Hacker News Reader

> I agree people are taken advantage of for things like parking tickets

Remember that some speeding tickets come from cops raking in cash at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit suddenly drops by 15mph according to a sign that's hidden behind a tree. I think it's possible to call this out while also acknowledging that driving too fast is dangerous.

About parking tickets: one day my office mate parked her car on the street where she always did. But when she went to leave for the day, she found a ticket on her car, and its cause: a brand new parking meter right by her car. It had been installed while she was inside.

(She successfully contested the ticket.)

I'll concede that's a crappy situation, yeah. That's definitely something worth talking about as a distinction from speeding in general.

How big a percentage are "some"? If it is a problem of police corruption, it should be tackled as such, not as a sign that the ticket is too high.

I think the money typically goes to the city, which controls both the speed signs and (at least somewhat) where cops are stationed. So its the typical US thing where there's technically no corruption but, huh, that is a bit of a conflict of interest, isn't it?

I've been in the car for 3 tickets, and I'll include one more I recently heard about from a family member. In one case, the driver took a turn on red at 2am when the streets were completely empty. In another, there was a very large and steep hill, and the driver didn't break sufficiently to not go over the speed limit. (The road was straight and the visibility was perfect.) In another, the speed limit quickly changed from 35mph to 15mph for no apparent reason.

In all these cases, these drivers weren't putting anyone in danger. I don't think the cops were waiting in these spots by coincidence; I think they were trying to make money for the city.

In the fourth case, the driver sped on a windy street, and totally deserved the ticket.

> I'm sorry but for this particular problem I have no sympathy

Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy?

Everybody makes mistakes from time to time.. and research shows that higher penalties have little effect.

Someone else pet peeve is people parking illegally because it blocks their drive way. Or blocks emergency vehicles...

> Isn't that part of the problem. Lack of sympathy?

For breaking the law?

A 3 km/h speed over the limit is not in the same category as many other law breaks... It's become such a cash cow in Europe.

Then don't go 3km/h over?

You do have a speedometer in your car, if it's not accurate you can get that fixed for cheap.

I never drive over the limit according to my dashboard instruments no matter how many people behind me get angry.

it's possible yes.

Though sometimes the speed limit is very, very low and it gets annoying to have your eyes constantly on the speedometer.

Care to cite some of that research? I cited supporting literature for my claims elsewhere in this thread; what’s the utility of discussing research if we’re not thinking of common papers to review?

And no, I categorically reject your appeal to “people make mistakes.” A speed trap is a mistake unfairly penalized. Parking under a partially hidden fire zone sign is a mistake. Speeding is a willful decision that evidences either ignorance or disregard for the impact of higher speeds and traffic disparity on mortality risk.

I really don’t think calling this a “pet peeve” like when someone blocks a driveway is at all comparable.

The whole idea of speeding is bullshit. The germans have the autobahn, and as far as I know nobody really complains about the lack of a speed limit, nor people going over 120 miles an hour.

Speeding IMHO is almost never the issue, it’s careless or reckless driving, failure to obey traffic laws, and distracted driving. The idea of taking a single arbitrary driving test as a teen and never again is insane.

Speeding goes against the legal and socially agreed upon limit. That, in and of itself, is reckless as it increases the difference in speed between someone operating "legally" and yourself.

Now I must decide whether I care more about my life or the law. It's not a great position to be placed in because you need to arrive at your destination 30 seconds faster.

The socially agreed upon limit, is the speed of traffic. That is after all, the speed society is driving.

The legal limit often has no relation to it and no basis in science or common sense. Not to mention a failure to account for progress in vehicle development, tire technology, etc.

That would only be true if the whole of society was driving and we took an average.

The socially agreed upon limit is the legal limit.

There are various streets where the social limit is higher than the legal one. In Rome there is a place where the speed limit is 50km/h but everyone (literally) drives at 90 km/h. When someone drives at 50 on thay street it endangers the whole traffic.

As another response mentioned, the "socially agreed upon limit" is the speed of traffic. I must have missed the meeting where we all got together and discussed what the speed limit ought to be.

The speed limit is often arbitrary and that's part of the problem. We become immune to posted limits because the ones posted on highways and major roads are obviously inappropriate and not updated as technology and zoning changes. Then, many drivers ignore them when they do matter e.g. neighborhoods, school zones, curves.

You're almost never going to be affected by someone simply speeding - it's drivers who speed _recklessly_. I'm fortunate enough to have never gotten into an accident even though I've driven all around the world. The person that's going to cause an accident is the one speeding AND weaving between cars or tailgating.

