Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisper | Hacker News Reader

Your view is so naive that I won't even try to argue against it. Your argument only works if cameras weren't set up as traps.

Tricky speed cameras make people drive like robots. Some people even drive 20 below the speed limit "just because there could be a camera lurking." This problem isn't easily solved by "just sticking to the speed limit" because many cameras are set up such that they catch you when it isn't natural to drive at exact speed limit (For example shortly before a town ends, or driving up a steep hill etc.).

View on HN

No, my argument even works if the cameras are set up as traps. The speed limit at any stretch of the road is well known. It's visibly posted at the sides if it deviates from the expected.

You're are arguing in favor of "everybody exceeds the speed limit, so we shouldn't punish it." I'm arguing in favor of "everyone should drive at the speed limit." Have you tried lately to drive 30 in a posted 30kmh zone? 50kmh in a city center? You'll be regarded as a traffic obstacle. And that's the problem.

> when it isn't natural to drive at exact speed limit (For example shortly before a town ends, or driving up a steep hill etc.).

Why isn't it "natural" to drive at the posted speed limit until you're at the end of the down? How many seconds do you gain? Is it "natural" to not be able to keep your impulse to put the pedal to the metal in check? The sign "this is the end of the town" exactly signifies that border. People not observing that might be exactly the reason why there's a speed trap - not making money, enforcing the rule.

Why is it "natural" to not observe the speed limit going up a steep hill? Especially on a steep hill it's hard to see what's happening behind the crest.

Are you arguing with "nature" or just "I don't see the use of that rule, so it doesn't apply to me"?

Is that your nature? If so, I'd prefer if you gave up driving.

Your rhetorical questions about ‘why isn’t it natural’ have been researched. Turns out there is indeed a natural and safe speed for given road conditions, and a high percentile of drivers will stay within that envelope.

The traps are when townships set speed limits well below the envelope, a speed that is unnatural.

A classic example is rural interstate highway, when the limit will drop from 75 to 55 because of “population density” even when the density is far from the highway and not traffic-interactive, then sit their local law enforcement on the highway to selectively pull over out of town / out of state “speeders”. Let’s be clear - there is no safety element to this practice.

A similar thing happens on rural roads at “town” boundaries. Classic examples in, say, Vermont, with winding mountain roads and natural speed limits. Hit an “incorporated” town that got itself a cop car, and you suddenly have a speed limit 15 - 20 mph below the rest of the road, with the first sign just around a tight corner, and the camera or cop sitting right there. The only safety difference in the road is the legal incorporation status of the town, nothing “natural” about that.

Please don’t take my word for any of this, it’s been researched.

> Please don’t take my word for any of this, it’s been researched.

Well, link the research, so I don't have to take your word for this.

> A classic example is rural interstate highway, when the limit will drop from 75 to 55 because of “population density” even when the density is far from the highway and not traffic-interactive, then sit their local law enforcement on the highway to selectively pull over out of town / out of state “speeders”. Let’s be clear - there is no safety element to this practice.

As always and in any case, bad actors are everywhere. But is that really such a common practice that you can just lump in all speed traps and just say "all of them are money traps"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com