A morning rumination on speed limts

[Offroad]

Similar to said above....."Going fast is fun....it's the sudden stops that kill you." I try to keep that in mind.

The smoothness of going fast in or on a modern vehicle is deceiving. On a new local interstate, relatively flat without curves, going 80mph+ seems like going 30mph in a relatively new vehicle. The problem becomes all that energy must be somehow dissipated when leaving the road or getting turned sideways due to an accident. The fatality rate per accident is very high on that road.

That leads to both the negative and positive attributes of owning a “naked” bike. Every time I test ride a touring bike with all their fairings for body, hands and legs…I’m struck to how little I can tell about how fast I’m going. Plus, they are sluggish to turn, which negates what I feel is one of the main advantages of a motorcycle, quicker reaction to avoid accidents. I always said to myself….if I can’t feel the wind, can’t turn fast…what is the advantage of a motorcycle over a sports car…so I’m happy to be back on my “windy” but relatively nimble CB1100.

With our CB1100, we have constant feedback about how fast we are going, which I think tends to keep us slower than most.

I still try to follow the unwritten rule…”9 you’re fine, 10 you’re mine” ;-)

 

[Stichill]

I think most speed limits in the US are by-and-large set competently for the type of road conditions we have and the drivers that we are. Generally I believe they are set at the 85th percentile of speed that the traffic moves of its own accord. So for the upper 85th percentile of drivers who move faster...most speed limits seem to be too low.

US drivers in the main do not take driving seriously and also are largely incompetent due to weak training and licensing regimes (which are that way because politically Americans believe driving is a virtual human right).

I have traveled in Germany extensively and the level of driving is on a much higher niveau. Visiting Americans perceive Germans as abrupt, aggressive drivers, merely because Germans are not afraid to use the accelerator, the brake, and the handling capabilities of their machines...and they do it well. They also pay close attention to driving tasks, because to not pay attention is not an option. The signage is complicated, the traffic dense and variable, and the speed limits change on a continual as you drive through towns and countryside.

I do not think that speed in and of itself is dangerous. It's more about maintaining control of the vehicle under all conditions seen and unforeseen. If you lose control of your vehicle, chances are you were going too fast for conditions.

I'll admit to speeding on my motorcycle when conditions are clear and it is safe to do so. I've been nailed once and there was no excuse. I paid my money, took my points, and waited for them to be expunged over time.

 

[Scoobynut_imp]

A lot of good points, Stichill, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[LongRanger_imp]

A lot of good points, Stichill, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

+1

 

[Stichill]

I would add that the official linkage between speed and safety is primarily a rationalization for revenue enhancement through speed enforcement. It is set up as a social vice, which provides justification for "taxing" it through heavy fines.

If safety was the primary concern, there would be more enforcement of other equally if not more dangerous behaviors such as poor vehicle condition (especially worn tire tread, tire under-inflation, improper windshield wiper/defroster function, defective glass, and improper condition of vehicle lighting), driver inattentiveness, failure to signal lane changes and turns, improper following distance, improper use of the passing lane as a travel lane, failure to illuminate, etc.

Not to mention, when you are actually involved in a collision...there is usually no fine unless there was gross negligence. In the US, you are fined for speeding because you might cause an accident, but if you actually cause an accident...there's typically no fine.

 

[Offroad]

On a funny note, I had an engineer tell me 40 years ago, if we were really worried about safety, all cars would be made out of rubber and shaped like wedges ;-)

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

Your post reminds me of when an alcoholic says: "I can handle it... I know what I'm doing.... I know my limits..."

I speed. I speed on roads I know, and I speed when following someone I trust on roads I don't (which amounts to less than a handful of riders). I speed on the highway to make my way through traffic, and I speed through corners under good conditions to enjoy motorcycling.

I do not speed on roads I do not know. I do not speed in sub-ideal conditions, and I do not speed when following riders I do not trust. I have sped in all of those conditions, and each time I have ended up learning a lesson, whether by kissing the dirt or have a pucker moment. Not worth the risk.

 

[Stichill]

I read once that "Speed doesn't kill. Running into things does." Kind of a bumper sticker slogan I suppose, but I have used it as a rebuttal to the safety nannies before, more to pull their chain than anything else. Despite this I am generally law-abiding and, like Ferret, don't push too far beyond posted limits.

I think what is overlooked in the U.S. is that most drivers are borderline incompetent when it comes to most aspects of driving. I'm continually amazed when I point out to other drivers that they are disregarding traffic rules-- either by beeping the horn or lifting my hand (not my middle finger) to say, "What are you doing?" -- how often they actually get mad at ME when they are obviously in the wrong. I don't do this often, but when it's blatant, sometimes I can't resist. I honestly think the biggest problem is that most drivers (and some riders) simply don't take driving or vehicle control seriously. I have a libertarian bent when it comes to government intruding into our lives, but this is one case where I think the agencies that administer licensing rules and regulations fail the citizens. What I mean is that you need only demonstrate the barest competence to become licensed in this country. And law enforcement I believe is a little too focused on speed when they seem (at least where I live) pretty lax when it comes to the other rules. On any given day where I live I'd be surprised if even half the other drivers even use their turn signals, seriously.

