> "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in iso

> "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in isolation. The only times it's "safe" to speed is: 1. To keep up with other traffic. You're unlikely to get a ticket in this scenario, and by following the speed limit you would be making the situation more dangerous. 2. On an open country road, with little other traffic. You're also unlikely to get a ticket here, because of how few patrols would be around - but be aware of deer. Otherwise speeding will necessary involve weaving in and out of lanes, sudden braking, and following other cars too closely. > I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws I don't consider it paranoid or cynical. I'm aware of the yellow light issue and it's a terribly shortsighted thing for cities to have done. But none of this has to do with where we originally started talking: should fines be based on ability to pay? > they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), If it's easy to measure, it's also easy to follow. Do we want more ambiguous laws that can be even more selectively enforced? > and make laws that most people will break That's something to lobby against then. Having a law that no one follows reduces respect for other laws.