14 ms·

One time (early 2000s) my dad was driving across a remote and desolate stretch of Utah, on a motorcycle, doing speeds well into the 3 digit miles per hour. App

• 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  The ticket didn't even pay for the helicopter fuel and the cost of manpower, while zero people were non consensually endangered. How could we rephrase speeding laws so they make sense, instead of this black and white stupidity ?
  • bell-cot 4y ago
    In a country where the first responders, hospitals, etc. are obligated to provide expensive services and care for victims of motor vehicle accidents - regardless of their ability to pay - there is the moral and public policy issue of "My high-speed fun, somebody else's high taxes and medical bills".
    • tristor 4y ago
      Yet, all the research seems to indicate that speeding reduces the occurrence of accidents, it just increases their severity when they do occur (more fatalities). The primary cause of accidents is inattentiveness (usually someone on their phone) and after that alcohol-related accidents. Speeding is not a primary cause, only a proximate cause of the accident, something else caused the accident, speed is only blamed because it exacerbates the result.
      • bell-cot 4y ago
        I'd guess that the research you mention was focused on fairly narrow ranges of speed, road conditions, speeds of the other motorists, etc. Vs. user everly related that his father was doing well over 100MPH. Even ignoring all other factors, the duration of inattentiveness needed to cause an accident, at extreme speeds, is far lower than at legal speeds.
        • FireBeyond 4y ago
          Apropos of anything else, in many parts of the US, doing that speed, particularly on a motorbike, is almost reckless even for the sole reason of ... have you seen our infrastructure budgets? We're not known for our high quality roads. A single pothole at those speeds is launching you over the handlebars.
  • brenns10 4y ago
    There's no alternative here. You're asking for a law where a driver gets to interpret the situation and decide whether a traffic law should apply to them or not. That's just unenforceable, imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed. Plus, most drivers think they're a better and safer driver than they really are. Do you really trust them to correctly assess the risk, not just to themselves but to others? I certainly don't. These rules have to be black and white! Do triple digit (mph) speeds on a highway? Get an expensive ticket, even if the highway wasn't busy.
    • brookst 4y ago
      All of that, plus discretionary enforcement is incredibly conducive to all of the bad -isms.
      • dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        The current reality we live in where pretty much all traffic is technically speeding unless there's something preventing it (weather, congestion, whatever) has no less discretionary enforcement than ye olden days where there were no nominal speed limits on many stretches of rural highway.
        • brookst 4y ago
          It’s worse today because there is always a law you are violating. Cops often decide who to stop first, and then what the reason was. At least in the olden days it was a subjective matter and acknowledged as such. Today we have objective laws that we all objectively break, and discretionary enforcement.
    • ElevenLathe 4y ago
      > imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed. Why is this dystopian? It's literally the point of courts to apply judgment.
      • 4y ago
  • curiousgibbon 4y ago
    In other countries there are fixed cameras, which can even be programmed to have some grey area (do they trip at x+2, 1.1x, ...?). These can probably pay for themselves and then some if placed correctly. They're conspicuously absent from the US.
    • idkyall 4y ago
      There are still traffic ticket cameras in some parts of the US(Washington DC), but in many places they are challenged legally: e.g. https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2020/04/08/ask-2-why-did-texas-outlaw-red-light-cameras-when-red-light-running-is-rampant-and-increasing/ https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2020/04/08/ask-2-wh...
      • michaelmior 4y ago
        Specifically, here's a list of areas that implement some form of automated traffic law enforcement. However, many of these may simply be red light cameras. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-camera-communities https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-camera-communities
    • lostlogin 4y ago
      They are like that here in New Zealand, though the grey zone is going away slowly but surely. There is also a new evil on the horizon, average speed cameras. Snap a photo at point A on a long road and see how long it takes to get to point B. If too quick, it generates a ticket. The UK ha them.
      • ivanvanderbyl 4y ago
        We now have avg speed cameras in Australia on most long distance freeways.
      • Tade0 4y ago
        Quite a few other European countries as well. It's popular in Italy and the difference in speeds on highways that have it compared to those that don't is significant. Personally I like average speed cameras. Everyone is going roughly the same speed, so there's much less tailgating. You definitely don't have people zipping past you going 200km/h+ when you're trying to overtake a truck limited to 80km/h.
  • schneems 4y ago
    I think having fines be a major funding source distracts from the purpose of the enforcement. They’re supposed to be there for public safety, not for making sure there’s a Christmas bonus. There are countries where traffic fines are based as a percent of salary rather than flat rates. That way the rich are equally incentivized to obey the laws. That being said I’ve always felt frustrated by speeding tickets. Everyone goes 5-10 over the limit at all times so it makes a system where cops can basically pull over everyone and give them a ticket at will. It seems like if it’s a limit, it should be an actual sensible number and be an actual limit. Instead of this kafkaesque system where everyone can be deemed guilty at will. Likewise I feel other behaviors like tailgating and aggressive driving aren’t enforced and (imho) cause more accidents.
    • cardy31 4y ago
      Speed limits are 100% political. They aren’t based on engineering. You always have cops saying “speed was a factor in this collision” and “everyone just needs to slow down to be safe.” But the reality is that accidents don’t happen from high speed, they happen from a high standard deviation among speed of individual cars on the road. Having a speed limit well below what the road can safely be driven at creates that high standard deviation as some people drive to the road while others drive to the limit. The collective insanity that we as a society have around setting sensible maximum speeds for roads is one of my bigggest pet peeves.
