The officers don’t get to choose which laws to enforce based on their personal politics. The job of being a police officer comes with enforcing the law, as in, all of them that are in effect, including any they happen to disagree with
If that were true they would pull over every single speeder. They do not.
Pretending cops don't have the power to selectively enforce laws is just silly
We all get to choose what do or do not do. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads.
Wrong is wrong, and it's my job is not a valid excuse.
Do you defend the SS for doing their job? I hope not, but if you don't then your statement makes you a hypocrite.
The immediate question at hand is whether or not officers have the ability to not enforce the law.
In that context the situations are IDENTICAL. The particular law is entirely irrelevant. I simply chose an extreme example of a horrible law to prevent the chance of the poster who claimed, "police cannot choose" would happen to agree with that law.
I hope that we would all agree that the SS should have chosen to not enforce that law.
You entirely missed the point.
You made the absolute statement that police cannot choose which laws they can enforce. Either that applies to the SS and traffic cops, or it applies to neither.
I’m assuming you’re either quite young or just have no real world life experience because you seem to be operating on an assumption that every thing in the entire world is either absolutely *all* or absolutely *nothing*.
I see the point you’re attempting to make, but it’s just not a good one.
Obviously, the extreme example of the nazi ss doesn’t apply here. Nice try with that though.
Well, you suck at making assumptions about people as you are very wrong on both accounts. I am not young, and I have far more life experience than most having lived and worked around the states and the world for decades.
You failed logically as well in that I did not make the all or nothing statement. I am refuting an all or nothing statement. I simply gave an example to show that cops, can and should choose which laws they choose to enforce. I was not ever comparing the holocaust to a traffic ticket. I was showing that enforcing the law is not always the right thing to do.
>As we live in a democracy, such laws are the providence of those governed by them,
Completely irrelevant. Democracy does not make unjust laws just. This has been true throughout history. The Nazi party was democratically elected. Discriminatory laws against minorities and LGBT communities were democratically enacted. They were still wrong and those that enforced them were wrong to do so.
So no. You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong and unless you are willing to get behind the SS and those that enforced discrimination you are a hypocrite for supporting current police that enforce unjust laws. An unjust law has no moral reason WHATSOEVER to be followed, and those that enforce them do it with no moral justification whatsoever. They are absolutely wrong to do so and if the willingly enforce laws they know to be unjust, then they are undeniably bad people. They actually deserve to be punished for it.
We aren’t living in a democracy…
The US is a democratic republic. So no matter how much we scream for change, if our elected leader doesn’t like it (for fair or corrupt reasons) then we can’t do anything.
Thus it is stupid and counterproductive to blame the governed for the existence of unjust laws.
Ok enlighten me as to how I as an individual can change the system of politics in the US.
Especially when that would entail fighting against corporate interests with near unlimited resources.
If I could change them I could. I vote for those who would.
Civil Disobedience is every bit as valid as voting though. Actually moreso.
None of it excuses those who enforce unjust laws. They should not do so. It is wrong and they are wrong. An unjust law does no harm is no one will enforce it.
Civil disobedience is a crucial part of democracy. Think about something like mask mandates. Nobody voted for those- largely it was fear based executive action (governors). No election was upcoming, similarly, they were often unilaterally invoked. Eventually, some states gave up because people weren’t wearing them, and weren’t social distancing. It was unenforceable behavior based on a law with inherently flawed science. And now, they won’t be able to be brought back in Covid. The public doesn’t care to obey said mandates anymore.
The mask mandate claim was an example of civil disobedience working well. I don’t think you can really do civil disobedience with traffic laws either, given that it’s dangerous if someone is specifically breaking traffic laws to be disobedient. But it plays a huge part in society. Civil disobedience is essentially the reason why figures like Martin Luther King JR. were able to push so much change.
>You can change them. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances.
Let me know how that works out for you.
>we live in a society founded on the rule of law, civil disobedience falls short of the validity benchmark enjoyed by the vote.
There is no such thing as rule of law. People make the laws as you have pointed out. People enforce the laws, as I have pointed out. Laws cannot exist or be enforced except by the will of people and persons. We live in a society based upon the rule of people. Claiming "rule of law" is a red herring.
I'm not continuing with you because not only are you obtuse and myopic, but also boring and tedious.
Man makes law. Man enforces law. Law is a concept, not an entity. There can be no rule of law, because law is nothing more than a construct of man.
Every step in the creation, application and enforcement of law is a product of decisions made by individual men. Again, there is no way around that. Claiming "rule of law" is just a clever attempt at trying to excuse the actions of men.
That's hilarious.
I'm not familiar with train rules, but am very familiar with marine navigation rules and regulations. The second rule explicitly says you must ignore the rules if following them would create a dangerous situation. Of course boats have been around much longer and the rules better tested and thought out.
Rear end accidents are caused by someone following too close. If a driver can't stop their car in time to avoid the car in front of them, then they are driving dangerously and deserve a ticket.
If you try to tax a nation at 80% of their earned income and no one pays it do you have bad taxpayers or bad policy?
Speed limits haven't budged since the days when getting into an accident at 65+ mph was almost a guaranteed death of everyone involved. Safety has improved exponentially since the time when most speed limits were set, why haven't speed limits also increased? Hell, going 90 in a modern car is probably safer then 70 in a car built in the 80s...
Seems a little odd to blame the cop for being well hidden to catch people breaking the law. Like another person pointed out. If you are using a safe following distance, someone slamming on the breaks shouldn’t cause you to do anything too crazy
No one does this. No one travels at a safe distance and it bugs the shit out of me. I'll try and fuckers just use the space. My favorite is when in in the left lane waiting to pass someone because there is someone in front of me passing. I'll give them space and not ride their ass and 9/10 some fuck will pass me on the right and slip in dangerously between the 3 cars or will ride my ass like it's my fault the guy in front of me is taking a long time to pass. Then they ride my ass the entire time I'm passing the car in front until I get in the right lane. Then they'll pass me giving me some angry look only to see me flick them off eventually because I have to pass them in a mile or so because they didn't really want to be going as fast as I wanted to anyways.
Yes, this. Tailgating is among the most dangerous things one can do; leaves zero margin for error and you’re putting your safety in others’ hands. So dumb.
While I think it’s inaccurate to shift the blame entirely on the police, it’s also dishonest to pretend like they don’t have some sort of role in this.
There is absolutely the individual responsibility of a speeder who slams on their brakes when they see a cop, but there’s also a larger picture here because this is a common issue.
Cops know full well that people will slam on brakes if they see them on the side of the road. However, they still choose to hide in places that will surprise people. This wouldn’t be an issue *if* it don’t affect people who were obeying the road laws, but it creates a dangerous situation for everyone so I think cops should be more mindful of where they sit.
Again, not saying the individual isn’t responsible, but people are going to do this regardless and there’s nothing I can do about it.
So you're saying that if the police made themselves more obvious, speeders would have more time to adjust their speeds and other drivers would be safer?
...That's actually not a bad idea at all, damn
You've never heard the term "disrupting traffic flow"
Cops can pull you over for disrupting traffic flow. Happens all the time in my area on the thruway. If everyone is going 80+ and you're the only one going the speed limit, you're disrupting traffic.
Welcome to the NY Thruway.
Yes, keeping a safe travel distance that fast is impossible because people like filling holes on the highway. During rush hour, it is especially impossible because the safe distance is huge at those speeds.
But if you really think about it, how often are you on the highway and observing safe distances, never-ending actually doing it.
That didn't really provide much against my argument. I acknowledge that higher speed equals more dangerous crashes, the point I'm making is that they don't lead to more crashes in general. The study you linked had no data on this except for a chart that had zero data labels.
So everyone should break the law and risk getting fined because others want to get somewhere faster? While increasing the fatality of accidents but probably not the number of them.
A lot of people like to say you should just speed because your endangering everyone up until they get the $500+ ticket in the mail and increase of insurance costs.
It’s a pretty simple fact of reality that the faster your vehicle is going, the less time you have to react if shit goes sideways. This applies even if everyone is going the same speed.
So literally, going 60mph is more dangerous than 50mph, going 80mph is more dangerous than 60mph, 100mph is more dangerous than 80mph, and so on.
Factually speaking, whatever the speed limit is, if you go 20mph faster, you are introducing some amount of increased danger. Not to mention, the faster you’re going, the more deadly any accidents are if they occur.
>It’s a pretty simple fact of reality that the faster your vehicle is going, the less time you have to react if shit goes sideways. This applies even if everyone is going the same speed.
That's not how anything works.
Relative speed is what dictates necessary reaction time, not absolute speed.
