Actually, there are speed limits on the Autobahn. Trucks must obey a speed limit on 100% of the German Autobahn, and they must by law drive in the right lave except to pass. Near large cities, there is a speed limit for all cars, too. The only place that there is no speed limit for cars is in rural areas. But if it’s raining or snowing, there is a speed limit even on the rural Autobahn. People were routinely going 90 MPH or so when I was there, but no one was going 150 MPH. I think they save that for low traffic times, like 5AM. As you said, there are experienced high speed drivers and they would know better than to go 3 times as fast as much of the traffic on the highway.
“OK. Time for my 2 cents. There are some drivers who can drive fast and not cause accidents. The problem is most drivers can’t drive fast without causing accidents. Throw in poor attention and cell phones and it gets worse. In Germany, the Autobahn has areas where there are no speed limits.”
Two thoughts…speeders sometimes cause accidents they may not be aware of; as they drive off into the sunset. I’ve seen it happen.
Secondly; yes, the autobahn has fewer accidents per mile, but I wouldn’t hold the autobahn up to comparison w/o better scrutiny. Things like better off/on acceleration ramp lanes and overall design contribute too.
Do you think “Robt” would be more at home there ?
My philosophy is “If they have to slam on their brakes, they were going to fast in the first place” 
i think they are a good thing, they should be in every state. If you cant leave 5 minutes earlier thats your problem, dont drive like a maniac and kill someone in the process. Fight terrorism, drive like a american.
I think the accidents happen when drivers see the flash and start pounding the steering wheel shouting, “GAAARRRHGGGGHHHHHHHRABAFRAGGABASSAFRASSSFLIPPINGARGGGAARRRRRRGGGAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!!!” Then they steer into a tree.
As others have said, it’s all about the money. Worse yet, it’s only about the money.
“Safety” is just an excuse cooked up by greedy politicians and the camera industry to dupe the public. When raw numbers are unfavorable, certain types of accidents are weighted more than others to make the results look better. Remember the saying, “Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.”
Many of the red light tickets are issued for right hand turns. The car stops, but doesn’t sit stationary for a long enough time.
A number of cities have canceled their contracts with camera companies after the revenue fails to come in as promised.
The best way to set a speed limit is to use the 85th percentile. Also, require slower traffic to keep to the right. Enforce both of them equally.
By the way, I’m neither the fastest nor the slowest on the road. When I catch up to a slower driver, I change lanes and go around, preferably on the left. Often, I have to speed up momentarily to avoid blocking the passing lane. Immediately after the pass, I move back over and slow down to my previous speed. Why can’t everybody drive like this?
What about when a surveillance camera covers a shoplifter? Or a someone breaking into an ATM? The accuser is the State, not the tool they use to gather evidence.
What I don’t understand is, I have heard of many people that ignore these tickets. They receive the notice, and just toss it. The claim is, since no officer issued the ticket they can ignore it. I even heard 2 highway patrol officers agree! I personally know of one person that received a notice over 2 years ago, never paid it and was never tracked down. Why send the notice, if you aren’t going to follow up and make sure people pay?
I have heard numerous reports about how the cameras have lowered serious accidents in the locations where they are in use; so I’m in favor. I see them regularly along the I-10 to CA; and they do prompt drivers to slow down.
As far as fast drivers not be a hazard, baloney. Your reaction time is reduced dramatically the faster you are going. I know we all think our reflexes are perfect, but we all are victims of time and our reflexes do reduce as we age. This happens to all, whether we like it or not.
But, if we drove like AN American, there’d probably be more accidents than we’ve been having.
I find that hard to believe,kind of like"you are not obligated to pay income taxes under the provisions of the U.S. constitution"-Kevin
"For one thing, even if the increase in fatalities was negligible, there would still be an increase. How do you explain to someone that the death of her or his loved one is statistically insignificant? "
Same way you would/did when the speed limits were raised from the 55 MPH limit to the 65-75 MPH limits you see today.
“In addition, our energy usage would increase (exponentially?). We already use more energy per capita than citizens of any other country, and we can’t sustain that forever. Even if we were safe driving 100 MPH on limited access highways, not everyone could afford to, and that would create an unsafe situation based on the difference in speeds. Demand for fuel would increase as well, driving fuel prices up past $4 per gallon again, and I don’t think anyone wants that.”
This were proper driving and lane discipline comes into play. If you want to drive slower you stay in the right lane. This would have to be enforced by the police, much like it is on the autobahn. $4 a gallon isn’t that much to pay for a gallon of gas when you take into account how much gasoline costs around the world. Again nobody is saying you have to drive 100 MPH.
“FoDaddy, what exactly would you gain by increasing speed limits? We can already get where we want to go in a reasonable amount of time. Those who can’t be on time often have issues that can be resolved with better time management.”
Think big picture. The time it takes for a cross country trip would be reduced by literally days. Lets say someone has a 30 mile commute. and it currently takes this person 35 minutes to get to work driving the speed limit. Suppose that he/she could reduce travel time to 20 minutes. That’s a 30 minute reduction in travel time a day, or about 2.5 hours a week (if you have a 5 day work week) it adds up. Obviously if you have a longer commute you’d save more time, less if you have a shorter one.
