 39501

^ Go ahead and look that intersection up on Google Maps/Earth and follow that intersection North on Street View, and tell me that shit ain't ridiculously cluttered with information overload...

Edit: Follow that route on Google Street View, tell me how many speed limit signs there are from that intersection to Interstate 10..

Only one, like ~2-3 miles after said intersection, just before the I10 onramp heading east. So the whole time for miles, you don't even know the speed limit.

I dunno about over there but in Australia it's 3 seconds

I got "let off with a warning" once when I only came to a complete stop for 1 second on a dead quiet stretch of road with no other cars anywhere. Then out of spite I started doing the full stop for 3 seconds thing, which is really more like a 5–7 second stop if you account for the time you're going extremely slowly

Other cars get really mad at me, obviously, because it's ridiculous. Then another police officer gives me a warning for being an obstruction to traffic for following the rules the other police officer told me to follow. There's actually no fucking winning

Oh my, well awesome for you and your area that the roads aren't terribly cluttered with signs, that's cool 👍

But hey, try going anywhere near school zones in Louisiana, they got special signs with basically microprint that's impossible to read, that basically says something like (I forget their exact schedule, I don't live in Louisiana)...

• School Zone
• Road Closed:
• 7:30am-9am
• 3:30pm-5pm

Again disclaimer, I forget their exact schedule, but still that's too many microprint numbers to even read while driving.

That Road Closed part is in such microprint, that as a driver you can't even read the fucking signs unless you're on foot or bicycle, or using binoculars to read in advance...

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?

I'm going to disagree about that being a stupid way to do it, for two reasons.

First, there was a time traffic engineering was not a well-developed field. There was no expert who could combine science and best practices to get a good answer about how fast it's safe to drive on a particular road because humanity had not yet learned that skill. Measuring what most drivers do, then reducing it if people crash a lot in a particular place is far from the worst approach.

Second, it's bad to make laws that most people will only obey with heavy enforcement. It's bad for a society to make lawbreakers out of most of its members, and to create pretexts for police to stop people without other evidence of wrongdoing. If there's a reason to make most people drive a particular road much slower than they actually do, any reduction in speed limit should also be accompanied by changes to the road design (traffic calming).

I think the dissonance about speed limits is why there are so many awful drivers, at least in my neck of the woods. You go through drivers ed and you're trained to go exactly the speed limit in all circumstances, and then you get let loose and find out on some highways, driving under the speed limit is so slow compared to the actual rate of traffic that doing so would be dangerous. People learn that and figure that all of the rules of the road are stupid and bad and you have a country of awful drivers

it doesn't help that, as another commenter mentioned, you can be ticketed for not moving with the flow of traffic. follow the law, and you're still breaking the law! plus all the asshole drivers who will get right up on your rear bumper if they decide you aren't going fast enough. damned if you do, damned if you don't! although ultimately, going slower is almost always the better choice from a safety standpoint because of that whole "physics" thing