7 ms·

> That's why a speeding ticket used to be $25 in North Dakota with no court date, compared to $400 in NY with a mandatory court date and points without reaching

> That's why a speeding ticket used to be $25 in North Dakota with no court date, compared to $400 in NY with a mandatory court date and points without reaching a plea. I’m sorry but for this particular problem I have no sympathy. Don’t speed. It doesn’t matter if most people speed occasionally and it doesn’t matter if there are legitimate obstacles to time management in your life that make not speeding difficult. Speeding is statistically more likely to cause death. It’s one of the leading causes of vehicular manslaughter and the mortality rate increases superlinearly as speed increases. If I could I would make the penalties for speeding, not using a blinker, etc. significantly more onerous than they are now. We live amidst an epidemic hysteria that fosters the belief that a speed limit is a speed minimum. I would happily make someone’s life extremely difficult if they demonstrated a disregard for the dangers of speeding (and unfortunately it seems a majority of drivers do). I would be thrilled if speeding more than 5 mph above the limit incurred mandatory community service for every offense in addition to a fine that scaled aggressively with the offender’s income. But don’t let this screed of mine detract from your broader point. I agree people are taken advantage of for things like parking tickets. I just won’t extend that sympathy for things in the category of, “Most people do this, and it’s frustratingly arbitrarily enforced, but it recklessly endangers the lives of other humans.”

