4 ms·

> Driving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic is being predictable This is easier said than done. There's a stretch of freeway between the Bay Bridge

by gernb 4y ago

> Driving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic is being predictable This is easier said than done. There's a stretch of freeway between the Bay Bridge and Candlestick park where the speed limit is mostly 50 mph and a portion 55 mph. Nearly no one goes 50. They generally go 65-70. And yet, friends have gotten speeding tickets for going over 55. Those speeding tickets end up costing $2000-$3000 in increased car insurance over the years it takes to clear the points on your record. I wish the CHP would patrol the area and get traffic to slow down. Or add cameras and fines. Or raise the speed limit to 65 if it's safe (probably not).

josephcsible 4y ago
> Or raise the speed limit to 65 if it's safe (probably not). The safest value for a speed limit is what 85% of the drivers would do anyway. If everyone goes 65-70, then it's definitely safe for the speed limit to be raised to at least 65. This is exactly what they should do, and if they can't for some political reason, the next best thing would be to basically not enforce the speed limit at all on that road anymore.
- gernb 4y ago
  This is arguably not true. We can look at the history of traffic accidents to see that, left to their own devices, drivers will drive faster than is safe. Laws, enforcement (cameras), and better road design (best), will get drivers to slow down.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  People will speed en masse if the speed limit is set too far below a reasonably safe speed. I've seen that many times where a faster arterial gets suddenly set to 25.
moritonal 4y ago
Add cameras, but even more so add average-speed camera. They suck but are absurdly effective. They record your plate from two places and if you got there too fast it means you went over 50 and are fined.
- cge 4y ago
  I don't understand the reasons, but the use of average-speed cameras, and in fact, the entire practice of enforcing speed limits based on measuring time between two marked points on a road, is not just not used in California, but is outright illegal. This is particularly depressing, because they work amazingly well, and seem far fairer than an arbitrary (or perhaps worse, discriminatory) choice, made by a handful of police, of targets to give de facto large penalties, after extra fees and insurance are considered, for a practice that everyone is doing. With average speed cameras, you can exceed the speed limit, even significantly, for short moments when it's important to do so (eg, to avoid an accident, to pass someone safely, etc), because average, not instantaneous, speed is what matters. You can know with near certainty that you'll get a (comparatively minor, in many cases) penalty if you speed for significant periods of time. But traffic will also be going the speed limit, not 20mph faster as in California, because everyone knows this, and no one feels they won't get caught if they're just careful / friends with the police / etc. Driving in average-speed-camera-heavy parts of Europe is quite pleasant by comparison to the madness in California.
WalterBright 4y ago
I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding. Besides, I prioritize safety over the cost of a ticket. I'd fight a ticket for going with the flow. If you're resolutely driving at 55, and the flow is 65-70, causing those cars to swerve around you, you are likely to get the ticket for creating a hazardous situation.
- gernb 4y ago
  > I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding. Is a ridiculous metric. I've never been mugged in DTLA has no barring on whether or not people get mugged in DTLA You can not get a ticket for going the speed limit even if the flow is generally faster. You can easily get a ticket for going with the flow over the speed limit. A simple google will yield 1000s of results of people who've gotten one

by gernb 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> Or raise the speed limit to 65 if it's safe (probably not). The safest value for a speed limit is what 85% of the drivers would do anyway. If everyone goes 65-70, then it's definitely safe for the speed limit to be raised to at least 65. This is exactly what they should do, and if they can't for some political reason, the next best thing would be to basically not enforce the speed limit at all on that road anymore.

gernb 4y ago
This is arguably not true. We can look at the history of traffic accidents to see that, left to their own devices, drivers will drive faster than is safe. Laws, enforcement (cameras), and better road design (best), will get drivers to slow down.
WalterBright 4y ago
People will speed en masse if the speed limit is set too far below a reasonably safe speed. I've seen that many times where a faster arterial gets suddenly set to 25.

moritonal 4y ago

Add cameras, but even more so add average-speed camera. They suck but are absurdly effective. They record your plate from two places and if you got there too fast it means you went over 50 and are fined.

cge 4y ago
I don't understand the reasons, but the use of average-speed cameras, and in fact, the entire practice of enforcing speed limits based on measuring time between two marked points on a road, is not just not used in California, but is outright illegal. This is particularly depressing, because they work amazingly well, and seem far fairer than an arbitrary (or perhaps worse, discriminatory) choice, made by a handful of police, of targets to give de facto large penalties, after extra fees and insurance are considered, for a practice that everyone is doing. With average speed cameras, you can exceed the speed limit, even significantly, for short moments when it's important to do so (eg, to avoid an accident, to pass someone safely, etc), because average, not instantaneous, speed is what matters. You can know with near certainty that you'll get a (comparatively minor, in many cases) penalty if you speed for significant periods of time. But traffic will also be going the speed limit, not 20mph faster as in California, because everyone knows this, and no one feels they won't get caught if they're just careful / friends with the police / etc. Driving in average-speed-camera-heavy parts of Europe is quite pleasant by comparison to the madness in California.

WalterBright 4y ago

I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding. Besides, I prioritize safety over the cost of a ticket. I'd fight a ticket for going with the flow. If you're resolutely driving at 55, and the flow is 65-70, causing those cars to swerve around you, you are likely to get the ticket for creating a hazardous situation.

gernb 4y ago
> I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding. Is a ridiculous metric. I've never been mugged in DTLA has no barring on whether or not people get mugged in DTLA You can not get a ticket for going the speed limit even if the flow is generally faster. You can easily get a ticket for going with the flow over the speed limit. A simple google will yield 1000s of results of people who've gotten one