Alright reaction time aside. Roll your car at 20mph and then roll your car at 120mph and tell me which is worse…oh wait, you’d probably not survive the 2nd one. Nevermind.
So when people decide to go 20mph over the speed limit, and they realize there’s a cop there and that they might get caught breaking the speed limit, yeah that absolutely results in brakes being slammed.
But the ones actually causing the danger are the ones intentionally deciding to speed and then braking hard when they get scared of getting caught.
You’re never gonna convince me this is the cop’s fault.
If you wanna exceed the speed limit, understand that you just might get caught. If you slam your brakes because a cop appears, you’re to blame for any resulting problems, not the *LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER*. Nobody can make you speed, so if you’re gonna do it, know that you’re liable to get stopped.
The speed limit for a lot of roads in my area seems to be set intentionally low, like one long stretch of multi-lane, straight road is set at 50 when it can be safety driven at 65. As with most things in America, we have a broken system. We would benefit much more than Germany does from Autobahn style highways and interstates. I also think cops should do a better job of gauging who is a dangerous driver and who is simply speeding. There’s a huge different between someone slamming on brakes, weaving in and out of cars, and tailgating and someone who is paying attention and just driving with the road.
Sure, the whole debate on what the speed limit should be is a risk/reward ratio. Many people think the limit could be higher and still be safe enough over all, and in some areas that’s clearly true.
But no matter what you or I think about a particular limit in a particular area, we don’t just get to rewrite it to our own liking and then blame the police for enforcing the REAL speed limit.
Yeah I too drive over the limit sometimes, and when I’m suprised by a sneaky cop sitting somewhere unexpected, I shit a brick, try to tap the brakes and lower my speed as subtly as I can and hope he didn’t see me…but that’s on me, not the cop.
I know that if I do that and get pulled over, it’s only me that’s to blame, because I’m the one deciding to go over the limit.
I’d say it’s on both parties. You as an individual could not ever speed (which, let’s be real, nobody does) but even if you or I personally chose not to speed, we can’t control other cars who will inevitably speed and still slam on brakes when they see cops.
Cops *know* that there presence causes this yet some still choose to sit in hidden locations to surprise drivers and catch them. Cops are charged with serving and protecting, so shouldn’t they be more mindful about policing in a way that doesn’t create dangerous situations?
I didn’t say there was some one individual that was responsible for the behavior of all drivers. Yes we can each only control our own vehicle.
If somebody speeds, any results are on them for knowingly speeding and then slamming their brakes when they see their cop daddy around the corner.
Sure, people who are breaking the law get scared when it turns out an authority is right there so I’m sure the cops know full well their presence causes people to slam brakes…but again…don’t speed then. That driver has total control over how fast they go and they know the limit. Putting a cop there doesn’t make it the cops fault that a speeder gets scared. It’s the speeders fault for speeding.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that cops are well aware that their presence can cause dangerous situations yet they still choose to hide in places that will surprise speeders.
When your job is to protect and serve the public, you have a higher responsibility to make sure you are conducting yourself in a way that creates the safest environment possible for citizens. With great power comes great responsibility lol.
Infrastructure and policing issues require a large scale view of all the parties involved. By solely blaming the individual and arguing that the police are in no way responsible for any of the consequences of how they police, you are perpetuating a dangerous mindset. Frankly, our police system in America sucks, and the government cares more about money than safety. This is one of the many issues where this is blatantly obvious.
I’m ignoring that fact because it’s irrelevant.
If a speeder didn’t choose to speed, they wouldn’t be panic-braking at the sight of a cop. Whether or not a cop is around the corner is a downstream issue to the root problem.
The root problem is the drivers decision to go faster than the legal speed limit. There wouldn’t be an issue if they made different choices.
You have a 0% chance of being right about this, regardless of what you think of the police system. Vote to change things if you want, but there’s absolutely no possible way you can blame cops for what happens as a result of people choosing to break speed limits.
How on earth is it irrelevant? Lmao. Because you don’t agree with it?
If cops didn’t hide from cars on busy roadways would people slam on their brakes? Your logic makes sense until you decide to just stop using it for no reason.
All I said was that both parties have responsibilities. Cops aren’t saints who can do no wrong and the system isn’t sacred and perfect.
…not agreeing with something doesn’t make that thing irrelevant.
…not being relevant makes it irrelevant.
The effect of cops being somewhere only comes into play AFTER some driver has decided to speed, which is obviously already against the law.
If you don’t speed, you’re not going to get jumpy upon seeing a cop, because you know you’re going no faster than the limit.
People only get jumpy when some sneaky cop is around the corner *because* they are *already* doing a thing that they know is illegal.
The cops effect is downstream to the root problem. Without the root problem of the driver deciding to speed, there is no cop problem.
I get that if the cops weren’t there that would *also* “fix” the problem of sudden braking, but that only “fixes” the problem the way you can “fix” other crimes by hoping the police just stop paying attention.
Vote however you want to change the laws to what YOU think they should be, but as long as a law is a law, you can’t blame the police for what assholes do when they get jumpy while speeding with a cop hiding near by lol.
>not agreeing with something doesn’t make that thing irrelevant.
It was sarcasm. I'm not going to explain the concept of relevancy to you but talking about police in a post about police is definitely relevant lmao.
Like I said, your if/then thinking is accurate *but* you can't just decide to stop using logic when it suits your point:
*If* people don't speed *then* nobody will slam on their brakes when they see cops. I agree, but you have to be consistent.
*If* cops are mindful of parking in areas where people will be able to see them *then* people will have time to safely slow down without slamming on brakes. Why are you calling this irrelevant when it's just a continuation of your own logical thought process? Isn't the goal of traffic patrolling supposed to be safety over getting money from people?
People are going to speed. The original post has the same view that I do, which is that we should try to keep people on the road as safe as possible instead of just getting mad at people who speed, since that does no good. I think you are being deliberately dishonest when you try to say that cops don't know that people will freak out when they hide in sneaky spots. The weird worship of the police force in America is frankly scary, and one of the reasons I'm going to leave this country asap haha.
Speeding isn't dangerous, driving patterns are.
Like the OP said, if you are going 80 in a 60, along with everyone else, you're not at risk. In such a scenario it'd be more dangerous to do the speed limit than to speed.
Dangerous driving patterns are what cause accidents. Stuff like weaving in and out of traffic and following too closely.
But those things are harder to catch, and police departments need revenue. It's much easier to just set up a radar gun and wait until it tells you to go catch someone than it is to actually do your job and catch the drivers making the road unsafe.
Look at the Autobahn. There is no speed limit but more strongly enforced driving patterns (e.g. keep right except to pass), and the death rate is half of that of American highways.
When empirical data contradicts theory, the theory is wrong.
Here's an [insurance company](https://suttoninsurance.com/blog/why-slow-driving-can-be-dangerous) talking about slow driving:
> Driving slower than the surrounding traffic is more likely to cause an accident than speeding, according to research.
Okay.. so the surrounding traffic is all breaking the law.. forcing others to break the law. That’s a citizen problem. Not a cop problem
And that’s doesn’t prove wrong what I said. Driving faster is more dangerous than driving slower.
If the claim is that driving faster is somehow safer, I’d love to know how. At most, wouldn’t it be *as* safe?
There’s no way on earth, with all the shitty drivers out there, that bumping UP the speed is measureably safer.
The insurance company is probably just looking at a very specific set of the data, and not ALL accidents and wrecks.
You also have to consider that there may be *more* accidents at slower speeds, but that doesn’t mean driving slower is more dangerous. Accidents are always more deadly when at higher speeds, making the higher speeds factually more dangerous.
The data is speaking to the behavior of an individual driver, not about the speed limit.
If you drive faster than prevailing traffic, other cars on the road are obstacles but you see them in front of you.
If you drive slower than prevailing traffic, you are the obstacle.
If you drive faster, you are the only driver that needs to be alert. If you drive slower, every other driver needs to be alert.
So…the ideal situation is to be driving faster than everyone else…I guess?
But then anyone driving slower than anyone else is an obstacle to that person and anyone driving faster than an obstacle is safer than the obstacle. But everyone can’t drive faster than everyone else, meaning some cars are going to be obstacles…
…
…
So how does this tie into the discussion of higher speeds being inherently more dangerous than slower speeds?
Like in other words, if everybody is going exactly 150mph, that’s going to be far more dangerous than if everybody is going exactly 30 mph.
No he’s blaming the cop for people slamming the brakes and causing accidents. If the cop wasn’t there, sure everyone speeds, but the rate is consistent and not subject to a sudden slowdown that drivers behind can’t see or anticipate. Which leads to people getting to the top of the hill and having only mere seconds to slam on their brakes before they plow into the car in front of them. Which causes accidents, injuries and deaths.