anoncoward111 8y ago
Oh god spare me. It's as if you have no grasp of physics. You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph. If 70mph is dangerous, why do many states allow it as a speed limit?
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  > You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph. If you slam on your brakes first, starting at 60mph instead of 70mph could save a life. EDIT: Oh, it's a troll. Wasn't as clear when I posted this. I need to learn not to feed the trolls... sorry all.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    We should all drive 20mph to save all those hypothetical pedestrians. What else can we police to make everything Just That Much Safer (TM)?
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  So just to be clear, your position is that 60 mph and 70 mph are: 1) equally safe, all else being equal, 2) equally safe, in an where one of those speeds is faster than the legal speed limit, 3) equally safe, when there is a disparity in surrounding traffic speed (possibly due to #2). I want to be extremely clear if that's really your position, because if it is you're hand waving away the danger of a ~16% increase in speed.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    Negative. I am in fact saying those two speeds are nearly equally dangerous, such that fining one and not fining another is arbitrary and extortionary. A pedestrian will die or be gravely injured at nearly any speed. A car crashing into another car, especially in opposing directions, is extremely dangerous above say 45mph. You either go on the road and accept this risk, or you don't. Or of course, you end the multi billion dollar car lobbyist industry and I will happily ride a moped to work instead. People who drive 110mph on the highway in traffic are objectively dangerous. Most cars don't brake well from that speed. 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). More generally the graph from that first source is telling: look at how sharply it increases, even after 50 mph. Other than interstates, most roads aren't 65 mph zones! And simply allowing any speed limit above 55 mph has a meaningful increase in vehicular collision mortality [2]. I can empathize that you consider the fines to be arbitrary and extortionist, and I understand that you think you're leaving adequate distance between yourself and other cars. But 96% of American drivers believe their driving ability is above average [3]; people substantially overestimate their driving skill and safety in general. Therefore though I understand why people feel the need to speed (and I used to!), I really cannot sympathize with arguments for leniency towards speeding penalties. _________________ 1. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r... 2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10.1392 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10... 3. http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.p...
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Airtight logic there. Might as well go 120mph, since hitting someone will still kill them just as dead.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    Ban all cars then dude. I'd be the first donator.
justinpombrio 8y ago
> I agree people are taken advantage of for things like parking tickets Remember that some speeding tickets come from cops raking in cash at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit suddenly drops by 15mph according to a sign that's hidden behind a tree. I think it's possible to call this out while also acknowledging that driving too fast is dangerous. About parking tickets: one day my office mate parked her car on the street where she always did. But when she went to leave for the day, she found a ticket on her car, and its cause: a brand new parking meter right by her car. It had been installed while she was inside. (She successfully contested the ticket.)
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I'll concede that's a crappy situation, yeah. That's definitely something worth talking about as a distinction from speeding in general.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- e_proxus 8y ago
  How big a percentage are "some"? If it is a problem of police corruption, it should be tackled as such, not as a sign that the ticket is too high.
  - justinpombrio 8y ago
    I think the money typically goes to the city, which controls both the speed signs and (at least somewhat) where cops are stationed. So its the typical US thing where there's technically no corruption but, huh, that is a bit of a conflict of interest, isn't it? I've been in the car for 3 tickets, and I'll include one more I recently heard about from a family member. In one case, the driver took a turn on red at 2am when the streets were completely empty. In another, there was a very large and steep hill, and the driver didn't break sufficiently to not go over the speed limit. (The road was straight and the visibility was perfect.) In another, the speed limit quickly changed from 35mph to 15mph for no apparent reason. In all these cases, these drivers weren't putting anyone in danger. I don't think the cops were waiting in these spots by coincidence; I think they were trying to make money for the city. In the fourth case, the driver sped on a windy street, and totally deserved the ticket.
pmalynin 8y ago
The whole idea of speeding is bullshit. The germans have the autobahn, and as far as I know nobody really complains about the lack of a speed limit, nor people going over 120 miles an hour.
- dvdhnt 8y ago
  Speeding IMHO is almost never the issue, it’s careless or reckless driving, failure to obey traffic laws, and distracted driving. The idea of taking a single arbitrary driving test as a teen and never again is insane.
  - nightski 8y ago
    Speeding goes against the legal and socially agreed upon limit. That, in and of itself, is reckless as it increases the difference in speed between someone operating "legally" and yourself. Now I must decide whether I care more about my life or the law. It's not a great position to be placed in because you need to arrive at your destination 30 seconds faster.
    - volkl48 8y ago
      The socially agreed upon limit, is the speed of traffic. That is after all, the speed society is driving. The legal limit often has no relation to it and no basis in science or common sense. Not to mention a failure to account for progress in vehicle development, tire technology, etc.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - bopbop 8y ago
        That would only be true if the whole of society was driving and we took an average. The socially agreed upon limit is the legal limit.
gonvaled 8y ago
In Germany there is no (general) speed limit; accidents are in line with comparable countries with speed limits. I would argue that driving close to the vehicle in front ("close" being a function of speed) is much more dangerous than speed itself.
- ntnn 8y ago
  > In Germany there is no (general) speed limit Yes there is. The autobahn may be roughly 50% without speed limits, but every other road has speed limits. Unless otherwise indicated these are 100 km/h between villages, 50km/h in cities and villages.
- turbinerneiter 8y ago
  On the German _Autobahn_ there is no general speed limit. There is a speed limit of 50km/h in towns and villages, which is often dropped down to 30 in pedestrian rich areas, in front of schools and so on. There is a 100km/h speed limit on normal roads outside of settlements. These are one-lane in each direction with not separation. On the Autobahn, you have at least two lanes in each direction with separation. There is no general speed limit but there are many speed limited stretches, usually to 120km/h. These limits are on about 50% of the Autobahn. Fines for speeding are not really high, but you do get "point", so multiple violations can lead to losing your drivers license. To get a license, you take a minimum of 12 driving lessons and a theoretical course. There is theoretical test and a practical test. I think the high-quality drivers education + the safety features of cars + the mandatory inspections of the cars (yearly) help offset the safety risk of the higher speeds.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Okay, you can argue that. But: 1. I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about speeding, 2. Statistically, speeding is dangerous.
simonebrunozzi 8y ago
Most fines, including speeding tickets, are bullshit. Why? Because they are enforced in a random/chaotic way, they are unfair, and there's almost no proof that expensive tickets increase security on roads.
- zaarn 8y ago
  You get a speeding ticket when you drive to fast. The easy solution is not to drive over the limit. This is not hard nor is your life at risk if you do 80 in a 80 zone instead of 90 kph. (Unless it is, which is why Ambulances don't really have to adhere to traffic law where I live) Don't drive too fast and you don't get speeding tickets, problem solved, no? (There may be no proof that tickets make roads safer but appropriate speed limits do)
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  They’re not bullshit. If you don’t speed you can’t be penalized for speeding. Claiming it’s unfair because you were caught and penalized when so many others were not is not a substantive refutatation of the system. It is unfair, but you have total control over your culpability. Furthermore, do you have any studies supporting your claim that expensive tickets don’t reduce speeding?
jopsen 8y ago
> I'm sorry but for this particular problem I have no sympathy Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy? Everybody makes mistakes from time to time.. and research shows that higher penalties have little effect. Someone else pet peeve is people parking illegally because it blocks their drive way. Or blocks emergency vehicles...
- ntnn 8y ago
  > Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy? For breaking the law?
  - boubiyeah 8y ago
    A 3 km/h speed over the limit is not in the same category as many other law breaks... It's become such a cash cow in Europe.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Then don't go 3km/h over? You do have a speedometer in your car, if it's not accurate you can get that fixed for cheap. I never drive over the limit according to my dashboard instruments no matter how many people behind me get angry.
      - boubiyeah 8y ago
        it's possible yes. Though sometimes the speed limit is very, very low and it gets annoying to have your eyes constantly on the speedometer.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Care to cite some of that research? I cited supporting literature for my claims elsewhere in this thread; what’s the utility of discussing research if we’re not thinking of common papers to review? And no, I categorically reject your appeal to “people make mistakes.” A speed trap is a mistake unfairly penalized. Parking under a partially hidden fire zone sign is a mistake. Speeding is a willful decision that evidences either ignorance or disregard for the impact of higher speeds and traffic disparity on mortality risk. I really don’t think calling this a “pet peeve” like when someone blocks a driveway is at all comparable.

anoncoward111 8y ago

Oh god spare me. It's as if you have no grasp of physics. You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph. If 70mph is dangerous, why do many states allow it as a speed limit?

justinpombrio 8y ago
> You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph. If you slam on your brakes first, starting at 60mph instead of 70mph could save a life. EDIT: Oh, it's a troll. Wasn't as clear when I posted this. I need to learn not to feed the trolls... sorry all.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  We should all drive 20mph to save all those hypothetical pedestrians. What else can we police to make everything Just That Much Safer (TM)?
throwawaymath 8y ago
So just to be clear, your position is that 60 mph and 70 mph are: 1) equally safe, all else being equal, 2) equally safe, in an where one of those speeds is faster than the legal speed limit, 3) equally safe, when there is a disparity in surrounding traffic speed (possibly due to #2). I want to be extremely clear if that's really your position, because if it is you're hand waving away the danger of a ~16% increase in speed.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Negative. I am in fact saying those two speeds are nearly equally dangerous, such that fining one and not fining another is arbitrary and extortionary. A pedestrian will die or be gravely injured at nearly any speed. A car crashing into another car, especially in opposing directions, is extremely dangerous above say 45mph. You either go on the road and accept this risk, or you don't. Or of course, you end the multi billion dollar car lobbyist industry and I will happily ride a moped to work instead. People who drive 110mph on the highway in traffic are objectively dangerous. Most cars don't brake well from that speed. 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). More generally the graph from that first source is telling: look at how sharply it increases, even after 50 mph. Other than interstates, most roads aren't 65 mph zones! And simply allowing any speed limit above 55 mph has a meaningful increase in vehicular collision mortality [2]. I can empathize that you consider the fines to be arbitrary and extortionist, and I understand that you think you're leaving adequate distance between yourself and other cars. But 96% of American drivers believe their driving ability is above average [3]; people substantially overestimate their driving skill and safety in general. Therefore though I understand why people feel the need to speed (and I used to!), I really cannot sympathize with arguments for leniency towards speeding penalties. _________________ 1. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r... 2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10.1392 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10... 3. http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.p...
jjeaff 8y ago
Airtight logic there. Might as well go 120mph, since hitting someone will still kill them just as dead.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Ban all cars then dude. I'd be the first donator.

justinpombrio 8y ago

> I agree people are taken advantage of for things like parking tickets Remember that some speeding tickets come from cops raking in cash at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit suddenly drops by 15mph according to a sign that's hidden behind a tree. I think it's possible to call this out while also acknowledging that driving too fast is dangerous. About parking tickets: one day my office mate parked her car on the street where she always did. But when she went to leave for the day, she found a ticket on her car, and its cause: a brand new parking meter right by her car. It had been installed while she was inside. (She successfully contested the ticket.)

throwawaymath 8y ago
I'll concede that's a crappy situation, yeah. That's definitely something worth talking about as a distinction from speeding in general.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
e_proxus 8y ago
How big a percentage are "some"? If it is a problem of police corruption, it should be tackled as such, not as a sign that the ticket is too high.
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  I think the money typically goes to the city, which controls both the speed signs and (at least somewhat) where cops are stationed. So its the typical US thing where there's technically no corruption but, huh, that is a bit of a conflict of interest, isn't it? I've been in the car for 3 tickets, and I'll include one more I recently heard about from a family member. In one case, the driver took a turn on red at 2am when the streets were completely empty. In another, there was a very large and steep hill, and the driver didn't break sufficiently to not go over the speed limit. (The road was straight and the visibility was perfect.) In another, the speed limit quickly changed from 35mph to 15mph for no apparent reason. In all these cases, these drivers weren't putting anyone in danger. I don't think the cops were waiting in these spots by coincidence; I think they were trying to make money for the city. In the fourth case, the driver sped on a windy street, and totally deserved the ticket.

pmalynin 8y ago

The whole idea of speeding is bullshit. The germans have the autobahn, and as far as I know nobody really complains about the lack of a speed limit, nor people going over 120 miles an hour.

