-
Why does everyone drive 10-15 miles above the speed limit?
-
Why don’t we raise the speed limit if that’s how fast everyone wants to go?
-
Why is traffic enforcement given to very expensive and ineffective police instead of cheaper and more automated traffic cameras?
-
Why do we refuse to ever use ANY traffic calming measures? Yes, than you flashing digital sign for telling me I’m going 10 miles above the limit on this incredibly wide and straight and flat road with high curbs and perfect visibility.
It’s a serious confusion I have about how society is supposed to operate because it seems like a complete and total breakdown of logic and sense.
And, yes, I know there’s some thing people did long ago to set the speed limit at some percentile of what people were already traveling at, but that’s obviously a stupid way to do it and we did it anyway. So why?
Because speed limits are not strictly enforced
Because if that happens that any per-textual stop the police want to do needs an another actual crime being committed before they can stop you.
I reject the premise. Traffic enforcement isn’t very ineffective because the majority of people aren’t driving 50+ MPH over the speed limit. Also, its not that expensive because your premise suggests that if we had cameras, we’d need fewer police. I don’t think that’s the case. When an emergency response is needed we need X number of police to respond. Therefore X number need to be employed and on shift at all times. If we have the expense of traffic cameras, its not going to reduce headcount below X, and we now have the additional expense of purchase, install, and maintenance of all those traffic cameras. The cameras have an headcount overhead of staff of their own.
Traffic cameras also introduce mistakes of their own including misreading plates, or thieves using stolen/copied plates, which would otherwise ensnare innocent citizens.
I think you’re looking at the rules and assuming the logical outcome is the desired result. Change your mindset. The desired result is what happens when human society is given a set of rules and reacts to them. The reaction is the actual desired result. The set of rules is simply one step to get there. In short, humans aren’t 100% logical nor are they 100% rule following, knowing that, you establish a set of rules that you know will have some violation and you account for that in rules.
Police staffing levels are absolutely not set by emergency response needs.
Emergencies are handled by pulling peope that are off duty, firefighters (volunteer and professional), and first-responsders from the surrounding area.
Cutting the police budget is notoriously difficult for political reasons.
You expect an off duty cop to stop beating his wife for your emergency?
Maybe for the opportunity to shoot a dog, sure.
deleted by creator
We’re probably talking about slightly different aspects of the same thing.
There are different levels of emergencies, right? So there is likely Y number of officers that have to be on duty at all times, and an additional X officers that number officers need to be employed by the department yes to respond to the highest levels of emergency to be able to pull people in when they are off duty.
For this discussion, I was assuming we’re only talking about police response needed. When I say “police needed to respond to emergencies” I’m only talking about the police component, not the other type of first responders. I don’t see how its useful to expand the conversation to other first responders when we’re only talking about employed police officers. If you have information about how the number of firefighters/EMTs can increase or decrease the number of police officers employed for policing, I’m open to consider that argument or something similar.
I agree with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
That thesis is idiotic. Intentions exist, and are not the same as outcomes. If you want to make the point that intentions don’t matter then say that.
There’s a very short expiration date on intentions. After that, they’re just PR for the system’s true purpose.
Usually the people involved in the system continue to have intentions.
This whole thing is so idiotically, purposefully failing to understand real people. Like AS IF you have never supported anything imperfect and wanted it to work in a way different than how it actually works. Nobody applies this consistently.
We use automated speed cameras here in Australia, and mostly everyone adheres exactly to the speed limit. Just knowing that there could be a speed camera keeps certain people law abiding.
If you do get a fine erroneously you can contest it in traffic court.
I don’t live in Oz, but a recent news report would suggest it contradicts your statement. Camera revenue in NSW alone explodes as fines reach $308 million, which is than $39 million increase over last year. If your statement matched the current situation, fines would be reducing, but instead they’re increasing.
Total annual revenue from speed and road safety cameras across Australia exceeds $1 billion.
Speed and red light cameras don’t appear to be a traffic safety system, but instead a revenue generation channel for the state.
Mm, I meant the experience of being a driver on the road is that people tend to be driving about the speed limit. I remember when I was in Canada most everyone would instead drive 10-15 over. Which I guess isn’t really a problem if they set the limits lower to account for it… I’m just a fan of clear instructions so this is my preference.
It is true that it is a revenue generation system. I honestly don’t feel bad about it though. Speeding is dangerous.
But the system isn’t stopping the speeding. If you concern is that speeding is dangerous, Australia currently has a system in place the costs residents huge amounts of money but does nothing to stop the speeding. The data is showing its increasing even! The system in place seems to be making speeding worse and more prevalent.