Speed limits are nothing more than a revenue collection method imposed on 
drivers, who have actually caused no harm. Two shining examples of the 
fallacy of official government hypocritical slogan that ticketing speeders 
is a safety priority and saves lives: Radar is set up on road to catch 
speeders heading east. Driver heading west passes speed trap, stops a mile 
away and begins to flash lights at cars heading east. The result, is that 
cars heading east slow down. If flashing light driver caught, a ticket is 
issued. If safety and encouraging drivers to slow down are primary 
objectives, why is flasher ticketed for warning drivers? Fraternal order of 
police issued a statement demanding that the APP WAZE remove the alert for 
police activity ahead. Most states have a law that drivers must move over, 
if possible, when they encounter emergency vehicles on side of road. WAZE 
provides early warning and allows drivers enough time to safely do so, and 
to slow down. The alleged two priorities of safety Yet, police despise the 
early warning notice?

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:49:15 AM UTC-4, MJ wrote:
> September 11, 2016
> *On This Speed Limit Business *by eric
> What are speed limits, exactly?
> I know … a number on a sign.
> *Exactly. *But why pay any attention to them?
> I mean, assuming there *isn’t* a cop around?
> They’re not much use as far as advisories about the maximum safe velocity 
> for a given road. If they were, then everyone (just about) wouldn’t be 
> driving *at least* that fast.
> Probably, they’d be driving slower.
> If speed limits meant anything substantive, that is.
> Like the redline on a tachometer, for example. That is a *real* limit.
> Most people do not run their engines at or even near redline for more than 
> brief moments. Because the redline *is* the fastest you can safely spin 
> the engine without risking engine damage.
> So they don’t do it.
> The idea that driving over the speed limit is risking anything (other than 
> a ticket) is ridiculous.
> If that were not the case, then most people wouldn’t “speed” as a matter 
> of routine – because most people aren’t reckless with their own lives or 
> the lives of others.
> The fact that speed limits are almost universally ignored (by cops, too) 
> says something about their merits.
> Prohibition comes to mind. Another absurd law that was respected 
> accordingly.
> But Prohibition went away.
> Speed limits are still with us.
> It’d be nice if they’d go away, like Prohibition.
> It would tolerable if they at least plausibly represented a speed* faster* 
> than most people on a given road normally drive.
> That is, in fact, how speed limits are*supposed* to be set. Such that 
> most drivers would *not* be “speeding.” The few who did could then at 
> least be characterized as driving faster than most other drivers and one 
> could then at least make the claim that *maybe* these people are driving 
> too fast.
> But that is not good for *revenue* – which is what speed limits are 
> really all about.
> By purposely setting limits so low such that nine out of ten drivers on 
> any given road are “speeding,” it makes it easier to catch “speeders.” 
> Which means more revenue via tickets issued for this *manufactured 
> offense*.
> So, speed limits have little, if anything, to do with “safety.”
> They are useless as far as informing drivers about reasonable speeds for a 
> given (and perhaps unfamiliar) road.
> They are not (for the most part) posted on the basis of traffic 
> engineering surveys, as they are supposed to be.
> They are arbitrary and typically under-posted, deliberately – in  order to 
> criminalize reasonable/safe driving so as to give police an excuse to issue 
> “citations” which just happen to be a major source of local government 
> income.
> When there is a profit motive underpinning a law – and when most otherwise 
> reasonable (and presumably sane) people routinely violate a law, there is a 
> problem with the law.
> And those who enforce it.
> Arguably, the entire concept is flawed because it assumes there is a 
> single “safe” speed for every driver. But each driver’s abilities vary. As 
> does the capability of the vehicle they’re driving. A one-size-fits-all 
> speed limit arbitrarily defines Driver A as a danger merely because he is 
> traveling faster than a number posted on a sign – even if his actual 
> *driving* can’t be faulted. And it envelopes Driver B – whose actual 
> driving *can* be faulted – in the aura of  legality (and “safety”) merely 
> because he is operating at or below the arbitrarily-set speed limit.
> It might be saner – and safer – to get rid of enforceable speed limits 
> altogether. Perhaps post advisory speeds – realistic speeds – as an aid to 
> drivers not familiar with a given stretch of road or curves up ahead. That 
> would be genuinely helpful as a well as safe.
> But then, it would reduce revenue, by taking away the excuse to pull over 
> people whose driving can’t be faulted but who did exceed a dumbed-down, 
> arbitrarily set, least-common-denominator number on a sign we’re supposed 
> to obey but which virtually no one does.
> http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/09/11/speed-limit-business/ 

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to