• Speed Limits - Necessary for safety? Arbitrarily low? Revenue Generators? What's your $0.02?
    78 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Super Saiyan Yerbs;36582361]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] Raising it at night is just stupid. I know you said no one is around, but it's [B]A LOT[/B] easier to got into an accident at night than in the day. What if a deer crosses the highway at night? more damage is done while driving faster. If it is raining at night on a highway, a smart person stays around 60 mph.
I think speed limits are kinda stupid. It's not like as soon as there's no speed limits, suddenly everyone goes as fast as possible. Sure, they'll be a few people who do that, but most people will go at a speed they're comfortable with, i.e. 60 or 70 mph
Teenagers are horrible drivers. Increasing the speed limit anywhere would be horrible.
[QUOTE=Shotacon;36635030]Teenagers are horrible drivers. Increasing the speed limit anywhere would be horrible.[/QUOTE] That's a completely biased and stupid generalization. I know teenagers that drive better than most adults in my town.
This thread has made me wonder, in the US what does it take to get a licence for one to drive around without a supervisor? In Australia (or at least my state) if you're below a certain age (I think it's 25) you can apply for a licence once you are 16, if you pass the driver knowledge test (quite a number of questions and you're only allowed to get up to two wrong) you then have to log at least 100 daylight hours and at least 20 night hours of driving with a supervisor, and at least a year after you get that licence and if you have all the hours you can apply for a upgraded one that lets you drive without a supervisor, but you also need to go through a driving test (demonstrating low-risk skills in traffic, such as a bit of highway driving, hill starts, and a reverse parallel park or a three point turn) and get above (I think) 90% in that, and not do anything that would cause an instant failure (eg speeding). So what's it like in the US? or Europe as well?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;36673227]This thread has made me wonder, in the US what does it take to get a licence for one to drive around without a supervisor? In Australia (or at least my state) if you're below a certain age (I think it's 25) you can apply for a licence once you are 16, if you pass the driver knowledge test (quite a number of questions and you're only allowed to get up to two wrong) you then have to log at least 100 daylight hours and at least 20 night hours of driving with a supervisor, and at least a year after you get that licence and if you have all the hours you can apply for a upgraded one that lets you drive without a supervisor, but you also need to go through a driving test (demonstrating low-risk skills in traffic, such as a bit of highway driving, hill starts, and a reverse parallel park or a three point turn) and get above (I think) 90% in that, and not do anything that would cause an instant failure (eg speeding). So what's it like in the US? or Europe as well?[/QUOTE] In Norway you first need to take a four day course in traffic safety, which grants you a permit to drive with someone who's had a license for 5 years, and is over 25 years old, or a supervisor with an authorized traffic school You also need to complete a course where a supervisor drives when it's dark, and explains things about correct use of lights, overtakes etc. I think you need 12 regular driving lesson hours (45 minutes each), but I'm not entirely sure about that (I had more anyways). You do need to take a driving course on a track where they smear the tarmac with a slippery substance (plant oil or similar), to get a feel for break distance and control of the car when it's slippery. You also need a long-drive course, which is two days of driving and a little theory. It's quite a long drive as well, but I haven't checked up how long it has to be. Before you can get your license you need a theoretical and a practical test. The theoretical test has 45 questions and you can get up to 7 wrong to pass. The practical test is just you driving around a bit, it probably has a few set goals, but none are identical. When I took mine, I drove on varying roads, including tiny gravel roads and highways, and there was a couple of parking spots where I had to back up into a spot, but no parallel parking. On the topic of speed limits, I definitely think they are necessary. Loads of people are completely reckless (including some people I know) behind the wheel. Though, the speed limits here in Norway are ridiculously low, nothing above 100kmh anywhere, and even then 100kmh is only something you see on highways.
