[stinkytaco]

>By itself, speeding is a victimless crime: if you hit something or someone with your car, you were doing something wrong besides just speeding.

This is so untrue I don't even know where to begin. The number of accidents that could be prevented if people would just slow down is amazing. Icy, rainy, foggy... going too fast is by far the most common cause of accidents.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/knowledge...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-...

I said this in another reply and I will say it again, speed limits are designed by engineers, not by "untrained, politically-appointed bureaucrats". Of all the things you could come down on the government for, this is one of those first-world problems that just makes you look uninformed.

[CamperBob2]

Icy, rainy, foggy... going too fast is by far the most common cause of accidents.

Your mistake is in confusing "going too fast for conditions" with "going too fast for a sign at the side of the road." The relevant laws are more complex than your beliefs. Failure to maintain appropriate speed for conditions does indeed get people killed, but it has nothing to do with "speeding."

Under the wrong conditions, even driving 10 MPH below the speed limit can be suicidally reckless. Under the right conditions, driving at twice the speed limit confers negligible incremental risk.

I said this in another reply and I will say it again, speed limits are designed by engineers, not by "untrained, politically-appointed bureaucrats"

You can say it as much as you want, but this not being Harry Potter Land, it won't make it true. Speed limits are typically set by engineers by taking the 85th percentile speed into consideration, but it's trivial to find countless examples where local and state politics have dictated lower limits for the sake of revenue-raising, misguided ideas of what makes for safe driving conditions, or both.

[stinkytaco]

Considering all anyone has done is make assertations with no proof, I will take the view of the many traffic engineers I work with over your so called "trivial to find" examples, none of which you or anyone else has been able to provide or prove. I'm sure your expert driving skills keep you very safe, but I will count myself lucky that the 17 year old that cruises down my street at 45 MPH despite his percieved ability got pulled over.

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law? I find that surprising, considering how much discretionary power that would put in the hands of the government.

[jrockway]

Speeders are falling for the old "99% of people rate themselves as above average" thing. Most people feel safe speeding because they have never personally gotten into an accident. The lack of consequences creates a feeling of being invincible, or competence at the very least.

The fact is, if you hit a person at 35 they have a much higher chance of dying than if you hit them at 25. We encourage people to drive slowly so that they have more time to react to unexpected conditions and that if they fail to react, other people are not injured. Speeding is like dumping toxic waste into the nearby river: pure selfishness.

[CamperBob2]

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law?

It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

You need to consult your state's driver's handbook, rather than asking some random guy on HN. Chances are it uses almost the same phrasing you're asking about. Failing that, have a look at the Michigan State Police's site: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1593_30536_25802-16... . I didn't read the whole page but it seems to do a good job explaining the difference between prima facie speed limits and "basic speed law."

I find that surprising, considering how much discretionary power that would put in the hands of the government.

Artificially-low speed limits give them that discretion now, which is sort of the whole point of my mini-rant.

[stinkytaco]

>It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

Yes I know it's the law. I should have been more clear:

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

[CamperBob2]

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

I don't know. I'm not a traffic engineer, and that's the sort of question they would be best equipped to hash out. It certainly needs to be a component of the law, or a policeman would have no legal way to stop some lunatic who drives at the posted 75 MPH limit in a foggy blizzard.

I do know that "reasonable and prudent" was the exclusive rule on Montana's highways prior to the 55 MPH Federal NMSL law in the 1970s, and that they tried returning to it for a time after the NMSL was repealed. For whatever reason, it didn't work for them, and they went back to setting specific limits.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

Sorry, I'm not a librarian either. I'm satisfied that my position is correct and I have the same right (or lack thereof) to state it here that you do.

As far as our disagreement is concerned, it might help if we could drill down and find out exactly where our opinions diverge. Here are the premises I'm working from:

1) To optimize safe and efficient traffic flow, speed limits should be set by traffic engineers, and not by mayors, police chiefs, legislators, or soccer moms. (My main concern is highway speed limits, as I almost never find myself exceeding posted limits in populated areas, but I assert that this is true in all cases.)

2) However, not all speed limits are set by traffic engineers. It's indisputable that some are set for political reasons, and no, I am not going to "provide citations" for something this obvious. Subjectively, as my initial post in the thread stated, I'd go so far as to say that most limits are politically influenced. An organization such as www.motorists.org would be a better place to look for cases and statistics.

3) People who have the political authority to set or influence speed limits, and who are not qualified traffic engineers, almost always want lower limits than the engineers would advise setting for the conditions at hand.

From these I conclude that it cannot be the case that speed limits are always set at the optimal point for safe and efficient traffic flow. Experience as a driver suggests that speed limits are not commonly set at artificially high values. That leaves only one conclusion: that at least some speed limits are set artificially low.

Which specific assertion(s) do you disagree with, and why? I'd invite you to show this reply to your friends in traffic engineering as well, so we could see what areas they would agree/disagree with.