dvdhnt 8y ago
Speeding IMHO is almost never the issue, it’s careless or reckless driving, failure to obey traffic laws, and distracted driving. The idea of taking a single arbitrary driving test as a teen and never again is insane.
- nightski 8y ago
  Speeding goes against the legal and socially agreed upon limit. That, in and of itself, is reckless as it increases the difference in speed between someone operating "legally" and yourself. Now I must decide whether I care more about my life or the law. It's not a great position to be placed in because you need to arrive at your destination 30 seconds faster.
  - volkl48 8y ago
    The socially agreed upon limit, is the speed of traffic. That is after all, the speed society is driving. The legal limit often has no relation to it and no basis in science or common sense. Not to mention a failure to account for progress in vehicle development, tire technology, etc.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bopbop 8y ago
      That would only be true if the whole of society was driving and we took an average. The socially agreed upon limit is the legal limit.

gonvaled 8y ago

In Germany there is no (general) speed limit; accidents are in line with comparable countries with speed limits. I would argue that driving close to the vehicle in front ("close" being a function of speed) is much more dangerous than speed itself.

ntnn 8y ago
> In Germany there is no (general) speed limit Yes there is. The autobahn may be roughly 50% without speed limits, but every other road has speed limits. Unless otherwise indicated these are 100 km/h between villages, 50km/h in cities and villages.
turbinerneiter 8y ago
On the German _Autobahn_ there is no general speed limit. There is a speed limit of 50km/h in towns and villages, which is often dropped down to 30 in pedestrian rich areas, in front of schools and so on. There is a 100km/h speed limit on normal roads outside of settlements. These are one-lane in each direction with not separation. On the Autobahn, you have at least two lanes in each direction with separation. There is no general speed limit but there are many speed limited stretches, usually to 120km/h. These limits are on about 50% of the Autobahn. Fines for speeding are not really high, but you do get "point", so multiple violations can lead to losing your drivers license. To get a license, you take a minimum of 12 driving lessons and a theoretical course. There is theoretical test and a practical test. I think the high-quality drivers education + the safety features of cars + the mandatory inspections of the cars (yearly) help offset the safety risk of the higher speeds.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Okay, you can argue that. But: 1. I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about speeding, 2. Statistically, speeding is dangerous.

simonebrunozzi 8y ago

Most fines, including speeding tickets, are bullshit. Why? Because they are enforced in a random/chaotic way, they are unfair, and there's almost no proof that expensive tickets increase security on roads.

zaarn 8y ago
You get a speeding ticket when you drive to fast. The easy solution is not to drive over the limit. This is not hard nor is your life at risk if you do 80 in a 80 zone instead of 90 kph. (Unless it is, which is why Ambulances don't really have to adhere to traffic law where I live) Don't drive too fast and you don't get speeding tickets, problem solved, no? (There may be no proof that tickets make roads safer but appropriate speed limits do)
throwawaymath 8y ago
They’re not bullshit. If you don’t speed you can’t be penalized for speeding. Claiming it’s unfair because you were caught and penalized when so many others were not is not a substantive refutatation of the system. It is unfair, but you have total control over your culpability. Furthermore, do you have any studies supporting your claim that expensive tickets don’t reduce speeding?

jopsen 8y ago

> I'm sorry but for this particular problem I have no sympathy Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy? Everybody makes mistakes from time to time.. and research shows that higher penalties have little effect. Someone else pet peeve is people parking illegally because it blocks their drive way. Or blocks emergency vehicles...

ntnn 8y ago
> Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy? For breaking the law?
- boubiyeah 8y ago
  A 3 km/h speed over the limit is not in the same category as many other law breaks... It's become such a cash cow in Europe.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Then don't go 3km/h over? You do have a speedometer in your car, if it's not accurate you can get that fixed for cheap. I never drive over the limit according to my dashboard instruments no matter how many people behind me get angry.
    - boubiyeah 8y ago
      it's possible yes. Though sometimes the speed limit is very, very low and it gets annoying to have your eyes constantly on the speedometer.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Care to cite some of that research? I cited supporting literature for my claims elsewhere in this thread; what’s the utility of discussing research if we’re not thinking of common papers to review? And no, I categorically reject your appeal to “people make mistakes.” A speed trap is a mistake unfairly penalized. Parking under a partially hidden fire zone sign is a mistake. Speeding is a willful decision that evidences either ignorance or disregard for the impact of higher speeds and traffic disparity on mortality risk. I really don’t think calling this a “pet peeve” like when someone blocks a driveway is at all comparable.