[QUOTE=icantread49;36609709]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.[/QUOTE] Just to update this story - my friend went to court to contest the ticket and won.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36677273]Just to update this story - my friend went to court to contest the ticket and won.[/QUOTE] I understand why TBH. Being tailgated is horribly annoying [I]and[/I] a safety hazard in case you have to suddenly stop.
[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 he hadn't any choice but to keep up speed.[/QUOTE] That's the opposite of what you should do. If you slow down slightly it usually causes the driver tailgating you to overtake you. I'm fine with most of the current speed limits on residential areas, but on highways the limits should be increased imo. Cars and brakes improve all the time, yet the speed limits have stayed the same for ages.
I don't think a speed limit is really necessary on roads that aren't especially dangerous. The majority of people out there are good drivers, and they know which speeds are safe to go at. There are morons who like to barrel down the road at 120 miles per hour, but would you really need a speed limit to tell that he's driving unsafely?
As a driver myself in the UK i can quiet catagorically say that most people out there are not good driver's they are cocky and think they are gods gift, but they are most certainly not good. To give these people the freedom to police themselves would be a bloody disaster. While we do need speed limit, there need's to be some change in both directions. Many country lanes here are national (70MPH) and you get people that try to do just that. These roads are tighter than a gymnast, just as bendy as one and most of the time ,covered with bush. At most these roads should be 40. Motorways put up to 90 in the fast lane but 70 in the slow, Proper Main roads should be a base 40.
There are pros and cons on speed limits. Some speed limits are for the sole purpose of a speed trap, where the road is designed and looks like it can handle a higher speed limit, but the limit is like 30 MPH. It's absolutely asinine when I see it. We have quite a few around here. It also pisses me off when there are no actual visible speed limit signs on said speed trap roads, so you are going the speed of the rest of the traffic flow, only to find out everyone, including yourself are going 20 miles over the speed limit.
Speed limits are great. If you're travelling at 30 KM/h (18 mph) by the time you have stopped, a car going 50 KM/h (31 mph) has STARTED REACTING and proceeds to jump on his/her break. Only this shows that speed limits are needed. [editline]9th July 2012[/editline] If a pedestrian is: Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;36673227]This thread has made me wonder, in the US what does it take to get a licence for one to drive around without a supervisor? In Australia (or at least my state) if you're below a certain age (I think it's 25) you can apply for a licence once you are 16, if you pass the driver knowledge test (quite a number of questions and you're only allowed to get up to two wrong) you then have to log at least 100 daylight hours and at least 20 night hours of driving with a supervisor, and at least a year after you get that licence and if you have all the hours you can apply for a upgraded one that lets you drive without a supervisor, but you also need to go through a driving test (demonstrating low-risk skills in traffic, such as a bit of highway driving, hill starts, and a reverse parallel park or a three point turn) and get above (I think) 90% in that, and not do anything that would cause an instant failure (eg speeding). So what's it like in the US? or Europe as well?[/QUOTE] We have a similar system in the UK. You can apply for a provisional licence at 16, and start your driving lessons then and there. After your instructor feels you know enough common sense shit, they will probably make you do your theory test, but you can do that at any time on a provisional license, they don't really care. To pass theory you need to answer a few multiple choice questions, I can't remember exactly but you need a large majority of them right to pass, then you do a hazard awareness program, where you have to click the mouse when you see a hazard developing in the video. You need to get most of that right too. Then you can take your practical test (hill starts, manoeuvres, independent driving, etc.). You can pass with up to 13 minors, which are given for simple things like late signals, clutch control, steering control. But will fail instantly for a major such as speeding excessively (a minor is normally given for small speeding incidents), really bad control, etc. And the examiner will actually stop the car and get you the fuck out of it if you get a dangerous (I dread to think what that requires). We still have a fucking ton of awful drivers here. And I thank speed limits so much sometimes. But ours do need restructuring in some places. Going 60 on a country road is shit scary in the car I was practising in.
Everyone in my town goes 10MPH over the limit anyway, and the police don't do anything. In fact, some of the worst speeders are cops. It doesn't help that there's a ton of idiots either.