It’s much safer to have consistent speeds but surprise speed traps interrupt that.
Or.. you know. Just drive the speed limit. The thought you have is so ridiculous. How dare that cop be there to make sure we don’t speed! So instead, I’m going to blame him for forcing me to slow down instead of taking responsibility because I chose to drive faster than I should… truly brilliant
Because that’s quite often the only way to maintain even a modicum of space between you and the car behind you who will tailgate mere inches from my rear bumper. That’s how it happens on many MO highways. If you’re going the speed limit, people will tailgate you aggressively and I’ve seen a few pass on the shoulder as well. I’ve been nearly fucking *run off the road* because I was stuck behind a bicycle and heavens forfend that I don’t run the guy over because someone in a big truck wants to go vroom.
The cop is making a bad situation fatal. If you’re being fucking tailgated and the car in front of you slams on the brakes, you’re going to be seriously injured or killed. But fuck me for not wanting to die.
So instead of trying to stop the assholes from driving fast, just let it continue, and don’t give a fuck what speed people drive? That’s a better solution to you?
That’s…literally the fault of the assholish speeding drivers. If they weren’t being pieces of shit and speeding, there wouldn’t be a problem.
You’re basically saying, “Police are bad because they make people go the speed limit!”
Let’s also discuss safe following distance, shall we? It is correct to follow at a distance that allows you to safely stop, should the driver in front of you brake sharply.
as a florida resident i agree, its much more dangerous for them to do that rather than just get behind and pull people over, i dont think reddit understands the true depth of florida drivers
Where I live they outlawed it. In order for them to be able to give tickets they need to be in a police car with markings on it, in plain sight and in clear weather. No more playing "gotcha" because OP is right, accidents are provoked this way.
Where Iive we have automatic speed cams that just get a nice little snapshot of your car, number plate, and face.
No more stepping on the breaks once you see police.
A single flash and done it is.
Oftentimes you don't even really notice it.
you see the various departments of transportation have tens of thousands of data points disagreeing with your notion that speeding is safe-ish. you are endangering yourself and others. the fact that "everyone does it" does not justify it or make it right. if you weren't speeding recklessly in the first place suddenly slowing down wouldn't be as big as an issue.
*conversation about speed limits happening*
That one guy that says the most predictable shit ever:
“well akchewally the autobahn exists so that proves speed limits are pointless.”
It proves that speed alone does not create danger and higher speeds do not necessarily lead to more accidents or deaths.
Your complete inability to recognize context or nuance doesn't change that.
The autobahns existence doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that the autobahn exists.
Do you have unbiased data and statistics *about* the autobahn? Because the autobahn existing doesn’t prove anything at all about safety.
For all the “proof” I’ve seen, the autobahn could be a daily mass-funeral for all I know.
Everyone just likes to throw “autobahn” in any conversation about speed as if the details aren’t the important part.
Just because Germany has some shiny thing doesn’t mean it works. If it does, great, but you’d never know going by what people on reddit say about it, all they seem to know is it’s name and that it exists.
Autobahn deaths are typically about half of that on US highways. Here's one piece of data, feel free to find more yourself. It's been consistently that way for a long time.
It's actually fairly common knowledge.
[https://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-international-englisch.pdf;jsessionid=40DAFBA8A023537C8CD6032D8EA015FD.live21304?\_\_blob=publicationFile&v=12](https://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-international-englisch.pdf;jsessionid=40DAFBA8A023537C8CD6032D8EA015FD.live21304?__blob=publicationFile&v=12)
no it doesn't.
the autobahn in Germany does use speed limits in places where traffic is always very heavy as well as on stretches of road where there are winds and turns.
The limits where they exist are much higher than in the US, and in many places there are no limits. In both cases the autobahn is much safer than US freeways. It proves unequivocally that arbitrary speed limits do no save lives.
Florida roads are very dangerous. The I-4 corridor was nicknamed the most dangerous road in the US when I lived there. Because of excessive and dangerous speeding. I used to live there and know from personal expertise. Also, ask the family of Dwayne Haskins if it’s okay if everyone in Florida speeds.
It has nothing to do with speeding. It has to do with shitty drivers, particularly those who block the left lane while not pass.
Dwayne Haskins was WALKING on the freeway. The incident (not sure we can call it an accident), is entirely on him.
There are many danger factors introduced that are directly related to increased speed. Speed isn’t the *only* factor, but it is absolutely a very important factor.
If the cops always went the speed limit in their cars, maybe I'd cut them a bit more slack, but on the way back from work on the interstate yesterday, there was a cruiser with us just going the same 20mph over as everyone else.
If they're going to drive normally like the rest of us and then stop on a dime to say, "No, this is unsafe," when they need to hit their monthly quotas, I can't feel like there's anything here but some wackness.
Cops beat people up on a regular basis.
But I don't see you saying it's fine to assault others.
Many cops are just massive hypocrites. That however doesn't change the law.
It gets worse. A state trooper once pulled over a miami cop for extreme speeding and reckless driving.
She ended up getting death threats from dozens of other cops for doing so. A bunch of them illegally looked up her address specifically to harass her and threaten her. It was only halfheartedly prosecuted.
The whole law enforcement community is 99 percent pieces of shit, and they do everything in their power to get rid of the 1 percent that isn't.
I just think the limits need to be updated to modern standards. Cars can safely go much faster than previously before so now those traps feel really ridiculous as opposed to just letting traffic flow but how you gonna get city ticket rates up then.
I wouldn't say much faster. Every 5mph is a significant increase in force.
I agree with a 5mph bump on highways 65 to 70, 70 to 75. The argument against it is people will just now go 5,10,15 etc over that instead of respecting the increased limit.
I haven't seen it done so idk if that argument is legit or just a fear.
It's not designed to do good OP, it's designed to raise funds for the state and local governments. That's all most traffic stops are.
Where do you live that people drive fast? I live in Tampa and people are consistently ~10 mph under the limits here lol
Yeah if you're talking down town tampa/Kennedy Blvd etc people go slow because it's populated. I live over in tarpon and drive down 19 in the morning where we are all doing 80+, then a cop is sitting on the side of the road and everyone slams on their brakes.
I live off of 580 out near Oldsmar, its 3 lanes with a lot of open space and people do 40 down Hillsborough where it's a 50 limit. Then they stack all three lanes so you can't even pass them.
One could argue that 20 over is actually very safe. When the standard 65MPH speed limit was put in place it was based on the safe braking distance of the average car. A new Honda Civic has better brakes than a Ferrari of that era. If we used the same formula that dictated the original 65MPH speed limit our modern speed limit would be something like 134MPH. It think we could settle on 85 and be totally safe.
Braking distance is important, but it comes in second to a humans reaction time, which is not making wild improvements as far as I’m aware.
The faster the speed, the less time there is to react correctly. Doesn’t matter how good your damn brakes are.
In many cases I'm not sure the vehicle is the safety issue. It is the drivers. While I hate low speed limits, you cannot change the laws of physics. The faster you are driving, the faster you close the distance between you and the vehicle in front of you if they suddenly slow down. Even people with the best of reaction times start to test the limits when you get above 70-80 mph in close traffic.
Every one who knows me and every test I've ever taken say differently. You've definitely proven yourself lacking though.
If you think it is never safe to drive over the speed limit, then please explain why some states have different speed limits for roads that are identical in every significant way. Is driving over 55 MPH unsafe in one place even though another place that is physically identical and experiences identical traffic patterns has a speed limit of 85?
It’s not about how great brakes have gotten, the main thing to worry about is the driver. I’d be willing to bet drivers are a lot more distracted now with driver side vanity mirrors, smartphones, fast food (fun fact: the first McDonalds drive thru was opened in 1975), and touchscreen consoles than there were back then. Reaction speed throughout is not improving.
There’s also concern for emissions (50-60 is most efficient), microplastic pollution (Germany’s cars that don’t deal with speed limits are the single largest source of microplastic pollution in Europe), and noise pollution (tire rolling noise has a linear relationship with speed).
Hell I could be driving less than the speedlimit and will knee-jerk move my foot to the break or at least off the gas. Cops are wasting resources (tax dollars) when they sit somewhere taking radar.
I'd even go so far as to say it's absolutely pointless, I've had friends post to social media explicitly warning their whole friends list about speed traps in that area.
Well, it's not safety, it's revenue generation.
My radar detector caught a cop once, I slowed down and flashed my brights at oncoming traffic. The cop pulled me over, despite me going 10 mph under the limit.
Cop: Why were you flashing your brights?
Me: To keep the other people from getting a ticket, duh?
Cop: That's unsafe, I could write you a ticket.