      • sirbranedamuj 4y ago
        > a high standard deviation among speed of individual cars on the road so in a world without speed limits, people can individually decide what speed a road "feels like". in a world with speed limits, people can still do that but there's a sign stating a preferred speed for the road and an (admittedly flawed) enforcement mechanism. I really can't fathom how the former leads to less "deviation" than the latter.
        • anshorei 4y ago
          not agreeing with post you responded to, but you're misrepresenting them. my understanding of the post is that he proposes speed limits should not be set so low as to increase the deviation between people following the speed limit and following their intuition i.e. they should approach average intuitive speed of the drivers using the road.
  • xtiansimon 4y ago
    I guess they were spending the fuel cost and heli from a different budget?
  • ceejayoz 4y ago
    > The ticket didn't even pay for the helicopter fuel and the cost of manpower, while zero people were non consensually endangered. We don't decide to prosecute people based on profitability, thankfully.
    • buran77 4y ago
      I think the more objectionable part of the comment is the assessment that nobody was endangered because the accident didn't materialize. "Empty road" is a mitigating circumstance, which is probably why the officer was nice. But it's certainly not a guarantee, the potential danger was there and the law was applied. The law aims to discourage the behavior because someone who's riding a motorcycle at well over 100mph on a "remote and desolate" public road is likely to start riding too fast on less desolate roads too.
      • bluefirebrand 4y ago
        > The law aims to discourage the behavior because someone who's riding a motorcycle at well over 100mph on a "remote and desolate" public road is likely to start riding too fast on less desolate roads too This doesn't track at all. Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Driving very fast in a more or less straight line is not very dangerous, especially when no other cars are around.
        • buran77 4y ago
          > Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Don't defend a point by plucking figures out of thin air and applying your subjective interpretation as a conclusion. Here we're not talking "everyone goes 5 over the limit" but rather double the limit. I've also heard "everyone drinks and drives" being used to justify the same kind of recklessness. But "everyone" might have half a watered down beer. Some will have a whole bottle of hard liquor. "But it's fine, at this hour the roads are empty". > especially when no other cars are around. Until there are. This is quite literally how accidents happen, people get used to following their own rules, based on assumed numbers and their safety, and it works a lot of times until it doesn't. Nobody goes out and says "today I want to speed until I kill a family of 5". They just go out and do what they always do, go past any limit, because it worked so far. But this is not Schrodinger's cat, to assume that all behavior is the same until someone gets hurt and only then can we classify it as dangerous. And finally remember that ideally a government would also try to protect you from your own recklessness because otherwise they either lose a member of society (you die) or they gain a weight around its neck (you live to be a burden).
  • lamontcg 4y ago
    > while zero people were non consensually endangered. because someone is still going to have to scrape your remains off the road after the guardrail you hit decapitated you and degloved your face.
  • this_steve_j 4y ago
    It’s possible this expensive operation ensnares not just the ”innocent” risky drivers but a number of even more dangerous criminals who are driving like they stole it because they actually did steal it or worse. Affirmative consent from other drivers using the road, pedestrians/cyclists in the roadway, and passengers and children in the car isn’t always practical for each episode of risky driving behavior. It’s probably enjoyable for some folks, but driving like Vin Diesel (even in the desert) makes me feel selfish and negligent which harshes on my buzz. Therefore it’s not a wise use of my resources. It cost a lot to make that air/land traffic stop, so I think the fine is probably a bargain!
  • mbrameld 4y ago
    > How could we rephrase speeding laws so they make sense, instead of this black and white stupidity ? Ironic considering the lack of nuance in your first sentence. You seem to think that if the guy had wrecked his bike because he was speeding that he would just blink out of existence with no cost to society at all. Do you really think that the only negative externality from speeding is a risk of physically harming somebody? Or are you saying that preventing physical harm to others is the only reason for laws to exist?
    • bobbean 4y ago
      Always gotta remember the people who have to scrape your body off the ground don't work for free
    • 4gotunameagain 4y ago
      So we should stop doing any activity that puts us in harm's way ? Hiking ? Hiking rescue costs are crazy. Not allowed to go in nature, you get a fine. Any high intensity physical activity where you could hurt yourself ? Basketball, martial arts, all banned ? What is this, the tyranny of the overcautious couch potato ? :)
  • 62951413 4y ago
    Mostly abolish them and make the guilty party in an accident cover everyone's expenses. In severe cases suspend their DL for a decade. People have those things called common sense, tradition, individual responsibility, and experience. We should rely on them much more. We all know that in CA you drive at the speed limit +5. +10 is actually fine too frequently outside HWY 1 so to speak. Once in a while I see people doing what looks like 85 mph and I question their judgement. But if they stay in the same lane I'm OK with it. The really dangerous things to be punished for are suddenly crossing 4 lanes for an exit and driving in the left lane slower than the car right behind you.
• glitcher 4y ago
  I have also received a speeding ticket clocked by aircraft, driving across a long empty stretch of highway in the daytime with perfect weather and visibility. I was going 20 mph over the posted limit, nothing outrageous or daredevil-ish about it, simply trying to make better time on a very long road trip. I understand this is primarily a revenue stream for law enforcement, but as far as my situation may have affected public safety (the spirit of the law, not the letter), I call BS.
  • Scoundreller 4y ago
    No chance the ticket revenue from that operation covered its costs. It’s an excuse to air out the toys, not a revenue stream.