They are necessary for safety. You can't have someone going 20mph and another person going 90mph (or kph) in the same lane.
[QUOTE=Master Kief-117;36681624]There are pros and cons on speed limits. Some speed limits are for the sole purpose of a speed trap, where the road is designed and looks like it can handle a higher speed limit, but the limit is like 30 MPH. It's absolutely asinine when I see it. We have quite a few around here. It also pisses me off when there are no actual visible speed limit signs on said speed trap roads, so you are going the speed of the rest of the traffic flow, only to find out everyone, including yourself are going 20 miles over the speed limit.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, every so often you see arbitrary drops in speed limits that are clearly just an excuse for cops to farm money from people.
[QUOTE=Haxxer;36681861]Speed limits are great. If you're travelling at 30 KM/h (18 mph) by the time you have stopped, a car going 50 KM/h (31 mph) has STARTED REACTING and proceeds to jump on his/her break. Only this shows that speed limits are needed.[/QUOTE] This argument sounds great and all, but there still needs to be a line drawn somewhere. It would be the safest going 5 mph at all times, but that would be unnecessary and the increase in driving time wouldn't be worth the extra safety. The key is to find where there is an equal balance of safety and convenience. I would say that's around 75 mph on the highway, 50 mph on a large street, and 30 mph on residential/smaller streets. The main barricade to ever increasing the speed limit is the environmentalists. They in fact want to decrease the speed limit for the sole purpose of using less gas and therefore putting out less carbon dioxide. [QUOTE]If a pedestrian is: Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.[/QUOTE] There aren't any pedestrians on the highway. So this really doesn't apply to the most important case when it comes to speed limits.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36700342]This argument sounds great and all, but there still needs to be a line drawn somewhere. It would be the safest going 5 mph at all times, but that would be unnecessary and the increase in driving time wouldn't be worth the extra safety. The key is to find where there is an equal balance of safety and convenience. I would say that's around 75 mph on the highway, 50 mph on a large street, and 30 mph on residential/smaller streets. The main barricade to ever increasing the speed limit is the environmentalists. They in fact want to decrease the speed limit for the sole purpose of using less gas and therefore putting out less carbon dioxide. There aren't any pedestrians on the highway. So this really doesn't apply to the most important case when it comes to speed limits.[/QUOTE] If there aren't speed limits, then there's nothing to stop someone from going a highway speed on a residential road where there [I]are[/I] pedestrians.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36700342] There aren't any pedestrians on the highway. So this really doesn't apply to the most important case when it comes to speed limits.[/QUOTE] So your telling me that people dont go 60km/h (40mph) on a residential road? anyway my 0.02 Speed limits are not set to boost a city's income or otherwise pester the living hell out of you. They are set with safety in mind. There is a reason that a road is only rated to a certain speed - may due in part of geometry or the density of the road. Does it make sense to go 10mph on a main-street? no. But does it make sense to go 75mph on a main-street? no. It makes more sense to go a speed that a driver can easily react if the situation turns ugly (remember that 3-second rule you were taught). On highways the game changes. Highways are meant to move mass amounts of traffic at speed. The speed limit is set with geometry and car safety in mind. You might think that the speed limit is set too low but its for your own safety. Most of the speeds on highways (if not the maximum) are limited to the geometry of the road.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36701472]If there aren't speed limits, then there's nothing to stop someone from going a highway speed on a residential road where there [I]are[/I] pedestrians.[/QUOTE] Notice how I said there should be speed limits in my post, specifically: 75 mph on highways, 50mph on large roads (2+ lanes each direction), 30 mph on residential/commercial roads. Of course there are more possibilities, but those would be taken on a case by case basis. I think we can all agree that highways/freeways are the only ones that really matter in the US at least. I'm never on side streets for more than 5-10 min at a time anyway.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36706395]Notice how I said there should be speed limits in my post, specifically: 75 mph on highways, 50mph on large roads (2+ lanes each direction), 30 mph on residential/commercial roads. Of course there are more possibilities, but those would be taken on a case by case basis. I think we can all agree that highways/freeways are the only ones that really matter in the US at least. I'm never on side streets for more than 5-10 min at a time anyway.[/QUOTE] A lot of places [I]are[/I] taken on a case by case basis. They don't just throw "Okay, this whole area here gets this limit, this whole are over there gets that limit". When you say you're never on side streets more than 5-10 minutes, do you mean as a driver or a pedestrian?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36713716]A lot of places [I]are[/I] taken on a case by case basis. They don't just throw "Okay, this whole area here gets this limit, this whole are over there gets that limit". When you say you're never on side streets more than 5-10 minutes, do you mean as a driver or a pedestrian?[/QUOTE] As a driver, if the destination is further than that I just get on a highway and they are almost never further than 5-10 min away. Most highways are given a 65 mph speed limit automatically.