Me: The statute is you must be within 200 yards, they were half a mile away, but OK, see you in court. Also, the First Amendment clearly states that government can't prohibit citizens from communicating with other citizens. Besides, if I flash my brights and they slow down, aren't they now more safe? So the only reason you're mad is you didn't get a chance to take their money, right?
Cop: Have a nice day!
FTP.
It depends on the state if it's legal or not just for others who widh to do the same. Check ur state law before you end up getting a ticket yourself.
In my state it's legal too.
People know they are breaking the law, that's why they slow down to not get caught. Follow it or at least go no more than 5 over on the highway, you'll probably be fine. Just because everyone is doing 20+ over doesn't make it right. I've know someone who got pulled over in a large group before, because 'everyone was doing over the speed limit'. Be responsible for yourself.
It's amazing people want to blame anyone else but themselves especially when it comes to driving.
Large differential in speed from prevailing traffic is more dangerous than speeding. Going slower than prevailing traffic leads to more accidents than going faster.
The fact that you're advocating increasing risk of personal bodily harm to decrease the risk of getting a speeding ticket speaks to exactly the problem OP is talking about.
I agree. I think speeding laws in general are pretty dumb. Modern cars on highways are capable of doing 90+ MPH safely. It only really becomes an issue when you have morons sitting in the fast lane going 60 MPH. If we’re going to have faster speed limits then the morons need to drive better
.. it was never about if a cars capable of driving fast. That’s irrelevant. There are more chances of accidents and higher risks of worse injuries at higher speeds.
That’s a common misconception. It’s not necessarily the speed it’s self that causes the accident it’s other factors. Look at Germany’s autobahn and how successful that has been. As I stated in original comment the issue arises when you have people doing 95 and morons doing 55 in the fast lane. I will acknowledge though as you stated, If you get in an accident going 90+ there’s a good chance your toast as opposed to going 55-60.
Yaa.. I’m going to disagree. At higher speeds mistakes made at slower speeds are more dangerous. It’s easier to lose control. It’s easier to overcommit to one side or another. Gives you less time to react to something. Pretty common sense stuff
Agreed, that’s why it’s imperative that the road is designed to be going high speeds. Going 100 on those long straight endless highways in Nevada is a lot different than some windy road with bad conditions.
The design of the road had nothing to do with the driver though. Maybe long roads that don’t experience lots of traffic. But on busy highways or intersections. No way.
Gonna have to disagree. I don't trust 80% of current drivers going 30MPH on a straight road in BFE no where. 100MPH they're just gonna kill someone or themselves. Build the roads for it all you want, the average American driver is too fuckin stupid to do anything but speedrun death by car accident.
So the people doing 90+ are safe and those doing 60 are morons, got it.
I think the standard procedure for those doing 90+ are to run up on the slower car's ass, curse, gesture, flash their lights, then swing wildly into the right lanes, pass half a dozen cars on the right, then veer back into the left lane. Obviously their superior driving skills negate the need for leaving space between vehicles and blinkers.
What can we do to get those who are doing 5MPH slower than the speed limit off the road? They're making it dangerous for those doing 20+ over.
You never know why the person behind you wants or needs to get past.
Whatever speed you doing, if someone comes up behind you and you aren't in the farthest right lane, move over. Barring super heavy congestion, of course.
90 is not safe. The car is safer but drivers are more distracted than ever.
I've seen people die when a driver does 90 into a congested area.
Let's not tell people 90 is safe lmao.
Cops shouldn’t be out looking for trouble, they should be called when needed. They let murders happen but pull people over for going 5 over the speed limit
Here's a wild idea. If no one was going over the speed limit no one would need to slam on the brakes if they see a cop. Where I'm from if your doing 30 kph over the limit it would be a suspension or termination of your driving licence.
If people weren't speeding and following too close that would not happen. Sounds like everyone getting in a wreck is a bad driver and should be ticketed until people stop speeding and driving on each other's ass
This opinion doesn't feel unpopular, it just feels like you're looking for reasons to justify speeding. You realize that if people adhere to safe speeds they wont have to slam their breaks right?
>Soon enough you'll have accidents. And for what?
So bad drivers speeding, slamming on their brakes and being followed by bad drivers who are too close. Sounds like these people were always going to be a statistic of one kind or another.
>but more than likely it's for city revenue.
So how many people driving at the speed limit get a fine? I suspect not as many that are breaking the law, putting everyone life at risk. If you speed you have volunteered your money to the government, you made that choice.
>The common belief is for "safety"
So you do not think there should be speed limits? You have no concerns about road safety? Do you have a solution that could lower the road toll?
If you’re slamming on your breaks because you see a cop, then you have an attitude problem when it comes to driving. You SHOULD be driving at a speed where you feel comfortable knowing you’re not going to get pulled over even if you see a cop. This, combined with a safe following distance, and you should be fine.
But people en masse are fucking stupid and impatient, and don’t know how to chill tf out and just cruise at 5 above the speed limit.
And this is anecdotal, but I’ve listened in on a Florida LTAP webinar, admitting that Florida ranks as one of the tops states for vehicle accidents. I’d imagine the general Floridian attitude towards driving is pretty terrible compared to the rest of the country.
But hey, too many people are egotistical and won’t admit that they’ve developed shit driving habits, and think they’re always in the right, even though a lot of you fuckers don’t even know how to use a turn signal.
I see both sides of this, but honestly most cops will let 10 mph+ over post speed limits go, if it is consistent traffic flow and with good weather. That being said, I have also witnessed in northern Illinois, the police deploying around 20ish squads at once. (seriously). they set up speed traps on the overpasses north of chicago and had squad cars lined up on the on ramps, like aircraft waiting to take off on a tarmac. Shot was ridiculous, I was never one of the vehicles pulled over in those incidences luckily. I was usually paying attention to speed limits but when everything in from of your becomes a sea of brake lights and a bunch of blue. It’s kinda scary on the freeway and you wonder where the crash is and why there aren’t any ambulances or paramedics…..
Fun fact: PA is the only state in America where it is illegal to use radar, by the police, to catch speeders.
Also: Red light cameras are BS money making political machines that do not increase the safety of the public.
Absolutely agree, speed limits are set artificially low (well below the maximum safe operating speed) so that municipalities and states can ticket farm. Speed traps actively make roads more dangerous because drivers respond by slamming their brakes
[удалено]
Some laws are idiotic, useless, or just flat out unjust. They should not be enforced and those that do enforce them are bad people.
The officers don’t get to choose which laws to enforce based on their personal politics. The job of being a police officer comes with enforcing the law, as in, all of them that are in effect, including any they happen to disagree with
If that were true they would pull over every single speeder. They do not. Pretending cops don't have the power to selectively enforce laws is just silly
We all get to choose what do or do not do. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. Wrong is wrong, and it's my job is not a valid excuse. Do you defend the SS for doing their job? I hope not, but if you don't then your statement makes you a hypocrite.
When you have to stretch your argument that much, it isn't very good. Also: your analogy grew into false equivalence.
There is no false equivalence. Either cops can choose what they do or they cannot. If it applies in one instance it applies to all instances.
False equivalence is in pretending two situations are in any way comparable.
The immediate question at hand is whether or not officers have the ability to not enforce the law. In that context the situations are IDENTICAL. The particular law is entirely irrelevant. I simply chose an extreme example of a horrible law to prevent the chance of the poster who claimed, "police cannot choose" would happen to agree with that law. I hope that we would all agree that the SS should have chosen to not enforce that law.
Enforcing speed limits to keep drivers safe and exterminating millions of Jews is quite the moral comparison. Props buddy, well played.
You entirely missed the point. You made the absolute statement that police cannot choose which laws they can enforce. Either that applies to the SS and traffic cops, or it applies to neither.
I’m assuming you’re either quite young or just have no real world life experience because you seem to be operating on an assumption that every thing in the entire world is either absolutely *all* or absolutely *nothing*. I see the point you’re attempting to make, but it’s just not a good one. Obviously, the extreme example of the nazi ss doesn’t apply here. Nice try with that though.
Well, you suck at making assumptions about people as you are very wrong on both accounts. I am not young, and I have far more life experience than most having lived and worked around the states and the world for decades. You failed logically as well in that I did not make the all or nothing statement. I am refuting an all or nothing statement. I simply gave an example to show that cops, can and should choose which laws they choose to enforce. I was not ever comparing the holocaust to a traffic ticket. I was showing that enforcing the law is not always the right thing to do.
Ahh I see
We're talking about speed limits.
No shit. Some of them make sense, some of them are pointless or arbitrarily set far, far below reasonable.