Either way, it's irrelevant. The point of the thread is that speeding tickets are little more than a financial instrument for local, and sometimes state, governments.

The German Autobahn has at least 50% an enforced speed limit. The remaining roads (non-Autobahn) have limits and Germans would complain for a variety of reasons if these limits would be taken away.

In southern Germany along Lake Constance I once drove through a series of towns on a main road. Each of them had a camera enforced 30 km/h (about 19 mph) speed limit. On a billboard it was explained this was because of traffic noise.

I was surprised when I spotted the first camouflage colored camera and stood on the brakes. Luckily I didn't get a letter.

None of the towns had a sign indicating the end of the low speed regime. In a biergarten I asked someone when the low speed usually ends and he told me that at the end of the town there's a sign on which the town's name is striked through. This is also the end of the low speed regime! Then I continued and I arrived at a larger town. There I seem to have missed the end of the low speed area because people started to overtake me.

I thought it's their own fault because it's the people in these towns who have asked for the low speed on their roads.

So it’s somehow not your fault that you don’t know German law and so didn’t realize that the explicit speed limit ended with signage for „end of this city“? (And an most likely another speed limit begun depending on the number of lanes)

That was at the last town which was a bit larger. I was still inside the town and thought I had to keep the low speed till I encountered the end of town sign as the biergarten guy told me. Additionally I thought the signage less than optimal: rather small signs behind bushes and so on. Once or twice I saw the speed cameras before the sign. So that's why I felt it's their own fault.

Speed Limits in Germany are generally valid until End of Town or the next (major) intersection (not every road intersecting with the lane you're on counts as such, the sidewalk has to be interrupted). There are exceptions; Speed Limit Zones (Zones, not simple Limits, usually 30KPH) do not end at intersections and there are special Walking Speed Zones (Beruhigte Zone, usually around Schools or dense Community Areas) where the max speed is 10kph where you get much more severe fines than in other zones (especially around schools).

Thanks a lot. I wouldn't have expected Switzerland and Germany to have such different traffic laws.

Most fines, including speeding tickets, are bullshit. Why? Because they are enforced in a random/chaotic way, they are unfair, and there's almost no proof that expensive tickets increase security on roads.

You get a speeding ticket when you drive to fast. The easy solution is not to drive over the limit.

This is not hard nor is your life at risk if you do 80 in a 80 zone instead of 90 kph. (Unless it is, which is why Ambulances don't really have to adhere to traffic law where I live)

Don't drive too fast and you don't get speeding tickets, problem solved, no?

(There may be no proof that tickets make roads safer but appropriate speed limits do)

They’re not bullshit. If you don’t speed you can’t be penalized for speeding. Claiming it’s unfair because you were caught and penalized when so many others were not is not a substantive refutatation of the system. It is unfair, but you have total control over your culpability.

Furthermore, do you have any studies supporting your claim that expensive tickets don’t reduce speeding?

In Germany there is no (general) speed limit; accidents are in line with comparable countries with speed limits.

I would argue that driving close to the vehicle in front ("close" being a function of speed) is much more dangerous than speed itself.

> In Germany there is no (general) speed limit

Yes there is. The autobahn may be roughly 50% without speed limits, but every other road has speed limits.

Unless otherwise indicated these are 100 km/h between villages, 50km/h in cities and villages.

On the German _Autobahn_ there is no general speed limit.

There is a speed limit of 50km/h in towns and villages, which is often dropped down to 30 in pedestrian rich areas, in front of schools and so on. There is a 100km/h speed limit on normal roads outside of settlements. These are one-lane in each direction with not separation.

On the Autobahn, you have at least two lanes in each direction with separation. There is no general speed limit but there are many speed limited stretches, usually to 120km/h. These limits are on about 50% of the Autobahn.

Fines for speeding are not really high, but you do get "point", so multiple violations can lead to losing your drivers license.

To get a license, you take a minimum of 12 driving lessons and a theoretical course. There is theoretical test and a practical test.

I think the high-quality drivers education + the safety features of cars + the mandatory inspections of the cars (yearly) help offset the safety risk of the higher speeds.

Okay, you can argue that. But:

1. I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about speeding,

2. Statistically, speeding is dangerous.

Oh god spare me. It's as if you have no grasp of physics. You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph.

If 70mph is dangerous, why do many states allow it as a speed limit?

