[retsibsi]

I see this attitude a lot, but it seems strange to me. Of course any hard line will be somewhat arbitrary, but we need to draw hard lines if we want unambiguous, consistently enforceable laws. What's special about speed limits that makes it okay to ignore them?

To me they seem analogous to age-of-consent laws, which of course are not perfectly chosen for every individual -- and of course there's no magical change that occurs on a person's birthday -- but the law reflects society's best judgment of the balance between (protecting the vulnerable and allowing people to make their own choices :: safety and efficiency).

[rhacker]

I somewhat agree, I keep fighting this on HN - but speed limits are for two categories of people - the people driving, and the people expecting those drivers to be going a specific speed (or range). And 40 - 50 is not a range that is ever safe to put near people.

I grew up near (in the bay area) Almaden Expy where the signs post 45 (which means that in the bay area the limit is really 55). Just search for "Almaden Expy killed" in google and let me know if that's a safe street.

[Dylan16807]

It's analogous to that, except that speed limits very reliably take the reasonable-balance number and then drop it several mph. It's a feedback loop, where people drive faster and limits are set with driving faster in mind.