9 ms·

I am all for raising the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than what is safe, but I have an issue with the way the article blames drivers who drive at the

I am all for raising the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than what is safe, but I have an issue with the way the article blames drivers who drive at the speed limit for the delta in speeds. If we all need to agree on a speed to drive, why not choose the one that we can drive at without risking being pulled over and ticketed?

ronsor 7y ago
"It's too slow"
wolrah 7y ago
Because a road has a natural speed, and that's what most people will drive at when they're not actively thinking about it. If the speed limit is below that natural speed, you end up with most drivers going faster while the few follow the absurd rule.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The problem is that the "natural speed" for a road is based on a human brain's subconscious calculation. And the human brain is very bad at doing that for any speed faster than a good runner can go.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Actually the human brain is good at finding the natural speed. Many roads have a natural speed that is higher than the safe speed and this is a problem. When the road itself says drive some speed the human brain is not good at reading that the road is tricking it and the safe speed is slower. The above is a failure of engineering. It has been well studied in academics, but few actually account for it.
- robrtsql 7y ago
  Is it absurd to not want to get pulled over? I'm not arguing against raising the speed limit to the natural speed. I'm against blaming (and tailgating and generally harassing) drivers who are following the speed limit because they don't want to have to pay a fine. It seems like the blame is misplaced.
falcolas 7y ago
> why not choose the one that we can drive at without risking being pulled over and ticketed? Usually because the perceived (and even the actual) danger of driving at higher speeds is minimal. A great example that I've seen is an access-controlled highway built to modern safety standards limited to 55mph, when the highway is designed to safely support upwards of 80mph. More, increased speeds increase the carrying capacity of a highway; that is, more cars can utilize the highway in a given time period - like rush hour.
- fwip 7y ago
  I'd be curious to see how much increased speeds increase capacity if people actually maintained a safe following distance. The rule of thumb is to stay ~2 seconds behind the car in front, which means the distance obviously increases linearly with speed. If you're 75 feet back at 30mph, you should be 150ft back at 60mph.
  - lodi 7y ago
    Actually the time-to-0 increases linearly with speed, but the distance required increases quadratically with speed. If you're 75 feet back at 30mph (this seems overly cautious?), you should be 300 feet back at 60mph. Basically to go from 60-55, 55-50, etc. takes the same amount of time, but you're traveling faster and therefore covering more distance throughout the course of the former intervals than the latter ones.
mjevans 7y ago
The ticket isn't actually one for traffic safety, even though that's what they'll call it. If it were actually unsafe you'd expect far more crashes based on how often everyone drives "over the speed limit". The reality is that "being tough on crime" and "doing something" are political points, and the use of a ticket system generates revenue. If it were law that all funds related to minor traffic infractions had to be donated to charity (without counting for taxes) you'd see a MAJOR decrease in enforcement.

ronsor 7y ago

"It's too slow"

wolrah 7y ago

Because a road has a natural speed, and that's what most people will drive at when they're not actively thinking about it. If the speed limit is below that natural speed, you end up with most drivers going faster while the few follow the absurd rule.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
The problem is that the "natural speed" for a road is based on a human brain's subconscious calculation. And the human brain is very bad at doing that for any speed faster than a good runner can go.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Actually the human brain is good at finding the natural speed. Many roads have a natural speed that is higher than the safe speed and this is a problem. When the road itself says drive some speed the human brain is not good at reading that the road is tricking it and the safe speed is slower. The above is a failure of engineering. It has been well studied in academics, but few actually account for it.
robrtsql 7y ago
Is it absurd to not want to get pulled over? I'm not arguing against raising the speed limit to the natural speed. I'm against blaming (and tailgating and generally harassing) drivers who are following the speed limit because they don't want to have to pay a fine. It seems like the blame is misplaced.

falcolas 7y ago

> why not choose the one that we can drive at without risking being pulled over and ticketed? Usually because the perceived (and even the actual) danger of driving at higher speeds is minimal. A great example that I've seen is an access-controlled highway built to modern safety standards limited to 55mph, when the highway is designed to safely support upwards of 80mph. More, increased speeds increase the carrying capacity of a highway; that is, more cars can utilize the highway in a given time period - like rush hour.

fwip 7y ago
I'd be curious to see how much increased speeds increase capacity if people actually maintained a safe following distance. The rule of thumb is to stay ~2 seconds behind the car in front, which means the distance obviously increases linearly with speed. If you're 75 feet back at 30mph, you should be 150ft back at 60mph.
- lodi 7y ago
  Actually the time-to-0 increases linearly with speed, but the distance required increases quadratically with speed. If you're 75 feet back at 30mph (this seems overly cautious?), you should be 300 feet back at 60mph. Basically to go from 60-55, 55-50, etc. takes the same amount of time, but you're traveling faster and therefore covering more distance throughout the course of the former intervals than the latter ones.

mjevans 7y ago

The ticket isn't actually one for traffic safety, even though that's what they'll call it. If it were actually unsafe you'd expect far more crashes based on how often everyone drives "over the speed limit". The reality is that "being tough on crime" and "doing something" are political points, and the use of a ticket system generates revenue. If it were law that all funds related to minor traffic infractions had to be donated to charity (without counting for taxes) you'd see a MAJOR decrease in enforcement.