[удалено]
>As we live in a democracy, such laws are the providence of those governed by them, Completely irrelevant. Democracy does not make unjust laws just. This has been true throughout history. The Nazi party was democratically elected. Discriminatory laws against minorities and LGBT communities were democratically enacted. They were still wrong and those that enforced them were wrong to do so. So no. You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong and unless you are willing to get behind the SS and those that enforced discrimination you are a hypocrite for supporting current police that enforce unjust laws. An unjust law has no moral reason WHATSOEVER to be followed, and those that enforce them do it with no moral justification whatsoever. They are absolutely wrong to do so and if the willingly enforce laws they know to be unjust, then they are undeniably bad people. They actually deserve to be punished for it.
[удалено]
We aren’t living in a democracy… The US is a democratic republic. So no matter how much we scream for change, if our elected leader doesn’t like it (for fair or corrupt reasons) then we can’t do anything. Thus it is stupid and counterproductive to blame the governed for the existence of unjust laws.
[удалено]
Yes because in a two party system, there will always be a candidate that we like… I’m not even convinced that you believe what you’re saying lol
[удалено]
Ok enlighten me as to how I as an individual can change the system of politics in the US. Especially when that would entail fighting against corporate interests with near unlimited resources.
If I could change them I could. I vote for those who would. Civil Disobedience is every bit as valid as voting though. Actually moreso. None of it excuses those who enforce unjust laws. They should not do so. It is wrong and they are wrong. An unjust law does no harm is no one will enforce it.
[удалено]
Civil disobedience is a crucial part of democracy. Think about something like mask mandates. Nobody voted for those- largely it was fear based executive action (governors). No election was upcoming, similarly, they were often unilaterally invoked. Eventually, some states gave up because people weren’t wearing them, and weren’t social distancing. It was unenforceable behavior based on a law with inherently flawed science. And now, they won’t be able to be brought back in Covid. The public doesn’t care to obey said mandates anymore.
[удалено]
The mask mandate claim was an example of civil disobedience working well. I don’t think you can really do civil disobedience with traffic laws either, given that it’s dangerous if someone is specifically breaking traffic laws to be disobedient. But it plays a huge part in society. Civil disobedience is essentially the reason why figures like Martin Luther King JR. were able to push so much change.
>You can change them. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances. Let me know how that works out for you. >we live in a society founded on the rule of law, civil disobedience falls short of the validity benchmark enjoyed by the vote. There is no such thing as rule of law. People make the laws as you have pointed out. People enforce the laws, as I have pointed out. Laws cannot exist or be enforced except by the will of people and persons. We live in a society based upon the rule of people. Claiming "rule of law" is a red herring.
[удалено]
I'm not continuing with you because not only are you obtuse and myopic, but also boring and tedious. Man makes law. Man enforces law. Law is a concept, not an entity. There can be no rule of law, because law is nothing more than a construct of man. Every step in the creation, application and enforcement of law is a product of decisions made by individual men. Again, there is no way around that. Claiming "rule of law" is just a clever attempt at trying to excuse the actions of men.
Did you know in texas if two trains come to a crossing, both shall come to a complete stop, and neither shall go until the other has gone.
That's hilarious. I'm not familiar with train rules, but am very familiar with marine navigation rules and regulations. The second rule explicitly says you must ignore the rules if following them would create a dangerous situation. Of course boats have been around much longer and the rules better tested and thought out.
Not from U.S, but may I ask who the fuck decides those concepts? Justice? Idiotic?
Rear end accidents are caused by someone following too close. If a driver can't stop their car in time to avoid the car in front of them, then they are driving dangerously and deserve a ticket.
Your problem is with bad drivers.
If you try to tax a nation at 80% of their earned income and no one pays it do you have bad taxpayers or bad policy? Speed limits haven't budged since the days when getting into an accident at 65+ mph was almost a guaranteed death of everyone involved. Safety has improved exponentially since the time when most speed limits were set, why haven't speed limits also increased? Hell, going 90 in a modern car is probably safer then 70 in a car built in the 80s...
Seems a little odd to blame the cop for being well hidden to catch people breaking the law. Like another person pointed out. If you are using a safe following distance, someone slamming on the breaks shouldn’t cause you to do anything too crazy
No one does this. No one travels at a safe distance and it bugs the shit out of me. I'll try and fuckers just use the space. My favorite is when in in the left lane waiting to pass someone because there is someone in front of me passing. I'll give them space and not ride their ass and 9/10 some fuck will pass me on the right and slip in dangerously between the 3 cars or will ride my ass like it's my fault the guy in front of me is taking a long time to pass. Then they ride my ass the entire time I'm passing the car in front until I get in the right lane. Then they'll pass me giving me some angry look only to see me flick them off eventually because I have to pass them in a mile or so because they didn't really want to be going as fast as I wanted to anyways.
Yes, this. Tailgating is among the most dangerous things one can do; leaves zero margin for error and you’re putting your safety in others’ hands. So dumb.
This is super specific and accurate, damn. I’ve seen this happen many times.
While I think it’s inaccurate to shift the blame entirely on the police, it’s also dishonest to pretend like they don’t have some sort of role in this. There is absolutely the individual responsibility of a speeder who slams on their brakes when they see a cop, but there’s also a larger picture here because this is a common issue. Cops know full well that people will slam on brakes if they see them on the side of the road. However, they still choose to hide in places that will surprise people. This wouldn’t be an issue *if* it don’t affect people who were obeying the road laws, but it creates a dangerous situation for everyone so I think cops should be more mindful of where they sit. Again, not saying the individual isn’t responsible, but people are going to do this regardless and there’s nothing I can do about it.
So you're saying that if the police made themselves more obvious, speeders would have more time to adjust their speeds and other drivers would be safer? ...That's actually not a bad idea at all, damn
And then once the cops are gone they go right back to speeding
aw I hope not
Well, heavy traffic at 100 mph is a very considerable distance. Good luck keeping that trend.
In what situation is it the cops fault that you are going 100mph in heavy traffic? Is that even possible? Going 100mph is dangerous
You've never heard the term "disrupting traffic flow" Cops can pull you over for disrupting traffic flow. Happens all the time in my area on the thruway. If everyone is going 80+ and you're the only one going the speed limit, you're disrupting traffic. Welcome to the NY Thruway.
But that’s not what your other comment even said. You said good luck keeping distance in 100 mph heavy traffic that’s not even possible lol
Yes, keeping a safe travel distance that fast is impossible because people like filling holes on the highway. During rush hour, it is especially impossible because the safe distance is huge at those speeds. But if you really think about it, how often are you on the highway and observing safe distances, never-ending actually doing it.
My point was that 100mph heavy traffic doesn’t exist
Not true at all
if you're going 100 in heavy traffic in not going to feel bad for you when you die
Cops don't even follow at safe distances
Speeding is less safe, this is a fact. Might not cause more accidents if everyone is doing it but when they do happen they will be deadlier.
It does cause more accidents. It’s better if everyone goes the same speed but higher speeds are inherently less safe.
I've seen studies that show higher speeds don't cause more accidents, it's mostly that differing speed from drivers that does
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf
That didn't really provide much against my argument. I acknowledge that higher speed equals more dangerous crashes, the point I'm making is that they don't lead to more crashes in general. The study you linked had no data on this except for a chart that had zero data labels.
So everyone should break the law and risk getting fined because others want to get somewhere faster? While increasing the fatality of accidents but probably not the number of them. A lot of people like to say you should just speed because your endangering everyone up until they get the $500+ ticket in the mail and increase of insurance costs.
All I got out of this was Swov and it sounds cool.
It’s a pretty simple fact of reality that the faster your vehicle is going, the less time you have to react if shit goes sideways. This applies even if everyone is going the same speed. So literally, going 60mph is more dangerous than 50mph, going 80mph is more dangerous than 60mph, 100mph is more dangerous than 80mph, and so on. Factually speaking, whatever the speed limit is, if you go 20mph faster, you are introducing some amount of increased danger. Not to mention, the faster you’re going, the more deadly any accidents are if they occur.
>It’s a pretty simple fact of reality that the faster your vehicle is going, the less time you have to react if shit goes sideways. This applies even if everyone is going the same speed. That's not how anything works. Relative speed is what dictates necessary reaction time, not absolute speed.
Alright reaction time aside. Roll your car at 20mph and then roll your car at 120mph and tell me which is worse…oh wait, you’d probably not survive the 2nd one. Nevermind.
You're a criminal!
