A morning rumination on speed limts

[Cormanus]

I would be delighted if someone invented a device that could accurately detect tailgating and cause the offender to be issued with a truly monstrous fine for a first offence and a loss of licence for the second. Same for texting while driving.

I'm interested in the disparity, reported by US members, between regulators' perception of speed as the number one cause of accidents and what appears to be a general disregard for enforcement of breaches—witness Capo's report of drivers routinely travelling 10-20 mph above the speed limit on his morning commute.

In Queensland, Australia where, as I've said, we are way more enthusiastic in our enforcement of speeding offences, you'd cop a $AU568 fine and 6 demerit points for going that quickly. On a major route, chances are you would be pinged. Police would not ignore it. If, in Queensland, you were caught a second time within 12 months doing 20 mph above the speed limit, a system of double demerit points means you'd enrich the State's coffers by another $AU568 and cop not 6 demerit points but 12. That would bring your total demerit points to at least 18 and it would be bye-bye licence for a time.

If you were caught doing a mere 25 mph above the speed limit, you'd lose 8 points, cop a fine of AU$1,1,37 and have your licence automatically suspended for 6 months. Twice in 12 months at that speed and it would be another AU$1,1,37 in the coffers, a further 16 points on your scorecard and another 6 months off the road.

The assertion that speeding enforcement is just about revenue raising is made often in Australia as well as in the US. My view is that it is just that: an assertion without a lot of evidence to support it. Indeed, the approach adopted in Australia makes a mockery of the idea. Why would you shoot a potentially golden goose by giving it two strikes, collecting a lousy AU$1,136 and then taking it out? Surely you'd impose hideous fines, enforce them ruthlessly and see how many people were prepared to make the choice to give generously to the State. I've a nagging suspicion we'd find the number of people prepared to pay the premium was higher than expected.

By the way, in Queensland, the double demerit points system applies to the use of mobile phones by drivers.

I would re-state this as: "...regulators' assertion of speed as the number one cause of accidents..."

Obviously there are many causes of accidents...personally I haven't availed myself of published research on the hierarchy of causal factors.

I would be delighted if someone invented a device that could accurately detect tailgating and cause the offender to be issued with a truly monstrous fine for a first offence and a loss of licence for the second. Same for texting while driving.

I'm interested in the disparity, reported by US members, between regulators' perception of speed as the number one cause of accidents and what appears to be a general disregard for enforcement of breaches—witness Capo's report of drivers routinely travelling 10-20 mph above the speed limit on his morning commute.

In Queensland, Australia where, as I've said, we are way more enthusiastic in our enforcement of speeding offences, you'd cop a $AU568 fine and 6 demerit points for going that quickly. On a major route, chances are you would be pinged. Police would not ignore it. If, in Queensland, you were caught a second time within 12 months doing 20 mph above the speed limit, a system of double demerit points means you'd enrich the State's coffers by another $AU568 and cop not 6 demerit points but 12. That would bring your total demerit points to at least 18 and it would be bye-bye licence for a time.

If you were caught doing a mere 25 mph above the speed limit, you'd lose 8 points, cop a fine of AU$1,1,37 and have your licence automatically suspended for 6 months. Twice in 12 months at that speed and it would be another AU$1,1,37 in the coffers, a further 16 points on your scorecard and another 6 months off the road.

The assertion that speeding enforcement is just about revenue raising is made often in Australia as well as in the US. My view is that it is just that: an assertion without a lot of evidence to support it. Indeed, the approach adopted in Australia makes a mockery of the idea. Why would you shoot a potentially golden goose by giving it two strikes, collecting a lousy AU$1,136 and then taking it out? Surely you'd impose hideous fines, enforce them ruthlessly and see how many people were prepared to make the choice to give generously to the State. I've a nagging suspicion we'd find the number of people prepared to pay the premium was higher than expected.

By the way, in Queensland, the double demerit points system applies to the use of mobile phones by drivers.

It may depend on jurisdiction and type of route. In towns that enforce strictly, 5 mph over will lighten your wampum belt. These are almost always highways that pass through towns (Ohio's poor little river towns are infamous for this) or suburban/exurban communities where the sprawl exceeds the roadbuilding, leading to residential streets being used as major thoroughfares. Understandably, residents want the traffic controlled tightly...and the local constabulary are happy to fill the municipal coffers with the blessings of their constituents. The through-traffic from outside the community is politically powerless to object.

Out on the interstate highway, I'm comfortable doing 7 mph over, nervous doing 10 mph over, and paranoid doing 15 mph over. 20-25 mph over is flouting the gods of speed laws. The only way to do it with impunity is to tuck into the "rocking chair" of a high-speed trucker convoy.

My motorcycle speeding ticket was in a temporary 45 mph construction zone. Sounds bad, but it was a sunny Sunday afternoon during US football season on a brand new and completed 3-lane (2-way with center turn lane) highway, straight as an arrow with wide shoulders and generous right-of-way...essentially a horribly boring road that I wanted to traverse quickly. The construction was long since completed...no workers or equipment were present...the signs just weren't taken down yet. I was alone on the road, except for the two (!) Kentucky State Police cruisers suddenly coming my way in the opposite direction.

I was nicked for 70 mph...25 mph over...with a double fine for the construction zone. Total damage was USD $200 that I paid by check; no need to appear in traffic court. That, by the way, is the reason I see it as revenue enhancement. I got no stern lecture, no inconvenience, no requirement to attend safety training. Just pay the $200 and we all just forget all about that nasty little business that happened last Sunday down in Bourbon County.

I would re-state this as: "...regulators' assertion of speed as the number one cause of accidents..."

Obviously there are many causes of accidents...personally I haven't availed myself of published research on the hierarchy of causal factors. Yes, good call, Stichill. I'm increasing wondering whether the statement 'speed is the number one cause of accidents' isn't an assertion made so often that it's accepted as fact.

I recall reading somewhere an argument that research is almost entirely reliant on data from forms completed by police. Without wishing to reflect adversely on their diligence and competence, I rather suspect they are required to tick a box on a form stating the cause of the accident, often in circumstances where there's no apparent reason. However, speed was involved because, well, the vehicle had to be moving and there are skid marks 20 yards long. Ergo that must have been the cause when, in fact, it was the large and hairy spider that fell from under the visor to the arachnophobe's lap and he lost it.

If I'm doing them an injustice and there is extensive and well credentialed research that shows the 'assertion' to be true, I apologise.