speed=power. humans abuse power. yeah they're necessary. [img]http://farm1.staticflickr.com/2/3610983_85b590e96c.jpg[/img]
I see them as a general guideline and a precautionary measure to make sure that people aren't likely to cause accidents by going too fast in areas not built for it.
I think the speed limit of 30mph inside villages is fairly important. All the villages around me have a lot of tight roads, tight corners, dodgy parked cars and potential children running rampant. Outside of that though, it seems less important. Something I found interesting was that people get annoyed when people don't go the speed limit (like going 40 in a 50). It's like all the speed limit is set a target and make people think it can't hurt to get an extra 5 or 10 mph over the limit.
Speed limits are a necessary evil. You look everywhere that once had unrestricted speed limits, and then compare it to the years after the speed restriction was implemented, and you'll notice that people generally cannot be trusted to select a safe speed for themselves. Now days, cars are safer, roads are safer (so much safer it's ridiculous), certain countries have proper driver training... higher speed limits for motorways are realistic, but unrestricted speed, never again. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Blazyd;36695702]They are necessary for safety. You can't have someone going 20mph and another person going 90mph (or kph) in the same lane.[/QUOTE] Yes you can, it's just that someone has to be overtaken in either another lane or on the other side of the road. Most countries will eventually get to the point where speed limits will be set high enough, that not all traffic is expected to travel at the speed limit - saying that speed differential is an issue just does not wash.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36575626]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.[/QUOTE] I disagree with your first statement. If there's a drastic change in the speed limit (especially a decrease), there is a hazardous turn or maneuver coming up. I know when I'm driving in Pennsylvania in mountainous regions, the speed limit will jump around all over the place (i'm sure people can relate to this) as there are many twists and turns that are very unsafe, while there are portions that are straight-forward driving.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;36787773]I disagree with your first statement. If there's a drastic change in the speed limit (especially a decrease), there is a hazardous turn or maneuver coming up. I know when I'm driving in Pennsylvania in mountainous regions, the speed limit will jump around all over the place (i'm sure people can relate to this) as there are many twists and turns that are very unsafe, while there are portions that are straight-forward driving.[/QUOTE] I was thinking more along the lines of the Great Plains states. They have straight, flat roads that I don't think need much attention as places like the PA mountains (which I have driven through many times so I know where you're coming from). You can't have a standard system of speed limits everywhere or a standard system of no limits everywhere. Everywhere needs to be evaluated for its own sake instead of rubber stamped as another limit for whatever reason. Mountains are understandable. Residential is definitely necessary. Plains where no one lives for quite a distance? A bit unnecessary.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;36720323]Yes you can, it's just that someone has to be overtaken in either another lane or on the other side of the road. [B]Most countries will eventually get to the point where speed limits will be set high enough, that not all traffic is expected to travel at the speed limit[/B] - saying that speed differential is an issue just does not wash.[/QUOTE] What exactly do you mean by this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.