BF2S Forums Speed limits

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Speed limits are there mainly for reaction times, and the conditions of the road.

Hence why you're meant to slow down at schools, so you can brake safer and in shorter distance if an errant child should run out on the road without looking. Or if the road has a lot of bends the signed limit is there for you to take the road safely even in wet weather (most of the time). Also for "black spots" where some bad accidents have happened, they'll sometimes put up lots of signs and a speed camera to ensure motorists slow down (a prime example here in Australia is the Pacific Highway heading north to Byron Bay after Ballina, or south bound vice versa).

A lot of people drive pretty dangerously, speed cameras ensure they slow down at least for a bit and make the road a little safer.

Every study has shown that speed cameras are completely ineffective in reducing automobile accidents. They actually increase them because people slow down suddenly once they realize they are in a speed trap. They're nothing more than revenue generators.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Speed limits are there mainly for reaction times, and the conditions of the road.

Hence why you're meant to slow down at schools, so you can brake safer and in shorter distance if an errant child should run out on the road without looking. Or if the road has a lot of bends the signed limit is there for you to take the road safely even in wet weather (most of the time). Also for "black spots" where some bad accidents have happened, they'll sometimes put up lots of signs and a speed camera to ensure motorists slow down (a prime example here in Australia is the Pacific Highway heading north to Byron Bay after Ballina, or south bound vice versa).

A lot of people drive pretty dangerously, speed cameras ensure they slow down at least for a bit and make the road a little safer.

Every study has shown that speed cameras are completely ineffective in reducing automobile accidents. They actually increase them because people slow down suddenly once they realize they are in a speed trap. They're nothing more than revenue generators.

Same with red light cameras -which are now going to be used in a large scale in Florida.  Fuck.

Trotskygrad wrote:

tbh Galt, in your situation, where speed limits are rarely followed, and the max is 70 mph, speed limits are just revenue generators. But in other situations, speed limits are actually useful, such as in school zones and on smaller roads.

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Every study has shown that speed cameras are completely ineffective in reducing automobile accidents. They actually increase them because people slow down suddenly once they realize they are in a speed trap. They're nothing more than revenue generators.

Same with red light cameras -which are now going to be used in a large scale in Florida.  Fuck.

Let me guess. The municipality only gets a certain percentage of the earnings, most are going to a private company right? Chicago and Maryland have the same setup. How is it a good idea to privatize our police forces?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I have personally driven  in 80mph speed zones and 75mph speed zones. I can't believe you made such a blanket statement based on your own experience.

Whatever, you picked out one part that was completely irrelevant to the central argument.

Jaekus wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

LOL maybe if people drove at the limit they wouldn't have to slow down.

Also, if you're saying "every study", please at least provide a couple.

Here's 5: http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cam … -prove-it/

Interesting, especially the part about amber light times. They should keep the increased times with the red light cameras. Ample time to slow down and yet if you get caught you're clearly deliberately running the red.

There's a couple roads I drive on that I wish had red light cameras, as almost every time the light is green and you have to wait for some speeding dickhead to take the corner.

From what I read, they could use the cameras more responsibly and give motorists a chance to either safely brake in time, or safely cross an amber light.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why do speed limits exist? Are they nothing more than revenue generators or do they serve some real purpose in protecting public safety? I ask this question because the highest speed limit in America is 70 MPH(112.65 KPH) but they sell cars with a top speed over 200 MPH for use on public roads. If they were really serious about enforcing these speed limit laws, wouldn't it make more sense to legislate a governor on each vehicle that limited it's top speed to 70 mph? How about installing a small radio frequency device in every speed limit sign that sends a signal to the car that adjusts it's top speed up or down?

Now, obviously I wouldn't agree with something like this, free will and all, but when 90%+ of the drivers on the road are blatantly ignoring the posted speed limit, why do they even exist in the first place? And since they do exist, why isn't more done to enforce the law?

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

On highways, they should enforce different speed limits depending on the lane you're in.

Furthest right should be 70 mph, middle lane (or left lane in on a 2 lane highway) should be 75, and keep going up by increments of 5...maybe max it out at 85 on the 4th lane, and any subsequent lanes further left than that.  That would allow you to comfortably go 85-90 in the fast lanes of most major highways.

Honestly, you don't need to go any faster than that unless you're driving across desert or other sparsely populated areas.  I think a lot of states featuring wide open areas like that have 80-90 mph limits, and sometimes there is no limit at night.

mikkel wrote:

Abolishing highway speed limits in a country where the majority of drivers are educated in the operation of motor vehicles through nothing more than driving with their parents and answering a simple multiple choice test would be patently moronic. People may go 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone, but it's a whole lot better than having 16 year old kids fresh off the training wheels blasting past you at 120 MPH in their mothers' Suburbans.

mikkel wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Abolishing highway speed limits in a country where the majority of drivers are educated in the operation of motor vehicles through nothing more than driving with their parents and answering a simple multiple choice test would be patently moronic. People may go 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone, but it's a whole lot better than having 16 year old kids fresh off the training wheels blasting past you at 120 MPH in their mothers' Suburbans.

Actually the majority of drivers take a drivers education class before they are eligible to gain their driver's license.  Plus you have to pass a driving test where you are actually in the car with an instructor.  Granted it's not much, but it's markedly different than what you think.

I can't speak for anywhere but the Southeast, but I've experienced the system in South Carolina. It took all of five minutes driving down a road, turning right three times, turning left once, and going back down the same road to complete the "driving test", and then a 20 minute multiple choice test that was about as basic as it gets. I don't think I know a single person around these parts who took a driver's education course before acquiring their license.