[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Mike Meredith]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:51:12 -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> So, you both think it's perfectly fine to site speed traps at the
> bottoms of hills to  catch people who didn't notice they picked up two
> or three mph rolling down the hill?  

Yep. Three points :-

1: They're breaking the law (and I"m an evil bastard)
2: There may be a hidden danger at the bottom of the hill. In the UK
   it is not unknown to site fake speed cameras at danger spots.
3: In the UK, whilst you are caught on camera for speeding at any rate
   over the speed limit you are unlikely to be fined for being a little
   bit over.

> Or to intentionally set
> artificially low speed limits to increase speed ticket revenue?

Who says it's artificially low ?

> 202 near Paoli, Pennsylvania.  Within a span of about 300 yards, the
> speed limit goes from 35, to 45, to 25, and back to 45.)

Bad implementation. Obviously such things occur. You could of course
investigate why they are so badly planned and campaign for some sanity.

> ways that inspire no respect.  Most people, left to themselves, will
> drive at a speed which they consider safe and reasonable.  Most of the
> time, they'll be right.  (The ones who don't care if it's safe or not

I'd dispute that. Some drivers on roads where they are familiar with the
dangers will drive at sensible speeds. But on a road where they are not
familiar with the dangers ? Seems unlikely.

A story to demonstrate how stupid people can be :-

Almost every winter there is a huge accident (or more than one) on the
M4 in the UK. This motorway is subject to particularly dense fog and
whenever the fog arrives, you will find large numbers of motorists
driving at 70mph (or higher) just a few feet from the tail of the car in
front. If you don't realise this is insanely dangerous, there's no hope
for you. My dad (who is enthusiastic about speed, and recalls the days
of 'unrestricted' roads (no speed limit) with relish) once in the 1980s
pulled off such a motorway in a fog and said that we were waiting until
the fog was gone.

> speed limits anyway, no matter how reasonable.)  The vast majority of
> traffic accidents do not occur because somebody was driving at an
> unsafe speed; they occur because somebody wasn't paying attention. 

Of course. No accident is caused by speed, but speed makes it more
likely that you will have an accident (you have less time to react to
the unexpected) and ensures that an accident is more likely to be
lethal.

> Making drivers bored and frustrated by requiring them to drive 25mph
> on a road that would be perfectly safe at 45mph makes that worse, not

There's plenty of reasons why a road that appears to a motorist who
isn't familiar with the area to be safe at 45, would have a limit of
25 ... a school just around the corner discharging irresponsible road
users at regular intervals (who probably deserve a clip around the ear,
but not to have their brains smeared over the road), a stealthy exit to
an industrial site sending out slow-moving trucks at random intervals,
pedestrian crossings in unexpected places, etc.

In fact all those reasons apply to the road outside my flat.

Besides it's not just about safety ... why shouldn't limits be lowered
to reduce road noise and pollution in appropriate places ? I'd be quite
happy if the road outside my flat was changed from a laxly enforced
40mph to a viciously enforced 25mph road, and as my taxes help pay for
it surely I have as much right to determine the speed limit as the
motorists who use it (and very frequently don't contribute anything to
the upkeep) ?