“Lastly, consider what happens when you approach slow-moving traffic (0-5 MPH). Would you really be safe approaching sitting traffic at higher speeds?”
Clearly you would have to travel at speeds that were safe for condtions. Even at 100 MPH with good visibility you will be able to see a gaggle of stopped cars on the road and stop in time. At night or in bad weather it would not be safe to drive at triple digit speeds. It’s not often that you see a car moving at 5 MPH on the interstate, if it’s broken down, it should be on the shoulder of the road.
What reduction?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/01/22/20090122pinalradar0122.html
It’s their fault for not maintaining proper following distance, not necessarily for speeding.
It’s also the fault of the traffic engineers for setting the speed limit too low, and in fact the speed limit may be illegal. (There is a legal requirement in AZ, for example, to set it at the 85th percentile, unless there are unusual circumstances…school zones and such)
It’s also your fault for going so much slower than everyone around you. By creating a large difference in speed, you made it much more difficult to maintain proper following distance.
In Phoenix, it’s on the freeways. Right at the first speed limit sign past an on ramp. No way to know what the limit was. Lovely.
The vans are usually on the freeways, too, except those are usually right before construction areas. (and after the speed limit sign)
FoDaddy, do remember the effect high energy prices had on our economy? Do you really want to repeat that?
Same way you would/did when the speed limits were raised from the 55 MPH limit to the 65-75 MPH limits you see today.
I thought the answer was that safety equipment had increased, so we were able to reasonably increase speed limits to a point where automotive fatalities didn’t increase. At the increase you are proposing, that won’t be the case.
I think this whole idea is self-centered and ignores the larger issues. It is only a good idea when you put your desires above other people’s needs.
You’ve given many justifications, but not any good reasons. You can justify increasing energy prices for poor Americans by saying other people in other countries pay more. That doesn’t make it a good idea.
You are the one who needs to “think big picture.” You can already take time off your cross country trips. We have these new inventions called jet airplanes, and you can find them in these newfangled buildings called airports. When you get to your destination, you can even rent a car. If you are moving, you can have your car transported for a reasonable fee.
You seem to have all the answers, but clearly, you are ignoring reality, and your justifications read as short-sighted self-centered sophism.
“Should automated cameras be used to enforce the law: Well if it is the law, why should we prevent the police from effectively enforcing it?”
In the manner in which camera tickets are issued, there are some due-process concerns. (Do you necessarily even get the ticket, does it go to the right person, etc. If a cop issues a ticket, service is not in question. Also, do you have a right to contest it?) There’s also the times when the camera is placed in such a manner as it is NOT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS before you get flashed. Also, because the camera company is ONLY concerned with revenue (while the local government has other concerns alongside revenue) and they’re the ones who basically run the whole thing, the incentive is to just generate as many tickets as possible. Due process or fairness are going to go right out the window.
The evidence in Pinal county has been enough for them to remove the cameras. (3 extra dead bodies, a lot more accidents) It’s been enough for the whole state to consider removing them. You lose.
Oh, and a motorcycle cop hiding behind a billboard has NONE of the problems speed cameras have.
-
A cop has the ability to know if a violation has actually taken place, can find out if the person in the photo is the owner of the car more easily than the photo radar company (who do not care BTW), and has some idea if it was an honest mistake, if it was actually dangerous, or if it was someone deliberately and defiantly flouting the law. They can show some discretion.
-
A cop behind a billboard isn’t going to make someone slam on their brakes when they are suddenly noticed, if they’re really hidden. A speed camera generally has to be out in the open, but it isn’t very big, so people don’t notice it until they’re close. A cop car (or bike) if it is out in the open, is seen from a distance away. It doesn’t catch people by surprise, generally. There goes the suspected cause for increases in accidents with speed cameras.
Also, a cop can use a traffic stop as an opportunity to screen for other violations. Many criminals wanted for other offenses are caught at traffic stops. A speed camera cannot do that. The best it can do is tell law enforcement that this person was in the area.
I’m not the biggest fan of cops (they’re not all bad, or even mostly bad, but you never know who you’re getting), but they’re VASTLY superior to speed cameras (and red light cameras) in just about every way. And if they don’t have the same cost/revenue mix, they make up for it in other ways.
I’d love to hear you make that argument in traffic court. “Your Honor, I know the posted speed limit was 55, but that is too low!” See where that gets you.
I’d also like to be in the courtroom when you say, “It was his fault I rear-ended him. He was driving too slow.”
By the way, you do know the proper following distance varies by speed, don’t you? It is based on the time that passes after the vehicle in front of you passes a stationary object and before you pass the same object. When you go slower, you don’t need the same amount of space. Consequently, traffic density can be a valid reason to lower speed limits.
You seem to have what psychologists call a “locus of control” problem, where you are capable of blaming other people for your decision to operate your vehicle in an illegal manner. When YOU get behind the wheel, it is up to YOU to operate your car in a safe and legal manner. Try as you might, you can’t blame other people for your mistakes.
The accusation doesn’t go out automatically in that case. And with speed cameras, the accuser is a private company hired by the state. A private company that does not have the same incentives as the state.
From your article:
The county’s program is separate from the one operated by the Arizona Department of Public Safety on freeways statewide…
The sheriff said he couldn’t be certain that speed cameras were to blame for the crashes…
How is this relevant?