Voluntary speed limiters coming to a country near you ?

If speeding is not an issue, then why have speed limits?

My personal opinion is that if we need speed limits, then set them to a real value and then rigorously enforce that limit. If we don't need them, then don't set a limit. The worst is when we set a limit and then ignore it. Furthermore, if the safe speed for a stretch of road is really 55 mph, then don't set the limit at 45 mph because most people cheat a little. Get rid of the game playing and call a spade a spade.

If you are going to use an automated system to limit speed, the operator of the vehicle needs to be able to override the limit in case of emergency, in which case I have no problem with the vehicle flashing its lights, honking the horn, or ratting out the driver to the police. Emergencies can happen, but you better be able to justify your action. It's just like flying an airplane. The pilot can always declare an emergency and override any command from ATC, but it better be a real emergency or he won't be flying anymore.

Of course all of this only applies to public roads. If you want to use public roads, you have to be willing to abide by the rules. What you do on private property is your own business. If you want to drive faster than the limits, build a race track.

Tom

 

I like the idea of a work for the dole scheme where a fleet of Toyota Crowns drive abreast on major roads sticking to the speed limits so no one can pass, then there is no choice but to drive at the limit. The drivers of the Toyota Crowns must all wear bowling hats or have blue hair while driving so they can be identified.
I think this system is in uses in my town.

 

a picture without audio or background information can tell many different stories, so interptation is important. also, i dont think video of ANYTHING taken from one angle only is conclusive in hardly anything. (but then again, maybe i have spent too much time watch Law and Order??)

which reminds me. i got a ticket for rolling thru a red light in my Zenn. i sent them a rebuttal (in hopes of reducing fine) about 3 months ago. still have not heard from them... i wondered if they threw the ticket out?

 

You must have a different system than here. Here you can send a rebuttal, but you better send the fine too. Then show up in court for the final answer.

 

i live in Olympia Wa, infraction was in Lacey, WA... "court" is in Phoenix, AZ...i dont care what the fine, i will not appear

 

You would normally be told if they did, it might pay to check or there could be late payment costs.

 

well to be honest with ya, i have been thinking for close to a month now on calling their 1-800 # to check the status of it. i figured i would have received some sort of response by now but keep forgetting

 

It's admirable to think a government agency would actually reply to your letter. I'd like to believe it could happen.

But I'm with Pat... if it were me, I'd follow up on it. It would suck to get arrested at some point in the future because of an outstanding motor vehicle violation.

 

i am looking at it right now and options are

1)pay your notice of infraction (payment instructions are below)
2)request a hearing (hearing form request is included.
3) submit a declaration of non-responsibility

i did option #2... which requires a letter sent to "describe my situation in order to determine if mitigating factors were involved that may reduce or eliminate any monetary determination"

no where does it say i should submit the payment, which makes sense because that would require them to process a credit... but its been too long so i will check with them, but they are only open 9pm to 4 pm mon-friday

 

I think I'd check. You might find you're driving with a suspended license or something.

 

just renewed license last week for upcoming trip i am taking , so no holds on me

 

I guess if a warrant had already been sent, you wouldn't have been able to renew the license

 

There is no one single absolute safe "speed limit".

Ideally, the speed limit would be adjusted in real time for each vehicle on the road for basically every single variable which affects travel.

For example, type of vehicle, state of vehicle repair, driver ability, speed of other traffic, road conditions, etc.

A clear road which is safe at 90mph in a sports car could be dangerous in a SUV or pickup truck.

The same road when dark and rainy might only be safe at 55mph in a vehicle with good tires, but that same sports car which could earlier travel at nearly twice the speed could find that his wide, sticky tires hydroplane easily with the slightest bit of standing water and only 45mph is safe.

 

i think a static speed limit is a mistake. different times, weather and traffic densities all provide different levels of danger and the speed limits should be adjusted to reflect that....

what we fail to recognize is that speed limits are the "maximum" allowed safe speeds, but as we all know that also means its for the worst driver under the best driving conditions. the clause where its up to us to determine the safe speed when conditions are not optimal is what i have an issue with.

i live in WA state, here we do not enforce the "stay right except to pass" rule. and it SUCKS... we have people driving under the speed limit clogging all the lanes forcing people driving over the speed limit to weave in and out of these idiots.

contrast that to oregon who does enforce the law. granted they have less traffic, less lanes usually, but the flow of traffic when mixing people driving different speeds is much much safer and nicer without enforcing a difference in the speed at which one drives.

another thing that bothers me is a interstate highway system built by the government that is subject to 50 different sets of rules and regulations. and we wonder why is it that government is so expensive??? i dont, we do it to ourselves. the overlapping jursidictions and the requirements to provide oversight that frequently has to butt heads with other governmental agencies and bodies is quite simply expensive, time-consuming and pathetic

 

Here is an example of overlap. Look at law enforcement where I live. At the federal level we have the FBI, Secret Service, and BATF. Then we have the State Police, the county sheriff, and tribal police. All of these law enforcement organizations have jurisdiction over our little piece of real estate. We could have a village constable and justice of the peace as well, but we wisely decided to do away with those positions. It's crazy, and that's just looking at the enforcement part of the law, not the legislative part.

Tom

 

Actually, at least in CA, there are two different kinds of limits:

Speed Limits (suggested maximum speeds in average conditions - most often found on surface streets - it can be legal to exceed these speeds in good conditions)
Maximum Speed (never to be exceeded, most often found on highways)

In all cases, the Basic Speed Law applies (which means that you can never driver faster than it is safe, regardless of the speed limit.

 

ok...

 

Wha...?

What are these 'suggested maximum speeds in average condition on surface streets' speed limits you are referring to that are legal to exceed? Here, if the surface street says 25mph and you're caught doing 29 even with perfect conditions and no one around except the officer, you get the ticket for speeding.

 

Same thing in Michigan. We have advisory signs for curves, which are yellow and give a suggested speed, but the standard white speed limit sign is god's word on any street. Lacking speed limit signs, the default speed limit comes into place, which depends on the type of street.

Tom

 

The poster called difference between 'Speed Limits' found on surface streets and 'Maximum Speed Limits' found (most often) on highways. A Speed Limit is a speed limit as far as I know.