> You're going to die whether I hit you at 60mph or 70mph.

If you slam on your brakes first, starting at 60mph instead of 70mph could save a life.

EDIT: Oh, it's a troll. Wasn't as clear when I posted this. I need to learn not to feed the trolls... sorry all.

We should all drive 20mph to save all those hypothetical pedestrians.

What else can we police to make everything Just That Much Safer (TM)?

So just to be clear, your position is that 60 mph and 70 mph are:

1) equally safe, all else being equal,

2) equally safe, in an where one of those speeds is faster than the legal speed limit,

3) equally safe, when there is a disparity in surrounding traffic speed (possibly due to #2).

I want to be extremely clear if that's really your position, because if it is you're hand waving away the danger of a ~16% increase in speed.

Negative. I am in fact saying those two speeds are nearly equally dangerous, such that fining one and not fining another is arbitrary and extortionary.

A pedestrian will die or be gravely injured at nearly any speed. A car crashing into another car, especially in opposing directions, is extremely dangerous above say 45mph.

You either go on the road and accept this risk, or you don't.

Or of course, you end the multi billion dollar car lobbyist industry and I will happily ride a moped to work instead.

People who drive 110mph on the highway in traffic are objectively dangerous. Most cars don't brake well from that speed.

70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.

I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone).

More generally the graph from that first source is telling: look at how sharply it increases, even after 50 mph. Other than interstates, most roads aren't 65 mph zones! And simply allowing any speed limit above 55 mph has a meaningful increase in vehicular collision mortality [2].

I can empathize that you consider the fines to be arbitrary and extortionist, and I understand that you think you're leaving adequate distance between yourself and other cars. But 96% of American drivers believe their driving ability is above average [3]; people substantially overestimate their driving skill and safety in general. Therefore though I understand why people feel the need to speed (and I used to!), I really cannot sympathize with arguments for leniency towards speeding penalties.

_________________

1. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r...

2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10...

3. http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.p...

>I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone).

By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads.

There is existing reasearch which indicates two things: 1) Most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable driving at but some obey speed limits (even if they are comfortable driving faster) and 2) It is differences in speed, not speeding, which causes most accidents.

Considering these factors, speed limits can artificially increases differences in speed among drivers. When the federal speed limit law was repealed, many states who raised their speed limits saw decreases in both accidents and fatalities.

That's not to say speed limits are causing accidents, but I think it's possible that they could be in certain context. It's not as cut and dry as "speeding kills".

You could look at a speed limit as a social contract. There are other positive reasons to go slower than avoiding death (gas mileage for one). However, if there is an agreed upon legal limit, then by speeding you are violating that contract directly increasing the difference in speed therefore increasing the chance of an accident.

> By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads.

Is it not illegal to be a pedestrian on a freeway where you are? Motorways are one of only three parts of the UK road system where pedestrians are forbidden.

OP was referring to overall probability of human death, not just pedestrian death/accident. To answer your question though, states can determine their own laws - most choose to make it illegal for pedestrians to be on the freeway in congested areas. There are places where you can ride you bicycle on the freeway, usually in rural areas (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm)

> By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads.

No, that’s not an extension to what I’m saying. That would be safer yes, but you can afford to go faster with fewer pedestrians around.

> Considering these factors, speed limits can artificially increases differences in speed among drivers. When the federal speed limit law was repealed, many states who raised their speed limits saw decreases in both accidents and fatalities.

If you read the research I cited you’ll see that no, actually most states observed higher mortality in the transition from 55 mph to 65 mph speed limits. You can forward arguments that speeding isn’t the real culprit, or that there are worse problems. But you can sidestep that entirely by simply not speeding - then all risks related to speeding evaporate.

So to be clear I agree with you that speed disparity is a problem, but I would advocate both reducing speed limits and imposing extraordinary fines (and other punitive measures) to make the risk reward calculus of speed disparity very unattractive. Speeding directly causes the traffic disparity you’re talking about.

> 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.

The problem then becomes others tailgating and driving into the space in front of you, effectively diminishing you braking room.

I would correct that the 16% increase in speed leads to a 36% increase in kinetic energy, so it should be 36% more dangerous which I find much better than simply talking about increased speed (energy increases by square, even a 30kph difference, 100kph and 70kph, can double the amount of road you need to break)

Airtight logic there. Might as well go 120mph, since hitting someone will still kill them just as dead.

Ban all cars then dude. I'd be the first donator.