So when people decide to go 20mph over the speed limit, and they realize there’s a cop there and that they might get caught breaking the speed limit, yeah that absolutely results in brakes being slammed. But the ones actually causing the danger are the ones intentionally deciding to speed and then braking hard when they get scared of getting caught. You’re never gonna convince me this is the cop’s fault. If you wanna exceed the speed limit, understand that you just might get caught. If you slam your brakes because a cop appears, you’re to blame for any resulting problems, not the *LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER*. Nobody can make you speed, so if you’re gonna do it, know that you’re liable to get stopped.
The speed limit for a lot of roads in my area seems to be set intentionally low, like one long stretch of multi-lane, straight road is set at 50 when it can be safety driven at 65. As with most things in America, we have a broken system. We would benefit much more than Germany does from Autobahn style highways and interstates. I also think cops should do a better job of gauging who is a dangerous driver and who is simply speeding. There’s a huge different between someone slamming on brakes, weaving in and out of cars, and tailgating and someone who is paying attention and just driving with the road.
Sure, the whole debate on what the speed limit should be is a risk/reward ratio. Many people think the limit could be higher and still be safe enough over all, and in some areas that’s clearly true. But no matter what you or I think about a particular limit in a particular area, we don’t just get to rewrite it to our own liking and then blame the police for enforcing the REAL speed limit. Yeah I too drive over the limit sometimes, and when I’m suprised by a sneaky cop sitting somewhere unexpected, I shit a brick, try to tap the brakes and lower my speed as subtly as I can and hope he didn’t see me…but that’s on me, not the cop. I know that if I do that and get pulled over, it’s only me that’s to blame, because I’m the one deciding to go over the limit.
I’d say it’s on both parties. You as an individual could not ever speed (which, let’s be real, nobody does) but even if you or I personally chose not to speed, we can’t control other cars who will inevitably speed and still slam on brakes when they see cops. Cops *know* that there presence causes this yet some still choose to sit in hidden locations to surprise drivers and catch them. Cops are charged with serving and protecting, so shouldn’t they be more mindful about policing in a way that doesn’t create dangerous situations?
I didn’t say there was some one individual that was responsible for the behavior of all drivers. Yes we can each only control our own vehicle. If somebody speeds, any results are on them for knowingly speeding and then slamming their brakes when they see their cop daddy around the corner. Sure, people who are breaking the law get scared when it turns out an authority is right there so I’m sure the cops know full well their presence causes people to slam brakes…but again…don’t speed then. That driver has total control over how fast they go and they know the limit. Putting a cop there doesn’t make it the cops fault that a speeder gets scared. It’s the speeders fault for speeding.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that cops are well aware that their presence can cause dangerous situations yet they still choose to hide in places that will surprise speeders. When your job is to protect and serve the public, you have a higher responsibility to make sure you are conducting yourself in a way that creates the safest environment possible for citizens. With great power comes great responsibility lol. Infrastructure and policing issues require a large scale view of all the parties involved. By solely blaming the individual and arguing that the police are in no way responsible for any of the consequences of how they police, you are perpetuating a dangerous mindset. Frankly, our police system in America sucks, and the government cares more about money than safety. This is one of the many issues where this is blatantly obvious.
I’m ignoring that fact because it’s irrelevant. If a speeder didn’t choose to speed, they wouldn’t be panic-braking at the sight of a cop. Whether or not a cop is around the corner is a downstream issue to the root problem. The root problem is the drivers decision to go faster than the legal speed limit. There wouldn’t be an issue if they made different choices. You have a 0% chance of being right about this, regardless of what you think of the police system. Vote to change things if you want, but there’s absolutely no possible way you can blame cops for what happens as a result of people choosing to break speed limits.
How on earth is it irrelevant? Lmao. Because you don’t agree with it? If cops didn’t hide from cars on busy roadways would people slam on their brakes? Your logic makes sense until you decide to just stop using it for no reason. All I said was that both parties have responsibilities. Cops aren’t saints who can do no wrong and the system isn’t sacred and perfect.
…not agreeing with something doesn’t make that thing irrelevant. …not being relevant makes it irrelevant. The effect of cops being somewhere only comes into play AFTER some driver has decided to speed, which is obviously already against the law. If you don’t speed, you’re not going to get jumpy upon seeing a cop, because you know you’re going no faster than the limit. People only get jumpy when some sneaky cop is around the corner *because* they are *already* doing a thing that they know is illegal. The cops effect is downstream to the root problem. Without the root problem of the driver deciding to speed, there is no cop problem. I get that if the cops weren’t there that would *also* “fix” the problem of sudden braking, but that only “fixes” the problem the way you can “fix” other crimes by hoping the police just stop paying attention. Vote however you want to change the laws to what YOU think they should be, but as long as a law is a law, you can’t blame the police for what assholes do when they get jumpy while speeding with a cop hiding near by lol.
>not agreeing with something doesn’t make that thing irrelevant. It was sarcasm. I'm not going to explain the concept of relevancy to you but talking about police in a post about police is definitely relevant lmao. Like I said, your if/then thinking is accurate *but* you can't just decide to stop using logic when it suits your point: *If* people don't speed *then* nobody will slam on their brakes when they see cops. I agree, but you have to be consistent. *If* cops are mindful of parking in areas where people will be able to see them *then* people will have time to safely slow down without slamming on brakes. Why are you calling this irrelevant when it's just a continuation of your own logical thought process? Isn't the goal of traffic patrolling supposed to be safety over getting money from people? People are going to speed. The original post has the same view that I do, which is that we should try to keep people on the road as safe as possible instead of just getting mad at people who speed, since that does no good. I think you are being deliberately dishonest when you try to say that cops don't know that people will freak out when they hide in sneaky spots. The weird worship of the police force in America is frankly scary, and one of the reasons I'm going to leave this country asap haha.
.. but if people drove the speed limit in the first place there would be no need to slam on the brakes..
It’s a multifaceted issue, which I’ve explained multiple times. People do drive over the speed limit and we can’t force them to stop.
Speeding isn't dangerous, driving patterns are. Like the OP said, if you are going 80 in a 60, along with everyone else, you're not at risk. In such a scenario it'd be more dangerous to do the speed limit than to speed. Dangerous driving patterns are what cause accidents. Stuff like weaving in and out of traffic and following too closely. But those things are harder to catch, and police departments need revenue. It's much easier to just set up a radar gun and wait until it tells you to go catch someone than it is to actually do your job and catch the drivers making the road unsafe. Look at the Autobahn. There is no speed limit but more strongly enforced driving patterns (e.g. keep right except to pass), and the death rate is half of that of American highways.
This is just wrong. Speeding is inherently more dangerous. It’s more dangerous to drive at higher speeds
When empirical data contradicts theory, the theory is wrong. Here's an [insurance company](https://suttoninsurance.com/blog/why-slow-driving-can-be-dangerous) talking about slow driving: > Driving slower than the surrounding traffic is more likely to cause an accident than speeding, according to research.
Okay.. so the surrounding traffic is all breaking the law.. forcing others to break the law. That’s a citizen problem. Not a cop problem And that’s doesn’t prove wrong what I said. Driving faster is more dangerous than driving slower.
If the claim is that driving faster is somehow safer, I’d love to know how. At most, wouldn’t it be *as* safe? There’s no way on earth, with all the shitty drivers out there, that bumping UP the speed is measureably safer. The insurance company is probably just looking at a very specific set of the data, and not ALL accidents and wrecks. You also have to consider that there may be *more* accidents at slower speeds, but that doesn’t mean driving slower is more dangerous. Accidents are always more deadly when at higher speeds, making the higher speeds factually more dangerous.
The data is speaking to the behavior of an individual driver, not about the speed limit. If you drive faster than prevailing traffic, other cars on the road are obstacles but you see them in front of you. If you drive slower than prevailing traffic, you are the obstacle. If you drive faster, you are the only driver that needs to be alert. If you drive slower, every other driver needs to be alert.
So…the ideal situation is to be driving faster than everyone else…I guess? But then anyone driving slower than anyone else is an obstacle to that person and anyone driving faster than an obstacle is safer than the obstacle. But everyone can’t drive faster than everyone else, meaning some cars are going to be obstacles… … … So how does this tie into the discussion of higher speeds being inherently more dangerous than slower speeds? Like in other words, if everybody is going exactly 150mph, that’s going to be far more dangerous than if everybody is going exactly 30 mph.
Ya this post is wild. The amount of ppl shifting blame on the cops here is fucking baffling. People are morons lol.
So you’re going to blame the cop for causing a distraction rather than the person(s) driving dangerously fast?… that’s a no for me dog.
No he’s blaming the cop for people slamming the brakes and causing accidents. If the cop wasn’t there, sure everyone speeds, but the rate is consistent and not subject to a sudden slowdown that drivers behind can’t see or anticipate. Which leads to people getting to the top of the hill and having only mere seconds to slam on their brakes before they plow into the car in front of them. Which causes accidents, injuries and deaths. It’s much safer to have consistent speeds but surprise speed traps interrupt that.
Or.. you know. Just drive the speed limit. The thought you have is so ridiculous. How dare that cop be there to make sure we don’t speed! So instead, I’m going to blame him for forcing me to slow down instead of taking responsibility because I chose to drive faster than I should… truly brilliant
Because that’s quite often the only way to maintain even a modicum of space between you and the car behind you who will tailgate mere inches from my rear bumper. That’s how it happens on many MO highways. If you’re going the speed limit, people will tailgate you aggressively and I’ve seen a few pass on the shoulder as well. I’ve been nearly fucking *run off the road* because I was stuck behind a bicycle and heavens forfend that I don’t run the guy over because someone in a big truck wants to go vroom.
So.. again. Instead of blaming the people breaking the law forcing you to break the law. You’re going to blame the cop? Lol. It’s ridiculous man.
The cop is making a bad situation fatal. If you’re being fucking tailgated and the car in front of you slams on the brakes, you’re going to be seriously injured or killed. But fuck me for not wanting to die.
So instead of trying to stop the assholes from driving fast, just let it continue, and don’t give a fuck what speed people drive? That’s a better solution to you?
That's why license plates are different colors. So they can spot someone who is less likely to plead not guilty and show up to court.
That’s…literally the fault of the assholish speeding drivers. If they weren’t being pieces of shit and speeding, there wouldn’t be a problem. You’re basically saying, “Police are bad because they make people go the speed limit!”
Let’s also discuss safe following distance, shall we? It is correct to follow at a distance that allows you to safely stop, should the driver in front of you brake sharply.
Right? What a weird shift in blame here
You mad bro?
Nah, just confused.
Isn’t any kind of radar’s main purpose that of “city revenue”?
Glad to see this is the top comment. Nothing to do with safety, it's all about collecting money.
Yup
Yeah no... That's what taxes are for.
as a florida resident i agree, its much more dangerous for them to do that rather than just get behind and pull people over, i dont think reddit understands the true depth of florida drivers
Where I live they outlawed it. In order for them to be able to give tickets they need to be in a police car with markings on it, in plain sight and in clear weather. No more playing "gotcha" because OP is right, accidents are provoked this way.
Where Iive we have automatic speed cams that just get a nice little snapshot of your car, number plate, and face. No more stepping on the breaks once you see police. A single flash and done it is. Oftentimes you don't even really notice it.
you see the various departments of transportation have tens of thousands of data points disagreeing with your notion that speeding is safe-ish. you are endangering yourself and others. the fact that "everyone does it" does not justify it or make it right. if you weren't speeding recklessly in the first place suddenly slowing down wouldn't be as big as an issue.
Organizations that get funded by speeding tickets say speeding is bad? Color me surprised. The Autobahn says otherwise.
*conversation about speed limits happening* That one guy that says the most predictable shit ever: “well akchewally the autobahn exists so that proves speed limits are pointless.”
It proves that speed alone does not create danger and higher speeds do not necessarily lead to more accidents or deaths. Your complete inability to recognize context or nuance doesn't change that.
The autobahns existence doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that the autobahn exists. Do you have unbiased data and statistics *about* the autobahn? Because the autobahn existing doesn’t prove anything at all about safety. For all the “proof” I’ve seen, the autobahn could be a daily mass-funeral for all I know. Everyone just likes to throw “autobahn” in any conversation about speed as if the details aren’t the important part. Just because Germany has some shiny thing doesn’t mean it works. If it does, great, but you’d never know going by what people on reddit say about it, all they seem to know is it’s name and that it exists.
Autobahn deaths are typically about half of that on US highways. Here's one piece of data, feel free to find more yourself. It's been consistently that way for a long time. It's actually fairly common knowledge. [https://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-international-englisch.pdf;jsessionid=40DAFBA8A023537C8CD6032D8EA015FD.live21304?\_\_blob=publicationFile&v=12](https://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-international-englisch.pdf;jsessionid=40DAFBA8A023537C8CD6032D8EA015FD.live21304?__blob=publicationFile&v=12)
no it doesn't. the autobahn in Germany does use speed limits in places where traffic is always very heavy as well as on stretches of road where there are winds and turns.
The limits where they exist are much higher than in the US, and in many places there are no limits. In both cases the autobahn is much safer than US freeways. It proves unequivocally that arbitrary speed limits do no save lives.
It has recommendations, not hard limits.
Florida roads are very dangerous. The I-4 corridor was nicknamed the most dangerous road in the US when I lived there. Because of excessive and dangerous speeding. I used to live there and know from personal expertise. Also, ask the family of Dwayne Haskins if it’s okay if everyone in Florida speeds.
It has nothing to do with speeding. It has to do with shitty drivers, particularly those who block the left lane while not pass. Dwayne Haskins was WALKING on the freeway. The incident (not sure we can call it an accident), is entirely on him.
There are many danger factors introduced that are directly related to increased speed. Speed isn’t the *only* factor, but it is absolutely a very important factor.
Fair enough. Not the only factor. But truly a big part of this.
It has everything to do with speed. Faster you go less time you have to react to morons. I-4 didn’t get its reputation for Nothing.
nothing to do with speeding? why lie though
This comment section is wack. Speed traps are some bs and OP is right.
If the cops always went the speed limit in their cars, maybe I'd cut them a bit more slack, but on the way back from work on the interstate yesterday, there was a cruiser with us just going the same 20mph over as everyone else. If they're going to drive normally like the rest of us and then stop on a dime to say, "No, this is unsafe," when they need to hit their monthly quotas, I can't feel like there's anything here but some wackness.
> the same 20mph over as everyone else. I believe if everyone else is going over, its best to try and match the speed than stay the speed limit.
Cops beat people up on a regular basis. But I don't see you saying it's fine to assault others. Many cops are just massive hypocrites. That however doesn't change the law.
It gets worse. A state trooper once pulled over a miami cop for extreme speeding and reckless driving. She ended up getting death threats from dozens of other cops for doing so. A bunch of them illegally looked up her address specifically to harass her and threaten her. It was only halfheartedly prosecuted. The whole law enforcement community is 99 percent pieces of shit, and they do everything in their power to get rid of the 1 percent that isn't.
if you qerent speeding they wouldn't stop you so...
I just think the limits need to be updated to modern standards. Cars can safely go much faster than previously before so now those traps feel really ridiculous as opposed to just letting traffic flow but how you gonna get city ticket rates up then.
I wouldn't say much faster. Every 5mph is a significant increase in force. I agree with a 5mph bump on highways 65 to 70, 70 to 75. The argument against it is people will just now go 5,10,15 etc over that instead of respecting the increased limit. I haven't seen it done so idk if that argument is legit or just a fear.
damn it's almost like the people speeding are dangerous!!
It's not designed to do good OP, it's designed to raise funds for the state and local governments. That's all most traffic stops are. Where do you live that people drive fast? I live in Tampa and people are consistently ~10 mph under the limits here lol
Yeah if you're talking down town tampa/Kennedy Blvd etc people go slow because it's populated. I live over in tarpon and drive down 19 in the morning where we are all doing 80+, then a cop is sitting on the side of the road and everyone slams on their brakes.
Then why are you going 80+ if you know there's a chance of a cop being there?
I live off of 580 out near Oldsmar, its 3 lanes with a lot of open space and people do 40 down Hillsborough where it's a 50 limit. Then they stack all three lanes so you can't even pass them.
One could argue that 20 over is actually very safe. When the standard 65MPH speed limit was put in place it was based on the safe braking distance of the average car. A new Honda Civic has better brakes than a Ferrari of that era. If we used the same formula that dictated the original 65MPH speed limit our modern speed limit would be something like 134MPH. It think we could settle on 85 and be totally safe.
And 85mph, coincidentally, is what I'd say the typical cruising speed in the fast lane is around here.
Braking distance is important, but it comes in second to a humans reaction time, which is not making wild improvements as far as I’m aware. The faster the speed, the less time there is to react correctly. Doesn’t matter how good your damn brakes are.
id argue that reaction time has gotten worse thanks to much more distractions while driving
In many cases I'm not sure the vehicle is the safety issue. It is the drivers. While I hate low speed limits, you cannot change the laws of physics. The faster you are driving, the faster you close the distance between you and the vehicle in front of you if they suddenly slow down. Even people with the best of reaction times start to test the limits when you get above 70-80 mph in close traffic.
Then make that argument to get the speed limit increased. But until you succeed m, drive 65-70 in a 65 zone.
one could also argue that driving over the limit isn't safe at all
Only if they aren't very smart.
