3 ms·

Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines result in people driving better. It's not that pe

Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines result in people driving better. It's not that people can't drive, it's just that they don't care to drive well, but they will drive well if the enforcement is frequent and heavy enough.

HPsquared 5y ago
Driving is all about risk management. Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even things like fuel consumption. Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal.
- trgn 5y ago
  > the risk of accidents with the costs are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond me. Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is trashy.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit when driving through the desert doesn't endanger pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is sufficient?)
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      How many miles are driven through the literal desert compared to where people are around? If anything, the speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local conditions, but not base the default rules on that exception.
sidewndr46 5y ago
Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car left parked and running with keys in the ignition. There are some states where it was found illegal to have someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15 mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race track, but on the street.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out-of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions which are mainly used as a revenue stream.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic flows at that spees
colinmhayes 5y ago
How are you defining better? Because personally I find taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is better than always stopping, even if it's not legal.
- orwin 5y ago
  I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at this very intersection (even if its a new road that had not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even with a car doing a full stop in front of you. In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop.

HPsquared 5y ago

Driving is all about risk management. Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even things like fuel consumption. Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal.

trgn 5y ago
> the risk of accidents with the costs are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond me. Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is trashy.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit when driving through the desert doesn't endanger pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is sufficient?)
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    How many miles are driven through the literal desert compared to where people are around? If anything, the speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local conditions, but not base the default rules on that exception.

sidewndr46 5y ago

Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car left parked and running with keys in the ignition. There are some states where it was found illegal to have someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15 mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race track, but on the street.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out-of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions which are mainly used as a revenue stream.
rdtwo 5y ago
Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic flows at that spees

colinmhayes 5y ago

How are you defining better? Because personally I find taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is better than always stopping, even if it's not legal.

orwin 5y ago
I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at this very intersection (even if its a new road that had not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even with a car doing a full stop in front of you. In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop.