• Speed Limits - Necessary for safety? Arbitrarily low? Revenue Generators? What's your $0.02?
    78 replies, posted
I personally I live in the United States, but your 0.02€, £0.02, ¥0.02 are welcome as well. I personally feel that it's a shame we can't produce drivers competent enough to use their own judgement in deciding what speed is a safe speed to drive, and as far as discouraging dangerous driving, that our legal system is as broken and ineffective as ever.
If we're going to allow everyone to use such a potentially dangerous device as a car, then I think there need to be restrictions on what you can and can't do with it. So yes, I think speed limits are necessary to reduce the danger. [editline]30th June 2012[/editline] also OP I feel like you didn't answer your own question. You just said that people aren't smart enough to be careful and the legal framework around driving is ineffective at improving that problem.
If that was to change, do a before and after on the statistics of car crashes You'll see why it's there to begin with.
A good number of ppl just arent bright enough to drive safely. Cars themselves have mechanical limits on handling in regards to speed, depends on the make/model and year. Cars are deadly weapons, of course there need to be rules in place regarding their use.
Speed limits are there to act as guides for the safety of everyone. Having speed limits of 40kmh in a high pedestrian activity area makes more sense than no legal speed limit. However then again most drivers aren't stupid and would actually realise that the area can be dangerous if travelling at high speed, and would travel at a safe speed anyways. Sadly, we cannot guarantee that with everyone and the best we can do is threaten legal action on those who drive unsafe, done so by placing enforced maximum speed limits everywhere.
Some places speed limits are useful and good. Other places, they're a hindrance. The road I take to my university has a sign that says 45 and not 30 yards down the road from it there is another sign that says 25. It's very difficult to slow from 45 to 25 in 15 seconds. I've been pulled over and given a speeding ticket because of it. But on the other hand, having speed limits in residential areas are very good. Many of them, at least in my area, stay at only 15 or 20mph while it's quite easy to go 35 or 40 without issue. The reason it's so slow is because residential areas commonly have people (and children!) crossing the streets often. Helluva lot easier and better to slam on the brakes at 15 than 40.
As speed increases, the time you have to avoid an accident decreases. It's pretty much that simple.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36575872]As speed increases, the time you have to avoid an accident decreases. It's pretty much that simple.[/QUOTE] That's overly simple and is not a defense of speed limits as they stand.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36581913]That's overly simple and is not a defense of speed limits as they stand.[/QUOTE] How is it not? The faster you're going, the harder it is to break and stop if something runs across the road in front of you. If I'm going 10mph down the road and a deer jumps in front of me, I can easily break before I make contact than if I were going 50mph.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36581913]That's overly simple and is not a defense of speed limits as they stand.[/QUOTE] It's simplified, yes, but overly? Personally, I think it's what it all comes down to. Human reaction time is at around 0.3 seconds, when you're prepared for it - more when you aren't. You then have to actually do something about it as well. Say you're driving along with 100KM/t - not an unusual speed (that's just about 60mph for you American guys) - you're going with ~30m/s, and that means that before you have even stomped the brake, you're probably 30 meters down the road. After that you have the time it takes before you make a full stop, that'll be ~40 meters more in a good car, from what I can find about it. That's 70 meters before you've stopped, at the very least (a lot of studies apparently say ~90 meters). If we say that this is a frontal collission, you can double that. Breaking distance and reaction distance greatly decrease the slower you drive - it may be simple, but it's completely true.
On some roads, yes. On other roads? No. Germany's Autobahn is proof enough that an unrestricted public highway can be done without killing everyone that drives on it.
They're completely useless. If a person is stupid enough to not be a safe driver and hurts or kills someone it's their stupid fault, they should be punished, enforcing a maximum speed on everyone for the stupidity of the few is a terrible idea. What was that city, I think it was in Austria or something where they removed all road signs and found that people drive really cautiously as a result?
[QUOTE=draugur;36582215]They're completely useless. If a person is stupid enough to not be a safe driver and hurts or kills someone it's their stupid fault, they should be punished, enforcing a maximum speed on everyone for the stupidity of the few is a terrible idea.[/QUOTE] Tell that to the people who get run over by cars doing 50mph in a residential area. Once someone is dead, you can't get them back by suing whoever hit them.
Speed limits are fine in most cases, in some like motorways it could be raised. and I would like to see it raised further at night when there's no one around. but not through towns.
[QUOTE=draugur;36582215]They're completely useless. If a person is stupid enough to not be a safe driver and hurts or kills someone it's their stupid fault, they should be punished, enforcing a maximum speed on everyone for the stupidity of the few is a terrible idea. What was that city, I think it was in Austria or something where they removed all road signs and found that people drive really cautiously as a result?[/QUOTE] I really don't trust the people around me and I've seen some incapable drivers on the road, so the argument that, "Hey, I can drive myself just fine!" is totally valid until you realize that the entirety of the problem isn't just you. It's going to be James, the horrified idiot that can't handle the speed complete with broken brakes that slams right into you. And I think the end result would be idiots driving insane speeds anyway - at least here in America. And people already do it. That's coming from someone who's not really for prohibition in many cases too, I just feel removing the cap would make the road home for more people that think 45 MPH in a residential area is totally fine. Now, where I feel somewhat better on removing the speed limits is if everyone was re-educated and there was some law to maintain sane speeds, i.e. speeding is still something you can get punished for if you're being ridiculous. Still, I wouldn't trust many people around me.
I think freeways and interstates between cities could be increased to 100, maybe 120mph. But other than that, for the most part the current limits are perfectly fine.
In some places there should not be any restrictions, like the Autobahn. But in towns and cities where people are likely to cross there should be some, yes there should be. Imagine some idiot going 90km/h down a street and some kid runs across.. No way to stop in time.
I for one enjoy how the main function of speed limits today appears to be to get $$$ for the police department.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;36583319]I for one enjoy how the main function of speed limits today appears to be to get $$$ for the police department.[/QUOTE] I think that's more of a corrupted loophole in the use of them opposed to why they're implemented today. A friend of mine got a speeding ticket last week for going 45 in a 30 zone. The reason he was going 45 was because the cop wouldn't stop tailgating him and he hadn't any choice but to keep up speed.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36584916]I think that's more of a corrupted loophole in the use of them opposed to why they're implemented today. A friend of mine got a speeding ticket last week for going 45 in a 30 zone. The reason he was going 45 was because the cop wouldn't stop tailgating him and [B]he hadn't any choice but to keep up speed.[/B][/QUOTE] Uhhh... What? That is the worst excuse ever.
[QUOTE=TestECull;36582191]On some roads, yes. On other roads? No. Germany's Autobahn is proof enough that an unrestricted public highway can be done without killing everyone that drives on it.[/QUOTE] That's true, but that's not left out in my point. On a small road in the mountains with no space failures, it's a bad idea to go 100Km/t, because you won't be able to react if something goes wrong. Going 100Km/t on an autobahn is not a bad idea, as you have much more space and therefore more reaction time. I simply said that reaction time is what it really all comes down to - of course there's surroundings as well (what you might accidentially hit), but the speed limits are primarily there to prevent accidents and then to limit the extent of the accident.
(Regarding UK roads). I believe that on the motorway there should be a lane or two with an unlimited speed limit. Other than the motorway i firmly believe that speed limits are needed. The standard of driving amongst some drivers, hell even my mates, really is bad and some of the speeds they travel at are just ridiculous. On another note, I'd ideally quite like to see 30mph - 50mph maybe raised by 10mph after 11pm at night.
IMO, they should be a little more noticeable, sometimes people barely know the signs are there.
I don't think speed limits are the problem, I think (and yes, if you could, I'm sure you'd give me your boxes and x's) insurance is the problem. If people were more financially and personally responsible for their actions, perhaps they'd shape up.
Due to human nature, speed limits in certain areas are crucial, if not necessary, to secure safety of pedestrians. But, of course, there are cases in which limit will not be of any help - take a drive under effects of alcohol as an example. However, I don't feel like a system in my country is ineffective (I am not in USA/UK, mind you), though I beleive drunk drive prevention needs more attention.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36586665]Uhhh... What? That is the worst excuse ever.[/QUOTE] Have you ever been tailgated before?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36604951]Have you ever been tailgated before?[/QUOTE] Yeah, and I kept obeying the speed limit. Not very hard to do unless you're an immature, easily pressured driver. [editline]3rd July 2012[/editline] Especially if it's a cop, what the fuck? :v: [editline]3rd July 2012[/editline] My opinion is that speed limits should be lower in some areas, higher in others. Residential areas should have minimal speeds, whereas large, open freeways should have much, much higher limits.
Speed limits make sense if a large number of people have access to a range of powerful vehicles, although given the correct infrastructure you could allow rather high speed limits. For example, you could connect major population centres with High-speed motorways (speed limits >= 160 km/h) that have two or more "high speed" lanes, with perhaps two more low speed lanes for people driving economical cars and trucks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36604951]Have you ever been tailgated before?[/QUOTE] If you do that when you get tailgated you shouldn't be on the roads.
As much as I personally hate speed limits, I know how much they really do help in terms of safety. Personally, though, I feel like the punishments for speeding tend to be too drastic and need to be revised. Paying 200 dollars for only going 10 over on an unpopulated road in the middle of the night? No thanks. I believe an even better solution to fixing speed limits, in america at least, is to add a goddamn high-speed monorail system already.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.