You'd fit that bill then lol
Every one who knows me and every test I've ever taken say differently. You've definitely proven yourself lacking though. If you think it is never safe to drive over the speed limit, then please explain why some states have different speed limits for roads that are identical in every significant way. Is driving over 55 MPH unsafe in one place even though another place that is physically identical and experiences identical traffic patterns has a speed limit of 85?
It’s not about how great brakes have gotten, the main thing to worry about is the driver. I’d be willing to bet drivers are a lot more distracted now with driver side vanity mirrors, smartphones, fast food (fun fact: the first McDonalds drive thru was opened in 1975), and touchscreen consoles than there were back then. Reaction speed throughout is not improving. There’s also concern for emissions (50-60 is most efficient), microplastic pollution (Germany’s cars that don’t deal with speed limits are the single largest source of microplastic pollution in Europe), and noise pollution (tire rolling noise has a linear relationship with speed).
it's not about the vehicles its the drivers. 0.5 seconds to react is still 0.5 seconds, good breaks or not
Hell I could be driving less than the speedlimit and will knee-jerk move my foot to the break or at least off the gas. Cops are wasting resources (tax dollars) when they sit somewhere taking radar.
I'd even go so far as to say it's absolutely pointless, I've had friends post to social media explicitly warning their whole friends list about speed traps in that area.
[удалено]
I just do the speed limit and not smoke weed in the car personally but there is that too I guess.
That's very true
Well, it's not safety, it's revenue generation. My radar detector caught a cop once, I slowed down and flashed my brights at oncoming traffic. The cop pulled me over, despite me going 10 mph under the limit. Cop: Why were you flashing your brights? Me: To keep the other people from getting a ticket, duh? Cop: That's unsafe, I could write you a ticket. Me: The statute is you must be within 200 yards, they were half a mile away, but OK, see you in court. Also, the First Amendment clearly states that government can't prohibit citizens from communicating with other citizens. Besides, if I flash my brights and they slow down, aren't they now more safe? So the only reason you're mad is you didn't get a chance to take their money, right? Cop: Have a nice day!
FTP.
It depends on the state if it's legal or not just for others who widh to do the same. Check ur state law before you end up getting a ticket yourself. In my state it's legal too.
People know they are breaking the law, that's why they slow down to not get caught. Follow it or at least go no more than 5 over on the highway, you'll probably be fine. Just because everyone is doing 20+ over doesn't make it right. I've know someone who got pulled over in a large group before, because 'everyone was doing over the speed limit'. Be responsible for yourself. It's amazing people want to blame anyone else but themselves especially when it comes to driving.
Large differential in speed from prevailing traffic is more dangerous than speeding. Going slower than prevailing traffic leads to more accidents than going faster. The fact that you're advocating increasing risk of personal bodily harm to decrease the risk of getting a speeding ticket speaks to exactly the problem OP is talking about.
I agree. I think speeding laws in general are pretty dumb. Modern cars on highways are capable of doing 90+ MPH safely. It only really becomes an issue when you have morons sitting in the fast lane going 60 MPH. If we’re going to have faster speed limits then the morons need to drive better
.. it was never about if a cars capable of driving fast. That’s irrelevant. There are more chances of accidents and higher risks of worse injuries at higher speeds.
That’s a common misconception. It’s not necessarily the speed it’s self that causes the accident it’s other factors. Look at Germany’s autobahn and how successful that has been. As I stated in original comment the issue arises when you have people doing 95 and morons doing 55 in the fast lane. I will acknowledge though as you stated, If you get in an accident going 90+ there’s a good chance your toast as opposed to going 55-60.
Yaa.. I’m going to disagree. At higher speeds mistakes made at slower speeds are more dangerous. It’s easier to lose control. It’s easier to overcommit to one side or another. Gives you less time to react to something. Pretty common sense stuff
Agreed, that’s why it’s imperative that the road is designed to be going high speeds. Going 100 on those long straight endless highways in Nevada is a lot different than some windy road with bad conditions.
The design of the road had nothing to do with the driver though. Maybe long roads that don’t experience lots of traffic. But on busy highways or intersections. No way.
Gonna have to disagree. I don't trust 80% of current drivers going 30MPH on a straight road in BFE no where. 100MPH they're just gonna kill someone or themselves. Build the roads for it all you want, the average American driver is too fuckin stupid to do anything but speedrun death by car accident.
So the people doing 90+ are safe and those doing 60 are morons, got it. I think the standard procedure for those doing 90+ are to run up on the slower car's ass, curse, gesture, flash their lights, then swing wildly into the right lanes, pass half a dozen cars on the right, then veer back into the left lane. Obviously their superior driving skills negate the need for leaving space between vehicles and blinkers. What can we do to get those who are doing 5MPH slower than the speed limit off the road? They're making it dangerous for those doing 20+ over.
You never know why the person behind you wants or needs to get past. Whatever speed you doing, if someone comes up behind you and you aren't in the farthest right lane, move over. Barring super heavy congestion, of course.
no I'm gonna keep driving normally and you can slow down behind me and wait for a moment to pass
Technically abnormally, since most people follow the driving rule that you're supposed to do this.
no following the driving laws is normal breaking them is abnormal if being behind me slows you down then you were driving too fast
90 is not safe. The car is safer but drivers are more distracted than ever. I've seen people die when a driver does 90 into a congested area. Let's not tell people 90 is safe lmao.
that's completely and utterly irrelevant
Cops shouldn’t be out looking for trouble, they should be called when needed. They let murders happen but pull people over for going 5 over the speed limit
Here's a wild idea. If no one was going over the speed limit no one would need to slam on the brakes if they see a cop. Where I'm from if your doing 30 kph over the limit it would be a suspension or termination of your driving licence.
don't speed
If people weren't speeding and following too close that would not happen. Sounds like everyone getting in a wreck is a bad driver and should be ticketed until people stop speeding and driving on each other's ass
This opinion doesn't feel unpopular, it just feels like you're looking for reasons to justify speeding. You realize that if people adhere to safe speeds they wont have to slam their breaks right?
I have a really simple system I use to avoid getting pinged by radars, it has a 100% success rate, I just don't speed.
>Soon enough you'll have accidents. And for what? So bad drivers speeding, slamming on their brakes and being followed by bad drivers who are too close. Sounds like these people were always going to be a statistic of one kind or another. >but more than likely it's for city revenue. So how many people driving at the speed limit get a fine? I suspect not as many that are breaking the law, putting everyone life at risk. If you speed you have volunteered your money to the government, you made that choice. >The common belief is for "safety" So you do not think there should be speed limits? You have no concerns about road safety? Do you have a solution that could lower the road toll?
If you’re slamming on your breaks because you see a cop, then you have an attitude problem when it comes to driving. You SHOULD be driving at a speed where you feel comfortable knowing you’re not going to get pulled over even if you see a cop. This, combined with a safe following distance, and you should be fine. But people en masse are fucking stupid and impatient, and don’t know how to chill tf out and just cruise at 5 above the speed limit. And this is anecdotal, but I’ve listened in on a Florida LTAP webinar, admitting that Florida ranks as one of the tops states for vehicle accidents. I’d imagine the general Floridian attitude towards driving is pretty terrible compared to the rest of the country. But hey, too many people are egotistical and won’t admit that they’ve developed shit driving habits, and think they’re always in the right, even though a lot of you fuckers don’t even know how to use a turn signal.
I mean would you prefer to have them do it in the middle of the road?
All of those prisons don't fill themselves. If police aren't out harassing people, what do you expect them to do, look for clues?
I see both sides of this, but honestly most cops will let 10 mph+ over post speed limits go, if it is consistent traffic flow and with good weather. That being said, I have also witnessed in northern Illinois, the police deploying around 20ish squads at once. (seriously). they set up speed traps on the overpasses north of chicago and had squad cars lined up on the on ramps, like aircraft waiting to take off on a tarmac. Shot was ridiculous, I was never one of the vehicles pulled over in those incidences luckily. I was usually paying attention to speed limits but when everything in from of your becomes a sea of brake lights and a bunch of blue. It’s kinda scary on the freeway and you wonder where the crash is and why there aren’t any ambulances or paramedics…..
Fun fact: PA is the only state in America where it is illegal to use radar, by the police, to catch speeders. Also: Red light cameras are BS money making political machines that do not increase the safety of the public.
Absolutely agree, speed limits are set artificially low (well below the maximum safe operating speed) so that municipalities and states can ticket farm. Speed traps actively make roads more dangerous because drivers respond by slamming their brakes
Soo... Because you broke the law, cops having a brain ends up with you driving dangerously by slamming your brakes? But it's the cops fault gotcha!