So it's not just speeding that is a problem in my view, it is all aspects of driving that are problematic. If I thought speed enforcement was the solution to all of this I would be behind it more forcefully, but unfortunately I have strong doubts that mere speed enforcement is actually improving overall safety to any real extent. Catch all the speeders you like, but you will still have the same amount of incompetent drivers on the road ignorant of proper driving etiquette and skills. If you get a license when your driving skills are poor, they will likely remain poor for the rest of your driving life. Maybe more thorough testing, regular 'refreshers' on the rules of the road, that you must pass each time every, say, 2-3 years, and a way to test people's actual competence behind the wheel at initial licensing. I say throw them out on a wet skidpad and make them demonstrate they know how to recover from an opposite-lock skid, when to release the brakes in a skid and etc. I know some will say 'Oh, the government won't go to that kind of trouble to license people.' I say why not? If we're serious about improving driving habits it would help a great deal and it would create more competent, SAFER drivers, though I realize some people wouldn't be able to pass such tests. The dilemma is that we in effect are saying that poor drivers will remain the norm, not the exception. I think a lot of non-alcohol related crashes are the result of people simply not knowing what to do in an emergency situation -- and ultimately, preventing crashes should be the goal. And again, I think this single-minded focus on speeding only masks all the other potential problems out there.

This is all simply my opinion and you are free to disagree. I think the single most important thing we can all do as riders is acknowledge that the 'other guy' is our potential deadliest enemy when we are on the roads and ride accordingly. Riding (and driving) is a deadly serious business and we should approach it like that, even though our fellow citizens in most cases don't.

Wow, I missed this post before but...yeah!

I think Ralph Nader did the country both a service and a disservice when he published Unsafe At Any Speed. A service, in that there needed to be more focus on vehicle design from a safety perspective, but a disservice in that his thesis was that driver behavior was impossible to change, therefore vehicle design must compensate. The country has spent the last fifty years improving vehicle design for safety, in the process making them horrendously expensive...not to mention surprisingly heavy for their size. Other than the crackdown on drunk driving, we have done little to improve driver competency. In fact, it may be that we are doing less. In our school district, Driver Education is no longer part of the curriculum. Either your parents teach you or you pay for private driving lessons.

I think, just blame speed for every kind of accident, like I observe in Australia, is to easy thinking.

Here in Germany, in 2015 about 31% of all car traffic mileage was done at the Autobahn, but there happened only 6.4% of all traffic accidents, causing 8.3% of all traffic casualties in Germany.

Per 1 billion car traffic km we have 1.63 casualties in Germany. That is less than the USA with 3.43 casualties per 1 billion car km.

We have also speed limits, 50 km/h in town, 100 km/h out of town and many speed limits also at the Autobahn, when conditions do require lower speeds, mostly between 80 km/h and 130 km/h.

While it is also enforced in Germany, it is not such restrictive like in other European countries. Normally you are good, if you don't exceed more like 5 km/h. From 5 - 10 km/h to much it costs 15 Euro, 10 - 20 km/h to much cost 30 Euros. Over that it gets expensive and you may experience loss of driver licence.

Here is the last German statistic:
https://www.adac.de/_mmm/pdf/statistik_4_5_unfallgeschehen_strassenarten_42780.pdf

What's difficult for me driving or riding in Germany are the continuous changes of the speed limit within short distances. 30, 50, 80, 100, 30, 80, 50, 80, 100, 50, 100, 80, 30...one can never relax and just ride. And if you aren't careful....FLASH! There are speed cameras everywhere. When I went to France...90. It seemed like 90 everywhere outside of the towns.

I loved my bike ride in Switzerland but I was very afraid about the speed. If you are stopped, they can demand a huge amount of money that you must pay in cash. If you can't pay, they hold your vehicle until you pay.

One of my German friends told me that there is not much speed control in the Vogesen (Voges) of France.

Great discussion. Here in the western US (and I imagine in other parts of the country), highway departments are employing a very effective speed deterrent for motorcyclists: tar snakes (pavement filler). On more and more of our wonderfully sinuous roads, you'll find tar snakes at perpendicular or longitudinal intervals across the roadway, mainly on the curves. In the summer, as they heat up from the sun, tar snakes become very slippery and conspire against aggressive leaning, thus reducing one's speed accordingly. Most discouraging is finding the application of tar snakes on sections of fresh pavement, where there are no cracks.

Tar snakes...shudder. They ruined what should have been a great ride on NC 226A "The Diamondback" in 2014. I think the road has since been re-paved.

Shocking to hear that they may be employed to intentionally reduce motorcycle traction...that seems borderline homicidal.

 

[Capo]

I commute daily on NJ highways, and in early morning on the Garden State Parkway, which is a 65mph limit, the slow Lane averages 75 and the fast lane 85. It's fast, but fairly sane, as the high schoolers, blue hairs and raging soccer moms aren't out yet.

Our speed limits were set when cars had drum bakes and didn't have seat belts. They are anachronisms, arbitrarily enforced, with state revenue as much a goal as safety today.

That being said, in- town limits for Residential and business areas should be strictly enforced, and strictly adhered to.

As for spirited motorcycle riding on empty, rural roads at off hours, I use my judgement, and I'm not remotely a stickler for the speed limit.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stichill]

+1 Capo

 

[the Ferret]

I believe the National Speed limit on expressways was raised from 55 to 65 in either 87 or 88, long after the adaptation of disc brakes and seat belts, but the more safety features they put into cars, the more people believe the safety features can make up for bad driving habits... Speeding, tail gating etc.

 

[Capo]

It was lowered from 70 to 55 in many jurisdictions before it was raised. Original specs of the Interstate Defense Highway System were for 70-75 mph speed limits in all non- urban areas. In 1958. Bad driving habits like tailgating and lack of Lane etiquette are correlated primarily to poor driver training, and a focus of law enforcement on the wrong things. Haven't seen many cars pulled over for tailgating by hidden radar patrol cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

It was lowered from 70 to 55 in many jurisdictions before it was raised. Original specs of the Interstate Defense Highway System were for 70-75 mph speed limits in all non- urban areas. In 1958. Bad driving habits like tailgating and lack of Lane etiquette are correlated primarily to poor driver training, and a focus of law enforcement on the wrong things. Haven't seen many cars pulled over for tailgating by hidden radar patrol cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"non-urban areas." Ah, there's the rub with respect to NJ. As a GSP commuter, you are aware of the traffic density. In NJ, if one were to try and maintain a safe following distance whether at 85 or 65 MPH, five cars would quickly move into that open distance.

And, too many drivers don't realize they need more time and distance between them and the car ahead the faster the speed.

I agree that law enforcement should enforce tailgating as much as speeding. In my LEO days I did.

 

[Capo]

It was lowered from 70 to 55 in many jurisdictions before it was raised. Original specs of the Interstate Defense Highway System were for 70-75 mph speed limits in all non- urban areas. In 1958. Bad driving habits like tailgating and lack of Lane etiquette are correlated primarily to poor driver training, and a focus of law enforcement on the wrong things. Haven't seen many cars pulled over for tailgating by hidden radar patrol cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"non-urban areas." Ah, there's the rub with respect to NJ. As a GSP commuter, you are aware of the traffic density. In NJ, if one were to try and maintain a safe following distance whether at 85 or 65 MPH, five cars would quickly move into that open distance.

And, too many drivers don't realize they need more time and distance between them and the car ahead the faster the speed.

I agree that law enforcement should enforce tailgating as much as speeding. In my LEO days I did.

"non-urban areas." Ah, there's the rub with respect to NJ. As a GSP commuter, you are aware of the traffic density. In NJ, if one were to try and maintain a safe following distance whether at 85 or 65 MPH, five cars would quickly move into that open distance.

And, too many drivers don't realize they need more time and distance between them and the car ahead the faster the speed.

I agree that law enforcement should enforce tailgating as much as speeding. In my LEO days I did.
I always maintain a safe distance, and if cars slot in front of me, I maintain safe distance to them, accordingly. Cardinal rule of making good pace while remaining safe and consistent to slightly above the relative speed of traffic. I come up from the south, once you get over the Driscoll Bridge, it's a different planet. But on the 'Pike, in non- rush, traffic moves at 75 mph steadily along it's entire length.

 

[the Ferret]

I think in any urban area maintaining a safe distance to the car in front of you is tough for the reason Classic mentioned, if there is a hole bigger than a car, someone will stuff a car in there. It's bad in every city I have been in, but the worst I saw was out in Cali where they move into the slots on a 45 degree angle, instead of moving ahead and making a horizontal move into the slot.

 

[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.

 

[the Ferret]

I trust in Aus they rely a lot more on speed cameras than on leo with radar guns. Here there are thousands hitting the highway in the morning and evening commutes where speed tends to be quick and en mass. Catching offenders is like quail hunting in that they might get one, but the rest of the covey gets thru. As such each individuals chance of getting caught is pretty small. A lot of time, ne most of the time, they don't even try and catch speeders during these periods. Instead they wait until the people get out to the burbs, are by that time far spread out, and where it's much easier to hide and nailem one at a time. I have never seen a speed camera in the U.S... Not true.. I have seen them, they have been challenged, and basically found unconstitutional ( because the guilty party cannot face his accuser aka the camera in court for a challenge) and a money grab.

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

Saw this I believe, on the QEW in Ontario this past September. I imagine speeding is rare in those parts. Partially visible on the left is the sign stating traffic fines are doubled in a construction zone.

 

[Stichill]

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.

 

[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.